Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

golden state revisited

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • golden state revisited

    First off i am very hesitant to post this just for the backlash i would recieve just for insinuating it could happen. so let the record show that i am not for or against this happening but, the trades the pacers have made in the past sometimes make you scratch your head anyway.

    http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/features/rumors

    Incoming owner Joe Lacob did interviews on radio and TV on Tuesday and revealed some of his thoughts on the Warriors.

    According to Tim Kawakami of the San Jose Mercury News, Lacob said he will be very active on the basketball side of the organization. Lacob added that he liked the trade for David Lee and his $80 million contract. Futher, Lacob indicated he's not sure Don Nelson should coach the team this upcoming season, and that the club's salaries won't exceed the luxury-tax threshold.

    Kawakami wrote the following about potential trades: "Lacob sounded a lot more excited about Lee and Stephen Curry than he did about Monta Ellis and Andris Biedrins. Nothing wrong with that. I wouldn't presume that these guys will definitely be traded. But it's also something everybody in the league will be watching."


    Monta Ellis love him or hate him, he is a very good player especially since he was drafted 40th in 05 same as our boy lance. Golden states owners last year also were rumored to having ellis on the block. You can bet they want him gone soon for the reason that they aren't in love with him longterm next to curry. curry needs to get shot of his own. ellis while he shoots a high percentage he takes alot of shots. He averaged 25.5 5.3apg 4.0rpg shooting .449 for the year and averaging 22 shots per game.

    With golden state wanting ellis gone he could be rather cheap considering they really just want to cap relief so they can continue to rebuild and would probably take draft picks and a young talent. they wouldnt want ford most likely but they may not mind since his contracts is up at the end of the season. there pgs would be curry ford and lin. you got your best player a veteran and a rookie which is how most nba rosters look at pg. this would be our only offer though since they aren't taking murphy or duleavy back but, would be funny if they did.

    ellis's contract is 11mil per year for the next four years.

    Once again i am not for this or against this. i know job would like him but, he could prove very bad for our young development.

    just want to get peoples opinon on what they think of monta and what other teams you think he would be good with?

    maybe he can go to new jersey and they can send us devin and we send golden state ford. new jersey get a very good talent in ellis we get our pg and golden state gets alot of money off their books.

    there has been talks of us being the third team in a pual trade so why not an ellis trade.
    2012: Pacers return to glory

    Paul George All Day

  • #2
    Re: golden state revisited

    Originally posted by Pacers2012 View Post

    ellis's contract is 11mil per year for the next four years.

    Once again i am not for this or against this. i know job would like him but, he could prove very bad for our young development.

    just want to get peoples opinon on what they think of monta and what other teams you think he would be good with?

    maybe he can go to new jersey and they can send us devin and we send golden state ford. new jersey get a very good talent in ellis we get our pg and golden state gets alot of money off their books.

    there has been talks of us being the third team in a pual trade so why not an ellis trade.

    where have you heard talks of the pacers being a third team involved in a Paul trade other than on PD. just wondering since ive heard nothing like that.

    in regard to ellis, cant say one way or another, havent watched most of his games, but as you eluded to, he is shoot first pass second type of pg, and im not sure that is the best move for this type of team, esp. considering his salary. would rather take a shorter contract like hinrich and address the pg position next offseason via the draft.

    bottom line, ellis may be a very talented player, but if were gonna overpay, it might as well be for horford not ellis.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: golden state revisited

      Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
      where have you heard talks of the pacers being a third team involved in a Paul trade other than on PD. just wondering since ive heard nothing like that.

      in regard to ellis, cant say one way or another, havent watched most of his games, but as you eluded to, he is shoot first pass second type of pg, and im not sure that is the best move for this type of team, esp. considering his salary. would rather take a shorter contract like hinrich and address the pg position next offseason via the draft.

      bottom line, ellis may be a very talented player, but if were gonna overpay, it might as well be for horford not ellis.
      I think we have the money to overpay both.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: golden state revisited

        Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
        where have you heard talks of the pacers being a
        bottom line, ellis may be a very talented player, but if were gonna overpay, it might as well be for horford not ellis.
        ellis is not overpaid if you look at his stats. his stats are better then grangers across the board and they make around the same money. granger will make 6mil more then ellis over the next 4yrs. i dont think ellis would be good for our team but, he could open the doors to a 3way deal possibly since i see golden state wanting an expiring contract or young talent and a pick.
        2012: Pacers return to glory

        Paul George All Day

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: golden state revisited

          I would take Ellis over Horford in a heartbeat with the talent that guy has. I think Monta Ellis is one of the most undervalued players in the league.
          JOB is a silly man

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: golden state revisited

            Originally posted by Pacers2012 View Post
            ellis is not overpaid if you look at his stats. his stats are better then grangers across the board and they make around the same money. granger will make 6mil more then ellis over the next 4yrs..
            Well in this case, don't look at his stats. For the most part he's an incredibly inefficient chucker. Would he look better or worse away from Golden State? That's the concern with taking on Ellis. Also, his defense is poor.

            He also isn't a point guard. He's a shooting guard. How much point did he even play last year? I thought Curry and Watson received the majority of the minutes at the point.
            "man, PG has been really good."

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: golden state revisited

              Originally posted by Pacers2012 View Post
              Kawakami wrote the following about potential trades: "Lacob sounded a lot more excited about Lee and Stephen Curry than he did about Monta Ellis and Andris Biedrins. Nothing wrong with that. I wouldn't presume that these guys will definitely be traded. But it's also something everybody in the league will be watching."
              Very good news for the Warriors.

              Lacob added that he liked the trade for David Lee
              A bit worrying for the Warriors.

              Originally posted by Pacers2012 View Post
              just want to get peoples opinon on what they think of monta and what other teams you think he would be good with?
              I think he'd be good playing alongside a playmaking wing and strong perimeter defenders for a team in need of go-to scoring ability. Like Orlando two seasons ago, with Hedo+Lee - Ellis in that Nelson/Alston role.

              Or next to a big PG. The problem with Ellis is that he's a short 2-guard with little to none game-management/playmaking/point-guard skills but who still demands the ball on his hands a lot of times and is high-maintenance in term of shots. I'm not a fan of Monta Ellis. Needs too much of the ball and doesn't do enough for others. On the top of that, he offers below average defense.

              Ideally, Monta Ellis could be a combo guard off the bench but his big a personality and has too big a reputation, and too big a contract, for that to happen.

              The Warriors should trade Ellis and Biedrins -- should have done it 1 year ago. Two flawed players that have been hindering their development.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: golden state revisited

                Having watched Ellis play here in Oakland many times, I can say he is electric and would be fun to watch in Indy. He can score in a variety of ways. I actually think he would play well in our system currently. He is great in the open court and can finish above the rim. Problem is his size, not a great defender, though I thought he was better this past season then previous years. Though I like him not sure I would take him in a deal. He is not going to be the point guard we need, and he is too small to guard the SG position. I agree GS will probably end up trading Biedrins and Monta at some point.
                Last edited by odeez; 07-29-2010, 07:32 PM.
                Avatar photo credit: Bahram Mark Sobhani - AP

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: golden state revisited

                  I think Ellis would make the Pacers better.

                  However I have some questions about him:

                  - Is he winner? By that I mean does he do the little things it takes to win?
                  - Is he a knucklehead?
                  - Why isn't he a good defender? Is it him, his position, or his coach/team?
                  - Hard worker or lazy?
                  - Seems to have struggled with injuries the past 2 season. His health is a ?

                  From what I know about him I don't think he is worth killing your roster flexibility at this point. Be patient and see what's there at the deadline or wait until next summer.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: golden state revisited

                    Originally posted by Pacers2012 View Post
                    First off i am very hesitant to post this just for the backlash i would recieve just for insinuating it could happen. so let the record show that i am not for or against this happening but, the trades the pacers have made in the past sometimes make you scratch your head anyway.

                    http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/features/rumors

                    Incoming owner Joe Lacob did interviews on radio and TV on Tuesday and revealed some of his thoughts on the Warriors.

                    According to Tim Kawakami of the San Jose Mercury News, Lacob said he will be very active on the basketball side of the organization. Lacob added that he liked the trade for David Lee and his $80 million contract. Futher, Lacob indicated he's not sure Don Nelson should coach the team this upcoming season, and that the club's salaries won't exceed the luxury-tax threshold.

                    Kawakami wrote the following about potential trades: "Lacob sounded a lot more excited about Lee and Stephen Curry than he did about Monta Ellis and Andris Biedrins. Nothing wrong with that. I wouldn't presume that these guys will definitely be traded. But it's also something everybody in the league will be watching."


                    Monta Ellis love him or hate him, he is a very good player especially since he was drafted 40th in 05 same as our boy lance. Golden states owners last year also were rumored to having ellis on the block. You can bet they want him gone soon for the reason that they aren't in love with him longterm next to curry. curry needs to get shot of his own. ellis while he shoots a high percentage he takes alot of shots. He averaged 25.5 5.3apg 4.0rpg shooting .449 for the year and averaging 22 shots per game.

                    With golden state wanting ellis gone he could be rather cheap considering they really just want to cap relief so they can continue to rebuild and would probably take draft picks and a young talent. they wouldnt want ford most likely but they may not mind since his contracts is up at the end of the season. there pgs would be curry ford and lin. you got your best player a veteran and a rookie which is how most nba rosters look at pg. this would be our only offer though since they aren't taking murphy or duleavy back but, would be funny if they did.

                    ellis's contract is 11mil per year for the next four years.

                    Once again i am not for this or against this. i know job would like him but, he could prove very bad for our young development.

                    just want to get peoples opinon on what they think of monta and what other teams you think he would be good with?

                    maybe he can go to new jersey and they can send us devin and we send golden state ford. new jersey get a very good talent in ellis we get our pg and golden state gets alot of money off their books.

                    there has been talks of us being the third team in a pual trade so why not an ellis trade.
                    We've already got a guy that gets 25pts but needs 20 shots to do it.
                    Not enough shots to go around.
                    And he's NOT a pg.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: golden state revisited

                      Originally posted by MLB007 View Post
                      We've already got a guy that gets 25pts but needs 20 shots to do it.
                      Not enough shots to go around.
                      And he's NOT a pg.
                      Danny - 18.4 shots - 24.1 points, TS - .564%, eFG .498%
                      Monta - 22 shots - 25.5 points, TS - .517%, eFG .476%

                      Danny, even though he took a step back in efficiency from the year before, is a much better scorer than Monta. I'll let him have his 18-19 shots a game as long as he keeps producing the way he does.

                      And the year before, Danny took 19 shots to get 25.7 ppg. For anyone that still doesn't see just how much better a scorer Danny is than Monta.

                      Monta Ellis is as much a point guard as Ben Gordon is. And I'd rather have a healthy Ben Gordon with his contract than I would Monta with his. And no, I don't want Ben Gordon either.
                      Last edited by Ozwalt72; 07-29-2010, 08:21 PM.
                      "man, PG has been really good."

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: golden state revisited

                        As is, I wouldn't touch Ellis. At $5-6 mil a year playing limited mins
                        as an 'instant offense' guy off the bench would be another story.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: golden state revisited

                          If Lance pans out at PG being 6'5 he can guard the other teams SG while Ellis can guard the point. Just because your a SG does not mean you have to guard the other teams SG. Ellis would be welcome here he can score in bunches. He is just now entering his prime and his contract is decent for what he brings to the table. If we could get rid of Ford for him this is a win win. For those that want to wait for all the expirings to take effect so we can bring in a max player, there's not a lot out there, and no guarantee that they will come here. I would rather take a chance on a 11M player moving into his prime than overpay a player who really brings nothing than more mediocrity
                          "He wanted to get to that money time. Time when the hardware was on the table. That's when Roger was going to show up. So all we needed to do was stay close"
                          Darnell Hillman (Speaking of former teammate Roger Brown)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: golden state revisited

                            Originally posted by cordobes View Post


                            I think he'd be good playing alongside a playmaking wing and strong perimeter defenders for a team in need of go-to scoring ability. Like Orlando two seasons ago, with Hedo+Lee - Ellis in that Nelson/Alston role.

                            Or next to a big PG. The problem with Ellis is that he's a short 2-guard with little to none game-management/playmaking/point-guard skills but who still demands the ball on his hands a lot of times and is high-maintenance in term of shots. I'm not a fan of Monta Ellis. Needs too much of the ball and doesn't do enough for others. On the top of that, he offers below average defense.

                            Ideally, Monta Ellis could be a combo guard off the bench but his big a personality and has too big a reputation, and too big a contract, for that to happen.

                            The Warriors should trade Ellis and Biedrins -- should have done it 1 year ago. Two flawed players that have been hindering their development.
                            Pacers2012,

                            I read that article you posted and debated on giving my take on it, but I figured, I'd let someone else be the sacrificial lamb. Thanks.

                            Cordobes,

                            We're like minded in our opinion of Monta being good beside a playmaking wing. I was indulging in some "what-if", in my head when I originally read that article. I wondered if we went with more of a team model like the Lakers, with Kobe doing the decisionmaking, or the former Cavs with Lebron, or the Heat with Wade.

                            I wondered if a Monta/Granger combo might work, if you put them both in attack mode at all times, defering to each other as option #2. [Actually, I was thinking about the pros and cons of trading Murphy's expiring contract and parts to pick up Monta AND Biedris. (I was mulling over us doing a twin towers like Sampson/Hakeem, or Admiral/Duncan, not that there is a comparision, skillswise, but conceptually)]

                            In my little scenario, I saw Andris being asked to play at his strength, hitting the boards and getting his points on putbacks. Kind of a Tyson Chandler role.

                            I think people are forgetting that Andris has progressively gotten better each year in the league, OTHER than last year, which can be partially attributed to his injury.

                            I actually would find the prospect of Andris at PF (I think he played PF before joining the NBA) in tandem with Roy, intriguing. If the coaching staff could work out the proper spacing for each of them, and clearly defined roles, I think they'd be onto something.

                            As I mentioned earlier, I thought of a Lakers comparision, just in terms of kinda emulating their formula. Lakers have Bynum/Gasol to throw at ya, with Kobe doing the attacking. Wonder if we could work a version of that?

                            So, Pacers2012, in long winded response, I wouldn't mind seeing Monta come here, simply because we need another dynamic player on the floor, but if that were to happen, I wouldn't be adverse to Andris coming with him. In our current system, I think Monta would thrive. I think a good team culture/environment helps control knucklehead behavior, as long as he's the only one. I wouldn't push for Ellis to come here, but I can see some merits to it. Color me interested, but neutral.
                            Last edited by Skaut_Ech; 07-31-2010, 03:48 PM.
                            Hey! What're you kicking me for? You want me to ask? All right, I'll ask! Ma'am, where do the high school girls hang out in this town?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: golden state revisited

                              Originally posted by Skaut_Ech View Post
                              Actually, I was thinking about the pros and cons of trading Murphy's expiring contract and parts to pick up Monta AND Biedris.
                              Sign Me Up. Make It Happen Bird!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X