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

Exploring Possibilities at the 4

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

  • #46
    Re: Exploring Possibilities at the 4

    I love Tyler, but I just don't see him ever being the man at the 4. Great energy, works hard, but is destined to be a sixth man and nothing more. I really hope I'm wrong, but that's my opinion.

    Totally agree that the Pacers need a PF that is already established, not a rookie. I know that Josh Smith is slightly overpaid based on his numbers, but I think he would fit so well here and his numbers would show that. Smith's contract for the next 3 years is:$11,600,000, $12,400,000, $13,200,000. Slightly higher than Danny's 4 years:$10,973,202, $12,015,904, $13,058,606,
    $14,021,788. Smith this year is averaging 15.6 ppg, 8.4 rpg, 2.2 bpg. I think those increase slightly on this pacer team. Can you imagine him running the floor with DC?

    The lockout will undoubtedly have an effect on the decision making, but here is what I would love to see happen. Let the $32,716,984 in expiring contracts expire or use them to trade for Smith. If resigning Mike at a lower rate is financially possible, then do it, but maintaining financial flexibility so that the young core of DC, Roy, and Rush can be kept together when it's time to resign them to new contracts is huge. Easier said than done
    Turn out the lights, this party's over!

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Exploring Possibilities at the 4

      Originally posted by Pacersalltheway10 View Post
      I still think Jason Thompson would be a great fit here. He's stuck behind more experienced vets who are in contract years and behind a top 5 draft pick of course he's gonna get the backseat in Sacramento right now and he could be had for cheap. He was doing great last year but the addition of new players put him on the bench that does not necessarily mean that he should be on the bench. Like what is happening to Marcus Thornton in new Orleans this year.
      The Frontcourt rotation consists of Thompson, Landry, Cousins, Dalembert and ( maybe ) Whiteside.

      What vets in the Frontcourt rotation is Thompson is stuck behind in SacTown?

      We'd have to look beyond this season to guage how the Frontcourt rotation of the Kings....it's unclear whether Landry is really the answer or not and Dalambert is likely gone ( my guess is that he'll be traded for some future draft pick or other assets )....which essentially leaves ( at most ) Landry ( if he comes or goes ), Thompson, Cousins and Whiteside.

      Although I would have interest in Thompson....at most, I'd consider sending either PG or the 1st round draft pick and Expiring Filler...but other then that...nothing else that I'd be willing to give up. But my guess is that the Kings won't actively look to move him unless the price is right.
      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Exploring Possibilities at the 4

        Originally posted by BornReady#6 View Post
        What are some of the possibilities at the 4 and of the ones posted, which ones interest you more?(any situation; trade, fa, whatever)

        Some I have heard:

        Brandon Bass: The magic want a back up center, and Bass is said to be available if the price is right, maybe we could send them a 2 or 3, Foster and Mcbob or Solo.

        Anthony Randolph: Like we discussed before, this guy had a decent season last nite, is really young, and has tons and tons of up side.

        Carl Landry: I am hearing this is a move or lose guy for the Kings, and they could really use some help on the perimeter with a guy like TJ. This would be a good home coming for him, only downsides, kinda under sized at 6'9" and not as young as other prospects.

        Jason Thompson: This is a guy I would love to have here. Big rebounder who can shoot too. They have him playing anywhere from the 3 to the 5 and are misusing his talents way to much out west.

        Josh Smith: I dont know the details exactly, but I know he has at least been mentioned to be moved. A guy like this would be the exact injection at both ends of the court that we need, and would be a hell of a tandem with Granger at the offensive end. Can you imagine trying to choose between defending Smith down low or Granger at the 3?

        others:

        Glen Davis
        JJ Hickson
        Jordan Hill or Patterson
        Zbo
        Ersan
        Larry Sanders
        Ibaka (not likely)
        I dont care too much for any of these guys listed, a guy who has been listed before, Anderson Varejo, would be someone I would be interested in moreso than anybody mentioned here. I just don't see him coming in and changing this teams culture right away and if we make a big move I rather that not be the highlight. I would seriously just play out this year and see what happens, if all else fails at least we get a full year in to re evalute our team and see exactly what we need and use our cap on just that this summer. Unless of course we get an offer for our expirings at the deadline that is too good to be true, than you take that.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Exploring Possibilities at the 4

          Now that Larry Brown is gone, what's everyone's thoughts at chasing Tyrus Thomas? Since Jordan loves his North Carolina roots, I think we could do a nice trade that would involve Hansbrough and Thomas. The Pacers and Bobcats have came close on a couple of trades before in the past. I would also be interested in trying to get Wallace too.
          Last edited by ksuttonjr76; 12-22-2010, 07:05 PM.


          Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Exploring Possibilities at the 4

            What do you guys think it would take to get Josh Smith? I'm thinking at least TJ Ford, maybe McRoberts, a wing, and 2 First round draft choices
            Murph

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Exploring Possibilities at the 4

              I was saying that Boozer was the guy I wanted here for a long time. I continue to say it. He is a beast. He is smart. He rebounds the hell out of the ball. He scores tough buckets. The only thing he lacks is his ability to play above the rim. He doesn't block as many shots as you would hope, but he is a top player in this league without a question in my mind. Boozer would not want to come here in free agency and it didn't make any sense to trade for him because of it. The Bulls won't trade him. Not now. Maybe once he is over the hill and then it won't really be worth it.

              That brings me to another point. James Johnson. This is a guy that I think could be had for a rotational wing (cough Dunleavy cough). I would love to bring him in and give him a try. He is athletic, with a solid overall game. He blocks shots and can hit the three. He has very good handles for a four, but only OK if he is playing the three. He has the ability to be excellent defensively. He is good even without being technically solid. I think he would be a low risk, high upside player for us. If his time frame for success is still 2 years away, he becomes another rotational PF who could play some minutes at SF if necessary. I liked him two years ago in the draft, but Bird took Hansborough instead. I don't mind the Hans pick at all. The only problem with this idea is that leaves us with two players that really can only play the four. It would force McRoberts to back up Hibbert, while Johnson and Hans hold down the four. There might not be enough flexibility there. He is the third stringer in Chicago right now, with Gibson and Boozer ahead of him. Just a thought on a guy who could actually be availble. Unlike Boozer and most of the young guys we covet.

              I prefer the idea of another big that can play both positions if he isn't a surefire starter like Boozer would be. Ibaka and Thompson are compelling, but probably over valued by their current clubs.

              I like Zach Randolph for the player he has become. I just don't know how he would fit our locker room dynamic. I really think that Darrell Arthur is a compelling prospect that hasn't gotten as many minutes as he probably should have. I really like Arthur in terms of trade value and composition of his game along with his fit. He can play spot minutes at the five against back up centers, but really isn't suited for center play. He is long. He has gotten stronger. He played for Bill Self. Can score the ball with a decent jumper and inside toughness. Solid all around player. Ready for more minutes. Would be a nice fit here, but he might be somewhat redundant with the theme of young PFs that we currently employ. Hell, someone has to step up though or you have to keep bringing people in to compete and take the job because they deserve it.
              "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Exploring Possibilities at the 4

                Originally posted by pacergod2 View Post
                I was saying that Boozer was the guy I wanted here for a long time. I continue to say it. He is a beast. He is smart. He rebounds the hell out of the ball. He scores tough buckets. The only thing he lacks is his ability to play above the rim. He doesn't block as many shots as you would hope, but he is a top player in this league without a question in my mind. Boozer would not want to come here in free agency and it didn't make any sense to trade for him because of it. The Bulls won't trade him. Not now. Maybe once he is over the hill and then it won't really be worth it.

                That brings me to another point. James Johnson. This is a guy that I think could be had for a rotational wing (cough Dunleavy cough). I would love to bring him in and give him a try. He is athletic, with a solid overall game. He blocks shots and can hit the three. He has very good handles for a four, but only OK if he is playing the three. He has the ability to be excellent defensively. He is good even without being technically solid. I think he would be a low risk, high upside player for us. If his time frame for success is still 2 years away, he becomes another rotational PF who could play some minutes at SF if necessary. I liked him two years ago in the draft, but Bird took Hansborough instead. I don't mind the Hans pick at all. The only problem with this idea is that leaves us with two players that really can only play the four. It would force McRoberts to back up Hibbert, while Johnson and Hans hold down the four. There might not be enough flexibility there. He is the third stringer in Chicago right now, with Gibson and Boozer ahead of him. Just a thought on a guy who could actually be availble. Unlike Boozer and most of the young guys we covet.

                I prefer the idea of another big that can play both positions if he isn't a surefire starter like Boozer would be. Ibaka and Thompson are compelling, but probably over valued by their current clubs.

                I like Zach Randolph for the player he has become. I just don't know how he would fit our locker room dynamic. I really think that Darrell Arthur is a compelling prospect that hasn't gotten as many minutes as he probably should have. I really like Arthur in terms of trade value and composition of his game along with his fit. He can play spot minutes at the five against back up centers, but really isn't suited for center play. He is long. He has gotten stronger. He played for Bill Self. Can score the ball with a decent jumper and inside toughness. Solid all around player. Ready for more minutes. Would be a nice fit here, but he might be somewhat redundant with the theme of young PFs that we currently employ. Hell, someone has to step up though or you have to keep bringing people in to compete and take the job because they deserve it.

                Johnson was a player I liked in that draft. Unfortunately, he's done nothing to help himself since being in the NBA.

                Arthur is an interesting player, but I don't see Memphis trading him. I view him as Zach's replacement, b/c I don't see Zach being re-signed by Memphis.

                Another young player no one mentions, who might be available, that could play both the 4 & 5 is Speights at Philly.

                I know Iggy and Speights trade to the Pacers has been discussed, but it is one that has some interest.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Exploring Possibilities at the 4

                  Originally posted by PacerPride33 View Post
                  What do you guys think it would take to get Josh Smith? I'm thinking at least TJ Ford, maybe McRoberts, a wing, and 2 First round draft choices

                  I would love to have Smith and Iggy both. If we could get them both, while keeping, DC, Danny and Roy, we would really have a great starting line up. Maybe this would work;

                  TJ, Tyler, Dahntay Jones,Future 2nd rounder, cash - Gives them a better back up, scoring pg, a great young prospect at the 4 to help rebuild with youth, and a guy that can play both the 2 and 3, and boosts their back court O and D.

                  for Josh, Pap Sy, Jason Collins - Gives us Josh smith a solid 4 and everything we know he brings.

                  then make this trade with philly:

                  Brush, Dunleavy and 2 next years 1st round

                  for Iggy


                  pg: DC, Price, Sy
                  sg: Iggy, Paul George, Lance
                  sf: Danny, Posey, f.a. 2 or 3
                  pf: josh, mcbob, Solo
                  c: Roy, Jeff, Jason
                  "Did we learn anything?"-Jonathan Ames

                  "No, but thats okay, It's a good thing to stay in the dark about things - it keeps life more interesting."- George Christopher

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Exploring Possibilities at the 4

                    Originally posted by BornReady#6 View Post
                    I would love to have Smith and Iggy both. If we could get them both, while keeping, DC, Danny and Roy, we would really have a great starting line up. Maybe this would work;

                    TJ, Tyler, Dahntay Jones,Future 2nd rounder, cash - Gives them a better back up, scoring pg, a great young prospect at the 4 to help rebuild with youth, and a guy that can play both the 2 and 3, and boosts their back court O and D.

                    for Josh, Pap Sy, Jason Collins - Gives us Josh smith a solid 4 and everything we know he brings.

                    then make this trade with philly:

                    Brush, Dunleavy and 2 next years 1st round

                    for Iggy


                    pg: DC, Price, Sy
                    sg: Iggy, Paul George, Lance
                    sf: Danny, Posey, f.a. 2 or 3
                    pf: josh, mcbob, Solo
                    c: Roy, Jeff, Jason
                    That trade for josh smith is no where close to what Jsmith value is. First add a couple first rd picks and it will get better. How in the world would we get them 2 without having to get rid of PG24???

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Exploring Possibilities at the 4

                      I think we need to go get a good starting PF but use Josh and Tyler both off the bench.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Exploring Possibilities at the 4

                        I don't see Atlanta trading Josh Smith anymore. He's probably the most important player on that team and is a really good player.

                        The players we have available are not what Atlanta is looking for in return so we should give up on that pipe dream of getting him.

                        We'll see how the rest of the season into the trade deadline plays out with the expiring contracts.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Exploring Possibilities at the 4

                          I agree, trading J-Smith for Atlanta makes 0 sense from basketball pov. But the whole rumor was born due to money issues. Atlanta has owners who are at odds with each other, team has good results but poor attendances, has huge salary commitments and is losing money. Thus the rumors that they might trade someone. They are dancing around luxury tax line this year, and will be in similar spot next year once they fill roster spots.

                          I'd be surprised though is Smith is the one traded. Mike Bibby for expiring would make more sense to them, considering they have Jeff Teague waiting to step in.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Exploring Possibilities at the 4

                            I agree getting him is a long shot, and Bird would probably never deal for Iggy. I see these as the most likely future pacers

                            Landry
                            J.Thompson
                            Zbo
                            DWest

                            one of these guys is gonna be a Pacer.
                            "Did we learn anything?"-Jonathan Ames

                            "No, but thats okay, It's a good thing to stay in the dark about things - it keeps life more interesting."- George Christopher

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Exploring Possibilities at the 4

                              Originally posted by BornReady#6 View Post
                              I agree getting him is a long shot, and Bird would probably never deal for Iggy. I see these as the most likely future pacers

                              Landry
                              J.Thompson
                              Zbo
                              DWest

                              one of these guys is gonna be a Pacer.
                              Heres Looking @ You David West

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Exploring Possibilities at the 4

                                Originally posted by BornReady#6 View Post
                                I agree getting him is a long shot, and Bird would probably never deal for Iggy. I see these as the most likely future pacers

                                Landry
                                J.Thompson
                                Zbo
                                DWest

                                one of these guys is gonna be a Pacer.
                                If the option was available to Bird and the Pacers and the price was reasonable, why do you think that Bird would probably never deal for Iggy?

                                Of the 4 PFs that you list....David West is the only PF that I think is best fits the type of Bird likes to have on his Team ( assuming that he decides to opt out for Free Agency ). Although ZBo is a solid Low-Post scoring PF....I don't think that he has the Basketball IQ that Bird looks for in Players ( while ignoring any on-off court concerns that come with him ) nor provides the level of defense that we're looking for. As for Jason Thompson and Landry...my guess is that between the two....the Kings will keep Thompson since he's paid for already while Landry is a UFA. If the Kings were to move Thompson...they'd ask for a hefty price for him.

                                One more thing....for all of you dreaming of Josh Smith....there is no way that the Hawks are going to move him. He's simply part of their future core that is too valuable to give up.
                                Last edited by CableKC; 12-23-2010, 08:22 PM.
                                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X