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

What REALISTIC PG Can The Pacers Get?

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

  • #91
    Re: What REALISTIC PG Can The Pacers Get?

    [QUOTE=pacergod2;1203785
    PG - Curry, Price
    SG - Rush, Stephenson
    SF - George, DJones, Posey
    PF - Hansborough, Udoh
    C - Hibbert.[/QUOTE]

    Is this lineup better than what we have now? Same problem with the 4 and 5 spots. Basically Curry for Granger? No salary match.

    I am not giving up on either DC or AJ just yet.

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: What REALISTIC PG Can The Pacers Get?

      So, someone wants to give GSW Collison when they already don't like the Curry/Ellis pair?.. They'll replace Stephen Curry with his inferior clone who can't shoot, has less defensive potential and is smaller?
      Some of these offers really surprise me.

      I don't think we can get Curry at all. Maybe next year, if George and others keep gaining value. But if we are going to dream about it, lets at least think of something that makes any sense to the other team.

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: What REALISTIC PG Can The Pacers Get?

        I have no idea if they'd do it, but the trade works and I'd do it:

        Pacers give: Danny Granger, Darren Collison

        Clippers give: Eric Gordon, Mo Williams

        This would give us an elite young scorer in Gordon and I think it would upgrade and add some experience to our pg position. There are rumors that Gordon was wanting to come back to Indy (probably made up by us )

        The salaries match so logistically the trade works fine. No idea if Clippers would be interested at all.

        Personally, I like the starting line-up for the pacers

        PG: Mo
        SG: Gordon
        SF: George
        PF: Hans
        C: Hibbert
        Danger Zone

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: What REALISTIC PG Can The Pacers Get?

          Originally posted by Rogco View Post
          I have no idea if they'd do it, but the trade works and I'd do it:

          Pacers give: Danny Granger, Darren Collison

          Clippers give: Eric Gordon, Mo Williams

          This would give us an elite young scorer in Gordon and I think it would upgrade and add some experience to our pg position. There are rumors that Gordon was wanting to come back to Indy (probably made up by us )

          The salaries match so logistically the trade works fine. No idea if Clippers would be interested at all.

          Personally, I like the starting line-up for the pacers

          PG: Mo
          SG: Gordon
          SF: George
          PF: Hans
          C: Hibbert
          They wouldn't.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: What REALISTIC PG Can The Pacers Get?

            Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
            They wouldn't.
            I wouldn't if I was them, but people have made worse trades, especially if they're worried a good player will leave them in free agency in the not to distant future.

            I guess we could always sweaten the deal (picks) or add a third team to help close out the trade. Or maybe they really hate the Mo contract....

            Either way, I see it as just as realistic as Curry, and probably better for the Pacers.
            Danger Zone

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: What REALISTIC PG Can The Pacers Get?

              And Mackey Rose, you may need to change your picture soon! I hope Purdue opens up its wallet and keeps Painter. He's a great coach. (sorry, completely off thread)
              Danger Zone

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: What REALISTIC PG Can The Pacers Get?

                Originally posted by Rogco View Post
                And Mackey Rose, you may need to change your picture soon! I hope Purdue opens up its wallet and keeps Painter. He's a great coach. (sorry, completely off thread)
                Yeah I hope they do too, but I'm afraid the money just isn't there.

                And thanks for rubbing it in.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: What REALISTIC PG Can The Pacers Get?

                  Originally posted by ballism View Post
                  So, someone wants to give GSW Collison when they already don't like the Curry/Ellis pair?.. They'll replace Stephen Curry with his inferior clone who can't shoot, has less defensive potential and is smaller?
                  Some of these offers really surprise me.

                  I don't think we can get Curry at all. Maybe next year, if George and others keep gaining value. But if we are going to dream about it, lets at least think of something that makes any sense to the other team.
                  It isn't about replacing Curry with Collison.

                  You are replacing Curry with the much bigger Granger. Ellis, Wright, and Granger is a much bigger, much better threesome defensively than they are with Curry. If they aren't utilizing Curry optimally, is he really worth that much to GS? Collison would fill in as a backup PG, along with Reggie Williams, and there is your five man rotation between the point guards and wings. Collison is actually a better backup there, because he replicates some of what Ellis does when he is out there. The offense that they run is perfect for both Collison and Ellis.

                  Granger provides them with more rebounding and better scoring on the perimeter than Curry. Curry needs to play PG in the NBA. He needs the ball in his hands to be more effective. Ellis negates a lot of what Curry does well. His outside shooting is about the only thing that compliments Ellis. Granger replaces that easily. Plus they become a better defensive and better rebounding team, which is two areas that they struggle. Lee could use some help in the front court. I think with this rotation, they could make a move for a center, like Dalembert, Chandler, Pryzbilla, Kwame, or Gasol. All good defenders who rebound the ball well. I think the skill set of Granger and Collison fit that roster SOOO much better than Curry does. I really think that GS would strongly consider that offer, and to be honest, we may be the ones turning that down. The downsides on Curry and Udoh are much worse than Granger/Collison.

                  Also, that trade does work, because both of these teams wouldn't consummate the trade until after the new CBA. Both teams will be under the salary cap and there are no salary restrictions on trades at that point. The Warriors would probably want to sign a center before they make the deal, because they could have more money that way for their center. Tyson Chandler or Gasol would really make that team good.

                  As for us, Curry has that natural vision and passing ability that Collison doesn't really have. He is taller than Collison, which is important, but he is young and will probably add more weight naturally. We get the younger upside on both Udoh and Curry that they will pair with George, Rush, Hansborough, Price, McRoberts, and Hibbert as mainstays in our rotation. That is a solid young eight-man rotation. Curry's ability to shoot from deep will be important for {UH OH} spreading the floor. It will allow Hibbert more spacing and will be better capable of setting up George and Rush on the perimeter. I think Curry guards the pick and roll better than Collison, but I think Curry's defensive upside is MUCH higher than Collison's. Udoh would give a smart big who can play both positions. He rebounds well and is a very good shot blocker. He is a good passer out of the either post position and can hit the mid range jumper. I don't know how well he does guarding the pick and roll, though. Our front court becomes more versatile with Udoh, and we could still use a backup center after we resign McRoberts. That would give us five bigs that suit up every night.

                  I don't mean to make this a trade thread, but I think Granger for Curry is a fair deal and is synergistic for both teams.
                  Last edited by pacergod2; 03-29-2011, 10:03 AM.
                  "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


                  • #99
                    Re: What REALISTIC PG Can The Pacers Get?

                    Originally posted by pacergod2 View Post
                    It isn't about replacing Curry with Collison.

                    You are replacing Curry with the much bigger Granger. Ellis, Wright, and Granger is a much bigger, much better threesome defensively than they are with Curry. If they aren't utilizing Curry optimally, is he really worth that much to GS? Collison would fill in as a backup PG, along with Reggie Williams, and there is your five man rotation between the point guards and wings. Collison is actually a better backup there, because he replicates some of what Ellis does when he is out there. The offense that they run is perfect for both Collison and Ellis.

                    Granger provides them with more rebounding and better scoring on the perimeter than Curry. Curry needs to play PG in the NBA. He needs the ball in his hands to be more effective. Ellis negates a lot of what Curry does well. His outside shooting is about the only thing that compliments Ellis. Granger replaces that easily. Plus they become a better defensive and better rebounding team, which is two areas that they struggle. Lee could use some help in the front court. I think with this rotation, they could make a move for a center, like Dalembert, Chandler, Pryzbilla, Kwame, or Gasol. All good defenders who rebound the ball well. I think the skill set of Granger and Collison fit that roster SOOO much better than Curry does. I really think that GS would strongly consider that offer, and to be honest, we may be the ones turning that down. The downsides on Curry and Udoh are much worse than Granger/Collison.

                    Also, that trade does work, because both of these teams wouldn't consummate the trade until after the new CBA. Both teams will be under the salary cap and there are no salary restrictions on trades at that point. The Warriors would probably want to sign a center before they make the deal, because they could have more money that way for their center. Tyson Chandler or Gasol would really make that team good.

                    As for us, Curry has that natural vision and passing ability that Collison doesn't really have. He is taller than Collison, which is important, but he is young and will probably add more weight naturally. We get the younger upside on both Udoh and Curry that they will pair with George, Rush, Hansborough, Price, McRoberts, and Hibbert as mainstays in our rotation. That is a solid young eight-man rotation. Curry's ability to shoot from deep will be important for {UH OH} spreading the floor. It will allow Hibbert more spacing and will be better capable of setting up George and Rush on the perimeter. I think Curry guards the pick and roll better than Collison, but I think Curry's defensive upside is MUCH higher than Collison's. Udoh would give a smart big who can play both positions. He rebounds well and is a very good shot blocker. He is a good passer out of the either post position and can hit the mid range jumper. I don't know how well he does guarding the pick and roll, though. Our front court becomes more versatile with Udoh, and we could still use a backup center after we resign McRoberts. That would give us five bigs that suit up every night.

                    I don't mean to make this a trade thread, but I think Granger for Curry is a fair deal and is synergistic for both teams.

                    I agree. I think it is a fair trade too but I only want to do it if we know George will become what we all think he will become. Whether we like it or not, Granger is still the best player on this team and we look to him every night to score 15 to 25 ppg. I don't necessarily like it that he is our best player but if you take him out of the equation and then George just ends up being a little better then Rush, then we are stuck and might be a even worse team.

                    Comment


                    • Re: What REALISTIC PG Can The Pacers Get?

                      Originally posted by Rogco View Post
                      The problem with Collison lately is he's ... been having trouble with his handles...
                      Yeah, been having trouble with my handles too. Cuttin' back on the carbs, workin' out more, sweatin' my a$$ off on the bike ... but those dang handles just aren't goin' away.


                      "He’s no shrinking violet when it comes to that kind of stuff."

                      - Rick Carlisle on how Kevin Pritchard responds to needed roster changes.

                      Comment


                      • Re: What REALISTIC PG Can The Pacers Get?

                        I forgot to ad another name to the point guards, Evan Turner is another guy that Philly might be willing to move for a good package.
                        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                        Comment


                        • Re: What REALISTIC PG Can The Pacers Get?

                          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                          I forgot to ad another name to the point guards, Evan Turner is another guy that Philly might be willing to move for a good package.
                          he isnt a pg

                          Comment


                          • Re: What REALISTIC PG Can The Pacers Get?

                            Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                            I forgot to ad another name to the point guards, Evan Turner is another guy that Philly might be willing to move for a good package.
                            He's not a PG.

                            Comment


                            • Re: What REALISTIC PG Can The Pacers Get?

                              Originally posted by pacergod2 View Post
                              It isn't about replacing Curry with Collison.

                              You are replacing Curry with the much bigger Granger. Ellis, Wright, and Granger is a much bigger, much better threesome defensively than they are with Curry. If they aren't utilizing Curry optimally, is he really worth that much to GS? Collison would fill in as a backup PG, along with Reggie Williams, and there is your five man rotation between the point guards and wings. Collison is actually a better backup there, because he replicates some of what Ellis does when he is out there. The offense that they run is perfect for both Collison and Ellis.

                              Granger provides them with more rebounding and better scoring on the perimeter than Curry. Curry needs to play PG in the NBA. He needs the ball in his hands to be more effective. Ellis negates a lot of what Curry does well. His outside shooting is about the only thing that compliments Ellis. Granger replaces that easily. Plus they become a better defensive and better rebounding team, which is two areas that they struggle. Lee could use some help in the front court. I think with this rotation, they could make a move for a center, like Dalembert, Chandler, Pryzbilla, Kwame, or Gasol. All good defenders who rebound the ball well. I think the skill set of Granger and Collison fit that roster SOOO much better than Curry does. I really think that GS would strongly consider that offer, and to be honest, we may be the ones turning that down. The downsides on Curry and Udoh are much worse than Granger/Collison.

                              Also, that trade does work, because both of these teams wouldn't consummate the trade until after the new CBA. Both teams will be under the salary cap and there are no salary restrictions on trades at that point. The Warriors would probably want to sign a center before they make the deal, because they could have more money that way for their center. Tyson Chandler or Gasol would really make that team good.

                              As for us, Curry has that natural vision and passing ability that Collison doesn't really have. He is taller than Collison, which is important, but he is young and will probably add more weight naturally. We get the younger upside on both Udoh and Curry that they will pair with George, Rush, Hansborough, Price, McRoberts, and Hibbert as mainstays in our rotation. That is a solid young eight-man rotation. Curry's ability to shoot from deep will be important for {UH OH} spreading the floor. It will allow Hibbert more spacing and will be better capable of setting up George and Rush on the perimeter. I think Curry guards the pick and roll better than Collison, but I think Curry's defensive upside is MUCH higher than Collison's. Udoh would give a smart big who can play both positions. He rebounds well and is a very good shot blocker. He is a good passer out of the either post position and can hit the mid range jumper. I don't know how well he does guarding the pick and roll, though. Our front court becomes more versatile with Udoh, and we could still use a backup center after we resign McRoberts. That would give us five bigs that suit up every night.

                              I don't mean to make this a trade thread, but I think Granger for Curry is a fair deal and is synergistic for both teams.

                              1. Curry is a better player than Danny. Not "much worse"...
                              2. "Granger provides better scoring on the perimeter than Curry"?... Come on, that's craziness.
                              3. Curry is younger.
                              4. His position is more valuable.
                              5. He's not the issue in GSW. Curry is easy to build around and he fits into any traditional lineup. The issue is that Monta is Iverson.
                              5. Adding Granger and moving your best defender (Dorell Wright) out of his natural position does not exactly make you a defensive juggernaut.
                              6. On top of all of that, GSW takes on money?! Instead of 6.5 mil salaries (Curry+Udoh) you get 13.5 mil (Granger + DC). And waste nearly all of your cap space. Ouch.

                              There are so many reasons why this deal is bad for GSW. And if you see Collison as merely a backup to Monta (that's what, 8-10 minutes a game, twice less than Ekpe Udoh gives them?), then this deal gets even worse.

                              Btw, it seems you missunderstand how the cap works. You can't use your cap on "Tyson Chandler or Gasol" and then do that deal.

                              The only way I can imagine where you can build around Monta is the 76ers way in 2001. Supreme defenders at every position, ideally one of them also a great passer for his position (Grant Hill or Bogut type). Not defensively challenged David Lee and Danny Granger.
                              If I'm GSW, I'd easily trade Monta before Curry. But even then, it wouldn't be for an older one way wing like Granger. (and for the record, I wouldn't want Monta, just think he's more available)
                              Last edited by ballism; 03-30-2011, 03:59 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Re: What REALISTIC PG Can The Pacers Get?

                                Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
                                he isnt a pg
                                You think I don't know? he is a point forward similar to Brandon Roy, he needs the ball in his hand to be effective and he doesn't get the ball in Philly, I'll be willing to send two 1st round pick for him and maybe DC.
                                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X