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

Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

    Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
    Larry has said that he wants to win this year. There is only one deal that would help us even more with winning this year.

    Danny for Shawn Marion and Vince Carter (both expiring, they are at $12.5M combined). It's the only deal that makes any sense for our goal of winning a championship this year (and that's assuming that Danny won't improve throughout the season, obviously).

    But why would Dallas do this?

    As others have said, I really doubt that we trade this year since the team that should be looking for a player like Granger is exactly like us.




    How about this 3 -teamer.....



    Pacers trade Copeland and Solo
    Cavs trade Waiters, and CJ Miles
    Nuggets trade Jordan Hamilton, Faried, Fournier, and Anthony Randolph


    Pacers get Miles and Hamilton
    Nuggets get Cope, Waiters, and Solo
    Cavs get Faried, Fournier, and Randolph





    Pacers bench

    Scola
    Danny
    Bynum
    Miles
    Watson

    v2

    Scola
    Danny
    Bynum
    Hamilton
    Miles



    Cavs

    Faried
    Deng
    Varajeo
    Fournier
    Irving


    Tristan
    Clark/Bennett/Randolph
    Zeller
    Karasev
    Jack

    Nuggets

    Copeland
    Chandler
    McGee
    Waiters
    Lawson

    Arthur
    Galinari
    Mozgov
    Foye
    Nate



    In this scenario, we keep Danny. And CJ and Jordan are expirings. Value combined $3.4 million. This trade also works if you replace Fournier with Foye. So if you're the Cavs, who do you want more from Denver, Randy (Foye), or Evan (Fournier)?
    Last edited by Grimp; 02-11-2014, 07:59 PM.

    Comment


    • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

      Originally posted by cdash View Post
      Butler barely made the roster. He wasn't in the rotation at the start of the season. He has pleasantly surprised us with what he has been able to do in limited minutes, but let's not get carried away: He's an end of the bench veteran presence. People around here are being awfully hard on Danny. The guy missed a year and a half, he is a notoriously slow starter anyway, he is getting used to a new role, he isn't getting a lot of minutes to play through the rust, and he's not even the first option in those minutes. He's slower and his shot has been off. He's defended well and made some nice passes. The shooting I think will return. I'm not a Granger fanboy or anything, but I think trading him because you have the likes of Rasual Butler waiting to gobble up the backup wing minutes is extremely unlikely.
      Birdman didn't make any rosters then ended up being a contributor on a championship team.....who cares how he made the team, you sound like the coach that will never give a walk-on a chance because well he is a walk-on even though he is outproducing the "better" players everyday in practice. Maybe I have fallen too infatuated with Butler and/or am being too hard on Danny, but every time I see Butler step on the floor I see shots going in, simply something I can not say about the current version of Granger. So to me it is not too big of a stretch to want to make Butler an every day part of the rotation but looking at his stats his last few seasons in the league they were pretty awful so maybe he is fools gold but on the simple eye-test alone this season I just don't think it is that farfetched to say Butler is the better player (I wish I didn't feel this way I wish I had the same optimism others share for Danny because I do want to pull for him but I also want to see a championship and I just don't think our current bench is helping our cause much if things don't change).

      Comment


      • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

        Originally posted by VideoVandal View Post
        Birdman didn't make any rosters then ended up being a contributor on a championship team.....who cares how he made the team, you sound like the coach that will never give a walk-on a chance because well he is a walk-on even though he is outproducing the "better" players everyday in practice. Maybe I have fallen too infatuated with Butler and/or am being too hard on Danny, but every time I see Butler step on the floor I see shots going in, simply something I can not say about the current version of Granger. So to me it is not too big of a stretch to want to make Butler an every day part of the rotation but looking at his stats his last few seasons in the league they were pretty awful so maybe he is fools gold but on the simple eye-test alone this season I just don't think it is that farfetched to say Butler is the better player (I wish I didn't feel this way I wish I had the same optimism others share for Danny because I do want to pull for him but I also want to see a championship and I just don't think our current bench is helping our cause much if things don't change).
        Butler has given us some really good minutes. He certainly deserves credit for that.

        However, I think that you (and not only you, several others do that as well) are letting the last few games to heavily influence your opinion about our bench.
        Originally posted by IrishPacer
        Empty vessels make the most noise.

        Comment


        • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

          Originally posted by cdash View Post
          Oh, and the idea of Zach Lowe making this up is patently absurd. The guy is one of the best in the business and Grantland isn't exactly left wanting for page views. This isn't Bleacher Report here. His article wasn't headlined or led with rumors about the Pacers trading Granger; it was simply part of the column and it's not like this is the first time we have heard this.
          Actually, I'm pretty sure this is the first time we've heard that Danny is being shopped, that is, from a credible source.

          If it weren't Zach Lowe, we would almost all be calling BS on the report. Anyway, even his report says that it is improbable, for all the reasons that we've gone over on PD. My best guess is that the Pacers are just doing their due diligence on a player who they don't feel would be around next year

          Comment


          • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

            Originally posted by VideoVandal View Post
            Birdman didn't make any rosters then ended up being a contributor on a championship team.

            Birdman has some issues. It was a good sign for Miami but not for this Franchise.

            Comment


            • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

              Originally posted by VideoVandal View Post
              Birdman didn't make any rosters then ended up being a contributor on a championship team.....who cares how he made the team, you sound like the coach that will never give a walk-on a chance because well he is a walk-on even though he is outproducing the "better" players everyday in practice. Maybe I have fallen too infatuated with Butler and/or am being too hard on Danny, but every time I see Butler step on the floor I see shots going in, simply something I can not say about the current version of Granger. So to me it is not too big of a stretch to want to make Butler an every day part of the rotation but looking at his stats his last few seasons in the league they were pretty awful so maybe he is fools gold but on the simple eye-test alone this season I just don't think it is that farfetched to say Butler is the better player (I wish I didn't feel this way I wish I had the same optimism others share for Danny because I do want to pull for him but I also want to see a championship and I just don't think our current bench is helping our cause much if things don't change).
              Birdman wasn't on any rosters because the guy had a drug problem and very serious off the court issues that most teams didn't want to touch with a 10 foot pole. Big difference.

              I like Rasual, and I agree, when he comes in the game, he seems to play his role well and do nice things out there. I'm not disputing that. His shooting percentages are very good, albeit his sample size is pretty limited (he's only played 164 minutes all season). I just think it's too early to bail on Danny. What he's done throughout his career here and the talent he has shown in the league has earned him some leeway in my opinion.

              Comment


              • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

                Originally posted by cdash View Post
                Butler barely made the roster. He wasn't in the rotation at the start of the season. He has pleasantly surprised us with what he has been able to do in limited minutes, but let's not get carried away: He's an end of the bench veteran presence. People around here are being awfully hard on Danny. The guy missed a year and a half, he is a notoriously slow starter anyway, he is getting used to a new role, he isn't getting a lot of minutes to play through the rust, and he's not even the first option in those minutes. He's slower and his shot has been off. He's defended well and made some nice passes. The shooting I think will return. I'm not a Granger fanboy or anything, but I think trading him because you have the likes of Rasual Butler waiting to gobble up the backup wing minutes is extremely unlikely.
                I agree with you that Granger contributes more to the Team than Butler....but I will also say that if the only way to dump Copeland is to include Granger as sweetner ( while getting back no additional 2014-2015 salary ), then I will live with ( very reluctantly ) a backup Wing rotation of Solo, Butler and whatever Wing Player that we get back for the rest of the season.

                I know that seeing Solo/Butler/whoever do their best impression of Grange rmay not be as good as having Granger himself in the lineup....but I will be comforted by the notion that the Pacers will have made a move that would have put them in a much better financial situation to re-sign Lance.

                BTW...I'm not suggesting that I don't acknowledge what Granger has done here or what we'd lose if he was traded....I just recognize that there will be a cost to re-sign Lance.

                However....I admit that I am torn on this question......keep or trade Granger.....cuz I can see that losing Granger could cost the Pacers a Championship this season......but I also dont want to overpay to re-sign Lance beyond this season. Either way, I can see that this is a lose-lose situation for the Pacers.
                Last edited by CableKC; 02-11-2014, 07:55 PM.
                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                Comment


                • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

                  Another scenario where we keep Danny but add a shooter...

                  Pacers trade Solomon Hill and Rasual Butler
                  Cavs trade Waiters, Varajeo, and CJ Miles
                  Pelicans trade Eric Gordon, and Jason Smith


                  Pacers acquire CJ Miles
                  Cavs acquires Eric Gordon, Jason Smith, Solomon Hill
                  Pelicans acquires Waiters, Varajeo, and Rasual Butler



                  Pacers bench

                  Scola
                  Danny
                  Bynum
                  Miles
                  Watson


                  Cavs

                  Tristan
                  Deng
                  Smith
                  Gordon
                  Irving



                  Pelicans

                  Davis
                  Anderson
                  Varajeo
                  Waiters
                  Holiday

                  Comment


                  • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

                    Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                    Actually, I'm pretty sure this is the first time we've heard that Danny is being shopped, that is, from a credible source.

                    If it weren't Zach Lowe, we would almost all be calling BS on the report. Anyway, even his report says that it is improbable, for all the reasons that we've gone over on PD. My best guess is that the Pacers are just doing their due diligence on a player who they don't feel would be around next year
                    I think Marc Stein or maybe Chad Ford mentioned it in passing a few weeks ago. Maybe in a chat or something. Either way, I agree with the second part of your post.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

                      Haven't had time to read through the thread yet, but this isn't surprising. Bird has shown time and time again that he wants this team to be as perfect as possible. That's why he got Andrew Bynum. Mahinmi even on his best day will always be an extremely limited player who cannot play on the offensive end of the court. Thus, Bird went out and upgraded the position.

                      Bird is simply practicing due diligence by seeing what's out there for Granger. Granger has an expiring contract and has mostly been poor on the offensive side of the floor this year. If we could somehow make an upgrade without it costing us next season, then you absolutely have to pull the trigger. Now the odds of trading Granger for a package that wouldn't add salary next year are probably slim to none, but you have to at least explore the option when you're gunning for a championship. Granger's performance cannot be what Bird was hoping for before the season.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

                        Danny's a notoriously slow starter. Remember how he used to struggle out of the gates in the preseason and early in the season when he was healthy? I'm confident he'll improve as the season goes on, especially after this All-Star break gives him another chance to rest a bit.

                        In addition, I think we've altered the makeup of the locker room enough with the Bynum addition. You could tell the players had a period where they weren't sure how to react and adapt. At this point, with the #1 record in the East and the season winding down, I don't think it's the right time to make any more potentially chemistry altering moves. There's not a question of whether Danny has bought into his bench role, and the players seem genuinely happy when he plays well, as they see it as a mini-resurgence of sorts. Let these guys ride it out. It's a proud bunch. They already thought they could do it on their own without the Bynum addition, they don't need another player coming in here for reinforcements.

                        And this talk about how we're looking for a scorer surprises me. It's not like our second unit runs out there exclusively. Lance plays with them sometimes. Bynum could score, Scola can find his touch every now and then. Oh, and we have Cope rotting away on the bench and Rasual stroking it when he sees the floor. Just let these guys play.
                        2015, 2016, 2019 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champions - DC Dreamers

                        Comment


                        • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

                          Remember around the time the Pacers signed Solomon Hill Larry Bird made the statement that he looks for Solomon Hill to contribute this year? Especially around the all star break?

                          Comment


                          • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

                            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                            That's why he got Andrew Bynum. Mahinmi even on his best day will always be an extremely limited player who cannot play on the offensive end of the court. Thus, Bird went out and upgraded the position.
                            Upgrade or Depth? I don't understand all the Mahnimi hate overall on this board. What do we expect from a center who makes about the league average for backups. Not directed at this post per se but see it consistently.

                            Bynum should have to earn those minutes. Mahnimni was never brought here to be an offensive weapon but his defense and rebounding has been very appreciated.

                            Bynum is here for depth, the upgrade part has yet TBD.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

                              Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
                              Upgrade or Depth? I don't understand all the Mahnimi hate overall on this board. What do we expect from a center who makes about the league average for backups. Not directed at this post per se but see it consistently.

                              Bynum should have to earn those minutes. Mahnimni was never brought here to be an offensive weapon but his defense and rebounding has been very appreciated.

                              Bynum is here for depth, the upgrade part has yet TBD.


                              Larry apparently isn't found of Ian either. He tried in vain to get Robin (Portland) Lopez here to Indy in the off-season. He also got rid of all of Walsh's off season signings. Larry was not happy with Walsh's so-called upgrades.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Zach Lowe - Pacers actively shopping Granger

                                Originally posted by Kuq_e_Zi91 View Post
                                Danny's a notoriously slow starter. Remember how he used to struggle out of the gates in the preseason and early in the season when he was healthy? I'm confident he'll improve as the season goes on, especially after this All-Star break gives him another chance to rest a bit.

                                In addition, I think we've altered the makeup of the locker room enough with the Bynum addition. You could tell the players had a period where they weren't sure how to react and adapt. At this point, with the #1 record in the East and the season winding down, I don't think it's the right time to make any more potentially chemistry altering moves. There's not a question of whether Danny has bought into his bench role, and the players seem genuinely happy when he plays well, as they see it as a mini-resurgence of sorts. Let these guys ride it out. It's a proud bunch. They already thought they could do it on their own without the Bynum addition, they don't need another player coming in here for reinforcements.

                                And this talk about how we're looking for a scorer surprises me. It's not like our second unit runs out there exclusively. Lance plays with them sometimes. Bynum could score, Scola can find his touch every now and then. Oh, and we have Cope rotting away on the bench and Rasual stroking it when he sees the floor. Just let these guys play.
                                Yes but he was able to work himself out of his slow starts because he shot the ball 15-18 times a game and when he did work himself out of it he still wasn't that efficient....he has always been a volume scorer, when you ask him to shoot the ball 7-8 times a game how many games is he actually going to go 4/8 or better? He just may not be able to be effective in the role he is being asked to play. We are taking a volume shooter and now asking him to be a low volume efficient scorer something I am not sure he is capable of. I haven't given up total hope on Danny even though it seems that way. I do think his 3 point percent will come up but if Bird finds a way to either improve the team this year or betters our chances of keeping Lance next year I am all for it and in Bird I would trust.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X