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

Chad Ford on who might be traded

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

  • Chad Ford on who might be traded

    http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/colum...=2102101&num=0


    Stephon, Caron, Jason on the blockBy Chad Ford
    ESPN Insider
    Archive

    Tired of hearing about Michael Redd and Joe Johnson?

    Wishing your team, over the cap and out of the running for major free agents, could still make major improvements this summer?

    Keep hope alive. NBA general managers are predicting a robust trading season once the July player movement moratorium is lifted.

    New rules in the collective bargaining agreement allow teams an extra 10 percent wiggle room (from 15 to 25 percent) when trading salaries, allowing for more trade possibilities. And, with the possibility of waiving one player and having him removed from the cap for luxury tax purposes, more owners may be willing to take on a bad deal.

    After calling around the league and talking to numerous GMs, here's a look at 10 big names (not including free agents) who could be traded this summer.

    Stephon Marbury, PG, New York Knicks
    Knicks president Isiah Thomas went nuts over Tuesday's column (and a New York Times report) stating that Isiah was willing to trade Marbury.



    The team that gets Stephon Marbury in a trade comes up short in the win column.
    "That is so far from the truth," Thomas told reporters, in an angry tone, at a press conference after the Knicks' first summer league game. "And I'm ashamed for you guys that you even have to ask me that, because there is absolutely no truth to it at all."

    Marbury has "never been in play," and the Knicks will "never put him in play," according to Isiah.

    That's sharply at odds with what several NBA executives have told Insider over the course of the last week.

    Thomas also took issue with the use of other, unnamed executives as sources.

    "Tell the GM, whoever the GM is, to put his name on it," Thomas said.

    Knicks fans likewise were displeased at suggestions that Thomas would be willing to trade Marbury to get Samuel Dalembert in a sign-and-trade. They were even more shocked at the possibility of trading him to Atlanta for Al Harrington, Tony Delk and Jason Collier.

    The funny thing is, trading Marbury is a move the Knicks should make. A trade for Dalembert (which I'm told Sixers GM Billy King has zero interest in) would help the Knicks here and now. That trade would add a shot blocker, put Jamal Crawford and Nate Robinson at the point and give the Knicks a good chance at the playoffs.

    A potential Hawks trade would be more about the future. By moving Marbury for players like Harrington, Delk and Collier (all in the last year of their contracts), Isiah could be on the verge of the previously unthinkable -- cap room. If Marbury were moved and Thomas could resist the urge to throw a max deal at every free agent that bats his eyes at him, the Knicks would be around $20 million under the cap going into the summer of 2007.

    That just happens to be the summer that LeBron James becomes a restricted free agent, with his full free agency to follow a year later. Given what we know about the huge endorsement kickers James would get by playing in a big market like New York, combined with the chaos in Cleveland right now, it isn't a stretch to think that the Knicks would be real players in the LeBron market, provided they can get their house in order.

    If Thomas really is going to hold firm on his pledge to "never" put Marbury in play, he's going to have to do something else to ease what's turning out to be a major logjam in the backcourt. The Knicks have Marbury, Jamal Crawford, Quentin Richardson, Allan Houston, Penny Hardaway and Nate Robinson, making a total of $66 million.

    Houston will likely be waived using the new "amnesty" rule set up in the new CBA. Hardaway is in the last year of his contract, which makes him a tradable piece. But even with those two players eventually out of the picture, the Knicks logjam is still fairly significant and Crawford will be unhappy if he has to come off the bench.



    The rumblings are getting louder that Paul has worn out his welcome in Boston.
    Paul Pierce, SG, Boston Celtics
    Danny Ainge, and now head coach Doc Rivers, have both, on the record, said that Pierce isn't going anywhere. Nevertheless his name has appeared in constant trade rumors and several GMs Insider has spoken with say that the Celtics have made Pierce available at the right price.

    The fact that the Celtics had produced promotional materials with and without Pierce's image in it right before the draft lead credence to the theory.

    While a Marbury trade makes sense for the Knicks, I'm not sure that a Pierce trade works for the Celtics right now. The team already has a plethora of young prospects: seven, to be exact. Two of those, Al Jefferson and Gerald Green, have star potential. What the Celtics need are veterans who can show them how to win. I think that probably behooves the Celtics to keep Pierce on board, and possibly even re-sign Antoine Walker if he'll agree to a reasonable contract.

    Jamaal Magloire, C, New Orleans Hornets
    The Hornets offered him to the Raptors in a deal that Raptors GM Rob Babcock turned down. The Hornets wanted the Raptors two first round picks and Babcock came to the questionable conclusion that draft picks Charlie Villanueva and Joey Graham would be more valuable to the franchise than what they desperately needed -- a veteran, All-Star-caliber center to play alongside Chris Bosh.

    Magloire has stated publicly and privately that he wants out of New Orleans. The Hornets granted Baron Davis his trade request near the trade deadline in February and appear to be willing to give Magloire the same courtesy.

    Other teams, including the Knicks, Lakers, Timberwolves and Hawks, have shown interest in Magloire. He's a base-year player, meaning that any trade for Magloire probably cannot happen until July 29. But with it looking like the league may draw out the moratorium process anyway, that shouldn't be a big deterrent.

    Steve Francis, G, Orlando Magic
    Francis had an up-and-down year for Orlando last season. His numbers jumped back up to near All-Star levels after a down season in Houston, but midway through the year the team seemed to sour on him a bit and made the relationship rockier by moving him off the point to the shooting guard position. The fact that they've been actively pursuing point guards in the draft and in free agency is pretty telling when you consider they also have Jameer Nelson on the roster.

    The problem is that there isn't a robust market for Francis at the moment. Many GMs no longer believe he's a point guard and he's a bit undersized at the two. Unless a team with cap room like the Hawks, Clippers or Cavs comes to the table, the Magic may have no choice but to make it work next year with Francis running the show. That Tracy McGrady trade is looking worse by the day.

    Nene, PF, Denver Nuggets
    Nene has been less than happy with the team ever since they signed Kenyon Martin last summer. This is a contract year for him and he wants to play. The Nuggets have kept him around as insurance should the always fragile Marcus Camby go down. Ironically it was Nene who spent most of the season on the injured list last season.

    Now, Denver faces a different problem. Nene is looking for a big extension and the Nuggets have their reservations about giving it to him, especially if he's going to be backing up Martin and Camby. Meanwhile, the team is desperately searching for a sweet-shooting two guard to make defenses honest.


    There's been talk in the media over the past few days that the Nuggets might agree to a swap with the Kings for Cuttino Mobley. That's a great move for the Kings if they can make it happen, but I doubt the Nuggets are that desperate for a two guard. Mobley's a good shooter, but Nene has a lot more value on the open market. They'd also consider a swap for Joe Johnson, but the Suns are very unlikely to bite.

    Al Harrington, F, Atlanta Hawks
    Harrington was the odd man out the minute the Hawks decided to draft Marvin Williams last week. Harrington was a mild disappointment to the Hawks last season and appears to be more comfortable in a supporting role.

    The Hawks are using him as bait in an attempt to lure several restricted free agents (Samuel Dalembert, Eddy Curry and Tyson Chandler) to the team via sign-and-trades. The most talked-about scenario has them sending Harrington to Chicago for Curry.

    Wally Szczerbiak and Sam Cassell, Minnesota Timberwolves
    Wolves vice president Kevin McHale promised big changes this year. Obviously not retaining Latrell Sprewell is a big move, at least symbolically. But there are more moves to come. The team has shopped both Szczerbiak and Cassell, hoping to shake things up more.

    Szczerbiak has generated some interest in New York, Portland and New Orleans. The Wolves would love to do something with Portland that gets them Darius Miles or Shareef Abdur Rahim in a sign-and-trade.

    Cassell has received less interest, though there's been talk that a deal with Memphis for Jason Williams is a possibility.

    Caron Butler, SF, Los Angeles Lakers
    Lakers GM Mitch Kupchak took NBA writers to task for mentioning Butler's name in trade rumors before the draft, but a handful of GMs report that he's available.

    He probably has to be if the Lakers are going to make any significant changes to their roster this summer. Right now, Kobe Bryant and Lamar Odom are serving as the foundation. Butler, who many teams still covet, is the most expendable piece.

    The Hornets and Bobcats have both shown a lot of interest in Butler.

    Jason Williams, PG, Memphis Grizzlies
    He was the team's golden child under Hubie Brown last season but resorted back to his old problem-child persona this season. Williams bumped heads constantly with new head coach Mike Fratello and ended the season on a pretty awful note.

    The Grizzlies are trying to trade him, along with Bonzi Wells, but have struggled to find takers. While no one questions Williams' talent, he's a difficult guy to handle, both on and off the court. The team talked trade with the Wolves earlier in the season but so far nothing has come of it.

    Chad Ford covers the NBA for ESPN Insider

  • #2
    Re: Chad Ford on who might be traded

    any trade for Magloire probably cannot happen until July 29
    I'll be waiting
    "I'll always be a part of Donnie Walsh."
    -Ron Artest, Denver Post, 12.28.05

    Comment

    Working...
    X