Tweet
There is an article on the front page of ESPN.com right now and it's by Chad Ford about the Artest/Peja trade. If we still do Insider requests (noticed there aren't to many of those these days) it would be grand if someone could post it.
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.
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
-
-
Re: Insider Request
I see 3 Insider articles about Artest, so I'll go ahead and get all 3. -
Re: Insider Request
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insid...jim&id=2304699
Updated: Jan. 24, 2006
Artest-Stojakovic deal helps both teams
Insider
OBrien
By Jim O'Brien
ESPN Insider
click this
Any team trading for Ron Artest knows that it is taking a chance. The Sacramento Kings go into this, I'm sure, with their eyes wide open. Considering Peja Stojakovic's salary situation, it is probably a decent roll of the dice. Artest will immediately bring an attitude that will challenge his teammates to take their defense up a notch or two or three.
Chemistry will be a huge issue now in Sacramento, not necessarily in the short run, when Artest has to be on his best behavior, but in the long run. Bonzi Wells has been well-received but also has a track record of being disruptive. The Shareef Abdur-Rahim and Kenny Thomas playing time issue is still a concern, too. So you wonder how things will fall out in the locker room down the road.
An NBA scout who has seen Sacramento play three times at ARCO Arena this year feels that Stojakovic is not the same player he was two years ago. His injuries have been well-documented, and back issues are tough on NBA players.
Nevertheless, Peja is still close to a 40 percent 3-point shooter for his career, and the Indiana Pacers utilize the 3-pointer a great deal. In addition, the Pacers are fifth in the league in field-goal defense even without Artest in the lineup. Adding Peja to their lineup is a significant upgrade offensively and will allow Indiana to compete for home-court advantage in the playoffs this year.
The Pacers do not often make mistakes in trades. You have to believe they have confidence in being able to keep Peja for the long haul. He will take to the Indiana crowd, and they will love him because of what he brings to the Pacers. Given Reggie Miller's retirement last year, Peja will fit in nicely. There are not many pure shooters like him in the game, so forget about his recent struggles. Is it possible that Pacers president Donnie Walsh and Peja's people have a handshake agreement for the future?
It will be interesting to watch Artest's welcome in Sacramento. It's a great town, but I wonder if he knows that. Larry Bird must take some satisfaction in moving Artest to what must seem like the opposite end of the world.
Both teams are taking a chance, but both have upgraded themselves in areas they needed help in right now.
Jim O'Brien, former coach of the Boston Celtics and Philadelphia 76ers, writes regularly for ESPN Insider.Comment
-
Re: Insider Request
http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog...name=ford_chad
This one is Chad Ford's blog:
What took them so long?
posted: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 | Feedback
My immediate reaction to the reported deal that will send Ron Artest to Sacramento for Peja Stojakovic -- what took them so long?
No, I'm not talking about the on-again, off-again status of the trade the last 24 hours. I'll write a different column about that madness later.
I'm talking about a much longer history of rumors that have entangled the fates of Artest and Stojakovic over the past year and a half.
Not only was this trade rumor the thing that prompted Artest to demand a trade to the Indianapolis Star back in December. It was also a deal that was talked about in the summer of 2004. And it was a trade I implored both Pacers GM Larry Bird and Kings GM Geoff Petrie to make in November of 2004 before the Artest brawl.
Stojakovic-Artest
NOVEMBER 11, 2004: Fourteen months ago, we recommended a Peja-Artest swap.
Why?
Back in the fall of 2004, both players looked like they needed a change of scenery. Stojakovic was still pouting about the Kings' decision to let Vlade Divac go to the Lakers. His relationship with Chris Webber (and the rest of the team for that matter) was rocky and he started off the season in a major slump.
Artest wasn't doing much better. He had already asked head coach Rick Carlisle for some time off during the season for personal issues due to mental and physical fatigue. Turns out Ronnie was spending night and day working on an album that consumed him.
"My body has been aching. I was going to take some time off, and I said it the wrong way," Artest told reporters in November of 2004. "Everything that happened wasn't too negative. I kind of surprised the team by wanting to take some games off, just to get back together, maybe stay home for a little bit, rest a little bit and come back."
To be fair to the Pacers, they would've gladly accepted an Artest-Stojakovic swap at the start of the 2004 season. It was the Kings who had cold feet back then too. And ... given Ronnie's subsequent actions, it's hard to be too harsh with Sacramento's decision to pass.
However, in retrospect, you've got to wonder if pulling the trigger on the deal then would have saved the Pacers, Kings and the rest of the NBA a lot of heartache.
The Kings knew Stojakovic was heading to unrestricted free agency in the summer of 2006. If they didn't trade him before then, the chances that they would lose him for nothing were high.
The Pacers knew that Artest was unreliable and a potential cancer in the locker room. Jermaine O'Neal was complaining loudly about Artest's behavior. Eight days later, Artest indeed did something that got him plenty of time off, charging into the stands after being hit by a cup of ice thrown by a fan. David Stern gave him the rest of the season to think about his behavior.
The Pacers never seriously considered an Artest trade after the suspension. Given all the controversy, they knew they couldn't get a player of the caliber of Stojakovic given all the controversy.
But once he get back on the court and started playing well, it should've been obvious that this was the right trade.
Corey Maggette, had his foot been healthy, would've been better. Then again, had Maggette's foot been healthy, it's doubtful the Clippers would've offered him.
Ike Diogu and Mickael Pietrus for Artest would've given the Pacers some building blocks. But for some strange reason, Warriors GM Chris Mullin never consented to putting Diogu in the deal.
Lamar Odom would've been the best fit of the group. But the Lakers claim he was never offered while the Pacers probably would've balked at his huge contract anyway.
That left the Pacers going full circle to where the rumors all started -- Peja.
The pros and cons of the deal haven't really changed in 15 months -- which makes you wonder why they didn't pull the trigger earlier and save lots of heartache. Both players have their weaknesses and should be better with a new start.
The Pacers will be a good fit for Stojakovic. They have missed Reggie Miller's sharpshooting. While Peja's looked like a shadow of the player he was during the 2003-04 season, he still brings a lot to the table. He has a work ethic and game that Bird loves. He has the ability to hit clutch shots, and with O'Neal drawing double-teams in the post, Peja should get plenty of wide-open looks on the perimeter.
The Pacers will miss Artest's toughness and defense. There were times in the 2004 playoffs when he, not O'Neal, looked like the Pacers' MVP. However, his unreliability even carried over onto the court in big games -- let's not forget that he melted down a bit in the Eastern Conference Finals, shooting just 31 for 104 from the field.
The Kings aren't going to get a better offer for Stojakovic than Artest. Put aside the off-court issues or his initial reluctance to play in Sacramento for a second. He is one of the best on-the-ball defenders in the league, has emerged as a potent offensive player and has a toughness about him the Kings have sorely lacked the past few seasons.
The Kings will miss Stojakovic's shooting, but they have another player, Mike Bibby, who can stroke it from 3-point range, and Artest isn't a shabby long-range shooter either. Meanwhile, their perimeter defense will take a huge leap forward.
Kings fans probably aren't thrilled with the trade right now given Artest's actions the last 24 hours. However, if he starts playing the way he's capable of playing, the Kings will be a better team and the fans will eventually embrace Artest and all of his wackiness the way Pacers fans did for so long.
Of course, both teams face risks that make this deal much shakier than it was 15 months ago.
Stojakovic's production has fallen dramatically in the past season and a half, after he produced MVP-type numbers in the 2003-04 season. He's an unrestricted free agent this summer, and the chances that Indiana can afford to keep him if he gets a max offer from another team are slim unless this trade is going to be followed by more moves that give them some luxury tax wiggle room.
Artest is a great player, and he's only is just 26 years old and is a great player. But does anyone believe that a move to Sacramento is going to solve all of his problems?
For starters, I think it's safe to say that the Kings aren't his preferred destination. How will he react the first time he's booed by the Kings' fans. Is he mentally tough enough to overcome the fact that he's unlikely to get a warm embrace at the start. In other words, this isn't the clean slate Ronnie both wanted and needed.
If the Kings continue to struggle in the win column, Ronnie won't be happy and Rick Adelman is going to have his hands full. Some will say that this will serve as a wake-up call to Artest -- that he'll focus on being a basketball player for once and dramatically help a team like Sacramento regain their former glory.
But there's just no way to predict what Artest will or won't do in Sacramento, or anywhere else. And no way to predict whether Peja will ever regain the mojo he once had in Sacramento.
In the end, two teams desperate enough to live with a little uncertainty decided to swap one question mark for the other. It's a match made in cyberspace.Comment
-
Re: Insider Request
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insid...ohn&id=2304770
Which team took the better risk -- Kings or Pacers?
Insider
Hollinger
By John Hollinger
ESPN Insider
Archive
Finally.
We almost don't even care who went to the Pacers. All we care about is that Ron Artest was finally traded, bringing months of idle speculation to a merciful end and allowing the Pacers, not to mention the rest of the league, to get on with their lives.
What they did get, however, was much less than we originally suspected. When Indiana first put Artest on the market, there was talk that the Pacers wanted a young big man and cap relief, or perhaps an established veteran along with a draft pick, for Artest. Basketballwise, their demands were very reasonable. Artest is one of the best two-way players in the game, is at his physical peak and has a very reasonable contract with 2½ years remaining. Teams should have been falling all over themselves to acquire him.
Instead, Artest's knack for self-immolation scared away all but a few suitors, and those that did step up modified their offers to adjust for the risk Artest presents. As a result, the Pacers had to settle for the Kings' Peja Stojakovic, a deadly shooter who lacks Artest's defensive pedigree, has been hurt much of the year and is a free agent after the season.
When a team makes a trade as risky as this one -- and make no mistake, Sacramento is rolling a gigantic, fuzzy set of dice here -- it's hard to make a definitive claim about who "won." That's especially true when we're dealing with two organizations that have made few miscues in the past decade. What we can do, however, is break it down and see which side has done more to put the odds in its favor. Let's take a look:
Contracts: Artest is signed for 2½ more years, with a player option for 2008-09, at an average of $7.5 million for the next two years and $8.5 million for the option year. By NBA standards, he's underpaid. The contract is a blessing if Artest behaves himself, and a curse if he talks and fights his way off another roster. No other team would be willing to take a chance on him if he were to fail in Sacto, meaning the Kings would have to eat the last two years of the deal.
Because of the Kings' cap situation, the deal effectively was their offseason for 2006. With Artest's contract replacing Peja's expiring deal, the Kings are close to the luxury tax threshold even with Bonzi Wells' deal coming off the books. So unless the salary cap rises several million in the offseason (not bloody likely, judging by the crowds I've seen), Sacramento might not be in a position to use its midlevel exception. From the Kings' perspective, Artest was way better than any free agent the Kings could have obtained over the summer, so it made sense to deal now.
From Indiana's side, the big question is what its plans are regarding Stojakovic, and we can't know without first learning what the Pacers' plans are regarding the luxury tax. Indiana potentially could skirt the tax next season if it doesn't re-sign Stojakovic and the league grants the team cap relief for injured forward Jonathan Bender. However, it probably wouldn't sit well with Pacers fans to know their team essentially traded an All-Star forward for cap relief. That's why it seems likely Indy will look to either re-sign Peja or sign-and-trade him somewhere else for a piece that fits better.
Of course, there's one final piece to this puzzle -- what if Stojakovic doesn't opt out? The way his season has gone, that possibility can't be completely ruled out, in which case he'd play for Indiana next year while drawing a salary of $8.3 million.
Chemistry: Questions abound about how both players will fit into their new environments. Artest played with the Kings' Brad Miller in Indiana, but that was a very different system. Sacramento's offense is based on passing, cutting and shooting, with most plays originating from the high post. That's a far cry from Artest's preferred style of slowly backing down an opponent from the wing, and based on the comments he made about the Pacers' attack, it doesn't seem as though he'll meekly submit to Rick Adelman's will on this.
Obviously, the major speculation for Artest is off the court. The Kings have to be wondering whether he'll spend half his time suspended or creating various other distractions, and keeping him under control will be the biggest challenge of Adelman's coaching career. Sacramento already has one loose cannon in the locker room in Wells (recently honored as one of the 10 most hated athletes), and one can only shudder at the thought of what he and Artest might wreak together. Thankfully, Wells' impending free agency means they'll have only half a season together.
Stojakovic is a better fit with Indiana, although there are still question marks. The Pacers used Artest as their defensive stopper and would have liked to acquire a player to step into that role; clearly Peja doesn't qualify. As a result, Stephen Jackson and Fred Jones will have to continue to take on the tough defensive assignments. However, Peja should benefit from the double-teams Jermaine O'Neal gets in the post and the passing skills of Indiana's guards, and his new team's plodding style probably fits him better than Sacramento's footloose approach at this point in his career. He also has a former teammate, Scot Pollard, to show him the ropes and he has never been thought of as a problem in the locker room.
Talent: Two years ago, this would have been a push. Today, it's Artest by a mile. Stojakovic has dropped off badly the past two seasons, as bouts with foot and back problems have slowed him to a crawl. At his best, Peja is a devastating shooter who moves extremely well without the ball and is sneaky fast in transition, but he hasn't been at his best in some time. This season, he's down to a miserable 40.3 percent from the field, and his 13.68 PER is way below his career norm. Still, if he can get healthy, he offers an enticing package. His offense would be a shot in the arm for a Pacers team that has been in desperate need of another scorer ever since Artest mouthed his way off the team.
As for Artest, he offers two things the Kings have in short supply: A defensive stopper and an offensive player who can get his own shot. One reason the Kings have become so dependent on their passing and cutting is because so few of their players can create off the dribble; Artest immediately changes that. But his biggest impact will come at the defensive end, where he can take over Doug Christie's vacated role as the defensive stopper and provide a much-needed physical presence for one of the league's softest teams.
Team Needs: Here's why winning and losing in trades is so subjective: It partly depends on where a team is now and where it's headed. Indiana, for instance, has a clear mandate to win now. The Pacers view themselves as Eastern Conference title contenders, and since they're going to be paying $80 million in salary this year, they'd darn well better be.
That's why acquiring a player like Stojakovic was more enticing for the Pacers than picking up Nene from the Nuggets or Corey Maggette from the Clippers. Peja can help them this year, and if things work out right, he'll help them in the one area where they're hurting the most -- offense. Indiana needed a player who would at least give it a chance to compete with Detroit and Miami, and Peja gives the team that chance.
On the other hand, Stojakovic's tenure could end up being very short, and he's not exactly in top shape at the moment. I don't think the Pacers were unrealistic about their contender status in the East -- if Chauncey Billups pops a hammy, it's up for grabs -- but I do wonder how much Peja can do to improve their lot, this year or next.
The Kings, on the other hand, clearly are a team in transition. In the last 18 months, the old core of Webber, Stojakovic, Christie, Vlade Divac and Bobby Jackson has been scattered to the corners of the earth, leaving Mike Bibby as the lone holdover. Yet, at 17-23, the Kings are only three games out of the final playoff spot, and with Artest's arrival and Shareef Abdur-Rahim's return, it's no longer outlandish to suggest they could grab a spot.
In fact, it's a pretty astounding deal if you look at it from the Sacramento side. If Artest acts like an idiot and alienates everyone, the team will have to rebuild -- but since the Kings were 17-23 without much young talent in the pipeline, they would have had to do that anyway. By adding Artest, Sacramento effectively gives itself a 30-month window to try to win something with a Bibby/Artest/Abdur-Rahim/Miller core. Given the reasonable nature of Artest's contract, this is about as risk-free as a risk can get. Even if it fails, the Kings haven't lost any ground.
That's why when it comes down to it, Sacramento got the better end of this deal. The Western team essentially waited out the Pacers to get a star-caliber talent for a player they probably were going to lose anyway. This deal involves calculated risks by both sides, and the range of possible outcomes is all over the map. But in terms of probability, you have to like the odds better from Sacramento's end than from Indiana's.
John Hollinger writes for ESPN Insider. His book "Pro Basketball Forecast: 2005-06" is available at Amazon.com and Potomac Books. To e-mail him, click here.Comment
-
Re: Insider Request
Thank you Hicks.Comment
Comment