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

Trade with Portland?

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

  • Trade with Portland?

    Portland needs a SF and if they don't land a top 3 pick they'll probably look at trading it. Other players of value that could be available are Jarrett Jack, Martell Webster and of course Zach Randolph. The Blazers like Jack and Webster a lot but they aren't viewed as critical players to the teams future core of Roy and Aldridge.

    Granger seems like someone the Blazers would have a lot of interest in. How much value does Granger have to Indy? What would it take to get him to Portland?

  • #2
    Re: Trade with Portland?

    I honestly think the Blazers would want Granger enough that if we paired him with Harrison they would give us Jack and their first round pick

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Trade with Portland?



      Indiana Trade Breakdown
      Outgoing
      Danny Granger
      6-8 PF from New Mexico
      13.5 ppg, 4.6 rpg, 1.3 apg in 33.6 minutes
      David Harrison
      7-0 C from Colorado
      2.9 ppg, 1.8 rpg, 0.2 apg in 7.7 minutes
      Incoming
      Jarrett Jack
      6-3 PG from Georgia Tech
      11.7 ppg, 2.6 rpg, 5.4 apg in 34.0 minutes
      Sergio Rodriguez
      6-3 PG from Spain (Foreign)
      3.3 ppg, 1.3 rpg, 3.3 apg in 12.0 minutes
      Portlands 1st Rd pick.



      Portland Trade Breakdown
      Outgoing
      Jarrett Jack
      6-3 PG from Georgia Tech
      11.7 ppg, 2.6 rpg, 5.4 apg in 34.0 minutes
      Sergio Rodriguez
      6-3 PG from Spain (Foreign)
      3.3 ppg, 1.3 rpg, 3.3 apg in 12.0 minutes
      1st round pick
      Incoming
      Danny Granger
      6-8 PF from New Mexico
      13.5 ppg, 4.6 rpg, 1.3 apg in 33.6 minutes
      David Harrison
      7-0 C from Colorado
      2.9 ppg, 1.8 rpg, 0.2 apg in 7.7 minutes
      Change in team outlook: +1.4 ppg, +2.5 rpg, and -7.2 apg.




      Successful Scenario
      Due to Indiana and Portland being over the cap, the 25% trade rule is invoked. Indiana and Portland had to be no more than 125% plus $100,000 of the salary given out for the trade to be accepted, which did happen here. This trade satisfies the provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.




      I could live with this personally

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Trade with Portland?

        Certainly, we could all live with it. And I like Granger a lot.

        But I thought the word out of Portland was that Jack was untouchable?
        This space for rent.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Trade with Portland?

          they're not going to give up BOTH their great PGs. judging from their RealGM boards, they don't like roy at the point and if they had to trade jack or sergio they'd rather if they must give up sergio.

          JO's name has been tossed around quite a bit and very few have an interest in trading for him (and the few that do all think we'd take zach randolph for him because JO is in the twilight of his career).
          This is the darkest timeline.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Trade with Portland?

            Originally posted by Anthem View Post
            Certainly, we could all live with it. And I like Granger a lot.

            But I thought the word out of Portland was that Jack was untouchable?
            Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
            they're not going to give up BOTH their great PGs. judging from their RealGM boards, they don't like roy at the point and if they had to trade jack or sergio they'd rather if they must give up sergio.

            JO's name has been tossed around quite a bit and very few have an interest in trading for him (and the few that do all think we'd take zach randolph for him because JO is in the twilight of his career).
            I was reading that they view Roy as more of a 1 than a 2 and think Jack is expendable. Sergio is untouchable. The man is an assist machine. There's no way they would give up both of them up for Granger and Hulk. They might bight on the 1st and Jack though. Some posters on Real GM were saying that they would need to give up more than Jack to get Granger but would they give up their first?

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Trade with Portland?

              between jarrett jack and sergio rodriguez, i think rodriguez is viewed as having the higher upside. jack is more consistent and is the better defender though, so he starts for the blazers. still, if the blazers trade one of them, it's likelier to be jack.

              danny definitely has more value than jack, but these days pg's tend to be a little overvalued in trades (pg is the new c). jack + 2nd round pick is probably closer to what the blazers would offer for danny.

              i'd hate to give up on granger, but we need to balance the roster eventually...

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Trade with Portland?

                Sergio aside, I'd trade Granger and Harrison for Jack and their pick in a heartbeat. I'd take Jack as our starting point guard today and be happy about it. Shawne's improving so quickly that I can easily imagine him as our starting SF next year. If he's not ready, there's always DunDun, who would be much more palatable as a SF than at SG.

                EDIT: Wow, I didn't realize their pick was that high. We'd have to include more than Harrison. If they'd take Harrison and Granger for Jack and their pick, there's no way you could turn that down.
                This space for rent.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Trade with Portland?

                  That trade would elicit a lot of laughs from the Blazers. Jack is coveted by a lot of teams, and Rodriguez has even MORE trade value, despite the fact that Jack starts over him. Sergio has TONS of upside and might develop into an all-star PG...it really could happen.

                  Granger is destined to be a journeyman 3, I don't think he'll ever become an NBA household-name type player. If he gets on the right team he might do well, but he might not ever exceed his current production.

                  Harrison is completely worthless by NBA standards. The blazers already have 3 post players who are MUCH better.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Trade with Portland?

                    1 - Jack is very available for Portland. Roy is the defacto PG and they love Rodriguez. Its known they are looking to deal him for a SF.

                    2 - Portland would deal Jack for Granger in a heartbeat straight up.

                    3 - No way Indy deals away Granger. He's the apple of the FO eye. He and Diogu are as safe as safe can get.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Trade with Portland?

                      Originally posted by 2Cleva View Post
                      1 - Jack is very available for Portland. Roy is the defacto PG and they love Rodriguez. Its known they are looking to deal him for a SF.
                      maybe this is true. but what i read on the boards recently at RealGM is that they felt having roy play the 1 was like having tinsley play the 2.
                      This is the darkest timeline.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Trade with Portland?

                        Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
                        maybe this is true. but what i read on the boards recently at RealGM is that they felt having roy play the 1 was like having tinsley play the 2.
                        Not to disrespect any forum but a fans view is not equivalent to a team's view. I've heard more than this about Jack's availability but here are 2 documented references.



                        Back to the Blazers for a minute. How about this little post-game nugget from the infamous rumor mill. The word is the Blazers love former Tech star Jarrett Jack, but think Brandon Roy is really a PG (and they have ample insurance in promising rookie Sergio Rodriguez), and might be willing to part with Jack for a much-needed small forward … can you think of a team loaded with small forwards that is in dire need of a young point guard? Jack is solid. His only real weakness right now is his outside stroke, which is streaky at best. But he can run a team, knows how to take charge late in games and is the ultimate facilitator for NBA teams because his ego is already in check (he’s not busy trying to show he’s the man all the time, which is the curse of some young PGs).
                        http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/sha...l_grahams.html

                        *Udoka's return to the lineup might not be the only change. McMillan said he is contemplating making a change at point guard before Wednesday's game.

                        "There's a chance there could be (a change),'' McMillan said.

                        Regular starter Jarrett Jack played only 10 minutes in the Clippers game and has been struggling throughout the last month of the season, allowing more time for backups Dan Dickau and Sergio Rodriguez.

                        McMillan said he will use Monday and Tuesday's practices to see who plays the hardest, after which he will make a determination of who will start during Wednesday's shootaround.

                        "These next two practices are basically to look at guys, and see who gets after each other,'' McMillan said. "And that's how I will play the games.''
                        http://blog.oregonlive.com/behindbla...s_changes.html

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Trade with Portland?

                          Originally posted by Roy Munson View Post
                          I don't think he'll ever become an NBA household-name type player. If he gets on the right team he might do well, but he might not ever exceed his current production.
                          So? Same could be true of Jack.
                          This space for rent.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Trade with Portland?

                            Originally posted by 2Cleva View Post
                            Not to disrespect any forum but a fans view is not equivalent to a team's view. I've heard more than this about Jack's availability but here are 2 documented references.
                            as true as that is the same can be said about teams painting a more rosy picture (bird on cover with artest) while people who watch the team closer (and perhaps are dedicated enough to count their coach's play-calling) tend to cut thru the bull. you can get a general sense of players by reading a lot of opinion of fans who have something different invested than owners/GMs.
                            This is the darkest timeline.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Trade with Portland?

                              Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns
                              as true as that is the same can be said about teams painting a more rosy picture (bird on cover with artest) while people who watch the team closer (and perhaps are dedicated enough to count their coach's play-calling) tend to cut thru the bull. you can get a general sense of players by reading a lot of opinion of fans who have something different invested than owners/GMs.
                              Yes, you often do get something different about a player from fans. However that difference is rarely what decisions are based upon.

                              I won't go any deeper into this debate but if theoretically Granger for Jack was on the table from the Indy POV, Portland would be all on it. But if it was the other way around, Indy passes and offers anyone else.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X