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

Getting a legitimate starting PF

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    Getting a legitimate starting PF

    Hey guys.

    I've been trying to see if we can pull off a deal that nets us a starting power forward without losing other starting positions.
    Darren is a legitimate starter. George is a prospect who might shine. Granger is a good starter. Hibbert is... a pretty good starter. They need a good PF next to them.

    Why a power forward?
    We lost some games to the Bulls because we got outrebounded. This basically means we need better rebounders, especially big ones. We also lacked consistent scoring options other than Granger.
    I know, we got Hansbrough, who is nice, but is he really enough?
    Sure, he had a short rookie season, and this year he played pretty good compared to a second year player...
    But I don't think he's a good short term nor long term solution to our PF spot.
    On offense, he's one dimensional. He usually scores with his mid-range jumper, which is sadly not consistent enough, and he sometimes has hustle points (that's actually the best thing about him). No post game, no created shots. Only open Mid shots.
    On defense, he doesn't let his opponents establish position easily. He's a tough defender. However, I don't find him good on the defensive end. First of all, he isn't a great defensive rebounder. Second, while he is a tough defender, he isn't a good defender. He lacks quickness and skill.
    Now, he'll probably improve some areas of his game. He will eventually have a post game I guess. And you could argue that he's part of our "Young future guys". Problem is, he'll be 26 next season... He could be a late bloomer, who knows, but are we willing to wait with it?
    We could also bring him as our 6th man if we do not trade him.
    Now, some of you guys are probably going to say "hmm.. we're not going to win a championship anyway, why bother?". Yeah, we won't, but I want to make the playoffs next year, not be in the lottery again. As things stand now, we probably will make the playoffs, but I want something better than "Probably".

    Our Options:
    Josh Smith - Awesome fit. The reasonably paid PF is one of the best defenders for his position. He can also score better than our current #2 options, is really athletic, and will be 26 next season. We all know he can fly all over the court, and can spread the floor a bit as well. He has 2 years left on his contract, which is fine. The bad thing about him is that he can be a knucklehead - he sometimes settles for jumpers.
    What would it take to get him? Well, Atlanta are looking for a starting center so they could slide Horford to the PF spot. This gives us 2 options:
    1. Signing Nene/Marc Gasol, then trading Hibbert or the FA to Atlanta. This is our best way of getting him, but is pretty unlikely.
    2. Getting a 3rd team with a center inolved. It will need to be a rebuilding team because we're not going to offer our core guys, only draft picks and fillers (Rush/Hansbrough/Jones etc). I tried playing around with Utah and the Clippers, but I couldn't make either happy enough.

    Paul Millsap - Decent fit. This guy has the best production on court for his contract. He basically puts the same numbers as Smith, but he isn't as athletic, which means less blocked shots and less rebounds. However, his shot selection is better, and he isn't as vocal as Smith (is it good or bad?).
    His salary is about half of Smith's salary, and he has 2 years left on his contract as well.
    What would it take to get him? I really don't know. A package of Hansbrough+Future picks might (hopefully) do the job, since he doesn't really fit with Utah's young core. They'd rather trade him than Jefferson.

    Carl Landry - Good rebounder, decent defender. Not bad on offense but not great either. Will be 28 next season.
    What would it take to get him? Overpaying him. He's a free agent. My guess is around 30m / 3 years or so.

    David West - The best available scoring Power forward we can get. He's also the most experienced one, and the oldest one (31 next season). The thing about him, he's injured. It means we could probably sign him cheaper than we could otherwise. This could be risky though, as we know very well what could happen to forwards with knee injuries...
    What would it take to get him? paying him... free agent. My guess is around 24m / 3 years (He's still thinking about whether he should opt out of his 7 million contract!).

    Andray Blatche - Really talented, not really commited. Will be 25 next season. He's a good rebounder but he's not as athletic as Smith, and has a ridiculous 45% eFG. His contract isn't really big, but it's long. Getting him means we're going to have him around until 2014-2015. That could be really good if he steps his game up, and could be really bad if he doesn't.
    What would it take to get him? This year's #15 pick or so. He has low trade value. Blatche is High risk, High reward.

    Carlos Boozer - He might be available, he's sort of a "Super Hansbrough".
    What would it take to get him? I don't know, but we should probably just keep Tyler unless we get him for free.

    What do you think? Who would you pick? And feel free to post trade ideas for these guys
    Originally posted by Piston Prince
    Bobcat fans telling us to cheer up = epic fail season
    "Josh Smith Re-building the city of Detroit one brick at a time"
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Getting a legitimate starting PF

    I am interested in Josh Smith, and Paul Millsap, but J-Smoove just seems to be exactly what we need. The 3-team trade is a must, because he is only i perfect fit if Hibbert plays the 5. I really hope there is some way Larry can get this done.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Getting a legitimate starting PF

      Hell no to Boozer matador on defense and has a massive contract

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Getting a legitimate starting PF

        Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
        Hell no to Boozer matador on defense and has a massive contract
        And i straight up hate the guy. He's one of the biggest d-bags in the league lol

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Getting a legitimate starting PF

          Realistically, I like the idea of Millsap the most. Especially if Utah drafts Kanter. Millsap will be up for grabs. The problem is, it doesn't seem like we're great trading partners with Utah.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Getting a legitimate starting PF

            Smith is the best fit, but he's a real longshot (unless we give them Hibbert). Another way of getting him is taking on a bad contract, which will involve a 3rd team as well, but that's not optimal at all. Again, my dream scenario would be getting a center through free agency and trading that new center or Roy for Smith, but I doubt that's possible.
            I believe Millsap is available now, and he'll be more available if they draft Kanter. (Millsap plays SF/PF. their future SF is Hayward, their future PF is Favors, and if they get Kanter then Al Jeff will probably play 4 sometimes as well). They will probably be looking for a young shooting guard/point guard. Maybe Rush + two first round picks, but I'm still not sure it'll do.
            About Boozer, he's a better fit than most of you would think, and a huge upgrade. He's the best rebounding forward in the league. But I don't think we can get him for cheap, he's pretty old (30 next season), his contract is long...
            Originally posted by Piston Prince
            Bobcat fans telling us to cheer up = epic fail season
            "Josh Smith Re-building the city of Detroit one brick at a time"

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Getting a legitimate starting PF

              Originally posted by yoadknux View Post
              He's the best rebounding forward in the league. But I don't think we can get him for cheap, he's pretty old (30 next season), his contract is long...
              I really don't think in two years Boozer will be much of an upgrade over Tyler. Especially with his injury history. That contract is brutal, so I actually think he would come cheap, Chicago would love the cap room, but I wouldn't take him for free.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Getting a legitimate starting PF

                Originally posted by yoadknux View Post
                Smith is the best fit, but he's a real longshot (unless we give them Hibbert). Another way of getting him is taking on a bad contract, which will involve a 3rd team as well, but that's not optimal at all. Again, my dream scenario would be getting a center through free agency and trading that new center or Roy for Smith, but I doubt that's possible.
                I believe Millsap is available now, and he'll be more available if they draft Kanter. (Millsap plays SF/PF. their future SF is Hayward, their future PF is Favors, and if they get Kanter then Al Jeff will probably play 4 sometimes as well). They will probably be looking for a young shooting guard/point guard. Maybe Rush + two first round picks, but I'm still not sure it'll do.
                About Boozer, he's a better fit than most of you would think, and a huge upgrade. He's the best rebounding forward in the league. But I don't think we can get him for cheap, he's pretty old (30 next season), his contract is long...

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Getting a legitimate starting PF

                  Originally posted by spreedom View Post

                  Great picture, forgot about him
                  He's like "Hello, ME?!?!?!?!?!"
                  Originally posted by Piston Prince
                  Bobcat fans telling us to cheer up = epic fail season
                  "Josh Smith Re-building the city of Detroit one brick at a time"

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Getting a legitimate starting PF

                    Smith - My choice out of these picks you put here. If we don't have to give up Roy, George, Hansbrough, DC, then i'm all in. I actually have a trade made up for this...I will post in a thread in a bit.

                    Millsap - I'm not the biggest fan of him coming here. He is undersize, has awsome energy and has had a healthy career thus far outside of hip and knee problems. Not sure how he'd hold up against the east and we don't have the big body's like Jazz to compensate him being undersized.

                    Landry - Not legitmate in my book, just look at his career. No way he'll get 10 mil per. More like 5-6 mil per.

                    West - would love to have him, only if it wasn't for that knee injury. Sad for him.

                    Blatche - Can't see Wizards coming off him at this time. They are really bad and they would want pieces not hopeful picks for him.

                    Boozer - Bad attitude, huge contract and looked like crap in the playoffs.
                    Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Getting a legitimate starting PF

                      Out of that list I like Smith the best for the Pacers. I don't know that Paul Millsap would be a good fit next to Roy. I also think the Jazz are more likely to trade Al Jefferson than Paul too.

                      Landry would not be bad to add but I don't consider him a starter. Not bad off the bench though.

                      I'll throw a couple other names in the mix. Luc Mbah a Moute. He is a free agent for the Bucks. My guess is they re-sign him. He is only 6'8 but he can defend both small and power forwards and he is not a bad rebounder for a guy his size. I also like Patrick Patterson. While he was just a rookie last year the Rockets have several big men and they can't play them all. Can the Pacers pry Patterson away? My guess is no but just a thought.

                      A guy that I think the Pacers have a real shot at (come cheap $ wise) and who can make an impact is Jason Thompson of the Sacramento Kings. He still has to improve but I think he would be a good addition to the team. Would Rush and 15 (or something like that) be enough to get him from the Kings?

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Getting a legitimate starting PF

                        The Wizards have several young bigs that I am sure would be attainable for the right price. McGee probably won't get traded. But outside of Blatche, they have Trevor Booker, Kevin Seraphin, Yi Jianlian, and Hamady Ndiaye.

                        I would prefer Seraphin to any of these guys, but Booker would be a welcome addition. He would give you rebounding, defense, and toughnewss off the bench. He wouldn't be a starter IMO, but he would help solidify the PF rotation if McRoberts leaves. Seraphin would be a guy that could be your starter with a little more development.

                        I think the Wizards would be open to making something happen. I don't think anyone is untouchable outside of Wall, with McGee being someone they covet as well. I think every single player outside of Wall will be available.
                        "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Getting a legitimate starting PF

                          I'm a fan of Seraphin. Would love to get him, but I doubt the Wiz let him go. Well maybe if they draft another big with #6. Booker is much more attainable. Yi's contract is up.

                          Comment

                          Previous template Next
                          Working...
                          X