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

Three former Pacers are on the "overpaid" list

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 3
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 template Next
  • #1

    Three former Pacers are on the "overpaid" list

    By Jeff Merron
    Page 2

    I know, I know -- putting "NBA" and "overpaid" in the same sentence is redundant. Putting the overpaid NBA list together in past seasons seemed easier, because there've usually been a handful of guys who were so "Gigli" that it was no contest. This year, though, it seems like so many are getting so much for so little. I don't know -- I haven't done any analysis -- but this could be for two related reasons. One is that lots of long-term contracts, dished out in the flush Clinton years, are just about, but not quite, ready to run out. The second is that during the flush Clinton years, nobody was talking Moneyball, in any sport. Now, the idea of value seems to be slowly, slowly taking a hold on the NBA. One caveat: We didn't list players who are collecting paychecks for not playing at all -- your Eddie Robinsons and Scottie Pippens. Only players who've put in some reasonable amount of playing/bench time.
    The Bucks are often best served with Keith watching from the bench.


    10. Keith Van Horn, Milwaukee Bucks ($14,487,000)
    By far the highest-paid Buck, Van Horn chews up a quarter of the team's payroll and has only chipped in 11.3 points and 5.7 rebounds per game, when he's been healthy. Van Horn's good, but not great, and he'll be 30 by the start of the 05-06 season.

    9. Jalen Rose, Toronto Raptors ($14,487,000)
    After trying and trying to find some stat or metric that would get Rose off this list, I gave up. The Raptors are losers both with and without him, meaning that their highest paid player -- he makes $9 million more than any other Raptor -- is a money pit. Sixteen points, 2 assists, and three rebounds ... Isn't Rose supposed to be a star? Then I triple-checked. Here's what John Hollinger had to say in his 2004-05 Pro Basketball Forecast: "He shouldn't be starting, even on a team as desperate for offense as the Raptors." And this: "Rose's offense would be acceptable if he played any defense, but he doesn't." That's a lot of ouches in one evaluation. Rose, 32, has come way, way down since his peak years in 2001 and 2002. But nothing like a bundle of cash to cushion your fall.

    8. Tim Thomas, New York Knicks ($12,900,000)
    Isiah Thomas acquired Tim from Milwaukee in the middle of last season, and it doesn't appear this was one of the key rebuilding moves the Knicks had hoped for. The 6-foot-10-inch forward muscles his way to 3.4 rebounds a game and adds 10.3 points, his worst numbers since the 1998-99 season. He's only 27, but he's a downgrade from his all-overpaid list buddy, Keith Van Horn.

    7. Antonio Davis, Chicago Bulls ($12,925,000)
    This is what happens when you're 36 years old and playing in your 12th NBA season: the main news item on your ESPN player page provides this skinny on your current status: "mid-back strain, virus, and ear infection." Davis has managed to play almost 24 minutes a game, but has averaged only six points and 5.6 rebounds, following a near-perfect decline-line from 2000-01. Right after that season, he inked a 5-year, $60 million deal, reaping rich rewards for his pre-millennial performances. Despite his floor presence, the Bulls are doing remarkably well.

    6. Dale Davis, Golden State Warriors ($10,068,750)
    Davis signed his current deal when he was at his peak ... nine years ago, when he was putting up 10 points and pulling down 10 rebounds a game. He wouldn't be making this kind of cash if not for the generosity of the Blazers, who extended his contract two years ago, for reasons only billionaires like Paul Allen can comprehend. The highest-paid Warrior has been on a four-year slide, and, despite a recent hot streak, is usually uneffective when playing. Which doesn't happen often, unless -- like now -- the Warriors are desperate for able bodies. Davis is averaging 2.7 points and 4.2 rebounds, and shooting .388 from the field, off-the-charts bad, especially considering his career average of .531.

    5. Anfernee Hardaway, New York Knicks ($14,625,000)
    Penny's played only nine games since Dec. 1, hobbled most recently by an ankle injury. But even when he's on the court, for his average of 23 minutes a game he's ineffective, averaging 7 points and 1.8 assists. Here's the kicker: as his productivity declines, his salary increases.

    4. Allan Houston, New York Knicks ($17,531,250)
    The rich man's Dell Curry, Houston's best post-retirement move would be as an original player in the new hit reality series, "Overpaid in the Apple." It's a perfect gimmick -- a bunch of young guys (and a gal or two), with multi-multi-million take-homes, on the loose. Here's the twist: put 'em to work in Pittsburgh. Who will be the first to discover their true mediocrity? Will it be the Wall Street Boiler Room sharks? The fashionistas who design clothes for anorexic catwalkers? Or the Knicks? The tiebreaker: take a snap from Steelers center Jeff Hartings in the face of a Pats blitz. Everyone loses. And Big Ben -- who actually earned his salary -- is one of the stretcher-bearers.

    3. Dikembe Mutombo, Houston Rockets ($18,760,000)
    We don't like to knock Dikembe, but still. The Rockets only pay him $4.49 million, but he's also banking $14.27 million from the Nets. Meanwhile, the old man plays only 13 minutes a night, averaging four points and four rebounds a game. Not a bad deal for Houston, but that's not the point.
    "Yo Spre! We're goin' to Sizzler after the game! You're buyin'!"


    2. Brian Grant, Los Angeles Lakers ($13,233,434)
    What a wonderful world it must be ... to play 15 minutes, score three points and grab three rebounds, and collect a cool $161,383.34 for your night's work. Let's break that down:
    $10,750 per minute
    $53,800 a point Wow. Two positive notes: Grant plays especially well on Friday nights, when he averages 18 minutes, 5.7 points, 4 rebounds, and 0.5 assists. And he's the most efficient shooter on the Lakers.

    1. Latrell Sprewell, Minnesota Timberwolves ($14,625,000)
    What do you do when you're overpaid, barely make enough to feed your family, are getting old in a profession where that's not an asset, and are on the last page of your juicy contract? After you get your foot out of your mouth, you play. It's your contract year, Latrell and you are being found out. You can put in the minutes, and you can dazzle, still. But, bottom line: 12.5 points, 2.45 rebounds, 2.2 assists. Terrible shooting. And a rapidly declining hairstyle.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Three former Pacers are on the "overpaid" list

    I dont think Dale Davis can POSSIBLY be overpaid....no amount of money is too much for DD.

    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Three former Pacers are on the "overpaid" list

      Pacer fans can take heart that

      A) Autin Croshere did not make the list and
      B) The Pacers are not the ones paying Jalen, Antonio, and Dale. That would make us.......the Knicks

      Side note: I did not relaize that DD had fallen so far. He is shooting 38%? He should probably just hang em up. Of course he has 10 million reasons not to.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Three former Pacers are on the "overpaid" list

        Yeah, this breaks an impressive streak for Cro, doesn't it? Wasn't he like a top-5 finisher the last 3 years in a row?

        It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

        Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
        Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
        NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Three former Pacers are on the "overpaid" list

          Only 3 Knicks on the list? Thats an improvement, actually.Wasn't half their team on it last year? (sorry Rim)

          It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

          Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
          Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
          NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Three former Pacers are on the "overpaid" list

            One thing that amuses me about the list is that Zeke traded #10 and aquired #8 and #5. Plus he has #4. No wonder he doesn't want to coach them.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Three former Pacers are on the "overpaid" list

              Croshere is averaging 10 points and 6 boards at about $8 million? That's not really worse than an of those guys I guess.

              Dikembe at $18 million is unfathomable.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Three former Pacers are on the "overpaid" list

                Originally posted by Kstat
                I dont think Dale Davis can POSSIBLY be overpaid....no amount of money is too much for DD.
                So we agree.


                Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Three former Pacers are on the "overpaid" list

                  Originally posted by Kstat
                  Only 3 Knicks on the list? Thats an improvement, actually.Wasn't half their team on it last year? (sorry Rim)
                  Well, last year Deke was ours, we had KVH for a while ... then there were Shandon, Eisley and Weatherspoon. I think he only drew from max contracts for this one.

                  I'd argue against Spree being #1 on the list though - Penny, AH and TT are all worse though at least they seem able to manage to keep their families fed on 10-15 million a year. And Spree's contract runs out after this season.
                  The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Three former Pacers are on the "overpaid" list

                    Originally posted by DisplacedKnick
                    Well, last year Deke was ours, we had KVH for a while ... then there were Shandon, Eisley and Weatherspoon. I think he only drew from max contracts for this one.

                    I'd argue against Spree being #1 on the list though - Penny, AH and TT are all worse though at least they seem able to manage to keep their families fed on 10-15 million a year. And Spree's contract runs out after this season.

                    I'll say it again: you have it worse than anyone else here, man. Thats just a black hole of epic proportions.

                    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Three former Pacers are on the "overpaid" list

                      I'd like to know who is the most overpaid on this board.

                      That is, who is raking in $100 grand and spending 7.5 hours of their 8 hour work day posting on a message board.....

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Three former Pacers are on the "overpaid" list

                        Originally posted by Kstat
                        I'll say it again: you have it worse than anyone else here, man. Thats just a black hole of epic proportions.
                        In some ways it's easier when it's hopeless. I had plenty of those "just missed" and "what if" seasons in the 90's.

                        What if Charles Smith could make a layup?

                        What if Starks doesn't shoot 4-of-18?

                        What if Stern doesn't suspend half our team after we go up 3-1 in a series?

                        Now I just laugh. It's not exactly a happy laugh though.
                        The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Three former Pacers are on the "overpaid" list

                          Originally posted by DisplacedKnick
                          What if Stern doesn't suspend half our team after we go up 3-1 in a series?

                          Man, I remember that. Can you IMAGINE what would have gone down here, had that happened?

                          I guess stern just had that anti-Knicks bias, you can't help it

                          It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                          Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                          Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                          NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Three former Pacers are on the "overpaid" list

                            Originally posted by Kstat
                            Man, I remember that. Can you IMAGINE what would have gone down here, had that happened?

                            I guess stern just had that anti-Knicks bias, you can't help it
                            I have to grit my teeth a little whenever someone here says "The league has never made suspensions that cost a team its season before." I think I died a little that day.
                            The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Three former Pacers are on the "overpaid" list

                              Originally posted by DisplacedKnick
                              I have to grit my teeth a little whenever someone here says "The league has never made suspensions that cost a team its season before." I think I died a little that day.

                              That was by far the most ludicrous ruling in NBA history. PJ Brown could have KILLED Chris Childs with that stunt.

                              They should have just suspended ALL the Knicks for one game, and let them pick off nobodies as replacements. Instead, they spread out the suspensions over 2 games, which gave Miami all the momentum in the world.

                              I think the Knicks could have taken out the Bulls that year, too. They were on a roll.

                              It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                              Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                              Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                              NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 template Next
                              Working...
                              X