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

Which Free Agents should we get?

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

  • Which Free Agents should we get?

    As most of you know, TJ Ford, Mike, and Jeff Foster are all coming off the books this season and we are gonna have a great amount of cap space. Who do you think we should sign?

    (List: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/s...eeAgents-11-12)

    My thoughts: Resign Jeff Foster to a small, short term (2-3 yr) deal. We really could use his leadership. I then think we should sign Jason Richardson to give us consistent and proven shooter that can come off the bench or even start, and Zach Randolph to finally give us a top 10 post player than is reliable and can rebound.


    Carmel HS Class of 2011

  • #2
    Re: Which Free Agents should we get?

    Theo Ratliff and Shawne Williams. Maybe Scalabrine if we have $ left over.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Which Free Agents should we get?

      No one. The only person I like is Tyson Chandler, and he's not really a viable option.

      Zach Randolph will be a lot of offense, great rebounding, a fat contract, and no defense. No thanks.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Which Free Agents should we get?

        Theo Ratliff is the type of defensive big man we desperately need. I'm all for signing him, but it wont come cheap. He wont be 40 for another 918,712 minutes, so you know he has a lot left in the tank.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Which Free Agents should we get?

          I'd really be a fan of J-Rich.

          As well as Tyson Chandler

          Oh, and Murphy too

          But while I'm at it, this FA class makes me depressed. We have all this money for that crap? What a terrible class.
          Last edited by Psyren; 04-09-2011, 03:03 PM.
          Stop quoting people I have on ignore!

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Which Free Agents should we get?

            If we were to sign Tyson Chandler then Hibbert could be traded for just about anything we want. Therefore, signing Tyson would upgrade 2-3 positions at once!

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Which Free Agents should we get?

              I want Jeff to stay, we all do I guess. I wanna resign him, if we can't, resign Josh.
              Next, we need a real scoring option... I'd say either Z-bo, who can score inside and rebound, or Jason Richardson / Marcus Thornton. J-rich is a vet, Thornton is a rising young player that can already score well, and also played with DC in NO. Problem is, he's undersized for a SG, and not much of a defender (probably because of it).
              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


              • #8
                Re: Which Free Agents should we get?

                I think it'd be great to have Shannon Brown. Incredibly explosive off the bench, but three things matter:

                1. we don't really need another SG off the bench until we're sure what we're doing with the rest of the wings and rotation.
                2. I assume the Lakers will lay down plenty of cash to keep him around. He's very complementary to their flow.
                3. He apparently has a player option on his contract, so I'll assume that, especially depending on how this postseason goes for the Lakers, he'll want to stick around and back up Kobe.

                If we could separate him from his manbrother Blake, DeAndre Jordan is exactly what I want Roy to be. Both are tall and have length, but DJ has athleticism and vertical that can get him to the rim. If he and Roy work together and learn from each other, they could both be offensive/defensive beasts, imo.

                In the very likely circumstance that we don't draft Perry Jones and lose Josh McRoberts (please no! keep him around!), I think making a move toward Derrick Brown or Earl Clark would be nice. Brown will need some work, but Clark can play both forward positions, and from what I've seen/heard, he's a very good defensive asset. If he played behind Tyler and Danny (roster pending), he could help shut down other teams' second units and turn that around to an offensive opportunity.

                I also think players like Jamal Crawford, Jason Richardson, Nene, and Greg Oden (in hypothetical good health) would probably work well for the team also, but I don't expect the better 3/4 of them to want to come to Indiana, even if Crawford would probably end up with a starting spot, as opposed to "perpetual 6th man". I really like J-Rich, but I don't think he'll be a "smashmouth" kind of player anymore, since he's been settling for 3's mostly since arriving in Orlando. That is mostly due to Stan Van Gundy's system, though.

                Also, I doubt we even try for Oden. If Larry (or other GM) has half a mind, he'll realize that four seasons of injuries is worse than one season of stupidly immature rookie fever.
                witters: @imbtyler, @postgameonline

                Originally posted by Day-V
                In conclusion, Paul George is awesome.
                Originally posted by Slick Pinkham
                Our arena, their arena, Rucker park, it just doesn't matter. We're bigger, longer, younger, faster, and hungrier.


                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Which Free Agents should we get?

                  TJ Ford

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Which Free Agents should we get?

                    If Marc Gasol can play the 4, I say go for him. I doubt Memphis can keep both Gasol and Randolph. I don't know if a Gasol-Hibbert frontcourt would work, but I'd be curious enough to give it a try.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Which Free Agents should we get?

                      First off, unless a player is an absolute god on the offensive end of the floor, his name wouldn't even be on my short list if he is not able to play darn good defense.

                      I think that we should probably consider that the Pacers are not likely to go away from Collison at the point, especially if Bird remains with the team. IMO, that means that the Pacers must have a very good defender next to Collison at SG. The best that might be available is Igoudala... not a free agent, but certainly a player that will significantly strengthen the backcourt defense. If George proves that he can play defense next year anywhere near Igoudala's level, that makes us that much stronger. The one knock on Igoudala's game is that he is not a very good perimeter shooter or scorer. However, he can get to the rim and finish, along with getting a lot of assists and rebounds from the SG position.

                      I would re-sign Josh McRoberts, our own FA, to primarily play behind Hibbert at center. Josh would also see minutes at PF. How many minutes would depend on whether we acquire a PF through trade or on the FA market.

                      The second starting position that I would improve is PF. Like SG, I would attempt to get a defender at this position, if the Hawks are willing to trade Josh Smith. Again, not a free agent, but exactly what the Pacers could use at the position. He is a very good defender around the rim, especially from the weakside. And, he is able to guard any stretch-4 in the league at mid-range or on the perimeter. He can also make the switch on the fly and guard nearly all SFs in the league as well.

                      If Smith cannot be acquired, I would consider one of the FAs this summer, accepting the fact that none will be nearly as good defensively as Smith. I could live with an emphasis on offense at PF with Hansbrough and a possible acquisition of Carl Landry, along with Josh McRoberts also getting minutes. However, not acquiring a defensive specialist at either PF or C would continue to leave us defensively weak in the frontcourt.

                      We can look at FAs, but quite frankly none give us exactly what we need at the PF and SG positions. I think we should definitely attempt to trade for the ideal players before "settling" for an alternative option through free agency.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Which Free Agents should we get?

                        Let me preface this by saying that we aren't limited to free agency, we can also do trades for guys on the block. I think we are set at the starting point guard spot, the small forward spot, the center spot, back up 4 spot (Where Tyler plays around 25 MPG as a backup), and backup 2/3.

                        -First thing's first, we need a starting shooting guard. Preferably one that can create for himself and break down a defense and is capable of having big nights. Jason Richardson is more of a guy who runs off of screens and plays in transition. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but that is what Danny does. Not to mention that Richardson is getting up there in age and has stretches of games where he just plays bad ball and shoots poorly. I wouldn't throw a fit if JRich was brought here, but I wouldn't expect much from him.

                        The first guys that come to mind that are potentially available for the two spot are Jamal Crawford, OJ Mayo, Rodney Stuckey, or even Marcus Thornton if worst comes to worst. These guys all do things that Jason Richardson can't do; Create for himself and break a defense down by himself with their dribbling skills. I would obviously take JRich over Stucky and Thornton though.

                        I would go:
                        1.) Mayo- Youth factor and he's already good. Put him on this team and he averages around 16 PPG.
                        2.) Jamal Crawford- He's better than Mayo, but age plays a role here and he'd get paid more than OJ does. Jamal has lost a step from last season too which is somewhat alarming. With that said, I would love Jamal here.
                        3.) Jason Richardson- Great guy to come off of screens, doesn't need the ball to be effective, and is a good defender. Age and contract are concerns, and I don't know if he'd be too interested in coming here as he probably has large interest.
                        4.) Stuckey- Just a ball player, but needs the ball in his hands and can't shoot.
                        5.) The rest
                        And then Paul George can develop in due time.

                        -Backup point guard spot. 36% shooting, 27% from three for a shooter, and 4.8 assists per 36 minutes is not getting it done for me. We need a defender and facilitator who can bring energy. Go after in no particular order:

                        Earl Watson (Solid defender and facilitator and can attack the basket. Plus he has already been here and he wouldn't command a lot of money)

                        Jordan Farmar (Just a ball player, good passer and shooter. He's not a FA but we could snag him if we get lucky)

                        Jarret Jack (Defender, energy, and shooting. Is capable of having big nights and he brings LEADERSHIP)

                        Or whoever. Just a better backup point guard.

                        -Power forward spot. Go after Josh Smith and try to pair him with Roy for next season. Do whatever it takes as long as we donít lose Paul George, Roy Hibbert, or Danny Granger.

                        The reason that I donít want to give any Granger up for him is because Smith is only locked up for two seasons after this one while Granger is locked up for three. And I think that Granger would come back once his contract is up and I'm not sure about Smith.

                        We want Smith to pair with Roy. If we trade Roy than that probably defeats the purpose of going after Smith. They go together like two peas in a pod. No homo.

                        George is going to be very good some day. Donít lose him for a two year rental.

                        Smith is the DREAM guy to go with Hibbert. Just perfect. Put Smith on this team now and we automatically turn into a 50 win team because they are that good of a match. We are currently around a 44 win team since Vogel has taken over.

                        If Smith is not attainable, go after Zach Randolph in the summer. Great rebounder, and just a ball player. He's an all star caliber guy, and he might have some interest here if he doesn't sign an extension with Memphis.

                        If neither of them are attainable, just start Tyler next season and sign a cheap, veteran backup four. Kurt Thomas, Shelden Williams, etc.

                        -Glue guy backup small forward. One who can defend, bring leadership, and do what it takes to win. First guy that comes to mind is Shane Battier. He would work out perfect. If he wants to go to a contender though than we need other options. AK47, Jared Dudley, Tayshaun Prince (Tayshaun will be pricey though).

                        -Back up center. I love Foster but I don't think that we can totally depend on his health. We need a backup center that can play post defense, rebound, block shots, and is a hard hat guy. The first guy that I want is Chuck Hayes for around the MLE. He is the man. He will do a bit of everything, and he will give opposing bigs FITS. He is a poor man's Kendrick Perkins and he would also make Roy a better player by them competing in practice. If not him, go after Marcin Gortat (Not a FA, but extremely solid and might be had for a couple of young pieces. Could be our backup 5 for the next four years), Ryan Hollins, or just make Foster the backup four.

                        DON'T go after DeAndre Jordan. He's going to get a huge contract and he doesn't deserve it.

                        If I were Bird, I would have four main goals in the offseason:

                        1.) Try to get the best bench in the league. Get good defenders at the 1, 3, and 5. Make Hans, George, and the backup point the scorers. Make the 1, 3, and 5 veterans that can get the job done and are extremely solid. For example: Jack/Watson/Farmar, Battier/Prince/Dudley, and Hayes/Gortat

                        2.) Go after Mayo as a low cost, high reward guy. It would be worth it because he can probably be had for a first round pick.

                        3.) Don't waste the money on crap!

                        4.) Try to get a veteran four like Smith or ZBo. If we don't get one of the two, don't get desperate and try to get Jeff Green or Carl Landry as that would kill us.

                        Collison/Defensive, consistent point
                        Mayo, Crawford, JRich/George/Jones
                        Granger/Glue guy
                        Smith/Hansbrough
                        Hibbert/Rebounder, shotblocker/Foster

                        PS- This is obviously all hypothetical and unlikely. Not to even mention that I haven't factored in what it would take to get Smith, if he's even available.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Which Free Agents should we get?

                          The only problem I have with Tyson Chandler is that he will take over Roy's spot.

                          Chandler is a really good defensive player, but I think if we give Roy another 2 year's he will be one of the league's most dominant big men.

                          Another reason I would hate to see Roy lose his role is because of what he has done for the team. He has grown into a leader, has got the community involved again (Area 55), and plays with confidence.

                          Unless Chandler wants to play the 4 (which I doubt he would), I'm not sure if this works out in our favor in the long run.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Which Free Agents should we get?

                            First...call me crazy, but if I'm the FO, I at least try to see if Dunleavy is interested in coming back at a reasonable price. I'm talking a price that reflects his game.

                            If he does, make FA decisions with that budget in mind. If he doesn't, make FA decisions with a larger budget.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Which Free Agents should we get?

                              Originally posted by KingGeorge View Post
                              The only problem I have with Tyson Chandler is that he will take over Roy's spot.

                              Chandler is a really good defensive player, but I think if we give Roy another 2 year's he will be one of the league's most dominant big men.

                              Another reason I would hate to see Roy lose his role is because of what he has done for the team. He has grown into a leader, has got the community involved again (Area 55), and plays with confidence.

                              Unless Chandler wants to play the 4 (which I doubt he would), I'm not sure if this works out in our favor in the long run.
                              And speaking of that confidence, it would CRUSH Roy's confidence to relegate him to the bench. So if the Pacers are interested in building around him, it's not a wise long-term move, unless Chandler would play the 4 as you said.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X