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:
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

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

Seven Teams with Intriguing Off-Seasons (older article--Pacers mentioned)

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Seven Teams with Intriguing Off-Seasons (older article--Pacers mentioned)

    Seven teams with intriguing offseasons

    Itís offseason evaluation time, and Iíve already covered the winners and those teams that have me a bit concerned. Here, I look at the seven teams that left me most intrigued with their July work, both because of the sometimes-dramatically different paths between which they had to choose, and because of the varying directions they could still go after those initial moves.

    ē Boston Celtics

    No team outside the Dwight Howard Nexus of Horror had a more interesting offseason than the 17-time champions. Boston had carefully set up its books so that this could be a rebuilding summer, with deals for Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen expiring and the potential for more than $20 million in cap room. But then something funny happened: Garnett, 36, hung on as the teamís top all-around player and one of the leagueís three best defenders, and the Celtics came within one victory of a third NBA Finals trip in five seasons.

    Even that success brought questions. Was it the lucky result of injuries to Derrick Rose and Chris Bosh? Or was it a signal of Bostonís strength, winning with a hobbled Allen, a crippled bench and without Avery Bradley, the menacing second-year guard whose midseason insertion into the starting lineup transformed the Celtics?

    The starting lineup with Bradley in Allenís place outscored opponents by an unthinkable 20 points per 100 possessions and scored at a rate that would have edged the Spurs for the league lead. Such success might suggest that the way Bradleyís cutting fits within Bostonís spacing could solve the teamís long-term scoring decline and save another offense-first player (Jason Terry, now) to prop up bench units. But that lineup played fewer than 350 minutes together all season, meaning we know very little about it in the big picture.

    Meanwhile, Boston got a first-hand look at Miamiís frightening emergence as a small-ball team with an emboldened and post-savvy LeBron James, a trend that firmed up in the Heatís Finals win over the Thunder.

    Add all of it together, and the Celtics faced an enormously complex set of questions this offseason. Were they contenders? How serious of one? And if they were, could they spend in such a way as to improve prospects for a ring in 2012-13 while remaining relatively flexible and finding a young asset or two?

    The consensus around the league is that Boston did about as well as possible, especially because a mammoth cap hold attached to Garnett ó who is still too good to let go ó soaked up nearly all of its cap room. After Allenís departure, the Celtics worked a three-team sign-and-trade for 26-year-old shooting guard Courtney Lee, a career 38.6 percent three-point shooter and hard-working defender. That move followed the use of the full mid-level exception on Terry, an efficient guard who can score both off the dribble and as a spot-up three-point shooter. Boston hasnít had that kind of guard in years, one reason the teamís offense has dropped off so badly.

    Boston brought back power forward Brandon Bass on a fair deal (about $7 million per season) and signed three solid minimum contracts in point guard Keyon Dooling, power forward Chris Wilcox and center Jason Collins. The reported four-year, $36 million deal for forward Jeff Green isnít done yet but itís coming, a contract that will represent an overpay for a backup whose teams have consistently been much better with him on the bench.

    The Celtics have clearly given themselves a puncherís chance at winning the 2012-13 title and the ability to put out much better small lineups against the Heat. They will be massive underdogs as long as Miami is healthy and motivated, but they are much better equipped now to take advantage of a tiny break, such as some chemistry malfunction among the Heat stars or a poorly timed tweak to Dwyane Wadeís knee. But as things stand now, they need that kind of break.

    Was that worth all of this spending? Boston is capped out for 2013-14, with an anticipated payroll so high that it might not be able to use the full mid-level exception to attract another veteran. The Celtics already have about $57 million committed in 2014-15 (including estimates for draft picks between now and then), though the bill gets a little lighter if Garnettís $12 million deal for that season is only 50 percent guaranteed, as several sources around the league claim. And Greenís deal will likely have some partial guarantees built into it.

    Still, Boston might end up paying Lee, Terry (already almost 35), Bass and Green about $27 million in 2014-15, meaning itís clearly punted some future flexibility in exchange for a small ó but much-improved ó chance of a title next season. Some of these assets, especially Lee, Bass and Paul Pierce, whose deal for 2013-14 is only partially guaranteed, are tradable if things go badly.

    Just a fascinating offseason, with ownershipís addiction to winning surely playing a role in some of president Danny Aingeís decisions.

    ē Minnesota Timberwolves

    Step back from general manager David Kahnís series of unexpected moves this summer, and I mostly see an enormous load of pressure on point guard Ricky Rubio (and perhaps forward Derrick Williams, the second pick in the 2011 draft) as power forward Kevin Loveís three-year max contract begins ticking. Minnesota was all over the place in July, fighting with Portland over small forward Nicolas Batum, signing shooting guard Brandon Roy out of ďretirement,Ē enticing two versatile Russian players (forward Andrei Kirilenko and guard Alexey Shved) and dumping another lottery bust (Wesley Johnson), among other transactions. Those moves came after the June acquisition of small forward Chase Budinger for a first-round pick.

    Almost every league executive I spoke to over the summer said that, on paper, this is a playoff team ó provided Rubio rediscovers his peak game in relatively speedy fashion after returning from ACL surgery. I agree. Minnesota was in hot pursuit of the No. 8 seed last season before a devastating run of injuries, and Kahn has remade one of the worst wing rotations in recent NBA history.

    But whatís the ceiling, and what comes next? If Kirilenko picks up his option in the second year of his two-year, $20 million contract and the second year of Royís $10 million deal kicks in, the Wolves will have about $56 million in salary committed for 2013-14 before factoring in center Nikola Pekovicís cap hold. In other words, theyíre effectively capped out.

    And a question not enough folks are asking: What if the 31-year-old Kirilenko has a successful season and follows the Gerald Wallace path, opting out of one year of guaranteed money in exchange for a long-term deal? If that happens, the Wolves might spend themselves out of meaningful cap room through the summer of 2014. Itís true this team doesnít have much history of attracting free agents, but it has to make the jump to championship contender somehow, and it likely wonít be via the draft. The Wolves wonít be bad enough anymore to collect high picks, and they have blown so many first-rounders (Johnson, Jonny Flynn, the Ty Lawson trade, etc.) over the last three years as to have nearly cost themselves a chance for Thunder-style group upside.

    Rubio and Williams represent the only hope left for that kind of development, and Williams has Love blocking his best NBA position, power forward. If Rubio is great and Minnesota gets help elsewhere, such as the Thunderís losing James Harden or Serge Ibaka, the Wolves could reach the point of being able to make some serious noise. But those are big ďifs.Ē

    ē Memphis Grizzlies

    Small picture: A team with no cap flexibility brought back two key frontcourt players (Marreese Speights and the forgotten, but essential, Darrell Arthur); used the mini mid-level exception to sign a player (Jerryd Bayless) who could fill two needs: backup point guard and three-point shooting, the latter if last seasonís 42.3 percent accuracy from deep (44-of-104) wasnít a fluke; and dealt a power forward deep in the rotation (Dante Cunningham) for a player who can shoot three-pointers (guard Wayne Ellington).

    Sensible moves all, even if the reserve wing rotation of Ellington, Quincy Pondexter and rookie Tony Wroten (and perhaps Bayless, splitting time between guard positions) is dicey and lacks a long small forward type. Depending on how some of the newcomers perform, outside shooting and spacing could be issues without guard O.J. Mayo, who signed with Dallas. But theyíve been issues for years.

    Bigger picture: The Grizzlies project to be about $4 million over next seasonís tax line and already right at the projected tax line in 2013-14, and they have an average of nearly $60 million annually committed to four players ó power forward Zach Randolph, center Marc Gasol, point guard Mike Conley and small forward Rudy Gay ó for the next three seasons. The Grizz have done well enough on the fringes to push Thunder, whom they always push, if everything goes right. If it doesnít, will Memphis look to deal Gay or Randolph to gain some future flexibility? It feels like a ďlast chanceĒ season for these four, though the teamís new owner, tech billionaire Robert Pera, and the leagueís new revenue-sharing system might affect the course of the franchise.

    ē Indiana Pacers

    Letís be honest: Itís probably not ideal to pay center Roy Hibbert and point guard George Hill $22 million combined (and going up) in each of the next four seasons, particularly after the Finals and Miamiís late-series blitzing of Indiana in the second round appeared to signal an evolution away from slow-footed size. But Indianaís decision to pay Hibbert at this level despite the fact that he has never averaged 30 minutes per game amounts to the recognition of two realities:

    1. Being good, but perhaps not great, is just fine for an ownership group that typically loses money on the team and thus needs some good community vibes and two roundsí worth of playoff gate revenue.

    2. Itís nice to trumpet the NBAís anti-big man evolution, but the two teams held up as the primary examples of killer small-ball play also happen to have arguably the leagueís two best players ó LeBron James and Kevin Durant, both of whom can conveniently play power forward for extended minutes (or in LeBronís case, entire games). If you donít have one of those guys, possessing a big man is basically essential. Remember: Indiana outscored Miami in the playoffs when Hibbert was on the floor, and even if the Heat reversed that trend over the last three games of the series, the Pacers were still miles better in that stretch when the big fella played.

    If the ultimate goal is to get a star player, these moves hurt. The Pacers have an estimated $51 million committed in 2013-14, but cap holds for power forwards David West and Tyler Hansbrough (whom the Pacers would love to deal) will take them over the cap.

    This is where ownership demands and basic NBA realities come into play. The Pacersí front office clearly hasnít received the star-or-bust mandate that Houstonís ownership has allowed for there, and without that mandate or any history of attracting outside free agents, itís hard to see any viable alternative other than remaining flexible for flexibilityís sake. That would have been fine, but it would also have involved a step back that the franchise was justifiably unwilling to take, especially with the books relatively clean after 2013-14, when small forward Danny Grangerís deal expires.

    The Darren Collison/Ian Mahinmi deal was a bust on the surface, in large part because the Pacers had about $10.5 million in temporary cap space while Hibbert and Hill remained unsigned (and with only their cap holds on the books). Why couldnít Indiana have just signed Mahinmi ó or Chris Kaman, or Carl Landry ó outright instead of dealing an asset for a $4 million backup big man?

    For one, the Pacers had limited time. Hill and Hibbert werenít going to sit around waiting to sign theoretical contracts forever. The Pacers badly needed a backup big man capable of playing both power forward and center, and they apparently didnít believe they could get one via free agency before the Hill and Hibbert deals obliterated their cap room. They kicked the tires on a number of scenarios but couldnít quite pull the trick. They probably could have done better for Collison or later via the full mid-level exception, but dumping Dahntay Jones in the Collison deal freed up an extra salary slot that the Pacers used to sign swingman Gerald Green in addition to point guard D.J. Augustin.

    Green now faces a heavy burden of replacing both Leandro Barbosa and Jones, though Lance Stephenson could help if he becomes reliable enough for coach Frank Vogel to pair him with Hill.

    ē Brooklyn Nets

    Iíve written about many of their moves (including here and here) and their place within the Howard Nexus of Horror (here and here), so Iíll be brief. The Nets put themselves in the conversation for a No. 2 or No. 3 seed in the Eastern Conference, but they spent enormously to do so, and left us with three big questions:

    1. Can they guard anyone?

    2. Can they get Howard once center Brook Lopez becomes trade eligible again on Jan. 15?

    3. If they canít, how can they upgrade the team while committing roughly $65 million annually to four players ó point guard Deron Williams, shooting guard Joe Johnson, small forward Wallace and Lopez ó for the next four seasons?

    Utah Jazz

    Covered at length in this Western Conference analysis, the incumbent No. 8 seed will be a team to watch on and off the court all season. The acquisitions of Mo Williams and Marvin Williams make sense. Marvin beefs up what was a weak wing rotation and spares Gordon Hayward the burden of being a full-time small forward ó good things if the Hayward/Marvin Williams pair can work, and if there are enough minutes for second-year shooting guard Alec Burks. The other Williams isnít really a point guard, but he makes sense as one in a post-heavy Utah system that requires outside shooting, entry passes and active cutting from its point man instead of high pick-and-rolls. Devin Harris struggled to fit that system, though the Jazz reached some of their highest levels of two-way play during his hottest streaks.

    The frontcourt is both loaded and loaded with questions. Al Jefferson, Paul Millsap and Derrick Favors all need big minutes, and Jefferson and Favors bring almost diametrically opposed skill sets. Jefferson is a post hub who canít guard the pick-and-roll and earns few free throws, while Favors is emerging as a mobile defensive crusher with an inconsistent and tentative offensive game (outside of some off-ball cuts). Coach Tyrone Corbin played the three together with great success in limited minutes last season. But if that super-big lineup remains only an occasional experiment, Corbin will have to sort minutes in a way that maximizes two-way productivity ó even it means starting Favors alongside Jefferson for offense/defense purposes.

    In the big picture, every player on a non-rookie deal other than Marvin Williams and Jeremy Evans has an expiring contract, and Millsap has already reportedly turned down an extension offer. Utah has decisions to make ó and the future flexibility to be a major trade player.

    ē Houston Rockets

    Another team Iíve covered to death, from its trade of point guard Kyle Lowry to its signings of point guard Jeremy Lin and center Omer Asik to its amnestying of Luis Scola and pursuit of Orlandoís Howard. The Rockets want a star, and theyíve assembled an army of young forwards and an extra likely lottery pick from the Raptors to build an offer. Even after wresting Lin and Asik away from New York and Chicago, respectively, via poison-pill offers, the Rockets still have about $9 million in cap space and shooting guard Kevin Martinís expiring deal to offer the Magic for Howard. If they miss on Howard, the Rockets likely will be bad enough to earn their own lottery pick and be flush with cap space next summer.

  • #2
    Re: Seven Teams with Intriguing Off-Seasons (older article--Pacers mentioned)

    I think that's fair, makes sense. I agree with basically everything said for Indiana.


    • #3
      Re: Seven Teams with Intriguing Off-Seasons (older article--Pacers mentioned)

      Wait what Hill's contract goes up more

      you kidding?
      Counting down the days untill DJ Augustin's contract expires.


      • #4
        Re: Seven Teams with Intriguing Off-Seasons (older article--Pacers mentioned)

        I think this mirrors what I have been saying about the Pacers and I certainly agree with what they say about the Celtics. Some homers here are not going to be happy with this article on either of those teams..... ... But, they will probably put everyone on "ignore" so they don't have to hear how silly they are.....


        • #5
          Re: Seven Teams with Intriguing Off-Seasons (older article--Pacers mentioned)

          Originally posted by Hypnotiq View Post
          Wait what Hill's contract goes up more

          you kidding?
          That's how NBA contracts work most of the time. Newsflash.


          • #6
            Re: Seven Teams with Intriguing Off-Seasons (older article--Pacers mentioned)

            Originally posted by Hypnotiq View Post
            Wait what Hill's contract goes up more

            you kidding?
            So does Hibbert's contract. Such is life in the NBA..... ...


            • #7
              Re: Seven Teams with Intriguing Off-Seasons (older article--Pacers mentioned)

              I thought it was just a flat 7 mil a year
              Counting down the days untill DJ Augustin's contract expires.


              • #8
                Re: Seven Teams with Intriguing Off-Seasons (older article--Pacers mentioned)

                Originally posted by Hypnotiq View Post
                I thought it was just a flat 7 mil a year
                8, but yeah it's a flat contract.


                • #9
                  Re: Seven Teams with Intriguing Off-Seasons (older article--Pacers mentioned)

                  Originally posted by xIndyFan View Post
                  8, but yeah it's a flat contract.


                  • #10
                    Re: Seven Teams with Intriguing Off-Seasons (older article--Pacers mentioned)

                    Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post


                    • #11
                      Re: Seven Teams with Intriguing Off-Seasons (older article--Pacers mentioned)

                      Some pretty good points in here but I don't see any mention of how our young guys that are working hard to improve their game. No mention of PG here or that Augustin will play a vital role coming off of the bench. I guess I am still old school in thought as a good deep team can beat a team with a few star players. I don't think our young guys were prepared on just how hard it is when you get past the first round in the playoffs. I see us being much better than last year with a full training camp and players getting accustomed to their roles. I do like most of our additions to the team with the exception of hoping to keep Barbosa. It will be a tougher year coming up with Philly getting Bynum and the Celtics getting stronger and younger. I am just glad they are not in the central.


                      • #12
                        Re: Seven Teams with Intriguing Off-Seasons (older article--Pacers mentioned)

                        I continue to believe that we trade Hansborough to the Jazz with a first or two and cap space. Possibly at the deadline. Really... makes too much sense. They hold Hans' Bird Rights on a deal that makes sense. They get money, cap space, and first round pick(s) for someone that they probably aren't looking to pay. The Jazz get a guy that suits what they need for their rotation for an appropriate price. Hans gives them a ton of toughness and rebounding in an appropriate role.

                        We get Millsap and pay him going into next year. We pay West as well as our front court rotation is as good as anybody in the league.

                        PS - We know Hibbert's deal is graduated based on what Portland's deal as, so him saying that both deals are graduated just means that Hibbert's is.
                        "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. Ö You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."


                        • #13
                          Re: Seven Teams with Intriguing Off-Seasons (older article--Pacers mentioned)

                          Originally posted by jeffg-body View Post
                          Some pretty good points in here but I don't see any mention of how our young guys that are working hard to improve their game. No mention of PG here or that Augustin will play a vital role coming off of the bench. I guess I am still old school in thought as a good deep team can beat a team with a few star players. I don't think our young guys were prepared on just how hard it is when you get past the first round in the playoffs. I see us being much better than last year with a full training camp and players getting accustomed to their roles. I do like most of our additions to the team with the exception of hoping to keep Barbosa. It will be a tougher year coming up with Philly getting Bynum and the Celtics getting stronger and younger. I am just glad they are not in the central.
                          While I agree with you from a team chemistry and player development standpoint, from SI's perspective, I can see why the writer doesn't go into great deal of time discussing DJ Augustin and Gerald Green. To Pacers faithful, these are big acquisitions. But to the rest of the world, they are relatively minor moves involving one of the smallest market teams in the league and two fairly unknown players. I think pieces like this are intended more as a general overview of the direction of a team - meant more as a quick update noting who's on their roster and why.

                          That said, I'm becoming increasingly optimistic about the notion of building on the chemistry of last year's team.


                          • #14
                            Re: Seven Teams with Intriguing Off-Seasons (older article--Pacers mentioned)

                            I don't believe them.


                            • #15
                              Re: Seven Teams with Intriguing Off-Seasons (older article--Pacers mentioned)

                              1. Being good, but perhaps not great, is just fine for an ownership group that typically loses money on the team and thus needs some good community vibes and two rounds’ worth of playoff gate revenue.


                              I guess this just hasn't been up that long or since it's the dog days of summer not many people are paying attention to the board right now but I just find it interesting that had one of us made this very statement that there would have been people on here clamoring for their heads.

                              I just wonder where are the posters who get all bent out of shape when one us locals wonder aloud if being good is just good enough and that there may not be that over riding drive for excellence?

                              I mean that is what the guy is saying, right? He is just flat out saying that the Pacers are content to make the playoffs and hope for advancement but don't really feel compelled to be a championship team. Or am I reading that wrong?

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