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

The trading of Danny Granger...

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

  • The trading of Danny Granger...

    Let's assume two things:

    1) Granger will get dealt, and the one year remaining at $14M comes off the books for whichever team takes him.
    2) Gerald Green's contract is dealt with him.

    The cap aspect of Granger's contract is an asset in and of itself, so stashing Green with him (unless the Pacers think he can bounce back to the production he had at Brooklyn/New Jersey) with Granger is likely at the tip of their tongue in any trade discussion.

    To me the Pacers need a shooter off the bench, which Granger could be, AND a back up point guard who could bring length to the court like GHill and play alongside of him too. This is where I think dealing him makes sense.

    I guess some of this too depends on how much the Pacers like Orlando Johnson.

    Which way do you go with it?

    Atlanta:
    Pacers trade: Granger, Green
    Atlanta trades: Kyle Korver (sign/trade, $5M per for 3 years), John Jenkins (young shooter) and #18

    Atlanta's consideration:
    Pros: Plenty of cap space, healthy Granger would start for them for sure and still have cap space for 2014. Could probably get Green the minutes where he could play with confidence and thrive.
    Cons: Likely delusional enough to think they'll land CP3 and DHoward

    Pacers definitely get the shooters they need off the bench. Depending on how they view OJohnson, they could move Jenkins in a separate deal. They actually get a little cap relief in this deal, some of which gets soaked up in giving David West a bit of a raise, which could help with that back up PG.

    New Orleans
    Pacers trade: Danny Granger
    New Orleans trades: Eric Gordon

    Normally I've been against this type of thinking. For one, the rumored deals shot down for Granger told me they had a much higher opinion of him than I would, and Gordon has been injury prone. (Still might be, but so might Granger.) Gordon is on the books until 2016, and while the Pacers will eventually need to sign PGeorge to a long term, that would just put the Pacers in cap Hell for two years.

    New Orleans' consideration:
    Pros: They still believe in the Austin Rivers pick. This would give them a chance to show confidence in him, but they'd still have cap room to sign a veteran. If they don't like Granger after a year, they can let him walk, and they may have overpaid for Gordon.
    Cons: I can't really think of any unless they feel Gordon is healthier than Granger. They have a huge hole at the SF spot.

    Let's say the Pacers sign West for two more years at $12M, he'd be on contract until 2015.
    So in 2015 they'd have Hibbert at $15M, Gordon at $15M, West at $12M, and George ~$14M (first year of 2nd contract), Hill at $8M
    2016: Hibbert at $15.5, Gordon at $15.5, George at $15M, Hill at $8M. They'd have to account for the development of a PF
    2017: Hibbert and Gordon would both be done. Leaving their only major commitments to George and Hill.


    Portland:
    What if the Pacers didn't sign West?

    Pacers trade: Granger ($14) and Green ($3.5)
    Portland trades: Hickson (sign/trade at $8M), Matthews ($7M) and Maynor ($3M)

    Portland can be flexible with Batum, and they can even go small (at times) with Aldridge at center and Granger and Batum at forward spots. Again, Portland gets some cap relief if Granger doesn't work out.

    The Pacers get a starting PF in Hickson, can then keep Hansbrough at the backup PF, get a good guard prospect to push Stephenson or come off the bench at SF and SG, giving them a diverse lineup, and they get a very good backup PG.

    The question is, what makes Hickson (aside from "deep stats") such a tough sell on a winning team? He's probably not a great defender, but with Hibbert behind him, as long as he can cover ball screen reads he'd be OK. He's only a secondary offensive option, meaning he'd probably only score on drop offs and offensive rebounds. He can't put out worse effort on defense than Granger has up to now.


    Conventional wisdom would be keep Granger and let his contract slide of the books, but if they can get two+ low risk players or a better name at SG from a team looking to get or keep cap space in 2014, it's a great trading chip to have.
    Courtside: Featuring Indiana boys' high school basketball

  • #2
    Re: The trading of Danny Granger...

    The Trading Forum is just for appearances I guess...
    Abba Zaba, your my only friend.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: The trading of Danny Granger...

      Yeah I'd pass on all of these. If I had to pick one I'd do the ATL one. I'd much rather let Danny expire if we are not resigning him and then use the money for Paul and Lance.

      Hell no to Eric Gordon, we do that and we can kiss Paul goodbye.

      And the Portland trade doesn't make much sense to Portland. And I'd much rather have David West than Hickson. And we prolly wouldn't be able to keep Paul in this scenario either...or if we did definitely not lance.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: The trading of Danny Granger...

        Originally posted by bballpacen View Post
        The Trading Forum is just for appearances I guess...

        I guess so, or I just posted it in the forum I was already on. Thanks for the response though.
        Last edited by Jim R; 06-10-2013, 10:38 PM.
        Courtside: Featuring Indiana boys' high school basketball

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: The trading of Danny Granger...

          Originally posted by Miller_time04 View Post
          Yeah I'd pass on all of these. If I had to pick one I'd do the ATL one. I'd much rather let Danny expire if we are not resigning him and then use the money for Paul and Lance.

          Hell no to Eric Gordon, we do that and we can kiss Paul goodbye.

          And the Portland trade doesn't make much sense to Portland. And I'd much rather have David West than Hickson. And we prolly wouldn't be able to keep Paul in this scenario either...or if we did definitely not lance.
          You wouldn't have to kiss Paul George goodbye in any of those scenarios. They can sign George above the cap amount, and it wouldn't be to the point of the luxury tax. The only scenario where that would be an issue is in Granger/Gordon. That is my least favorite of the options, but at that the development of Stephenson could justify the future dealing of Gordon, or if he didn't develop as thought after two additional years, resigning Stephenson isn't an issue with Gordon on the roster.

          Why exactly wouldn't Portland do it? They'd deal a starting SG, back up PG and a PF who they won't want to sign and keep at the number he'll want. Moving Meyers Leonard to the starting lineup, could allow them to sign Hickson and use him in a deal to upgrade their wing, while maintaining some cap flexibility in 2014. I'd rather have West than Hickson too, but Hickson can come more cheaply AND with two other players who fit nicely in the cap space of Granger and Green. If they did that deal, they'd be $10M under the cap, keeping Hansbrough too and no cap issues going forward.

          I'd be all for keeping Granger if the Pacers didn't still need scoring off the bench AND a very solid back up PG.
          Courtside: Featuring Indiana boys' high school basketball

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: The trading of Danny Granger...

            sigh, so I suppose I'll have to put up with "Trade Granger" posts all summer, Please tell me I'm wrong....
            Go Pacers!

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: The trading of Danny Granger...

              Doesn't work for Portland because where would they play Danny at? They got Aldridge at PF and Batum at SF. He could prolly play SG but that's not his natural position.

              And Paul is probably gonna make 17-18 mil because of the Rose Rule if he makes an All NBA team again. That would definitely put us close or over the lux tax in most of those scenarios. If we weren't in luxury then we would barely have any money to do anything with the bench.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: The trading of Danny Granger...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: The trading of Danny Granger...

                  I'd prefer Matthews of all the players mentioned. Healthy Gordon is the best player but his contract would cause financial complications, the ownership would have to be ready to go into tax. Matthews would be nice, though.

                  Re David West, in the unlikely event that he decides to leave, I hope that the Pacers go after Millsap. Possibly sign and trade Granger to Utah (would make sense for Utah, IMO); if not, trade him to a 3rd team to make room for Millsap. JJ Hickson = no ty.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: The trading of Danny Granger...

                    Originally posted by hackashaq View Post
                    I'd prefer Matthews of all the players mentioned. Healthy Gordon is the best player but his contract would cause financial complications, the ownership would have to be ready to go into tax. Matthews would be nice, though.
                    Matthews fits exactly what we're doing as a club.

                    6'5 SG / SF with a 6'8.5 wingspan that plays very good perimeter D and is a career 39.5% shooter from 3 at the NBA level.

                    He would be a match made in heaven.

                    He is also under a nice contract. A bit over 14$ mil in the next 2 years for a quite good starter is not a big price to pay. He also is 26 years old and fits right in the age group of Roy and Hill.
                    Originally posted by IrishPacer
                    Empty vessels make the most noise.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: The trading of Danny Granger...

                      Originally posted by imawhat View Post

                      Yes, I'm sorry I did that, but there is positional logic. Contracts and roster movement is always a fluid issue beyond the short term. I suppose George could put the Pacers heels to the fire, but I'd wager he'd take a contract up to the luxury tax line if it meant the type of roster the Pacers would have. The cap and luxury thresholds will be hire by then, and perhaps the continued development of Orlando Johnson and Lance would facilitate the trading of Gordon going forward. I'd have no reservations about it if Gordon's contract was one year shorter, but by then, it could be the kind of asset Granger's can be now.

                      Of the trades I proposed, the Portland option would be my preference. Batum is flexible enough defensively for them to start as wings, and Granger's size (he rebounds the SF spot fairly well) allows them to play smaller in stretches.
                      Courtside: Featuring Indiana boys' high school basketball

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: The trading of Danny Granger...

                        How about Granger, Green for Thornton, Thompson of the Kings.

                        Thompson and Thornton are signed long term to lead the bench group.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: The trading of Danny Granger...

                          Not a big fan of Thornton but it would be a solid bench upgrade. However, these guy combined make near max for the next two years, and I doubt the Pacers could afford that. With those two on the payroll, we would have to go quite a bit into tax once we extend George and Lance, as well as sign future draft picks.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: The trading of Danny Granger...

                            With Green and Granger, you would be cutting about 4 million

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: The trading of Danny Granger...

                              Yeah, but Granger is off the books before George/Lance new contracts. Thornton/Thompson would be making 14.6 mil combined that year.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X