Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Getting good Free Agents

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

  • Re: Getting good Free Agents

    Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
    But Conley's main contributions are supposed to be offensively related. Batum is a decent offensive player, but brings a lot more to the table.

    Conley is a care giver, not a playmaker. That's why his Assist to TO ratio is so high. And even so, their assist numbers are extremely close. Batum is a very good passer/secondary assist guy. That would help our offense move much more than a guy who will need to dominate the ball. We already have enough small guards that dominate the ball (Hill/George/Ellis/Stuckey/Lawson).

    And I like Batum's defensive ability and his overall versatility more than anything. The ability to have someone else guard the opposing teams best player for a while would be a huge boost. He also brings us much needed size to the wing which we are sorely lacking.
    I'd rather not give 25 million to a guy that averaged 9 points and shot 40% 2 years ago. Mike had an off year last year, but he was injured along with half his team. He's can still be a two way player if healthy.

    Just say no to maxing out 3 and D type players. We've agreed on this before which is why I'm kind of surprised you're ok with Batum.

    Comment


    • Re: Getting good Free Agents

      Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
      I'd rather not give 25 million to a guy that averaged 9 points and shot 40% 2 years ago. Mike had an off year last year, but he was injured along with half his team. He's can still be a two way player if healthy.

      Just say no to maxing out 3 and D type players. We've agreed on this before which is why I'm kind of surprised you're ok with Batum.
      I mean I don't WANT to max out either guy lol.

      Conley has had a down two years almost - check his production since January of 2015. I do think a lot of it has been the little injuries here and there that are catching up to the small guard.

      I'm a little afraid given that we already have a smaller guard on the decline due to injuries (so we're told).

      I guess I just don't like the idea of adding another small guard to the team. I'm sure we will go for Conley, as I don't think Batum is leaving CHA anyway. But my preference would be to add size and versatility to our lineup as opposed to small guys on the decline.

      But if we are being serious, I don't want either guy on a max deal. But that's not the reality we live in unfortunately

      Comment


      • Re: Getting good Free Agents

        Originally posted by Downtown Bang! View Post
        Even if the Lakers offered all three the chances are still much greater that the Pacers turn into an eastern conference version of the 2008-2014 TWolves than a contender. I think you have to take your chances with PG and hope he can elevate it one more level while fitting in the right pieces over the next couple of years.
        Exactly. The Pacers are conservative with their moves.

        They all ready have an all-star in Paul George. Myles Turner will be a 15-8 guy next season (or maybe even better), the season after that he will either be a near all-star or all-star. I look for them to sign Ty Lawson and hope that either Lawson or Ellis return to near all-star form.

        In my opinion, you need 2 all-stars and a near all-star to be a contender. If those moves pan out, the Pacers could have that in a couple of years. They also have draft picks that could pan out as well.

        They are probably not going to make any major trades and they probably will not bring in any high profile free agents.

        I know people on PD like to make all sorts of moves and criticize the FO, but in reality, it is tough to make trades and sign free agents. We have been pretty successful in the past and I have confidence (even though I sometimes question their moves) that the FO will have us back in a position to contend soon.

        Comment


        • Re: Getting good Free Agents

          Originally posted by BillS View Post
          And I'm anticipating the annual "our FO did nothing to improve the team while the other 29 teams in the league all improved"
          I, for one, am ready to start using both quotes right now. Either quote is historically correct for the Pacers. The combination of holding the line as much as possible on Salary, the mindset to win as many games as possible and make the playoffs every year, the lack of draw for 'star' players because of location and opportunities makes it hard to get high profile players {until the end years of their career} interested in coming here. At this point, I should give an example of how we change that perception, but if I had one, I'd sell myself to the Pacer as some kind of Guru.

          Comment


          • Re: Getting good Free Agents

            Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
            There is no way the Lakers would offer all 3. IF they were to offer Julius Randle, DeAngelo Russell, and Brandon Ingram, the Pacers would have to strongly consider that. 3 top 5 picks is incredible value, then pairing them with Turner would just be great. As you said, we would have 4 starters written in for the next 6 years with a TON of potential.

            But again, the Lakers wouldn't offer all 3. I could see them offering 2 of those assets together, at which point, I do think the Pacers should pass.

            Of course, I'm on the mindset that the Pacers are 3 starters and 2 more years of growth from Myles Turner from actually competing.
            I have no idea if the Lakers would make the offer, but that is what it would take. I can't imagine them thinking anything less than #2 and Russell is in any way realistic. And I honestly don't think that Randle's value is extremely high around the league. He certainly has some, but not enough that he is a deal breaker when acquiring the new face of your franchise. I really just love him because of how well I think he and Turner mesh on both ends of the court. If they refused to come off all 3, I would gladly walk away from the table with my young superstar still in my pocket.

            Comment


            • Re: Getting good Free Agents

              Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
              We traded Troy Murphy for freaking Darren Collison.

              Troy was yet another expiring contract.

              Moving expiring contracts is easier to do than a guy with 3yrs left. Troy was moved multiple times that season, because his $11M expiring contract had value all to itself.
              Last edited by Since86; 06-10-2016, 11:57 AM.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • Re: Getting good Free Agents

                Not to mention Troy just came off a season averaging 14.6/10.2 on 47% from the field and 38% from 3.

                And to bring it full circle, that type of production for that amount of money would be a gift from Santa next season. Ryan Anderson is probably about to get $20M and he just got done averaging 17/6 on 42.7% and 36.6% respectively.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • Re: Getting good Free Agents

                  If we put PG13's name out there for a trade, it would be interesting to see what offers might come in. L.A.'s #2 pick, Russell and Randle work salary wise. Trade Machine shows us a being -7 after that trade{using Shaggy's $5.2 million salary as the pick.
                  An offer such as this would be a complete re-boot for the Pacers and at least a 3 year window to reach contender status again. Would any of us be pleased to do this, pending PG's buy in of course?

                  Comment


                  • Re: Getting good Free Agents

                    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                    Not to mention Troy just came off a season averaging 14.6/10.2 on 47% from the field and 38% from 3.

                    And to bring it full circle, that type of production for that amount of money would be a gift from Santa next season. Ryan Anderson is probably about to get $20M and he just got done averaging 17/6 on 42.7% and 36.6% respectively.
                    That's kind of scary... I really really hope we don't go after Anderson.
                    Danger Zone

                    Comment


                    • Re: Getting good Free Agents

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      Not to mention Troy just came off a season averaging 14.6/10.2 on 47% from the field and 38% from 3.

                      And to bring it full circle, that type of production for that amount of money would be a gift from Santa next season. Ryan Anderson is probably about to get $20M and he just got done averaging 17/6 on 42.7% and 36.6% respectively.
                      Yea, Troy had way more value than Hibbert. Still crazy that's true.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Getting good Free Agents

                        Originally posted by Cousy47 View Post
                        If we put PG13's name out there for a trade, it would be interesting to see what offers might come in. L.A.'s #2 pick, Russell and Randle work salary wise. Trade Machine shows us a being -7 after that trade{using Shaggy's $5.2 million salary as the pick.
                        An offer such as this would be a complete re-boot for the Pacers and at least a 3 year window to reach contender status again. Would any of us be pleased to do this, pending PG's buy in of course?
                        I want no part of that. Although that might actually be good value, I don't think we need to do that. We would be basically hoping one or two of those guys turns into PG and none of them will ever be as good defensively.
                        Time for a new sig.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Getting good Free Agents

                          Originally posted by Cousy47 View Post
                          If we put PG13's name out there for a trade, it would be interesting to see what offers might come in. L.A.'s #2 pick, Russell and Randle work salary wise. Trade Machine shows us a being -7 after that trade{using Shaggy's $5.2 million salary as the pick.
                          An offer such as this would be a complete re-boot for the Pacers and at least a 3 year window to reach contender status again. Would any of us be pleased to do this, pending PG's buy in of course?
                          Pacers wouldn't do that trade unless they absolutely had to, and it also makes no sense for the Lakers because they'd pretty much have a bare cupboard to surround PG with. They'd be wasting his prime surrounding him with Jordan Clarkson and a bunch of D-Leaguers. They'd likely be in late lotto purgatory out west for years to come.

                          They're better off hoping a couple of of Russell, Randle and Ingram turn into something good and, if they don't, they'll be back in the lottery a couple years from now. That's no guarantee of anything, but it beats the absolute guarantee of a late lotto purgatory team with one great player surrounded by scrubs. They'd be the western conf version of the Knicks of the past few seasons.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Getting good Free Agents

                            Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                            This sudden narrative that the pacers can't be competitive because of payroll restrictions has got to stop. Everyone is playing with close to the same amount of money now. Maybe owners are making widely different profits but the payrolls themselves are close eneough where the difference is negligible.

                            Superstar free agents want two things: location and championships. If you can't offer at least one of those two things it is a waste of your time to try.

                            It took the Spurs nearly 20 years into the Tim Duncan era before they landed a really big name free agent from another team. 20 years. Big names don't become free agents often and when they do it's even rarer that they leave town.

                            And due respect to the pacers, they've really never had a superstar free agent of their own to re-sign. That probably changes in 2 years.
                            JO was absolutely considered to be a budding superstar/ nobrainer max guy when the Pacers resigned him.
                            Goodbye Captain, My Captain. I wish you had the chance to sink or swim with your ship on its quest for the "ship".

                            Comment


                            • Re: Getting good Free Agents

                              Originally posted by daschysta View Post
                              JO was absolutely considered to be a budding superstar/ nobrainer max guy when the Pacers resigned him.
                              One all star appearance does not equate "superstar." Valued yes but he was not at the level of a top-10 player, at least not in 2003.

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

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

                              Comment


                              • Re: Getting good Free Agents

                                Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                                One all star appearance does not equate "superstar." Valued yes but he was not at the level of a top-10 player, at least not in 2003.
                                Pretty sure the Spurs were prepared to offer him a Max contract if he hit free agency, so Pacers had to do what they had to do.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X