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

RealGM...Grading the Pacers' Trades

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

    RealGM...Grading the Pacers' Trades

    I was reading RealGM and found 2 articles grading the Pacers' trade (Teague and Thad Young). Interesting enough, both grades were fairly poor.

    I was surprised by this. Most of what I read and heard on TV was that people were very impressed with the 2 trades made by Pacers. I also thought they were great.

    I'll post the articles for people's readings

    The Indiana Pacers’ long, excessively deliberate signaled quest to improve their offense moved forward yet again hours before the draft when they traded the 20th overall pick and a future second rounder to the Brooklyn Nets for Thaddeus Young.

    Young was re-signed by the Nets on a four-year, $50 million deal in the 2015 offseason and he has a player option in 2018. With the rising cap, this is a below market value for a 28-year-old starting caliber power forward.

    In acquiring Young, the Pacers’ experiment with playing Paul George heavy minutes at power forward is over, as is the tenure of Ian Mahinmi. With Mahinmi expected to get a heavy raise in free agency and Myles Turner ready to start at center, it was inevitable for him to be gone this offseason.

    Larry Bird has wanted the Pacers to play faster and Young allows them to do so. A starting five of Young, George, Jeff Teague, Monta Ellis and Turner will be a problem for teams on that front. The Pacers were ranked 11th in pace last season, jumping up from 19th on Bird’s directive.

    Indiana’s success during the Paul George-era has been predicated on defense, they were still third last season, and that ranking will unquestionably fall this season with Young, Ellis and Teague all being below average for their position.

    Young has the characteristics of a stretch-4 as he’s basically a small forward in the body of a modern power forward except he has regressed as a shooter since showing some promise early in his career. Young shot just 23.3 percent on 30 attempts from three this past season after attempting nearly 300 at 30.8 percent in his final season with the 76ers in 13-14. If Young can regain his shooting form with the Pacers and hit 33 percent of his attempts at a decent volume as he did in 14-15, you can then begin to see the formations of a nice offense.

    Right now, the Pacers are built to play fast without the type of three-point efficiency we typically see from teams that use the blueprint.

    The Pacers have had one of the league’s better track records in the draft, but the urgency of maximizing their window during George’s prime is dictating all decisions right now for this franchise.

    Young makes the Pacers better in the short-term but in a rather insignificant way. If Indiana can trade away Ellis and replace him with a better defensive player and three-point shooter, then moving up into the top-4 of the Eastern Conference becomes a more realistic possibility.

    Grade for Pacers: C+

    Sean Marks inherited the NBA’s worst portfolio of assets when he became general manager and moving Young for the 20th overall pick and a future second rounder is a nice first step.

    In no way did Young align with the Nets’ long-term plans as it will take several years for them to gather enough NBA quality players to even begin thinking about competing for a playoff spot.

    Brooklyn also clears cap space for this offseason and since they aren’t likely to be anyone’s destination, Sean Marks now assumes the Sam Hinkie hardhat as salary dump facilitator and collecting future picks along the way to make up for what’s been lost with the Boston trade will continue indefinitely. With so many teams possessing cap space, a trade of Brook Lopez surely should be next up this summer.

    Grade for Nets: A

    The Celtics indirectly are involved as they get to swap picks with the Nets in 2017 and Brooklyn’s probable draft position worsens by dealing away Young. The Nets were going to be bad whether they kept Young or not and they’ll now be even worse.

    Boston is drafting third overall owning Brooklyn’s pick outright and they almost certainly will be picking no worse than fifth in 2017 due to the pick swap.

    Grade for Celtics: A
    http://basketball.realgm.com/analysi...Thaddeus-Young

    The NBA offseason began in earnest with a three-team trade on the eve of the draft sending Jeff Teague to the Indiana Pacers, George Hill to the Utah Jazz and the 12th overall pick to the Atlanta Hawks.

    On the surface, it is a win for all three teams as the Pacers slightly upgrade at point guard, the Jazz definitely upgrade at point guard and the Hawks acquire a lottery pick, albeit in a weak draft, for a player that was no longer in their plans.

    Teague is a great fit at point guard for a team that runs their offense around Paul George. Teague is one of the NBA’s best catch-and-shoot players and has proven himself capable of playing with other ball dominant players. This will be the case even more with the Pacers than it was previously with George and Monta Ellis.

    The Pacers want to play faster and they now have a point guard actually capable of running an offense in Teague, which they didn't have in Hill, Ellis and Rodney Stuckey.

    But for the improvement the Pacers will obtain on offense, their backcourt defense with Teague and Ellis becomes incredibly problematic. The Pacers ranked just 24th in offense last season and that number will surely increase, but it is also likely they fall from their spot as third in defense. Indiana’s defense at the point of attack was always excellent with Hill and that will now be a liability with Teague.

    The Pacers have been obsessed with improving their offense and it is a gamble that Teague instead of Hill will make a big enough difference while clearly damaging their defense.

    Grade for Pacers: C-

    The Jazz desperately needed a point guard last season when Dante Exum tore his ACL and they never were able to get a deal done and instead ended up just missing the playoffs.

    Utah already has excellent shot creators on the wing in Gordon Hayward and Rodney Hood, so the addition of Hill gives the Pacers a plus defender that shot 40.8 percent from three last season on more than 300 attempts.

    The Jazz get to compete for a playoff spot for one season of Hill and figure out what they have in Exum. Utah can also play Hill and Exum together in case they decide both players will be part of their core into Hills’ thirties. If the Jazz can re-sign Hill on a team friendly deal, he would be an excellent 6th man as his minutes are reduced.

    With Hill, Exum, Hayward and Hood, the Jazz have four players at guard and on the wing that can all handle the ball and have enough length to switch onto anyone as they’re similarly sized players. Assuming health with Derrick Favors and Rudy Gobert up front, the Jazz should have at least a top-5 defense in 16-17, improving upon their ranking as seventh this past season.

    Giving up a lottery pick for a 30-year-old complementary player under contract for just one more season does feel like an expensive cost but the Jazz have a ton of future traded picks incoming and they really can’t afford to keep missing the playoffs with this core.

    Grade for Jazz: A-

    The Hawks weren’t going to re-sign Teague if they kept him until his free agency in 2017 and they instead turn a 28-year-old point guard who is about to get very expensive into a late lottery pick.

    Atlanta was moving on from Teague to Dennis Schroder for a while now, even playing Schroder down the stretch of playoff games. Schroder is five years younger than Teague and he will be far easier and cheaper to retain. Atlanta can sign him to an extension this summer or go through restricted free agency next offseason.

    It was unrealistic to expect the Hawks to be able to turn Jeff Teague before his walk year into someone like Nerlens Noel.

    Another added benefit of the trade for the Hawks is that it creates more cap space this offseason, which makes re-signing Kent Bazemore and Al Horford more manageable from a financial standpoint. The Hawks will have to use cap space to re-sign Bazemore and trading away Teague makes keeping him far easier.

    Atlanta did an excellent job drafting Teague at 19th overall in 2009, having him eventually take over for the aging Mike Bibby in 2011, extend him on a team-friendly deal and now they've converted him into a new, cheap asset on a rookie deal.

    Grade for Hawks: A
    http://basketball.realgm.com/analysi...erall-To-Hawks
    "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: RealGM...Grading the Pacers' Trades

    Looks like a lot of it hinges on what we do with Monta. Their opinion doesn't seem to be too drastically different than what PD thinks. What we do with Monta will absolutely play a big part on how good both trades are.
    Originally posted by IrishPacer
    Empty vessels make the most noise.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: RealGM...Grading the Pacers' Trades

      I wouldn't read too much into it. Many writers had us pegged for around 33 wins last year.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: RealGM...Grading the Pacers' Trades

        Utah already has excellent shot creators on the wing in Gordon Hayward and Rodney Hood, so the addition of Hill gives the Pacers a plus defender that shot 40.8 percent from three last season on more than 300 attempts.
        Yep, that guy really knows what he's talking about.
        This space for rent.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: RealGM...Grading the Pacers' Trades

          I think you have to look at the trades themselves and not just what we plan on doing with Monta Ellis. Teague is an upgrade to Hill. Young is probably better than what we were going to do at #20.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: RealGM...Grading the Pacers' Trades

            It's funny because these articles give us a blah type of grade while on both ESPN & NBAtv the commentators were raving about the trades. In fact calling us now one of the top 3 teams in the east.

            It will be interesting to see how this shakes out.


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

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: RealGM...Grading the Pacers' Trades

              What's with this stuff about Young being a minus defender? That goes against everything I've ever heard about him.

              Are these writers aware we basically didn't have a power forward last season? Whatever Young gives us is a big plus.
              Last edited by Infinite MAN_force; 06-24-2016, 01:45 PM.
              "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

              - ilive4sports

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: RealGM...Grading the Pacers' Trades

                I agree with the grades. In a nutshell #20 for Young was a wise move. I don't like Hill for Teague. As a whole I don't think we're better if getting Young means losing Ian. Our defense is going to suck. Neither Turner, Young nor Lavoy can defend the post. Ellis and Teague are below average defenders as guards.
                Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: RealGM...Grading the Pacers' Trades

                  Losing Ian has nothing to do with Young and everything to do with Turner. Ian is too good to be a backup at this point and they don't share the floor well.
                  "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

                  - ilive4sports

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: RealGM...Grading the Pacers' Trades

                    Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
                    I agree with the grades. In a nutshell #20 for Young was a wise move. I don't like Hill for Teague. As a whole I don't think we're better if getting Young means losing Ian. Our defense is going to suck. Neither Turner, Young nor Lavoy can defend the post. Ellis and Teague are below average defenders as guards.
                    I got a feeling you said the same last year after we cut bait with Roy.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: RealGM...Grading the Pacers' Trades

                      How can we not get a A on both?

                      The 20th for a proven good player at a position of need.

                      One year ago a allstar PG, 2 years younger and other than a 2nd round pick a even swap.
                      "Just look at the flowers ........ BANG" - Carol "The Walking Dead"

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: RealGM...Grading the Pacers' Trades

                        I'm not sure how flipping the #20th pick to Thad Young is a C+. Monta has absolutely zero influence on that move.
                        “Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: RealGM...Grading the Pacers' Trades

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          I'm not sure how flipping the #20th pick to Thad Young is a C+. Monta has absolutely zero influence on that move.
                          I think that's one of those moves that is really hard to judge because it involves so much opportunity cost, and a lot of that is unknown. It's not just about which player is better next year and fits better onto the roster. It's also the loss of 13 million dollars in cap space each of the next two years. It's trading seven years of control for one player if the team wants it to only two for the other.

                          I'm not saying the trade was a bad one. It just has a lot more variables than at first glance. And depending on how people value each one of those variables, grades for it could swing wildly.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: RealGM...Grading the Pacers' Trades

                            Originally posted by PR07 View Post
                            I think you have to look at the trades themselves and not just what we plan on doing with Monta Ellis. Teague is an upgrade to Hill. Young is probably better than what we were going to do at #20.
                            The thing here is that Teague is only an upgrade over Hill if he gets to handle the ball. If Monta is handling the ball and Teague is relegated to a spot-up shooter like Hill was then it's a lateral move. That's why what we do with Monta is so important.
                            Originally posted by IrishPacer
                            Empty vessels make the most noise.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: RealGM...Grading the Pacers' Trades

                              Bird's trying to win now. If you look at it from his perspective it's got to be an A.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 template Next
                              Working...
                              X