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

Solving the rebounding issue (five trade proposals)

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

  • Solving the rebounding issue (five trade proposals)

    Option 1 : Indiana <-> Washington : Thaddeus Young & Lavoy Allen for Marcin Gortat & Andrew Nicholson

    Gortat to be the center & brute to Turner's stretch-4. He is averaging 11.8 RPG and is still an adequate offensive player (very good for #4 option which he would be in our starting line-up). Washington loses talent in this trade and will be in disarray until Mahinmi is healthy, but for them the key asset is the ability to renounce Lavoy's team option next summer. That will "just" open them enough salary room to keep Otto Porter who has belatedly developed to a keeper.


    Option 2 : Indiana <-> Utah : C.J.Miles, Lavoy Allen & Aaron Brooks for Derrick Favors, Raulzinho & Joel Bolomboy

    Incentive for Utah is simply to jettison salaries out of next season's cap. This move with three expirings (CJ will opt out, Allen can be terminated via team option) replacing three guaranteed 2017-18 contracts would enable Utah to re-sign both Hayward & George Hill. Losing Miles will hurt us and Favors is injury-ridden (while a perfect partner for Myles when healthy). Still, worth of risk especially as Bolomboy is also an intriguing "project". Neto would just be another 3rd- or 4th-string point guard of very limited action.


    Option 3 : Indiana <-> Phoenix : Rodney Stuckey & 2nd-rounder for P.J.Tucker

    Much less rebounding help than in proposals above. Still, Tucker would give a tougher, more defensive-minded option at PF behind Thad while be a big rebounding upgrade over C.J. who could return to back-up wing positions (and make loss of Stuckey a bit easier to bear). My main gripe with losing Stuckey is that there would be no use for Aaron Brooks in re-vamped backcourt. Stuckey is our only guard who can at least somewhat paper over Brooks' weaknesses. Without a ball-handling bigger guard besides him, Brooks will destroy the offense by repeatedly going 1-on-5 and he is too small to be paired with Teague/Monta.


    Option 4 : Indiana <-> Orlando : Al Jefferson & Lavoy Allen + 2 x 1st-round pick (2018, 2020) for Nikola Vucevic & Mario Hezonja

    Two talents - one with proven production taken from Vogel's doghouse. Price would be a 1st-rounder for each and we would hope those to be late-rounders (ie. us becoming a real contender). Similarly to Gortat, Vucevic would also become a starting center with Myles at 4 and Thad as an utility knife 7th man. Hezonja is a mystery card but might be our future star at 2. He may become a complete bust too....


    Option 5 : Indiana <-> Denver : Monta Ellis for Kenneth Faried.

    This would kinda make sense for both teams. We have a logjam at guard and hole in rebounding effort. Denver could use another and slightly more alive veteran than Jameer Nelson to steer their babies at backcourt. But I have to say that I am very lukewarm. Faried is energetic guy, but not much for team concept. He does grab a nice amount of rebounds, but mostly by being very active in offensive bo. ards. Chaotic nature of his play actually makes him quite bad defensive rebounder (and that is where IMO we need most help). I just don't see Faried as much of an upgrade from Thaddeus. Completely DIFFERENT player - yes. But similarly incomplete and untrustworthy as full-time starter.

    I would do this trade straight-on, but would expect (just for age factor if nothing else) Denver to ask for some extra (picks). That would be a deal-breaker for me. No thanx.


    There is others who could help us and who could be available (f ex Aron Baynes, Tarik Black, Amir Johnson, Andrew Bogut), but I couldn't figure out any workable trade which would interest the trading partner. And these guys are not "quality enough/young enough/healthy enough" to waste picks for..

  • #2
    Re: Solving the rebounding issue (five trade proposals)

    I don't think any of those teams would agree to those specific deals, but I like the idea of getting PJ Tucker, Derrick Favors, or (to a lesser extent) Kenny Faried.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Solving the rebounding issue (five trade proposals)

      Don't think we can get Favors without including our 2017 first rounder. Faried is probably possible, but think it'll take a little more than Monta.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Solving the rebounding issue (five trade proposals)

        I think Favors is out of reach. Tucker is ok, but I don't think he directly solves the rebounding issue. Faried is flawed, sure, but I think pairing up with Myles would mitigate some of his flaws (like lack of offense). The problem is that thus far, Denver seems to have a high asking price for him, which is not justified IMO.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Solving the rebounding issue (five trade proposals)

          Trade #1 is HORRID. No offense but a useful stretch 4 who is athletic for washed up Gortat and Nicholson? The only Washington player I think would help us would be Markieff Morris as our backup PF. Based on Thad shooting so well from 3 pt range this season. He is USEFUL indeed. You don't trade him for those 2.

          Trade #2 isn't as bad but CJ Miles is our only floor spacer and shooter off the bench. Lets trade that for Derrick (often injured) Favors? And the other 2 guys who're they?

          Trade #3 is pretty damn awesome.

          Trade #4 is good but I'd take Fournier in place of Hezonja.

          Trade #5 I would do if Denver threw in Gary Harris or Will Barton with Kenneth.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Solving the rebounding issue (five trade proposals)

            Originally posted by Grimp View Post
            Trade #1 is HORRID. No offense but a useful stretch 4 who is athletic for washed up Gortat and Nicholson? The only Washington player I think would help us would be Markieff Morris as our backup PF. Based on Thad shooting so well from 3 pt range this season. He is USEFUL indeed. You don't trade him for those 2.

            Trade #2 isn't as bad but CJ Miles is our only floor spacer and shooter off the bench. Lets trade that for Derrick (often injured) Favors? And the other 2 guys who're they?

            Trade #3 is pretty damn awesome.

            Trade #4 is good but I'd take Fournier in place of Hezonja.

            Trade #5 I would do if Denver threw in Gary Harris or Will Barton with Kenneth.
            1) Your "washed-up" Gortat is averaging double-double 11.0/11.8 and shooting .567 from the field this season. I have already thoroughly explained that Young's 3-point markmanship is pretty much useless for winning games as his volume is too low to make any difference. It is a shiny number, but makes little actual impact.

            2) Only reason for Utah to make that trade is to open salary room for new contracts to Hayward & GHill (and there is a lot of rumors that they are looking for possibility of doing so). The trio I proposed are the only guys from our team who one can trust of being off the books next summer. Sorry, it can not be done without CJ Miles being part of package. I wouldn't want him to be, but it is still a role player for an "almost-star".

            4) Fournier is paid 17 mil, Hezonja is on 2nd year of rookie contract. One is financially possible, another not. Are you stupid or what?

            5) Faried + Harris/Barton for Monta. ROFLMAO!!!! You can not get one Faried for Monta (age makes difference looking forward) yet extras... The question is : would Faried be worth of what kind of a pick in addition to Monta? IMO, not but Denver likely would go for 1st-rounder or minimum multiple 2nd-rounders... I think Faried is not a good fit for us (Monta could not find a better spot than Denver backcourt - that's one team which could really use him without fit problems)

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Solving the rebounding issue (five trade proposals)

              #5-ain't goanna happen. Like it or not, we're stuck with Monta unless we take on a terrible contract or offer a 1st round pick and I don't want to do either of those.

              #4-No thanks. I hesitate giving up 1 first round pick, let alone 2.

              #3-I like this deal but Tucker is only 6'6". I think he would be effective as a backup 3 and play spot minutes at 4.

              #2-No way Utah goes for that. Besides, I'm not sure I want Favors due to his injury history. I know Miles has had injury problems, but he is a bench player, Favors would be starting.

              #1-I kind of like this one. I don't think Washington would go for it...for that matter, I don't think we would go for it. I think Bird is determined to have Turner play Center.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Solving the rebounding issue (five trade proposals)

                Originally posted by sav View Post
                #5-ain't goanna happen. Like it or not, we're stuck with Monta unless we take on a terrible contract or offer a 1st round pick and I don't want to do either of those.
                Agreed here. I also think it would cost a 1st-round pick & wouldn't do it. I think I also said that in original post.

                Originally posted by sav View Post
                #4-No thanks. I hesitate giving up 1 first round pick, let alone 2.
                Only to be done if FO is very confident that we will be drafting at 23-30 range for both drafts. In THAT case, it would be great value but it is also a risky move given that while Hezonja is a fresh #5 pick, he is also 50/50 proposition to be a complete bust.

                Originally posted by sav View Post
                #3-I like this deal but Tucker is only 6'6". I think he would be effective as a backup 3 and play spot minutes at 4.
                Miles is our back-up PF now (thanks Grimp, you were correct in that) so it would be replacing a 6-ft-6 backup with a 6-ft-6 backup with actual long-term experience on the spot (starting from college). Small step towards more respectable rebounding, but a step nevertheless.

                Originally posted by sav View Post
                #2-No way Utah goes for that. Besides, I'm not sure I want Favors due to his injury history. I know Miles has had injury problems, but he is a bench player, Favors would be starting.

                #1-I kind of like this one. I don't think Washington would go for it...for that matter, I don't think we would go for it. I think Bird is determined to have Turner play Center.
                Both these trades are based on Washington/Utah's need to open salary room for next summer. Washington can not re-sign Otto Porter without making extra room, Utah has the same dilemma with Hayward&Hill. The probability of "giving up" Favors to extend Hill is of course diminishing longer George is out of court. Washingotn's problem is very real.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Solving the rebounding issue (five trade proposals)

                  Trade Ellis for Okafor

                  Sent from my Nexus 5X

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Solving the rebounding issue (five trade proposals)

                    Originally posted by BornIndy07 View Post
                    Trade Ellis for Okafor

                    Sent from my Nexus 5X
                    Do you have embarrasing photos to threaten Colangelo with or do we trade at gunpoint? Hostages involved in negotiations?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Solving the rebounding issue (five trade proposals)

                      Originally posted by BornIndy07 View Post
                      Trade Ellis for Okafor

                      Sent from my Nexus 5X

                      Heavens no. I would try and steer a trade that sends Okafor and Noel to Sacramento and sends Cousins to Indiana though. The Kings would send back their 2017 or 2018 pick and maybe Mclemore or Richardson to the Sixers.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Solving the rebounding issue (five trade proposals)

                        Originally posted by PetPaima View Post
                        Do you have embarrasing photos to threaten Colangelo with or do we trade at gunpoint? Hostages involved in negotiations?
                        Lol

                        Sent from my Nexus 5X

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Solving the rebounding issue (five trade proposals)

                          Originally posted by Grimp View Post
                          Heavens no. I would try and steer a trade that sends Okafor and Noel to Sacramento and sends Cousins to Indiana though. The Kings would send back their 2017 or 2018 pick and maybe Mclemore or Richardson to the Sixers.
                          Every year, it seems, we spend trade talk time discussing the possibilities of trading the 76ers out of young, good players. Every year the 76ers do nothing to help themselves or any other team. They stockpile young talent, wear them down with injuries and do nothing.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Solving the rebounding issue (five trade proposals)

                            Originally posted by Cousy47 View Post
                            Every year, it seems, we spend trade talk time discussing the possibilities of trading the 76ers out of young, good players. Every year the 76ers do nothing to help themselves or any other team. They stockpile young talent, wear them down with injuries and do nothing.

                            Yeah. I think though with Simmons and Embiid they finally have something. But I am surprised no one has pulled a Kobe on Philly yet. Asking their agent to get them traded to another team once they find out the Sixers have drafted them.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X