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

Eddie Johnson on how Cleveland screwed up signing Hughes

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

    Eddie Johnson on how Cleveland screwed up signing Hughes

    http://www.hoopshype.com/columns/hughes_johnson.htm

    Hughes not the right guy
    by Eddie Johnson / July 12, 2005

    THE AUTHOR:
    EDDIE JOHNSON

     Played 17 years in the NBA for the Kings, Suns, SuperSonics, Hornets, Pacers, Nuggets and Rockets. Won the 1988-89 NBA Sixth Man Award averaging 21.5 ppg.
    NBA all-time leading scorer among players with no All-Star appearances.
    He is in his fifth year as the color analyst for the Phoenix Suns broadcasts.
    You can visit his website at www.jumpshotclub.com
    The Cleveland Cavaliers went shopping with a stack of cash and the soon-to-be best player in the NBA in LeBron James. The Cavs knew the appeal of James and the money could help them land one of the top free agents available – most notably Ray Allen and Michael Redd.

    But it was just like the guy who goes in the bar and puts his sights on the girl who everybody thinks is gorgeous only to waste his time chasing her and then finally giving up so late that the love of his life walked right pass him all night going unnoticed. So out of desperation, when his chances seem slim, he settles for the one that didn't look so attractive until he had a few drinks.

    Sounds a little far-fetched, huh? Not really.

    Joe Johnson was the best player available to pair with LeBron James – not Allen, Redd or Larry Hughes, the player they eventually signed. The Cavs did the right thing chasing Allen first because he was unrestricted and Johnson is not. But after Allen chose to stay in Seattle, they should have done everything possible to get Johnson – and not chase Redd then settle on Hughes, who will struggle in Cleveland having to play a lot without the ball.

    Here's why:

    Johnson is as versatile as LeBron – only without the jumping ability. He can catch and shoot from anywhere on the floor. He has the ability to create shots for himself and teammates in the paint because he has the best ballhandling skills of any 6-7 player in the league other than James. Besides, he can defend four positions.

    Johnson's numbers are just as good as the stats of the other top three free-agent shooting guards and he is not concerned about being the man, which would have allowed him to become a good match for LeBron.

    I compare LeBron to Magic Johnson. He does not need players who command the ball, but guys that can finish and flourish playing with him.

    Magic had Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, James Worthy and Byron Scott. Jabbar was great, but at the tail end of his career Worthy and Scott were excellent players whose games were enhanced because they received the ball from Magic in their scoring zones and shot high percentages.

    Allen and Redd would have worked to a degree, but I wondered about those two playing Robin to LeBron's Batman. I am sure that weighed into their decision to stay put.

    Signing Hughes was a total stretch. First of all, he is not a consistent shooter. He shot a dismal 37 percent from the field and 21 percent from behind the arc in the playoffs. Most importantly, he has not shown that he can play without the ball for long stretches and still be productive.

    Don't get me wrong, I thoroughly enjoy Hughes' game, but only when he is wheeling and dealing and being himself. I think he will struggle to find his niche with the Cavaliers.

    Here is my directive to Danny Ferry:

    - Sign players who fit with LeBron and do not command the ball.

    - Re-sign Zydrunas Ilgauskas and continue to develop Drew Gooden.

    - Find players that are not household names but can look great paired with a player like LeBron, who creates a double-team anywhere on the floor. Eddie House, Jon Barry, Donyell Marshall or Juan Dixon could help. These players won't sound off many alarms, but can flourish in Cleveland and cost little to your bottom line.

    - Two players you missed out on already have been snatched up. Raja Bell and Bobby Simmons would have been ideal to play with King James. Those two could have been had for the same money you gave Hughes.

    Eddie Johnson is a regular contributor to HoopsHype.com
    Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Eddie Johnson on how Cleveland screwed up signing Hughes

    I'm already on the record as saying they should have gone with Simmons. While Johnson may be the better fit, Phoenix was never gonna let him go. Paying less for Simmons would mean they'd have the money to go after a Haslem or Daniels, and they could just forget the whole Saras thing.

    I do like the idea of Marshall, but I don't think Mike would like his defensive prowess, or lack thereof.
    Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Eddie Johnson on how Cleveland screwed up signing Hughes

      Yeah, Simmons would have been the better fit, but Hughes isn't terrible. He's a lot better than whoever they had alongside LeBron last year (can't remember his name).
      You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Eddie Johnson on how Cleveland screwed up signing Hughes

        So Hughes can't play without the ball? Right because we all know that he never had to share it with Arenas and Jamison. I think this is a load of bull. Hughes will work just fine with LeBron.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Eddie Johnson on how Cleveland screwed up signing Hughes

          Originally posted by travmil
          So Hughes can't play without the ball? Right because we all know that he never had to share it with Arenas and Jamison. I think this is a load of bull. Hughes will work just fine with LeBron.
          I completely agree.

          Hughes would have likely made the all-star team this year if it weren't for that injury near the break. The fact is, the guy knows how to score. Pair him up with another slasher like Lebron, and you have 2 guys who can easily break down defenses and go to the line for easy buckets. Not to mention, the two of them are very versatile players - they will make a nice duo. To top things off, he's no scrub on defense either.

          I think Mike Brown is a very good coach, who could provide the perfect offensive framework for these 2 guys to co-exist. Defensively, I don't know what to expect...but both Lebron and Hughes can play on both ends of the court.

          To say I'm worried about Cleveland would be an understatement.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Eddie Johnson on how Cleveland screwed up signing Hughes

            Originally posted by SoupIsGood
            Yeah, Simmons would have been the better fit, but Hughes isn't terrible. He's a lot better than whoever they had alongside LeBron last year (can't remember his name).
            His name would be Ira Newble...........

            Just another reason why the Larry Hughes signing is so important. Look at how Lebron makes players around him better. We are talking about IRA NEWBLE here...and Lebron had him playing some decent ball out there. Let's see how much easier the game becomes for Larry when he's paired up with Lebron.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Eddie Johnson on how Cleveland screwed up signing Hughes

              I think it was a mistake to give Hughes that kind of cash, not neccessarily because he's not worth it, but because it's too much to pay for a 2nd banana that doesn't cure your major weakness from the year before. We've seen a team that can penetrate and post up, but has no outside shooting. That would be your 2002 Indiana Pacers. Defenses pack it in, and you're done. This is why they wanted Allen or Redd. They're still short a lights-out long range shooter, and are now hamstrung financially.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Eddie Johnson on how Cleveland screwed up signing Hughes

                Once they sign Jaskeviscious, they will improve their 3 point shooting.

                If Hughes can co-exist with arenas, he can co-exist with LBJ. IMO, Hughes will be just fine in cleveland. He's a top notch defender and he doesn't need the ball in his hands for that. He is still relatively young so while they likely overpaid for him, he will be productive throughout the life of the contract. The only issue is likely his injury history.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Eddie Johnson on how Cleveland screwed up signing Hughes

                  Originally posted by travmil
                  I think this is a load of bull. Hughes will work just fine with LeBron.
                  A load of bull?

                  I think he made a good point.

                  Johnson isn't saying Hughes can't work with LaBron, he said Hughes wasn't the right guy to pair with LaBron. And he said why, Quote; "He does not need players who command the ball, but guys that can finish and flourish playing with him."


                  Have you ever put a puzzle together and found a piece that is the right shape and will fit in the hole, but doesn't go there? That's what Johnson is saying. Sure Hughes will be able to play with LaBron, but there were and are better options.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Eddie Johnson on how Cleveland screwed up signing Hughes

                    The only thing that stuck out in the article to me was his comment about the type of player that the Cavs should get.....which IMHO...is a philosophy that I wish the Pacers should follow.

                    To paraphrase:

                    - Get players that fit the Pacers style of play....but do not command the ball.
                    - Find non-household names that can flourish in the Pacers offense but won't cost the Pacers the bottom.

                    Because the Pacers are stocked with Players that need to dominate the ball to be effective ( like JONeal and SJax ), players that are able to contribute to the game while not dominating the ball are needed IMHO. That's why I don't mind if Tinsley or Artest doesn't score 15 to 20 pts a game.....they are able to contribute to the game by doing something else on the court....such as running the offense or providing solid defense.

                    Marshall isn't a household name and its great that there are players like Swift, SAR and Brown that are drawing attention from GMs. All the more opportunity for the Pacers to get a player like Marshall. He may not be the greatest cup of tea out there for some....but he would be a significant upgrade over Croshere. He can be effective cuz he doesn't need to score in order to be effective as a backup PF....he will rebound....block a few shots and be a good player that will play close to the paint.

                    If Bird thinks that we need to get another PF.....offer the Raptors something before they are given a S&T offer that the Pacers can easily match.
                    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Eddie Johnson on how Cleveland screwed up signing Hughes

                      I don't think he made a good point at all. He's saying Joe johnson would be abetter fit. Maybe so, but his main argument that Hughes is not a good fit is that he doesn't play well without the ball, which is bull. Hughes has never been the go to guy on any team he has played on. How do you flourish despite this unless you CAN play without the ball?

                      Comment

                      Previous template Next
                      Working...
                      X