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.
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
-
-
Re: Insider Request
Hope this format is OK
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insid...2=stateChanged
Who should have their bags packed just in case?By Chris Sheridan
ESPN Insider
February is here, and the trade deadline is only three weeks away.
The Ron Artest trade allowed the flood gates to open a bit, and we've seen the seven-player Boston-Minnesota megadeal, the Nikoloz Tskitishvili mini-deal and the Hornets' showering of second-round picks to bring Aaron Williams and Steven Hunter to Oklahoma City.
There is no shortage of teams trying to balance their immediate needs with their long-term goals, but two franchises -- Chicago and Denver -- stand out for their foot-dragging.
We're past the midpoint of the season, and the Bulls haven't acquired any type of size that would allow them to compete in the postseason, nor have the Nuggets addressed their gaping hole at shooting guard.
Larry Brown hasn't shamed Isiah Thomas into making any of the moves he's been trying to broker over the phone, and Steve Francis has turned up his play in Orlando to such a degree that the Magic are rethinking plans to move him.
With one super-elite team in the East, Detroit, and two powerhouses in the West, San Antonio and Dallas, perhaps there's a subconscious sentiment running through the other 27 front offices that this season is a lost cause no matter what they do, so maybe it's better to put off any risky personnel moves until the summer. But that won't stop GMs and personnel directors from burning their cell phone minutes, and there are several role players and veterans with expiring contracts who stand a good chance of being dealt before the Feb. 23 deadline.
A team-by-team look:
EASTERN CONFERENCE
ATLANTA HAWKS
Status report: On pace to double last season's victory total, but still a case study in long-term NBA ineptitude.
Concerns: Having given away two first-rounders in the Joe Johnson deal, the Hawks want a No. 1 pick and a starter back in any trade for Al Harrington. Otherwise, they'll wait and see what their sign-and-trade options are when Harrington becomes a free agent.
Most likely to be traded: Tony Delk, who hasn't played an entire minute all season, has a moveable expiring contract of just under $3 million.
BOSTON CELTICS
Status report: There are some folks floating the theory that the acquisition of Wally Szczerbiak is a precursor to the departure of Paul Pierce, which Danny Ainge insists is not true.
Concerns: Trying to work a pair of 21-year-olds into the rotation at the power forward and center positions. Al Jefferson and Kendrick Perkins will test the patience of both the fans and the front office.
Most likely to be traded: Michael Olowokandi. The Celtics could move him straight up for another expiring contract. Under NBA trade rules, he cannot be packaged with another Celtics player.
CHARLOTTE BOBCATS
Status report: Emeka Okafor's slow recovery from an ankle injury and the team's current 13-game losing streak has turned this season into a lost cause, not that it was ever going to amount to anything anyway.
Concerns: The longer Brevin Knight stays in Charlotte, the more minutes he takes away from Raymond Felton. Okafor, Felton, Sean May and Primoz Brezec appear to be the only keepers Charlotte has assembled through 1½ seasons.
Most likely to be traded: Knight could be moved to the Cavs, who are not sold on keeping Eric Snow as their No. 1 point guard.
CHICAGO BULLS
Status report: Have three weeks to decide whether to make a big trade now or proceed with plans to go $18 million under the salary cap, making them the No. 1 player in a weak free agent market and a facilitator for every three- and four-team trade imaginable.
Concerns: Also have to decide if this season of transition should include the acquisition of a center who can help them get back to the playoffs.
Most likely to be traded: Tim Thomas. Has an expiring $14 million contract, and his agent wants him moved to a place where he can reestablish some value.
CLEVELAND CAVALIERS
Status report: The impression they're giving is that they're a much better team than they were last season, but they have the same record as they had one year ago when they folded in the late stages of the season.
Concerns: Free agent signees Damon Jones and Donyell Marshall have not lived up to expectations, and Drew Gooden could leave as a free agent.
Most likely to be traded: Jones. The self-proclaimed world's best shooter bombed when he went into the starting lineup in place of Larry Hughes, and the fans in Cleveland don't like him. There's a market for a player who made 225 3-pointers last season, even if he's made only 79 this season. Gooden is also being shopped.
DETROIT PISTONS
Status report: The only big issue facing the franchise in the immediate future is Ben Wallace's free agency, but he's expected to stay as long as the Pistons make him the highest-paid player on the team.
Concerns: There aren't many when you're 38-6, but Joe Dumars would like to bring in one more frontcourt player to have as insurance behind the Wallaces and Tayshaun Prince.
Most likely to be traded: Darko Milicic. He's still an intriguing commodity to a few rebuilding teams, and the Pistons will never really have a use for him.
INDIANA PACERS
Status report: Finally put the Ron Artest Era behind them, and now must find a way to turn around a second straight miserable, yet salvageable, season.
Concerns: It'll be mid- to late-March by the time they get a chance to see Peja Stojakovic and Jermaine O'Neal on the court together, which shouldn't be too late to make a run at the No. 6 seed in the East.
Most likely to be traded: Scot Pollard. Has an expiring $6.3 million contract.
MIAMI HEAT
Status report: Pat Riley recently expressed some doubts about the wisdom of going past the trade deadline with Gerald Fitch as the third-string point guard behind Jason Williams and Gary Payton, but don't bet the farm on Riley trading for someone better. He almost never makes midseason trades.
Concerns: Health and chemistry are the biggest issues at play in South Beach, and the Heat have the rest of the regular season to work those things out.
Most likely to be traded: We'd have said Michael Doleac two months ago, but his agent says a trade is highly unlikely. If Riley could get an upgrade for Jason Kapono, he'd consider it.
MILWAUKEE BUCKS
Status report: Went 7-10 in January, a step backward after a promising start to the season. Not fooling themselves into thinking they can knock off the Pistons, but setting their sights past the first round of the playoffs.
Concerns: Add the name of Bobby Simmons to the list of players whose production dropped significantly in their first season after signing a long-term contract, although he's shown signs of turning it around lately.
Most likely to be traded: Reece Gaines. The Bucks are happy with pretty much everyone else on the roster.
NEW JERSEY NETS
Status report: Still starting the banged up and unproductive Jason Collins at power forward, but also still sitting on a pair of No. 1 picks that Rod Thorn would gladly give away in return for an impact big man.
Concerns: A lack of offensive rebounding, the absence of a steady contributor off the bench.
Most likely to be traded: Lamond Murray. There are still a few GMs who believe Murray can provide some instant offense off the bench, which he has rarely done for the Nets. Could be packaged with Zoran Planinic and a No. 1 pick.
NEW YORK KNICKS
Status report: A complete and utter mess, with team president Isiah Thomas under fire, coach Larry Brown ripping his team as quitters, and a roster stocked with underperforming, overpaid players no other teams want.
Concerns: Thomas was certain he'd be able to use the expiring contracts of Antonio Davis and Penny Hardaway as trade chips, but there's doubt whether ownership will allow him to deal them for players with longer deals.
Most likely to be traded: Jamal Crawford. His out-of-control, turnover-prone style does not mesh with Brown's ideals, and Crawford can't or won't change.
ORLANDO MAGIC
Status report: All was supposed to be rosy between Steve Francis and the higher-ups in the organization following their clear-the-air meeting two weeks ago, but some teams believe the Magic will still try to move him before the deadline.
Concerns: The team is losing quite a bit of money, and there's still a difference of opinions within the organization on whether Francis is the right player to build Dwight Howard's team around.
Most likely to be traded: Kelvin Cato. In the final year of his contract, he's behind Mario Kasun on the depth chart and is almost certain to be moved to a playoff-caliber team seeking size.
PHILADELPHIA 76ERS
Status report: Meandering through Year 10 of the Allen Iverson era, still wondering whether it's possible to put the pieces around him to win a title.
Concerns: Attendance at the Wachovia Center is an embarrassing fourth-worst in the league, and the partnership of Webber and Iverson still hasn't clicked one year after the blockbuster trade with Sacramento. General manager Billy King is seeking to trade for a player who will add defense and toughness.
Most likely to be traded: Kevin Ollie. There are teams that would be willing to take on Ollie's remaining two seasons ($3.2 and $3.4 million) to add a steady backup floor general with 38 games of playoff experience. This might be the rare year when King stands pat at the deadline, having moved Hunter to the Hornets on Wednesday.
TORONTO RAPTORS
Status report: Must decide soon whether to trade Mike James or risk losing him with nothing in return, a la Donyell Marshall, when he becomes a free agent this summer.
Concerns: Jalen Rose's $17 million salary for next season is the quintessential cap killer, and interim GM Wayne Embry will have to throw in more than a No. 1 pick to get someone to take Rose off his hands.
Most likely to be traded: Eric Williams. Of the three players acquired in the Vince Carter deal, he's the only one left. Embry is looking to accommodate his wish to be dealt.
WASHINGTON WIZARDS
Status report: Have won eight of 12 since bottoming out, and coach Eddie Jordan has received a phone call of support from owner Abe Pollin. Ernie Grunfeld makes moves at the trade deadline more often than he doesn't, so expect to see at least a minor shakeup.
Concerns: None of the Wizards' three building blocks, Gilbert Arenas, Antawn Jamison and Caron Butler, is much of a defender, and there's very little low-post presence.
Most likely to be traded: Antonio Daniels was miscast here after he left Seattle as a free agent, and he could be packaged with a big man, Michael Ruffin or Etan Thomas, if the Wizards got back a player they felt was an upgrade.
WESTERN CONFERENCE
DALLAS MAVERICKS
Status report: No team in the NBA is playing better right now, so there's no need to shake things up too much. The Mavericks were always a fixture in trade deadline deals over the past half-decade, but Mark Cuban has altered his ownership philosophy and is no longer willing to take on added payroll and luxury tax costs as he once was.
Concerns: There still might not be enough of a defensive presence in the low post to contain Tim Duncan in a playoff series, and Erick Dampier has lost his starting job to DeSagana Diop.
Most likely to be traded: Dampier is still owed $57 million over the next five seasons, and they'd move him to get out from under that contract. Good luck finding a taker, though.
DENVER NUGGETS
Status report: Still deeply flawed in the backcourt, just as they've been for two seasons, and had been using their backup point guard, Earl Watson, as the starting shooting guard until switching back to Greg Buckner on Wednesday night.
Concerns: There has been nothing special about the Nuggets after they began the season with such high hopes following their strong finish under George Karl. The players have been waiting for weeks for a trade to go down, and no one but Carmelo Anthony can rest easily until Feb. 23 passes.
Most likely to be traded: It's still Watson, though there's not as much interest in him as the Nuggets would have people believe.
GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS
Status report: The relationship between Baron Davis and coach Mike Montgomery has moved to the front burner, and that situation needs to be resolved before Chris Mullin can do any tinkering to the roster.
Concerns: After all but making Ike Diogu an untouchable in their trade talks with the Pacers, the Warriors have moved him back to the bench while moving Adonal Foyle back into the starting five. Diogu has made only five field goals in his last eight games.
Most likely to be traded: The Warriors don't have much use for 34-year-old Calbert Cheaney, who missed 10 straight games with a thigh injury but was expected back Wednesday night. Could be packaged with Zarko Cabarkapa to acquire a mid-level salary player.
HOUSTON ROCKETS
Status report: Any other coach sitting 13 games under .500 with a roster expected to contend for the conference title would be a goner by now, but the Rockets have chosen to stick with Jeff Van Gundy. Injuries that have sidelined Tracy McGrady and Yao Ming for extended stretches have provided an excuse, but the fans are staying away from what has to be considered the most underachieving team in the conference.
Concerns: McGrady's back could give out at any minute, torpedoing a season already marked by significant injuries that have sidelined Rafer Alston, Bob Sura, Jon Barry and others. This team was built to win now, so patience is in short supply.
Most likely to be traded: Stromile Swift has been a disappointing free agent signing, and he didn't help his status by arriving late for shootaround Wednesday.
LOS ANGELES CLIPPERS
Status report: The news was promising when Corey Maggette's foot cast came off, the Clips moving a step closer to getting his 20-point production back in the lineup before the Lakers creep too much closer in the standings.
Concerns: They've leveled off since coming out of the gate so strong, and they're still at least one player away from being a serious threat to escape the first round of the playoffs.
Most likely to be traded: Chris Wilcox, whose likeliest destination through a trade remains New Jersey.
LOS ANGELES LAKERS
Status report: Tried to stay in the mix for Ron Artest right up until the very end, and some believed agent Mark Stevens made his phone call to the Kings that temporarily killed the Artest trade as a last-ditch effort to keep the Lakers in the mix.
Concerns: Kobe Bryant is running the show there, not Phil Jackson, and the caliber of some of the players surrounding him in the starting lineup is not the stuff legitimate championship contenders are made of.
Most likely to be traded: Devean George, in the final year of his contract and contributing very little off the bench. He's got championship-round experience, however, a quality valued by a few elite teams.
MEMPHIS GRIZZLIES
Status report: Were able to acquire a new starting point guard, Chucky Atkins, without having to make a trade. When was the last time anyone saw that happen in midseason?
Concerns: The only thing that infuriates Jerry West more than unsubstantiated Internet trade rumors is his team's inability to rebound. Only the Raptors do it worse.
Most likely to be traded: Lorenzen Wright is not a favorite of the front office, but the Grizz need his size too much to simply give him away. His $7.7 contract expires at the end of this season.
MINNESOTA TIMBERWOLVES
Status report: The departure of Wally Szczerbiak had the underpublicized short-term effect of placating Kevin Garnett, who plans to reassess his long-term commitment to the Timberwolves over the summer.
Concerns: Marko Jaric has been a disappointment at point guard, and Troy Hudson's and Trenton Hassell's long-term contracts make them undesirable on the trade market.
Most likely to be traded: Marcus Banks had 20 points and six assists against his former team when the Wolves defeated the Celtics, but it appeared to be a clear instance of showcasing. Banks was almost rerouted to Seattle for Flip Murray as part of the seven-player Boston-Minnesota deal, but the Sonics pulled out after Luke Ridnour was injured.
NEW ORLEANS HORNETS
Status report: For the league's most surprising .500 team, the deals to bring in Aaron Williams and Steven Hunter signaled a commitment to make a push for a playoff spot this season.
Concerns: General manager Jeff Bower is seeking a third-string point guard to have as insurance in case of an injury to Chris Paul or Speedy Claxton. No one else on the current roster can adequately perform playmaking duties in a pinch.
Most likely to be traded: Either of their European sharpshooters, Bostjan Nachbar or Arvydas Macijauskas.
PHOENIX SUNS
Status report: Not much to be upset about here, with Boris Diaw turning into the throw-in of the decade and Amare Stoudemire making steady progress recovering from knee surgery.
Concerns: Their level of success in the postseason will be largely determined by the health of Stoudemire, who will not be rushed back. Kurt Thomas has contributed little, but the front office sees that as a byproduct of Stoudemire's absence.
Most likely to be traded: Jim Jackson, who has sat out the past 15 games, is an expendable and available veteran with an expiring contract.
PORTLAND TRAIL BLAZERS
Status report: The season-long quest to find a new home for Ruben Patterson has been fruitless thus far, though the Knicks could still pull off a trade for Patterson and/or Theo Ratliff.
Concerns: A transitional year has already gone down the tubes in the first season under coach Nate McMillan. This once-steady franchise is about to miss the playoffs for the third straight season.
Most likely to be traded: The front-runner remains Patterson, though his checkered past (He'd have to register as a sex offender if he were traded to a team in Florida) is seriously limiting the number of potential suitors.
SACRAMENTO KINGS
Status report: The panic button has already been pushed by the Maloofs, who now must sit back and wait to see whether the Ron Artest trade was a wise move.
Concerns: Teams are already packing their defenses in and daring the new Peja-less Kings to beat them from the outside.
Most likely to be traded: Corliss Williamson is the odd man out in Sacramento's forward rotation, but he'd be a nice fit off the bench for a lot of teams. His contract (expires after he makes $6.5 million next season) is not a hindrance.
SAN ANTONIO SPURS
Status report: Plenty of contentment among the defending NBA champs, who traditionally turn it on in March and April and hit their peak during the postseason. There's no reason to think this year would be any different.
Concerns: As far as trades go, there's a danger of doing more harm than good if they decide to trade Nazr Mohammed, who will be an unrestricted free agent this summer, for a lesser talent.
Most likely to be traded: No one on the roster is being shopped, but the Spurs might be persuaded to part with the rights to Argentine forward Luis Scola, who remains under contract to a team in Spain for two more seasons after this one, with a prohibitive buyout.
SEATTLE SUPERSONICS
Status report: A sinking ship, with Danny Fortson joining the Reggie Evans "Trade Me" brigade. Vladimir Radmanovic and Flip Murray are future goners, too, on the Western Conference's most underperforming team.
Concerns: Radmanovic, Evans and Murray have the right to veto any trade, though Murray would be far less likely to exercise that right than the others. Fortson's reputation has been so damaged by his ongoing feud with the referees, he's almost untouchable.
Most likely to be traded: Murray, the only one of the three with trade vetoes who does not expect to sign for more than $5 million when he becomes a free agent.
UTAH JAZZ
Status report: Valentine's Day will mark the one-year anniversary of the last time Carlos Boozer suited up for a game, with the Jazz being extra cautious after he aggravated his hamstring injury in two previous comeback attempts. His trade value has been so weakened that the Jazz cannot move him for an equal player.
Concerns: The worst 3-point shooting team in the league, they're also third from the bottom in scoring.
Most likely to be traded: What they lack is what Devin Brown was supposed to have provided, but hasn't.
Chris Sheridan, a national NBA reporter for the past decade, covers the league for ESPN Insider. To e-mail Chris, click here. -
Re: Insider Request
Pollard is probably the LEAST likely to be traded.
Donnie is rubbing his hands and saying
"6 million off the books"
"6 million off the books"
"6 million off the books"
"6 million off the books"
(maniacal laughter)The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).Comment
-
Re: Insider Request
No kidding. That's silly IMO to think we'd trade Scot. That thing probably should have listed Jack and AJ.Comment
-
Re: Insider Request
Yeah, for the most part Sheridan just looked at teams' rosters and listed the player at the end of his contract as likely to be traded: Scot Pollard, Lorenzen Wright, Devean George, Michael Olowokandi, Jim Jackson, Chris Wilcox,, Calbert Cheaney, Tom Thomas, Tony Delk, Kelvin Cato.
Some are legit, but c'mon - do a little homework, Chris."I'll always be a part of Donnie Walsh."
-Ron Artest, Denver Post, 12.28.05Comment
-
Re: Insider Request
Another pathetic Insider article. I'd be mighty angry if I paid for this junk.Comment
-
Re: Insider Request
Originally posted by Shade
I'll split it with you. I do get ESPN the Magazine for free, well that is part of the package.Comment
-
Re: Insider Request
Pollard probably won't be traded now that his buddy Peja is on the squad. They want to keep Peja happy so he'll want to re-sign next summer so Scott isn't going anywhere.
As long as he's healthy I think he can definitely contribute. Although, I wouldn't mind trading him for Kelvin Cato or Lorenzen Wright (basically a swap of expiring contracts).Comment
-
Re: Insider Request
Get well soon Jax!!!We're past the midpoint of the season, and the Bulls haven't acquired any type of size that would allow them to compete in the postseason, nor have the Nuggets addressed their gaping hole at shooting guard.
Andre Miller
Comment
Tweet
Comment