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

A Realistic Discussion about Al Harrington

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

    A Realistic Discussion about Al Harrington

    After his lack of production last night as well as his inconsistent performances all season, the first thought that comes to my mind is that we should move him. I still think it's something we should take in to consideration, and I think it's something that has to have crossed the minds of TPTB more than once this season. I played around with the ESPN trade checker a little bit this morning. I was trying to find a realistic deal that made sense for all parties involved.

    I pretty much came up with nothing. Other than Golden State, I can't find a team that makes much sense for us to be a trading partner with. Golden State went after Harrington in the off-season, and apparently Harrington wasn't exactly against going there. Right now I keep hearing that J-Rich might be up for grabs. I'd imagine that's probably true with the emergence of Monta Ellis. However J-Rich has been injured pretty often as of late (I believe he's still out now with a broken hand).

    The other guy that makes sense for this team [keyword: for this TEAM] is Mike Dunleavy Jr. I'm not a fan of his at all, but I have watched him play a lot. Having a guy with his ball-handling and passing abilities on this team would take a lot of pressure off guys like Tinsley and Sarunas to create shots for the offense. Not to mention Dunleavy is also a decent outside threat as well. Dunleavy would also open up more minutes for Orien Greene to get in the game and play his defensive game without having to worry about running the offense -- Dunleavy can do that [off the bench of course].

    On the flip side, Dunleavy's contract sucks. We've spent one too many years over the cap as it is. There's finally relief from that in sight. No need to go out and acquire another 'Croshere' contract. If J-Rich could stay healthy, he'd make perfect sense for us. We could use him extremely bad. But when it comes to injuries, we've been through too much hell to take that risk -- especially on a guy that would be brought in and be expected to be offensive option #2.

    That's where I started looking at things differently. Maybe we're just spoiled. As bad as it seems Al has been, I don't think he's been that far off his career numbers. He's even WAY up on his 3-point shooting. However you can't just bring in a player that was option number 1 for a few years somewhere else, and expect them to easily adjust to being option #2.5 ( 2.5 because you can never tell if Harrington is #2 or Jackson is #2). This has got to be the only NBA team I've ever seen aggressively recruit a Free-Agent, bring him in as a predetermined second scoring option, then hardly run a play for him. I think that whole concept is a bit, retarted.

    Al Harrington isn't Antawn Jamison. He's not quick off his feet in grabbing rebounds to the point that he can average 20 points just off rebounding (the Golden State Jamison, not Washington's version). Once in a while I see them post up Al, and once in a while I see him make an extremely quick move to the basket for the score before his defender can even get his feet set. That tells me that Harrington can be a strong post man if we utilize him there.

    I think in order for Harrington to be more effective, he'd be better suited for the second unit. Granger should start and give us the defense that Harrington lacks. I don't think Harrington is going to become a better player than he is now, but Granger shows a lot of promise to be something special. In addition, we also have Shawne Williams waiting in the wings. If we can get Harrington off the bench, he can play his natural PF position (Center in a smaller lineup), while opening up more minutes for Shawne, and even Rawle Marshall. At that point, we could probably bring in our entire second unit in the game, rest our starters for a while, and probably not miss a beat.

    Instead of us looking to trade Harrington, we just need to put him in a role that brings out his strengths, and makes a positive impact on the team. He's averaging 33.5 mpg right now, while Danny is averaging 30 mpg. They could probably average the same numbers they are now, just with different units. I just hope Al can be a team player and accept the role.

    That's my proposed solution to the problem....
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: A Realistic Discussion about Al Harrington

    I was for the trade to bring back Al, but only because of his leadership and personality. I knew he was not a good fit for the team, but I was still for bringing him back for the other things he would bring. After seeing just how bad of a fit he is, I am not sure bringing him on was a good idea.

    Now, I still think he's a good player. However, everyone needs to realize that he came from a team that had a horrible record AND that he was not even the best player. Joe Johnson is the best player on the Hawks. I watched the Hawks pretty closely, and I think even Antoine Walker was better than Al. Considering both sides of the ball, I think Jack might be the better player....at least he fits better in the starting lineup.

    If he would be 100% ok with a backup role, that's not a bad option. However, his role should be limited to giving JO a blow. We need JO on the floor at all times with a real C, so I don't want him subbing for Foster. I also don't think he should ever play SF.

    All things considered, I think moving Al for a shooter, either PG or SG, is the best plan.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: A Realistic Discussion about Al Harrington

      Excellent post.

      Al has certainly not lived up to expectations. Sure, his stats might say otherwise, but we all are aware of what he can and cannot bring on the floor any given night. His reliance on perimeter shots is disconcerting, his defense has been lackluster to say the least, and his rebounding is awful. However, when he is getting touches, he's pretty much deadly - his shot in the Golden State game (prior to Jack's game winner obviously) was amazing - it was clutch, brilliant, and difficult. And, of course, he is a good-natured guy who is undoubtedly a solid presence in the locker room (except for the complaints to the media about his touches).

      I wholeheartedly agree that putting him with the 2nd unit (while still giving him 30+ MPG) would work out very well. Granger is reliable on both sides of the floor for the most part and does not demand the ball nearly as much as Al. Jack would be the bonafide #2 option on the starting unit, as he is used to. JO would most likely receive more touches, ideally in the post.

      If Al would accept a modified role to better suit the team, I'm all for him staying. However, if he cannot provide a more consistently valuable effort, we should definitely evaluate our options. Perhaps we could trade him for a PG.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: A Realistic Discussion about Al Harrington

        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
        All things considered, I think moving Al for a shooter, either PG or SG, is the best plan.
        I do too, but what team do you see as a realistic trading partner there?

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: A Realistic Discussion about Al Harrington

          Originally posted by Ev_eezy View Post
          I do too, but what team do you see as a realistic trading partner there?
          Dre Miller for Harrington works. However, I'm not sure if that would even be a feasible option for Philadelphia, if they are indeed rebuilding.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: A Realistic Discussion about Al Harrington

            I was against obtaining Al from the very beginning unless it was just to secure him for a future trade. He was a stat man here before leaving and nothing has changed. I've mentioned it before, but the first thing he would do after a game win or lose, was to check his stat line when he hit the locker room. Sort of akin to looking at a group picture and seeing only yourself.

            He has been very inconsistent, one night 20 something points the next 2-4. My big question is when he's not contributing why in the heck does RC play him 35-38 minutes? We've got Marshall and Williams sitting on the bench who could benefit from these minutes when he's MIA. I have to put this directly on the coach. If RC plays him to just placate him, then it's time for RC to move on.
            .

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: A Realistic Discussion about Al Harrington

              I really think that Al is still a sixth man in this league or the 4th option on a good team. Maybe a starter or first or second option on a team like IDK the Hawks say, but on a team fighting for a playoff position he is a problem being your second offensive option. I feel more comfortable with Jack or Tins having the ball offensively to be honest.


              Comment

              • #8
                Re: A Realistic Discussion about Al Harrington

                I don't think Harrington's inconsistency is entirely Harrington's fault. Frankly, he's more consistent than Granger. That should be a signal right there.

                Our team continues to have problems with understanding roles and having a team identity in general. This problem is not specific to any one player.

                As we are only half way through a re-build, our record and inconsistent play were not only foreseeable, they were completely expected from many of us. Generally, I would consider our team as slightly over-acheiving at this point. (Yeah, I said it. )

                I expect Harrington to have a much better season next year, because I expect the team to be a much more stable place to play.

                The only thing that worries me is the rumored "opt out" in JO's contract. It scares me when I have more patience than our star player.
                “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: A Realistic Discussion about Al Harrington

                  Was AGAINST the trade for can't-depend-on-him-when-it-counts AL BIGTIME.

                  Nothing burns me more than having to give up a 2007 #1 for a plug. Which effectively means this team can't get better anytime soon.

                  Everyone who wanted him on the team and is now seeing a bit clearer:

                  enjoy the 2007 draft next June.

                  Especially when the odds are good that an impact player could've been had in the mid teens.

                  Walsh needs to step down and Bird needs to transfer fulltime to the European division.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: A Realistic Discussion about Al Harrington

                    I wouldn't count us out of the draft just yet.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: A Realistic Discussion about Al Harrington

                      Al isn't much different than he was here originally. His offense ha imporved a bit, but his defense has fallen off the map. He's still a black hole at times. What you see is what you get.

                      I honestly think Al would serve us much better off the bench, but who knows how long it would be before the *****ing sets in.

                      Hindsight is 20-20, but I have a feeling we're going to be regretting bringing him back. The exemption combined with Cro's contract would have probably netted us AI, and the draft pick we lost could end up being a player better than Al. I was okay with bringing Al back, but I really didn't want to give up that #1 to do it.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: A Realistic Discussion about Al Harrington

                        Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
                        I don't think Harrington's inconsistency is entirely Harrington's fault. Frankly, he's more consistent than Granger. That should be a signal right there.

                        Our team continues to have problems with understanding roles and having a team identity in general. This problem is not specific to any one player.

                        As we are only half way through a re-build, our record and inconsistent play were not only foreseeable, they were completely expected from many of us. Generally, I would consider our team as slightly over-acheiving at this point. (Yeah, I said it. )

                        I expect Harrington to have a much better season next year, because I expect the team to be a much more stable place to play.

                        The only thing that worries me is the rumored "opt out" in JO's contract. It scares me when I have more patience than our star player.

                        Al will never fully accept being a second fiddle to anyone. On a good team like the Spurs or Mavs, he would never work out because he'd want his minimum number of touches. He would probably be coming off the bench for about 15-18 minutes for those teams which would be entirely unacceptable to him.
                        .

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: A Realistic Discussion about Al Harrington

                          What? I don't think the exemption could have gotten us AI. And I don't think JO can opt out, not after this season anyway. I'm pretty sure I'm right with both of those... maybe not.
                          You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: A Realistic Discussion about Al Harrington

                            Originally posted by ajbry View Post
                            Excellent post.

                            Al has certainly not lived up to expectations. Sure, his stats might say otherwise, but we all are aware of what he can and cannot bring on the floor any given night. His reliance on perimeter shots is disconcerting, his defense has been lackluster to say the least, and his rebounding is awful. However, when he is getting touches, he's pretty much deadly - his shot in the Golden State game (prior to Jack's game winner obviously) was amazing - it was clutch, brilliant, and difficult. And, of course, he is a good-natured guy who is undoubtedly a solid presence in the locker room (except for the complaints to the media about his touches).

                            I wholeheartedly agree that putting him with the 2nd unit (while still giving him 30+ MPG) would work out very well. Granger is reliable on both sides of the floor for the most part and does not demand the ball nearly as much as Al. Jack would be the bonafide #2 option on the starting unit, as he is used to. JO would most likely receive more touches, ideally in the post.

                            If Al would accept a modified role to better suit the team, I'm all for him staying. However, if he cannot provide a more consistently valuable effort, we should definitely evaluate our options. Perhaps we could trade him for a PG.
                            This scares me more than Al's inconsistency. Jack should NEVER be the #1 or #2 option in our offense, especially because he's doing fine right now with being the #3 or #4 option.
                            Maceo Baston's #1 fan on Pacers Digest!

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: A Realistic Discussion about Al Harrington

                              Originally posted by Alpolloloco View Post
                              This scares me more than Al's inconsistency. Jack should NEVER be the #1 or #2 option in our offense, especially because he's doing fine right now with being the #3 or #4 option.
                              Jack is a good #2 option on a 7th or 8th seed that goes out in the 1st or second round of the playoffs. Not terrible, but not anywhere near contending for a championship. It depends on what your expectations are, really. I know this team can do that...and I want the team to do better...so if Jack is the #2 option, I agree...nothing better than second round is likely.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 template Next
                              Working...
                              X