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

Trading JO this summer, might be the worst move the Pacers ever make

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

  • Trading JO this summer, might be the worst move the Pacers ever make

    I have posted these thoughts before, so I will keep it short and sweet. But after reading Kravitz column, I decided to start a thread on this topic.

    Trading JO this off season would probably be the worst move the Pacers have ever made. Jo's trade value has never and will never be lower than this summer. He has two years left on his deal, so starting around the trade deadline (next February)his trade value increases slightly, and then next summer it increases by the day, and continues to increase each day during the following regular season. (and of course there is always the long shot that perhaps JO can stay a little healthier next season and that will also increase his trade value) The fact of the matter is that JO's trade value will never be any lower than it is right now.

    So of course Kravitz wants the Pacers to trade JO now, and he'll be the first one to criticize the Pacers when a bad deal is made.

    Sure, I think it would be best for the franchise if JO is playing somewhere else next season - but I truly believe in this situation, waiting to trade him in a year or two will help the Pacers franchise in the long run. In fact trading JO at the right time will likely be a more important decision than any draft pick the Pacers take over the next two years.




    Here is Bob's column

    http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...plate=printart


    Bob Kravitz

    No. 1 priority for Bird: Deal Tinsley and O'Neal


    It's great that Herb Simon has chosen to transform himself from a hands-off owner to a hands-on kind of guy. And it's great that Simon hired Jim Morris, the noted businessman and philanthropist, to run the company's off-the-court operation. If Morris can survive Darfur, he can survive the Indiana Pacers.

    Probably.

    But all of the front-office shuffling will be rendered meaningless if the guy running the basketball operation, Larry Bird, doesn't accomplish two things this summer:

    He must get rid of Jamaal Tinsley. Trade, buyout, set him adrift on an Arctic ice floe. Whatever.

    He must trade Jermaine O'Neal.

    If those two players are still here when we meet again in October, the Pacers will have made no progress toward rebuilding this team, and the leash on Bird will become dramatically shorter.

    Tinsley's act grew stale about four years ago. It doesn't matter how his various off-court issues have been resolved by the courts. The perception of him is never going to change, not here.

    And to think, one pick after Tinsley was chosen 27th in the 2001 draft, the San Antonio Spurs selected a point guard named Tony Parker.

    What's French for "Ouch!''?

    With O'Neal, it's not a personality or perception issue; it's his salary. When he was given the maximum contract in 2003, most of us applauded that deal, viewing O'Neal as the team's new centerpiece and Reggie Miller's heir apparent.

    Now, though, he's a $40 million albatross who, if he stays in Indiana, destroys any Pacers hopes for future cap flexibility.

    Can a brother make a suggestion? How about sending O'Neal to the Knicks for Stephon Marbury. Yes, Marbury is a waste, but he has only one year left on his deal. If the Pacers are willing to bite the bullet for one season, more than $20 million will come off the books in 2009-10.

    During a Wednesday afternoon news conference to announce the team's front-office changes, Bird fell short of saying he would trade O'Neal, but he made it abundantly clear that he's going to try. And that would be best for both of them. Face it: O'Neal doesn't fit with coach Jim O'Brien's style, and both parties know it. Add to that the fact that O'Neal and Bird have had a contentious relationship since Bird fired Isiah Thomas, and you have a bad marriage that's headed for a divorce.

    O'Neal didn't want to talk about his future or whether Wednesday's game might be his last as a Pacer.

    When a deal gets done, it's not important whether Bird gets full or even partial value for O'Neal, whose injury problems make him a tough sell. What Bird and this franchise need is cap flexibility. They need to take on an expiring contract or two, giving them freedom to make some moves in the next few years.

    This franchise has got to accept the fact that getting better might mean getting worse, a lot worse, first.

    "I think at the small forward and two guard, we're pretty well set with Danny (Granger), Shawne (Williams) and Mike (Dunleavy),'' Bird said. "Any time you go into the draft, you look for point guards and you look for big guys. It's according to what's going to be there. If there's a point guard we really like, we have to look at him. But if there's a big man there, you always like the bigs.

    "At the four position we could use another guy. We've got a lot of holes to fill.''

    Does that sound like O'Neal is in Bird's plans?

    "I'm sure he (O'Neal) will look at all his options, and we'll look at ours,'' Bird said. "Throughout the summer, we'll probably be talking to some teams and seeing what kind of interest they have in him. He hasn't told us if he wants to stay here or if he wants to go somewhere else, but there comes a time in any player's basketball career that you want to try to do what's best for yourself and for your team.''

    Goodbye, Jermaine.

    Good guy, good representative of this franchise. But it's time. It's just time.

    Time, finally, to rebuild.

    There will be exit interviews today between Bird and the players, and you would think, and hope, it will mark the last time several enter the Fieldhouse as members of the home team.

    Tinsley is gone. Marquis Daniels is on the chopping block. David Harrison is history. Kareem Rush was relegated to the bench the last few weeks. Shawne Williams? You wonder. He's still young, cheap and talented, but . . . And O'Neal has almost certainly played his final game as a Pacer.

    The franchise made some strong and necessary front-office moves Wednesday afternoon. Simon needed to get more involved in this business. Morris, who told WFNI-1070, "We will not have bums here,'' seems to have the right idea. But ultimately it's about winning, and second, it's about winning with palatable players.

    That leaves it up to Bird.

    If Tinsley and/or O'Neal are still here in October, the clock on Larry Legend's reign starts ticking.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  • #2
    Kravitz: Deal Tinsley and O'Neal

    I find it noteworthy that he mentions the possibility of buying out Tinsley if they can't make a deal. If a silly scribbler with no ties to the organization and no motivation but to stir up talk and trouble mentions it, can an actual buyout be far behind???

    Seriously, can anyone discuss knowledgeably what a buyout of Tinsley might cost, what benefits to the team would balance the straight-up loss, and so forth? I'm assuming they'd pay less than the full amount owed, but that it would still be an awesome chunk of money coming out of Herb's pocket.



    (Buck, thanks for combining the threads.)
    Last edited by Putnam; 04-17-2008, 08:43 AM.
    And I won't be here to see the day
    It all dries up and blows away
    I'd hang around just to see
    But they never had much use for me
    In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Trading JO this summer, might be the worst move the Pacers ever made

      jo's trade value has become lower and lower each season we have kept him on this team...the pacers need to trade granger pre-draft, which in turn would make trading jo much easier because it would then reduce our asking price after having received our 'prospect(s)' via the granger trade...

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Kravitz: Deal Tinsley and O'Neal

        Originally posted by Putnam View Post
        Seriously, can anyone discuss knowledgeably what a buyout of Tinsley might cost, what benefits to the team would balance the straight-up loss, and so forth? I'm assuming they'd pay less than the full amount owed, but that it would still be an awesome chunk of money coming out of Herb's pocket.
        Can a price be put on the negative publicity Tinsley has accumulated? A huge chunk of money already has come out of Herb's pocket the last few years (low attendance and playoff revenue). I'm sure the Pacers brass has already discussed the financial impact of a buyout of Tinsley as one of their options.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Trading JO this summer, might be the worst move the Pacers ever made

          Originally posted by croz24 View Post
          jo's trade value has become lower and lower each season we have kept him on this team...the pacers need to trade granger pre-draft, which in turn would make trading jo much easier because it would then reduce our asking price after having received our 'prospect(s)' via the granger trade...
          I gotta say I'm against moving Granger for almost anything at this point. He turns 25 next week and just averaged 19.6 and 6.1, while guarding the other teams best wing guy. Very few people in the league I'd trade him for.

          Otherwise, I can see both sides of it. If you can move JO now for expiring contracts, you do it. If not you hold on to him cuz his contract is up the same time Lebron and Melo's is, I think, among others. If teams can get a big expiring contract the same year those two become available, they think they have a shot at him.

          As far as getting cap room to sign a free agent and/or your own guys long term (Granger) and honestly that is the only reason to worry about the cap. I've always thought outside free agents won't come here, but then I was thinking about Utah who has picked up Boozer and Okur in the last couple of years. That kinda makes me think.

          I'm thinking the game plan needs to be to basically unload as much cap as possible and try to coincide the Granger resigning with going after a Free agent with potential, draft well, then you have a shot a turning it around and maybe into a contender. In this scenario, you do need to move JO for the first expiring contract(s).

          I know I'm oversimplifying things, but I think you NOW need to focus everything around Granger and when you will sign him to a long term contract. Thats at least a game plan and Utah is a pretty good model for it.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Trading JO this summer, might be the worst move the Pacers ever made

            Originally posted by croz24 View Post
            jo's trade value has become lower and lower each season we have kept him on this team...the pacers need to trade granger pre-draft, which in turn would make trading jo much easier because it would then reduce our asking price after having received our 'prospect(s)' via the granger trade...
            Did Danny run over this guy's cat or something?

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Kravitz: Deal Tinsley and O'Neal

              First off, it seems I missed the official announcement, but CONGRATULATIONS
              (I think) to Unclebuck for his promotion to Admin status.

              I like the part about the "Arctic ice floe", and hope they do find a way to
              move these guys without losing too much.

              And as soon as O'Neal is moved, I hope they've learned their lesson about
              caving in to these player's agents and never hand out another max contract
              again.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Trading JO this summer, might be the worst move the Pacers ever made

                Originally posted by croz24 View Post
                jo's trade value has become lower and lower each season we have kept him on this team...the pacers need to trade granger pre-draft, which in turn would make trading jo much easier because it would then reduce our asking price after having received our 'prospect(s)' via the granger trade...
                Why do people want to keep posting about trading the most productive players on the team?

                I understand that sometimes a team must let go of a good player along with a lesser player in order to get the other team to make a deal, but you don't do that with your most productive (or at least one of the top two) player.

                In addition, to say we should trade Granger for "prospects" in order to be able to reduce the asking price for O'Neal makes absolutely no sense to me.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Kravitz: Deal Tinsley and O'Neal

                  Originally posted by RamBo_Lamar View Post
                  never hand out another max contract again.
                  Youch.
                  This space for rent.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Kravitz: Deal Tinsley and O'Neal

                    I think it sounds like Bird is fairly set with Dunleavy at the two.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Kravitz: Deal Tinsley and O'Neal

                      KRAVITZ:
                      How does JO not fit into JOB's System? When O'Brien was hired he was exicited about coaching Jermaine. He loved the fact he was a post prescence and played D. JOB preaches Defense; That is the number one reason IKE & Graham do not get minutes. The fact BOB MY KNOB KRAVITZ wants to ship him for Marbury is PATHETIC. Our organization was embarressed by the Club Rio incident; Let's not forget Steph's testimony in the sexual harrassment case.
                      Buying out Tinsley? Bird has already said if you this and he goes to another team ie Cleveland and makes them better it is a huge loss. I think all this talk of trading Tinsley is just that TALK.

                      Uncle Buck, Please never post a Kravitz article again.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Trading JO this summer, might be the worst move the Pacers ever made

                        I'm a huge Tinsley fan. He's an important piece but a player relied on this much can't miss so much time. On the other hand, teams can't just start cutting players. Tinsley can still grab pieces from other teams. Maybe they wont be starting material, or young prospects, or first round picks but they'll be something. Something preferably healthy.

                        I feel the same way about O'Neal. Great player, great impact, too much time missed etc....

                        I don't agree with Kravitz on this issue. "At all costs" is never a good idea. JO's value has been discussed and team management knows alot more than we do (I assume). I think the same thing applies to Jamaal.

                        Also, after missing the playoffs for the second year, I don't think the Pacers are set at any position including small forward/shooting guard. There are some likable guys (Diener), consummate professionals ( Foster), even borderline stars (Dun & Granger). Really though, this team is starting behind the eight ball and they have to start thinking like that. Cutting players outright, trading cornerstone players in desperation, relying on borderline NBA players to fill out rotations(not just fill up the bench) isn't gonna cut it. The plan has to be a little more well thought out and executed with precision.
                        I'm in these bands
                        The Humans
                        Dr. Goldfoot
                        The Bar Brawlers
                        ME

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Trading JO this summer, might be the worst move the Pacers ever made

                          They should have traded him last summer. His value will never be that high again (well, I guess it will be high in a year to a team that wants a large contract coming off the books).

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Trading JO this summer, might be the worst move the Pacers ever made

                            UB-

                            I've come around to your point of view. Assuming J.O. isn't willing
                            to opt-out as part of a sign and trade deal, the chance of moving
                            him now in any deal that doesn't just make things worse is slim
                            and none.

                            If we can find some team dumb enough to trade a contract and
                            a talented young prospect and/or a draft pick (ala a Marbury and
                            Lee or Marbury, Lee and a 1st round pick deal), then great, do
                            it. But otherwise, being him back, limit his minutes to 30 or so
                            a game next year and then shop him when his contract moves
                            from being an albatross to being attractive.

                            As for Tinsley, whatever. Trade him, pay him to sit in the stands,
                            whatever. I could care less about him.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Trading JO this summer, might be the worst move the Pacers ever made

                              Originally posted by Adam1987 View Post
                              They should have traded him last summer. His value will never be that high again (well, I guess it will be high in a year to a team that wants a large contract coming off the books).
                              I suggested trading him after the 2003 season in a deal for Bosh. I was ridiculed at the time.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X