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

Kirk Hinrich or draft a point guard

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

  • Kirk Hinrich or draft a point guard

    It makes sense that Hinrich is available, especially after the lottery last night. So my quesiton to those who watch college basketball, who is and who will be better Hinrich or a possible point guard who might be available at the #11th pick in the draft.

    If we can get someone who is better than Hinrich at the 11th pick, I'll be very happy.

    Kirk does have 4 years left - 37 million

  • #2
    Re: Kirk Hinrich or draft a point guard

    Here is a decent article discussing some of this

    http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print...811&type=story


    SECAUCUS, N.J. -- The Chicago Bulls were the big winners in the 2008 draft lottery Tuesday night, taking home the top pick despite a measly 1.7 percent chance of winning the lottery.

    Only one team, the 1993 Orlando Magic, has overcome greater odds to win the lottery. Now comes the Bulls' biggest task: deciding whom to take with the No. 1 pick.

    In our latest mock draft, I have the Bulls selecting Kansas State forward Michael Beasley by a hair.

    Yes, Derrick Rose is a hometown candidate and a clear upgrade over their current point guard, Kirk Hinrich. And he's my favorite player in the draft. But that isn't the only consideration.

    Most general managers have Beasley ranked ahead of Rose in the talent department. Rose may have more upside and plays a critically important position, but if you ask GMs and scouts to rate guys purely on talent, Beasley comes out ahead. In fact, until Rose's excellent run in the NCAA tournament, most NBA scouts and GMs scoffed at the idea of taking anyone other than Beasley with the first pick in the draft.

    Michael Beasley could give Chicago some hope down low.
    The Bulls have been looking for a low-post scorer for years. They tried everything from trading for veterans like Drew Gooden to drafting young athletes like Tyrus Thomas. To date, nothing has worked. Since trading away Elton Brand in 2001, the Bulls have struggled to score in the paint.

    The consensus the past few years has been that the Bulls will never get over the top until they get that guy who can average 20 points and 10 rebounds for them. Considering the way Beasley dominated the Big 12 this year, is there any question he's the right fit?

    Well … yes. There are questions about Beasley's attitude and work ethic. Stories still swirl about his offcourt antics in high school. The Derrick Coleman comparisons don't help, either.

    But at the end of the day, I think Beasley has a slight edge. The NBA executives I interviewed in Secaucus after the draft lottery mostly agreed. Of the six NBA execs I spoke with, four thought the Bulls would select Beasley. Two picked Rose.

    I would've asked Bulls GM John Paxson myself, except he wasn't here. Nor were any of the Bulls' front-office guys in charge of the draft. That's probably the most telling sign that the Bulls didn't think they had a chance in hell of winning the lottery.

    We'll be watching this drama closely over the next few weeks. The Bulls can't go wrong with either player.

    • Regardless of whom the Bulls take, expect there to be some big changes to their roster as a result of the big lottery win. If they select Beasley, expect Gooden and Thomas to be on the shopping block. If they select Rose, Hinrich could be on the move.

    Of the two options, Beasley probably wins the argument here as well. A combo of Gooden (who will be in the last year of his contract) and Thomas should have much more trade value than Hinrich (who has four years, $37 million left on his contract).

    • The Heat will be in limbo until the Bulls make their decision. A source familiar with Miami's thinking told me on Tuesday that the Heat would likely keep the pick if they get Rose. If the Bulls select Rose, right now the Heat would be more inclined to trade the pick.

    However, Shawn Marion could change the equation. There have been growing rumors that Marion is considering opting out of his contract. If he did that (and decided to sign with another team), the Heat would suddenly need a player like Beasley to fill the void.

    If Marion opts out, where would he go? The Sixers are the only team with significant cap room this summer.

    • Mike D'Antoni kept smiling, but Tuesday wasn't his night. D'Antoni agonized for a week over whether to take the Bulls' or Knicks' head coaching job. He chose the Knicks, and then two weeks later … the Bulls win the lottery.

    Ouch. Suddenly, a Bulls team that already looked like it had a bright future now looks incredible. The Knicks? It's going to be a long two years.

    I think D'Antoni was itching to get his hands on Rose. He needs a dynamic point guard to run his system and drafting at No. 6, he probably isn't going to get it. Jerryd Bayless will likely be off the board before then. D.J. Augustin and Russell Westbrook are the next best point guards available, but six is probably too high for both.

    Where does that leave New York? There will be growing speculation that the Knicks may turn their attention to Italian forward Danilo Gallinari. D'Antoni played with Gallinari's father in Italy for eight years. He's watched Danilo play over the years in Europe, and he knows how tough the Italian league is. D'Antoni loves versatile forwards like Gallinari. His basketball IQ and facilitation skills would be a great fit in a D'Antoni offense.

    I spoke with D'Antoni minutes after the draft lottery. You can see his comments on the Knicks' bad night, Gallinari and what type of offense he wants to run in New York here.

    • Look for a number of this year's lottery picks to be for sale the next few months. Numerous sources have said that the Heat, Timberwolves, Sonics, Knicks, Clippers, Bucks, Bobcats, Nets and Blazers are all open to trading their picks if the right deal came along.

    Teams like the Wolves, Sonics, Bucks, Bobcats and Blazers are already loaded with young players. What they need are veterans who can add leadership and depth. Teams like the Heat, Knicks, Clippers and Nets seem to be focused on winning now.

    While everyone agrees that the draft is deep and talented, only Rose and Beasley are considered superstar material. The rest of the players in the draft are considered good prospects, but not the type of players who can quickly turn the fortunes of a team.

    • If I'm Cavs owner Dan Gilbert, I'm really sweating losing LeBron James in two years. Nets co-owner Jay-Z was at the draft lottery and Dwyane Wade, Kevin Durant and Rudy Gay were absolutely mesmerized by the guy. We know LeBron is a big fan as well and if the Nets can get under the cap and use Jay-Z as a pitch man -- he could very well become one of the most powerful owners in the league.

    Chad Ford covers the NBA for ESPN Insider.
    Last edited by Unclebuck; 05-21-2008, 10:00 AM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Kirk Hinrich or draft a point guard

      I like DJ Augustin alot but I don't think I would take him over Hinrich. Personally I would love to get both. I think Quis & Foster's expiring contracts are going to look pretty when you think about how much Hinrich is paid over the next few years.

      Maybe a Diener, Williams, Foster trade for Hinrich, ??

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Kirk Hinrich or draft a point guard

        Originally posted by esabyrn333 View Post
        I like DJ Augustin alot but I don't think I would take him over Hinrich. Personally I would love to get both. I think Quis & Foster's expiring contracts are going to look pretty when you think about how much Hinrich is paid over the next few years.

        Maybe a Diener, Williams, Foster trade for Hinrich, ??
        Bulls likely won't have any interest in Foster (unless they trade some of their bigs) they already have at least two young offensively challenged energy power forwards

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Kirk Hinrich or draft a point guard

          maybe they'd do JO for Hinrich (plus filler) then they take Rose?
          "I'll always be a part of Donnie Walsh."
          -Ron Artest, Denver Post, 12.28.05

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Kirk Hinrich or draft a point guard

            For the 5 millionth time, Hinrich's a bum. I'm not going to waste my time following a team with him as point guard.

            As for Augustin, he's not starting material, not right away at least. And the Pacers have made it clear they don't expect to get a starting-caliber point at 11. Doesn't mean we can't get a capable veteran to platoon with DJ, Westbrook, Chalmers, whomever. But IMO that definitely should not be Hinrich.
            Last edited by Kegboy; 05-21-2008, 10:05 AM.
            Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Kirk Hinrich or draft a point guard

              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
              Bulls likely won't have any interest in Foster (unless they trade some of their bigs) they already have at least two young offensively challenged energy power forwards
              I think this team is going to be very good next year. I see thier one weakness is that they need a solid Vetran on the team that has play off experince.

              Maybe Hinrich & a sign & trade for Gordon for JO and our Pick. This gives them JO and Larry Hughes coming off the books the same time as D-Wade becomes a free agent.

              Plus like I said this team with JO on it would be a contender the next 2 years. This team would be very Deep and if you add Avery Johnson as coach resign Duhon and Deng.

              Duhon, Thabo, Nocioni, Thomas as your bench.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Kirk Hinrich or draft a point guard

                Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
                For the 5 millionth time, Hinrich's a bum. I'm not going to waste my time following a team with him as point guard.

                As for Augustin, he's not starting material, not right away at least. And the Pacers have made it clear they don't expect to get a starting-caliber point at 11. Doesn't mean we can't get a capable veteran to platoon with DJ, Westbrook, Chalmers, whomever. But IMO that definitely should not be Hinrich.
                I was thinking of you when I started this thread.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Kirk Hinrich or draft a point guard

                  Hinrich had a bad year, but prior to that he was getting 16 points, 6 assists a game, shooting 40% from three, and playing great defense.

                  I think JO for Hinrich/Hughes makes a lot of sense for both sides. We would go from a terrible defensive team to a great one, and we would not lose any of our main offensive weapons either.
                  "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

                  - ilive4sports

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Kirk Hinrich or draft a point guard

                    I still think Kirk could look very good playing for Jim O'Brien.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Kirk Hinrich or draft a point guard

                      Someday somebody's gonna have to explain to me why JO has any value at all as a trading piece.

                      We're talking a max contract player who's been chronically injured, has averaged 50 games/season over the last 4 years and whose game, and numbers, are declining.

                      Other than as a contract that ends in 2010, he's worthless in a trade - or worse. Right now you'd have to throw a player in to convince someone to take him, or accept somebody else's problem (see Zach Randolph).
                      The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Kirk Hinrich or draft a point guard

                        Originally posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
                        I think JO for Hinrich/Hughes makes a lot of sense for both sides. We would go from a terrible defensive team to a great one,
                        Woah, woah, woah. This will not be a great defensive team after that trade. It might appear a little better because of the major increase in perimeter defense, but you're also trading our best post defender away.

                        Now, if you're comparing the post-trade team to the JO-less team, then yes that's big improvement. I really don't want Hughes, though. It'd be nice if we got their 2009 first rounder for taking him.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Kirk Hinrich or draft a point guard

                          Originally posted by DisplacedKnick View Post
                          Someday somebody's gonna have to explain to me why JO has any value at all as a trading piece.

                          We're talking a max contract player who's been chronically injured, has averaged 50 games/season over the last 4 years and whose game, and numbers, are declining.

                          Other than as a contract that ends in 2010, he's worthless in a trade - or worse. Right now you'd have to throw a player in to convince someone to take him, or accept somebody else's problem (see Zach Randolph).
                          I took the thinking to be that we could trade a bum for bums--isn't that what Kirk, Hughes, and JO are considered to be? Trade garbage and hope they play better in a new situation, I guess.
                          You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Kirk Hinrich or draft a point guard

                            I would do JO for Hughes/Hinrich in a heartbeat. Hinrich has seemingly had one bad year, I thought he was once really well regarded in Chicago. Hughes is a great perimeter defender.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Kirk Hinrich or draft a point guard

                              Is Augustine, Travis Best but a pure point guard?

                              I think this, if you are looking at 3-5 years from now, you take your chances with Augustine who is a leader and lightening quick, but is short. I think he has the rest of it.

                              If you want to win next year and get the 6-8th playoff spot and thats iffy, then you'd move for Henrick.

                              I like Henrick and he will put up great numbers in this offense, but you have to ask yourself, is the surrounding cast much better than the Bulls last year? Does it make you a contender?

                              Is Henrick another guy who puts up good numbers on a sub par team if he's with the Pacers.

                              If the situation was Phillie when they traded AI for Andre Miller, I'd do it. And it still may end up that way, a bunch of young athletic guys who need a pure experienced point to lead them, but right now it doesn't make sense to me.

                              My answer is this, I would say no, I would not trade the #11 pick for Henrick and his 4 years to maintain a semblence of mediocrity.

                              Talk to me tomorrow I may feel differently.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X