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

Is it worth the risk?

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

  • Is it worth the risk?

    As I understand it, if we let Granger go into this season without an extension, he will become a restricted free agent in the summer of 2009.

    The downside to this is he will probably command a larger contract in a year than he does right now.

    However, there is a flip side.

    If we can wait on Granger until later in the summer, which of course is dependent on him agreeing to do this, we will temporarily have a good deal of capspace on our hands earlier in the summer.

    As such, this would temporarily allow us to go after a big fish on the market (such as Carlos Boozer), sign him, and then, because Danny Granger is already one of our players, we can go over the salary cap to re-sign Danny once the free agent is squared away.

    My question to you all is: Should the Pacers try to do this?
    47
    Yes, they should try to do this.
    40.43%
    19
    I have mixed feelings on this idea.
    34.04%
    16
    No, they should not risk it.
    25.53%
    12

    The poll is expired.


  • #2
    Re: Is it worth the risk?

    The prospect doesn't frighten me.

    I think Granger is more valuable to us than to any other team and we are certainly going to match any offer he gets next summer if we don't extend him earlier. Danny's value on the market might not rise much. His output might slacken this coming season since he'll be sharing the ball in what I hope will be a more efficient offense. Whether that happens or not, I trust that Bird is leaving no doubt with Danny or his agent that he's going to stay in Indiana.

    I don't have a lot of expectation of catching a big free agent. But the cap space saved after Nesterovic leaves can just apply to the bottom line of the Pacers' balance sheet.
    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: Is it worth the risk?

      If for some reason the negotiation gets messy, Dunleavy could play that spot on the floor.

      I'm sure if managment keeps Danny and his agent on board with what is going on, and offer Danny the right deal without trying to low ball him. I don't think the negotiation will get sour.

      I voted to be able to play the market.
      Last edited by Roaming Gnome; 09-19-2008, 10:31 AM.
      ...Still "flying casual"
      @roaminggnome74

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Is it worth the risk?

        I don't have a problem waiting.

        The risk is if a team next summer gives granger a max contract or something very close, then the pacers will either be forced to match or let him go

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Is it worth the risk?

          The way I understand it, we'll have 11 mil (according to Chad Ford) if we renounce all of our other FA except for Danny (Jack, Quis, Rasho, Jeff). So we could try to sign someone then go over the cap to resign whomever we'd we want. If we renounced Danny, we could probably have $20 mil, right? But we would lose the right to match any offer. If he signed with Portland, he would sign with Portland and he'd be gone.

          Feel free to correct me, Count.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Is it worth the risk?

            I might just be a little niave about Danny, but I have too much faith in his character.

            To be honest, I'm thinking the team has a verbal agreement with him, a la Boozer and the Cavs. I think Danny is too good of a person to pull the schtick Booz did.

            With Bird coming out in the press saying he wanted to wait, to be able to sign a FA first then Danny, makes me think they have been in contact and there is an understanding between the two. Usually in this situation we see/hear remarks from the player and his agent. There mere fact that there isn't any talk about it public makes me feel easy about the situation.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Is it worth the risk?

              Two problems with the "significant cap space theory":

              1. This team has no history of pursuing or bagging major free agents. I don't see a real reason to think this will change given (a) the teams level of talent, (b) the teams contract commitments to players like Murphy, Dunleavy, & Tinsley (& the impending Danny contract) (c) the team's current attendance and financial position, and (d) the questions surrounding the future of the ownership given the advanced age of the Simons, and the reported lack of interest by David Simon.

              2. It's exceedingly unlikely that we will actually have "significant cap space". This has been outlined ad nauseum, but the CBA puts cap holds for free agents on salaries in order to prevent teams from circumventing the cap by signing FA, then re-signing their own players.

              Originally posted by Larry Coon
              31. Why do free agents continue to count against a team's cap?

              It closes another loophole. Teams otherwise would be able to sign other teams' free agents using their cap room, and then turn their attention to their own free agents using the Bird exceptions. This rule restricts their ability to do that. It doesn't close this loophole completely -- for example, in 2005 Michael Redd's free agent amount was $6 million, even though the Bucks intended to re-sign him for the maximum salary. By waiting to sign Redd last, the Bucks were able to take advantage of the difference by signing Bobby Simmons. Had they signed Redd first, they would have had no cap room to sign Simmons.
              If we don't sign Danny, he will still count as $7mm towards our cap next summer until he signs a contract with us or someone else. We have just under $42mm in contract commitments next year. Danny's cap hold would put us at $49mm, and the hold for our 1st round pick will probably put us at around $50-51mm. Assuming that the cap will be around $62mm next year, that would leave us $12mm of cap space before considering any other free agent cap holds we have. We have the following other cap holds:

              Rasho $12,600 (150% of this year's salary)
              Foster $8,250 (150%)
              Baston $3,409 (150%)
              Jack $6,008 (300%)
              Graham $1,074 (130%)
              McBob $925 (130%)

              So, before we actually have cap space available to sign free agents, we'd have to renounce the rights to some or all of the players listed above. To get the $11-12mm, we'd have to renounce the rights to all of them. What does it mean to "renounce" a player? It means that we're basically giving up our right to go over the salary cap to sign them. We can re-sign them, but only if (a) we have enough free cap space (in other words, they become the UFA we'd sign) or (b) they sign to the Minimum Player exception. We can't use the MLE. We can't use Bird Rights. We can sign-and-trade them, but that gets pretty speculative. Effectively, you have lost those players, likely with no compensation.

              So, let's say we do renounce all of those players. Why would a player like Carlos Boozer take a below-market offer (starting at $11-12mm) to come to a team with Granger, Dunleavy, Murphy, B Rush, Hibbert, Diener, Ford, Tinsley (or his replacement/buyout amount), and a (likely) mid-1st rounder, and nothing else? What difference maker are you going to get for that amount that is that big of an upgrade over the rights to Foster, Jack, or potentially Rasho?

              If we were to decide that we wanted to retain the rights to even one of the rotational players listed above (Rasho, Foster, or Jack), then their cap hold would probably get us close enough to the cap for the MLE & LLE cap holds (yes, they have those, too) to kick in, effectively zeroing out our free cap space and relegating us to MLE-level signings.

              The idea of waiting until next year to sign Danny to "maximize cap space" is simply a red herring. It is flawed in it's very core.

              There is only one reason that the Pacers would not sign Danny to an extension this year:

              The Pacers Front Office and ownership is, at this time, unwilling to commit to Danny at the price he would be asking for this summer.

              They want to see another year. They're gunshy from Rose, JO, Bender, Artest, Jackson, and Tinsley. They're hemmorhaging money, and attendance is abysmal. The Simons are aging, and they're balking at committing $60+mm to a guy who only has one year of big numbers, and that was on a team that didn't make the playoffs.

              Or worse. They may not be willing to commit that money to anybody.

              The talk of "free agents" is a misdirection. The Pacers are not in a position to sign major free agents, and they won't be next summer, either. While their "conservatism" may be sound fiscal policy, it's something we should be concerned about. What happens if Danny averages 20 & 7, but the team wins 30 games? Did he prove that he was worth Iggy money, or did he prove that he wasn't worth it?

              They may be playing the exact same game that Atlanta did with Josh Smith...hoping that the market will be constrained enough to knock down Danny's price.

              If the Pacers knew for sure that they wanted to lock up Danny, then it would be done this summer, just like NO did with Paul, Milwaukee did with Bogut, and GS did with Ellis & Biedrins. Allowing Danny to enter the FA market is much more indicative of a higher willingness to let him walk than we currently would like to believe, than it is of strategic cap planning.

              If Danny doesn't sign an extension this summer, I would (unscientifically) put the chances of us losing him next summer at 1 in 3. This isn't because I think that it's more likely for a huge bidding war to drive him out of our price range. It's because I think that the ownership may think he's already out of our price range.
              Last edited by count55; 09-19-2008, 11:13 AM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Is it worth the risk?

                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                I don't have a problem waiting.

                The risk is if a team next summer gives granger a max contract or something very close, then the pacers will either be forced to match or let him go
                Or to do a sign-and-trade with the other team for ?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Is it worth the risk?

                  I value the PG heavily, but look at the starting PG's on The NBA Finals teams last year. The trend seems to be to have a three headed monster to do damage ie KG, Pierce, Allen. Go to Houston Ming, T MAC, ARTEST. The Pacers need to sign another player so we have Danny, McRoberts, & ......

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Is it worth the risk?

                    And there you go.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Is it worth the risk?

                      Originally posted by rexnom View Post
                      The way I understand it, we'll have 11 mil (according to Chad Ford) if we renounce all of our other FA except for Danny (Jack, Quis, Rasho, Jeff). So we could try to sign someone then go over the cap to resign whomever we'd we want. If we renounced Danny, we could probably have $20 mil, right? But we would lose the right to match any offer. If he signed with Portland, he would sign with Portland and he'd be gone.

                      Feel free to correct me, Count.
                      You are correct...I was in the middle of writing my tome when you posted this, so I didn't see it until after I posted.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Is it worth the risk?

                        I didn't read all of what count wrote due to its Naptimeyness, but I imagine he said that the OP is incorrect since we would have what is called a "cap hold" next summer anyway that would tie up at least somewhat close to as much cap room as what we would end up giving Danny in Year 1 of an extension.

                        The only benefit we could get out of not signing Danny this summer is if he turns out to be a worse player than we thought over the next 10 months. And that, of course, isn't particularly helpful for our franchise either.
                        Last edited by JayRedd; 09-19-2008, 12:29 PM.
                        Read my Pacers blog:
                        8points9seconds.com

                        Follow my twitter:

                        @8pts9secs

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Is it worth the risk?

                          Originally posted by JayRedd View Post
                          I didn't read all of what count wrote due to its Naptimeyness, but I imagine he said that the OP is incorrect since we would have what is called a "cap hold" next summer anyway that would be tie up at least somewhat close to as much cap room as what we would end up giving Danny in Year 1 of an extension.

                          The only benefit we could get out of not signing Danny this summer is if he turns out to be a worse player than we thought over the next 10 months. And that, of course, isn't particularly helpful for our franchise either.
                          Basically, we don't have any real cap space available next year, and Danny's extension would make only a minimal impact on it.

                          Not signing Danny is far more likely to be due to misgivings the Pacers have about paying Danny (specifically, or quite possibly anyone, generally) the kind of money he would likely command this (or next) summer.

                          Therefore, rather than viewing it as some clever strategem to help turn the team around, we should more likely view this turn of events as a troubling sign that the Simons' commitment to the Pacers may be faltering, and that they are more concerned with the P&L than the Box Score.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Is it worth the risk?

                            How much cap space would we have if we only hold onto the rights to Danny and Jack?

                            Also, something else to keep in mind is that there is always the possibility of a new trade that would change our finances. If we end up with more expiring contracts, you never know.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Is it worth the risk?

                              I totally agree with count55 on this.....I don't want to take the risk.

                              I want to ensure that we keep Granger, Jack AND Foster and I therefore do not want to renounce their rights....which means that they would impact the amount of Capspace we have.

                              On top of that....I really think that the Blazers will do their best to make a serious run at Granger. Everyone knows that we have limited Salarycap flexiblility and make a push to price Granger out of our comfortable price range.

                              Bottomline....if we can extend Granger to a price of $12 mil for 6 years ( which can be considered pricey ), I am happy with it. IMHO...it's fair market value for a player of his caliber, age and talent.
                              Last edited by CableKC; 09-19-2008, 01:02 PM.
                              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X