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

Indiana/Sacramento/Minnesota

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

  • Indiana/Sacramento/Minnesota

    I'm exploring ways the Pacers can acquire a quality young big man, who at this point I don't see available in this draft. Does this move (or something similar) make any sense for all three teams?

    Indiana trades TJ Ford and #13 draft pick in 2009 to Minnesota
    Indiana trades Jamal Tinsley to Sacramento

    Sacramento trades Jason Thompson and Kenny Thomas to Indiana
    Sacramento trades Beno Udrih to Minnesota

    Minnesota trades Mike Miller, #18 draft pick in 2009 to Sacramento
    Minnesota trades Brian Cardinal and #28 draft pick in 2009 to Indiana.

    Why for Indiana: We get rid of Tinsley's albatross contract, and gain expiring contracts in Cardinal and Thomas (although they stink as players). We also get a better big young big man than anyone in this draft in Thompson, who can play alongside Hibbert for years to come, and is big enough to play center alongside Murphy this year if needed as well.

    The money saved in contracts for us gives us much needed cap space next summer, and gives us the flexibility to re-sign Jarrett Jack or sign a smaller free agent immediately this summer, if we so choose.

    Why not for Indiana: big gamble to trade Ford if you cannot for sure re-sign Jack, whom you can't negotiate with until July 1. Giving up the 13th pick might be a steep price to pay, although we still get a late first rounder this year at 28.


    Why for Minnesota: Minnesota gives up the unhappy Miller, who didn't fit in well, in exchange for TJ Ford, who becomes an immediate starter I think, and possibly can play alongside Randy Foye in a smallish backcourt. Minnesota moves up 5 spots in the draft and gets rid of a pretty useless Brian Cardinal. Moving up to #13 in the draft might enable them to pair their two lottery picks to move up higher in the draft, if they see a player worthy to move up to get.

    Why not for Minnesota: taking on the long term contract of Beno Udrih might not appeal to them, even though it isn't that expensive.

    Why for Sacramento: The Kings get out of 2 dreadful contracts in Kenny Thomas and Beno Udrih in exchange for Jamal Tinsley, who probably starts for them next season. Mike Miller provides a nice scorer for them alongside Kevin Martin, and they gain an extra first round draft pick in this draft at #18. Like Minnesota, they may be able to pair up their 2 first round picks and move up to get a player they covet, such as Thabeet or more likely Ricky Rubio.

    Why not for Sacramento: They may not like the idea of giving up Thompson, their first round pick of a year ago.


    Thoughts either way?

  • #2
    Re: Indiana/Sacramento/Minnesota

    I wish I'd watched Jason Thompson play last year so I could have more of an opinion. If he's truly better than any big in this year's draft, I'd do this in a heartbeat.
    "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

    - Salman Rushdie

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Indiana/Sacramento/Minnesota

      I had thought about a three way with Minny and Sactown. Before posting the Ford and Minny deal

      I didn't include the 13th pick or Jason Thompson

      It was pretty much much Twolve trade except it had Tinsley and Craig Smith (Minny) going to Sactown and Kenny Thomas going to the Pacers, with the Pacers also getting the Kings 2nd rounder

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Indiana/Sacramento/Minnesota

        Couple points:

        First off, Kenny Thomas' contract (while awful) is an expiring deal. It runs one year shorter than Tinsley's.

        I just don't see Sacramento giving up Thompson, who is one of the few good things they have going for them. He's young and has good size/skills for his position. He has the makings of a long term starter at PF, which isn't easy to find.

        In short, it'd be harder for Sacramento to replace Jason Thompson than to get any of those things that are coming their way in that trade. I don't see a bigman propsect at #18 this year anywhere near good as Thompson.

        Ask yourself this: If the Pacers had Jason Thompson, would you be willing to unload Thompson just to dump Tinsley's deal? Unlikely. That's pretty much the equivalent of what you're asking Sac to do.

        Edit: You can possibly get Sac to bite on this deal if you substitute someone like Francisco Garcia in for Thompson. But the Kings wouldn't give up Thompson, who like you say is better than any bigman that will be there at #13.
        Last edited by d_c; 05-22-2009, 11:47 AM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Indiana/Sacramento/Minnesota

          How is Thompson defensively? I know he has a lot of skills offensively and is a pretty solid rebounder, but would he solve our issues inside at all?

          I would probably do this deal, but would probably do it on draft day and would hopefully have a better idea of how Jack's negotiation would play out.


          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Indiana/Sacramento/Minnesota

            Originally posted by d_c View Post
            Couple points:

            First off, Kenny Thomas' contract (while awful) is an expiring deal. It runs one year shorter than Tinsley's.

            I just don't see Sacramento giving up Thompson, who is one of the few good things they have going for them. He's young and has good size/skills for his position. He has the makings of a long term starter at PF, which isn't easy to find.

            In short, it'd be harder for Sacramento to replace Jason Thompson than to get any of those things that are coming their way in that trade. I don't see a bigman propsect at #18 this year anywhere near good as Thompson.

            Ask yourself this: If the Pacers had Jason Thompson, would you be willing to unload Thompson just to dump Tinsley's deal? Unlikely. That's pretty much the equivalent of what you're asking Sac to do.

            Edit: You can possibly get Sac to bite on this deal if you substitute someone like Francisco Garcia in for Thompson. But the Kings wouldn't give up Thompson, who like you say is better than any bigman that will be there at #13.

            All excellent points....but I do have some counterpoints from a Sacramento perspective to hopefully balance out your concerns.

            Let's assume for a moment that Sacramento stays at 4 and doesnt try to move up. They easily can replace Thompson by drafting Jordan Hill from Arizona, which is in fact what I would need to be hoping they would do.

            Then at #13, they could take the best player available to them that they like the best. If I were them in this scenario, I'd probably look at one of the many point guards likely to be available at that spot and take one of them as Tinsley insurance.

            You must understand that Sacramento's owners, the Maloof brothers, are bleeding money out of their real estate holdings and in their Las Vegas casinos. I would think the cash savings they would have in a deal like this (especially getting out of Udrih's 4 year committment) would have to have some appeal to them. With all the money they supposedly lost when the mortage crisis hit (I think they had large holdings with several of the failing banks....I could be wrong but I don't think so) I am hoping the financial perks of this deal are helpful enough to them they agree to make the move.

            As far as substituting Garcia for Thompson, it would be tempting to do the deal just to get rid of Tinsley, but I think I would pass unless I could get the young big man I am clamoring for in Thompson. I suppose if I could spin Francisco Garcia off to a 4th team to get a young big man (to Philadelphia for Speights would be my fantasy, although no way Philly does that I don't think) then I could still do it.

            I agree that this deal is weakest for Sacramento from a talent perspective....I would be hoping the financial advantages they gain help them enough to do the deal anyway.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Indiana/Sacramento/Minnesota

              If we got the 24th pick...give me Sam Young or Patty Mills.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Indiana/Sacramento/Minnesota

                Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
                All excellent points....but I do have some counterpoints from a Sacramento perspective to hopefully balance out your concerns.

                Let's assume for a moment that Sacramento stays at 4 and doesnt try to move up. They easily can replace Thompson by drafting Jordan Hill from Arizona, which is in fact what I would need to be hoping they would do.

                Then at #13, they could take the best player available to them that they like the best. If I were them in this scenario, I'd probably look at one of the many point guards likely to be available at that spot and take one of them as Tinsley insurance.

                You must understand that Sacramento's owners, the Maloof brothers, are bleeding money out of their real estate holdings and in their Las Vegas casinos. I would think the cash savings they would have in a deal like this (especially getting out of Udrih's 4 year committment) would have to have some appeal to them. With all the money they supposedly lost when the mortage crisis hit (I think they had large holdings with several of the failing banks....I could be wrong but I don't think so) I am hoping the financial perks of this deal are helpful enough to them they agree to make the move.

                As far as substituting Garcia for Thompson, it would be tempting to do the deal just to get rid of Tinsley, but I think I would pass unless I could get the young big man I am clamoring for in Thompson. I suppose if I could spin Francisco Garcia off to a 4th team to get a young big man (to Philadelphia for Speights would be my fantasy, although no way Philly does that I don't think) then I could still do it.

                I agree that this deal is weakest for Sacramento from a talent perspective....I would be hoping the financial advantages they gain help them enough to do the deal anyway.
                Jordan Hill at #4 is a huge, huge reach. They'll probably just stand pat and take the best available PG (the clear strength of this draft) instead and just keep Thompson, who is better than Hill.

                As far as the financial savings, they wouldn't take affect for another 2 years when Tinsley's deal rolls off while Udrih still has an additional 2 years. But in those interim two seasons, the Kings get no relief at all. Their total payroll would be the same.

                You'd be asking the Kings to take a big talent hit while not seeing any immediate financial savings at all.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Indiana/Sacramento/Minnesota

                  Originally posted by d_c View Post
                  Jordan Hill at #4 is a huge, huge reach. They'll probably just stand pat and take the best available PG (the clear strength of this draft) instead and just keep Thompson, who is better than Hill.

                  As far as the financial savings, they wouldn't take affect for another 2 years when Tinsley's deal rolls off while Udrih still has an additional 2 years. But in those interim two seasons, the Kings get no relief at all. Their total payroll would be the same.

                  You'd be asking the Kings to take a big talent hit while not seeing any immediate financial savings at all.
                  I don't think you can classify Jordan Hill being selected at #4 as a huge reach, considering that that is exactly where he is predicted to be picked in several mock drafts, and every mock draft I've seen so far has him at worst in the top 6-8.

                  Having said that, you and I are in agreement that Thompson is better than Hill.....I just don't have anyway to know what the Kings or the rest of the general NBA community may think.

                  I think it is at least apparent that Thompson fits the profile of the type of player we need badly, and that isn't available in this draft:

                  -A young big with upside
                  - Big enough/athletic enough to play next to Hibbert OR Murphy
                  -Affordable and under contract for multiple seasons.

                  I do understand your point on the financial parts of this deal as well....perhaps Minnesota might be persuaded to throw in some cash to Sacramento as part of the equation. Teams can use up to 3million in cash as a "sweetener" in a deal as we all know....maybe the TWolves would consider something like that.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Indiana/Sacramento/Minnesota

                    There are several teams out there (the Kings are hardly alone) who are in some form or another of financial distress.

                    And they'll look to trim costs most any way they can but I'm sure the last thing they'll look to do is to unload their best talented young players who are on cheap rookie deals. Seriously, how often do these deals happen?

                    For another thing, you can't be too sure that Minnesota will take on the contracts of Ford AND Udrih to begin with, much less throw in $3M cash.

                    Seriously speaking, they might be the team that needs to do that deal the least, because they'd be taking on large salaries of not one, but two backup players who play the same position. That's a lot of salary to take on simply to move up 5 (non-top 10) spots in the draft. I don't think they'd be interested.
                    Last edited by d_c; 05-22-2009, 03:00 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Indiana/Sacramento/Minnesota

                      As a Pacer fan I would be all for it, I am not too sure the other partners in this scenario would though. I do definitely like it.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Indiana/Sacramento/Minnesota

                        The trade works under the CBA http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMa...tradeId=qxhzrw

                        Sac is not going to give us Thomas and Thompson for Tinsley. Thomas get paid more than Tinsley, but has a shorter contract and it expires in 2010 (when all the big FAs are available).

                        Also, I think we could get more for Ford than Cardinal and and #28th pick. It seems that Tinsley has more value than Ford (if you compare the two trades)
                        Last edited by MillerTime; 05-24-2009, 04:34 PM.
                        "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Indiana/Sacramento/Minnesota

                          Originally posted by MillerTime View Post
                          Sac is going to give us Thomas and Thompson for Tinsley. Thomas get paid more than Tinsley, but has a shorter contract and it expires in 2010 (when all the big FAs are available).
                          What incentive is there for Sacramento to do that?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Indiana/Sacramento/Minnesota

                            Originally posted by TheDoddage View Post
                            What incentive is there for Sacramento to do that?
                            I meant to say they will NOT do that trade
                            "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Indiana/Sacramento/Minnesota

                              How about this structure, a slight alteration of the same idea:

                              trade 1: Tinsley, #13 to Minnesota/ Cardinal, #18 and #28 to Indiana

                              trade 2 Ford, #18 to Sacramento /Thompson, Thomas to Indiana

                              How would this be as an alternate idea?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X