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

7/9/2004 - Bam-Boozered

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

    7/9/2004 - Bam-Boozered







     
    By Chad Ford
    ESPN Insider
     

    Money. Greed. Betrayal. Revenge. $52 million wedding gifts.


    We had it all on Thursday. The NBA game itself may have enough problems to make it uninteresting to some. But you don't have a pulse if you haven't been enthralled with this summer's NBA free-agent wooing process. It's just a matter of time before NBATV gets involved in this thing and runs daily episodes in the morning to compete with the Days of Our Lives.


    Soap opera writers can't make this stuff up.


    On Wednesday morning Insider reported that Cavs GM Jim Paxson should be sweating bullets over the status of Carlos Boozer. By the afternoon, Insider was the first to report that the Jazz were on the verge of offering Boozer a six-year, $68 million deal that he would likely accept.


    By Thursday night, Boozer had taken the money, the Cavs were essentially calling Boozer a liar, Paxson was sweating his job and Jazz GM Kevin O'Connor was cementing his status as the front-runner for executive of the year.


    The Jazz's deal to Boozer may set the Cavs back years. I say "may" because the Cavs may not be out of this thing yet. They still have until July 29th to try to clear enough cap space to match the Jazz's offer. It's the only way for the Cavs. Talk of arbitration, lawsuits and the like are pointless.


    When Paxson agreed to not pick up the team's third-year option for Boozer, he opened the door to something like this. Sources claim that it was Boozer's agent, Rob Pelinka, who asked the Cavs to not pick up the option. They also claim that there was a verbal deal in place with the Cavs for Boozer to sign a six-year, $41 million deal with the Cavs.
























    Carlos Boozer

    Power Forward

    Cleveland Cavaliers    		 http://espn.go.com/i/nba/profiles/players/3632.jpg" width=65 height=90border=0>

    Profile



























    2003-2004 SEASON STATISTICS
    GM PPG RPG APG FG% FT%
    75 15.5 11.4 2.0 .523 .768





    The problem for Paxson is that there's no way to enforce it. If it was agreed to before July 1st, then it was an illegal agreement that would have caused the Cavs to be disciplined by the league and would've been voided. If it was agreed to after July 1st, it wasn't binding. Nothing is binding until the player movement moratorium is lifted on July 14th and players can begin officially signing contracts and offer sheets.


    Can they clear the cap space? It's unlikely. Assuming there's a $46 million cap, the Cavs are roughly $2.5 million under the cap after signing Luke Jackson. Sources told Insider that the Jazz's offer sheet with Boozer is flexible enough that the team can and likely will front load the contract and then have it go down in the remaining years. When you add in a signing bonuses and the like, the Cavs may have to clear up to an additional $10 million to get far enough under the cap to match Boozer's offer.


    To get that far under, the Cavs will have to try to trade several of their players to teams under the cap. Teams like the Hawks, Bobcats, Nuggets and possibly the Clippers still have money under the cap. The team could dangle players like Tony Battie, Dajuan Wagner and Kedrick Brown to those teams in an effort to clear the space. But it won't be easy. The Cavs cannot offer a first-round pick under league rules because they've already traded away their conditional first-round pick for next year (the Bobcats actually own it). That means they have to convince teams to take these players off their hands for nothing.


    Just as importantly, do the Cavs even want to gut their team to bring back Boozer? After his betrayal, does the team really want to re-sign him? Boozer will be enemy No. 1 in Cleveland. Trading away all of the assets will set the club back anyway. In other words, the Cavs are damned if they do, damned if they don't with Boozer at this point.


    If Pelinka and Boozer did verbally promise the Cavs that they would re-sign, then what they did was despicable. But I haven't talked to a GM in the league who would've opened the door the way Paxson did. GMs uniformly agreed on July 1st, when news first broke that the Cavs had agreed to not pick up the option, that it was a bad idea.


    Verbal, wink-wink deals go on all the time in the NBA. But they rarely happen with an asset as valuable as Boozer -- especially when the Cavs were so limited in what they could do if the plan backfired. And let's stop the talk about how benevolent the Cavs were being by agreeing to pay Boozer more this year. They knew that they were getting him to agree to a long-term, below-market deal for added security next season. They had powerful financial motivations to let Boozer out and lock him up at a cheaper rate. No one in Cleveland wanted to pay him what the Jazz eventually offered.


    "This is one of the biggest blunders I've ever seen in the business," one GM told Insider. "You've got to protect your assets. As a GM, I just don't know how I could explain this to my owner. I think the whole thing is depressing. It's tough to know who to trust these days. My guess is that this deal will fundamentally change the way we do business in the NBA. Teams don't like the 14-day waiting period because things like this can happen. I think you'll see a push to get rid of it. Had the Cavs been able to have deal in place for Boozer to sign on July 1 at 12:01 a.m, this never would've happened. The long wait opened the door."


    Paxson may not be at fault the way Boozer and Pelink are here. But the bottom line is that he was the guy who opened the door to Boozer's exodus. If Boozer leaves, the franchise will be set back years. After making a promising run at the playoffs last season, the team suddenly is without a power forward, period. Let alone the one they had who averaged 11.4 rpg.


    After the numerous mistakes Paxson has made in the draft (Trajan Langdon, DeSagana Diop and Dajuan Wagner to name three), in free agency (remember Ira Newble and Kevin Ollie's big deals last year) and trades (Andre Miller for Darius Miles, who was then traded for Jeff McInnis), how can Gordon Gund keep him in Cleveland? No one should be fired for one mistake, especially one that's caused by deceit and betrayl from another party. But when you look at the litany of problems Paxson has been part of Cleveland, he shouldn't be fired. He should do the right thing and resign.


    As for the Jazz? The Boozer signing tops off a best-case scenario summer for the Jazz. The team needed bigs and it added three very promising big guys -- Boozer, Mehmet Okur and rookie Kris Humphries. They needed a potential star in the backcourt and got one in rookie Kirk Snyder. The Jazz neeeded to make these signings this summer. With Andrei Kirilenko looking for a huge extension this fall, this was Utah's last shot to spend a ton of money in free agency.


    The Jazz have made some serious upgrades this summer and all of them look like perfect fits for Jerry Sloan's system. Barring injuries, I think the Jazz are a lock for the playoffs next season and could cause some damage in the West. In my mind, Kevin O'Connor has got to be the front-runner for executive of the year. Given the limitations in place in Utah, he's really made the most of what he can do.


    Around the League


  • Ginobili off the market, Kobe and K-Mart next? Boozer wasn't the only big name to come off the board on Thursday. Insider first reported Thursday night that Emanuel Ginobili had reached a verbal agreement with the Spurs on a six-year deal worth between $50 and $55 million.


    Ginobili was also seeking an offer from the Nuggets. However, after the Spurs got within the right range, his agent, Herb Rudoy, shut down negotiations with Denver. Ginobili had stated several times that his preference was to remain in San Antonio. Ginobili is in Argentina at the moment preparing for his wedding on Saturday. Not a bad wedding present.


    ESPN.com's Marc Stein reported Thursday night that Atlanta had made Kenyon Martin a max, six-year offer to join the Hawks. However, Martin has not told the Hawks whether he'll sign the offer sheet.


    With Ginobili gone and Martin close to being off the board, the Nuggets are in a pinch. They could extend a max offer to Martin, hope he chooses them, and then hope that the Nets don't match it. However, by doing so, they take themselves out of the Kobe Bryant race.


    Bryant has told several teams that he plans to make up his mind as soon as this weekend, and it sounds like the Nuggets are inclined to wait until they are officially eliminated. While most sources report that Bryant is seriously considering only the Lakers and Clippers, two league sources told Insider on Thursday that Bryant did have legitimate interest in the Nuggets.


    It's going to be a tough call for the Nuggets. Kiki Vandeweghe has a close relationship with both players. The team likes Martin, but both sides agree that Martin's first choice is to remain in New Jersey. The Nets can match any offer and the Nuggets know there's a good chance they'll do just that. Even if they won't, I'm not sure they're convinced Martin is a true max player. However, given the market this year, he just might be.


    The Lakers are still considered the heavy favorites to land Bryant. The Clippers are still believed to be running a close second. While the Nuggets fit the criteria that Kobe is looking for, a young talented team with a great front office, Bryant's legal problems in Colorado and the smaller market for the team are working against the Nuggets right now.


    If the Nuggets lose out on both players, a distinct possibility, expect them to use their multiple first-round picks and cap room in an attempt to facilitate a trade or two.


  • Shaq trade could pave the way for Kobe's return: The fact that the Shaq trade talk has intensified over the course of the past two days is an indication that the Lakers are actively paving the way for Kobe's return. Kobe wants to know what he's getting into if he re-signs with the Lakers and GM Mitch Kupchak is trying to oblige.


    The Heat, Mavericks and Pacers appear to be the four teams with the best shot of landing Shaq. Numerous league sources told Insider late on Thursday that the Heat may be the front-runners to land Shaq.


    The Heat are offering Lamar Odom, Brian Grant and Malik Allen. The Lakers want Caron Butler as part of any deal there. I'm not sure how this trade makes sense for either team. The Lakers essentially become the Heat last year -- a talented team without much size. The Heat become Shaq, Dwyane Wade, Eddie Jones and a bunch of role players. Still, Pat Riley admits he's interested.


    "I mean Tracy McGrady got traded, he was on the market," Riley told the South Florida Sun-Sentinel. "I've heard three or four other great-name players that are on the market, Shaq being one of 'em. You've got to pursue 'em. You're foolish if you don't try to pursue 'em and at least listen. Nothing's happened. Everything right now is so premature."


    The Mavericks are offering anyone on their team with the exception of Dirk Nowitzki. The Pacers are unwilling to give up Jermaine O'Neal. A Ron Artest, Al Harrington, Scot Pollard and Austin Croshere deal works under the cap, but the Pacers aren't on Shaq's short list of preferred destinations.


    "Shaq's one of the few guys in the league that I just don't think you can ever say no to," Pacers president Donnie Walsh told Insider. "I think you have to figure out something if you have the opportunity."


  • Crawford-to-the-Knicks getting close: Isiah Thomas wants Jamal Crawford. How badly? Sources claim that the Knicks and Bulls are talking about a deal that would have the Knicks swallowing Eddie Robinson's and Jerome Williams' contracts in an effort to convince the Bulls to do a sign-and-trade.


    Of course, to make that happen the Bulls have to take back a bad contract -- Shandon Anderson's -- in return. So far they've been reluctant to do even that. They've been pushing for the Knicks to send Dikembe Mutombo, Othella Harrington and Frank Williams back in return for Crawford. Mutombo and Harrington are in the last year of their contracts, offering the Bulls more long-term salary cap relief.


    Still, despite the snags, expect something to happen here soon. It's pretty clear that the Bulls don't want Crawford back (his agent, Aaron Goodwin claims they haven't even made an offer) and the Bulls are reluctant to pull the trigger on their free-agent favorite -- Brian Cardinal -- until they figure out what to do with Crawford.


    The other team their talking to, the Heat, may be able to offer a slightly better deal -- Caron Butler and Eddie Jones for Crawford, Williams and Robinson -- but they're a little preoccupied with the Shaq deal at the moment and aren't offering Crawford as lucrative of a contract.


  • Etan Thomas the next big to fall? With bigs flying off the shelf, the word out of Milwaukee is that the Bucks are seriously considering offering Wizards big man Etan Thomas a six-year deal for between $37 and $39 million -- roughly the full mid-level exception.


    Thomas averaged 8.9 ppg and 6.7 rpg but is considered an undersized center at just 6-foot-9. The Wizards would have until July 29th to match the offer. The Wizards need bigs in the worst way, but will they really drink that Kool-Aid?


    Chad Ford covers the NBA for ESPN Insider.




There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.
Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: 7/9/2004 - Bam-Boozered

    "This is one of the biggest blunders I've ever seen in the business," one GM told Insider. "You've got to protect your assets. As a GM, I just don't know how I could explain this to my owner. I think the whole thing is depressing. It's tough to know who to trust these days. My guess is that this deal will fundamentally change the way we do business in the NBA. Teams don't like the 14-day waiting period because things like this can happen. I think you'll see a push to get rid of it. Had the Cavs been able to have deal in place for Boozer to sign on July 1 at 12:01 a.m, this never would've happened. The long wait opened the door."


    Paxson may not be at fault the way Boozer and Pelink are here. But the bottom line is that he was the guy who opened the door to Boozer's exodus. If Boozer leaves, the franchise will be set back years. After making a promising run at the playoffs last season, the team suddenly is without a power forward, period. Let alone the one they had who averaged 11.4 rpg.




    I could not agree more

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: 7/9/2004 - Bam-Boozered

      This was a low-life move, it had nothing to do with the wait, the offer was already on his mind before he promised to sign for the MLE.

      Frontloading the offer and him agreeing to that means that he wanted out of the Cavs.

      Paxson did not do this on his own, Ownership was right there when the decision was made.

      If in business you can not trust the guy you deal with, no matter what the profit, you don't deal with him.
      What he does to you today, he will do again to another, or what he does to the other side today he can do to you tomorrw. A precedent has been set, a bad one.

      Nobody would have called JO smart in Indy if he had done something like that. no one would call Tins smart if he did that, and no one should call this good business.

      Yes they were to profit, in exchange for security, Boozer knew this, he offered and got, yet he knew he would take a better offer elsewhere.

      So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

      If you've done 6 impossible things today?
      Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

      Comment

        • Previous template Next
        Working...
        X