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

Who can we realistically get?

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

  • Who can we realistically get?

    I'm assuming part of the "3-year plan" is to move the expiring contracts we have next season (Murphy, Ford, and Dunleavy) to a team willing to shed an All-Star to get under the luxury tax.

    Who do you think is a realistic target in this scenario?

  • #2
    Re: Who can we realistically get?

    It's tricky to answer because you never know who the next team will be that goes into fall of 2010 thinking they'll be a playoff contender only to fall hard on their face like Philly and Washington have this year.

    I guess if you think you can forecast who those teams might be next year, that's a start.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Who can we realistically get?

      Originally posted by Shade View Post

      Who do you think is a realistic target in this scenario?
      Way, way, to early to even guess. We can't just target any old player. Someone like West of New Orleans might be available, if not him probably someone of his ability.

      It would also depend on where we need help at the time. Say Hands is doing good and we picked up a good PF in the draft. Then it wouldn't make sense to trade for a PF.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Who can we realistically get?

        One thing to hope for is New Jersey winning the lottery (after us, of course). If they take John Wall, I'm fairly confident they will look to trade Devin Harris.

        However, they may prefer to trade him for a young guy they like better than one of ours and a quality veteran who plays another position, or they may prefer to try to find a 1 for 1 swap for a player who plays something other than PG. If neither of those pan out, then we could come calling to offer the "get out from under the money" and a young guy and picks option.

        For the time being I'm still for going after Okafor. I think you could get him without giving up a young guy or a pick.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Who can we realistically get?

          Caron Butler
          Josh Howard
          Baron Davis
          Chris Kaman
          Andre Igoudala
          Gilbert Arenas (NO)
          Steve Nash
          Rip Hamilton
          Ben Gordon
          Monta Ellis
          Andre Miller/Greg Oden combo
          Andres Nocioni
          Elton Brand
          Antawn Jamison
          David West
          Rajon Rondo


          There are ALOT of exceptions though. I hope to have a real computer handy soon because I have been VERY anxious to make several threads about almost everything. I PD from PS3.

          For example, to take on BDiddys contract, we get a 1st, a 2nd, and Al Thornton as well.

          For example, if we get Brand, we get Speights and Thaddeus.

          OR if we take on Peja Stojakavic, we get David West, Darren Collison, and two future top 3 protected 1sts.

          Or just do straight up trades like West, Rondo, Harris, Ginobli, Parker, Carter, Gasol, or Ellis.

          Most realistically as of now, Ellis, Igoudala, West, G Wallace, Calderon, Battier, and Jamison/Butler package.
          Last edited by Thesterovic; 01-04-2010, 12:25 AM. Reason: adding
          "I keep wondering the same thing. Last week they had the 4th worst record in the league, had an 11.9 percent chance of winning the lottery and were in line to land a franchise type player like Derrick Favors or DeMarcus Cousins. This week? They have a 1.7 percent chance of winning the lottery, have the 8th worst record and are in line to draft Cole Aldrich or Greg Monroe. Way to go Jim O'Brien. Rest Danny Granger the rest of the season (if it isn't too late) and give Josh McRoberts lots of minutes. That ought to do it." - Chad Ford on winning meaningless games

          Way to go Jim, you may have just put our franchise back another 4+ years.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Who can we realistically get?

            Originally posted by Thesterovic View Post

            Most realistically as of now, Ellis, Igoudala, West, G Wallace, Calderon, Battier, and Jamison/Butler package.
            Man I'd love to have Gerald Wallace on the Pacers.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Who can we realistically get?

              Originally posted by Shade View Post
              I'm assuming part of the "3-year plan" is to move the expiring contracts we have next season (Murphy, Ford, and Dunleavy) to a team willing to shed an All-Star to get under the luxury tax.

              Who do you think is a realistic target in this scenario?
              You also have to analyze if any of those guys will be resigned. I would say 2 of 3 are gone. More than likely Murphy and Ford. Dunleavy will probably be resigned but more than liely 2-3 yr range.
              JOB is a silly man

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Who can we realistically get?

                I want Dun back.
                "I keep wondering the same thing. Last week they had the 4th worst record in the league, had an 11.9 percent chance of winning the lottery and were in line to land a franchise type player like Derrick Favors or DeMarcus Cousins. This week? They have a 1.7 percent chance of winning the lottery, have the 8th worst record and are in line to draft Cole Aldrich or Greg Monroe. Way to go Jim O'Brien. Rest Danny Granger the rest of the season (if it isn't too late) and give Josh McRoberts lots of minutes. That ought to do it." - Chad Ford on winning meaningless games

                Way to go Jim, you may have just put our franchise back another 4+ years.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Who can we realistically get?

                  You won't be able to get an All Star just by sending or combining expiring contracts.

                  You're going to need to throw in quality youth (of which we have none) and/or draft picks.

                  The short answer to your specific question is: no one.

                  All that expiring contracts by themselves will get is a player like Troy Murphy.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Who can we realistically get?

                    Originally posted by count55 View Post
                    You won't be able to get an All Star just by sending or combining expiring contracts.

                    You're going to need to throw in quality youth (of which we have none) and/or draft picks.

                    The short answer to your specific question is: no one.

                    All that expiring contracts by themselves will get is a player like Troy Murphy.
                    Wow. I disagree with that.

                    There's a big gap between all-star and Troy Murphy, and I think the expiring contracts can at least get you something somewhere in the middle.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Who can we realistically get?

                      Right now, the answer to fixing this team is basically a complete roster overhaul. We've done a good job in improving our image based on good overall character but injuries and a lack of talent of left this team decimated. A good sign of where we could be heading would be the shopping of talented players that could net us draft picks in the later 1st round would be one direction to take. Jeff Foster could definately draw interest from some teams and taking advantage of those competing for a playoff spot but hurting from injuries is one route to deeply consider. Portland might be willing to give up some for Foster, but at the same time as a fan you become to invested in the talent you have and overshoot what you're capable of getting. Foster could net us a pick such as a 2nd rounder and a body to replace him. Not sure how the contracts would match up and how serious of interest Portland would have in Foster, but I'd think he'd fit the bill for what they need which is rebounding.

                      I know San Antonio in the past has had interest in Foster, another route. Not saying Jeff is a problematic player I'm just assuming that someone of his abilities would fit in better than say a player needing shots. Plus Jeff's contract is a little big for someone that doesn't play that often and isn't to huge to move I don't think.

                      As for Dunleavy and Murphy, well get use to seeing them play here, because up until they're up for free agency, they'll be here, unless of course Murphy stays healthy (haha) and produces like he did last year, then a team might possibly come calling, but that is a huge leap.

                      TJ is going to be tough to move. Teams typically don't spend money on players that suck and the only way we can acquire someone for him is if that person sucks worse.

                      I'm sure if we shopped the youngsters like Rush, Hibbert, Hans, we could find takers, but what would be the point in sacraficing them? They're our future. Well Hibbert and Hans atleast, for now.
                      t
                      Its not a good time to be a Pacers fan, but Luther Head just gave my fantasy team a nice boost when I picked him up so I'm not to bad off just yet.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Who can we realistically get?

                        Originally posted by Thesterovic View Post
                        I want Dun back.
                        I did too until about a week ago.
                        "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Who can we realistically get?

                          Originally posted by Shade View Post
                          I'm assuming part of the "3-year plan" is to move the expiring contracts we have next season (Murphy, Ford, and Dunleavy) to a team willing to shed an All-Star to get under the luxury tax.

                          Who do you think is a realistic target in this scenario?
                          I've always assumed the 3 yr plan involving Ford/Foster/MurphLeavy was to simply let 3 of them expire while moving 1 for an Expiring Contract before the 2009-2010 trade deadline. After the 4 of them are off the books, we'd sign a group of solid FA to go with the future core of players. I was never expecting to move all 4 of the 2010-2011 expiring contracts unless we can get a good trade for them....which I doubt will happen with the race for the 2010 FA sweepstakes. If we don't move any of them before the 2009-2010 trade deadline while getting back some expiring contracts, we're only going to get longer term contracts back in return....and unless we get back one that is worth adding to our future core of players beyond the 2011-2012 season, I'd rather let them expire and do what OKC and the Blazers has done....build a good core of young players via the draft then use the Capspace to get involved in acquiring assets via trades.
                          Last edited by CableKC; 01-04-2010, 03:59 AM.
                          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Who can we realistically get?

                            Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                            Wow. I disagree with that.

                            There's a big gap between all-star and Troy Murphy, and I think the expiring contracts can at least get you something somewhere in the middle.
                            I'd think that we'd be getting overpaid contracts in return for an expiring contract in the 2010-2011 season. I'm thinking along the lines of a SJax or Maggette-like Overpaid contract. It's not that I think that expiring contracts do not have value, I just do not think they have as much value as you think it does. Deals like the Gasol for Kwame's Expiring contract+draft considerations only happens with stupid GMs and occur once in a lifetime.

                            I'm just more confident in the "letting them all expire" route then the one involving trading expiring contracts for contracts that I think will likely be overpaid. Having copius amounts of Capspace allows for more flexibility and options to improve then trying to acquire a player who will likely be overpaid.
                            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Who can we realistically get?

                              Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                              IDeals like the Gasol for Kwame's Expiring contract+draft considerations only happens with stupid GMs and occur once in a lifetime.
                              Deals like that also happen because one team's owner is willing to pay the luxury tax while another isn't. Gasol would be in Chicago right now if Jerry Reinsdorf was willing to pay the luxury tax.

                              The good news for the Pacers is they can "be like the Lakers" if faced with a similar situation because they will be so far under the tax. They can absorb a deal like that. And yeah, it will also take somewhat of a fire sale from another team, but those happen. (FWIW, a losing team that takes on a player and contract like Gasol might not even be the best option. Remember how far Gasol was taking Memphis as the best player: not far at all.)

                              Pacers just need to avoid taking any unnecessary contracts between now and summer 2011. Draft well this summer and in 2011 and determine which one of the current young guys are worth keeping (chances are not all of them will be). The roster around 2011-2012 will look dramatically different than it does now.
                              Last edited by d_c; 01-04-2010, 04:51 AM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X