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.
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
-
"I had to take her down like Chris Brown."
-Lance Stephenson -
Re: Chad Ford's Trade Buzz 1/14
He's the player that wears #44 that constantly gets pushed around 4-8 ft about every other play...Originally posted by esabyrn333 View Post
"George's athleticism is bananas!" - Marc J. Spears 
Comment
-
Re: Chad Ford's Trade Buzz 1/14
Could we dream for Outlaw and Fernandez for Foster and Head?Originally posted by Indy View Post
I know unlikely but hey could be our starting high point in negotiations to see how desperate they are for a big... anyway they like Blake the most out of their PGs, so I don't know if they'd want to trade him... especially if they are going to try to trade Miller somewhere. "George's athleticism is bananas!" - Marc J. Spears Comment
-
Re: Chad Ford's Trade Buzz 1/14
Rest of Chad Ford's article
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insid...radeWatch-0910
1. Antawn Jamison, F, Wizards
Jamison is at the top of this list for three reasons. First, the Wizards are a mess and seem to be moving rapidly toward a fire sale. Second, Jamison is in the latter stages of his career. Neither he nor the Wizards want him stuck on a terrible team. Third, a number of contenders want him, namely the Cavs. That's the perfect recipe for a big deadline trade.
2. Troy Murphy, F, Pacers
The Pacers look as though they're moving toward a youth movement as they continue to build around Danny Granger. With a number of contending teams interested in Murphy, the Pacers seem to be in the right place to make a deal. While Murphy may be overpaid, there are few bigs in the league who can rebound and spread the floor the way he can. With just one more year left on his contract, Murphy could be the missing piece for a team trying to compete for a title.
The Cavs seem to have the most interest, though several other teams have also told me they'll make a run at him. At the very least, the Pacers should be able to deal Murphy for expiring contracts and one asset (either a draft pick or a young prospect).
3. Tayshaun Prince, F, Pistons
Joe Dumars didn't expect the Pistons to be championship contenders this season. But he also didn't anticipate the team losing 13 games in a row. The fact that the Pistons drafted three small forwards in last year's draft and that two of them -- Jonas Jerebko and Austin Daye -- look very promising is all you need to know. The word on the street is that the Pistons are in very active trade discussions on Prince.
While the team would prefer to move Richard Hamilton, I don't think it's going to be able to find a home for him given his enormous contract. If the Pistons can swap Prince for some help in the paint, they've got to do it. The combination of Charlie Villanueva, Jason Maxiell, Ben Wallace and Kwame Brown just isn't getting it done.
4. Caron Butler, G/F, Wizards
If Jamison goes, Butler probably won't be far behind. He actually has a little more desirability than Jamison because his contract is shorter (just one year remaining) and he's younger. However, it's not clear that the Wizards are willing to just give away Butler, who is a good player in his prime. The Wizards have to build around someone, don't they?
5. Andre Miller, PG, Blazers
Miller may be a wily veteran, but he's struggled to adapt to Portland's culture and, more specifically, head coach Nate McMillan. Miller's addition was never seen as a slam dunk, but more of a desperation ploy by the Blazers, who felt compelled to use their cap space this past summer after being spurned by Hedo Turkoglu.
While the team's original stance was that it wanted to hold on to Miller, his recent run-in with McMillan has cleared the way for a possible trade. If the Blazers want expiring contracts in return, they can probably move him. If they demand a young player or a future first-round draft pick, probably not.
6. Jeff Foster, C, Pacers
The Pacers appear to be committed to developing Roy Hibbert and Tyler Hansbrough, leaving little room for Foster -- a mobile, high-energy big man who can defend 4s and 5s.
If you are a Western Conference team trying to stop Pau Gasol, Foster would be a great get. The Nuggets have shown considerable interest in Foster, but they aren't alone. The Blazers, Jazz, Spurs and Suns would all like to get him, too.
7. Kirk Hinrich, G, Bulls
The Bulls need to move Hinrich for an expiring contract in order to have a realistic shot at making a pitch to both LeBron James and Chris Bosh this summer. Can you imagine a team with LeBron, Bosh, Derrick Rose, Luol Deng and Joakim Noah? John Paxson can. If Bosh isn't traded before the deadline, you have to believe the Bulls have a good chance to get both.
However, trading Hinrich won't be easy. His productivity has really fallen the past two years, and he still has two years and $17 million left on his contract. Bill Simmons swears the Celtics will be interested. But that's a lot of money for a backup point guard.
8. Tyrus Thomas, F, Bulls
Thomas has a lot of talent but has been unable to put it all together. At times, he has been more of a distraction than an asset in Chicago. The challenge in trading Thomas is twofold. One, the Bulls don't want to wreck their cap space this summer, meaning what they'll likely want in return is an expiring contract and a draft pick. Two, whoever trades for him has to decide quickly whether he's worth keeping, given that he's heading toward restricted free agency this summer.
Those two factors complicate things pretty dramatically. But given that there's interest from both the Bulls and Thomas' camp in moving on, don't be surprised if a deal happens.
9. Marcus Camby, C, Clippers
Camby may be one of the hottest commodities on the list. Not only is he still a legitimate defensive force in the paint, but he also has an expiring contract. You get a player for the rest of the season and cap relief at the end. The biggest question isn't whether the Clippers could move Camby, it's whether the Clippers will move him. And as Marc Stein wrote this week, Blake Griffin's absence complicates the Clippers' calculations.
The team is positioned to have significant cap room this summer if it keeps Camby and lets his contract expire. Whatever offer they get for him will have to match or exceed what they believe they could get on the open market next season.
10. Carlos Boozer, F/C, Jazz
Boozer is in the same camp as Camby. He's a very productive big man in the last year of his deal. However, Boozer is infinitely harder to move than Camby. Why? Because the Jazz want something significant in return and because Boozer will want a huge contract as a free agent this summer.
A team trading for him is making a huge commitment. Not only is it giving away a prized asset (probably some combination of a young player or draft pick plus cap relief), but it is also committing to being held over the coals by Boozer and his agent, Rob Pelinka, this summer. That's why it's harder than you might think to move Boozer.
11. Jose Calderon, PG, Raptors
Calderon was considered a gem just a year ago, but he struggled out of the gate this season, and the Raptors have played much better without him. Now that he's back from injury, you can expect the Raptors to shop him around. They could really use some help at the 2-guard position. DeMar DeRozan is a nice prospect, but he's not ready yet.
There have been rumblings of a Calderon-Kevin Martin swap. The move would give the Raptors a lot of offensive firepower, but it would also cement their status as one of the worst defensive teams ever.
12. Al Jefferson, PF, Timberwolves
David Kahn has been pretty adamant that he's not shopping Jefferson, saying he wants to use the entire season to evaluate his players. But a number of GMs around the league are equally adamant that Jefferson's name has been brought up in discussions. Kahn doesn't sound like a guy who's convinced Kevin Love and Jefferson can play together in the frontcourt.
Kahn knows he wouldn't get a talent like Danny Granger in return, but if he could get an athletic center or a big-time shooter for Jefferson, he might decide to make a move.
13. Devin Harris, PG, Nets
Last year we were plugging Harris as an All-Star. This year? I have sources who say the Nets are no longer sold on Harris as a core piece on the team. If they can package him with an expiring contract or two and get a young All-Star in return, they might do it. If they knew they were getting John Wall, they'd surely do it.
But even if they have to settle for something else, it sounds as though Harris' lackluster performance this season has soured folks on him. There will be a lot of interest in Harris, but I'm not sure anyone will be willing to give up an All-Star for him.
14. Chris Bosh, PF, Raptors
Much to the chagrin of Raptors fans, I've been writing that Toronto needs to trade Bosh now while it can still get value for him. The closer we get to the trade deadline, the more real that possibility sounds.
Over the weekend, reports by ESPN's Marc Stein and the New York Post fingered the Rockets and Lakers as teams with heavy interest in Bosh. While neither team has made an official offer for Bosh, I expect both will by the deadline.
I'm not sure the Rockets can put together a compelling package, but the Lakers can. If L.A. offered Andrew Bynum, Raptors GM Bryan Colangelo would have to say yes, wouldn't he? Bynum is a legit center who is still only 22 years old. And most important, he is already locked into a long-term deal. If the Lakers are willing to offer Bynum (a big if), the Raptors won't get a better offer.
15. Amare Stoudemire, PF, Suns
Amare would have been at the top of this list in August. However, the Suns are back to playing Mike D'Antoni basketball, and the team is winning and having fun again. While I wouldn't call the Suns contenders quite yet, they've been very competitive against the top teams in the West. That should effectively squelch all of the potential Stoudemire trade rumors we expected to hear.
The Suns are clearly trying to go for it all, and I doubt they'll disrupt the flow and swap Stoudemire out before giving him and Steve Nash one more chance to lead Phoenix to the Finals.New Zealand's Number 1 Pacer Fan!! Visited Conseco Fieldhouse Feb 10 2006Comment
-
Re: Chad Ford's Trade Buzz 1/14
Id love to see us make a run at Tyrus ThomasSittin on top of the world!Comment
-
Re: Chad Ford's Trade Buzz 1/14
We don't have the expiring contracts that they want unless we turn Z around from a Murph trade...Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View Post "George's athleticism is bananas!" - Marc J. Spears Comment
-
Re: Chad Ford's Trade Buzz 1/14
I would love to trade Murphy but I just have my doubts.
Rumors are just that...rumors. This article is really just speculation/opinion. The Cavs are mentioned as the team with the most interest, which makes sense, but who are the other teams intersted in Murphy and what are they willing to offer?Comment
-
Re: Chad Ford's Trade Buzz 1/14
I feel ya,Originally posted by tadscout View Post
Its my "wish list"
but maybe if we took heinrich as well and they took Ford and fillers
I know pipe dream
Sittin on top of the world!Comment
-
Re: Chad Ford's Trade Buzz 1/14
That's exactly what I'm hoping for and hope the Pacers are trying to do.Originally posted by Pacersfan46 View PostFirst time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.Comment
-
Re: Chad Ford's Trade Buzz 1/14
Any guesses who are the several other teams are?Originally posted by NZPacer View Post
I'd think he'd fit with the Suns (although not sure how a trade would work w/o another team, unless this- http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMa...radeId=yl9lqhn was done (and that took some finagling)... nothing much else worked unless you use one of the suns big contracts which, well you doubt they'd do for Murph)...
Trying to think of some of the others...Last edited by tadscout; 01-14-2010, 06:33 PM. "George's athleticism is bananas!" - Marc J. Spears Comment
-
Re: Chad Ford's Trade Buzz 1/14
With Murphy on the Suns, they'd need to score 150 every night to win games.Comment
-
Re: Chad Ford's Trade Buzz 1/14
Well I currently reside in Phoenix and they already have a "Murphy"Originally posted by judicata View Post
His name is Channing Frye
Sittin on top of the world!Comment
-
Re: Chad Ford's Trade Buzz 1/14
Don't tell JOB, he'll offer Troy and himself for peanuts to get in on that action.Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View PostWell I currently reside in Phoenix and they already have a "Murphy"
His name is Channing Frye
How do you like Phoenix?Comment
-
Re: Chad Ford's Trade Buzz 1/14
Hey you never know... with their philosophy they may like that idea, lol...Originally posted by judicata View Post "George's athleticism is bananas!" - Marc J. Spears Comment
-
Re: Chad Ford's Trade Buzz 1/14
I don't think we'll trade Troy until next season. If we trade him now, even for an expiring contract, that is one less chip to deal next season when trying to land a quality player. Trading him now would kind of force us into the FA market, and a town like Indy is unlikely to be too successful there.
I also don't see us trading Foster, unless the deal is too good to pass up. We obviously expressed our loyalty to him by giving him this last payday.Comment
Tweet
Comment