Tweet
Re: not only Cleveland is interested in Murphy, Milwaukee and Sacramento are too/Mike Wells
DI'd see about Noc for Ford and their first.
DI'd see about Noc for Ford and their first.
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
-
-
Re: not only Cleveland is interested in Murphy, Milwaukee and Sacramento are too/Mike Wells
I didn't.....but even if I did...why would the Kings want to do that? They already have an expensive Backup PG with Beno.Originally posted by iPACER View Post
Also...all this Kings trade talk is nice...but totally unrealistic. No way they'd give up Kevin Martin for whatever Murphy is.Last edited by CableKC; 02-10-2010, 03:26 PM.Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.Comment
-
Re: not only Cleveland is interested in Murphy, Milwaukee and Sacramento are too/Mike Wells
Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
I agree
but the part I bolded... should read... "cut off your nose to spite your face"
yours truly Graham Arnatsi
hahah
"Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."Comment
-
Re: not only Cleveland is interested in Murphy, Milwaukee and Sacramento are too/Mike Wells
Good point! I'm doing a flip flop.Originally posted by Pacersfan46 View Post
And by next year our big 4 contracts will be expiring themselves, so we would have to trade expirings for cheaper expirings to gain ground on the tax.
So we do have to trade someone at this trade deadline to garenttee getting under the tax!
Very good!
Of course if they have a lockout it might not matter. Hmmm . . .Comment
-
Re: not only Cleveland is interested in Murphy, Milwaukee and Sacramento are too/Mike Wells
Ford is better than Beno and Noc has a bad contract that is a year longer than Ford's. We get a player that is tough and can play either the 3 or 4 and unload a player that we don't really want for an expiring contract next year and a trial run with a PG that they may be interested in resigning. Plus, it opens more PT for their wings (Evans, Martin, Garcia, Casspi, Greene).Originally posted by CableKC View Post
I think Ford could split time at the point with Evans, who could also pick up minutes at the 2.
I didn't realize that Sac's pick was that high this year. I was thinking if they had a pick in the late teens/early 20s, I'd love to have an extra pick for a few guys mocked there. So either a protected pick or a pick to be aquired later.Last edited by MyFavMartin; 02-10-2010, 04:26 PM.Comment
-
Re: not only Cleveland is interested in Murphy, Milwaukee and Sacramento are too/Mike Wells
Originally posted by Kemo View PostI agree
but the part I bolded... should read... "cut off your nose to spite your face"
yours truly Graham Arnatsi
hahah
LOL, you're right. I couldn't remember if it was "spite" or "despite", and I was too lazy to google it.
Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?Comment
-
Re: not only Cleveland is interested in Murphy, Milwaukee and Sacramento are too/Mike Wells
Hey, been meaning to respond to this, but I was at work.Originally posted by Skaut_Ech View Post
I'm sorry. I find this thinking a bit ridiculous. Look at Andrew Bynum. Despite his injuries, he was slower and no real arsenal down low very early in his career. As time went on, Kareem started mentoring him. I think I remember him going to Pete Newell's Big Man camp. He got a better hook shot. (Thanks Kareem), he got faster, bigger and stronger. Now teams would drool to have him as their starting center. Part of that is growing into himself, part of that is coaching and part of that is hard work. Remember the summer a few years ago where Bynum put on some major pounds of cut muscle?
Chris Kaman was no world beater when he came into the league. He seemed big and a little clumsy. His numbers weren't that great and despite his high draft status, people were unsure about him for years. But Kaman worked at his low post game and now he's a leading center and an impact player. Players CAN get faster through footwork and strength training. Offensive arsenals can be developed.
You can see the guys who have the smarts and work ethic to improve and those who are just big knuckleheads. (Hi, Javale McGee! Lookin' at ya, Darko!)
Take a look around the league and see how many legit centers there are. Go ahead. I can wait.
Not many, are there? When you get a potentially good one, especially one who is intelligent and a student of the game, you hold onto him.
I like Kevin Martin, but there are a TON of Reggie Miller clone gunners around the league. Not a lot of smart, 7 footers who can shoot. If Kevin isn't scoring, then he isn't impacting the game. He's not going to rebound much or get you assists. Good centers traditionally can get you stats and impact across the board.
If you look at some of the top centers in the league, and consider how bad some of them were when they came into the league, I think you can see just how much upside Roy has.
Martin's nice, but at the end of the day, he's still just a volume shooter and that's it.
There are so many wrong things in this post... I am suprised you got so many thanks... but whatever. Obviously not everyone thinks like I do.
First off, comparing to Hibbert to Bynum is crazy. Bynum is much more athletic, much quicker, and younger, as in when he was drafted he was 18, still growing into his body, also having Kareem be his college education in basketall helped quite a bit. Who is our big man coach again? I don't think that is going to happen with Hibbert... he definately isn't giong to get faster. He has shown a good post game that he worked on, which I really like. But let's not get carried away and say he has the potential Bynum had.
Chris Kaman plays about the same level of defense Roy plays (as in bad) but outrebounds him, I like Roy's post game better though, as I think he is a better passer. Like Roy, Kaman sure is a game changer eh? Leading his team to a subpar record...
Legit centers are overrated in today's NBA. As much as I enjoy a good slog ball game, the NBA today is fast paced. Roy can be a big part of the Pacers future, but you have to put the right people around him to cover up his deficiencies on defense, which is a big reason we fail so bad with Murph Hibbert and Dunleavy on the court together.
The NBA is full of Reggie Miller clones? Seriously?? I can't believe you went there.. If that is so... Can we get one of them?
I've said this earlier, I do like Hibbert, I think we can be ok with him at center. I don't know if we are going to be contenders with him, but we can do ok with the right coach and players. I think you guys are just massively overrating this guy. He is good, but he isn't an all star. If he is such a badass, as you guys are saying, he should be leading us to championships. He can't even make the sophmore/rookie game (though I think he should have).
I think it has just been so long since we had a real center here and with the season so awful there is a tendancy for wish thinking and to cling to whatever glimmer of hope there might be on the roster. But a good dose of objectivity is what I prefer.
At any rate, I think I'd rather keep Roy and trade off the pick (protected top 7 or something) instead as was suggested earlier in the thread. Hell, this is all BS speculation anyway. Maybe they would be happy with just Murph.Last edited by PaceBalls; 02-10-2010, 05:12 PM.Comment
-
Re: not only Cleveland is interested in Murphy, Milwaukee and Sacramento are too/Mike Wells
Can they shoot the three?
I like Donte, Brockman, Hickson, Alexander, Green, and some 2nd round picks. I'd also give Troy to team x for nothing in return."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
-
Re: not only Cleveland is interested in Murphy, Milwaukee and Sacramento are too/Mike Wells
As some have mentioned, the draft will be stacked with young PFs, and we should be in perfect position to get a good one. Not to mention we have a young PF on the team (though not playing) in Hansbrough. If the deal breaker is not getting back a PF b/c we're thin up front for the remainder of what has been a terrible season, then we need a new GM
And I've personally liked a lot of what Bird has done with little wiggle room. Of course you would like to fill a need, but it's like the draft, you go with the best player available that makes your team better.
If the Cavs don't want to move Hickson OR the late first, then you can't do the deal. Everyone knows the Cavs want to get Z back, and you can't just trade Murphy for nothing but a little cap space.
I personally like a lot of the Bucks options. I like there expiring players b/c not only are they expiring, but you can also use the 2nd half of the season to see how they fit in. Ridnour I've liked for sometime at the PG, Warrick has played as an undersized PF and bring athleticism, and you even have a young who knows type of player in Joe Alexander that you can test out. Illyasova and Meeks can be thrown into the equation as well
The Kings would depend on who they're willing to part with. Regardless of injuries, Kevin Martin for Troy Murphy would be a pipe dream, but not happening, we'd probably be looking at Kenny Thomas and his expiring deal and then seeing what the Kings are willing to spare. Jason Thompson would be nice, and fits Bird wanting a young PF. I really like Casspi, that kid has some fire, and he was actually apart of my all-rookie team prediction before the season started, I think he's going to be a player. Donte Greene seems to be on a lot of lists around here, haven't seen him much to be honest nor Brockman, both of them seem like they would be sweetners to a deal that include Thompson or Casspi
All in all I'm trying to stay grounded during this process. You can tell be Bird's reaction and body language that he's not happy with the team, but I fear he's looking to make a homerun move now to clear the bases, and that's not something other teams are willing to offer for the players we're looking to unload.
Comment
-
Re: not only Cleveland is interested in Murphy, Milwaukee and Sacramento are too/Mike Wells
Here's a little more on the Kings interest
http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/sports/kings/
Now this throws me off a little bit. Even if the Kings weren't interested.. if there was interest why would it be a 3 team deal with Kevin Martin going to the Mavs, if Murphy is going to the Kings? Would Bird not want Kevin Martin, or would this be a lot bigger deal with multiple players involved?Brian Windhorst of the Cleveland Plain Dealer reports the Kings have inquired about the Indiana forward Troy Murphy, and that wouldn't be surprising.
I've been told that's not the case, but that doesn't mean it's not worth discussing.
The Kings obviously want a big, and Murphy - who is a very productive one with a good inside-out game- is one of the few so widely known to be available. If this were to happen, look for it to be the aforementioned three-team deal in which Kevin Martin goes to Dallas. And consider this as well: Murphy is represented by agent Dan Fegan, who also represents Martin and most of the Mavericks team.Comment
-
Re: not only Cleveland is interested in Murphy, Milwaukee and Sacramento are too/Mike Wells
Since there's so many PF's in this years draft, can't we get a half-year rental of a sad PF, forcing JOB to play Josh? So perhaps us fans can actually see what we got?"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
-
Re: not only Cleveland is interested in Murphy, Milwaukee and Sacramento are too/Mike Wells
Dallas is been trying to get Martin all year long, Im not sure what are the pieces Dallas could send here, as long as they are expiring, young players or draft picks Im fine and no I don't want KMart.Originally posted by pwee31 View Post@WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!
Comment
-
Re: not only Cleveland is interested in Murphy, Milwaukee and Sacramento are too/Mike Wells
Dallas has a few young players, the most interesting of which is probably Rodrigue Beaubois, a 21 year old French point guard who's having a fairly impressive rookie season. He's not yet a "true" point guard, but he could be in time. He also has the size (6'2" with a huge wingspan) to be a very good defender. He also has some very impressive shooting numbers -- .493 from the field and .412 from downtown. This is surprising because his outside shot was suppose to be a weakness coming into the NBA.
Here's his draft night video with some footage from France:
Comment
-
Re: not only Cleveland is interested in Murphy, Milwaukee and Sacramento are too/Mike Wells
Evans and Jennings? I think Milwaukee and Sacto would hang up before you reached the end of the 1st sentence. I would like to make a play for K-Martin, provided Roy stays off the table.Originally posted by pianoman View PostComment
-
Re: not only Cleveland is interested in Murphy, Milwaukee and Sacramento are too/Mike Wells
Mark Cuban already has him off limits.Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View PostComment
Comment