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

Say we somehow land Evan Turner...

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

  • Say we somehow land Evan Turner...

    So the Draft Lottery Gods look kindly upon us and we land a top 2 or 3 pick, and we do end up drafting Evan Turner. Turner is 6'7", 210 pounds (likely to add a little weight leading up to the draft camps). His natural position seems to be more of a SG/SF. I think we're set at SG with Rush, if for no reason other than his defense. If he can chip in 10-15 points a night, then we're really set at the position.

    Then we have Turner, this uber-talented kid who is being compared to Brandon Roy, who would most likely fit into the role of a do-it-all SF. Here's the big question...

    Do we look at possibly trading Danny for an all-star caliber PF, ala the Granger-for-Al Jefferson deal?

    I realize it would be a bit of a risky move since we don't know for sure how Turner is going to produce in the NBA. But if he turns out to be the player that most professionals think he will be, he will likely at least match Danny's production level, and possibly eclipse it. Danny seems to have settled into this mindset that he has to have the ball in his hands in order to be productive. Problem is, he's not really a playmaker.

    Turner seems to be just that. Seems like the kid can pretty much do it all with relative ease. I'd say it's something that's at least worth discussing.

  • #2
    Re: Say we somehow land Evan Turner...

    I wouldn't do anything until I saw what Turner can do. Let's say he's good. Real good. Take into consideration the expiring contracts that the Pacers will have, create a package that includes Granger and an expiring (or 2) and it might bring back a good player along with draft picks or an all-star level guy and filler ........... there are just so many possibilities at that point.

    If Turner ends up being a bust ........... well, nothing lost.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Say we somehow land Evan Turner...

      Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
      I wouldn't do anything until I saw what Turner can do. Let's say he's good. Real good. Take into consideration the expiring contracts that the Pacers will have, create a package that includes Granger and an expiring (or 2) and it might bring back a good player along with draft picks or an all-star level guy and filler ........... there are just so many possibilities at that point.

      If Turner ends up being a bust ........... well, nothing lost.
      I would agree with that. Maybe wait until the all-star break to see how well Turner is actually playing, or more importantly how well Turner and Granger are playing together. If they're meshing well, then no need for a trade really.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Say we somehow land Evan Turner...

        Originally posted by SMosley21 View Post

        Do we look at possibly trading Danny for an all-star caliber PF, ala the Granger-for-Al Jefferson deal?
        I'd sure be tempted to do just that.

        Turner seems to be just that. Seems like the kid can pretty much do it all with relative ease. I'd say it's something that's at least worth discussing.
        While Granger is somewhat bigger than Turner, I don't think there is much difference in what either brings (or would bring, in the case of Turner) as far as rebounding and defense. Turner's advantages are his quickness and ball handling skills.

        Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
        I wouldn't do anything until I saw what Turner can do. Let's say he's good. Real good. Take into consideration the expiring contracts that the Pacers will have, create a package that includes Granger and an expiring (or 2) and it might bring back a good player along with draft picks or an all-star level guy and filler ........... there are just so many possibilities at that point.
        If I'm the other team, I might reduce my offer if the Pacers insisted on throwing in Murphy or Dun.

        If Turner ends up being a bust ........... well, nothing lost.
        I know it happens, but I don't think it is a concern with Turner.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Say we somehow land Evan Turner...

          I just don't see Turner and Granger as being mutually exclusive. With Turners handles he needs to play sg and some pg. If anyone is traded, trade Rush.
          {o,o}
          |)__)
          -"-"-

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Say we somehow land Evan Turner...

            Originally posted by owl View Post
            I just don't see Turner and Granger as being mutually exclusive. With Turners handles he needs to play sg and some pg. If anyone is traded, trade Rush.
            I'm not a fan of trading the only player on our team who plays defense. Also, trading Rush isn't likely to bring back much at this point that will really help the team in the long haul.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Say we somehow land Evan Turner...

              If we keep Rush and Granger and Dunleavy, then add Turner, we would be one step closer to having O'B's (and IT's) dream lineup, the completely interchangeable small ball lineup that IT dreamed of to fully execute the "quick".

              No, thanks...I think I would get completely dehydrated and malnourished if I had to watch that consistently, though it may be a marketable weight loss program. Maybe that would be a way to market season tickets, also, as long as they don't mind losing revenue from concession sales. They could probably boost ticket prices enough to make up for that loss, though, with all of the billions of dollars that are spent annually on weight loss programs in this country. They could have large paper bags emblazoned with Pacers logos on one side and advertising from pharmaceutical companies, drug stores, and related businesses on the other side as corporate sponsors as fan giveaways. Fans could wear these over their heads, or use them for emetic containment devices. And fans who choose not to soil the bags would have to run back and forth to the restrooms (which may need modified to accomodate more people at taxpayer expense) and probably will have both heaved and dry heaved enough to have gotten both a cardio work out and some killer ab development by the end of the games. Some fans might actually stay til the end of games to maximize this effect.

              And think of all of the Pacer ponchos that could be sold for clothing protection! And the Pepto and Tums concessions could replace some of the lost food sales, too!

              I tell you, the possibilities, while not endless, may be worth considering, after all.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Say we somehow land Evan Turner...

                Granger and Turner isn't an ideal combo, but I don't think that it would be impossible for them to play off eachother.

                Either way, I'd rather trade Turner than Granger if both had similar value.

                It appears as if the Timberwolves have deemed Jefferson available for the right player. With the way they have been drafting, it appears as if they're trying to piece together the most talent, regardless of needs or position - I think this is the right mindset to have being a team that is so far away from being competitive.

                With that said, the Pacers and Timberwolves make a perfect match for a trade. The Pacers will likely get a top five pick, but unless a Bulls-esque luck of the draw occurs, they won't be getting John Wall, the most appropriate fit for this roster.

                This is a talented draft, but at this point, the Pacers need to be creative to become relevant again. With a superstar in his prime, rebuilding through the draft seems unnecessary given the available talent on the trade market. They have adequate pieces in Hansborough, Rush, Hibbert, etc. but lack the starting firepower needed to compete.

                Instead of taking a gamble on Cousins or Patterson or some of the other talent available after Wall and Turner, trading the pick would be wise. The Timberwolves, who aren't ready to compete seem ready and willing to trade Jefferson for younger players who will be in their primes around the same time as Rubio, Flynn, Love, Brewer, etc.

                Lets assume the Pacers get a 3-5 pick with the Timberwolves getting Turner at 2, which is a very likely scenario.

                Indiana gets: Al Jefferson, Ryan Gomes
                Minnesota gets: 3-5 pick, Mike Dunleavy, Jeff Foster (expiring contracts)

                Minnesota drafts the consolation prize of Evan Turner and a big with the 3-5 pick given to them as compensation for Jefferson, for the sake of making this easier, we'll say they draft DeMarcus Cousins.

                With Rubio staying in Spain for one more year, you can assume that next year is the final rebuilding year for them, giving valuable playing time to their young core. They'll let Dunleavy and Foster expire and use that money to either lock up their youth to long term extensions or possibly go out and sign a free agent. With another lottery pick in sights, when they begin the 2011-2012 season, their rotation will be:

                Rubio/Flynn/Sessions
                2011 lottery pick/Brewer/Flynn/Ellington
                Turner/Brewer
                Love/Veteran free agent
                Cousins/Hollins/Veteran free agent

                Color me impressed with a roster consisting of this much talent. Obviously young, they've successfully put together an incredibly talented core with ample finances to keep this unit together for an extended period of time. Every one of those starters has all-star potential and though I see Flynn and Brewer as slightly less talented as a potential lottery pick shooting guard, either one as the ability to play the two and play it very efficiently. I like Cousins and Love in the paint - it's clear to me that Love is better suited for the four and Cousins seems like the big bodied center that doesn't need the ball in his hands to be effective, which is a must for this line up.

                I honestly think they make this trade. Yes, they're getting rid of Al Jefferson, but I'm pretty certain they've rationally thought about their 2010/11 chances and know that they're best suited for stockpiling talent and making a run the following year.

                What a talented nucleus and the money to keep them together long term makes this a hard scenario to dislike for the Timberwolves.

                On the Pacers end, they get a 26 year old (heading into next season) center that would fit into O'Brien' style of play. It doesn't seem likely that Bird will let O'Brien go without giving him what he deems a fair chance - whether or not I disagree with this assertion is irrelevant.

                The Pacers are also able to acquire a key bench cog in Ryan Gomes, who has the ability to start for most teams. I love his grittiness off the bench.

                In 2010, that leaves the Pacers with a rotation of:

                Ford/Watson/Price
                Rush/Head/2nd round pick
                Granger/Gomes/D. Jones
                Murphy/Hansborough/Gomes
                Jefferson/Hibbert/2nd round pick

                I like what Rush has been able to do of late and my love of Danny Granger isn't going to fade after an injury riddled season.

                I like Murphy's game in O'Brien system and think this line-up is capable of competing.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Say we somehow land Evan Turner...

                  If you want to compete for a title, you need at least a couple of good bench players. Brandon Rush could fill that role nicely.

                  But defensively, Danny would have to step it up to give our starting swingmen combo a chance. And I think he's still capable of doing that, especially if Turner lightens the load offensively for him to give him more energy.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Say we somehow land Evan Turner...

                    Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                    If you want to compete for a title, you need at least a couple of good bench players. Brandon Rush could fill that role nicely.

                    But defensively, Danny would have to step it up to give our starting swingmen combo a chance. And I think he's still capable of doing that, especially if Turner lightens the load offensively for him to give him more energy.
                    A SG combo of Turner and Rush (off the bench) could be VERY troubling for opposing teams. I still think we need Wall more than Turner, but if we end up with Turner it would still put us in a very promising situation.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Say we somehow land Evan Turner...

                      Originally posted by SMosley21 View Post
                      So the Draft Lottery Gods look kindly upon us and we land a top 2 or 3 pick, and we do end up drafting Evan Turner. Turner is 6'7", 210 pounds (likely to add a little weight leading up to the draft camps). His natural position seems to be more of a SG/SF. I think we're set at SG with Rush, if for no reason other than his defense. If he can chip in 10-15 points a night, then we're really set at the position.

                      Then we have Turner, this uber-talented kid who is being compared to Brandon Roy, who would most likely fit into the role of a do-it-all SF. Here's the big question...

                      Do we look at possibly trading Danny for an all-star caliber PF, ala the Granger-for-Al Jefferson deal?

                      I realize it would be a bit of a risky move since we don't know for sure how Turner is going to produce in the NBA. But if he turns out to be the player that most professionals think he will be, he will likely at least match Danny's production level, and possibly eclipse it. Danny seems to have settled into this mindset that he has to have the ball in his hands in order to be productive. Problem is, he's not really a playmaker.

                      Turner seems to be just that. Seems like the kid can pretty much do it all with relative ease. I'd say it's something that's at least worth discussing.
                      Heres what I would do (if we drafted Turner):

                      That will still leave us with Dunleavy, Foster and Tinsley (yes we're still paying him so he is relevant) coming off the books which will help our cap situation and make Indy a better looking destination in 2011 with the new roster

                      Harris/Price
                      Turner/D Jones
                      Granger/Dunleavy
                      Okafor/Hans/McRoberts
                      Hibbert/Foster
                      "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Say we somehow land Evan Turner...

                        Originally posted by MillerTime View Post
                        Heres what I would do (if we drafted Turner):

                        That will still leave us with Dunleavy, Foster and Tinsley (yes we're still paying him so he is relevant) coming off the books which will help our cap situation and make Indy a better looking destination in 2011 with the new roster

                        Harris/Price
                        Turner/D Jones
                        Granger/Dunleavy
                        Okafor/Hans/McRoberts
                        Hibbert/Foster

                        That would definitely be a nice looking lineup on paper. Not sure how it would actually work out, but if we could pull it off I'd love to find out.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Say we somehow land Evan Turner...

                          If the Pacers draft Turner, then they should move Rush, not Granger. We're trying to find someone to pair with Danny, not to replace him.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Say we somehow land Evan Turner...

                            I'd still keep Brandon and use Turner at either SG or SF and try and move Mike ahead of anyone else.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Say we somehow land Evan Turner...

                              Originally posted by SMosley21 View Post
                              That would definitely be a nice looking lineup on paper. Not sure how it would actually work out, but if we could pull it off I'd love to find out.
                              I think its relatively realistic to pull off. The 2 trades seem pretty fair, and considering that NJ is the most likely destination for Wall, they might move Harris

                              Hornets are looking for clear some cap space and Okafor isnt exactly working out for them. He doesnt seem to like the C position, he is more suited as a PF.
                              "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X