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

Wolves after Granger for #4?

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

  • #61
    Re: Wolves after Granger for #4?

    If I were trading Granger, I'd want a heck of a deal in return. I would also use the trade to reduce payroll, therefore I would NOT want Jefferson in return. The TWolves have some young players and also own the #4, #16 and #23 picks in the 2010 draft.

    I would probably go for something like Granger for Love, #4 and rights to Rubio. This assumes that Count55 is correct in stating that Minnesota has the cap room to absorb the extra salary.

    If The TWolves would not give up the rights to Rubio, then I would still want Love, #4 and #16, but only if the Pacers could pre-arrange a deal that would involve trading the #4 and either our #10 or the #16 for a pick that would land us either Wall or Turner. If necessary, I would trade the #4, the #10 and the #16 to get Wall.

    The possible outcomes would be:
    1. Danny for Love and Wall, without having a first round pick.
    2. Danny for Love and Turner and having a #16 pick.
    3. Danny for Love and rights to Rubio and having the #4 and #10 picks.

    Each of these outcomes is a pretty significant stretch... but if I could not achieve one of the 3 outcomes, I would not make the deal.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Wolves after Granger for #4?

      Originally posted by Ballerzfan View Post
      Don't see your point at all. Sometimes I wonder if you post stuff just to get a rise out of someone.
      I completely agree with Dr. Awesome. The comment from Chad Ford was "I think Granger would cost the Wolves #4". That doesn't mean that the Wolves are trying to trade the #4 for Granger. It sounds to me like that was just Chad Ford giving his opinion about what Granger would be worth as a rebuttal to someone else's trade proposal. And as Dr. Awesome said, there's a big difference.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Wolves after Granger for #4?

        Originally posted by Ballerzfan View Post
        Don't see your point at all. Sometimes I wonder if you post stuff just to get a rise out of someone.
        Well, it looks like he definitely got a rise out of you.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Wolves after Granger for #4?

          Originally posted by thefeistyone View Post
          Wouldn't trade Granger for much less than an all star in return + a pick.

          I know that's a lot, but as some of you stated in Granger we have a leader, a good role model, and a reasonable salary...How can you just give that away for an unproven European pg that might come over and a far from sure #4 pick. There are 2 players in the draft that have low risk and they will be gone in the first 2. If it was for wall or turner I listen. Anything after that you don't give up the franchise.
          I like Granger. But he is not a franchise player. He is a good compliment to a franchise player. IMO the Pacers could either trade Granger for very high picks and pick up a star in free agency or trade away their young players and future first round picks for two stars to add to Granger like the Celtics did. Perhaps they could choose the second option and then add a star after they dump salaries next year.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Wolves after Granger for #4?

            Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View Post
            Amen,

            Rubio did work against NBA players in the Olympics (world games , whatever)

            but he makes a young Reggie Miller look diesel, and he has yet to playa single game, nor commit to the sates. If his handlers were pissed he went to Minnesota, not sure they will be thrilled with Indy
            He stayed in Europe because of how much it would have cost him to buy out his Euro contract. This year the cost is substantially less. He will be in the NBA soon and I suspect play at a very high level. He would play for LB. It is worth the gamble. Johnson, Rubio, #10, our young players and cap space next year. Looks pretty darn good to me. Or we can pick #10 and win 32 games next year.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Wolves after Granger for #4?

              The conversation starts with Rubio, but I believe that Jefferson and the #4 pick is all Minnesota wants to part with. In any deal where the Pacers can keep the 10th and possibly move Granger, then look for Hayward being drafted.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Wolves after Granger for #4?

                If your going to trade Granger and the Wolves' draft picks, one of the picks need to to be used on Paul George for sure
                Murph

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Wolves after Granger for #4?

                  I just don't see the logic in trading a proven player for a draft pick.

                  A lot of you didn't want to tank to take a chance on a high lotto pick, now some of you find it OK to deal Granger for the pick you didn't want to tank for?
                  Super Bowl XLI Champions
                  2000 Eastern Conference Champions




                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Wolves after Granger for #4?

                    The only reason I would consider trading Granger is that he's already 27, and will be at least 30 before this team is worth a damn again.
                    Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
                    I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Wolves after Granger for #4?

                      Originally posted by Natston View Post
                      The only reason I would consider trading Granger is that he's already 27, and will be at least 30 before this team is worth a damn again.
                      And that is the precise reason to trade him while he is still valuable. Or add Parker and a star free agent next season but that still would not be enough to win a title I suspect.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Wolves after Granger for #4?

                        Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
                        Why trade Granger???? Granger put up solid numbers for two years straight, but instead of continuing to build around him, some people want to try him for Love/Jefferson? We got draft picks who could be groomed. With this type of thinking, we'd be revamping our entire lineup every 2-3 years.
                        Because we seem to be on a salary dump heading.... And any "3 year plan" is either the most woeful attempt at a playoff plan ever devised or it's simply a plan to be rid of several high dollar contracts at the end of 3 years so we can then START some type of rebuild. Not that at the end of 3 years we're on getting Unicorns and trophy presentations.

                        IOW... we're so far from mattering at this rate that Granger is going to be at the wrong end of his career (and value) before we sniff being relevant again.

                        Maybe a Granger trade jumpstarts something?

                        Maybe a Granger trade means we'll finally accept a lost season for what it is and use it for a high draft pick and a youth movement.

                        Of course it's absolutely stupid to be in this position because we could've had the 4th pick anyway and could've teamed our pick with Granger on the court and/or still had Granger as an asset to acquire another piece of the puzzle now or in the immediate future.

                        So yeah... I'd say management has painted themselves into a corner where they are d-mned if they do or da-ned if they don't... At least if they're going down this road.
                        Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                        ------

                        "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                        -John Wooden

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Wolves after Granger for #4?

                          Originally posted by Lord Helmet View Post
                          I just don't see the logic in trading a proven player for a draft pick.

                          A lot of you didn't want to tank to take a chance on a high lotto pick, now some of you find it OK to deal Granger for the pick you didn't want to tank for?

                          I understand and even agree Granger is worth more than just the #4 pick. Minnie would have to ante up a lot more than a #4 pick b4 the Pacers would even consider it. BUT if the trade was Love, #4 & 16, and 7 mil TE the Pacers HAVE to seriously consider it. A nice young player like Love on a rookie contract, a player like Johnson at #4, a player like Bradley/Bledsoe at #16, and 7 mil TE to spend on a good vet is just too good not to seriously consider an offer like that. AGAIN, I don't feel Minnie feels Granger is worth that much, and wouldn't make such an offer. Just stop and put yourself in a T-Wolves fans place, would you give up that much future of your team for Granger? I seriously doubt it. If I was an T-Wolve fan and this proposed trade I stated happened, I would do a Rumplestilskin, as a avid Pacers fan since their beginning I would do this trade. I like Granger, but I think we all at times think with our hearts as a Pacer fan and have a tendancy to over value a player wearing the blue n gold, but this proposed deal would just be too hard to pass up.

                          Every season this type of rumor comes up numerous times, and nothing ever happens. This is just other case of that happening. Granger is safe and all is back to normal.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Wolves after Granger for #4?

                            This could be used to our advantage. If we could get Jefferson and #4 for Granger, 2010 #57, and 2011 2nd rounder then I wouldnt be too against it. This is when I would look to pull off the Murphy and #10 for Parker (if re-signed). Then use the #4 to draft Wes Johnson.

                            I think we'd look pretty good for next season. We would have a ridiculously young core with Parker (at 28) the vetern. Them main concerns here would obviously be Jefferson's knee and Parker's long-term committment to the team.

                            Parker/Price
                            Rush/Jones
                            Wes Johnson/Dunleavy
                            Jefferson/Hansbrough
                            Hibbert/McRoberts

                            SIGN ME UP
                            "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Wolves after Granger for #4?

                              Originally posted by Lord Helmet View Post
                              I just don't see the logic in trading a proven player for a draft pick.
                              It depends on the entire package. I'm not particularly interested in any kind of deal for Danny, at least in this context.

                              However, the logic for a team trading a proven player for a draft pick is based on the thought that you can get farther with the assets you get back than you can with the player.

                              Are the Pacers at that point with Danny? No, probably not.

                              But...

                              Considering the financial situation of the Pacers, and the fact that Minny is under the cap, and can take back Danny's entire salary without having to send, really, any payroll back, consider this deal:

                              Pacers send Danny Granger

                              Minny sends Jonny Flynn, #4 and #16 pick.

                              With no other moves this summer (including not signing their 2nd round picks), the Pacers would have a 15-man roster with a payroll at about $65.3mm, or over $3.5mm less than it would cost them if they just signed the #10 and the 2 second rounders.

                              Since just signing the #10 currently puts them right at the tax threshold, and adding the 2 second rounder put them $1mm over, this represents significant savings. (I'd say about $7.5mm - $3.5mm in payroll, $1mm in tax, and they'd also get the $3mm-ish payout for teams under the luxury tax.)

                              Going into next year, they'd have 9 players under contract:

                              Flynn/Price/Rush/DJones/Hansbrough/Hibbert/#4/#10/#16

                              with a total payroll of $22.9 mm.

                              Add #1 (which is likely to be another Top 5-10 pick), and they're at no more than $28.6mm.

                              Cap space is overrated, because you don't know what you're going to get for it. However, it does have a very tangible value. Under this scenario, the Pacers will be bad again this year (which they're likely to be anyway), but they'll have tons of options over the next 12 months to make moves.

                              They already have the big expirings (Murphy/Dunleavy/Ford/Foster), now they'd also have more young assets to go with them, which is really the way you get value out of the expirings.

                              There's obviously a ton of risk in such an approach, but for all the people advocating that we take the "OKC" approach (something of a snipe hunt, if you ask me), they've got to realize that Danny probably is in the way of that. He's too good to let the team be horrible, he's not good enough to make the team great, and he's already out of his rookie contract and is making big (but appropriate) money.

                              All in all, I'd much rather try to make it work with Danny. I'd love to see the Parker deal get done, particularly if we can get them to throw in a future 1st. However, I'd be open to trading Danny for a ton of young assets, and Minny has the assets and the cap space to put together the kind of deal I'd want. (Though, the deal I'd want would probably be #4/#16 and either Love or Rubio.)


                              A lot of you didn't want to tank to take a chance on a high lotto pick, now some of you find it OK to deal Granger for the pick you didn't want to tank for?
                              Two completely different things.

                              I can't speak for others, but I was opposed to throwing games in order to get a high draft pick. It's sleazy.

                              Over the last 16 games, the Pacers went 11-5. They played Rush 33.5 minutes a night, Hibbert 28.5 minutes a night, Price got 18 minutes, and McBob got 16 minutes a night in 14 games.

                              They played a ridiculously easy schedule, with 11 of 16 at Conseco. They won 9 at home, over CHA, DET, OKC, WAS, UTA, SAC, HOU, NYK, and NJN - teams that had a combined road record of 119-250. The two road wins were at Detroit - who was sucktastic - and at Cleveland - who started two cheerleaders and a video guy.

                              Look - had the Pacers traded away Murphy and Watson at the deadline for cap relief and picks, I would have been fine with that. Had the Pacers continued to play like microwaved dog**** - it would have been painful - but I'd have been fine with that.

                              However, from March 15th on, DET and PHI went 4-11 each, and SAC went 3-13. WAS went 5-12. For the Pacers to stay in the bottom 4-6 records, they would have had to intentionally throw games. I can't get behind that.

                              For some reason, the term "tanking" has gotten some creep to include broader type personnel moves. I don't know why this is happening, but I don't agree. To me, tanking means to deliberately lose games, and that's what I firmly believe would have been necessary to finish with a record bad enough to be in the top 4-6 picks.
                              Last edited by count55; 06-03-2010, 07:39 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Wolves after Granger for #4?

                                Oh, and I don't like the #4 pick either - as a slot.

                                I'm just about 100% sure that the first three picks will be Wall, Turner, and Favors, leaving us Cousins.

                                Cousins is just an insane talent, but I worry that he (appears to be) a douchebag, and I worry that he apparently was heavy ("fat" is what some said) when he showed up in Chicago. If those prove to be untrue (or at least manageable), then he's going to be a hell of a player.

                                I'd be way more comfortable with Favors there, who I like a great deal. I'd feel that Wes Johnson or even Greg Monroe would be safer than Cousins, but at 4, I just think he'd end up being way too much talent to pass up.
                                Last edited by count55; 06-03-2010, 11:37 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X