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

Denver interested in Danny.

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 3
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 template Next
  • #1

    Denver interested in Danny.

    http://espn.go.com/nba/dailydime/_/p...anthony-latest

    1. Melo's Big Five
    By Marc Stein
    ESPN.com

    This week's visit to Denver by the New York Knicks, accompanied by the the famously smothering New York media, came with precisely 100 days to go before the trading deadline.

    So you had to know we were going to make a contribution to the countdown.

    Here, then, are a few fresh nuggets from the Carmelo Anthony trade watch, which we're indeed contractually obliged to refer to as the NBA's Melo Drama inside the first three paragraphs of any such update.

    1. The myth

    You've heard it a zillion times already this season: No team out there is going to be willing to trade for Melo unless he also commits to a contract extension as part of the transaction.

    Consider this your invitation to forget what you've heard.

    The theory implies that Anthony will ultimately be able to force his way to the Knicks before the Feb. 24 trading deadline -- if that's indeed where he wants to be, as is widely presumed -- because the other 28 teams wouldn't dare consent to merely renting Melo for the rest of the 2010-11 campaign this close to his free-agent summer, thereby leaving Denver with no choice but to work with New York.

    Yet that's just not so.

    "Ridiculous," said one Western Conference general manager.

    A handful of team executives consulted this week by ESPN.com believe there are more than a few teams in circulation that would be willing to trade for Melo without getting his name on an extension, even though the risk of losing Anthony without compensation in July is precisely why countless league observers believe the Nuggets will eventually have to give in and give him up.

    How is that possible? As another GM explains, there are always teams willing to bet that a star like Anthony will like their situation if they can just get him to town.

    I know of two such risk-taking teams in Texas alone -- Dallas and Houston -- that would take on Anthony sans extension if their assets proved sufficiently attractive to construct a three-team (or more) deal palatable to Denver. Orlando is also presumed to be another such risk-taker, given the obvious lure of pairing Anthony with Dwight Howard. And Charlotte, with Melo's buddy Michael Jordan in charge, has been suggested as another willing Melo dice-roller by various front-office sources.

    The Nuggets, if and when they reach that point, would obviously prefer to trade with a team Melo wants to join long term because they'd get more in return. Assets of the highest quality will be harder to score in a deal that isn't an extend-and-trade, as the GMs call it.

    The fact, however, remains that the extension is not everything as I once believed, too.

    2. The back pocket

    Another reason why Denver won't be obligated to deal only with the Knicks if it ultimately concludes that a trade is unavoidable?

    Numerous executives still believe that the main pieces that were Denver-bound in the original four-team trade construction that surfaced and then collapsed in late September -- Nets rookie Derrick Favors and at least two future first-round picks -- remain available to the Nuggets and will be available from now until the trade deadline.

    Not sure I agree unreservedly, since parting with Favors strikes me as surrendering the sort of young asset that the Nets can't give up without an extension in place. But that is the consensus on the GM grapevine.

    3. The preference

    My man Ric Bucher said it in a chat last Friday and I've heard the same: Anthony is more than content to play the entire season in Denver as opposed to being traded in the next 90-something days. And the Nuggets know it.

    Melo's reasoning makes plenty of sense, too. Sticking it out with the Nuggets for the rest of the season would allow him to pick his next destination without restrictions in free agency -- once we get past the pesky obstacle of a potential lockout next summer -- and also prevents the team he chooses from being decimated by what it would have to surrender in a Melo deal.

    Says one West exec: "The hard part won't be finding teams that are willing to gamble on Melo. The hard part is having what Denver wants and being able to complete a trade without killing your team. You can't kill your roster and just take him back. That's just guaranteeing that he'll leave."

    4. The latest target

    Perhaps target isn't the best word choice, because the Nuggets have made it clear they're not presently pursuing deals for Anthony.

    Not since longtime Nuggets adviser Bret Bearup was ousted earlier this month, completing a front-office purge that earlier claimed Mark Warkentien and Rex Chapman, and, in Bearup's case, ushered away the organization's loudest pro-trade voice.

    Sources close to the situation maintain that Nuggets president Josh Kroenke and new personnel chief Masai Ujiri won't even consider the prospect of moving Melo before Dec. 15, when players who signed new contracts in the summer become eligible to be added to trades for the first time. And word is even mid-December is a lot sooner than the Nuggets are prepared to move, with team officials clinging to the hope -- remote as it sounds -- that they'll start looking like more of a hard-to-bolt contender around that time once big men Kenyon Martin and Chris Andersen have returned from their respective knee injuries.

    Yet there are a few names known to intrigue the Nuggets in those moments when they force themselves to contemplate contemplate life minus Melo, as detailed in this cyberspace a few weeks back when their interest in Blazers untouchable Nicolas Batum was detailed.

    Another name on the Nuggets' list of fantasy targets in a three-team (or more) trade scenario, I'm told, is Indiana's Danny Granger. But sources say that Granger, just like Batum, bears an "unavailable" stamp.

    The Pacers, as you'd imagine, have made it clear they have zero interest in serving as the third team in a deal that costs them Granger and lands Anthony somewhere else. And Indy isn't one of those teams willing to trade for Anthony without a signed extension, which only adds to the notion that Granger is unattainable.

    Just like Batum.

    5. The optimist

    It can't be a huge surprise after what he's been through in his battle against neck and throat cancer, but it is another fact: Nuggets coach George Karl dispenses positivity about his team, in spite of its plight, more readily than ever before.

    Cynics would say that Karl's own desire for an extension factors into that stance, but Karl simply won't surrender the belief that Anthony can still be swayed to commit to the three-year, $65 million extension that has been on the table since June. Team officials were cautiously convinced around the time of the draft that Melo was on the verge of signing it ... until LeBron James and Chris Bosh landed on South Beach soon thereafter to flank Dwyane Wade and alter not only the league's landscape but also the way Team USA's biggest names look at team-building.

    The undersized Nuggets are scuffling along at 6-6, having dropped four successive road games since a quality Nov. 6 win at Dallas. But Anthony has been a true, committed pro and Karl has helped him stay engaged -- Melo's averaging 24.1 points and a career-best 9.3 boards -- amid questions and scrutiny and speculation that won't go away.

    "I'm enjoying it, man," Melo told me two weeks after the road win over the Mavs. "When we're winning, I'm enjoying it."

    "He's been great," Karl insists.

    The stunning 54-point third quarter Denver surrendered at Indiana on Nov. 9 appeared to be the first warning sign to support the thinking of know-it-alls like me who came into the season convinced this team would not be able to withstand the Melo Drama and eventually unravel ... except that the Nuggets rallied at home two nights later to deal the Lakers their first loss.

    "I've been energized by last year a little bit," Karl said, "and the passion to come back on the court. But I've never understood why [the Nuggets were dismissed by so many experts] when we knew -- and I think most basketball people knew -- that Ty [Lawson] and Arron [Afflalo] were going to be better than they were last year. We get Al Harrington as a shooting 4, which with the way we play ... it helps us. It magnifies the good things that we do.

    "The injuries, yeah, we're probably not going to be as good without Kenyon and Chris, but you can survive in the season. ... I think there's an excitement in our team that I don't think people have given us credit for. Even though we have some things that people could look at and say, 'What the hell is going on?' ... it hasn't gotten in on the practice court or in the games."
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Denver interested in Danny.

    Makes sense to me. No way in hell we give up Granger just to rent Melo for half a season.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Denver interested in Danny.

      There is nothing short of Amare' that the Knicks could offer that would get us involved in a 3 way trade.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Denver interested in Danny.

        Just out of curiosity , and highley unlikely, but say we landed Melo, without giving up Granger, and he signed an extension

        Could Granger and Melo play at the same time and be productive? and if so, which position would each play?
        Sittin on top of the world!

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Denver interested in Danny.

          Personally, I wouldn't trade Danny for anyone. The same goes for Roy.

          I'm not someone that would trade his mother to win. I wouldn't trade my favorites for anyone, regardless of relative values.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Denver interested in Danny.

            Sure Denver wants Danny, he has a really good contract, is playing great team ball, and is back to being an elite defender.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Denver interested in Danny.

              Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
              Personally, I wouldn't trade Danny for anyone. The same goes for Roy.

              I'm not someone that would trade his mother to win. I wouldn't trade my favorites for anyone, regardless of relative values.


              Can your mom play strong interior D and has a low post game?

              just kidding around of course
              Sittin on top of the world!

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Denver interested in Danny.

                I sure as hell would never trade Danny just to help Denver put Melo elsewhere.
                Stop quoting people I have on ignore!

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Denver interested in Danny.

                  Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
                  Personally, I wouldn't trade Danny for anyone. The same goes for Roy.

                  I'm not someone that would trade his mother to win. I wouldn't trade my favorites for anyone, regardless of relative values.

                  I love my favorite players, but I would not be opposed to trading them for the right price. That price would be something along the lines of Kevin Durant.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Denver interested in Danny.

                    If we trade Granger, I would defintely want Melo in return. But taking Melo also means taking on a lot more salary. Granger's contract is VERY reasonable
                    "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Denver interested in Danny.

                      It would be interesting to see what Danny would be capable of in a different environment. Ideally, I'd love to see him paired WITH Carmelo and not as the primary piece of a team like he's been in recent years with us.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Denver interested in Danny.

                        Melo is a malcontent too, as good as he is, he is self centered, narcisstic and I don't want that on our team. Danny has been everything you want from your star player as far as attitude and wanting to be here and that is hugely important for a small market team like ours.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Denver interested in Danny.

                          Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View Post
                          Just out of curiosity , and highley unlikely, but say we landed Melo, without giving up Granger, and he signed an extension

                          Could Granger and Melo play at the same time and be productive? and if so, which position would each play?
                          Sure! You'd already be in fantasy land anyway, so sure it'd work!
                          Last edited by NapTonius Monk; 11-19-2010, 04:52 PM.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Denver interested in Danny.

                            How is melo a malcontent??? Because he doesn't like the direction management is taking the franchise and won't committ?! He's play well for them and if he walks at the end too bad he played his contract out...

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Denver interested in Danny.

                              Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View Post
                              Just out of curiosity , and highley unlikely, but say we landed Melo, without giving up Granger, and he signed an extension

                              Could Granger and Melo play at the same time and be productive? and if so, which position would each play?
                              Insiting conventional wisdom, Granger would be at the 2 spot. Carmelo is a better post player and rebounder. Granger is a better perimeter player than Carmelo. In Jim's offense he would fit in as a four, which would actually be ideal for this team. Collison, Rush, Granger, Melo, Hibbert. That would be a starting five of a real contender.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 template Next
                              Working...
                              X