Will anyone post this ESPN Insider article?
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.
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
Hollinger: Spurs win once again
Collapse
X
-
Re: Hollinger: Spurs win once again
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/7...ade-in-round-1
I never trust BR but this guy hates the move lol
I agree that the Spurs won this trade from there point of view but we did good also.
I was shocked that the Spurs wanted Leonard instead of Singleton. I really wanted Chris and it is TBA if i like this trade i will have to wait and see how we use George Hill and if he can blossom here.
Comment
-
Re: Hollinger: Spurs win once again
Originally posted by ilive4sports View PostHollinger likes it for the spurs? Now I like it even more.
I also worry that Hill is just a system guy and if you remove him from that system he will struggle i guess we will see.
Comment
-
Re: Hollinger: Spurs win once again
Originally posted by pacer4ever View Posthttp://bleacherreport.com/articles/7...ade-in-round-1
I never trust BR but this guy hates the move lol.
"Continually failing"? Do you people at Bleacher Report even bother to do a fact check anymore?
Larry Bird has steadily brought this franchise out of the abyss in the past few years and has brought in guys to add to the core in each of the past few drafts. After Donnie Walsh put Indiana in Franchise Cap Hell with the god-awful Stephen Jackson and Al Harrington trade a few years ago, Bird was finally able to drag the Pacers out of it, and even turn Troy "The Matador" Murphy's expiring contract into Darren Collison. Not only that, but in the 3 prior drafts he has added guys who are all now starters by trading the Ghost of Jermaine O'Neal for Roy Hibbert, drafting Tyler Hansbrough, and picking up Paul George last year.
Bird did exactly what the Pacers needed. He brought in a Combo Guard who can adjust to certain situations in that he can help guard against the bigger PG's like Derrick Rose and Deren Williams who both ate Darren Collison alive last season. And he can also help stabilize a bench that was in desperate need (especially in the playoffs) of a guy who could score and score by creating his own shot.
And exactly where the **** was Leonard supposed to play? Yeah, great, he's a 6'7 Forward who can play some good defense. That's all fine and dandy, except for the fact that the Pacers already have a 6'9 Danny Granger and a 6'10 Paul George (who is still friggin growing) who already do that and do it pretty damn well on most nights. Not to mention, they can actually put the ball in the hole.
So Bird trades a 1st and 2nd round pick in one of the weakest drafts ever, as well as the rights to some Euro guy who will never come over to the states, for a young veteran who is solid and will help the team immediately?
Sounds like a pretty ****ing fantastic deal to me.
Oh, and Bird's about to re-hire Frank Vogel, as well as Brian Shaw (You know,the guy Phil Jackson and Kobe Bryant wanted to be Head Coach of the Lakers? I guess they're a pretty good team) as an Assistant Coach. AND the Pacers have about $25 million in cap relief to go get a guy in Free Agency, or make trades with the Expiring Contract in James Posey, a talented but stupid Lance Stephenson, or even Danny Granger, to go out and get a proper PF to put next to Hibbert so Hansbrough can go be the league's most feared 6th Man.
......Are you sure you didn't mean for this to be about David Kahn and his ineptitude up in Minnesota?Last edited by Day-V; 06-24-2011, 04:20 AM.
Comment
-
Re: Hollinger: Spurs win once again
They usually post all the insider stuff on this Chinese basketball site (not that I can read Chinese, it's just the first link that comes up on Google when I search the article title).
Hollinger seems to really like it for both teams.
http://bbs.hoopchina.com/2411475.html
Draft analysis: Spurs sharp in dealing
By John Hollinger
ESPN.com
Archive
You want to know why the Spurs win 50 or more games every year and always have their cap situation under control, while the rest of the league scrambles and flails around them? Check out tonight's draft for a good example.
In a stellar trade that showed how they're always a step ahead of everyone else, the Spurs sent guard George Hill to Indiana for the rights to the 15th pick (Kawhi Leonard), the rights to the 42nd pick (Davis Bertans), and the rights to European Erazem Lorbek.
On paper, trading an established rotation player for the 15th pick in a weak draft seems like a reckless gamble, but there's a key difference between George Hill and Kawhi Leonard: their paychecks.
Hill will be a restricted free agent after the coming season, and the Spurs looked at their books and made a decision that they couldn't pay two point guards (Hill and the equally widely shopped Tony Parker) -- especially while they were also paying Manu Ginobili, Tim Duncan and Richard Jefferson and looking at a more restrictive post-lockout salary cap environment.
Leonard, meanwhile, will be on a rookie contract for the next four years, providing the Spurs with a very reasonably paid but (likely) productive player to offset the millions they're paying declining assets like Duncan.
So Hill goes now, before the Spurs have any drama over whether to extend him or risk losing him in restricted free agency next summer. San Antonio keeps its cap situation somewhat under control, and can plug James Anderson, Gary Neal, rookie Cory Joseph and whatever veteran backup point guard they sign into Hill's former minutes without losing much in the backcourt.
Meanwhile, Leonard fills a more glaring need -- a combo forward who can help them match up when opponents go small. This has been an Achilles heel of the Spurs for years, and presuming Leonard can play, he solves the problem. While he's not the classic San Antonio corner-3 shooting small forward of yore, the Spurs needed a young energizer like this.
So yes, it's a great deal for San Antonio, and it illustrates how the Spurs have stayed on top of the standings for more than a decade by staying two steps ahead of the competition. Just to emphasize that point, the Spurs also got a second-round pick in the deal and used it to nab Latvian sharpshooter Davis Bertans, who is totally unready now but likely will prove a steal when he decides to come over in a few years.
But, I should point out, Indiana didn't fare badly either. The Pacers converted a trade exception from the Troy Murphy deal into a big combo guard who will help fill the rotation -- he'll back up Darren Collison at the point and play a lot of 2, where Mike Dunleavy is a free agent and Brandon Rush is trade bait.
Meanwhile, his arrival doesn't mess up Indiana's financial plans -- they can afford to pay Hill and he'll likely want to stay since he's from Indianapolis. And since he only counts $2 million this year against their current hoard of cap space, his arrival won't cost the Pacers anything in free agency.
It's a good example of two teams using the system to their advantage, but for me it's especially illustrative of how San Antonio has played the cap-management game so much better than most of its rivals over the past decade.
Now let's look at the rest of Thursday's trades:
Blazers and Nugget swap point guards; Mavs get Rudy
The full damages on this deal are extensive, but it basically boils down to the Blazers swapping Andre Miller to Denver for Raymond Felton. The nitty-gritty: Portland sends Miller to Denver and Rudy Fernandez and the rights to Finnish guard Petteri Koponen to Dallas; Dallas sends the No. 26 pick (Jordan Hamilton) to Denver and the No. 57 pick to Portland; Denver sends Felton to Portland.
The Felton-Miller trade is a rarity: It's almost entirely about basketball. The two have virtually identically contracts that both expire after this season. Portland gets eight years younger at the point guard spot, although Felton looked very heavy by the end of last season and really needs to get that potbelly under control if he's going to continue playing at his current level.
The two were roughly equal as players a year ago, but each fits better in the other team's system -- Miller's lack of shooting was a real problem in Portland but shouldn't be an issue on an up-tempo Denver team that has a lot of bombers, while Felton bristled as a backup in Denver but will be a full-time starter with the Blazers.
The Blazers lose Fernandez in the swap, which leaves a dent, but with Greg Odenpotentially returning at the center spot and LaMarcus Aldridge on the other block, Portland needs a point guard who can make a jump shot. Felton isn't the best in this category, but compared to Miller, he looks like Steve Kerr. He's a better defender than Miller, too.
Portland also drafted Nolan Smith in the first round, who presumably will be the backup point guard and can pair with Felton in the backcourt -- he and Elliot Williams, who missed last year with knee surgery, should fill the void left by Rudy's departure.
For Denver, Miller is probably going to come off the bench behind Ty Lawson, although I strongly suspect they may try to flip Miller for assets at the trade deadline. He was beloved in Denver in his last stint and will thrive in their up-tempo style, and the Nuggets get a considerable asset in the No. 26 pick, Jordan Hamilton, as well. Hamilton can really stroke it, and will likely fill free agent J.R. Smith's role as a source of 3-pointers, questionable shot selection and bad body language off the bench.
For the world champion Mavs (yes, I'm still getting used to this too), this trade basically boils down to getting a low-salaried player to fill some likely free-agent vacancies. The Mavs could have done the same with pick No. 26, but Fernandez is a sure bet to contribute right away in a known role and I suspect he'll be better in Dallas's more open, faster-paced system than he was in Portland's grinding approach. Given that Caron Butler, J.J. Barea andDeShawn Stevenson all are free agents, it was a good proactive step for Dallas. Koponen is likely a throwaway but could help Dallas when they need to tear this all down in two years or so.
Minnesota's cascading trade
The Timberwolves started the night with the 20th pick in the draft and Jonny Flynn. At the end of the draft they had Brad Miller, a likely late first-rounder from Memphis in 2013, two future second-rounders, the 43rd pick (Malcolm Lee), and a whole mess of cash that was included in four separate transactions involving Chicago, Miami, New Jersey and Houston. The Wolves traded down in slow motion -- from 20th to 23rd to 28th to 31st to selling the pick entirely -- and got paid at each step.
Houston got No. 20 from Minnesota (Lithuanian big man Donatas Motiejunas) along with Flynn in return for Brad Miller, picks No. 23 and No. 38 and the future first-rounder from Memphis. (That pick, incidentally, is more protected than Fort Knox -- it will never be in the top 14. It's top-14 protected in 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016; at that point it downgrades to a second-rounder.)
Cash-wise the deal is nearly neutral -- Flynn makes less, but insurance will likely pick up a chunk of Miller's contract (Miller had microfracture surgery in the offseason). The interesting part is that the Rockets included a future first-rounder in the deal, which indicates some value was placed on Flynn despite his horrid play last season.
Obviously, the value for Houston depends on getting something out of Flynn (either in trade or on the court) and how Motiejunas develops. But look at it this way -- it would have cost them $3 million to salary dump Miller, which is also the going rate for a late first-rounder. They basically gave Minnesota a late first-rounder to dump Miller instead, and now have a wild card with Flynn. Maybe he develops and maybe he stays terrible. But Houston doesn't really lose anything by giving it a whirl.
For a 22-year-old who had a fairly solid rookie season at age 20? I'd say that's a pretty fair gamble to take, and another cagey move by the Rockets as they build for the post-Yao era.
But back to the Wolves. Having traded down to No. 23, they traded down again by sending the pick to Chicago, who made a phenomenal Eurostash pick with Montenegrin forwardNikola Mirotic. In return, Minnesota got picks 28 and 43, and cash.
Then they deal No. 28 to Miami, who made a very strong pick with unheralded Cleveland State guard Norris Cole, and Minnesota in return got pick No. 31, a future second-rounder, and cash. The irony here is that the No. 28 pick was originally Miami's -- the Heat sent it to Toronto in the Chris Bosh trade, and via Toronto, Chicago, and Minnesota, it boomeranged back.
The Wolves then sent No. 31 to New Jersey, who drafted forward Bojan Bogdanovic and gave Minnesota even more cash.
And after trading for the No. 38 pick, they sold it back to Houston so the Rockets could takeChandler Parsons from Florida. Yes, more cash -- $1.5 million to be exact. One has to wonder if the Wolves were raising a slush fund to pay off soon-to-be-departed head coach Kurt Rambis.
Minnesota also got Houston's 2012 second-rounder if it lands in spots 31 to 40, which is unlikely. Finally, at No. 43, the Wolves finally used a pick, taking UCLA wing Malcolm Lee.
All of this intrigue likely filled the Wolves' coffers much more than simply selling the pick outright at the start, so bravo to Minnesota for this piece of strategy. But I'm guessing Wolves fans would have preferred a veteran or even a stash pick like Mirotic to bolstering owner Glen Taylor's bank account.
Boston and New Jersey swap spots
In a fairly straightforward switcheroo, the Celtics swapped No. 25 to New Jersey for No. 27, and got a 2014 second-rounder from the Nets for their trouble.
New Jersey landed guard Marshon Brooks, while the Celtics got Purdue's defensive aceJaJuan Johnson, a player who may very well be this year's Taj Gibson.
Second-rounders change hands
• Orlando traded two future second-rounders to Cleveland for No. 32 pick Justin Harper, who fits the Magic system like a glove with his long-range shooting and general indifference to rebounding and contact. On another team that's a liability; as long as Dwight Howard is around it won't matter much in Orlando.
• New York purchased the 45th pick from New Orleans and Golden State bought the 39th pick from Charlotte. Reportedly, the Knicks paid $750K for the 45th pick, and the Warriors paid $2 million for the 39th.
• The name of the night was Chukwudiebere Maduabum, who Denver picked after trading a future second-rounder to the Lakers for the 56th selection.
• Minnesota obtained the 57th pick from Portland after the Blazers got it from the Mavs, using it to draft an obscure forward named Tanguy Ngombo, who plays in Qatar. The interesting part? The whispers that Ngombo is as much as 26 years old ... which, if true, would make him ineligible for this draft.
Comment
-
Re: Hollinger: Spurs win once again
I agree with John the Spurs made a great move because of $$$. He also said the Pacers did good in the trade and i agree. I figured that's what the article was gonna be about. The SAS organization is truly a well run organization and are very good basketball minds who made a good trade along with us tonight.
but now thinking about the deal i like it more because if we want to get a free agent next year we still can. Because George's cap hold isnt very much and will allow us to go after EJ or another big time guy and also retain George Hill. The quote below is really significant to our future cap plans in free agency next year.
they can afford to pay Hill and he'll likely want to stay since he's from Indianapolis. And since he only counts $2 million this year against their current hoard of cap space, his arrival won't cost the Pacers anything in free agency.Last edited by pacer4ever; 06-24-2011, 04:40 AM.
Comment
-
Re: Hollinger: Spurs win once again
Yeah, as much as I love Hill coming to Indy, it was an amazing trade for the Spurs, getting Leonard in a position of need and Bertans who they can stash in Europe for a few years. It feels like Lorbek might be more willing to come to the Spurs because of their experience with Euros but I don't know if there's any truth to that. Regardless I hope it comes out well for us in the end. I just hope we can get Hill to stay longterm without making too big of a dent in our cap room.
Comment
-
Re: Hollinger: Spurs win once again
We help the Spurs get better, but not ourselves. Way to go Bird. Hill does not make this team better.
Hate this deal more and more.First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.
Comment
-
Re: Hollinger: Spurs win once again
Originally posted by Unclebuck View PostWe won't know for sure for a few years. George Hill is a sure thing. A 15th pick is anything but a sure thing, no matter if the Spurs pickd him or not
So whatever happens, Hollinger is right, long term, great deal for Spurs. And they also got Bertans -- who was projected in the 1st round by most and has serious potential 3+ years from now.
They really aren't losing anything, just a year of Hill who's very expendable with Gary Neal/James Anderson on the roster (if there even is next year).
For this to be a bad deal for Spurs, Leonard would have to be a bust of Joe Alexander proportions where he's out of the league in 2 years (and Bertans never make it).
As for us, it's not a sure thing. Safe choice for now, but our prime time isn't for some 3-5 years anyway, and if by that time Leonard reaches his full potential which seems to be considerable... It will be remembered as a terrible deal.
Comment
-
Re: Hollinger: Spurs win once again
Originally posted by Sparhawk View PostWe help the Spurs get better, but not ourselves. Way to go Bird. Hill does not make this team better.
Hate this deal more and more.Spoiler:It ends with this
Comment
-
Re: Hollinger: Spurs win once again
Good trade for the Spurs, doesn't make it a bad trade for us.
It's a good trade for the Spurs because of financial and roster reasons, but not for basketball reasons - Hill was an important part of their rotation after all, and they swapped him for 3 maybes. That's basically a rebuilding move for them.
For the Pacers, we already have a lot of good not great players, so consolidating our assets to get a known commodity that fills a need makes a lot of sense. I think Hill still has a lot of upside while being capable of contributing off the bat.
I don't get the regret about trading Leonard away. He was never our pick apparently and if we hadn't traded the #15 we might very well have gone for someone else. It's the Bayless trade all over again.
Comment
-
Re: Hollinger: Spurs win once again
Originally posted by Sparhawk View PostWe help the Spurs get better, but not ourselves. Way to go Bird. Hill does not make this team better.
Hate this deal more and more.
Comment
Comment