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

Rajon Rondo to Indiana: Round II?

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

  • Rajon Rondo to Indiana: Round II?

    Note: I decided to make this a new thread, since the previous thread was bloated (532 posts), and had fallen to the bottom of page two of the forum. If the mods think this would be better off merged with the old thread, than o.k.

    Anyway, it looks like the Rondo-to-Indiana talks may be far from dead...

    Sources -- Chris Paul trade talks cool; New Orleans Hornets unlikely to deal by Friday - ESPN

    Originally posted by Marc Stein and Chris Broussard
    The chances of a Chris Paul trade before NBA training camps finally open Friday appear to be dwindling after the pace of Paul trade talks slowed Wednesday, according to sources close the situation.

    The Golden State Warriors have effectively withdrawn from the Paul Sweepstakes by stressing to the Hornets that they simply won't include star guard Stephen Curry in any deal with New Orleans. And sources told ESPN.com that none of the other teams known to be Paul's most ardent suitors sweetened their trade offers Wednesday, despite the fact that it's now an open secret around the league that the Hornets want to move Paul before the season starts Christmas Day, hoping to avoid a repeat of the long-running drama that suffocated the Denver Nuggets for much of last season before they traded Carmelo Anthony.

    It has been evident since Monday that the Warriors and Los Angeles Clippers are New Orleans' preferred trade partners, but one source close to the process told ESPN.com that talks between Golden State and New Orleans have gone "dormant" because of the Warriors' refusal to make Curry part of the deal without an assurance from Paul that he will stay beyond this season as opposed to bolting as a free agent in July 12. Clippers guard Eric Gordon is the other player New Orleans covets in a Paul deal on par with Curry, but L.A. has likewise insisted all week that Gordon is a "deal breaker," as one source put it.

    Various executives believe that the Boston Celtics and Los Angeles Lakers are thus the two most likely landing spots for Paul, but sources with knowledge of New Orleans' thinking said late Wednesday that the Hornets are prepared to wait days or even weeks for offers to improve, convinced that they they're getting low-ball proposals at this early stage of the process based on the external belief that they're so motivated to move Paul they will rush into a deal.

    The Celtics, sources say, are currently presenting the strongest offer, which features Rajon Rondo, Jeff Green and two first-round picks. As the Paul pursuer most willing to trade for the All-Star point guard with zero assurance that Paul will stay beyond this season, Boston is also trying to concoct multi-team scenarios that would help the Hornets come away with the package they desire for Paul, featuring at least one established veteran to help them stay relevant, one up-and-coming talent and draft picks.

    The Hornets' interest in Rondo is lukewarm at best, but one scenario in circulation would involve the Indiana Pacers and route former Hornets point guard Darren Collison back to New Orleans and land Rondo with the Pacers and Paul with the Celtics. Yet several other players would have to be involved to make such a deal work -- with more established talent going to New Orleans -- and there was no indication Wednesday that such a deal was close to completion.

    Sources say that the Lakers have made their willingness to deal forward Pau Gasol for Paul clear to the Hornets, since L.A. is hoping to preserve Andrew Bynum to be the centerpiece of a trade offer for Orlando's Dwight Howard. ESPN.com reported Tuesday that the Hornets have not ruled out accepting a trade package for Paul that's built around Gasol, but the Hornets also do have reservations about acquiring the Spaniard, who turned 31 in July and is coming off a woeful playoff series against Dallas last spring.

    New Orleans, though, likes the other offers coming in even less than those proposals. Sources say that the Clippers have only pitched a package featuring Chris Kaman's expiring contract and guards Mo Williams and Eric Bledsoe, meaning that center DeAndre Jordan and Minnesota's 2012 unprotected first-round pick are off the table along with Gordon.

    The Hornets have been similarly unmoved by the offers coming from Houston and Dallas, which are the two teams, along with Boston, known to be willing to take on Paul with no promises about the future, convinced that Paul can be swayed to stay in their town after one successful season. The New York Knicks, sources said, have refrained from even making an offer to this point, knowing they lack the requisite trade assets to land Paul without recruiting a third or fourth team to sweeten the deal, despite the fact New York is widely believed to be Paul's No. 1 preferred landing spot.

    The Hornets have actually been trying to convince the Warriors to part with Curry since before last season's trade deadline in February. But the Warriors could only stomach the inclusion of Curry if they knew Paul would extend his contract as part of the trade or at least commit to invoking his option for the 2012-13 season.

    ESPN.com reported earlier Wednesday that talks with the Warriors are "definitely cooling" because of Golden State's unwillingness to include Curry in the deal. Following a voluntary team workout on Wednesday, Curry told local reporters he has received assurances from team executives that he is "safe and secure" with the Warriors despite the rampant Paul speculation.

    "They want me here," Curry told reporters in the Bay Area on Wednesday. "Obviously there's the business of basketball and there are things that may happen with a GM having to make a decision for the best interest of the team. When you have a guy like Chris Paul, who is a franchise player, that's something you really have to think about it with anybody on the roster. I understand that. I'm not going to be upset if they entertained that."

    Perhaps the only solace for the Hornets so far this week is the apparent struggles of free-agent power forward David West to attract the offers he envisioned after suffering a season-ending knee injury in March. Sources say West is gradually warming to the idea of returning to New Orleans.
    Collison and "more established talent" going to New Orleans? Hmm... Danny Granger?

    It's also interesting how the deal was addressed at the end of the paragraph─"there was no indication Wednesday that such a deal was close to completion."─seemingly implying that it was being worked on.

    Working with the Boston/New Orleans S.I. rumor from yesterday:

    Originally posted by Sam Amick
    The Celtics have reportedly changed their stance on whether they'd require a long-term commitment before trading for Paul. It was believed to be a requisite to a deal getting done when SI.com first reported their interest in Paul. Sources said their offer includes point guard Rajon Rondo, a 2012 top-10 protected first-round pick from the Clippers, second-year guard Avery Bradley and rookie guard E'Twaun Moore. Another source said restricted free agent Jeff Green would likely be part of that deal as well.
    Boston: Chris Paul
    Indiana: Rajon Rondon, Jeff Green
    New Orleans: Danny Granger, Darren Collison, Avery Bradley, E'Twaun Moore, Clippers 2012 first-round pick (top-10 protected)

    The trade seems to work, financially (I use J.O.'s $6.2M salary as a substitute for Jeff Green).

  • #2
    Re: Rajon Rondo to Indiana: Round II?

    Maybe I'm the only one here who feels this way, but I have no interest in acquiring Rondo if it costs Granger.

    No interest whatsoever.
    Stop quoting people I have on ignore!

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Rajon Rondo to Indiana: Round II?

      Jeff Green for Granger :'(....

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Rajon Rondo to Indiana: Round II?

        I don't think we would move Granger and Collison. I could see Collison, Tyler and a 1st and we only receive Rondo in return

        Pacers get: Rondo
        Celtics get: Paul
        Hornets get: Collison, Tyler, Clips 1st, Our 1st, Avery Bradley and Jeff Green

        Maybe George Hill? I honestly think PG, Granger and Hibbert aren't going anywhere. The rest is up for grabs though.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Rajon Rondo to Indiana: Round II?

          No way that the Hornets would want Granger. If they don't want Rondo...they won't want Granger.

          It's PG and DC ( as sweetner ) that the Hornets would want. They want Prospects and Draft Picks...not a borderline All-Star Player ( whether it be Rondo or Granger ) that you cannot build around.
          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Rajon Rondo to Indiana: Round II?

            If they do this trade I sure hope they are signing Crawford!!!!! Not a big fan of Jeff Green either..we need a shooter if Granger involved

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Rajon Rondo to Indiana: Round II?

              This all comes down to how much you are willing to pay for Rondo.

              The starting price is:

              1st+DC+TPE

              The question then becomes what else that you are willing to add ( PG, Hansbrough, or Hibbert ) to make a deal happen.

              I'd like to believe that a DC+1st+TPE would do it....but any Team can offer the Celtics that type of trade offer. My first inclination is to include Hansbrough with DC and a 1st....then look to sign Landry to replace him while looking for another starting quality PF to fill out the frontcourt....but I'm guessing that the Celtics/Hornets are asking for PG or Hibbert along with DC and a 1st.
              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Rajon Rondo to Indiana: Round II?

                Originally posted by Psyren View Post
                Maybe I'm the only one here who feels this way, but I have no interest in acquiring Rondo if it costs Granger, George, Hibbert or Tyler.

                No interest whatsoever.
                Fixed.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Rajon Rondo to Indiana: Round II?

                  See my proposed deal in the trade forum. I posted that same trade on realgm not long ago with fans from all teams agreeing. The Pacers can most definitely make this work and the Hornets will be much more willing to accept less if we took on a contract like Ariza's.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Rajon Rondo to Indiana: Round II?

                    Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                    No way that the Hornets would want Granger. If they don't want Rondo...they won't want Granger.

                    It's PG and DC ( as sweetner ) that the Hornets would want. They want Prospects and Draft Picks...not a borderline All-Star Player ( whether it be Rondo or Granger ) that you cannot build around.
                    Maybe, however, Granger was born and raised in New Orleans though, so maybe that could be a small extra factor that makes him a little more attractive to the Hornets. Either way, I rather not deal Danny unlike, it seems, a lot of you.

                    I agree that DC is pretty much a guarantee in any deal with Boston and New Orleans. Our 2012 first rounder will be sought by the other teams aswell. PG, the same. Doesn´t mean we have to give them the last two, but they will certainly be asking or demanding it.
                    2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                    2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                    2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Rajon Rondo to Indiana: Round II?

                      Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                      No way that the Hornets would want Granger. If they don't want Rondo...they won't want Granger.
                      The article said New Orleans would be looking for "established talent." I took that to mean a ready-made "name" player, which Danny is.

                      Why they have no interest in Rondo, I don't know. It could be his rumored attitude.

                      Side-note: The three-team deal I posted in the original post was just something I concocted based on what was being said in the two articles. It's not something that's been specifically mentioned by any NBA reporter.
                      Last edited by Lance George; 12-08-2011, 03:44 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Rajon Rondo to Indiana: Round II?

                        I love Rondo but I don't know how I feel about this.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Rajon Rondo to Indiana: Round II?

                          Terrible, terrible deal for us. The only thing Rondo is worth is Collison and a future first. Anything more at all unless it's Rush or Dahntay Jones would be overpaying and we would lose the trade considerably. We already have a defensive point guard in Hill. Rondo is also a horrible shooter. Let's also not forget that Rondo has played next to three or four (if you count Shaq) future hall of famers the last few years, so he looks better than he really is.

                          Am I the only one seeing this? Granger + a 1st and Collison for Rondo? GTFOH. That would be the worst trade in franchise history and would set us back about two years and we would lose talent and not gain it. I would take Granger all day over Rondo. Wow is all I gotta say...Larry still should hold a grudge against the Celtics for not thinking he was front office material. He has since developed into one of the most savvy CEOs in the world, and there is no way he wants to giftwrap the Celtics Paul and lose talent in the process.

                          DC and a first or they can shove it. Celtics can add the "established" players, they are the ones getting a legit superstar, not a fringe one that likely got that way from playing next to three others.
                          Last edited by Midcoasted; 12-08-2011, 04:01 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Rajon Rondo to Indiana: Round II?

                            Originally posted by Midcoasted View Post

                            Am I the only one seeing this? Granger + a 1st and Collison for Rondo? GTFOH. That would be the worst trade in franchise history and would set us back about two years and we would lose talent and not gain it (...) He has since developed into one of the most savvy CEOs in the world, and there is no way he wants to giftwrap the Celtics Paul and lose talent in the process.
                            I doubt a deal like that has ever been on the table. Apart from that, combine your own two statements and you'll see, such a scenario will never happen.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Rajon Rondo to Indiana: Round II?

                              Originally posted by Midcoasted View Post
                              Terrible, terrible deal for us. The only thing Rondo is worth is Collison and a future first. Anything more at all unless it's Rush or Dahntay Jones would be overpaying and we would lose the trade considerably. We already have a defensive point guard in Hill. Rondo is also a horrible shooter. Let's also not forget that Rondo has played next to three or four (if you count Shaq) future hall of famers the last few years, so he looks better than he really is.
                              The thing is, from watching the Celtics, there have been times where he carried those hall of famers.

                              Trading Granger for Rondo would not hurt our cap situation. What if we were able to get Crawford, Nene, and Rondo.

                              Pg. Rondo
                              SG Jamal Crawford
                              SF Paul George
                              PF Nene
                              C Roy Hibbert

                              If this was our starting lineup with G.Hill, Rush,(?green), Stephenson and Hansboro coming of the bench I think I could get over loosing Danny.

                              JCrossover: "@k_lewis93: @JCrossover I know you have been talking to a lot of teams but any chance on wearing the Pacers jersey next year?"--yes!
                              https://twitter.com/hickspd/status/144641956243439617
                              Last edited by spazzxb; 12-08-2011, 05:04 AM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X