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

Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

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

  • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

    Originally posted by d_c View Post
    Pacers can offer anything they want. Whatever MAX they offer will always allowed to be greater than whatever MAX Portland offers them.

    The point is, they DON'T WANT to pay him more than what they need to. They'll let Portland set the market for him, let him sign there, match the contract and keep him. End of story.

    I just meant maybe we can offer the extra year so we have a little more wiggle room to sign other FAs in the future.

    Comment


    • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

      Originally posted by HC View Post
      It is his agent that I don't like. It was obviously coming to this when Roy turned down the extension offer.
      He's just doing his job.

      Comment


      • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

        So far, the only thing that I am surprised about is that Portland is the only offer Big Roy has received.

        Comment


        • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

          OK, so hold on. One of the Portland papers, in an article about Batum, said as soon as a player signs an offer sheet his cap hold with the original team becomes year 1 of the new contract's salary. So if that actually happens we'd go from Roy's current ~6.2 mil cap hold to it immediately being ~12.9 BEFORE we even match.

          I was under the impression it would stay at the original cap hold for the duration of the 3 day matching period, giving us the ability to use that difference to sign players.

          Tell me that Portland writer's wrong please.

          edit: false alarm, it stays at the original cap hold. Thanks Larry Coon.
          Last edited by Heisenberg; 07-01-2012, 10:09 PM.

          Comment


          • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

            Originally posted by Brinocerous View Post
            So far, the only thing that I am surprised about is that Portland is the only offer Big Roy has received.
            There's allegedly a second super secret team that also offered the max, but no one knows who. So I don't believe that really, agent talk.

            Comment


            • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

              Originally posted by BringJackBack View Post
              If the NBA world and world in general really laughed about Roy Hibbert making the team, that says more about the eastern NBA coaches' whole spectrum of intelligence than anything, since those guys put him in it. I am going to bet that the Eastern coaches put Roy Hibbert in the All-Star game for good reason.
              My point wasn't supposed to be whether Hibbert was deserving or not, it was in response to a post suggesting that Hibbert is a perennial All Star player, which he is not (at this point). I like Roy Hibbert as a player and what I've seen/read of him as a person, so I'd prefer he be on the team one way or the other. I just see a lot of overvaluing (see perennial All Star comments) going on.


              Also I'm sure he wouldn't mind playing in Portland, next to Lamarcus Aldridge. If we lose him, better to lose him to the West.

              Comment


              • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

                Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                OK, so hold on. One of the Portland papers, in an article about Batum, said as soon as a player signs an offer sheet his cap hold with the original team becomes year 1 of the new contract's salary. So if that actually happens we'd go from Roy's current ~6.2 mil cap hold to it immediately being ~12.9 BEFORE we even match.

                I was under the impression it would stay at the original cap hold for the duration of the 3 day matching period, giving us the ability to use that difference to sign players.

                Tell me that Portland writer's wrong please.
                Can't really answer this question, but it's just another in a long list of reasons I think restricted free agency is ludicrous. The NFL was wise to get rid of their version.

                It has turned into gamesmanship, and I don't follow basketball in hopes my favorite team can out-contract opponents.

                Comment


                • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

                  Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                  OK, so hold on. One of the Portland papers, in an article about Batum, said as soon as a player signs an offer sheet his cap hold with the original team becomes year 1 of the new contract's salary. So if that actually happens we'd go from Roy's current ~6.2 mil cap hold to it immediately being ~12.9 BEFORE we even match.

                  I was under the impression it would stay at the original cap hold for the duration of the 3 day matching period, giving us the ability to use that difference to sign players.

                  Tell me that Portland writer's wrong please.
                  Yes you are wrong.. We have 3 days to match and the cap hold is the same.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Sam Amick (Sports Illustrated): Portland Offers Roy Hibbert Max

                    I'm wondering who the second team is that offered Roy the max deal. Who else would have the money to do so?

                    Comment


                    • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

                      Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
                      Boston moved Jefferson and the fifth pick for a pair of Hall of Fame talents -- Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen.

                      Who will we be picking up while losing Roy Hibbert?


                      So, let's see. Naptown Seth abhors the notion of building through high lottery picks, and believes talent can be acquired later on in the draft. Short-sighted, but fair enough.

                      We then go out and acquire an All-Star center with the 17th pick, and Naptown Seth believes we should let him walk. He's not good enough. We'll have to hope the next all-star center we draft in the middle of the first round is better. You know, since there are so many of them available.
                      You can literally pick up ANYONE because you have space for any trade or FA situation available. So if Miami decides that really it should just be Lebron and Bosh so that they can round the team out better or because Wade gets into fights with Eric S or whatever, you can actually afford to trade a pick and a average starter for him. Ditto every team in the NBA.

                      So when Aldridge wants out of Portland, suddenly the Pacers can make that deal.


                      And I didn't say you have to let him walk, I said IT IS A GAMBLE. If he continues to improve then everything is fine, and if he doesn't then you are in a tough spot. That's not my opinion, that's just the facts. Teams that overpay on their highest paid guys are screwed or they cover up the mistake with rookie contract heros.



                      I also don't hate the notion of high picks, I said it's 100% BS that you have to have them. Everyone says how you must go get a top 5 guy who can be MVP or you will never win a title. The Lakers won a title with a non top 5 guy who was MVP, PHX acquired a non top 5 guy who was MVP twice. So that's me "abhoring" high lottery picks.

                      Let's flip that straw man - you're saying that if you don't get Kwame Brown or Oden, you can't win it all. Oh wait, that makes as much sense as what you extrapolated from my POV.



                      I'M CONSISTANT - don't chase OVERPAYING ON ANYTHING. Don't overpay on picks, don't intentionally wreck your team to chase high picks, don't overpay FAs, don't overpay on trades. This is poker, if you get emotional and get bluffed into doing something you wouldn't do if you were on your own and no one was pressing you then you are bound to make mistakes.

                      Houston is now in "oh s***, we didn't get Dwight, we must have a center at all costs" mode themselves and their GM has some sense to him. That's what your point sounds like - "if we lose Roy then we will never learn to love again". Of course they can find another center/big to help fill that hole. Okay, so you change PG and then the offense doesn't have to go through the post so much, so now your defensive only replacement doesn't seem so bad and you're still winning games for less total cost. Yes, they could also F up the alternate plans, but those plans aren't just "well pray for a good #15 pick" and I never said they were.


                      Resigning Hibbert is NOT NOT NOT some certain mistake at all, but neither is not resigning him. It's a ballsy, tough call that's going to take real vision to get right. A great GM can read this and the market and see the many ways the team can be constructed in 2-3 years. Will they be winning by hanging off the shoulders of Hibbert, or will that money be spent in other ways.

                      I don't know myself, I just know that it's not as simple as "obviously you must sign him". If it was then this would be over already, the Pacers would have already offered him this deal. If it was Lebron or Durant the Pacers wouldn't have spent 5 seconds thinking about offering anything but the 5 year max deal. They didn't do that with Roy because they do have some sense about where the line is on value.



                      Can we stop quoting people that are treating/think all max contracts are the same
                      True. Lebron, Wade and Bosh all make $3m more a year than Roy will be due to tenure, maybe $4m based on starting to end scaling.

                      This will only make Roy a TOP 25 player in salary, nothing like Lebron and his #12 position on this list. This makes Roy more important to the Pacers than Aldridge to Portland or Chandler to DAL/NYK.

                      I DO think Roy COULD become that, but he's so inconsistent that you worry. He's so likeable that you want to throw caution to the wind, but other players could come in and be likeable too for less money.
                      Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 07-01-2012, 10:21 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Sam Amick (Sports Illustrated): Portland Offers Roy Hibbert Max

                        Originally posted by Hitman02 View Post
                        I'm wondering who the second team is that offered Roy the max deal. Who else would have the money to do so?
                        The Pacers, but its a secret.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

                          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                          If we don't match JO then we don't have to worry about contending. You absolutely MUST lock up JO, Tinsley and Artest now and for the long term if you want to continue to compete. That's the ONLY way to compete, any other options are 100% certain failures.
                          Just because there are multiple ways to build a championship contender doesn't mean that all of those ways are equally feasible and present equal probabilities for being successful.

                          For example, Miami could trade their big three, land some nice pieces in return, and very possibly turn those pieces into a championship contender. Would that scenario present a more feasible, higher-likelihood of success than simply keeping their big three together and building around them? Probably not, thus, they stick with the latter option.

                          Let's remember, a 24-year-old, completely-healthy Jermaine O'Neal had just produced a 21-points, 10-rebounds, 2-blocks season prior to his free agency. To suggest that us letting that caliber of a player go would somehow buttress our chances at competing for a championship is complete nonsense. In no way will be able to defend that claim without resorting to post hoc rationalization based on totally unforeseeable injuries. In other words: Captain Hindsight.

                          If you can present a more reasonable, realistic scenario for the Pacers in building a championship contender -- from a summer 2003 perspective -- then I'd be all for hearing it.


                          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                          Sheesh guys, it's a tough choice for a reason. The cost of losing on this gamble = Bender/Croshere or Dun/Murphy or JO/Ron/Tins. When you put your big money into guys they MUST be great or you definitely will struggle AND you will be stuck doing so.

                          If you don't match you might struggle but you won't be stuck.
                          There's always a sense of unpredictability -- both positive and negative -- involved in these situations, especially involving injuries. It's a risk, sure, but it's a calculated risk. Roy could decline, or, he could continue to make All-Star teams. Knowing the type of person he is, what a strong work ethic he has, and seeing the way his career has trended upwards, I'd say the latter as far more plausible than the former.

                          Also, you're exaggerating with just how "stuck" the Pacers were with the latter trio of contracts, and just how "stuck" we'd be with a re-signed Roy.

                          Even after his big payday, subsequent injuries (127 regular-season games missed over a five-year span), and declining production, Jermaine O'Neal remained a positive asset. A 29-year-old O'Neal, coming off a 42-game season in which he averaged 13.6 points and 6.7 rebounds, and with 2/$44.4M over the next two seasons, coming off , we were still able to trade him for a (at the time) valued point guard, expiring contracts, and a 1st-round pick.

                          Ditto for Ron Artest. We reportedly fielded plenty of offers for him. If we wanted a clean slate, it was there for the taking. While Peja's time here was severely short and disappointing, his exit effectively removed any trace of Ron Artest from our roster -- including any owed salary. I suspect we could've moved Tinsley for an expiring contract at any point, too, but the tease of him one day pulling his head out of his *** was too enticing to let go.

                          The same would hold true for Roy. Even if he were to return and have an injury-plagued season, there would still be teams willing to give positive assets in return for him. The risk is nowhere near as extreme as you're trying to make it out to be, and the reward is much, much greater.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Sam Amick (Sports Illustrated): Portland Offers Roy Hibbert Max

                            Originally posted by Hitman02 View Post
                            I'm wondering who the second team is that offered Roy the max deal. Who else would have the money to do so?
                            NJ or Dallas, perhaps.
                            Or Charlotte, lol. It's likely a bad team, if the agent doesn't want the world to know.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Sam Amick (Sports Illustrated): Portland Offers Roy Hibbert Max

                              Originally posted by Hitman02 View Post
                              I'm wondering who the second team is that offered Roy the max deal. Who else would have the money to do so?
                              I agree which is why I mentioned the SnT option with that team. They would have motivation to make more than a token deal if Portland is going to outright win the RFA signing. What if it's a top 5 protected pick next year, does that make it obvious? If the team values him as a MAX player then that's what you hope to get from a pick, but you know it's always a gamble so paying Roy for the sure thing (in that team's mind) is a decent swap.


                              On the other hand, I strongly suspect the 2nd team is BS thrown out by the agent to stir the pot and artificially bump up the interest. After all, isn't Portland's certain interest being made public strictly to benefit Roy's negotiating stance. It doesn't help Portland to have their cards on the table and it definitely doesn't help the Pacers.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Portland offers Roy max (via Sam Amick)

                                Originally posted by cdash View Post
                                He's just doing his job.
                                I know it is his job, doesn't mean I have to like him.
                                "The greatest thing you know Comes not from above but below" Danzig

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X