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

Being smart with money is not "ownership issues"

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

  • Being smart with money is not "ownership issues"

    Okay, obviously this stems from the Roy debates, but it gets thrown about all over the place really. Any time a team won't puke away millions on your personal favorite player despite the market or production value being far below that, suddenly it's "cheap" ownership not willing to "do what it takes to win".


    Well with a salary cap and rules that restrict what contracts you can acquire beyond that cap, it's got a lot less to do (almost none) with being cheap and everything to do with "doing what it takes to win". Which is to say that what it takes to win is MAKING GOOD DEALS. Sure, if there is an expensive but reasonable deal a "willing" owner should pursue it.

    But throwing away cap space foolishly is actually the exact opposite of doing what it takes to win. Just ask Knicks fans who watched Dolan do plenty of "what it takes" spending on the way to cap hell.

    If TPTB pass on the Roy contract it could very well be about VALUE considerations and future ability to improve/acquire talent, and nothing about "oh, I'd like to spend $5m below the cap to save money". Herb knows you have to win to sell tickets and TV spots and arena sponsorship, he knows what the income was the last few years regardless of the roster costs, and those numbers likely suggest that there is nowhere the salary figure can go under the new CBA minimum salary rules that would get below the paltry income a last place attendance dog would provide.


    The idea that Herb is happy just selling 7000 seats for a team going 38-44 every year is ridiculous. Teams like Indy, SA, Port, and MIL need to show some winning from time to time to build and keep a fanbase. Fans will follow a losing team, but only if it has already won and shows promise of winning again in the future.

    With that in mind, they probably will match on Roy. But if they don't it won't be cheap Herb but rather smart Herb (or DW, Pritch, etc) that are thinking about the big picture and the best value per dollar. You might disagree with that assessment, but that doesn't make them cheap, just wrong (if they actually turn out to be).



    BTW, if they don't match Roy and 2 years from now the team is doing great in the alternate configuration are we going to get a long list of "I'm sorry, you were right, you're not cheap, I would have ruined the team" emails to Herb? Doubtful.

    Wrong or right on choices, the Simons have never failed to spend in order to keep a top flight roster together, they have no history of being cheap in the NBA.

  • #2
    Re: Being smart with money is not "ownership issues"

    Being smart with money is exactly what you want to do ---- in an effort to clear up cap space, so you can make championship moves. I think that's my disappointment. We've been through years of mediocrity, did the good-boy act, finally cleared up space and went into the off-season with more flexibility than almost every team out there --- and did nothing.

    And what's the point of getting cap space if all you do with it is eventually eat it all up by re-signing your current guys. Keep doing what we're doing for the next few years, and what we'll have is the exact same team we have now, minus the cap space. Which I wouldn't have an issue with if it was a championship-caliber team --- but it's not. It's a good playoff team, but this team with it's current make-up is extremely challenged to truly contend. We have so much cap flexibility right now because we have a bunch of young guys on extremely reasonable contracts, but when their new contracts come around and we gotta up the ante like Hibbert and Hill, there goes that space, and therefore our flexibility and window to make moves that will put us in that elite tier.

    There's a lot of FAs out there, and it is widely known that we need a PG. Our window is right now.... waiting 2-4 years isn't what wins championships. And don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those "championship or bust" guys. But dammit, it would be nice to friggin' win one. We have the assets and pieces and cap space right now to make that leap --- and we stood pat. Thus far. And meanwhile, there goes Steve Nash, there goes Dragic, there goes Joe Johnson, there goes Deron Williams, there goes all the difference-makers!

    It really does get frustrating to constantly be passed-over by and/or we neglect to go out and get those difference-makers. This team as it stands right now isn't too far from our 2000 team, with one difference ---- Reggie Miller. So we basically gotta hope we land a stud in the draft. And right now, we don't have a Reggie Miller.
    Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 07-05-2012, 01:17 PM.
    There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Being smart with money is not "ownership issues"

      this situation isn't much different than the movie moneyball. replace an expensive guys production with a couple cheaper options

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Being smart with money is not "ownership issues"

        I agree with what you say. The mere fact that Roy only plays 30 mins per game is the biggest reason for pause. You can get buy with his lack of speed because he is really good defensively around the rim. But the stamina is not worth the money.

        But if you think they are going to get a better player with out signing Hibbert, you are nuts. The only way they get out of this situation looking great is if they some what get a sign and trade to another team with assets. Somebody mentioned Atlanta's Al Horfod.
        You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Being smart with money is not "ownership issues"

          Good article about Hibbert that gets into some of what Naptown is trying to sell here:

          http://wagesofwins.com/2012/07/03/wh...r-next-season/

          In particular, read through the reader comments.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Being smart with money is not "ownership issues"

            Originally posted by docpaul View Post
            Good article about Hibbert that gets into some of what Naptown is trying to sell here:

            http://wagesofwins.com/2012/07/03/wh...r-next-season/

            In particular, read through the reader comments.
            Interesting article, but the author is taking Hibbert's seasons under the "all threes, all the time" reign of Jim O'Brien into account.

            Hibbert under Jim O'Brien and Hibbert under Frank Vogel are two different players. There's a reason why Hibbert had a breakout season in his only full season with Frank Vogel at the helm.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Being smart with money is not "ownership issues"

              I like this post. The other thing to remember is the new CBA rules about luxury tax and trades go into effect next season. I think the thing you have to balance is how good will your team will be vs team flexibility. I see two approaches to this: some teams are probably spending now to try and get a good team together before the new rules take effect (New York, New York, LA, Portland). The downside to this approach is you are screwed if it doesn't work. The Pacers, from my observation, are much more likely to take the second route, which is to try and keep cap flexibility for next year and take advantage of teams that find themselves in a bind and haven't planned well for the new cap and free agency restrictions.

              Is Roy worth the money? I won't be upset either way, as long as the FO manages to find an adequate replacement for Roy at either a cost or a contract length that provides more flexibility. We won't get a better player, but 30 minutes max a game (and really 25 productive minutes) is not a lot for that type of contract. Also, and I mentioned this before, but I'm worried Roy is going to get hurt. He throw's himself about and takes a lot of hard falls. So far he's been amazingly resilient, but falling from that height, and with his limited athleticism, it seems there is always an elevated chance of knee, ankle, or wrist injuries ala Bogut.
              Danger Zone

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Being smart with money is not "ownership issues"

                In general I agree with you. In Roy's specific case I can understand not matching - he's not currently good enough to justify that salary. If you match, you are Gambling that he will eventually get there. I will criticize the FO if they don't match only because that means they should have traded him last year and got value. The offer Roy received should not be a surprise to anyone. But back to the main subject - the pacers are finally in a position that they have cap room to make aggressive moves in free agency, especially if they don't match on Roy. It does not currently appear they will land a big time FA this year. You in particular have stated that the Pacers will have no problem recruiting top Free Agents to Indy - they've just never had the space. At what point does it become valid to question at least one of those statements?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Being smart with money is not "ownership issues"

                  If they find they need to not match, I hope they are able to explain why and what the plan is going forward. We have been looking to the future for a long time and to not bring back a player as fan friendly as this is going to take some serious PR work. I can see the casual fan saying, WTF they let him go after that season?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Being smart with money is not "ownership issues"

                    Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post

                    The idea that Herb is happy just selling 7000 seats for a team going 38-44 every year is ridiculous. Teams like Indy, SA, Port, and MIL need to show some winning from time to time to build and keep a fanbase. Fans will follow a losing team, but only if it has already won and shows promise of winning again in the future.

                    With that in mind, they probably will match on Roy. But if they don't it won't be cheap Herb but rather smart Herb (or DW, Pritch, etc) that are thinking about the big picture and the best value per dollar. You might disagree with that assessment, but that doesn't make them cheap, just wrong (if they actually turn out to be).

                    If you don't match on a 25 year old big man who has been in the league for just 4 years and has gotten better every season then it's pretty hard to say with a straight face that you are 100% committed to winning. Do they have any better ideas of how to improve the team right now? Doubt it. Roy on this roster at least guarantees you a comfortable playoff seed for the immediate future. And you aren't matching with the expectation that you will merely get 5 years of 2012 Roy. No, you are hoping that he continues to improve as he has every season and that in three or so years, he is an extremely good player.

                    A scenario in which we don't match on Roy a mere two weeks after Bird leaves (which happened just 4 weeks after being so seemingly excited about coming back as President) tells me that we have some ownership issues as far as spending money is concerned. That may be completely wrong, but that's how I'll view it. Doubt I'm alone. Our owners were able to get 33 million dollars out of the city just two years ago, so they clearly haven't been comfortable with the recent financial state of this franchise. Pointing the fingers at ownership if we don't keep Roy is not an off-base reaction.
                    Last edited by Sollozzo; 07-06-2012, 12:48 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Being smart with money is not "ownership issues"

                      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                      If you don't match on a 25 year old big man who has been in the league for just 4 years and has gotten better every season then it's pretty hard to say with a straight face that you are 100% committed to winning. Do they have any better ideas of how to improve the team right now? Doubt it. Roy on this roster at least guarantees you a comfortable playoff seed for the immediate future. And you aren't matching with the expectation that you will merely get 5 years of 2012 Roy. No, you are hoping that he continues to improve as he has every season and that in three or so years, he is an extremely good player.

                      A scenario in which we don't match on Roy a mere two weeks after Bird leaves (which happened just 4 weeks after being so seemingly excited about coming back as President) tells me that we have some ownership issues as far as spending money is concerned. That may be completely wrong, but that's how I'll view it. Doubt I'm alone. Our owners were able to get 33 million dollars out of the city just two years ago, so they clearly haven't been comfortable with the recent financial state of this franchise. Pointing the fingers at ownership if we don't keep Roy is not an off-base reaction.
                      Yea I kinda gotta go with Sollozzo here, not saying that Seth is off base either but I don't think questioning ownership in this case would be beyond the pale so to speak here.

                      I've gone back and watched Birds end of the season press conf. and there are just a couple of times he talks about the ability to spend money that just catches me off guard. However to be fair he also did make a point to say that Herb would spend the money.

                      Either way this situation sucks.


                      Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Being smart with money is not "ownership issues"

                        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                        With that in mind, they probably will match on Roy. But if they don't it won't be cheap Herb but rather smart Herb (or DW, Pritch, etc) that are thinking about the big picture and the best value per dollar. You might disagree with that assessment, but that doesn't make them cheap, just wrong (if they actually turn out to be).
                        I agree with your post actually, but especially this part. I personally value Hibbert highly, and would really look askance at the FO if they think spare parts like Kaman+ would make up for the loss of Roy. But I don't doubt that ownership would put up the money if the FO says it's necessary.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Being smart with money is not "ownership issues"

                          It's quite simple, actually.

                          Can we get something better than Hibbert with that kind of money?

                          It all boils down to that. That's what the FO is trying to explore. If they don't match then they obviously have a plan in mind.

                          Personally, I believe that we cannot get something better so we should match Roy.
                          Originally posted by IrishPacer
                          Empty vessels make the most noise.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Being smart with money is not "ownership issues"

                            Originally posted by docpaul View Post
                            Good article about Hibbert that gets into some of what Naptown is trying to sell here:

                            http://wagesofwins.com/2012/07/03/wh...r-next-season/

                            In particular, read through the reader comments.
                            Not to get all stat geek on you, but I'm very wary of any conclusion based on the Wins Produced metric. It's the same metric that rates Troy Murphy and David Lee as superstars - in fact there's a article on that same site that famously predicted that the Warriors were going to win 50 games because they signed David Lee.

                            That said, the article's results:

                            Here’s a breakdown of Hibbert’s Wins Produced by season (Wins per 48 in quotes)

                            09′ -0.6 Wins Produced (-0.031 WP48)
                            10′ 1.5 Wins Produced (0.035 WP48)
                            11′ 1.0 Wins Produced (0.021 WP48)
                            12′ 8.1* (0.161 WP48)
                            Is at least consistent with the "Hibbert = terrible under Obie, great under Vogel" explanation.

                            All the same though, (again being all stat geek) I'd point to other advanced metrics like Win Score and RAPM which show Hibbert as a much more consistent (and top rated!) performer.

                            It would explain much though if it turns out that our advanced stats department relies heavily on Dave Berri's Wins Produced . I thought that stuff went out with Obie.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Being smart with money is not "ownership issues"

                              Unless Wells is full of it it's up to Pritchard and Walsh. He specifically said Simon's given the greenlight for them to go either way with it.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X