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

George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

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

  • Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

    Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
    Hill got 8 mil to be the starting PG, not a 6th Man.

    Hill is more comparable to Felton and Lowry. I'd throw in Jarrett Jack too.

    Felton
    15/2.5/7... 42.5% FG... 39% 3PT... 68% FT... 14.85 for 4 years.

    Lowry
    18/5.5/6... 42% FG... 38% 3PT... 82% FT... 11.9il for 2 years.

    Jack
    10/3/4.5... 47% FG... 32% 3PT... 87% FT... 5.5 mil as a B/U PG.
    Felton's deal is a result of that awful year he had in Portland.

    Lowry will ask for $10mil/year at least when his contract is up, don't you worry.

    Comment


    • Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

      Hill's got a 3:1 assist/turnover. 11th in the league. That really surprised me, for a guy that's not a PG and all. Maybe we bid against ourselves during his RFA period and coulda played more hardball, but I don't really get how you can watch Hill this year and not think 8 mil a year is at least reasonable compensation. It's not worth complaining about at all.

      Griping about Roy's money I get, his deal's looking pretty damn terrible, but complaining about Hill's is just looking for an excuse to grind your axe.

      Comment


      • Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

        Yeah, that's about the best way I can think of to summarize Hill's contract: Probably overpaid, odd that we didn't test the market, but ultimately not enough overpaid to be complaining about it. He's a good, smart (usually), tough, two way guard who is easy to root for and a hometown guy to boot. Nothing to see here, move along!

        Comment


        • Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

          Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
          Hill's got a 3:1 assist/turnover. 11th in the league. That really surprised me, for a guy that's not a PG and all.
          A.J. Price is 6th in the league in the same stat. Worse yet, Chris Duhon is 2nd. If you check out his assists per 48 minutes, he's down at 37th - behind A.J., D.J., J.J. and DC. Just goes to show you that one stat can't not tell you nothing.

          I don't expect him to put up big numbers. He should be our worst starter when all is said and done, and there's nothing wrong with that considering the guys around him. He's just gotta be solid, and save for a few games/quarters he has been just that.

          I won't complain about his contract any more than I have, but I will push back against All-Star talk until the numbers back it up.
          Last edited by LG33; 12-09-2012, 12:47 AM.

          Comment


          • Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

            Originally posted by MAStamper View Post
            Yeah, that's about the best way I can think of the summarize Hill's contract: Probably overpaid, odd that we didn't test the market, but ultimately not enough overpaid to be complaining about it. He's a good, smart (usually), tough, two way guard who is easy to root for and a hometown guy to boot. Nothing to see here, move along!
            Yea, I guess that's the most reasonable summation of it at the end of the day.

            Comment


            • Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

              Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
              Hill's got a 3:1 assist/turnover. 11th in the league. That really surprised me, for a guy that's not a PG and all. Maybe we bid against ourselves during his RFA period and coulda played more hardball, but I don't really get how you can watch Hill this year and not think 8 mil a year is at least reasonable compensation. It's not worth complaining about at all.

              Griping about Roy's money I get, his deal's looking pretty damn terrible, but complaining about Hill's is just looking for an excuse to grind your axe.

              A stat of 3-1 A/TO doesn't validate a 8 mil contract. I guess 39% FG shooting does. Why don't you comment about the 8 MIL DOLLAR MAN's last 3 outings of 18%, 38%. and 33% FG shooting. 8 Mil dollar people know the game score in the last few seconds of the game, and make better decisions when trying to win the game at the end. Until Hill starts playing like he's earning 8 mil, I'll keep saying he's not worth his contract. That he's OVERPAID!

              Neither is Hibbert worth the MAX he got. They got paid the contracts they wanted now EARN them!! I've pointed out what some other PG's got paid this year, less than Hill, and they are bargains for what they are producing for those teams who gave them the contracts. Even though I feel both Hill and Hibbert got overpaid, they need to produce to justify their contracts. They aren't, and that's the problem.

              I never complained that Granger got overpaid by Bird. Bird negotiated a good contract unlike what Walsh has. Compare Rudy Gay's contract to Granger's contract, I'm a Rudy Gay fan, but his contract is terrible. GAY GOT OVERPAID just like Hibbert and Hill got overpaid.

              Marc Gasol, who I'd take in a heartbeat over Hibbert, got a MAX contract, and he's producing to justify giving it to him. Barkley stated on tv last week he felt Gasol was the 2nd best Center in the NBA. Very valid comment as far as I'm concerned. Hibbert has a way to go to get past Gasol let alone Howard.

              If Hibbert and Hill don't like the comments about them from the fans, then do something about their play. It's just that simple.

              Comment


              • Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

                Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                A stat of 3-1 A/TO doesn't validate a 8 mil contract. I guess 39% FG shooting does. Why don't you comment about the 8 MIL DOLLAR MAN's last 3 outings of 18%, 38%. and 33% FG shooting. 8 Mil dollar people know the game score in the last few seconds of the game, and make better decisions when trying to win the game at the end. Until Hill starts playing like he's earning 8 mil, I'll keep saying he's not worth his contract. That he's OVERPAID!

                Neither is Hibbert worth the MAX he got. They got paid the contracts they wanted now EARN them!! I've pointed out what some other PG's got paid this year, less than Hill, and they are bargains for what they are producing for those teams who gave them the contracts. Even though I feel both Hill and Hibbert got overpaid, they need to produce to justify their contracts. They aren't, and that's the problem.

                I never complained that Granger got overpaid by Bird. Bird negotiated a good contract unlike what Walsh has. Compare Rudy Gay's contract to Granger's contract, I'm a Rudy Gay fan, but his contract is terrible. GAY GOT OVERPAID just like Hibbert and Hill got overpaid.

                Marc Gasol, who I'd take in a heartbeat over Hibbert, got a MAX contract, and he's producing to justify giving it to him. Barkley stated on tv last week he felt Gasol was the 2nd best Center in the NBA. Very valid comment as far as I'm concerned. Hibbert has a way to go to get past Gasol let alone Howard.

                If Hibbert and Hill don't like the comments about them from the fans, then do something about their play. It's just that simple.
                This may read as being rude, but I don't mean it to be/that way:

                Why do you whine so much about this? Does it make you feel better? I'm honestly curious about this.

                Comment


                • Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

                  Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                  A stat of 3-1 A/TO doesn't validate a 8 mil contract. I guess 39% FG shooting does. Why don't you comment about the 8 MIL DOLLAR MAN's last 3 outings of 18%, 38%. and 33% FG shooting. 8 Mil dollar people know the game score in the last few seconds of the game, and make better decisions when trying to win the game at the end. Until Hill starts playing like he's earning 8 mil, I'll keep saying he's not worth his contract. That he's OVERPAID!

                  Neither is Hibbert worth the MAX he got. They got paid the contracts they wanted now EARN them!! I've pointed out what some other PG's got paid this year, less than Hill, and they are bargains for what they are producing for those teams who gave them the contracts. Even though I feel both Hill and Hibbert got overpaid, they need to produce to justify their contracts. They aren't, and that's the problem.

                  I never complained that Granger got overpaid by Bird. Bird negotiated a good contract unlike what Walsh has. Compare Rudy Gay's contract to Granger's contract, I'm a Rudy Gay fan, but his contract is terrible. GAY GOT OVERPAID just like Hibbert and Hill got overpaid.

                  Marc Gasol, who I'd take in a heartbeat over Hibbert, got a MAX contract, and he's producing to justify giving it to him. Barkley stated on tv last week he felt Gasol was the 2nd best Center in the NBA. Very valid comment as far as I'm concerned. Hibbert has a way to go to get past Gasol let alone Howard.

                  If Hibbert and Hill don't like the comments about them from the fans, then do something about their play. It's just that simple.
                  I wasn't aware that there was an obvious line where a player is/isn't worth an arbitrary value of money. What exactly is the line for 8 million? for 7? for 6? If we want a player that's slightly worse, what's the hard line for 5 million? But wait, age/temperament/experience/history/playstyle/potential also come into play. So please give me a mix that would work for 8 million.

                  You can't, because there's no way to do it. NBA execs can't. They speculate as much as any fans of the team, but they've proven that they can make good decisions after working in a related field or it wouldn't be their job to speculate. In another sense, it's their job if they fail. They make their big bucks, but if they are consistently wrong they lose their job.
                  So they have pressure whereas fans sitting at home getting angry about how somebody is using someone else's money do not.
                  Time for a new sig.

                  Comment


                  • Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

                    Originally posted by MAStamper View Post
                    This may read as being rude, but I don't mean it to be/that way:

                    Why do you whine so much about this? Does it make you feel better? I'm honestly curious about this.
                    What it comes down to is this: do you believe fans can impact change?

                    If the answer is yes, the people out there trying to convince you the grass isn't so green are trying to get you on their side so that a louder collective voice of fans expressing displeasure can lead to change. If enough fans accept or approve of the job the management is doing, they have no incentive to change their behavior. They will shrug and say, well, the customers are ok with the product so I guess we did a good enough job. Why pay for a new coach? Fans are happy enough, whatever. Why try to bring in better players, that'd cost us more money, fans are coming anyway no reason to increase expenses. Why pay for a new GM, this safely mediocre product keeps our finances afloat and the fans aren't upset enough about it to cost us revenue.

                    If the answer is no, complaining is still cathartic at times.

                    Comment


                    • Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

                      Originally posted by MAStamper View Post
                      This may read as being rude, but I don't mean it to be/that way:

                      Why do you whine so much about this? Does it make you feel better? I'm honestly curious about this.

                      LOL! No, it doesn't make me feel better. It's just frustrating to see Walsh overpay. Yes, I realize that's an opinion that not very one agrees with. I've put forth my reasons why I feel this way. I've shown what other PG's got this off season, less money and producing more than Hill. Maybe, it's that Checkbook Donnie was the one who was in charge of Hill getting his contract. I was extemely vocal about not wanting Walsh back for this exact reason. Maybe, it's a number of things about Hill getting 8 mil. All, I can say and truly feel is Hill got OVERPAID. I'm not saying Hill's a bad player. I'm just saying he got overpaid.

                      Even saying and feeling that way, NO ONE wishes more than I that Hill proves me wrong over his contract, but I seriously doubt it happens. Personally, I don't feel I'm wrong just like I wasn't wrong when Bird overpaid Foster with his history of health issues... TWICE.

                      Comment


                      • Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

                        Okay, so you keep feeling frustrated by it and thus keep complaining about it. Understandable. But at what point do you just accept it for what it is and move on?

                        Comment


                        • Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

                          Originally posted by MAStamper View Post
                          Okay, so you keep feeling frustrated by it and thus keep complaining about it. Understandable. But at what point do you just accept it for what it is and move on?
                          Or better yet, explain what it is that Hill needs to do in order for you to feel his contract is justified?

                          Originally posted by Justin Tyme
                          A stat of 3-1 A/TO doesn't validate a 8 mil contract. I guess 39% FG shooting does. Why don't you comment about the 8 MIL DOLLAR MAN's last 3 outings of 18%, 38%. and 33% FG shooting. 8 Mil dollar people know the game score in the last few seconds of the game, and make better decisions when trying to win the game at the end. Until Hill starts playing like he's earning 8 mil, I'll keep saying he's not worth his contract. That he's OVERPAID!
                          okay he's shot poorly his last 3 games, but the 3 games before that he was great. You can't go off and say he's overpaid the second he has a bad game or two, just like somebody can't say he's worth every penny after he's had a few good games. For his career, G.Hill has shot a very respectable %, so there's no reason to believe that once (if) he get's a backup and he's able to play less minutes, his shooting %'s will go back to normal.

                          Comment


                          • Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

                            Originally posted by MAStamper View Post
                            Okay, so you keep feeling frustrated by it and thus keep complaining about it. Understandable. But at what point do you just accept it for what it is and move on?

                            When Hill earns the contract he got, and right now he's not earning it. Only Hill can put my ragging on his contract to an end. His play either gives me reason to be upset or makes me mute. It's up to Hill's play, and he controls his play.

                            Comment


                            • Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

                              Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post

                              there's no reason to believe that once (if) he get's a backup and he's able to play less minutes, his shooting %'s will go back to normal.
                              I would believe it should, so let's hope so. I hoping Hansbro or another player can play well enough to give DWest more rest too.

                              Comment


                              • Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

                                Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                                When Hill earns the contract he got, and right now he's not earning it. Only Hill can put my ragging on his contract to an end. His play either gives me reason to be upset or makes me mute. It's up to Hill's play, and he controls his play.
                                You keep avoiding answering what it is you are looking for. At what point will you be okay with his contract? Does he need to score more? Or just more efficiently? Does he have to have a requisite number of assists? You keep saying he isn't doing it now, but I assume you have some sort of ridiculous threshold where he becomes worth his contract.

                                When in fact the difference between him in the game and not in the game is almost as strong as the difference between PG or West in/out of the game. Regardless of the statistics they are boasting.
                                Last edited by aamcguy; 12-10-2012, 10:02 PM.
                                Time for a new sig.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X