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 Ace E.Anderson View Post
    The 3 at a "higher level" are being paid more.
    They are all being paid more.

    Comment


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

      Also Steph Curry came at a discount because of his ankle problems.
      Time for a new sig.

      Comment


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

        Hill is paid to much because it is 8 mil for 5 years.
        He is in the middle of the pack and comes with a very long contract.
        My point to the previous question is because his contract is 2 million to high, the Pacers could have a Holiday, Conley or Step for a mere 2 million more which is nothing more then our 14 & 15th man's salary. That is quit a upgrade for nothing, the reason why is cause Hill is getting paid to much. If he was at 6 mil per then it would cost the Pacers more to get a 10 -11 mil guy. Like a Hill, Mahinmi and Young, this would cause a person to think twice on a trade cause you may be losing to much, hence, Hills contract (6mil) vs the production would be much better and the team would be losing a quality back up center.

        Do any of you guys think that the Pacers could trade Hill and Pend's for Step Curry? I don't, no fat freakin chance. Therefore, Hill is paid to much and if he does no better in the future as he has done in his NBA career we will all be wishing for that 8 mil per year at years to come to end sooner rather then later. I would feel better about it if it was 16 mil for 2 yrs. rather then the 5. He can become a huge crutch very quickly. I hope he proves me wrong!!!
        Last edited by Pacer Fan; 12-05-2012, 11:19 PM.
        Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL

        Comment


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

          Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
          Maybe there was a compromise, Hill gets 8 a year but he signs off on a flat rate instead of demanding raises at a deal starting at ~7, which saves us money. Maybe he demanded 8 or said he'll play out the year on his qualifying offer and walk, which I REALLY doubt, but never know.

          I don't like that we didn't let his RFA status play out, but it's not like any of us were in the room.
          i suspect the pacers offered a salary starting at 6 and Hill wanted a salary starting at 7.5. Over 5 years, the former was 34M and the latter 43.5M. That would make the $40M/5yrs a logical compromise.

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by Pacer Fan View Post
            Hill is paid to much because it is 8 mil for 5 years.
            He is in the middle of the pack and comes with a very long contract.
            My point to the previous question is because his contract is 2 million to high, the Pacers could have a Holiday, Conley or Step for a mere 2 million more which is nothing more then our 14 & 15th man's salary. That is quit a upgrade for nothing, the reason why is cause Hill is getting paid to much. If he was at 6 mil per then it would cost the Pacers more to get a 10 -11 mil guy. Like a Hill, Mahinmi and Young, this would cause a person to think twice on a trade cause you may be losing to much, hence, Hills contract (6mil) vs the production would be much better and the team would be losing a quality back up center.

            Do any of you guys think that the Pacers could trade Hill and Pend's for Step Curry? I don't, no fat freakin chance. Therefore, Hill is paid to much and if he does no better in the future as he has done in his NBA career we will all be wishing for that 8 mil per year at years to come to end sooner rather then later. I would feel better about it if it was 16 mil for 2 yrs. rather then the 5. He can become a huge crutch very quickly. I hope he proves me wrong!!!
            You say this as if we had the possibility of signing those guy. We used what resources we had to get George Hill, who has been playing very well for us. I don't understand how you can be upset that Hill is on our team for 8 mil if you would be just fine having him on our team for 6 million. We proved last year we can be successful with the guys we have against the best in the NBA. This season, our defense has improved and we're missing both our second best post defender and second best wing defender in Granger. You can't magically make people amenable to what they're worth, that's why they're called negotiations.

            If you want a certain caliber level of player, you have to first have them available. The best starting-level guard available to us was George Hill, and they negotiated with him. "But he's only worth 6 million." How is that possible to know? Even if all of our starters are overpaid based on their individual performmances, I don't give a crap if they are able to churn out 50 win seasons.

            Because the NBA isn't about performance per salary paid. It's about performance.
            Time for a new sig.

            Comment


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

              Originally posted by Pacer Fan View Post
              Hill is paid to much because it is 8 mil for 5 years.
              He is in the middle of the pack and comes with a very long contract.
              My point to the previous question is because his contract is 2 million to high, the Pacers could have a Holiday, Conley or Step for a mere 2 million more which is nothing more then our 14 & 15th man's salary. That is quit a upgrade for nothing, the reason why is cause Hill is getting paid to much. If he was at 6 mil per then it would cost the Pacers more to get a 10 -11 mil guy. Like a Hill, Mahinmi and Young, this would cause a person to think twice on a trade cause you may be losing to much, hence, Hills contract (6mil) vs the production would be much better and the team would be losing a quality back up center.

              Do any of you guys think that the Pacers could trade Hill and Pend's for Step Curry? I don't, no fat freakin chance. Therefore, Hill is paid to much and if he does no better in the future as he has done in his NBA career we will all be wishing for that 8 mil per year at years to come to end sooner rather then later. I would feel better about it if it was 16 mil for 2 yrs. rather then the 5. He can become a huge crutch very quickly. I hope he proves me wrong!!!
              There is a reason why Curry makes on average $3 million more per year. Of course no one would do that because Hill + Pend =/= Curry, it isn't because Hill isn't worth his contract, it is because he isn't worth a $11 million contract, and Penderpraph doesn't make up for it. Penderpraph is the only player in that trade who is overpayed.

              Comment


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

                Originally posted by Pacer Fan View Post
                Hill is paid to much because it is 8 mil for 5 years.
                He is in the middle of the pack and comes with a very long contract.
                My point to the previous question is because his contract is 2 million to high, the Pacers could have a Holiday, Conley or Step for a mere 2 million more which is nothing more then our 14 & 15th man's salary.
                The Pacers couldn't just have one of those players since all of those players resigned with their initial team before they hit the market. The Pacers could have George Hill because the Spurs didn't have the money to pay him what he is worth. Which based on those other contracts is right around his tier of PGs in the league. Curry is underpaid if he gets healthy enough, but the other two are giving their teams about the same value as Hill. 15pts a game, smart player, good defender, clutch. If we ever manage to find a better PG we could just slide him across to SG or he would be the perfect 6th man on an elite team. George Hill is getting paid market value and is performing well to that contract.

                Comment


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

                  Seriously, These players that was given was an example given by another poster...I only used them as an example. Obviously they are used as an example and there is no real thought that the Pacers would obtain one in any reason.

                  The point is, as it seems I have to go into great detail at this point...is that the Pacers will stay under the cap hold and not get in to this luxury tax line, which means that it is most critical for our FO not to overpay. 2 million to the Lakers is nothing but 2 million to the Pacers is alot. It is the difference of a Hill vs Curry when Hill is getting overpaid by 2 million.

                  Look at this way...Green is getting paid 3.5 mil I think, obviously that is the most the Pacer could spend when looking at our roster and salaries. If Hill got paid 2 mil less, like he should be, the Pacers could spend 5.5mil on a better player than Green. If you take our 14th and 15 mans salary away (cut them, we really don't need them) that would be in the neighborhood of 2 to 3 more million. A total of about 7.5 - 8.5 mil. This is an amount in salary that can be spent to obtain a talent that could really improve this team and possibly get them to the next level if the FO picks the right man for the team. Could this happen anyways? Certainly, but it only makes things more difficult then it already is for a team like the Pacers vs Laker.

                  To this day, I have never heard of a rumor or anything that has to do with Hill getting an offer somewhere else before we signed him. The team that so adores him didn't adore him enough to keep him, why, cause they had an opportunity to get better on a chance from a rookie. So, obviously the Spurs would never pay Hill 8 mil per year. It is a joke that he has this contract.

                  I said many times that he is a 4.5 to 5.5 mil guy and that 6 mil to keep him would be worthy. I'm looking for this team to compete at the next level and to do this from a Pacers organization where they better get the best bang for their buck more times then not and to over pay a guy that we already know what his ceiling is is crazy to me.

                  Look, I like Hill very much, I am happy he is a Pacers and was thrilled with the trade when it went down. I'm just not thrilled with his contract.

                  Hill should be competing for sixth man of the year and on most teams he would be doing just that...but for some reason our Pacers think he is a starting pg in this league when he himself has said he isn't and that he will do the best he can to learn the pg position...this just strikes me as odd once again.
                  Last edited by Pacer Fan; 12-06-2012, 09:22 AM.
                  Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL

                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by eric1516 View Post

                    I'm excited to see Hill play against Lillard tonight. He (Lillard) has had a great so far, especially for a rookie, and I think Hill's veteran leadership will greatly affect Lillards play.

                    HUM???

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                      HUM???
                      I think all in all Hill did a good job. Of course on Lillard it was a team effort as well.

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by MAStamper View Post
                        The thing of it is, he didn't have much choice if he wanted to get paid now. He was our restricted free agent. He could have signed elsewhere, and we could then match the contract.
                        I was thinking he was unrestricted... So yeah... There goes the logic in my opinion
                        Nothing in life worth having comes easy.

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                          I think that was more of an isolated incident that was overplayed by peoples paranoia.
                          If you are referring to the laser tag incident I wasn't completely basing my opinion on that... But it did contribute... I just never really felt like he seemed super excited to be back home in Indy...
                          Nothing in life worth having comes easy.

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by Pacer Fan View Post
                            I said many times that he is a 4.5 to 5.5 mil guy and that 6 mil to keep him would be worthy. I'm looking for this team to compete at the next level and to do this from a Pacers organization where they better get the best bang for their buck more times then not and to over pay a guy that we already know what his ceiling is is crazy to me.

                            Look, I like Hill very much, I am happy he is a Pacers and was thrilled with the trade when it went down. I'm just not thrilled with his contract.

                            Hill should be competing for sixth man of the year and on most teams he would be doing just that...but for some reason our Pacers think he is a starting pg in this league when he himself has said he isn't and that he will do the best he can to learn the pg position...this just strikes me as odd once again.
                            Just FYI, since you think he's 6th man of the year caliber, let's have the salaries of the past few 6MOTY awards:

                            2012 Harden: 5.8 mil on a rookie contract (now makes 13.7 mil)
                            2011 Odom: 8.9 mil
                            2010 Crawford: 7.9mil per year contract (toward the end of the contract he was making around 10 mil that year)
                            2009 Terry: 9.5 mil per year contract

                            I don't think 8 mil is really that far fetched considering you think he should be able to compete for such an award.
                            Time for a new sig.

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
                              Just FYI, since you think he's 6th man of the year caliber, let's have the salaries of the past few 6MOTY awards:

                              2012 Harden: 5.8 mil on a rookie contract (now makes 13.7 mil)
                              2011 Odom: 8.9 mil
                              2010 Crawford: 7.9mil per year contract (toward the end of the contract he was making around 10 mil that year)
                              2009 Terry: 9.5 mil per year contract

                              I don't think 8 mil is really that far fetched considering you think he should be able to compete for such an award.


                              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.

                              Comment


                              • 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.
                                In my opinion, a quality starting point guard is worth more than a sixth man. I was responding to a post saying vociferously that Hill was paid too much, for the wrong role. Hill is gonna play the role that works best for our team over the long run, so the role that he is signed for is imo irrelevant when you're looking at salary. It seems silly to say somebody has the talent of a 6th man of the year player but is overpaid when in reality what he's making is right in line.

                                I will agree that for the cost, Felton and Lowry are playing better for the salary they're getting when you compare them to Hill. However, Felton is coming off of a subpar season plus, and Lowry has an injury riddled past. They are bargains in this NBA, not the normal price.
                                Last edited by aamcguy; 12-08-2012, 09:24 PM. Reason: clarification
                                Time for a new sig.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X