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 Dece View Post
    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.
    Good point. The answer is definitely no, though.

    I've seen it a lot of times. Fans who try to "react" by booing are not making their teams better. They are making them worse. I've seen numerous teams collapse due to such kind of fan "support". The basketball league of my country only has 2 teams that can compete in the Euroleague level. The other ones are bankrupt. Why? Because their fans tried to boycot to express their displeasure. And thus, the team collapsed.

    There's only a single way that a fan can contribute to the betterment and the success of his team. To support it!
    Originally posted by IrishPacer
    Empty vessels make the most noise.

    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.
      So you don't see a point in the future where you just accept that he's overpaid and let it go?

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
        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.

        One of the biggest problems I have with posters on forums is they never answer my questions, but it is expected of me to answer their questions. It's not a 1 way street folks. I'll answer your question not that I feel I'm obligated to do so, since seldom does anyone answer my questions that I propose to them.

        George Hill is not a PG. He's a combo guard. Please spare me the spiel about the NBA moving away from true PG towards different type of PG. Have you truly looked at Hill's stats? Oops, I asked a question.

        Hill averages 13 shots per game at 39% FG. Out of those 13 shots 5 of them are 3Pters, that's almost 40% of the shots he takes. He makes 1.6 out of 5 shots at 32%. ( I can remember when Tinsley got raked for shooting 32%) Yet, Hill only shoots 3 FT per game. That says he's not driving to the basket, but standing around the arch too much. Hill shoots over 80% from the FT line, yet he doesn't max his FT% asset. He needs to penetrate more and either dish off for an ast, or drive to the rim for a basket. If this happens, his FT attempts will increase.

        Hill is averaging 5 APG. He needs to be at 7-8 APG. You can't get asts if you are looking for a 3 pt shot. As a PG, his job is to get his team mates involved and make them better. Sorry, but that's not the case. Hill doesn't have a true PG mentality as being a combo guard.

        His "D" was touted to be really good when Bird traded for him. Compared to TJ, DC, DJ, and others it is good. But what's that really saying? It's like saying player x is the top scorer on a poor team. Someone has to score the points. The backcourt "D" isn't that good. If a team has a good b/c, the Pacers "D" suffers due to poor b/c "D" play. That's on Hill.

        I could continue, but you get the gist of what I'm saying. Hill just isn't worth the 8 mil contract he got. Save yourself the time and energy with any apologist Hill responses. I've seen them all by now.

        When I came to PD 4 plus years ago, I stated I never expected to convince others to change their views, but to express my opinions. I don't care if you agree or not with my opinions as it's how I feel. You and others are entitled to your opinions as I am to mine. AND until George Hill's game improves to where he's earning his contract I will voice my disapproval of his overpaid contract. It's my opinion, and I feel it is a very valid one!
        Last edited by Justin Tyme; 12-11-2012, 10:04 AM.

        Comment


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

          Originally posted by MAStamper View Post

          So you don't see a point in the future where you just accept that he's overpaid and let it go?

          It's not impossible just highly improbable.

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
            One of the biggest problems I have with posters on forums is they never answer my questions, but it is expected of me to answer their questions. It's not a 1 way street folks. I'll answer your question not that I feel I'm obligated to do so, since seldom does anyone answer my questions that I propose to them.

            George Hill is not a PG. He's a combo guard. Please spare me the spiel about the NBA moving away from true PG towards different type of PG. Have you truly looked at Hill's stats? Oops, I asked a question.

            Hill averages 13 shots per game at 39% FG. Out of those 13 shots 5 of them are 3Pters, that's almost 40% of the shots he takes. He makes 1.6 out of 5 shots at 32%. ( I can remember when Tinsley got raked for shooting 32%) Yet, Hill only shoots 3 FT per game. That says he's not driving to the basket, but standing around the arch too much. Hill shoots over 80% from the FT line, yet he doesn't max his FT% asset. He needs to penetrate more and either dish off for an ast, or drive to the rim for a basket. If this happens, his FT attempts will increase.

            Hill is averaging 5 APG. He needs to be at 7-8 APG. You can't get asts if you are looking for a 3 pt shot. As a PG, his job is to get his team mates involved and make them better. Sorry, but that's not the case. Hill doesn't have a true PG mentality as being a combo guard.

            His "D" was touted to be really good when Bird traded for him. Compared to TJ, DC, DJ, and others it is good. But what's that really saying? It's like saying player x is the top scorer on a poor team. Someone has to score the points. The backcourt "D" isn't that good. If a team has a good b/c, the Pacers "D" suffers due to poor b/c "D" play. That's on Hill.

            I could continue, but you get the gist of what I'm saying. Hill just isn't worth the 8 mil contract he got. Save yourself the time and energy with any apologist Hill responses. I've seen them all by now.

            When I came to PD 4 plus years ago, I stated I never expected to convince others to change their views, but to express my opinions. I don't care if you agree or not with my opinions as it's how I feel. You and others are entitled to your opinions as I am to mine. AND until George Hill's game improves to where he's earning his contract I will voice my disapproval of his overpaid contract. It's my opinion, and I feel it is a very valid one!
            Have you ever considered maybe you just have a different definition of PG than others? Outside of the superstar PG's (Rondo, CP3, D-Will) there prob isn't a PG in the league that could average 8+ assists with this Pacer team and with our offensive system.

            I agree that he's shooting way too much from the outside this year. He definitely needs to take it to the basket alot more. I also agree that the PG is the head of the defense, but I disagree wholeheartedly that GH is playing bad D. We either lead the league or are near the top of the league in most statistical categories. It's hard to do that (dare I say impossible to do that) if you have poor defense from the PG position.

            All in all, I think it's much too early to grade GH's performance. DG got off to an even worse shooting start last season, and wound up finishing the year very strong. I wouldn't be surprised if GH did the same.

            But in the end you're right, we (Hill "apologists") should just agree to disagree b/c your mind is made up for now that Hill isn't worth 8 mil. And there's nothing wrong with that
            Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 12-11-2012, 11:14 AM.

            Comment


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

              Do you guys really believe that our system is fit for a true PG?
              Originally posted by IrishPacer
              Empty vessels make the most noise.

              Comment


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

                Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                It's not impossible just highly improbable.
                What a way to live, as vain as can be.

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                  What a way to live, as vain as can be.
                  Nah, don't go there, mate. It's his choice after all :/
                  Originally posted by IrishPacer
                  Empty vessels make the most noise.

                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by MAStamper View Post
                    So you don't see a point in the future where you just accept that he's overpaid and let it go?
                    Until someone other than Donnie Walsh is the GM that signs him. JT hates Walsh and any move impacted by Donnie. If you keep that fact in mind, all of JT's posts make perfect sense.

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                      One of the biggest problems I have with posters on forums is they never answer my questions, but it is expected of me to answer their questions. It's not a 1 way street folks. I'll answer your question not that I feel I'm obligated to do so, since seldom does anyone answer my questions that I propose to them.

                      George Hill is not a PG. He's a combo guard. Please spare me the spiel about the NBA moving away from true PG towards different type of PG. Have you truly looked at Hill's stats? Oops, I asked a question.

                      Hill averages 13 shots per game at 39% FG. Out of those 13 shots 5 of them are 3Pters, that's almost 40% of the shots he takes. He makes 1.6 out of 5 shots at 32%. ( I can remember when Tinsley got raked for shooting 32%) Yet, Hill only shoots 3 FT per game. That says he's not driving to the basket, but standing around the arch too much. Hill shoots over 80% from the FT line, yet he doesn't max his FT% asset. He needs to penetrate more and either dish off for an ast, or drive to the rim for a basket. If this happens, his FT attempts will increase.

                      Hill is averaging 5 APG. He needs to be at 7-8 APG. You can't get asts if you are looking for a 3 pt shot. As a PG, his job is to get his team mates involved and make them better. Sorry, but that's not the case. Hill doesn't have a true PG mentality as being a combo guard.

                      His "D" was touted to be really good when Bird traded for him. Compared to TJ, DC, DJ, and others it is good. But what's that really saying? It's like saying player x is the top scorer on a poor team. Someone has to score the points. The backcourt "D" isn't that good. If a team has a good b/c, the Pacers "D" suffers due to poor b/c "D" play. That's on Hill.

                      I could continue, but you get the gist of what I'm saying. Hill just isn't worth the 8 mil contract he got. Save yourself the time and energy with any apologist Hill responses. I've seen them all by now.

                      When I came to PD 4 plus years ago, I stated I never expected to convince others to change their views, but to express my opinions. I don't care if you agree or not with my opinions as it's how I feel. You and others are entitled to your opinions as I am to mine. AND until George Hill's game improves to where he's earning his contract I will voice my disapproval of his overpaid contract. It's my opinion, and I feel it is a very valid one!
                      Your opinion is valid that he is overpaid, but not based on the NBA. Seeing as though the only measurement for price on a player is what the going price for similar players is, Hill is actually priced well.

                      For 8 million dollars, you're basically expecting chris paul numbers minus one assist. Paul makes almost 18 mil, btw. Here's the list of players with more than 6.5 APG this year and their salaries:



                      If you're going to use stats to back up how you feel, please understand that they don't. If Hill were capable of 8 APG this year, he would have cost a whole lot more. About 11 mil per year, which is what all the PG such as Lawson/Curry/Holiday are getting. All who fit perfectly into what you think is worth 8 million. It's your opinion to keep, sure. But understand that people are fighting with you because that opinion means you think basically every point guard in the league is overpaid.
                      Last edited by aamcguy; 12-11-2012, 01:36 PM.
                      Time for a new sig.

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by Eleazar View Post

                        What a way to live, as vain as can be.

                        Being a little vain isn't all bad, it pushes some to be better. Achievers in life all have a streak of vainess in them. It's how we deal with being vain that counts. Some of us can deal with it better than others can.

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by xIndyFan View Post
                          Until someone other than Donnie Walsh is the GM that signs him. JT hates Walsh and any move impacted by Donnie. If you keep that fact in mind, all of JT's posts make perfect sense.

                          You have some validity to your statement, but I don't HATE Walsh. I dislike him as the Pacers GM. I was a fan of what Walsh was able to do in NY. I just didn't want to see him in charge of the Pacers again. Any team would be fine with me as long as it's not the Pacers. I didn't like how he left the Pacers, and didn't want to see a redeux.

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                            Being a little vain isn't all bad, it pushes some to be better. Achievers in life all have a streak of vainess in them. It's how we deal with being vain that counts. Some of us can deal with it better than others can.
                            Actually, no. Vain people usually fall flat and fail because they tend to think too highly of themselves. The achievers in life are usually those that while confident are modest enough to understand their shortcomings and overcome them.
                            Originally posted by IrishPacer
                            Empty vessels make the most noise.

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
                              Your opinion is valid that he is overpaid, but not based on the NBA. Seeing as though the only measurement for price on a player is what the going price for similar players is, Hill is actually priced well.

                              For 8 million dollars, you're basically expecting chris paul numbers minus one assist. Paul makes almost 18 mil, btw. Here's the list of players with more than 6.5 APG this year and their salaries:



                              If you're going to use stats to back up how you feel, please understand that they don't. If Hill were capable of 8 APG this year, he would have cost a whole lot more. About 11 mil per year, which is what all the PG such as Lawson/Curry/Holiday are getting. All who fit perfectly into what you think is worth 8 million. It's your opinion to keep, sure. But understand that people are fighting with you because that opinion means you think basically every point guard in the league is overpaid.

                              Remember, I said 7-8 asts. I knew when I put 8 Asts someone would jump on it. I should have said 7 ast.

                              I've already posted PGs that were given contracts this past off season who got less money and are producing better. Hill's contract is what it is, and I can't change it. I just don't have to like it. Bottom line is I feel Walsh overpaid to keep Hill, and left money on the table that could have been used in upgrading the bench. I realize my opinion isn't a popular one, but it's just how I personally feel. If I felt any other way, I wouldn't be true to myself.

                              I also feel Hibbert is overpaid. Yes, Hibbert signed Portland's offer sheet which Walsh matched. It doesn't mean Hibbert isn't overpaid.

                              To the bench: my problem with the bench signings were that they were fully guaranteed contracts w/o any Team Options. Walsh dug the Pacers a hole, b/c if Mahinmi and Green don't pan out the Pacers are stuck with them for the length of their contract.

                              I don't fault Walsh on signing Augustin. At the time, I felt Augustin was a good pickup. It just hasn't turned out that way. Under the current circumstance, Augustin's 1 year expiring contract comes off the books at seasons end. (See I'm not all anti-Walsh, LOL!)

                              My problem with Augustin not working out is it's playing Hill too much each game, b/c he doesn't have a good b/u than can give him the rest he needs. He'll be wore out before the trade deadline arrives. Why pay 8 mil and ruin your investment? This is why it's imperative for Walsh to make a trade NOW for a PG.

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                                Remember, I said 7-8 asts. I knew when I put 8 Asts someone would jump on it. I should have said 7 ast.

                                I've already posted PGs that were given contracts this past off season who got less money and are producing better. Hill's contract is what it is, and I can't change it. I just don't have to like it. Bottom line is I feel Walsh overpaid to keep Hill, and left money on the table that could have been used in upgrading the bench. I realize my opinion isn't a popular one, but it's just how I personally feel. If I felt any other way, I wouldn't be true to myself.

                                I also feel Hibbert is overpaid. Yes, Hibbert signed Portland's offer sheet which Walsh matched. It doesn't mean Hibbert isn't overpaid.

                                To the bench: my problem with the bench signings were that they were fully guaranteed contracts w/o any Team Options. Walsh dug the Pacers a hole, b/c if Mahinmi and Green don't pan out the Pacers are stuck with them for the length of their contract.

                                I don't fault Walsh on signing Augustin. At the time, I felt Augustin was a good pickup. It just hasn't turned out that way. Under the current circumstance, Augustin's 1 year expiring contract comes off the books at seasons end. (See I'm not all anti-Walsh, LOL!)

                                My problem with Augustin not working out is it's playing Hill too much each game, b/c he doesn't have a good b/u than can give him the rest he needs. He'll be wore out before the trade deadline arrives. Why pay 8 mil and ruin your investment? This is why it's imperative for Walsh to make a trade NOW for a PG.
                                Nothing in my post was predicated on the fact that you included 8 assists. When I said Chris Paul, I was referencing FG%, 3PT%, assists, points, everything. And there is only 1 point guard in the league not on a rookie contract that gets 6.5 assists or more with a lower salary than Hill's. And Mo Williams is the only one even close to 8 mil at 8.5.

                                I initially believed Hill was overpaid before the season started. But I believe he is worth it now. And I based my opinion on how the team plays with him out there on the floor, not on his individual stats. I do agree that we could have a slight downgrade and only have to pay 5 million a year somewhere else. But is that player available? Maybe not. But we definitely can't afford a better one with our team, and I think we need to have a player of Hill's caliber to succeed with our roster.
                                Time for a new sig.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X