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
    Who was the player that agreed to re-sign with Cleveland then signed with Utah for more money? Just the opposite I know, but no team after that refused to sign him over doing it. Verbal agreements aren't worth the paper they are written on.(Yogi Berra?)
    That was Boozer.
    "It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

    ----------------- Reggie Miller

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
      Didn't Portland rescind Hibbert's offer sheet? Isn't that a sign of bad faith and business? They made the offer 1st, so shouldn't they have to stick with their offer sheet?
      No.

      Portland did not rescind their offer. They had every intention of making the max offer. In fact, Hibbert was preparing to go to Portland to sign the sheet, when he was told that he'd be signing the same deal with the Pacers. The Pacers interceded and agreed to sign Hibbert to the same terms offered by Portland. Then, as a courtesy, the Pacers and Hibbert's agent notified Portland, so they would not have to go through the exercise of the offer sheet and the cap hold associated with it.

      It was also reported that one other team offered Hibbert a max contract.


      In addition, the source said one other team, which was not named, also offered Hibbert a max deal after the start of free agency on Sunday at 12:01 a.m. ET.

      Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...#ixzz2DqBsrGIE
      Roy Hibbert was getting a max deal last summer - be it from the Pacers or another team.

      Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
      I never liked the fact Hibbert was bolting the Pacers for Portland for more money in the 1st place. The Pacers drafted him and invested 4 years in him to only be slapped in the face b/c Hibbert wanted the BIG BUCKS and didn't care who paid them.
      Originally posted by Justin Tyme
      Once Portland re-signed Batum they couldn't make another offer sheet to Hibbert. Pacers in drivers seat. BB is 1st and foremost a business. It's not a business for the faint of heart.
      ...

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
        I never liked the fact Hibbert was bolting the Pacers for Portland for more money in the 1st place. The Pacers drafted him and invested 4 years in him to only be slapped in the face b/c Hibbert wanted the BIG BUCKS and didn't care who paid them. This is a reason after Portland was out of the picture I'd never have matched Portland's offer. He'd have signed somewhere in the D Jordan and J McGee money range. If he was unhappy with the offer, S&T his rear to another team.

        As far as Dallas goes, I don't see Cuban spending the money this past off season. I'm sure Portland and whoever else aren't sad they didn't sign Mr. Fragibility to the contract Hibbert got from the Pacers. Portland's FO has to be smiling over their loss of Hibbert.
        This may be the worst post I have ever seen on PD. If you think you can build a team by making bad faith moves like you describe try it and see how it works. Stars don't want to come here now but if they follow your suggestions, no player would want to come to the Pacers. Hibbert was a free agent and he had every right to sign with Portland or any other team that would pay him the most money. He didn't owe the Pacers a damn thing. That is what free agency is all about.

        Comment


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

          Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
          I never liked the fact Hibbert was bolting the Pacers for Portland for more money in the 1st place. The Pacers drafted him and invested 4 years in him to only be slapped in the face b/c Hibbert wanted the BIG BUCKS and didn't care who paid them. This is a reason after Portland was out of the picture I'd never have matched Portland's offer. He'd have signed somewhere in the D Jordan and J McGee money range. If he was unhappy with the offer, S&T his rear to another team.

          As far as Dallas goes, I don't see Cuban spending the money this past off season. I'm sure Portland and whoever else aren't sad they didn't sign Mr. Fragibility to the contract Hibbert got from the Pacers. Portland's FO has to be smiling over their loss of Hibbert.
          Just like within any profession, professional athletes have the right to maximize how much money they are to be paid. If a team wants to offer him big money, why does he need to turn it down? Because the Pacers drafted and developed him? Unfortunately, that's NOT how it works. Yes the Pacers drafted and developed him, but that's the organizations job--to draft good players and put them in the best possible position to develop and succeed. Had the Pacers not drafted him, another team would have, and would have done the same thing--did everything they could top help him succeed.

          You can argue that the Pacers could have went another route as opposed to re-signing Hibbert for a big money contract, but don't get angry at Roy because he maximized his earnings. He didn't MAKE the Pacers pay him. We made that decision as an organization. That's not on Roy.

          Comment


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

            I liked what Jerry Reynolds said about Hibbert during the Kings' broadcast last night. "He's still 7'2", he hasn't shrunk and the FG% will come around."

            If there was something Donnie did that I didn't like -- I don't like the Gerald Greene contract - its too much like Dhantay Jones' that we finally got rid of. It will be bad news next summer if we have difficulty resigning West because we could use another million or two from the Greene contract.

            Paying Hibbert, a legit 7'2" C that type of money to be our second or third option seems like the right math and economics to me.

            Paying $18 million this year to West and Hill to be our two go-to guys in the fourth quarter is pretty good cap management, IMO.
            Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
            Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
            Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
            Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
            And life itself, rushing over me
            Life itself, the wind in black elms,
            Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

            Comment


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

              Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
              Just like within any profession, professional athletes have the right to maximize how much money they are to be paid. If a team wants to offer him big money, why does he need to turn it down? Because the Pacers drafted and developed him? Unfortunately, that's NOT how it works. Yes the Pacers drafted and developed him, but that's the organizations job--to draft good players and put them in the best possible position to develop and succeed. Had the Pacers not drafted him, another team would have, and would have done the same thing--did everything they could top help him succeed.

              You can argue that the Pacers could have went another route as opposed to re-signing Hibbert for a big money contract, but don't get angry at Roy because he maximized his earnings. He didn't MAKE the Pacers pay him. We made that decision as an organization. That's not on Roy.

              Sorry, but loyalty works 2 ways. Where was Hibbert's loyalty to the Pacers? His loyalty was only to himself and his pocketbook with his "it's all about me attitude." I'm not asking Hibbert to re-sign for peanuts, but what he insisted on being paid is too much for him. He's not that quality of player for the money he's being paid.

              Again, I can't believe Portland isn't smiling that the Pacers matched their offer. Personally, I feel they have a nice rookie in Meyers Leonard at Center for the future. Hibbert's overpaid contract makes him near impossible to trade with his play. Hopefully, he'll get his game together along with some mental toughness to make his contract a good one.

              Comment


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

                Did you not read anything that Count55 posted?

                Please, before you spout any more falsehoods about Roy's restricted free agency and his "all about me" attitude, please read up on NBA RFA:

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restric...ted_free_agent
                http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q43
                "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

                "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by count55 View Post

                  Sorry w/o the name of who this mysterious 2nd team was with some type of validation, it is nothing but a rumor. The NBA is full of stories everyday that is nothing but rumors. I just don't believe Hibbert had another team chopping at the bit to sign him at that type of salary.

                  I'd hate to say how many times I've heard the story "I've got others interested if you aren't" at this price only to see those other interested parties never step up. It's called a negotiation ploy, and aqents aren't immuned to using it.

                  If you have some concrete info on who this supposed 2nd team was, I'd love to read it.

                  Comment


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

                    It doesn't matter if the 2nd team was a false rumor or not. Portland laid a max contract out for Roy. From that moment forward, that's what he was going to get, either from them or from us. Period.

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                      Sorry w/o the name of who this mysterious 2nd team was with some type of validation, it is nothing but a rumor.

                      If you have some concrete info on who this supposed 2nd team was, I'd love to read it.
                      The problem is that you are basing your arguments on rumors or beliefs as well.

                      Therefore, we cannot have a factual discussion here.
                      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
                        It doesn't matter if the 2nd team was a false rumor or not. Portland laid a max contract out for Roy. From that moment forward, that's what he was going to get, either from them or from us. Period.

                        I hear you. I just feel the Pacers overpaid. Bottom line is the Pacers signed Hibbert to a max deal, and they are tied to that contract for 4 years. I TRULY hope Hibbert earns every dadgum penny of his max contract, but I have my doubts.

                        Comment


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

                          He is a heck of a player at either the 1 or the 2 and I am glad we paid the man.

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by MAStamper View Post
                            It doesn't matter if the 2nd team was a false rumor or not. Portland laid a max contract out for Roy. From that moment forward, that's what he was going to get, either from them or from us. Period.
                            Exactly. This is the kind of stupid misunderstanding of fundamental facts that gets people with these crazy opinions.

                            Yes, if Roy murdered a baby then that would make him a horrible human being. He didn't, that's not a fact and opinions should not be based on it. Please apply this natural connection between FACT and OPINION DRAWN in all future debates, if only for our sanity.


                            It just bugs me so much because it's not the same as "he really did score 15 points" and one person's opinion is that this is "a lot" and another is "that's not enough". That's when people will have different opinions. But when someone decided that 15 points was really 1 point, then no s*** they won't think that he scored enough. Argh. And people wonder why they can't agree on some of this stuff.

                            Comment


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

                              Also, Roy is underperforming his PRIOR SEASONS. Take the contract of the books for a second. Right now Roy is not meeting his own standard, whatever value that might be. So until he meets his standard it's not appropriate to debate the intelligence of the resign.

                              What I mean is the Pacers didn't "blow it" because of what Roy is doing now. Roy is just not playing up to his level, and I mean his already established level, not some projected future level.

                              Maybe his established level is also not worth that money, but I have to think that if he were simply putting up the same numbers as last year we wouldn't even be discussing this. So let's first get past the "slump" issue and before we get on to evaluating if "normal Roy" would have been worth matching.

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                                No, but I am not making accusations either. That is the difference. I am not going around acting like I have some kind of idea of how it went down. All I know is that we signed Hill for a flat $8 million a year(not abnormal for a starter of his quality), and so far he has lived up to his contract. That is all I know. You might think he hasn't, and you have the right to that opinion, I am not arguing against your opinion, that doesn't mean it is ok to go around making accusations about how the front office should have done it when you have no idea how it actually happened. You are just creating baseless rumors.
                                And this is the reason to establish the facts before fighting on the opinion. With the facts on George Hill we could pretty easily dispute or confirm if guys putting up his current numbers (also tied in with his last couple for a sense of growth and trending) typically get his type of paycheck. If they do, then his deal was a good one. If they don't then they missed.

                                I realize this is more boring than just being irrationally mad or positive about things, but I assure you there can still be passion about things that can be somewhat "proven".


                                To me it feels like Hill's numbers are similar to what an 8m PG would get, maybe even better than that. Then there is the harder to quantify "guts/clutch" factor, and if you want to keep the passion in the debate then maybe we should focus on that instead of FG%, AST, and PPG from an 8m guy.


                                Frankly the Pacers 2 key players are Hill and West, the entire offense only works because of what they do for the most part, so I'd say they were both easily worth the money and will continue to be so. Of course I also think Roy kicks the slide and comes back with a vengeance and ends up with a whole new bandwagon of fans. Frankly his defense is so good he's already earning a good chunk of his deal on that alone.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X