Tweet
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune....sketball-print
OH and ALL HAIL THE MIGHTY Kniks (misspelt intentunally)
OH and ALL HAIL THE MIGHTY Kniks (misspelt intentunally)
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.
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
-
Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??. -
Re: Interesting Sam Smith Column: Mentions Pacers...also Brad Miller
Here it is:
Thomas master of his trade
Sam Smith
February 16, 2004
LOS ANGELES -- So has Isiah Thomas changed the balance of power in the Eastern Conference with still another major deal, Sunday's exchange of supposedly underachieving forwards?
The Knicks' Keith Van Horn and the Bucks' Tim Thomas change uniforms in a three-way deal also involving Atlanta that comes four days before the league's Thursday trading deadline and follows New York's acquisition of Stephon Marbury.
"When you add Tim Thomas and Nazr Mohammed to our team, the opportunity to trade one player and get back potentially two starters [at] small forward and center, I'm excited," Thomas said before Sunday's All-Star Game.
Van Horn is averaging 16.4 points and Thomas 14.1. It's the second time they have been traded for one another, the first time on draft night in 1997. Van Horn joins his fourth team.
The Hawks got Joel Przybilla and Michael Doleac and now have only five players under contract beyond this season: Doleac, Jason Terry, Boris Diaw, Chris Crawford and Alan Henderson.
But the question is, did the Knicks move too soon? The Hawks, trying to cut payroll and rebuild with new ownership coming in, were widely rumored to be eagerly shopping former All-Star Rasheed Wallace, whom they acquired in a trade last week. They reportedly don't want the troublesome Wallace suiting up in Atlanta. While he can be an embarrassment, he is a two-time All-Star, and three years ago he was the best player on a team that came within a jumper of a championship.
Wallace is a versatile big man, a scorer who could be a major influence on a team in the Eastern Conference. The Knicks, sources say, were one of five teams pushing to deal for Wallace, along with the Rockets, Spurs, Mavericks and 76ers, who are trying to save their season and would like to get in the hunt for Wallace, a Philadelphia native. A league loophole allows him to be dealt again this season.
The Mavericks' offer includes Antawn Jamison, and the Spurs would give up a package centered around Rasho Nesterovic. It's not clear what Houston might part with, maybe Kelvin Cato and Cuttino Mobley, but not Steve Francis.
Bulls dozing: So are the Bulls up to anything? Those talks with the 76ers and Magic about Aaron McKie and Gordon Giricek involve Jamal Crawford. The Bulls supposedly want to deal Crawford before they have to negotiate with him after the season, but they know they need a scoring guard or forward to replace him to at least remain competitive the rest of the season.
The Magic, the biggest underachiever of the season, is trying to shake things up, as are the fading Celtics by offering the expiring contract of Chris Mills. The front-running Pacers might be willing to move Al Harrington, who has been privately lobbying hard to start. There is talk they'll include Jamaal Tinsley in a package.
Oh yeah, Kobe: No, the Lakers aren't about to do anything at the trading deadline this week. Despite Kobe Bryant's declarations of allegiance to the Lakers in interviews this weekend, two Western Conference general managers say they've been approached by Bryant's agent in recent weeks about what kind of contract they might be able to put together for Bryant after the season.
Meanwhile, Tracy McGrady, who has an opt-out in his contract after next season, has expressed an interest in the Lakers.
The rumor mill: So who else could be on the move? Portland is ready to deal the demoted Dale Davis as well as Ruben Patterson. The Magic is looking for a home for Juwan Howard, and Drew Gooden is said to want out. The Wizards are trying to deal Christian Laettner, whom owner Abe Pollin condemned for his recent drug suspension. The Pistons are trying to unload a contract to have enough salary-cap room to make a substantial offer to Mehmet Okur, in whom Denver is said to be interested.
The Jazz is still looking at Tom Gugliotta from the Suns, who want to make a deal for luxury-tax relief after the season. Doug Christie's wife says the Kings are trying to trade Christie, though the Kings aren't saying anything. Seattle's Vladimir Radmanovic is said to be available as his playing time dwindles. The Sonics see Nick Collison returning next season and taking over at power forward.
Wayman Tisdale II: Is he a loser or just unlucky? Shareef Abdur-Rahim has played almost 600 NBA games in eight seasons and has never been in a playoff game, the longest such streak in the NBA. Abdur-Rahim was traded to Portland last week, and the Blazers look like they will miss the playoffs for the first time since the early 1980s.
Atlanta general manager Billy Knight said he tried to trade Abdur-Rahim to a stronger contender. "He has been maligned for not playing on a winning team and all those things, and I tried to send him to a championship team," Knight said. "That was my goal: Put him on a championship team just to shut everybody up. But I wasn't able to do it."
Abdur-Rahim didn't get much of a welcome. Patterson complained about too many forwards with himself, Abdur-Rahim, Darius Miles and Zach Randolph. "We need a backup power forward, so Shareef is going to have to be that guy," Patterson said.
A New York minute: The Knicks come out of the All-Star break four games under .500, and you know what that means: They're talking championship in New York. Two definitions of a dynasty: The first is when a family in China rules for hundreds of years. The other is when a New York team wins three games in a row.
The Knicks are 10-5 since Lenny Wilkens replaced Don Chaney as coach and 16-10 since Thomas became team president. Owner James Dolan is doing his best Patrick Ewing impression.
"I'm looking forward to making a few longer trips in May and even into June," Dolan said. "I'd like to see us go all the way. I think this team could. I don't think anybody would say that's not possible. They're only getting better. There's no reason to think they're not going to continue to improve.
"It's hard for me to say we won't make the playoffs. There's very little chance we won't make the playoffs. I'm excited, I'm thrilled. I didn't think . . . we'd see this level of success this quick."
The Knicks expect Allan Houston back in the lineup this week. He had been sidelined with knee problems.
The Boiler boys: Brad Miller has joined the rare company of being an All-Star in both conferences. So how did it happen? "I got traded," Miller said.
And the Sacramento Kings are thrilled. "Thank God for Brad Miller," Kings assistant coach Pete Carril said.
Miller has been vital to the Kings reaching the top of the West without Chris Webber all season. "No one had any idea that Brad was going to be the kind of passer he turned out to be," Carril said. "There's an intelligence about his passing that goes beyond what we could have realized."
Then there's his Purdue teammate Brian Cardinal, who has become vital to the struggling Warriors. Coach Eric Musselman was criticized for not playing Cardinal more when the Warriors scored two points in the fourth quarter against Toronto last week. Cardinal is now considered the team's most reliable shooter at 42 percent on three-pointers and 88 percent on free throws. He's averaging 10.3 points in 22 minutes per game and is coming off a 32-point game against the Suns last week, more points than he scored in any of his first three seasons in the NBA.
"I knew I could be a contributor," said the man nicknamed "the Custodian" for his approach. "Did I ever think I would score 32 points in the NBA? I never even dreamed of that."
Cardinal and Miller have similarities . . . and differences.
"He got drafted," said Miller, who wasn't. "It's a blue-collar attitude for both of us. It's the attitude coach [Gene] Keady preaches, to go out there, play hard, knock someone on their butt, dive for the ball, all the little things no one does. We just kept playing the way we were taught."
Sugar remembered: When asked to cite one of his worst moments in his two decades of running the NBA, Commissioner David Stern mentioned Micheal Ray Richardson's drug ban. Richardson was the first NBA player banned for life under the league's groundbreaking "three strikes and you're out" drug policy.
Richardson, 48, in Los Angeles in his role as a community relations representative for the Denver Nuggets, thanked Stern. Why? "Because I'm still living," Richardson said. "I could have easily ended up like Len Bias."
Richardson is hoping to get into coaching.
"I have been really blessed," he said. "I know that if I hadn't had drug problems, I would have been able to play in the NBA for 13 or 14 years. After playing eight years in the league, I was able to go overseas and play another 12 years in Europe."
Fire away, Fred: Kevin Garnett said he's pleased with the Timberwolves' addition of supporting role players such as former Bulls Trenton Hassell and Fred Hoiberg.
Hoiberg was slumping recently, shooting 7-for-29 in a five-game stretch. But he recovered to shoot 19-for-32 the last six games before the All-Star break and is at a career-best 46.4 percent for the season. "When I was in Chicago and I wasn't shooting well, I was close to being found on the ceiling fan," Hoiberg said. "I let it get to me. KG always talks to me. I didn't have anybody in Chicago telling me to shoot the ball. When you're on a losing team, everybody tries to get their own. When your leader is like that and your coach wants you to shoot the ball when you get open, that's a great thing."
Quick hits: John Thompson said he is concerned about Nets center Alonzo Mourning attempting a comeback this season. Mourning, who played for Thompson at Georgetown, received a kidney transplant in December. "I think that's what he's going to try to do," Thompson said. "He's not telling that to anybody, but I just know his drive." . . . Mark Pope returned to Denver's injured list last week and said he didn't like the explanation of tendinitis. He asked the team to say it was a hip replacement. "I was really pushing for something interesting, like chronic dandruff," Pope said -
Re: Interesting Sam Smith Column: Mentions Pacers...also Brad Miller
Mark Pope returned to Denver's injured list last week and said he didn't like the explanation of tendinitis. He asked the team to say it was a hip replacement. "I was really pushing for something interesting, like chronic dandruff," Pope said.
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: Interesting Sam Smith Column: Mentions Pacers...also Brad Miller
A New York minute: The Knicks come out of the All-Star break four games under .500, and you know what that means: They're talking championship in New York. Two definitions of a dynasty: The first is when a family in China rules for hundreds of years. The other is when a New York team wins three games in a row.
Comment
-
Re: Interesting Sam Smith Column: Mentions Pacers...also Brad Miller
There is talk they'll include Jamaal Tinsley in a package. :censor:Comment
-
Re: Interesting Sam Smith Column: Mentions Pacers...also Brad Miller
Hate to tell Mr. Smith this but it's also widely rumored that you reportedly can't re-trade a player for 60 days if he was reportedly traded in more than a one-for-one deal and also if his team is rumored to be over the salary cap, both of which happen to be rumored to reportedly apply in this case.
But the question is, did the Knicks move too soon? The Hawks, trying to cut payroll and rebuild with new ownership coming in, were widely rumored to be eagerly shopping former All-Star Rasheed Wallace, whom they acquired in a trade last week. They reportedly don't want the troublesome Wallace suiting up in Atlanta. While he can be an embarrassment, he is a two-time All-Star, and three years ago he was the best player on a team that came within a jumper of a championship.
Is it widely rumored that Sam Smith reportedly doesn't know what he's rumored to be talking about?The poster formerly known as RimfireComment
-
Re: Interesting Sam Smith Column: Mentions Pacers...also Brad Miller
I knew something Pete Carril didn't know!!!"No one had any idea that Brad was going to be the kind of passer he turned out to be," Carril said. "There's an intelligence about his passing that goes beyond what we could have realized."
Seriously, just go back and watch tapes from his days at Purdue. Only time in my life I've ever seen a point-center.Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!
Comment
-
Re: Interesting Sam Smith Column: Mentions Pacers...also Brad Miller
Usually I'm first in line to discredit Sam Smith, but:Hate to tell Mr. Smith this but it's also widely rumored that you reportedly can't re-trade a player for 60 days if he was reportedly traded in more than a one-for-one deal and also if his team is rumored to be over the salary cap, both of which happen to be rumored to reportedly apply in this case.
Is it widely rumored that Sam Smith reportedly doesn't know what he's rumored to be talking about?
I'm not sure what this loophole is but if several teams are trying to deal for him there must be some loophole that is *at least* open to interpretation?-snip-Wallace is a versatile big man, a scorer who could be a major influence on a team in the Eastern Conference. The Knicks, sources say, were one of five teams pushing to deal for Wallace, along with the Rockets, Spurs, Mavericks and 76ers, who are trying to save their season and would like to get in the hunt for Wallace, a Philadelphia native. A league loophole allows him to be dealt again this season.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: Interesting Sam Smith Column: Mentions Pacers...also Brad Miller
Unless Smith is totally out of the ballpark. The statement regarding trades is pretty clear and without a lot of interpretation from what I can see.
I'm not sure what this loophole is but if several teams are trying to deal for him there must be some loophole that is *at least* open to interpretation?
It may be that since Wallace signed his current deal before the CBA went into effect he could be traded but that seems like an odd thing to be grandfathering in.The poster formerly known as RimfireComment
-
Re: Interesting Sam Smith Column: Mentions Pacers...also Brad Miller
Yep. I'd agree with you, but why would he think *multiple* teams are inquiring about trading for him before the deadline, which would obviously be within the sixty days. I'm wondering if there is an loophole for players with expiring contracts? I've been too busy to try to look this up.Unless Smith is totally out of the ballpark. The statement regarding trades is pretty clear and without a lot of interpretation from what I can see.
I'm not sure what this loophole is but if several teams are trying to deal for him there must be some loophole that is *at least* open to interpretation?
It may be that since Wallace signed his current deal before the CBA went into effect he could be traded but that seems like an odd thing to be grandfathering in.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: Interesting Sam Smith Column: Mentions Pacers...also Brad Miller
http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#84
Teams cannot trade players under the following circumstances:
- For two months after receiving the player in trade, if the player is being traded in combination with other players. However, the team is free to trade the player by himself (not packaged with other players) immediately. This two-month restriction applies only to teams over the salary cap.
...
There seems to be a lot of confusion about the first bullet item above. A lot of media mistakenly report that a player cannot be re-traded for two months under any circumstances, even by himself. This is not true -- Danny Manning's trade from Phoenix to Orlando, and soon thereafter to Milwaukee is one example of the correct application of this trade rule. Other media reports confuse the sign-and-trade rule with this one, claiming that the player can be re-traded within 48 hours or after 60 days, but not in between.Comment
Comment