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

Lance as a free agent

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

  • #46
    Re: Lance as a free agent

    Originally posted by CableKC View Post
    Many of you are ignoring the LT and the liklihood that the Simon's won't go over it.

    Assuming that PG24 gets the MAX at something starting at $17.5 mil a year......Lance ( or Granger ) could get $6 mil a year. This should put the Pacers RIGHT at the LT of $75.7 mil with 12 Players.

    Between the 2 of them....I think that Lance will get a contract slightly over the LT. Probably something over the full MLE at a flat $6 mil a year for 4 years or ( more than likely ) $5 mil oveer 5 years. Hopefully PG24 would take $750k less so that it allows the Pacers to sign a 13th Player at the vet minimum to fill out the roster.

    BTW, on a related question....IMHO...the unfortunate and harsh reality that will decide whether the Pacers will keep Granger OR Lance isn't which is the better option.....it will be which one will take a $6 mil a year / 4 year Contract offer ( the amount that the Pacers can afford to pay either of them before hitting the LT Ceiling ).
    Or we may get rid of Scola, OJ, and Sloan because and that would leave us with around 13 million to spend. Even if we keep Scola we could still offer Lance 8 and be right at the luxury tax by parting ways with Sloan and OJ. But this is all hypothetical. Larry might trade Ian and Copeland for a cheap backup center and save 6 million. And then we keep Granger and Lance, or Lance and OJ. Or maybe we win the championship next year and Simon puts all of his chips in the basket for one more title run and crosses the luxury tax for a year because the money he will make off back to back rings will far outweigh the cost. You just never know. Who knows how much Simon would make off back to back rings and how much he would risk if the opportunity presents itself. Sure maybe Larry said we won't go into luxury tax at all, but I'd have to believe that option may change if it looks like the Pacers have a really good chance at defending their first title.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Lance as a free agent

      Originally posted by CableKC View Post
      Many of you are ignoring the LT and the liklihood that the Simon's won't go over it.
      Assuming that PG24 gets the MAX at something starting at $17.5 mil a year......Lance ( or Granger ) could get $6 mil a year. This should put the Pacers RIGHT at the LT of $75.7 mil with 12 Players.
      Between the 2 of them....I think that Lance will get a contract slightly over the LT. Probably something over the full MLE at a flat $6 mil a year for 4 years or ( more than likely ) $5 mil oveer 5 years. Hopefully PG24 would take $750k less so that it allows the Pacers to sign a 13th Player at the vet minimum to fill out the roster.
      BTW, on a related question....IMHO...the unfortunate and harsh reality that will decide whether the Pacers will keep Granger OR Lance isn't which is the better option.....it will be which one will take a $6 mil a year / 4 year Contract offer ( the amount that the Pacers can afford to pay either of them before hitting the LT Ceiling ).
      I hope you're right about the offers that Granger gets but I think it all depends on how healthy he is this year. No matter how well Granger plays I think he has no choice but to take a big paycut next year as his market value will dictate that. Of the 2 players I fear that Granger will be the one we can't afford. I could still see Granger getting an 8 mil offer from several teams and if he returns to form more like 10+ while I don't see Lance getting more then MLE. The only way Danny is more affordable then Lance would be if he's still unhealthy. What I really want is to be able to move Ian and Copeland and keep both Lance and Danny, or to see Simon go over the L.T. by just a little for 1 year. With the fact that 50% of the tax revenues still go to the team if we exceed the L.T., it's actually less expensive for the Pacers to go over the L.T. by 3-5 mil under the new cba then it was under the old one.
      Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Lance as a free agent

        With roughly $11 million worth of 2 year contracts on the roster and the trio of Hibbert, West, and G3 expiring the following year, I can see Simon dipping into Luxury Tax territory next season. Assuming we continue our recent success, Simon may be able to justify spending a little extra considering all of the benefits a winning team can bring to an owner in terms of ticket sales, merchandise, etc. And it could only be for one year.

        I'm on the bandwagon of signing that man to whatever he wants. Doesn't matter to me if it's $6 million, $8 million, or $10 million. His career stats also don't mean a damn thing to me... watching him on the court is truly amazing. His size, strength, athleticism, ball handling, energy, hustle, rebounding, aggressiveness... everything is just too incredible to not spend money on. I could be bias because I traveled 2,000 miles to watch Game 6 vs. NYK from the front row, but I don't really give a ****.

        I personally believe he will be unstoppable in 2-5 years given the right situation. I think it's pretty well documented that his current situation is by far his best situation. I'm not concerned about his past statistics, I'm more worried about his future statistics. Let him continue to grow with G3, Paul, West, Hibbert, and Solomon... the possibilities are endless.

        The thought of him in Bonkers Life 3 postseasons from now, bulldozing his way through defenses, and electrifying the crowd beyond the physical, literal, and theoretical levels of electricity is bringing a bone chilling tingle down my spine and change of underwear in my immediate future.

        TY Hilton is the next Marvin.
        Last edited by dgranger17; 08-20-2013, 11:17 PM. Reason: The Colts are too good.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Lance as a free agent

          All you have to do is check out Lance's Vine page and see why he won't get an 8 mil deal.
          Protect the Promise!!!!

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Lance as a free agent

            Based off of last season alone, Lance gets something between Watson and Copeland. The facts are at this point Lance hasn't shown that much. He has had a few good games, and a single great game in the playoffs. Otherwise he has not been anything that would get an $8 million offer. There may be a GM out there that sees potential and is willing to pay him $4 or $5 million based on last year, but that is it. Lance was inconsistent at best. Offensively, where most players make their money, he didn't show half of what some people on here think he showed. He occasionally made a really nice move and beat his man, but most of the time he didn't. He only really had three weapons the open 3-pointer, backdoor cut to the basket, and the fast break. Otherwise he was mostly ineffective offensively. He showed a lot more defensively, but unless you are a center you aren't going to make a lot of money off of your defense. He played the role of a role player, he played it well, but that isn't going to get you $8 million from anyone especially under the new CBA.

            How much Lance makes though isn't going to be based on what he did this past season, but what he does next season. How Lance does next season is, well, as unpredictable as his play this past season was.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Lance as a free agent

              Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
              So how much is too much for Lance? Should Lance be paid more then Hill?
              8 million/year is insane money for Lance IMO.

              An important thing for Lance may be how long he wants this contract to go, does he want to be locked in for 4 years? Or might you be able to get him to bite on a two year deal? The idea being that in two years he hits the market again with even more playing time and perhaps has bumped his market value up to that Hill type range. I don't know it's tough to say.

              I think the absolute max I could see a team offering Lance is 4yr/24million. Do you match that? I think that if you held a gun to my head right now I probably would, assuming Granger is going elsewhere. If Granger comes back and averages 18 and 5 again though I think you probably have to pay him instead, so it's really just a decision that is in flux at the moment, and won't just be dependent on what Lance is worth/what he is offered.

              EDIT: BTW, I think Lance would need to make a ginormous jump to be anywhere near George Hill. I think Hill is by far and away the most under valued Pacer on the board at this point. Hill does just about everything as good or better than Lance and he does it with a calmer hand. He's not as flashy obviously, but IMO Hill is on a lot of nights our most consistent player. He fits in well in that "3" option slot for us. Pretty much every night he was giving us 15, 5, and 4 with good D and decent %'s. Plus he's rarely if ever going to lose a game for you (something that Lance can still occasionally do) Hill is also great for his versatility not only can he guard bigger point guards, but he is a FANTASTIC off the ball defender, in fact this is maybe where Hill shines. How many times in the playoffs did Hill have to switch off on a shooter when Lance was getting beat by screens. It happened more than once in all three series. Game 5 in NYC and Game 5 in MIA, the concussion game and the foul trouble game respectively for GHill, were both losses and both games that IMO would have swung the other way had Hill been able to do his normal work load those nights.
              Last edited by Trader Joe; 08-21-2013, 11:58 AM.


              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Lance as a free agent

                If Granger comes back and averages 18-5 you do everything within reason to keep him. The good thing of that is it would most likely mean Paul only gets the max instead of the max+. The other good thing about that is Lance most likely does not put up the stats to get more than $4 million, and if you can't keep Granger Lance is still fairly cheap.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Lance as a free agent

                  And JR Smith may be "hot garbage" to some of you, but this is a guy who just got done putting up 22 PPG for nearly a solid two month stretch when the Knicks rolled and he still got what he got. Honestly, a lot of you are punishing him because he got undressed by our defense, when really I don't, yeah he's a chucker who is going to keep shooting, but I'm not surprised he failed miserably against our defense, our defense was really freaking good! And it is particularly built to bait guys like JR into bad shots, that doesn't really make him a terrible player, it just means our D has a great scheme.
                  Last edited by Trader Joe; 08-21-2013, 12:09 PM.


                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Lance as a free agent

                    Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                    If Granger comes back and averages 18-5 you do everything within reason to keep him. The good thing of that is it would most likely mean Paul only gets the max instead of the max+. The other good thing about that is Lance most likely does not put up the stats to get more than $4 million, and if you can't keep Granger Lance is still fairly cheap.
                    Yeah I was just trying to illustrate to me it's 100% at this point an either-or between Lance and Danny there is no both option.

                    Basically by the end of next season, the decision will probably be clear about which one will be kept. Lance has the inherent advantage of if they both play really well, Lance will probably be the cheaper of the two. I'm just not losing any sleep over it I guess is what I'm trying to say, if we let Lance walk IMO the only possible reason that happens is because Danny has a really, really good season. Otherwise it seems obvious you'll probably pay Lance first. No offense to Danny, but as he has said multiple times, it's a business.


                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Lance as a free agent

                      To me if we give Lance more than the equivalent to the MLE we are definitely overpaying. He would have to knock my socks off this season for me to feel differently.

                      His flashes of brilliance are truly brilliant, but to me that's all they are right now, flashes. If those become regular occurrences, then I'll feel different.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X