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

INDYSTAR: Lance Stephenson contract situation

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

  • #61
    Re: INDYSTAR: Lance Stephenson contract situation

    Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
    Here's an interesting 'Would You Rather...?' for the off-season:
    Start C.J. Watson at PG and Lance Stephenson at SG or Start George Hill at PG and Orlando Johnson at SG

    The point being, what was originally a difficult decision between Lance and Danny has now become an even tougher choice: Do we rearrange the roster to keep Stephenson in Indiana? If so, George Hill at $8 million per year might be a luxury we can no longer afford. If we agree that he's the 5th best starter (and we might not agree on that), can we really afford to pay our 5th best player that much and still fill out the bench with capable producers?

    I'm not saying we should or shouldn't unload George Hill. In fact, I'm not saying much of anything. It's way too early in the season to make these decisions. However, with Lance and PG initiating so much of the offense, couldn't we get away with a Mario Chalmers-type at the point guard position? I think George Hill is a good fit for this team, both on the court and off, but I still wonder if that contract we gave him might come back to bite us.
    I've posted before that my first preference is to move one of the bench pieces if we needed to free up money. One (or more) of Copeland/Scola/Mahinmi would do the trick.

    Regardless, I don't think Hill's contract will ever be a burden, for the simple reason that I think it will be easy to trade him if we have to. I even know the perfect destination for him - Houston. They'd just love someone like Hill next to Harden.

    If we're ever to regret a contract we've given, it's probably West's. Look, I love West's contributions as much as the next guy, but his contract isn't going to be easy to move at all, should we have dire need. His contract IMO is the least attractive among the ones that we've given out recently.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: INDYSTAR: Lance Stephenson contract situation

      The thing is who means more to the team: Lance or Danny?
      Smothered Chicken!

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: INDYSTAR: Lance Stephenson contract situation

        Originally posted by wintermute View Post
        I've posted before that my first preference is to move one of the bench pieces if we needed to free up money. One (or more) of Copeland/Scola/Mahinmi would do the trick.

        Regardless, I don't think Hill's contract will ever be a burden, for the simple reason that I think it will be easy to trade him if we have to. I even know the perfect destination for him - Houston. They'd just love someone like Hill next to Harden.

        If we're ever to regret a contract we've given, it's probably West's. Look, I love West's contributions as much as the next guy, but his contract isn't going to be easy to move at all, should we have dire need. His contract IMO is the least attractive among the ones that we've given out recently.
        As far as David West's contract is concerned, we are in complete agreement. Wrong side of thirty, a lot of miles in the tank, only attractive to an immediate contender.

        To your first point, that's where I would begin cutting costs too. I think we need Mahinmi to act as our poor man's Hibbert when the big fella is resting. Our defensive schemes call for a rim protector, so I wouldn't let him go. Copeland hasn't had a chance to prove his worth, so he's gotta be the first one out the door. Scola is another luxury backup we probably can't afford, but at $4.5 million the price seems reasonable. Generally speaking, it's better to lose bench guys than starters.

        My concern is that we'll need to pay Lance in the $9-12 million range for his services. I don't know much about our cap situation, but we might need to slim down our budget even further than previously expected (I saw $6-8 million range discussed prior to the season starting). If we start cutting multiple players from the bench, we'll have the same depth troubles we encountered last year. For what he gives us - and this is less an indictment of his talent than a reflection of his place in the pecking order - I view George Hill as a bit of a luxury. He fits, but he's not essential. If we have to cut more salary, I'd look to unload George Hill before decimating the bench.

        Also, I have my doubts about his trade value. I hope it is as easy to trade him as you believe it to be, but I haven't liked that contract from Day 1. Thankfully, I'm not running the other 29 teams. He's not a bad player by any stretch, but he might not fit as well in other team's offenses as he does in ours. And with four years and $32 million left, you have to commit to the guy if you trade for him.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: INDYSTAR: Lance Stephenson contract situation

          Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
          Here's an interesting 'Would You Rather...?' for the off-season:
          Start C.J. Watson at PG and Lance Stephenson at SG or Start George Hill at PG and Orlando Johnson at SG

          The point being, what was originally a difficult decision between Lance and Danny has now become an even tougher choice: Do we rearrange the roster to keep Stephenson in Indiana? If so, George Hill at $8 million per year might be a luxury we can no longer afford. If we agree that he's the 5th best starter (and we might not agree on that), can we really afford to pay our 5th best player that much and still fill out the bench with capable producers?

          I'm not saying we should or shouldn't unload George Hill. In fact, I'm not saying much of anything. It's way too early in the season to make these decisions. However, with Lance and PG initiating so much of the offense, couldn't we get away with a Mario Chalmers-type at the point guard position? I think George Hill is a good fit for this team, both on the court and off, but I still wonder if that contract we gave him might come back to bite us.
          I had a big post done and then realized - are you talking about the lineup for NEXT season (2014-2015)?
          BillS

          A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
          Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: INDYSTAR: Lance Stephenson contract situation

            Originally posted by Coopdog23 View Post
            The thing is who means more to the team: Lance or Danny?
            Depends completely on how Danny returns. If he returns to anything close to what he was before (which I think is the most likely case) it is neutral, if he is only a spot up shooter with some post ability it is Lance. I think the real question though is, is paying either of them over $8 million worth it for this team?

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: INDYSTAR: Lance Stephenson contract situation

              I mean I think the ideal world is Lance ends up with an Afflalo style contract, but I think he probably comes in higher and I think the Pacers pay it. I don't know Bird will figure it out.


              Comment


              • #67
                Re: INDYSTAR: Lance Stephenson contract situation

                Originally posted by BillS View Post
                I had a big post done and then realized - are you talking about the lineup for NEXT season (2014-2015)?
                Sure why not... it's never too early to stoke the fires of the next great PD debate

                Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
                My concern is that we'll need to pay Lance in the $9-12 million range for his services. I don't know much about our cap situation, but we might need to slim down our budget even further than previously expected (I saw $6-8 million range discussed prior to the season starting).
                There's been a couple of salary threads. From what we currently know, I think we can offer Lance up to roughly $10m per if we manage to move Copeland, without going over the tax. And frankly I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that amount for Lance.

                As to West, well, I think if the Pacers were given the chance to swap him for someone like Millsap ($9.5m) or Ilyasova ($8m), they'd have to consider it from the age and financials standpoint. Those 2 guys could go a fair bit in replicating West's on-court contributions, though probably not West's leadership and toughness. OTOH, West isn't going to be around forever, so leadership of the team has to pass to younger guys like George at some point. In any case, it's a problem for next season.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: INDYSTAR: Lance Stephenson contract situation

                  First Lance has to earn the $10m per year. We all love Lance, but other GMs might not be willing to drop that much on a player who really only has two years of playing time under his belt, especially one who hasn't behaved for anyone other than Bird and the Pacers. I can't imagine Lance getting more than what OJ Mayo and Monta Ellis got last off-season ($8m per).

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: INDYSTAR: Lance Stephenson contract situation

                    Originally posted by BillS View Post
                    I had a big post done and then realized - are you talking about the lineup for NEXT season (2014-2015)?
                    Yeah, for sure. There's no reason to trade anyone off this team now. I wasn't going to bring it up at all, but the Lance contract talk is already here, so I put in my two cents. It's definitely a post littered with "ifs".

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: INDYSTAR: Lance Stephenson contract situation

                      I am not sure where PGs contract is once he makes the All NBA team but I'm going to assume it starts at 18m. The LT is said to be at 75.7M next year which is what Bird says we are willing to pay.

                      George 18
                      Hibbert 15
                      West 12
                      Hill 8
                      Scola 4.5
                      Mahinmi 4
                      Copeland 3.1
                      Watson 2.1
                      S. Hill 1.3
                      Sloan 1
                      Johnson 1

                      This puts us at 70M if I'm doing the math correctly. No way Lance signs for 5.7M, so yes Vnzla was right when saying Copelands contract could hurt us. We must trade Copeland, Scola, of Mahinmi in order to afford Lance in my estimations. I believe Lance will cost around 8m next year. Maybe with the way West, Hill structured contracts we can structure Lance's with a drastic change later in the contract (I.e. 5 year 40m - 5m, 7m, 8m, 9m, 11m). Anyone know if this would be allowed in order to stay under the Lt?

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: INDYSTAR: Lance Stephenson contract situation

                        Originally posted by Coopdog23 View Post
                        The thing is who means more to the team: Lance or Danny?
                        Obviously at this point Lance is more important. Especially if you think about age and long term. The question is can we afford Lance even after letting Danny walk? Will be interesting. Lets win the title this year first and see if that allows the owners to afford going over the LT for a year or two!

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: INDYSTAR: Lance Stephenson contract situation

                          It'll definitely be interesting to see where this ends up.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: INDYSTAR: Lance wants 5 yr Max Contract

                            There are a lot of people on here talking about filling out the bench if we sign Lance or Danny etc etc....Keep in mind that IF we keep playing like we are, and we can best the Heat, AND win a championship with this team, ALL THE WHILE maintaining our starting 5 with Scola still coming off the bench, would there not be veteran players willing to take a pay cut, ala Ray Allen, to get a legit run at a title?? I mean, sure we'd be picking up some older players at the end of their careers, but you preserve your championship core...Hell, who's to say that DG33 wouldn't give us a discount to get that ring with a team that has backed him since day one? There are plenty of players out there to fill spots with, even if they are players off the wire....There are so many what ifs, and possibilities, that it is almost painful to even begin to look at this situation this far out. Let the chips fall and see what happens....injuries, trades, and millions of other possible factors come into play....there are just too many unknowns at this point to even make a logical guess....
                            http://www.nba.com/gamenotes/pacers.pdf

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: INDYSTAR: Lance Stephenson contract situation

                              I think Lance will end up getting $7-$8M/yr over 4-5 years.
                              First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X