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

Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

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

  • Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

    Originally posted by CableKC View Post
    I think that his true market value is somewhere closer to $9 mil a year.....but really think that Teams will bid for his services and over inflate his value. In the end...I can see some Team will overpay at a rate of $11 mil a year to entice him to leave Indy.
    After seeing the money Tyreke got, I don't know what to expect.

    I do know, I want to lock him up though.

    I don't care what it takes honestly. Having Hibbert/George/Stephenson locked up will make us contenders until their contracts run up.

    Comment


    • Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

      Sports Illustrated:
      The Pacers should therefore try to retain Stephenson under any circumstances, save an all-in, funny-money offer from a rival team.
      I think this could be the reason Bird made the public statement of being willing to let Lance go. He may be unwilling, but pretending he is willing, as it may chase off a rival making a bid, realizing they will have to honor it if they do.
      "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

      Comment


      • Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

        Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
        This was explained on the prior post just go back a page. Trading Copeland will not give us 10.5-11 for Lance. If PG is counted in the projected salary at 25% then we'd only have 7.5 to give Lance after trading Copeland. If PG's projected salary is actually listed at 27% then we might have as much as 9 mil to pay Lance after moving Copeland. That should be enough but it doesn't leave us anything extra to pay Roy when he opts out the following year.
        That also doesn't take into consideration filling out the roster which will decrease the amount they can offer Lance without going over the LT.

        Comment


        • Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

          If we were able lose Granger would next years salary be off of the books. If it was myself I would keep our core Hibbert/DWest/PG/Lance/Hill I would try to keep them before anyone else on the team.

          Comment


          • Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

            Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
            Sports Illustrated:


            I think this could be the reason Bird made the public statement of being willing to let Lance go. He may be unwilling, but pretending he is willing, as it may chase off a rival making a bid, realizing they will have to honor it if they do.

            I take Bird for his word, he's really prepared to let him go before going above what he considers a fair offer nor going into the tax.
            I do agree with him that while we wouldn't be as good, we'd still be a contender without Lance. Make the mistake of paying Lance so much that it cost us Hibbert the following year and we'd never contend without Hibbert.
            Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

            Comment


            • Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

              One thing may be with Lance he might even take less than market value. His mentor and motivator is here with Bird. He does well with Vogel and his staff, he has the opportunity to continuing to play on a team that can be considered as a champion contender, and maybe he would rather stay in Indiana because all of then support and the way the public views Lance in the community.

              Comment


              • Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

                Originally posted by jeffg-body View Post
                One thing may be with Lance he might even take less than market value. His mentor and motivator is here with Bird. He does well with Vogel and his staff, he has the opportunity to continuing to play on a team that can be considered as a champion contender, and maybe he would rather stay in Indiana because all of then support and the way the public views Lance in the community.
                All of these are things that Lance should consider....but IMHO $$$ will be the primary motivator for him. I'd hate to see him in a different uniform....but I wouldn't blame him for leaving for more $$$.
                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                Comment


                • Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

                  Originally posted by jeffg-body View Post
                  One thing may be with Lance he might even take less than market value. His mentor and motivator is here with Bird. He does well with Vogel and his staff, he has the opportunity to continuing to play on a team that can be considered as a champion contender, and maybe he would rather stay in Indiana because all of then support and the way the public views Lance in the community.
                  No way the guy is 23 and has never really got paid. He needs to get paid. His next contract will set up his family for life. I would not take less than what I deserve at this stage of my career if I am Lance.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

                    Originally posted by jeffg-body View Post
                    If we were able lose Granger would next years salary be off of the books. If it was myself I would keep our core Hibbert/DWest/PG/Lance/Hill I would try to keep them before anyone else on the team.
                    Yeah, but doesn't Paul's extension kick in and fill that slot?

                    Comment


                    • Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

                      I think with Granger gone, trading Ian, Rasual off our books, and probably moving Orlando....we'll have enough for Lance. Then again, Herb might be willing to go into the tax. Never know, he did it in 2006. I think ultimately, we'll re-sign Lance without going into the tax. But then Herb might be willing to go into the tax to add another major piece like Gordon, or maybe Carmelo if he decides to leave the Knicks? You guys also forget, trading George Hill to a team willing to absorb his contract and having the cap space to do so would put us in position to re-sign Lance, and add a PG upgrade. Perhaps Lou Williams from Atlanta or Rondo? I think the key....is George Hill might have to be moved. Lakers and Mavs will have large chunks of cap space this Summer. Think the Lakers would want Hill? Hill and Kobe in the backcourt would be interesting. But Hill and Ellis would be as well.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

                        Originally posted by Grimp View Post
                        I think with Granger gone, trading Ian, Rasual off our books, and probably moving Orlando....we'll have enough for Lance. Then again, Herb might be willing to go into the tax. Never know, he did it in 2006. I think ultimately, we'll re-sign Lance without going into the tax. But then Herb might be willing to go into the tax to add another major piece like Gordon, or maybe Carmelo if he decides to leave the Knicks? You guys also forget, trading George Hill to a team willing to absorb his contract and having the cap space to do so would put us in position to re-sign Lance, and add a PG upgrade. Perhaps Lou Williams from Atlanta or Rondo? I think the key....is George Hill might have to be moved. Lakers and Mavs will have large chunks of cap space this Summer. Think the Lakers would want Hill? Hill and Kobe in the backcourt would be interesting. But Hill and Ellis would be as well.
                        Couple quick thoughts here: a) What are you trading Ian for? You have to take back salary unless it is to a team under the cap. Who is going to just want to deal a pick or random foreign player for Ian? Does anyone value him that much? b) Orlando makes peanuts, his salary doesn't move the needle enough to ultimately matter. c) The CBA was different in 2006 than it is now. The penalties for going into the luxury tax are far steeper now than they were then. d) Just stop with the Gordon stuff, honestly. e) Carmelo? Is that a joke? f) Who with cap space would be willing to absorb Hill's contract, and how could we give Lance big money and upgrade from Hill while essentially giving him away? g) Lou Williams is a shooting guard.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

                          I'm beginning to think that this thread should just be renamed to "All things Lance Stephenson".

                          http://hoopshype.com/columns/rosen/l...dethrone-miami

                          January 19, 2014 @ 09:47 PM ET by Charley Rosen

                          The only possibility of any team’s dethroning the Miami Heat depends on the play of one individual player.

                          Not Kevin Durant because even with a fully recovered Russell Westbrook the Thunder have no inside scoring and lack the ability to play championship defense.

                          Not Tim Duncan and company because the Spurs had their chance last June and blew it – mainly through Gregg Popovich’s stubbornness.

                          Not LaMarcus Aldridge because teams that live by the jump shot die in the playoffs.

                          In truth, the only player who can make the difference in a playoff series against the defending champions is… Lance Stephenson.


                          Why Stephenson and not Paul George, David West, Roy Hibbert, and/or George Hill?

                          Here’s why:

                          For sure, PG is a bona fide superstar. Depend on him to knock down some treys, use weakside picks to his advantage, create his own highly makeable shots, and even play adequate defense against LeBron James. Indeed, George has become increasingly consistent.

                          And that’s the point, here. For the most part, George does what he does and does it well. But it’s unreasonable to expect him to explode for 30-plus sharpshooting points over the course of an entire series against Miami. PG simply lacks the overwhelming presence (like LBJ has) to routinely dominate. Plus, LeBron’s powerhouse defense will limit George’s influence.

                          Hibbert will block a few shots, discourage even more, rebound at both ends, and is too tall and long to be effectively defended by Chris Bosh and/or Chris Andersen. Which is precisely why the Heat took a flyer on Greg Oden, who unfortunately is slow off his feet and can’t play quality defense without fouling.

                          Hibbert would be much more of a factor on offense if he’d get more touches in the low post. And much more effective on defense if he could avoid committing superfluous fouls. Plus, count the times every game where the relatively powerless Hibbert gets knocked to the floor.

                          Given enough time and space, West is a dependable scorer in the low post. He’s too big and strong to be checked by Shane Battier and too powerful to be inhibited by the defensive efforts of Bosh. In fact, only the foul-prone, brick shooting Chris Andersen has the size and the mettle to contain West.

                          However, West’s general lack of explosiveness can be exploited by Miami’s quick and mobile defense.

                          George Hill is an underrated man-to-man defender whose solid all-around play is a vital part of Indiana’s success. Yet he’s not really a point guard and rarely exhibits greatness.

                          Like West, Luis Scola is a tricky, bull-like scorer in the paint. Like West, he’s also slow, defenseless, and seldom employed as a designated point-maker. Danny Granger is gradually getting back into his groove but his limited playing time limits his impact.

                          As for Stephenson… While he was a schoolboy in Lincoln High School back home in Brooklyn, Stephenson’s talent was as immense as his ego. The sights and sounds of his cursing his coach was an every game occurrence. His one and only season at Cincinnati was marked as much by Stephenson’s potential as his inconsistent play. And, in 2010, the Pacers drafted him in the second round (40th overall) primarily based on this potential.

                          Many scouts believed that Stephenson was just one more prodigiously talented yet tragically immature young player who would never amount to much in the NBA. And for his first two seasons in Indiana, this was indeed the case. Last year, Stephenson finally showed signs of growing up and harnessing his skills.


                          As of this writing, he’s Indiana’s second-leading scorer (15.6 ppg), most efficient shooter (50.2 percent) and assist-maker (5.1). On the debit side, his 2.6 turnovers per game ties Stephenson with PG for the team lead in this dubious category.

                          Yet Stephenson’s game goes beyond his numbers.

                          He’s easily the best overall athlete in the squad, and just as easily the most explosive. It’s Stephenson who can create something out of nothing – sudden bursts to the hoop for unexpected scores, impossible off-balance shots that make the nets dance, magical now-you-see-it-now-you-don’t assist passes, coming from nowhere to make a steal, rising to dunk in heavy traffic. Yes, he still takes too many questionable shots and makes poor decisions with the ball, but his errors of commission and omission are rapidly decreasing. More than any other teammate, Stephenson plays on the edge of greatness and when he’s on-balance he can change any play, any game, any series.

                          That’s why Lance Stephenson is Indiana’s X-factor and the biggest threat to a three-peat by the Heat.
                          The rest of the universe is beginning to realize what most of us have known for the last 1.5 seasons.....Lance is the X-Factor for the Team.
                          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

                            The 7.5-8 million dollar figure is just imaginary. It's about $10m, give or take $500k for signing an end of the bench scrub.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

                              Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                              I'm beginning to think that this thread should just be renamed to "All things Lance Stephenson".

                              http://hoopshype.com/columns/rosen/l...dethrone-miami


                              The rest of the universe is beginning to realize what most of us have known for the last 1.5 seasons.....Lance is the X-Factor for the Team.
                              Am I the only one who thinks this article is full of ****? And it has nothing to do with what he says about Lance. Last year showed how important big men are vs Miami. I'm sorry, but we aren't beating Miami without Roy Hibbert manning the paint, regardless of how Lance plays.

                              And we do need PG to be that superstar he has become, regardless how Lance plays. And we need West to knock down those big buckets from the elbow like he has a knack for doing when we need them most, regardless how Lance plays. This team isn't about to beat Miami because of one guy. The reason this team can beat Miami is because its a TEAM. Because our roster is 8 deep. Because we are committed to playing the best defense in the last decade.

                              Lance is an X-Factor, purely because of his style and how he impacts the game. But no, he's not our biggest threat to the Heat.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson? To try to get a better idea of what kind of money Lance could command this offseason, I decided to look for players with statistically similar seasons. For just this season, I couldn't find another player that was nearly as statistically similar as Nicolas Batum:

                                Rk Player Season Age G GS MP FG% 3P 3P% FT% TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS
                                1 Nicolas Batum 2013-14 25 40 40 35.9 .461 1.9 .363 .822 6.8 5.6 0.9 0.7 2.5 1.9 13.4
                                2 Lance Stephenson 2013-14 23 38 38 35.2 .501 1.1 .348 .714 6.8 5.2 0.7 0.1 2.6 2.5 13.9
                                Provided by Basketball-Reference.com: View Original Table
                                Generated 1/20/2014.

                                In addition, while Lance currently leads the league in triple doubles with 3, Batum is tied for second (with Steph Curry) with 2. According to ShamSports, Batum's salary this season is $11,295,250. Give or take a million or so, that's about what I'd expect Lance to get offered this summer. Especially if he makes the all-star team.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X