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

  • #91
    Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

    Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
    I think that would be too much to lose to keep Lance. It would leave us with a big hole to fill and no money to do it with. We also need to keep in mind that we'll need Scola's expiring contract to come off the books the following year anyway just to be able to pay Hibbert. It's impossible to keep everyone together and hard just to keep the core.
    Copeland and Scola is too much to keep Lance? Interesting take. I would lose anyone minus PG and Roy to keep Lance around honestly. Also, don't West and Roy come off the books at the same time? I really don't see Roy getting much of a raise when he comes off the books.

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

      Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post
      The 13.7 million for Wall is a placeholder. It is the 25% max number for this year. They take 25% of a different number than the actual cap now which is why the discrepancy exists.

      For further info, the 30% number was 16.441 this year. That would make the 27% number this year to be about 14.8. That will almost certainly go up next year with the increased cap, but no one is exactly sure how much.

      Those figures and the excellent explanation can be found at Larry Coon's salary cap FAQ, question #16:

      http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q16

      Isn't the cap this year 58 mil? 25% would be 14.5 mil which is about where Roy started his last contract.
      30% this year would then be 17.4 mil
      30% of the projected 62.5 mil cap next year would be 18.75 mil.
      I think Hoopshype has it right but they only project the 25% max of next years cap since Paul hasn't earned the higher contract yet by getting named to an all nba team. I don't think we have that 2 mil to spend next year.
      Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

        Originally posted by brownjake43 View Post
        Copeland and Scola is too much to keep Lance? Interesting take. I would lose anyone minus PG and Roy to keep Lance around honestly. Also, don't West and Roy come off the books at the same time? I really don't see Roy getting much of a raise when he comes off the books.
        Roy will opt out next year and he will get a max 30% contract. He'll have mutliple teams ready to offer him this if we don't.
        Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

          Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
          Isn't the cap this year 58 mil? 25% would be 14.5 mil which is about where Roy started his last contract.
          30% this year would then be 17.4 mil
          30% of the projected 62.5 mil cap next year would be 18.75 mil.
          I think Hoopshype has it right but they only project the 25% max of next years cap since Paul hasn't earned the higher contract yet by getting named to an all nba team. I don't think we have that 2 mil to spend next year.
          The max is not based on 25% of the salary cap anymore. That's the nomenclature that is still used and it's still somewhat close to it, but it's misleading. For example, Roy's contract started at 13.668 million with a salary cap of 58.044 million which doesn't correspond to 25%. The 25% is now calculated using a different number that is not the salary cap. The link explains why this is along with showing exactly what the 25% and 30% numbers are this year. Using the cap number as the starting point will get you somewhat close, but it will still put you higher than what the numbers will actually end up being.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

            Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
            Roy will opt out next year and he will get a max 30% contract. He'll have mutliple teams ready to offer him this if we don't.
            Hmm. How many guys in the NBA have the 30% max and who is considered the worst player with the max?

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

              By the way, can someone link me the Bird interview where he talks about possibly not re-signing Lance? Or was it some game time video interview? I see a lot of people mention it.

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

                Originally posted by brownjake43 View Post
                Hmm. How many guys in the NBA have the 30% max and who is considered the worst player with the max?
                Too many. The "max contract" is an abomination that prevents the league approaching anything close to competitive balance, it's trickle down economics and we know how that's gone. Hard cap at the lux tax limit and no max salary. Done, I fixed it, that easy.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

                  By the way, nice thread title.
                  "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

                    Originally posted by hackashaq View Post
                    By the way, can someone link me the Bird interview where he talks about possibly not re-signing Lance? Or was it some game time video interview? I see a lot of people mention it.
                    It was posted on page 3 of the thread. The full interview is worth reading.
                    http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/q-and-larry-bird-2013
                    Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

                      Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post
                      I'd consider lots of ideas in order to keep Lance around. My off the wall idea if enough salary couldn't be freed up other ways is to trade David West.


                      It's the unthinkable move that I think that the Pacers should in fact consider, for all the reasons you stated.

                      All indications though are that the Pacers greatly value West, whether or not his contributions are visible to us fans. But as you say, it's unlikely that West will be around during Paul George's prime years, while younger guys like Lance and George Hill probably still will. So if we HAVE to sacrifice a starter, West seems to be the logical one.

                      Still, I think there is still a solid chance that we can retain Lance without breaking up the starters. Bench will take a hit for sure though.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

                        I thought about making a new thread for this, but we probably have enough Lance threads for now. SI's Ben Golliver (former Blazers blogger) lists his "All-Payday Team", i.e. 5 young guys who can cash in next summer. In addition to Lance, the others are Isaiah Thomas, Gordon Hayward, Greg Monroe, and Nikola Vucevic. Bledsoe should be in there too but apparently missed out because of his injury.

                        http://nba.si.com/2014/01/15/isaiah-...ikola-vucevic/

                        Lance's section:

                        SG: Lance Stephenson, Pacers

                        Much like Thomas, Stephenson was a second-round gold strike. Taken No. 40 in 2010, “Born Ready” has put the off-court drama that nearly derailed his career behind him, emerging as a starter for the 2013 Eastern Conference finalists and growing into an All-Star candidate this year (albeit in a weak, injury-ravaged East backcourt crop). He’s on the books for a cool $1 million; that bargain-basement salary made headlines in February 2013, when max-money teammate Roy Hibbert offered to pay a $35,000 fine on behalf of Stephenson after an on-court incident with the Warriors.

                        The versatile Stephenson can score, move without the ball, run an offense, hit the glass hard and defend both guard positions. Ferocity is his defining characteristic, and it serves him well in all facets of the game: He finishes an excellent 63 percent of his shots at the rim, he ranks in the league’s top 10 in defensive rating and, at 6-foot-5 with a 10.9 rebound percentage, he just might be the best inch-for-inch rebounder in the league. (Pacers blog 8 Points, 9 Seconds compares the league’s best rebounding wings by the numbers right here, and Stephenson places tops among shooting guards.)

                        In a bit of a surprise, Stephenson, 23, has developed into the No. 2 scorer (13.3 points on 49.5 percent shooting) for an excellent Pacers starting unit in which all five players score in double figures. The fit in Indiana is excellent, as the Pacers’ scoring balance and top-ranked defense limit the impact of his so-so outside shooting, but he’s done enough this season to convince outside suitors that he’s capable of succeeding in a larger role. Stephens still has untapped scoring potential, given that he’s attempting fewer than 11 shots per game. If the leash is loosened, he’s asked to create more for himself and some of the solid options (including Paul George and David West) surrounding him are stripped away, Stephenson’s potential to score at least 18 points a game starts to seem conceivable.

                        That will likely leave Stephenson with one of pro sports’ age-old philosophical choices when he becomes an unrestricted free agent next summer: Take the money and run, or find a way to make things work with the Pacers. The latter approach could require agreeing to some measure of a hometown discount, as Stephenson should be the second-best shooting guard in free agency (behind Wade, who isn’t exactly available).

                        SI.com’s Chris Mannix reported last month that Stephenson could command between $7 million and $9 million per year, and Grantland.com’s Zach Lowe in November estimated a salary in the $7 million to $10 million range. With the benefit of another long postseason showcase, it’s easy to envision Stephenson achieving the high end of those ranges. For comparison’s sake, Ellis, Kevin Martin and O.J. Mayo each received at least $7 million per year last summer, and Stephenson is arguably superior to all three while also entering a market without much quality competition at his position.

                        Indiana possesses the league’s best record and its starting unit owns a monster plus-13.5 net rating. With the other four pieces (George, Hibbert, West and George Hill) locked in for next season, this is the type of group that should be kept together almost regardless of what it takes, even if that means breaching the luxury-tax line for the first time since 2006 (per ShamSports.com) or parting with key reserves.

                        The championship window is immediate and open — potentially wide open if the Heat’s Big three disassembles next summer. The Pacers should therefore try to retain Stephenson under any circumstances, save an all-in, funny-money offer from a rival team. Cultivating a five-man unit as good as Indiana’s starters is the hard part; paying — or overpaying — to maintain it should be an easier decision. Whether the small-market Pacers — who will get Danny Granger off their books after the season but must start payments on George’s max deal — view things this way remains to be seen.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

                          I suppose for now I'm telling myself Lance will get a 4 year $40m deal, whether it's with us or not.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

                            Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
                            Yes but that still doesn't give us more then 7.5 mil to pay Lance without hitting the L.T. It's the same end result as signing Lance and then moving Copeland.
                            if we trade Cope that would give us an extra 3 mil to give Lance. We can already give him around 7.5-8 mil without hitting the LT, so that would give us about 10.5 to 11 mil to give him

                            Comment


                            • Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

                              Originally posted by BlueCollarColts View Post
                              if we trade Cope that would give us an extra 3 mil to give Lance. We can already give him around 7.5-8 mil without hitting the LT, so that would give us about 10.5 to 11 mil to give him

                              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.
                              Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

                                Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                                I suppose for now I'm telling myself Lance will get a 4 year $40m deal, whether it's with us or not.
                                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.
                                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X