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

Possible Laker trade?

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

  • Possible Laker trade?

    http://www.hoopsworld.com/article_11673.shtml

    Laker Trade in the Works?
    By Eric Pincus
    for HOOPSWORLD.com
    Feb 19, 2005, 14:00 Email this article
    Printer friendly page





    Just when it seemed the Los Angeles Lakers were going to hold fast at the trade deadline, Jack Haley of Fox Sports in Los Angeles revealed late Friday that the Lakers were in serious discussions with an undisclosed team. Haley stated that LA was close to a deal that would send out three players for a single, impact player. He said that the Lakers have already warned one of their players that they're likely to be moved within the next 24 hours.

    For those not familiar with Haley, he's the basketball analyst for the Southern California Sports Report on Fox Sports West. He is part of the Laker pre-game broadcast and is well connected with the organization. Can't quite remember him breaking a trade before, but it's safe to say the Lakers are working on some sort of deal. Whether it falls through or not is a different story. Jack was not able to reveal any names but did give one hint . . .

    Host Lindsay Soto began the Haley segment with the following questions, "Any chance the Lakers get some front court help?"

    After explaining the scenario, Jack concluded, "The player they're going after is someone that can definitely help in what you just asked me. I'm not allowed to say where."

    A common practice in broadcasting is to feed the host of the show the introductory question. It would seem safe to say that by the exchange between Haley and Soto that the Lakers are close to a 3-1 deal for a big man.

    (A few assumptions first: Kobe Bryant has a no trade clause. Chris Mihm is not likely in a the trade discussion. If Chucky Atkins is moved, a point guard must be the Laker trade target. Brian Grant's large contract is virtually immovable.)

    Carlos Boozer?
    It would seem that Carlos Boozer of the Utah Jazz would be the most likely acquisition. Chad Ford of ESPN Insider suggested the other day that the Jazz would entertain offers for their recently signed power forward. With the plan of putting Andrei Kirilenko at power forward, the Jazz could be in the market for a small forward. It just so happens that the Lakers have a plethora of threes on the roster. The Jazz publicly came out and said they weren't shopping Boozer, but that may have been a front . . . or a mind was changed.

    Boozer is in the first year of a $70 million dollar contract. Although the league does not release exact salary information, he's slated to make roughly $11 million for the 2004/5 season.

    Bboth Lamar Odom and Carlos Boozer sat out the Lakers\Jazz game right before the All-Star Break. That may be a coincidence. It would seem that the Jazz, should they agree to move Boozer, would like some level of salary relief. Odom makes roughly the same amount that Boozer does, though Lamar has one year less on his contract. Odom for Boozer would seem somewhat of a lateral move and doesn't seem likely.

    The logical player the Jazz would seem to want in return would be Caron Butler. If that were the case, the additions of Vlade Divac and Devean George would be enough. Vlade and George have been injured throughout nearly the entire season. The Jazz could buy out the last year on Divac' contract for a couple of million dollars. Devean is close to health finally and would be a nice addition to the Jazz bench.

    In other words, LA gives up a key piece in Caron, a bad signing in Vlade and a player who is no longer needed in Devean for a traditional, solid power forward. Should the Lakers fully commit to the triangle offense, it's possibly they may want to retain George, but to make a deal . . . that may be overlooked.

    There are other variations, but this is probably the most likely scenario should a trade go down.

    If Laker GM Mitch Kupchak is able to get Boozer to Los Angeles for a package without Caron or Odom, he'd be drastically upgrading the team. Although unlikely, Jumaine Jones along with Vlade, Devean and perhaps a number one pick works under the collective bargaining agreement but that would involve desperation by Utah to get rid of Boozer. That doesn't seem very likely.

    Baron Davis?
    There's always the possibility that the exchange between Haley and Soto was unplanned and mis-communicated, the suggestion of a front court player may be erroneous. In that case, New Orleans Hornets' point guard Baron Davis would seem to be the logical target. Laker Assistant GM Ronnie Lester reportedly told local radio that if the team made a trade, it'd be for a point guard. That information doesn't come first hand, but was passed along by usually reliable sources.

    Baron has been injured most of the year and his trade value is at an all-time low. He's a former All-Star under contract for $70 million over five seasons. With Davis making roughly $11.3 million this season, the Hornets have found success at the point with Dan Dickau, who is under contract for just under $900K. Baron has suffered with a chronic bad back which was pre-existing before signing his extension with the club. The New York Post's Peter Vecsey reported recently that because of that condition, Davis' large contract is not completely insured.

    It'd be a risk for the Lakers to take him on. If they can do it without giving up much, it may be an opportunity the team cannot pass up. Just how desperate the Hornets are to get rid of him is a good question. After Vince Carter and Kenyon Martin were traded for less "talent" than expected, perhaps the Lakers can get away with dumping Vlade Divac, Slava Medvedenko and Devean George on the Hornets. LA would probably have to send a draft pick. That's obviously the best case scenario.

    More realistic perhaps would be different combinations: Caron Butler, Chucky Atkins and Vlade Divac . . . or Caron, George and Vlade.

    Lamar Odom wouldn't seem to be in play for a guard with the Laker front court as thin as it is.

    In either case (Boozer or Davis), Caron Butler would seem like the odd man out.

    Other Big Men Options
    The Portland Trail Blazers are said to have Shareef Abdur-Rahim on the block. Portland badly needs a shooting guard. Unless the Lakers were willing to move Odom, it would take Chucky Atkins, Devean George and Vlade Divac to match salaries. Since there is not point guard coming in to replace Atkins, it would seem the only deal possible with the Blazers for Shareef would include Lamar. LA would have to send two more players - it just doesn't seem likely.

    Also rumored to be on the block are Theo Ratliff, but his contract seems cost prohibitive to the Lakers. Zach Randolph cannot be traded to LA since he has a "poison pill" contract since his large extension hasn't kicked in yet.

    Another name bandied about would be Antoine Walker. Similar to Abdur-Rahim, the Lakers would have to move Chucky without getting a point in return. It'd likely take Odom, but the Lakers would not be upgrading. Cross Walker off the list.

    Guys like PJ Brown, Joe Smith and Keith Van Horn wouldn't seem to be the right fit, unless Jack Haley overstated the talent level of the alleged Laker acquisition.

    Chris Webber and Peja Stojakovic are forwards, but the Sacramento Kings trading with the Lakers? Can't see Caron for Peja going through. LA would have to include Odom to get Webber, which doesn't make a lot of sense with Chris' age, larger contract and injury history.

    No way the Timberwolves trade the Lakers Kevin Garnett. Neither do the Clippers or Pacers send Elton Brand or Jermaine O'Neal, respectively. Sorry Laker fans.

    Another name not mentioned often is Kenyon Martin. The Denver season has been a disappointment, but with Nene going down with a sprained MCL, KMart just doesn't seem likely. The Nuggets are desperate for a shooting guard and the Lakers can' t help them there . . . so scratch Martin off the list.

    That leaves the Baby Bulls (Eddy Curry, Tyson Chandler) and the Wizards' Kwame Brown. Chicago is finally winning. Doesn't seem likely they blow it up to acquire Caron Butler and various Lakers.

    Kwame would seem to be the most likely out of the three. If the Wizards had their sites set on Butler, it would take Jumaine Jones and Brian Cook as well. That seems a lot to give up for a restricted free agent who was yet to really blossom in the NBA. After a nice stretch or two last season, Kwame has yet to recover from injury. If the Lakers could nab Kwame for package of Luke Walton, Tierre Brown and Devean George . . . Kupchak will have given up very little to take on somewhat of a risky player.

    Obviously there's more options available, but the Boozer scenario seems to make the most sense for both teams.

    Other Guard Options
    The Lakers cannot trade Lamar Odom for Jason Kidd, when the Lakers so desperately need rebounding help and size. Unless the Nets want to give away Kidd for relatively nothing, a Los Angeles\New Jersey trade would seem far fetched.

    Other fantasy pick ups like Steve Francis, Allen Iverson, Stephon Marbury, Paul Pierce or Michael Redd are just not in the cards. Ray Allen may be on the block, but he plays the same position as Kobe and there doesn't seem to be any reasonable deal to be done.

    Jason Williams of the Memphis Grizzlies would be a relatively big name point guard acquisition, but the Grizzlies don't have the roster space to add on additional players. They also don't need any small forwards . . . Memphis just isn't a likely trade partner.

    The Lakers could be looking at the Portland point guards, Nick Van Exel and Damon Stoudamire, but neither makes real sense.

    The Bottom Line
    Phil Jackson is likely to be the Lakers' next coach. The rumor is that a five-year deal worth $50 million dollars was negotiated and agreed to in Hawaii by Phil's agent who was (allegedly) meeting with Laker owner Dr. Buss. Jackson has engagements scheduled throughout the next couple of months. He'd take over after the season.

    All the signs were there, including Brian Shaw and Kurt Rambis taking on assistant coaching duties. Were the New York Knicks even close to contending this season, LA might have had some competition. The final straw was LA offering Tex Winter a job (he declined).

    Sure this is just rumor and until the contract is signed, it's not valid, but expect Phil and the triangle offense.

    In the meantime, the Lakers could have this major trade done before the end of the All-Star Game.

    My money is on Carlos Boozer . . . but either way I lose $50 to fellow Hoopsworld columnist, Mario Morgan. Betting that the Lakers don't make a move at the deadline may have been a mistake.

  • #2
    Re: Possible Laker trade?

    LOL, what an idiot. I think the Jazz would try Boozer at the 5 before making such a stupid trade.

    Alright, lets take Butler... a good player, an injured and now crappy George, and a forever old Vlade who hasn't been on the court all season.

    Sorry Laker fans, it's going to have to take at least Odom to try and pry Boozer away, and from the sounds of things, it could be a good deal for both teams. I think Odom plays better at the SF, where he uses his athleticism more.
    "It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

    ----------------- Reggie Miller

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Possible Laker trade?

      Oh... and also Hoopsworld is very crappy when they don't use actual articles.
      "It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

      ----------------- Reggie Miller

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Possible Laker trade?

        Yeah, normally I would aggree with you, but ehh... Utah did just trade away Arroyo for a very LOW 1st rounder and a little cash relief.

        Regards,

        Mourning
        2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

        2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

        2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Possible Laker trade?

          "Bboth Lamar Odom and Carlos Boozer sat out the Lakers\Jazz game right before the All-Star Break. That may be a coincidence."

          Let's see, Boozer hurt his leg the game before and Odum was sick. I guess that would be a coincidence.

          Comment

          Working...
          X