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

Free agency of 2017 - analysis for every team (in six separate posts)

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

  • Free agency of 2017 - analysis for every team (in six separate posts)

    Atlanta Hawks : Millsap is sure to exercise his player option – will Hawks let him go or try to re-sign? I expect the latter – preferably via sign&trade. They are an aging team not able to get over the hump of real contend-hood as they are constructed now and keeping Millsap (including just keeping his cap-hold in books) will prevent any moves to improve in free agency (they would be above the cap).

    Without Millsap, they can easily retain the rest of their free agents if they wish. That means that RFAs Hardaway & Muscala stay (barring some other team paying apeshit for them) while Sefolosha is likely to be released as he is too old to make sense for a re-building team.

    Free agents available : Millsap, Sefolosha, Ilyasova?


    Boston Celtics
    : In a great position of having max.salary cap-space and a contending team for free agents to like... They can even likely retain at least two out of three from free agents to be : Amir, Olynyk, Jerebko.

    The rumors that they will go all-in for Hayward seem sensible enough – failing that, I could see f ex Gallinari + PJ Tucker fitting into C's salary room. Blake Griffin as a dark horse?
    Free agents available : Only whomever is deemed surplus... Gerald Green James Young


    Brooklyn Nets : Some light at the end of the corridor? They got a full roster, no one to renew, some 25 mil in salary room and couple of non-guaranteed contracts to shed if opportunity presents itself.

    Additionally – they basically are open for improvements in ANY position barring maybe the center (and youth movement would be welcome even there). Look for Brooklyn to actively chase ”value-deals” on capable players at 10-mil range who somehow slip thru' cracks...

    Free agents available : Nothing to interest ANYONE!


    Chicago Bulls : Will D-Wade stay or exercise his player option? That is a 24 Mil question which everything basically rotates around... Seems improbable/impossible any team would fork such money for Wade in free agency anymore, but once-great players often have still-great egos so maybe Dwyane really believes he can both a) make that money and b) play for contender. 50/50-situation IMO.

    If Wade stays, Bulls are probably best served to stay pat for a year, let the disastrous Wade/Rondo -experience run out and recharge in Summer'18.

    But if Wade bolts??? Bulls would suddenly have 40+ Mil in salary cap, still got Jimmy Butler as a ”selling point” & only Rondo as a ”contract albatross”. That would be a nice base to try for an immediate turn-around.

    Free agents available : Probably quite a few – I don't see Bulls fighting to keep Mirotic or MCW. Overpay/speculate just a little bit and any of them is available. Anthony Morrow is on a way out of the league.


    Charlotte Hornets : The most boring free-agency team around. Way above the salary cap – so not in play. Way below luxury tax – so no panic. No free agents to mention.

    That is not to say that Hornets may not look to spice things up with some trades – but as far as free agency go, they are absolutely irrelevant both as a bidder and loser.

  • #2
    Re: Free agency of 2017 - analysis for every team (in six separate posts)

    Millsap I don't think our chances are good though.

    Thabo could be a fit, in theory. Still a solid player.

    Mirotic, maybe? I don't understand why he's so bad this year. Also, he could be restricted, though it doesn't seem like the Bulls want to keep him.

    A request. Since you're already going through team by team, how about listing the guys with salary dump potential too? Guys like Bazemore, for example. Maybe even guys like Brook Lopez, though he won't be a pure salary dump. Hmm, kinda hard to draw the line.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Free agency of 2017 - analysis for every team (in six separate posts)

      Originally posted by wintermute View Post
      Millsap I don't think our chances are good though.
      Hindsight, spilled milk etc. but didn't he sign with the Hawks for essentially the same money as West in 2013 but for less years.....
      Last edited by Downtown Bang!; 03-13-2017, 04:10 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Free agency of 2017 - analysis for every team (in six separate posts)

        If Hayward has the chance to get back together with Stevens - nobody else has a chance at him.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Free agency of 2017 - analysis for every team (in six separate posts)

          Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
          If Hayward has the chance to get back together with Stevens - nobody else has a chance at him.
          I doubt he passes up an opportunity to play at home in front of friends and family for an opportunity to join his college coach. I think for players in most cases? Playing at home gives them a good balance in a tough 82 game season. Because you can visit family and stuff. Stevens has a job to do so you're not gonna have his shoulder to cry on in those those tough moments of the 82 game grind. Look how important going home was for Lebron.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Free agency of 2017 - analysis for every team (in six separate posts)

            Originally posted by Grimp View Post
            I doubt he passes up an opportunity to play at home in front of friends and family for an opportunity to join his college coach. I think for players in most cases? Playing at home gives them a good balance in a tough 82 game season. Because you can visit family and stuff. Stevens has a job to do so you're not gonna have his shoulder to cry on in those those tough moments of the 82 game grind. Look how important going home was for Lebron.
            The obvious question is whether we can afford to even offer him the MAX in the first place.

            I will leave it to Salary Cap experts like wintermute and PetPaima to let us know whether there is even a chance that we can dump AlJeff and Monta for nothing ( which I doubt can happen ), while offering a NEAR MAX ( at the very least...if not more ) to Teague and then figure out how to offer an extension for a MAX offer for PG13 in the coming months.

            That's 3 MAX level contracts on the book for Teague ( Near MAX ), Hayward and PG13. My guess is that it's near impossible to consider such a scenario where we can be in a position to make such a run in the coming months.
            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Free agency of 2017 - analysis for every team (in six separate posts)

              Originally posted by CableKC View Post
              The obvious question is whether we can afford to even offer him the MAX in the first place.

              I will leave it to Salary Cap experts like wintermute and PetPaima to let us know whether there is even a chance that we can dump AlJeff and Monta for nothing ( which I doubt can happen ), while offering a NEAR MAX ( at the very least...if not more ) to Teague and then figure out how to offer an extension for a MAX offer for PG13 in the coming months.

              That's 3 MAX level contracts on the book for Teague ( Near MAX ), Hayward and PG13. My guess is that it's near impossible to consider such a scenario where we can be in a position to make such a run in the coming months.


              Well the cap jumps (#1 and #2) were supposed to give teams a better shot at having max deals and adding more talent. There is a way to get Hayward and extend Paul and re-sign Teague. I don't see Hayward getting "crazy" money. For example... do you think Hayward should get paid as much as Steph Curry? Or Dame Lillard? I don't. I am not sure what Hayward's market value is. He's a good player. But Paul does far more than he does. Defensively, and offensively. Hayward doesn't have the takeover capability that Paul does. Also Paul in the clutch this season has been brilliant. Hayward it seems is not a guy who they can give the ball to in a pressure situation and let him just "work" his man.

              Hayward is more of a shooter. A guy who floats around the perimeter and is dangerous. He can drive too but he is not on Paul's level as an all-around elite talent. Gordon has only scored 30 points 22 times in his career thus far. Paul has scored 30 points in his career 48 times thus far. Now the market dictates that you overpay guys now. But I don't see Hayward as a super-max guy. I think $23 to 25 mil is about what he's worth. Right around what Batum got last Summer.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Free agency of 2017 - analysis for every team (in six separate posts)

                If you want to sign Hayward, it's going to take the max. This isn't a new development people. Oh, and the max contract the Pacers can offer is 4 years/$132 million.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Free agency of 2017 - analysis for every team (in six separate posts)

                  Originally posted by cdash View Post
                  If you want to sign Hayward, it's going to take the max. This isn't a new development people. Oh, and the max contract the Pacers can offer is 4 years/$132 million.
                  You're most likely right but do you feel he's worth over $30 mil per season? I would gladly move Al and Monta to add Hayward but in the event that you can only move Al, I just don't feel Hayward as a player is worth that kind of money.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Free agency of 2017 - analysis for every team (in six separate posts)

                    Originally posted by Grimp View Post
                    You're most likely right but do you feel he's worth over $30 mil per season? I would gladly move Al and Monta to add Hayward but in the event that you can only move Al, I just don't feel Hayward as a player is worth that kind of money.
                    He's worth it.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Free agency of 2017 - analysis for every team (in six separate posts)

                      Originally posted by Grimp View Post
                      I doubt he passes up an opportunity to play at home in front of friends and family for an opportunity to join his college coach. I think for players in most cases? Playing at home gives them a good balance in a tough 82 game season. Because you can visit family and stuff. Stevens has a job to do so you're not gonna have his shoulder to cry on in those those tough moments of the 82 game grind. Look how important going home was for Lebron.
                      How many players sign with their hometown team when they can? I'm guessing its a very low percentage.

                      Some people very much value being with the hometown team. Many others couldn't care less.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Free agency of 2017 - analysis for every team (in six separate posts)

                        Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                        Millsap I don't think our chances are good though.

                        Thabo could be a fit, in theory. Still a solid player.

                        Mirotic, maybe? I don't understand why he's so bad this year. Also, he could be restricted, though it doesn't seem like the Bulls want to keep him.

                        A request. Since you're already going through team by team, how about listing the guys with salary dump potential too? Guys like Bazemore, for example. Maybe even guys like Brook Lopez, though he won't be a pure salary dump. Hmm, kinda hard to draw the line.

                        TBH, we don't have much of a chance to get ANYone...

                        And yes, I will comment on "salary dumps" as soon as I get to any team which is likely to perform such. (Detroit will be 1st)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Free agency of 2017 - analysis for every team (in six separate posts)

                          Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
                          How many players sign with their hometown team when they can? I'm guessing its a very low percentage.

                          Some people very much value being with the hometown team. Many others couldn't care less.
                          True. But it depends on reasons. Some people don't go home because of pressure. Other people have "unsavory" characters in their circle back home. For other people they fear the clingers who'll be hitting them up for stuff all the time. Other folks have none of these problems. They're the lucky ones. Also we're trying to sign him away from Utah. Not Miami, or New York or even L.A..... Utah.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Free agency of 2017 - analysis for every team (in six separate posts)

                            Originally posted by Grimp View Post
                            True. But it depends on reasons. Some people don't go home because of pressure. Other people have "unsavory" characters in their circle back home. For other people they fear the clingers who'll be hitting them up for stuff all the time. Other folks have none of these problems. They're the lucky ones. Also we're trying to sign him away from Utah. Not Miami, or New York or even L.A..... Utah.
                            If only that was the only thing that mattered when it comes to signing a player.

                            The chances of Hayward signing here are very minimal. Is there a chance? Maybe. But I wouldn't count on it.
                            Last edited by Dr. Awesome; 03-14-2017, 12:24 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Free agency of 2017 - analysis for every team (in six separate posts)

                              Originally posted by Grimp View Post
                              Also we're trying to sign him away from Utah. Not Miami, or New York or even L.A..... Utah.
                              From what I've seen, he's settled down quite nicely in Utah. Married (no idea where she's from), kids - and SLC is really a nice place. He doesn't seem like the kind that would need the big city to be happy. Wouldn't shock me if he just stayed there.
                              Last edited by PacerDude; 03-13-2017, 07:14 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X