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

If this had been a SINGLE trade...

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

  • #46
    Re: If this had been a SINGLE trade...

    Originally posted by rabidpacersfan View Post
    Um....





    You never answered me in the other thread... how is this about the purse strings being held in check when we just signed like $120 million in contracts over the past couple of days, including the max for Roy and $40 mil/5yrs for Hill? Not a rhetorical question, I feel like I'm missing something here.
    Sorry...didnt see the other thread...its so very, very simple....

    You didnt need the capspace we had to re-sign HIbbert and Hill....We could be over the cap and still re-sign HIll and Hibbert to the deals we did. The point was we couldve signed a max free agent or any other combination of free agents with the capspace we had. Or we couldve made trades just like DAllas did with us. Where they took back more salary than they sent out. We couldve made significant additions to the team while doing pretty much everything else we did. And we didnt. We effectively did not use our capspace that we worked so hard for so many years to get. Then when we didnt use it, and did sign HIll and HIbbert...it all evaporated...

    A tremendous waste. Take the exact same team we have right now. And add Eric Gordon. Or OJ mayo. Or Louis Scola. Or Steve Nash. Or Elton Brand. Or actually a combination of some of these players. Nash was never gonna come here. Thats a given. The point is talent upgrades couldve been made in addition to just the bench fodder. We had the perfect opportunity to upgrade our starters. And didnt. Having it that easy doesnt happen very often. Capspace, flexibility, etc. WE will find out, because going forward were not gonna hve that chance again without major moves....which isnt likely. Just a wasted opportunity. The most inefficient use of capspace of all time. The Barbosa was a perfect example of a great move using capspace. Got a player basically for free. And he expired. Which means we could do it again this offseason. But we knew we had to make big moves before we signed HIll and Hibbert to new deals. Its now apparent that the decision was made that that wasnt gonna happen. Which is most likely why Bird left. Just a shame. The one real chance to add significant assets to the team. And likely be far more competitive in competing for a title. Gone. No matter what happens down the road, this was an opportunity lost.
    The Most Common Cause of Stress is Dealing with Idiots

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: If this had been a SINGLE trade...

      Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
      holy ****, why is this still being brought up? Someone was wrong about a moot point on the internet?! NO ****ING WAY!

      Signing Mahinmi outright means DC and Jones stay. Which means no Augustin. And likely means no Green. The reason we didn't bid on Brand or Scola isn't cause we signed Hibbert and Hill "too soon" its because we couldn't flip Hansbrough for Augustin. Our payroll is going to be around $65 million, thats quite a bit of money. Signing either would put us dangerously close to the Luxury Tax, something Simon wants to avoid and I can respect that.
      Signing Ian straight up wouldn't have used all our cap space and wouldn't have stopped any of the other moves. The team could simply move Jones for the 2cd. from NY and find a team wanting a starting pg. At worst you get another 2cd. for DC but I really think you could get a 1st. We'd have the same team and same salary only we'd have 2 future picks.
      Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: If this had been a SINGLE trade...

        Anybody knows how much cap space we have next year?
        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: If this had been a SINGLE trade...

          Originally posted by cinotimz View Post
          Sorry...didnt see the other thread...its so very, very simple....

          You didnt need the capspace we had to re-sign HIbbert and Hill....We could be over the cap and still re-sign HIll and Hibbert to the deals we did. The point was we couldve signed a max free agent or any other combination of free agents with the capspace we had. Or we couldve made trades just like DAllas did with us. Where they took back more salary than they sent out. We couldve made significant additions to the team while doing pretty much everything else we did. And we didnt. We effectively did not use our capspace that we worked so hard for so many years to get. Then when we didnt use it, and did sign HIll and HIbbert...it all evaporated...

          A tremendous waste. Take the exact same team we have right now. And add Eric Gordon. Or OJ mayo. Or Louis Scola. Or Steve Nash. Or Elton Brand. Or actually a combination of some of these players. Nash was never gonna come here. Thats a given. The point is talent upgrades couldve been made in addition to just the bench fodder. We had the perfect opportunity to upgrade our starters. And didnt. Having it that easy doesnt happen very often. Capspace, flexibility, etc. WE will find out, because going forward were not gonna hve that chance again without major moves....which isnt likely. Just a wasted opportunity. The most inefficient use of capspace of all time. The Barbosa was a perfect example of a great move using capspace. Got a player basically for free. And he expired. Which means we could do it again this offseason. But we knew we had to make big moves before we signed HIll and Hibbert to new deals. Its now apparent that the decision was made that that wasnt gonna happen. Which is most likely why Bird left. Just a shame. The one real chance to add significant assets to the team. And likely be far more competitive in competing for a title. Gone. No matter what happens down the road, this was an opportunity lost.
          Yep we waisted a huge opportunity, I don't think we are having cap space in a long time.
          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: If this had been a SINGLE trade...

            Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
            holy ****, why is this still being brought up? Someone was wrong about a moot point on the internet?! NO ****ING WAY!

            Signing Mahinmi outright means DC and Jones stay. Which means no Augustin. And likely means no Green. The reason we didn't bid on Brand or Scola isn't cause we signed Hibbert and Hill "too soon" its because we couldn't flip Hansbrough for Augustin. Our payroll is going to be around $65 million, thats quite a bit of money. Signing either would put us dangerously close to the Luxury Tax, something Simon wants to avoid and I can respect that.
            Signing Mahinmi outright means we dont give away DC and Jones for nothing. No Augustin? Ok....Thats one possibility. Which means we have DC for one more year at about a million and half less than Augustin and most would agree theyre similar one way or the other....so for a team thats watching finances, whats the point. Its not like they signed Augustin to a multi year deal. DC likely couldve beeen traded for a draft pick of some sort at the very least. If one wanted. As for no Green. Thats simply not true. They easily couldve signed Green. Hell they could have signed all of them.

            And youre just flat out wrong on why we arent bidding on BRand and Scola. Has nothing to do with flipping Tyler for Augustin. And it absolutely is because we signed Hibbert and hill too soon. We had the capspace to pursue both Brand and Scola. In fact we couldve conceivably gotten both. But the minute we re-signed HIbbert and Hill, the capspace disappeared. And was no longer and option. But the bottom line is its now quite apparent that we didnt go after either of them or anyone else because we simply didnt want to invest the money....
            Last edited by cinotimz; 07-13-2012, 08:45 PM.
            The Most Common Cause of Stress is Dealing with Idiots

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: If this had been a SINGLE trade...

              Originally posted by cinotimz View Post
              Sorry...didnt see the other thread...its so very, very simple....

              You didnt need the capspace we had to re-sign HIbbert and Hill....We could be over the cap and still re-sign HIll and Hibbert to the deals we did.
              Yes even I understand that.

              Originally posted by cinotimz View Post
              The point was we couldve signed a max free agent or any other combination of free agents with the capspace we had. Or we couldve made trades just like DAllas did with us. Where they took back more salary than they sent out. We couldve made significant additions to the team while doing pretty much everything else we did. And we didnt. We effectively did not use our capspace that we worked so hard for so many years to get. Then when we didnt use it, and did sign HIll and HIbbert...it all evaporated...

              A tremendous waste. Take the exact same team we have right now. And add Eric Gordon. Or OJ mayo. Or Louis Scola. Or Steve Nash. Or Elton Brand. Or actually a combination of some of these players. Nash was never gonna come here. Thats a given. The point is talent upgrades couldve been made in addition to just the bench fodder. We had the perfect opportunity to upgrade our starters. And didnt. Having it that easy doesnt happen very often. Capspace, flexibility, etc. WE will find out, because going forward were not gonna hve that chance again without major moves....which isnt likely. Just a wasted opportunity. The most inefficient use of capspace of all time. The Barbosa was a perfect example of a great move using capspace. Got a player basically for free. And he expired. Which means we could do it again this offseason. But we knew we had to make big moves before we signed HIll and Hibbert to new deals. Its now apparent that the decision was made that that wasnt gonna happen. Which is most likely why Bird left. Just a shame. The one real chance to add significant assets to the team. And likely be far more competitive in competing for a title. Gone. No matter what happens down the road, this was an opportunity lost.
              What you're actually saying is that we didn't get the players you wanted us to get (Gordon, Mayo, Scola, Brand), not that we didn't spend money.

              I agree that this feels like a bit of a missed opportunity, but I think you're wrong that it was about money, unless you mean going into the luxury tax (which is NOT an option for this team under the new CBA).

              The team was clearly prepared to go over the cap, they just spent a ton of cash.

              Like you said Nash was probably a pipe dream. Gordon was too risky I think. I agree that Brand/Scola are kind of head-scratchers but we don't know the whole story yet.

              Also, we still have the MLE and we have the whole summer to make trades. Remember the West signing didn't happen until pretty late in the off-season last year. I think we might still make one or two smallish moves over the summer.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: If this had been a SINGLE trade...

                Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
                Signing Ian straight up wouldn't have used all our cap space and wouldn't have stopped any of the other moves. The team could simply move Jones for the 2cd. from NY and find a team wanting a starting pg. At worst you get another 2cd. for DC but I really think you could get a 1st. We'd have the same team and same salary only we'd have 2 future picks.
                Bingo....we wasted players...we wasted capspace...makes no sense....its like a friggen firesale....only lots of activity to try and mask the fact that a fire is actually going on...
                The Most Common Cause of Stress is Dealing with Idiots

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: If this had been a SINGLE trade...

                  Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
                  Signing Ian straight up wouldn't have used all our cap space and wouldn't have stopped any of the other moves. The team could simply move Jones for the 2cd. from NY and find a team wanting a starting pg. At worst you get another 2cd. for DC but I really think you could get a 1st. We'd have the same team and same salary only we'd have 2 future picks.
                  So you think the front office knew they could get two easy picks by making a couple of phone calls and decided to trade them together for absolutely nothing instead? (since Mahinimi could be signed straight up). That would be an absurd level of incompetence. Since it's not likely the front office is that incompetent, the simplest answer is that those trades really weren't available.

                  Does that mean it wasn't a bad trade? Not at all. The front office could be wrong for valuing cap space over keeping Collison/Jones or trading them somewhere else. But if the front office could have their cake and eaten it too (gotten all the cap space they wanted and gotten picks) they would have done it. The front office clearly understands that getting everything you want in a deal is better than only getting some of what you want.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: If this had been a SINGLE trade...

                    Originally posted by rabidpacersfan View Post
                    Yes even I understand that.



                    What you're actually saying is that we didn't get the players you wanted us to get (Gordon, Mayo, Scola, Brand), not that we didn't spend money..
                    Absolutely positively not...its about maximizing assets. In this case, a huge amount of capspace...I didnt care who they get really. In fact, I can totally understand the argument against Gordon. I also understand the argument for. But you dont just let the capspace evaporate. Not when ur already falling behind the upper echelon as theyre getting better. Im telling you. An opportunity like we had happens very rarely. Especially with the young core we have. And it came at the expense of a lot of tough years. Then to basically **** it all away, well that makes sense. We have been clamoring for years about being able to get a difference makeer. Game changer. Alpha dog. Well guess what...WE had the capspace to do it. We had the young pieces to do it...We have our draft picks to do it. And we did nothing. Nothing.

                    Well nothing but add some bench fodder. Is there anyone here who thinks Green, Mahinmi or Augustin will turn into a game changer/alpha dog?
                    The Most Common Cause of Stress is Dealing with Idiots

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: If this had been a SINGLE trade...

                      Originally posted by cinotimz View Post
                      Signing Mahinmi outright means we dont give away DC and Jones for nothing. No Augustin? Ok....Thats one possibility. Which means we have DC for one more year at about a million and half less than Augustin and most would agree theyre similar one way or the other....so for a team thats watching finances, whats the point. Its not like they signed Augustin to a multi year deal. DC likely couldve beeen traded for a draft pick of some sort at the very least. If one wanted. As for no Green. Thats simply not true. They easily couldve signed Green. Hell they could have signed all of them.

                      And youre just flat out wrong on why we arent bidding on BRand and Scola. Has nothing to do with flipping Tyler for Augustin. And it absolutely is because we signed Hibbert and hill too soon. We had the capspace to pursue both Brand and Scola. In fact we couldve conceivably gotten both. But the minute we re-signed HIbbert and Hill, the capspace disappeared. And was no longer and option. But the bottom line is its now quite apparent that we didnt go after either of them or anyone else because we simply didnt want to invest the money....
                      Which is exactly what i said. They didn't want to add onto the $65 million payroll. Had they flipped Tyler for Augustin, our payroll would have been lower, they would have been more likely to put in a bid. I know we had space to do it before we resigned Hibbert and Hill. But it didn't matter because of what the payroll would have been with all those players together.

                      Any no we couldn't not have signed all those players and kept DC and Jones. We would have been over the luxury tax. No way that is gonna happen dude. And yeah Augustin and DC are similar except for one thing, Augustin can actually pass.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: If this had been a SINGLE trade...

                        Originally posted by cinotimz View Post
                        Absolutely positively not...its about maximizing assets. In this case, a huge amount of capspace...I didnt care who they get really. In fact, I can totally understand the argument against Gordon. I also understand the argument for. But you dont just let the capspace evaporate. Not when ur already falling behind the upper echelon as theyre getting better. Im telling you. An opportunity like we had happens very rarely. Especially with the young core we have. And it came at the expense of a lot of tough years. Then to basically **** it all away, well that makes sense. We have been clamoring for years about being able to get a difference makeer. Game changer. Alpha dog. Well guess what...WE had the capspace to do it. We had the young pieces to do it...We have our draft picks to do it. And we did nothing. Nothing.
                        like I asked on the last page, what moves would you have made?

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: If this had been a SINGLE trade...

                          Originally posted by cinotimz View Post
                          Signing Mahinmi outright means we dont give away DC and Jones for nothing. No Augustin? Ok....Thats one possibility. Which means we have DC for one more year at about a million and half less than Augustin and most would agree theyre similar one way or the other....so for a team thats watching finances, whats the point. Its not like they signed Augustin to a multi year deal. DC likely couldve beeen traded for a draft pick of some sort at the very least. If one wanted. As for no Green. Thats simply not true. They easily couldve signed Green. Hell they could have signed all of them.

                          And youre just flat out wrong on why we arent bidding on BRand and Scola. Has nothing to do with flipping Tyler for Augustin. And it absolutely is because we signed Hibbert and hill too soon. We had the capspace to pursue both Brand and Scola. In fact we couldve conceivably gotten both. But the minute we re-signed HIbbert and Hill, the capspace disappeared. And was no longer and option. But the bottom line is its now quite apparent that we didnt go after either of them or anyone else because we simply didnt want to invest the money....
                          The Pacers only had about 5 million or so left before signing Hibbert and Hill. They wouldn't have been able to get Brand and Scola because even with the low bid for Brand, if they won that they would have only even maybe had the minimum bid for Scola. It's possible they wouldn't have even had that much left.

                          So essentially that's what the Pacers gave up on. 5 million or so. And reading between the lines with Pritchard's interview, it sounds like there was pressure from Hibbert and Hill's camp to get their deals done, so they were working with a clock. IMO, passing on the last 5 million of the cap is not a sign of failure to invest money in the team. And it's quite possible the number is lower than that.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: If this had been a SINGLE trade...

                            Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post
                            So you think the front office knew they could get two easy picks by making a couple of phone calls and decided to trade them together for absolutely nothing instead? (since Mahinimi could be signed straight up). That would be an absurd level of incompetence. Since it's not likely the front office is that incompetent, the simplest answer is that those trades really weren't available.

                            Does that mean it wasn't a bad trade? Not at all. The front office could be wrong for valuing cap space over keeping Collison/Jones or trading them somewhere else. But if the front office could have their cake and eaten it too (gotten all the cap space they wanted and gotten picks) they would have done it. The front office clearly understands that getting everything you want in a deal is better than only getting some of what you want.
                            Yes, I do think it would have been very easy to move both players. What our front office did in giving away DC alone is very bad business and it is an incompetent move. DC will be the starting pg for the Mavs.
                            Do you really think that you couldn't get anything at all for him? We got nothing since Ian could have been signed outright.
                            Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: If this had been a SINGLE trade...

                              Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
                              Yes, I do think it would have been very easy to move both players. What our front office did in giving away DC alone is very bad business and it is an incompetent move. DC will be the starting pg for the Mavs.
                              Do you really think that you couldn't get anything at all for him? We got nothing since Ian could have been signed outright.
                              Wait, you mean DC, the only point guard on the Dallas roster, will be the starting point guard? NO WAY!

                              Its not like he is starting over someone good lol.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: If this had been a SINGLE trade...

                                Originally posted by Shade View Post
                                If anything, DC's stock went up due to his performance in the Miami series.

                                For this trade to be a win, Ian is going to have to be a LOT better than I think he is.
                                Wait a minute. Is this not something called "the Croshere effect"? We know where that got us. If anything, it has led us to believe that we want to see consistently good performance over a period of time, and not just in a single playoff series, before we start to get all warm and giggly.

                                Remember the saying "the sun shines even on a dog's arse one day". The Miami series may very well have been Collison's "one day".

                                I was very high on the acquisition of Collison, and I loved Croshere. But sadly neither ever showed us consistently the glimpse of promise that they teased us with in the playoffs.

                                I am in the camp that believes that, taken as a whole, our recent acquisitions have served us well to improve our bench while keeping both our total salaries and roster size to a manageable level that will still accommodate additional personnel.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X