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

Josh Smith Availability

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

  • Re: Josh Smith Availability

    Originally posted by troyc11a View Post
    Granger is paid like a "Batman" but plays like a "Robin." This has been suggested on this board by many. That is not a controversial statement at all. Granger is a good player being paid like a great one.
    Really? I agree that Granger is forced to play as Batman when he is a Robin, but his pay is comparable to a Robin (10-12M per season). Most elite players in this league make anywhere from 15-20M per season, Danny is well below that.

    In fact, I would venture to say Danny is slightly underpaid. Look at the Spurs - their franchise guy makes 18M per season and the Robin's (Parker/Manu) are making 12-13M. Boozer was just signed as a second fiddle to 14M per season. Josh Smith & Horford are making 12M plus per year.

    I'm not a huge Danny Granger fan, and I'm not even certain he's the 2nd best player on a contender, but I can recognize his value is worth what he is being paid, if not above..

    Comment


    • Re: Josh Smith Availability

      Originally posted by troyc11a View Post
      Granger is paid like a "Batman" but plays like a "Robin." This has been suggested on this board by many. That is not a controversial statement at all. Granger is a good player being paid like a great one.
      The different salaries of the "Batmen" of the legaue:
      Kobe Bryant LA Lakers $24,806,250
      Pau Gasol LA Lakers $17,822,187
      Carmelo Anthony New York $17,149,243
      Dwight Howard Orlando $16,509,600
      Amare Stoudemire New York $16,486,611
      Chris Paul New Orleans $14,940,152
      Deron Williams New Jersey $14,940,152
      LeBron James Miami $14,500,000

      Granger's Salary: $10,973,202
      He's not overpaid. Wanna see overpaid?
      Rashard Lewis Washington $20,514,000
      Michael Redd Milwaukee $18,300,000
      Andrei Kirilenko Utah $17,822,187
      Vince Carter Phoenix $17,300,000
      Zach Randolph Memphis $17,333,333
      Joe Johnson Atlanta $16,324,500 (haha, JJ is gonna make more money than Jordan)
      Originally posted by Piston Prince
      Bobcat fans telling us to cheer up = epic fail season
      "Josh Smith Re-building the city of Detroit one brick at a time"

      Comment


      • Re: Josh Smith Availability

        When I think of our Kryptonite, I think of the Hawks and specifically Josh Smith. With or without new and improved Tyler. Tyler can bang with bigs, but Josh can fly over him in a single bound and swat shots. 2 completely different games. it would be awesome to have them both. Throw draft picks at em...

        Comment


        • Re: Josh Smith Availability

          I think Josh Smith would bring a lot of positive to this team. Defense gets better, he takes the pressure off of Roy of being the only true shot blocker. He's athletic, and a high flier to excite the fans. He's still really young coming straight out of high school, and he's an upgrade in talent.

          Not sure what it takes to get him, but it's something you have to look at.

          I think the Hawks are going to ask for a young center if they do decide to move him, b/c they would like to move Horford to his natural position of PF.

          Do I move Hibbert for Smith... no. A 1st round pick, filler and space...absolutely.

          Comment


          • Re: Josh Smith Availability

            Originally posted by BringJackBack View Post
            ..Except for the part where he isn't overpaid. "Batmen" get paid max contracts. Danny is not getting paid a max contract. He's a good player getting paid like a good player.
            The next 3 years DG is getting paid = $12mill, $13mill, and $14mill.

            I know it is not a max contract, but it is close enough with the current CBA. I am not sure what Danny could have maxed out at anyway. That's still a ton of money and cap space for a guy who doesnt lead! I bet we can all list about 10 players making significantly less who we would trade him for in a heartbeat (excluding rookie contracts would be a little more difficult but possible)

            Comment


            • Re: Josh Smith Availability

              Originally posted by troyc11a View Post
              The next 3 years DG is getting paid = $12mill, $13mill, and $14mill.

              I know it is not a max contract, but it is close enough with the current CBA. I am not sure what Danny could have maxed out at anyway. That's still a ton of money and cap space for a guy who doesnt lead! I bet we can all list about 10 players making significantly less who we would trade him for in a heartbeat (excluding rookie contracts would be a little more difficult but possible)
              I just tried..

              Rajon Rondo
              Manu Ginobli (But he took a pay cut because of loyalty, age, and injury concerns. He could have gotten a HUGE contract with another team if he wanted to)
              Monta Ellis

              Heck I can't even think of 5. Maybe throw in Paul Milsap.

              Comment


              • Re: Josh Smith Availability

                What would Josh Smith's salary do to our resigning/extension of our youth?

                Comment


                • Re: Josh Smith Availability

                  Troy, the things you are saying are really starting to irritate me.

                  - Granger's contract is very fair (if not excellent) value.
                  - Granger might be forced into the "Batman" role (your use of this metaphor is awful) but his contract is that of a 3rd or 2nd option
                  - Josh Smith is an elite PF
                  - Smith is leaps and bounds (literally and figuratively) ahead of Tyler
                  - PF is NOT our strongest position
                  - Not playing in an allstar game does not put you on the same level as others who have not played in all star games
                  - You see no fight in George? I don't even know what to say to you

                  And those are the more "legitimate" things you have said. I am not going to even comment on things you have said like preferring Hinrich for our team then Smith. Actually, I just typed that and got upset.

                  Kirk Hinrich the past 3 years
                  2009 10/4/3 1stl 43%/79% 30min
                  2010 11/5/3 1stl 41%/75% 33min
                  2011 10/4/3 1stl 44%/75% 30min

                  Darren Collison the past 2 years
                  2010 13/6/3 1stl 48%/85% 27min
                  2011 13/5/3 1stl 45%/87% 30min

                  Also, HINRICH IS GETTING PAID 9mill THIS YEAR, plus the 6 year age difference DC is in a different league than Hinrich. Hinrich is an awful fit for our team! With DC, Price and then trying to squeeze some occasional minutes to Lance there really is no room for another backup point guard (yes, Hinrich would be our backup)

                  Now look, I am not saying that Tyler is not great. I love his hustle and what he brings to this team. I also think that his ceiling is a lot higher then most people. BUT you cannot disregard the possibility of adding an explosive Offensive and Defensive who is not getting paid unreasonably.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Josh Smith Availability

                    Originally posted by MyFavMartin View Post
                    What would Josh Smith's salary do to our resigning/extension of our youth?
                    Depends on the new CBA. As it is currently it shouldn't hinder us from resigning Collison and Hibbert to decent contracts. The thing to keep in mind is that Josh Smith is signed for 2 more years after this season. If we keep Poseys contract and let it expire then we should have no problem signing Hibbert to an extension.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Josh Smith Availability

                      Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
                      Depends on the new CBA. As it is currently it shouldn't hinder us from resigning Collison and Hibbert to decent contracts. The thing to keep in mind is that Josh Smith is signed for 2 more years after this season. If we keep Poseys contract and let it expire then we should have no problem signing Hibbert to an extension.
                      Under the current CBA we would technically be able to re-sign everyone. Depending on how far over the luxury tax Simon is willing to go is what really decides, and we don't know how much he would be willing to spend.

                      I doubt we would be able to re-sign them all under a new CBA. I don't know if there will be a hard cap, but I am certain it won't be as easy to re-sign every player.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Josh Smith Availability

                        Would love to get Josh Smith if we didn't have to give up main core. I do think we have a better chance at landing Jefferson though
                        Murph

                        Comment


                        • Re: Josh Smith Availability

                          If Atlanta does consider moving Josh Smith, and wants to lower their payroll in the process, I'd happily give them Paul George and our 1st round pick. That's a great young prospect, a mid-round 1st and they'd shed $8.5M.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Josh Smith Availability

                            Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                            Under the current CBA we would technically be able to re-sign everyone. Depending on how far over the luxury tax Simon is willing to go is what really decides, and we don't know how much he would be willing to spend.

                            I doubt we would be able to re-sign them all under a new CBA. I don't know if there will be a hard cap, but I am certain it won't be as easy to re-sign every player.
                            IF you are talking core guys then we should be able to sign Collison, Hibbert back with a question mark for Hans.

                            I always go back to how the how much the current league payroll is. IMO if half the league is operating at around 60-70 mill you not going to see a HUGE shift in cap space. Most of the teams with power ie big markets aren't going to let the small market dictate how the operate. Do I know for sure? NO but all the gloom and dome is salesmanship IMO and I am not buying it.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Josh Smith Availability

                              cdash, I didn't want to thank every single post of yours, so I am just writing a new post on this. You are absolutely correct in your assessment of JSmoove.

                              - Smith's athelticism around the rim is ridiculous. Our offensive rebounding would improve dramatically. His slashing ability paired with Hibbert's passing (and hopefully McRoberts's as well) would be awesome. The weakside capability/effectiveness of Smith is as good as any other player in the league.

                              - Smith is an active rebounder, which is exactly what we need around the slow footed Hibbert. Hibbert will rebound the ball high off the rim moreso, than travel ten feet to get a board. Smith would be able to make the rebounding reads and basically rebound whatever Hibbert can't get to.

                              - We would have two top five shot blockers in the front court, with plus shot blockers at SF (Granger) and SG (Rush and hopefully George). The length and athelticism he gives us on the defensive side of the ball would be such a marked improvement that he would be well worth his contract to us on just the defensive end of the ball.

                              - He has a versatile offensive game, as long as he stays within about 15-18 feet of the basket. He becomes much less effective the further he gets from the rim. I love how he can take just about any PF off the dribble. He is a coach's dream in the pick and roll, IMO.

                              - He is absolutely better than Tyler. I would make Tyler the centerpiece around trading for Smith. Tyler and our 2011 First would give them about $8-10M in savings, depending on what they do with the pick. Atlanta needs to get Horford some help at center, which could be a foundation for making a deal. Tyson Chandler, Kwame Brown, Sam Dalembert, Greg Oden, Yao Ming. There are going to be a lot of centers available this off-season. The Hawks need to move Horford to PF, sign a better center, and bring Hans off the bench. That would keep Williams at SF, who is an excellent defender. Atlanta doesn't get killed defensively if they move Smith because they have plus defenders at 2-4, plus whichever center they would bring in would give them a plus defender at the five as well. They can afford to move Smith, because he would return the most in a trade and they won't trade Horford. Williams doesn't have a ton of value now that he is getting paid around $7M per.

                              - As for contracts, you have to pay the better players accordingly. Josh Smith is such a game changing player, because of the things he is "elite" at. His athleticism is as good as any PF in the league. He is an elite shot blocker. His athleticism and ability to read player movements, allow him to get as many steals and weakside blocks as he gets. I have said for as long as I have been on this board that Smith would be a great compliment to Hibbert.

                              - I think that we can make some serious noise with a player like Smith. He puts an athletic force between Granger and Hibbert. I think Smith compliments Granger just as much as he compliments Hibbert. Granger's perimeter scoring and outside shooting helps take the scoring burden off Smith and he will get easy looks off of the attention Granger gets. Granger isn't the quickest player, but wouldn't look nearly as bad when he gets blown by with two shot blockers like that behind him. Granger would also get a lot more weakside blocks with players being so concerned about where Hibbert and Smith are.

                              - Smith would also let Collison off the hook a little more defensively. Again for the same rim protection he would give everyone. This would allow Collison to play the lanes more for steals, which kills a team defensively if they don't have the protection behind them. That is why Allen Iverson had three and a half plus-defenders on the floor with him at all times. It afforded him the luxury of playing passing lanes instead of manning up the other PG.

                              Sorry so long, but there are so many reasons why we should look at Josh Smith, that it is incredulous so many would not want him here. We would get more out of Josh Smith than the Hawks get from him, just based on the rotation make-up for both teams. I would not want to give up Granger or Hibbert for him though. He compliments both players so well that it is the reason behind wanting him so much. Hansborough, Rush, George, and Collison are all very likeable, good players. I would give any of them up for Smith, because you can't bring in better players without giving something of value up. If we could send Hans to ATL for Smith, and George to PHI for Iggy, I think you have to consider making those deals work. I think Rush probably has the least value to other teams, but he also would be much easier to sign cheaply going forward of our young guys. It makes sense to keep him around on the second unit. Same with McRoberts. I think Hans and George will command more money in the future and have the value to get a solid return.

                              Sorry so long.
                              "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by pacergod2 View Post

                                - He is absolutely better than Tyler. I would make Tyler the centerpiece around trading for Smith. Tyler and our 2011 First would give them about $8-10M in savings, depending on what they do with the pick. Atlanta needs to get Horford some help at center, which could be a foundation for making a deal. Tyson Chandler, Kwame Brown, Sam Dalembert, Greg Oden, Yao Ming. There are going to be a lot of centers available this off-season. The Hawks need to move Horford to PF, sign a better center, and bring Hans off the bench. That would keep Williams at SF, who is an excellent defender. Atlanta doesn't get killed defensively if they move Smith because they have plus defenders at 2-4, plus whichever center they would bring in would give them a plus defender at the five as well. They can afford to move Smith, because he would return the most in a trade and they won't trade Horford. Williams doesn't have a ton of value now that he is getting paid around $7M per.
                                While I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of Smith, and would love to bring him in, there is no way they will accept Hansbrough (who would be their backup PF behind an All-Star caliber Horford) and a mid-first round pick in a mediocre draft. I am sure they could find a better offer elsewhere.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X