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

Granger traded to Philly

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

  • Re: Granger traded to Philly

    As a fan, we get it both ways. We can see the business side and the loyal side.

    We get to be part and enjoy the ride, we can be happy we probably made the team better by adding Turner and dumping Granger, but also sad that we got rid of a player that busted his *** for us for almost a decade.

    I'm sure Danny loved it here, loved the city and the fans and his teammates, but when you can do a no-brainer deal like Bird was able to do, as an executive, you have to do it. Just hours before the deadline I was amongst the opinion that a lot of others shared in that GM's have seen Granger's not so great play coming off the injury and that no one would want him.

    But, Tankadelphia was glad to help us in our quest to bring a championship to Indy by giving us a player who's played better this year and a lot younger. You can't let your emotions get in the way of that. A trade like this doesn't happen that often, and it basically put more fuel in the "Let's win a damn championship" fire, as if there wasn't already a lot of fuel.

    There really is no loyalty in sports, and that's fine. It's a business. It's a business of winning, making money, and staying competitive.

    It's a business for the players as well, making as much money as they can and winning as well. But first and foremost it's about the money.

    As a fan I'm here for the memories, the nostalgia and winning championships. It's not like we're being paid millions to watch.

    If Danny wasn't offered a big enough contract in August of 2009, he leaves. And that's not a shot at him. It's reality.

    Roy was ready to play for RipCity 2 summers ago until we finally matched the contract.

    Lance will go play for the worst team in the league next year if they pay him right. We aren't going to get a hometown/loyalty/we drafted you when no one else wanted to discount for Lance. His agent will be trying to get every penny he can from the Pacers. That's fine. That's how it works. If the Cavs offer Lance a crazy deal, you best bet he's on a plane to Cleveland ready to ink that deal. He'd be silly not to.

    I mean I suppose it's possible he'd give us a discount, but I would not count on that. A young up and coming star who's being paid nickels by NBA standards is going to look for his payday first, then winning next. I don't fault anyone for that.

    I wish Danny could have been along for the ride, though. But he'll be fine as it looks like he's going to be waived and hopefully sign with a playoff team somewhere.
    Super Bowl XLI Champions
    2000 Eastern Conference Champions




    Comment


    • Re: Granger traded to Philly

      Originally posted by littlerichard54 View Post
      I have heard the rumors that Granger will be waived. Any connection to Miami clearing a roster spot?
      Wouldn't that be a plot twist.
      "We've got to be very clear about this. We don't want our players hanging around with murderers," said Larry Bird, Pacers president.

      Comment


      • Re: Granger traded to Philly

        Originally posted by The Future View Post
        Dont like the deal at all.

        Granger wasnt fitting off the bench, do you think Turner will with Stephenson as the main handler?

        He needs the ball to be effective, and he isnt a good three point shooter.
        I think they are going to limit's Stephenson's time with the 2nd unit now

        Comment


        • Re: Granger traded to Philly

          Originally posted by The Future View Post
          Dont like the deal at all.

          Granger wasnt fitting off the bench, do you think Turner will with Stephenson as the main handler?

          He needs the ball to be effective, and he isnt a good three point shooter.
          Turner can still defend even when he's not making shots.

          It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

          Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
          Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
          NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

          Comment


          • Re: Granger traded to Philly

            Don't think I saw this posted so far.. Bill Simmons and Zach Lowe's take from their Trade Deadline Diary

            http://grantland.com/features/the-trade-deadline-diary/

            Zach Lowe (3:45 EST)
            Whoa! This is like when you go see a bad comedy movie, only you decide to stick around for the credits, and they unleash a surprise blooper reel that tops the entire movie! The Sixers just dumped Evan Turner on the Pacers for Danny Granger!


            Zach Lowe (3:47 EST)
            And … let’s settle down. Turner has been only OK this season. Let’s not act like the Pacers are acquiring the missing piece here. They are taking a flier on Turner doing what Granger was trying to do: fill the modest wing minutes Indy was giving to Solomon Hill types before Granger came back. That’s it. Viewed that way, Turner could be an important upgrade.


            Zach Lowe (3:52 EST)
            The negative stuff: Turner can’t shoot from 3-point range, and he’s a very bad perimeter defender with so-so instincts and a disastrously slow and out of whack first step on defense.

            The good-to-middling stuff: He’s a tricky ball-handler who does well on the pick-and-roll, has learned to draw fouls by taking one extra bounce toward the rim, and throws nifty passes in tight spaces. He’s a decent midrange shooter when open, even though he lost the corner 3 this season after flashing it last season. He’s putting up strong per-game stats — 17 points, 6 boards — but Philly’s insane pace and lack of overall talent around him are inflating those numbers.
            Put broadly: Turner is just not that good an NBA player, and the things he does well require him having the basketball. Well, Lance Stephenson has already turned into the ball-handling captain of the second unit, even pushing C.J. Watson, a nominal point guard, mostly off the ball. Stephenson’s a good enough 3-point shooter to spot up around Turner-centric plays, but that would represent a large rejiggering of Indy’s second-unit offense late in the game. Turner isn’t providing much spacing as a spot-up guy around Stephenson, and he’s probably a defensive downgrade even from a hobbled Granger. And those bench units have survived based upon very stingy defense. Turner might be able to goose the offense a bit by pushing the base, running the occasional pick-and-roll, and driving past defenders when Stephenson kicks the ball to him on the perimeter. But we have to see that in action.
            Bill Simmons (4:04 EST)
            I concede all of those points. But Granger looks done to me – we just watched a 24-game sample size of someone who couldn’t shoot anymore and lost his brakes. You lose your brakes in the NBA, you’re done. They couldn’t have relied on him against Miami … and who knows if he would have broken down before then? Turner offers the following things: creates his own shot, played in big games (college and pro), a little fearless (irrationally so), can play either guard position, provides an extra set of young legs … oh, and remember his 26-point game on Opening Night when Philly shocked the defending champs? I’d rather take my chances with Turner than Granger in Round 3. Plus, they saved some money and added Lavoy Allen, who quietly averaged 20 minutes a game in the 2012 playoffs when Philly almost made the conference finals. You can throw either of those guys into a playoff game without wincing. You still liked the gamble for Indy, right?

            Zach Lowe (4:10 EST)
            Yes. This is a free rental of a strange NBA talent. The Pacers give up only an expiring and a future second-round pick, per a source familiar the deal. A team with shaky ball-handling tendencies could certainly use another ball-handler. I don’t see Allen playing real minutes with four rotation bigs and Andrew Bynum already around, but a center who can walk and chew gum is always nice to have around. Shows you how far the market for Turner fell, too. As I said before, picks are moving to some degree, but Indiana had already moved its 2014 pick for Luis Scola, and it appears only teams in urgent win-now mode are willing to even consider dealing first-rounders.

            Bill Simmons (4:11 EST)
            And as you predicted right after the Gortat trade happened, Phoenix was smart to grab that first-rounder for him right away, if only because you never know when the market might change? Clearly, it changed – Hawes and Turner fetched less than Gortat. I loved Indiana’s gamble on Turner, personally. Just don’t think they risked anything. Plus, I’m excited for how Grantland’s Mark Titus handles this one – his hometown Pacers acquiring his archenemy from his college days (the man Titus nicknamed “The Villain”), then going into battle against Miami and his good buddy Greg Oden in Round 3? Can you say “conflict of interest?”

            Any chance Turner re-signs with the Pacers and haunts Titus for the rest of the decade?
            Zach Lowe (4:15 EST)
            Let’s not act as if Turner gives Indiana huge leverage when negotiating with Stephenson this summer. Both Turner and Stephenson are free agents, which is why Indiana can do this deal in the first place. They couldn’t flip Granger for a player who carried money into next season, since that would imperil Indy’s ability to re-sign Stephenson without going into the tax. Stephenson is clearly a better two-way player than Turner, he’s two years younger, and he will command a higher market value. The Pacers want Stephenson. They are not excited about Turner as a potential alternative.

            But for this season? He should be an upgrade over Granger, who has lost his jumper and off-the-bounce oomph. And the Pacers won’t ask much of him. A healthy Turner also gives Indiana more flexibility in going small against Miami, though the Pacers have been loath to do that, and the Heat have been playing bigger of late. The Sixers get another second-round pick, a buyout candidate in Granger, and they hit the salary floor. Hooray! Thaddeus Young is weeping somewhere right now. Philly might not win five games the rest of the season.
            Bill Simmons (4:23 EST)
            Philly’s over/under for wins in Vegas was 16½. Right now, they’re 15-40. And they’re trotting out the likes of Byron Mullens, Eric Maynor, Tony Wroten and a sobbing Thad the rest of the way. They might not get to 17 wins! That would be an amazing “under” cover. As for Indiana, let’s all agree that “The Villain” makes the Heat-Pacers playoff series a little more fun. Maybe this trade deadline was a belated success – at least SOMEBODY did something. We may have blown the Celeb Game on Friday thanks to six straight missed free throws and a little too much Kevin Hart, but hey, we’ll always have the 2014 Trade Deadline column.

            Comment


            • Re: Granger traded to Philly

              Originally posted by Anthem View Post
              I doubt it. I think he genuinely doesn't like LeBron. It's not like PG, where he and Bron are buds.

              I think it's more likely he goes out West.
              I hope he ends up with the Pelicans and gets to finish his career at home.

              Comment


              • Re: Granger traded to Philly

                Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                Turner can still defend even when he's not making shots.
                I dont think hes a good defender. Average. He doesnt have the length either.

                Comment


                • Re: Granger traded to Philly

                  Originally posted by The Future View Post
                  I dont think hes a good defender. Average. He doesnt have the length either.
                  How good a defender is granger?

                  It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                  Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                  Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                  NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                  Comment


                  • Re: Granger traded to Philly

                    Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                    Turner can still defend even when he's not making shots.
                    So can Danny. His D has been solid this year.
                    This space for rent.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Granger traded to Philly

                      Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                      What did granger have?
                      Nothing... He looks done.

                      But this team needs a wing who can hit the three consistently. Turner/Stephenson is a bad combo together. Granger was supposed to be that guy who can spread the floor and shoot threes at a high percentage.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Granger traded to Philly

                        Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                        So can Danny. His D has been solid this year.
                        Which Danny are we discussing?

                        It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                        Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                        Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                        NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                        Comment


                        • Re: Granger traded to Philly

                          Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                          Which Danny are we discussing?
                          Hmm. Not sure how to say anything clearer than "this year."

                          Danny's shot was off, there's no denying it. But he was moving fine. Did a good job getting into the lane, playing help defense, and staying in front of his man. Hard to say if "a very bad perimeter defender with so-so instincts and a disastrously slow and out of whack first step on defense" is a step up or down (on the defensive side of the ball, at least).
                          This space for rent.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Granger traded to Philly

                            Originally posted by Jessen View Post

                            The locker room causes me some concern. You introduce 3 new players, 2 of which have questionable personalities, to one of the tightest locker rooms out there. And you send 2 players packing, one of which is somewhat of a father figure to your young group of players.

                            I hope they are all able to get through it and move on. If I feel this sick to my stomach about the situation, lord knows those guys are hurting.
                            Not this garbage again. Bynum and who? Who are we prematurely condemning this time?

                            P.S. I know you think the players are all on one knee too grief stricken to move, asking each other how to carry on as the sun slowly sets in the background, but that's almost definitely not reality.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Granger traded to Philly

                              Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                              Hmm. Not sure how to say anything clearer than "this year."

                              Danny's shot was off, there's no denying it. But he was moving fine. Did a good job getting into the lane, playing help defense, and staying in front of his man. Hard to say if "a very bad perimeter defender with so-so instincts and a disastrously slow and out of whack first step on defense" is a step up or down (on the defensive side of the ball, at least).
                              That's an incredibly rosy picture. Granger was never quick it begin with, and now his lateral speed is gone. He's fine end to end, but thats not how you play perimeter D.

                              He helps off of his man a lot in the lane because that how he can contribute as a bigger forward, but he isn't staying in front of anyone. They may as well ring a dinner bell when he checks in.

                              It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                              Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                              Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                              NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                              Comment


                              • Re: Granger traded to Philly

                                Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                                Which Danny are we discussing?
                                The one who had a huge rejection on Dwight Howard in his first 10 seconds of playing time this season. Danny was playing very solid defense despite his shots not falling during his time this year.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X