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

What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

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

  • Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

    Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
    Whatever happens in the playoffs will have an infinitely greater affect on Lance's next contract than him not making the all-star game.
    Croshere was definitely some proof of that. So I can buy that in at least some instances. At the same time, perceptions of a player change when they are an all-star. GM's who want a guy use that label to justify spending millions. Agents can brag about that and directly compare salaries to other all-stars that make it difficult to refute. It's just more tangible than a good outing in the playoffs which could very well be another Croshere situation. An all-star stamp will stick firmly at least for a solid year...well after the ink has dried.

    Comment


    • Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

      Originally posted by wintermute View Post
      DD is actually a year older than Paul G or Lance (1989 vs 1990).

      I'm not sure how serious you are, but I think DD's gaudy numbers are misleading. On paper it looks like he's a more deserving All-Star than Lance, but I think it's very much the opposite.
      The guys that coach against both players seem to think differently.

      Comment


      • Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

        Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
        The guys that coach against both players seem to think differently.
        They also somehow thought DD should get in before Lowry. No one, not even Toronto fans, think that is defensible.

        If Lowry and Afflalo had made it over Lance, I think that would be understandable. But DD and JJ? Wow.

        Comment


        • Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

          Originally posted by wintermute View Post
          I think this argument is as faulty as the one that said Lance isn't worth $12m because better players like Tony Parker and Steph Curry are making $12m. It doesn't matter what Durant and Westbrook are getting paid, because we can't get them at the same price (or at any price). The point is, we paid market price to retain Roy and Paul (and thanks to the artificial max contract cap, that price point is close to Durant/Westbrook), and we'll need to do the same to retain Lance.

          Are we doomed because our big 3 isn't as good as OKC's big 3? If being possibly the second best team in the NBA is being doomed, then maybe. But the point is that someone needs to explain how NOT retaining Lance would make us better than OKC's big 3. What combo of players would you spend that $12m on (keeping in mind that for external FA's, we can only offer up to the MLE) that would make us better than we are right now?
          What I'm saying is that it is really not a matter of whether Lance is a great player. What I'm saying is that a combination of PG, Roy, Lance + very inexpensive roleplayers (and I'd be talking MLE or less, look at OKC's payroll for an example) may not be able to do as well as a combination of PG, Roy, an $8M player and a $6M player + inexpensive roleplayers.

          I'm never any good at picking talent from other teams - for one thing I don't watch enough non-Pacer games, for another we've seen over and over again how different players contribute completely differently when they change teams (both good and bad). All I'm trying to get across is that if your "big 3" can't carry the team on their backs with cheap roleplayers, then you either have to go over the LT or you have to use a different strategy to build your team. It doesn't mean the "big 3" plus cheap roleplayers won't be an extremely good team, but it may not be your best lineup for winning a championship.

          We don't need to sign the above-mid-range guys as FAs (since we couldn't). We can do some trading as long as we take back equal or slightly less salary than what we send out.
          BillS

          A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
          Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

          Comment


          • Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

            Originally posted by BillS View Post
            What I'm saying is that it is really not a matter of whether Lance is a great player. What I'm saying is that a combination of PG, Roy, Lance + very inexpensive roleplayers (and I'd be talking MLE or less, look at OKC's payroll for an example) may not be able to do as well as a combination of PG, Roy, an $8M player and a $6M player + inexpensive roleplayers.

            I'm never any good at picking talent from other teams - for one thing I don't watch enough non-Pacer games, for another we've seen over and over again how different players contribute completely differently when they change teams (both good and bad). All I'm trying to get across is that if your "big 3" can't carry the team on their backs with cheap roleplayers, then you either have to go over the LT or you have to use a different strategy to build your team. It doesn't mean the "big 3" plus cheap roleplayers won't be an extremely good team, but it may not be your best lineup for winning a championship.

            We don't need to sign the above-mid-range guys as FAs (since we couldn't). We can do some trading as long as we take back equal or slightly less salary than what we send out.
            Your $8M player is George Hill. So you're basically saying you think that Paul, Roy, Hill, and a $6M player is better than Paul, Roy, and Lance.

            I can't think of any $6M players that make that accurate.

            Comment


            • Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

              A quick list of some guys making around that $6M figure annually...

              Brandon Bass
              Michael Beasley
              Glen Davis
              Landry Fields
              Channing Frye
              Chuck Hayes
              Gerald Henderson
              Jarrett Jack
              Amir Johnson
              Kyle Korver
              Carl Landry
              Courtney Lee
              Robin Lopez
              Kevin Martin
              Wesley Matthews
              Zaza Pachulia
              JJ Redick
              Jason Richardson
              JR Smith
              Jason Terry
              Martell Webster

              Comment


              • Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

                Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
                Your $8M player is George Hill. So you're basically saying you think that Paul, Roy, Hill, and a $6M player is better than Paul, Roy, and Lance.

                I can't think of any $6M players that make that accurate.
                Depends on the fit. I'm less interested in talent-stack than I am about a team unit and how they play with one another and what that results in as a team. But that's also not to say you're wrong.

                Comment


                • Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

                  Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                  Whatever happens in the playoffs will have an infinitely greater affect on Lance's next contract than him not making the all-star game.
                  I'm in 100% agreement. If he has a good postseason again or has some key moments he will get paid. If he is the Lance of last regular season, or the 5th option he won't get as much.

                  Being an All Star would've maybe changed things a little, but a noteworthy - good or bad - playoffs will have much m ore impact

                  Comment


                  • Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

                    Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                    Depends on the fit. I'm less interested in talent-stack than I am about a team unit and how they play with one another and what that results in as a team. But that's also not to say you're wrong.
                    Sure. But what are you looking for to fit with that group? Do any of the guys I listed making around that $6M amount fit the way you would want them to?

                    If I'm looking for a fit, I think you need someone capable of getting his own shot, but who can also help space the floor a bit. I think you need someone capable of getting open shots for Paul, and who can feed the ball to Roy when he has a mismatch. I think you need someone who can help handle the ball in late game situations, and be willing to push the pace when the game calls for it. I think you need someone who can play the kind of individual and team defense for which this team is known.

                    If it sounds like I'm describing Lance Stephenson, well I kind of am. The elite rebounding for his position is a just a bonus.

                    Comment


                    • Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

                      Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
                      A quick list of some guys making around that $6M figure annually...

                      Brandon Bass
                      Michael Beasley
                      Glen Davis
                      Landry Fields
                      Channing Frye
                      Chuck Hayes
                      Gerald Henderson
                      Jarrett Jack
                      Amir Johnson
                      Kyle Korver
                      Carl Landry
                      Courtney Lee
                      Robin Lopez
                      Kevin Martin
                      Wesley Matthews
                      Zaza Pachulia
                      JJ Redick
                      Jason Richardson
                      JR Smith
                      Jason Terry
                      Martell Webster
                      Off that list, I think you could make the case for Kevin Martin, Wesley Matthews, or Redick. Or at least, I don't think it's a slam dunk in Lance's favor.

                      Comment


                      • Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

                        Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
                        Do any of the guys I listed making around that $6M amount fit the way you would want them to?
                        Wesley Matthews. I can't believe that guy is only making ~$6 million. That's a bargain.

                        Edit: JJ Redick would qualify too. To be honest, that list isn't as bad as I thought it was going to be.

                        Comment


                        • Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

                          Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
                          Your $8M player is George Hill. So you're basically saying you think that Paul, Roy, Hill, and a $6M player is better than Paul, Roy, and Lance.

                          I can't think of any $6M players that make that accurate.
                          Not necessarily. If Lance leaves it changes the strengths and weaknesses of the starting lineup and they might be a reason to move Hill for a different fit.

                          Think of it this way - how much of an effect is going to an MLE or less PG (or SG if you think Lance can play point. Which I still don't, particularly, but that's another thread) going to have on Hibbert, PG, Lance lineup? Remember we aren't likely talking about a really good player on a rookie contract because I don't know any of those teams would be willing to trade.

                          All-in-all I would prefer to see Lance stay (knocking frantically on wood that his ego doesn't flare up and he gets even more focused on his own stats rather than which thing is needed by the team Right At This Moment In The Game). However, I think there is an argument to be made that unless your "big 3" only need minor fill-ins to carry you against your opponents, you need somehow to have a lesser 3rd option so you can get greater skills somewhere else.
                          BillS

                          A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                          Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                          Comment


                          • Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

                            Originally posted by PR07 View Post
                            Off that list, I think you could make the case for Kevin Martin, Wesley Matthews, or Redick. Or at least, I don't think it's a slam dunk in Lance's favor.
                            I agree on Matthews and JJ, but I think there only being 1-3 possible replacements that fit in talent and in salary shows just how hard it would be to make that replacement. Sure, it can be done, but the Pacers don't really have a shot at any of them, maybe other than Martin and I don't think he'd be a good fit.
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

                              Originally posted by cdash View Post
                              Wesley Matthews. I can't believe that guy is only making ~$6 million. That's a bargain.

                              Edit: JJ Redick would qualify too. To be honest, that list isn't as bad as I thought it was going to be.
                              My takeaway from the list was that you can definitely get a starting caliber SG for that number. Matthews, Redick, Korver, Henderson, Webster, Martin, and Lee are the ones I think you could make an argument for.

                              I agree that Matthews and Redick would be great bargains at that level. When you are talking about guys like Korver, Webster, and Martin you're really only paying for them to play half the court, because they are mostly defensive liabilities. That probably explains why they are about half as expensive as Lance is likely to be. With all of those other guys, you're giving up something that Lance brings to the team to save money. That's obvious, and it's just basic economics. But is the opportunity cost worth it? There's definitely an argument for both sides, which is why this thread is closing in on 9 pages now.

                              Paying Lance Stephenson $12M is a major risk, mainly just because of the kind of guy he is. He's a wild card. I'm still not totally convinced he won't do something this year to totally screw everything up. But you know the kind of player he is. He's one of the best SG's in the NBA right now. And he's 23. How much better can he get? My main argument is that paying him $12M is worth it to find out. If it requires paying more than that, I don't think we can make it happen. But I think he definitely should be considered 3rd in the pecking order going forward with the roster we currently have. Paul and Roy have been taken care of, as they should have been. I hope Lance is next.

                              Comment


                              • Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

                                Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
                                My takeaway from the list was that you can definitely get a starting caliber SG for that number. Matthews, Redick, Korver, Henderson, Webster, Martin, and Lee are the ones I think you could make an argument for.

                                I agree that Matthews and Redick would be great bargains at that level. When you are talking about guys like Korver, Webster, and Martin you're really only paying for them to play half the court, because they are mostly defensive liabilities. That probably explains why they are about half as expensive as Lance is likely to be. With all of those other guys, you're giving up something that Lance brings to the team to save money. That's obvious, and it's just basic economics. But is the opportunity cost worth it? There's definitely an argument for both sides, which is why this thread is closing in on 9 pages now.

                                Paying Lance Stephenson $12M is a major risk, mainly just because of the kind of guy he is. He's a wild card. I'm still not totally convinced he won't do something this year to totally screw everything up. But you know the kind of player he is. He's one of the best SG's in the NBA right now. And he's 23. How much better can he get? My main argument is that paying him $12M is worth it to find out. If it requires paying more than that, I don't think we can make it happen. But I think he definitely should be considered 3rd in the pecking order going forward with the roster we currently have. Paul and Roy have been taken care of, as they should have been. I hope Lance is next.
                                I'm with you on this one. I was just surprised that there were even 2-3 quality options on that list. I don't really think we can let Lance go, and ultimately I don't think we will.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X