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

Pacers statement regarding Lance Stephenson

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

  • #31
    Re: Pacers statement regarding Lance Stephenson

    Originally posted by O'Bird View Post
    First of all, what I said was "if they can't rescind the contract"; I wasn't claiming to know that they could. The CBA is not the only issue; all sorts of things get put into contracts, and I'm betting that you don't know what is in Lance Stephenson's any more than I do. On the other hand, morals clauses and cancellation clauses on the basis of criminal conduct are old traditions in contract law. Given the Pacers' recent history and their public sensitivity on the issue, I would not blithely assume that such clauses were absent from the contract of a contract partner who had screwed up in the past.
    The problem is a lot of times league CBA's can restrict those kind of clauses. So if the CBA doesn't allow it it doesn't matter how much tradition there is or whether or not the Pacer's wanted to put one in. I would hope that the those kind of clauses are allowed, but I find more times than not this world is 90% ridiculous and 10% common sense.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Pacers statement regarding Lance Stephenson

      It's an ok statement I suppose...

      I would think that the pacers organization would be against throwing a girl down a flight of stairs. It kind of goes without saying.

      I have a hard time seeing how this can be totally made up. If it is, then my apologies to Lance. I would cut him yesterday. We have a guy with a troubled past and this happens before training camp? I really don't care how talented he is, he was a high risk high reward player. We burnt a 2nd rounder on him and it seems we lost before he really got started. It's not a big deal, but the pacers worked way too hard to put together a team with good character, they can't have a player involved in any kind of domestic abuse.

      Sorry Lance, but there is a little truth in every lie, and if there is any truth involving abusing women, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Pacers statement regarding Lance Stephenson

        Originally posted by Putnam View Post
        You don't understand at all, Kemo.

        This is not a sports-page story. It is a crime story. It is a tax policy and public administration story. It is a human rights story. It is a story of "the thing we fear the most."

        It is waaaaay bigger than the front of the Sports section.

        I understand what you are saying Putnam ..
        At the time , I was just thinking to myself of the horrid bad p.r. stories the Star would write up about it , further making it a P.R. nightmare...


        What I was stating was simply ,(or meaning by my statement rather), that if
        that were the case... It would be very wise for the Pacer's F.O. to try and save some face, and at least make it KNOWN to the general joe blow reading the sports section by me exagerrating , of them putting up a full page ad as a message to the Pacers fans .. that the Pacer's front office cares about our image and that we will do the right thing ..... basically..

        That's all I really meant by my statement... early on when we had just first found out about this...

        We are damn lucky (knock on wood) , that this story hasn't received a whole alot of media exposure up to this point...


        ..
        "Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Pacers statement regarding Lance Stephenson

          Originally posted by count55 View Post
          True, and I'm surprised at the mild response - particularly from Kravitz.

          http://www.indystar.com/article/2010...-await-verdict

          In all honesty , after just reading Kravitz's story .. while it is mild for a Kravitz piece ... I whole-heartedly agree with pretty much everything he wrote in that article ...
          .
          ...
          .
          .
          "Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Pacers statement regarding Lance Stephenson

            I will say , after reading the comments .. that I am kinda surprised there are so many idiotic opinions being stressed there ... From one end of the spectrum to the opposite end regarding this incident ...

            .

            Now I know what alot of you were talking about when it's been said that the Star forums were filled with some real jewels .. lmao


            .
            "Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Pacers statement regarding Lance Stephenson

              Originally posted by O'Bird View Post
              It doesn't matter if he's guilty or not. The statement reminds us that the Pacers players were warned about not only not doing bad **** but also to stay away from where trouble can happen. Whatever the law finds about the former (and it looks really bad), Lance indisputably did not avoid the latter.

              That Larry Bird says that he is personally disappointed is not surprising - there can be no doubt that Lance got a very careful discussion about the Indiana franchise's need for its players to stay out of trouble, and not many weeks have passed before Lance was unable to "keep it together." He betrayed a personal trust with Larry Bird, who had told the media that he himself had made mistakes when he was young and everyone deserves a second chance. Will he now go in front of the media and say that everyone deserves a third chance?

              No, he won't ever play as a Pacer.



              First of all, what I said was "if they can't rescind the contract"; I wasn't claiming to know that they could. The CBA is not the only issue; all sorts of things get put into contracts, and I'm betting that you don't know what is in Lance Stephenson's any more than I do. On the other hand, morals clauses and cancellation clauses on the basis of criminal conduct are old traditions in contract law. Given the Pacers' recent history and their public sensitivity on the issue, I would not blithely assume that such clauses were absent from the contract of a contract partner who had screwed up in the past.

              In any case, no matter what: putting him on the court would be a PR nightmare for the team, and the chance of them risking further alienation of the fan base is zero.



              I never called it an expectation. I said it is what he SHOULD do; I said, "...he ought to give the money back." I think I said that plainly, and furthermore that that would be the smart thing to do as well as the right thing.



              So you think that the Pacers should pay for Lance's legal troubles? That's very generous of you, but I cannot agree.

              I'm a little more cynical about his NBA prospects than you are, but there are leagues worldwide that he could play in, earning a handsome living. He has a very marketable skillset (which would have suited the Pacers' offense to a T, now damnably irrelevant).

              Lance told us he was attracted to the profession of the law; it looks like he'll get some education in it. One door closes and another one opens?
              :
              So many points of contention, so little bandwidth, and I appreciate your effort here. The intricacies of the situation and their interconnected nature precludes usage of the multi quote feature of this board, for me at least. Sorry.

              The odds are the Pacers will be required to pay Lance the value of the guaranteed portion of his contract to waive him regardless of his guilt or innocence or his inability to avoid putting himself in a situation where trouble could happen or not if he does not ever play in the D-League or for the Pacers (I fervently hope, again, that your strong assertion that he won't proves to be correct, as I also believe the pr hit would be too severe for the Pacers to withstand at this point in time).

              Then, after the Pacers likely have paid him and waived him, and after whatever punishment Lance faces (likely prison), he would be free to pursue employment in other leagues worldwide where he might be able to make a handsome living. Assuming, also, that he does receive a prison of, from what I have read elsewhere, a minimum of 7 years (assuming he is guilty), what basketball skills and professional level conditioning might Stephenson have left to market that would be desireable, even in those leagues? Also, as a convicted felon under that assumption, what type of jobs would be available to Lance here in the US? None that pay very well, I would guess.

              The contractual portion of this subject has been discussed many, many times here with respect to Tinsley, especially, but also any of the other players whose contracts the Pacers had to rid themselves of due to off court issues that would have gotten regular people fired from their jobs instantaneously.

              No, I have no direct knowledge of the contract, but, from what we have been led to believe previously, the CBA likely is very specific about what types of criminal (if criminal, guilt or innocence DOES matter) or morals clauses regarding player off court behavior (and which is the driving issue here, otherwise most would want him to play) are permissible vs. not permissible under its terms currently.

              It is my, and most if not all here, fervent hope that the new CBA will enable teams to put the types of criminal or morals clauses that do allow immediate voiding of the contract of any player who engages in behavior such as shooting guns in public (Jackson), altercations for which a player is subject to being indicted by a Federal grand jury for (Tinsley and Daniels), or domestic violence like Lance Stephenson has allegedly committed. Until then, the safe assumption (if there ever is such a thing) is that no such clauses are likely to be present in Lance Stephenson's contract, and if they are, then a whole different can of worms has been opened up for the NBA and the Pacers: namely, why in the HE** haven't those clauses been in place for YEARS on everyone else's contracts, and if they have been in place, why haven't those clauses been utilized to rid the NBA (and in our case, the Pacers) of the players whose actions have tarnished the public perceptions of the league, the team, and its' players after they commit egregious transgressions?

              Obviously, the caveat that guilt or innocence actually DOES matter must be present so that careers cannot simply be ended on the basis of an accusation (which I don't believe is the case for Stephenson), and the Pacers probably cannot dismiss or waive Stephenson prior to trial because of the potential liability the franchise faces for having undermined whatever defense Lance pursues in the event that they act prior to the verdict being delivered by the courts. If the Pacers were to terminate the employment of Lance, for the cause of the alleged transgression, prior to a verdict being delivered, they could be construed to have potentially tainted jury pools (jurists believing the Pacers obviously really wanted Lance, believing he was the best player they drafted, so concluding that the Pacers must know he is guilty or they wouldn't have gotten rid of him...) and potentially interfere with his right to a fair trial, though that would be a lengthy stretch.

              Obviously Bird would be hugely p*ssed off at the betrayal of the most highly anticipated draftee of this or several other recent seasons. It reflects poorly on all of the efforts of both himself and the organization to clean up the Pacers, which, by all but the most oblivious accounts, has been a stellar performance up until now.

              No, I am not being generous to Lance, either. I also don't think the Pacers should have to pay for Lance's legal troubles, but the logic flow of the Pacers being required under the CBA to pay him the guaranteed portion of his contract in the absence of criminal and morals clauses that I described above shows that, in essence, the Pacers are going to do just that, with his attorney(s) getting a large chunk, the government another large chunk for taxes, and the remainder likely going towards whatever is awarded to the alleged victim as punishment (the jury will likely be well aware of the money he receives and act accordingly), and the rest towards child support for the next 16+ years.

              Your assertion that it would be a manly, smart, and right thing for Lance to do to give the Pacers back the money that he would receive may not be an explicit expectation of what Lance might do, but it is a level expectation of behavior regarding what you would suggest (?) Lance do to be perceived as being manly, smart, and righteous, which I continue to believe is what you meant. I cannot see where Lance would even have much of a choice in the matter, assuming he is guilty, in that it is likely that he would have already in essence spent the money he will have received as I outlined above.

              How are you more cynical about Lance's prospects in the NBA? I really don't believe, unless he is proven innocent in such a way that doubts about him and his actions are removed from the collective conciousness of the NBA fanbase, that he will ever should don a uniform in either the NBA or its affiliate NBADL, and that he likely will be waived or bought out of his contract, and that his only realistic opportunity to play professional basketball would be in Europe or China due to the distance and relative lack of awareness that fans of those leagues might have with respect to this situation. In the age of the internet, who knows if that is even a reasonable expectation, either. There are international fans who frequent US sports websites, even Pacers Digest, let alone the major websites for ESPN, SI, etc. who would easily be aware of this situation as soon as he would be signed to play for teams internationally. That may diminish his prospects in those areas, also.

              For Lance, as a person, I hope that it is true that when one door closes, another door opens. To have thrown away a large portion of his life at his young age is tragic, but likely deserved, if the allegations are true. I would hope he can earn a modest living after whatever punishment he receives, but his prospects are not good, especially if he receives a long prison term.

              And, as off topic as this is, as far as Lance fitting the Pacers offense to a T, yes, he would have been a wing playing out of position at the point who would slash to the rim and actually finish, or have had the ability to kick back to the outside for a 3 while being tall enough to elevate over defenders as he jumped and spun wildly in traffic to avoid the turnovers that our shorter point guards have committed during O'Brien's tenure here.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Pacers statement regarding Lance Stephenson

                Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                De'Sean Butler is looking better and better by the minute.



                Hey, its my turn. You've taken the lead for the past couple of years. Back off.

                I don't love Butler, but he is an excellent example of reasons you didn't have to go fishing for potential. IMO the draft has changed since the age restriction and we are seeing an odd shifting of talent late in the season and into workouts. With guys shooting up on workouts only or players making late runs up the board during play the draft ends up really shuffled around quite a bit. The last few years there have been some well known quantities sitting in the 2nd round.

                No pick is certain, but it seems like we are seeing safer 2nd round picks than in the past. It's not mining the deep talent or getting lucky when you grab Buddinger or Price in the 2nd round.

                I just couldn't agree to chasing Lance's talent with guys like Jordan or even Butler on the board. Those are guys that could make it just as well as Lance could without the off-court risks.

                I hate the "swing for the fence" approach to drafting. I've been on the trade down side in the last few drafts in fact because I'd rather have a couple of those lower guys than just one guy at 10-15.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Pacers statement regarding Lance Stephenson

                  [QUOTE=Brad8888; being tall enough to elevate over defenders as he jumped and spun wildly in traffic to avoid the turnovers that our shorter point guards have committed during O'Brien's tenure here.[/QUOTE]


                  If you read the scouting reports on Stephenson, poor decision making while out of control was his biggest problem.
                  Well that and that he couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with his jumper.
                  Well not counting the pouting and yelling at his teammates when HE made a mistake...........

                  The only shame here is that he likely won't get the opportunity to show quite a few folks here just how poorly they judge basketball talent. (and that could include me if I am wrong)

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Pacers statement regarding Lance Stephenson

                    Originally posted by Kemo View Post

                    In all honesty, after just reading Kravitz's story .. while it is mild for a Kravitz piece ... .

                    Yes, it is surprisingly mild for Kravitz.

                    Stephenson for the next 2 months, prior to his court date, had better keep his nose clean; or he'll have no future in the NBA whatsoever.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Pacers statement regarding Lance Stephenson

                      Wait. Didn't we have two picks in the second round? Didn't we play it safe with one and swing for the fences with the other? Isn't that the best possible approach when you have two picks in the second? I'm really happy with our second round, even with this Stephenson news. You take risks. Sometimes they pan out, sometimes they don't.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Pacers statement regarding Lance Stephenson

                        Originally posted by rexnom View Post
                        Wait. Didn't we have two picks in the second round? Didn't we play it safe with one and swing for the fences with the other? Isn't that the best possible approach when you have two picks in the second? I'm really happy with our second round, even with this Stephenson news. You take risks. Sometimes they pan out, sometimes they don't.
                        I can see the logic to this. It was probably a decent risk particularly since the Pacers have been making safe picks for a couple years now. I still torched the decision to bring in Lance because my "Tins-bury" detector was going wild....but I do understand that you have to give a young person a chance...even when the signs are all there. Also, this team did need an injection of talent and toughness, which Lance might have been able to bring to the table.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Pacers statement regarding Lance Stephenson

                          Originally posted by MLB007 View Post
                          If you read the scouting reports on Stephenson, poor decision making while out of control was his biggest problem.
                          Well that and that he couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with his jumper.
                          Well not counting the pouting and yelling at his teammates when HE made a mistake...........

                          The only shame here is that he likely won't get the opportunity to show quite a few folks here just how poorly they judge basketball talent. (and that could include me if I am wrong)
                          No wonder Stephenson was being groomed to play the pg position and that he was considered to be perfect for O'B's offense. Sounds like you are describing a taller TJ .

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Pacers statement regarding Lance Stephenson

                            Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
                            No, I have no direct knowledge of the contract, but, from what we have been led to believe previously, the CBA likely is very specific about what types of criminal (if criminal, guilt or innocence DOES matter) or morals clauses regarding player off court behavior (and which is the driving issue here, otherwise most would want him to play) are permissible vs. not permissible under its terms currently.

                            It is my, and most if not all here, fervent hope that the new CBA will enable teams to put the types of criminal or morals clauses that do allow immediate voiding of the contract of any player who engages in behavior such as shooting guns in public (Jackson), altercations for which a player is subject to being indicted by a Federal grand jury for (Tinsley and Daniels), or domestic violence like Lance Stephenson has allegedly committed. Until then, the safe assumption (if there ever is such a thing) is that no such clauses are likely to be present in Lance Stephenson's contract, and if they are, then a whole different can of worms has been opened up for the NBA and the Pacers: namely, why in the HE** haven't those clauses been in place for YEARS on everyone else's contracts, and if they have been in place, why haven't those clauses been utilized to rid the NBA (and in our case, the Pacers) of the players whose actions have tarnished the public perceptions of the league, the team, and its' players after they commit egregious transgressions?
                            Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                            The problem is a lot of times league CBA's can restrict those kind of clauses. So if the CBA doesn't allow it it doesn't matter how much tradition there is or whether or not the Pacer's wanted to put one in. I would hope that the those kind of clauses are allowed, but I find more times than not this world is 90% ridiculous and 10% common sense.
                            Here's an excerpt from Stephenson's contract:

                            (a) The Player agrees to observe and comply with all Team rules, as maintained or promulgated in accordance with the CBA, at all times whether on or off the playing floor. Subject to the provisions of the CBA, such rules shall be part of this Contract as fully as if herein written and shall be binding upon the Player.

                            (b) The Player agrees
                            : (i) to give his best services, as well as his loyalty, to the Team, and to play basketball only for the Team and its assignees; (ii) to be neatly and fully attired in public; (iii) to conduct himself on and off the court according to the highest standards of honesty, citizenship, and sportsmanship; and (iv) not to do anything that is materially detrimental or materially prejudicial to the best interests of the Team or the League.
                            The Team may terminate this Contract upon written notice to the Player if the Player shall:

                            (i) at any time, fail, refuse, or neglect to conform his personal conduct to standards of good citizenship, good moral character (defined here to mean not engaging in acts of moral turpitude, whether or not such acts would constitute a crime), and good sportsmanship, to keep himself in first class physical condition, or to obey the Team's training rules;
                            These are from the Uniform Player Contract, sections 5 and 6, and have been in place for years.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Pacers statement regarding Lance Stephenson

                              Originally posted by cordobes View Post
                              Here's an excerpt from Stephenson's contract:





                              These are from the Uniform Player Contract, sections 5 and 6, and have been in place for years.
                              Has a team not ever challenged these things. I mean it seem like it's right there.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Pacers statement regarding Lance Stephenson

                                Originally posted by Speed View Post
                                Has a team not ever challenged these things. I mean it seem like it's right there.
                                Off the top of my head, I can only remember two cases:

                                - the Celtics with Vin Baker, but they ended up reaching a settlement before a decision from the arbitration.

                                - the Warriros with Sprewell but they lost in arbitration

                                (None of these cases involved criminal charges though, let alone convictions).

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X