Tweet
Re: PG TRADED TO OKC
Well, here's hoping Sabonis is more Jermaine O'Neal and less Ike Diogu.
Well, here's hoping Sabonis is more Jermaine O'Neal and less Ike Diogu.
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.
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
-
-
Re: PG TRADED TO OKC
Ask DeAndre Jordan.Originally posted by edc View Post
Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkComment
-
Re: PG TRADED TO OKC
Originally posted by idioteque View Post
For those that like left handed players, Sobonis is that.Comment
-
Re: PG TRADED TO OKC
Originally posted by Shade View Post
But this is between two executives......
Deandre is ok not talking again with mavs.....Comment
-
Re: PG TRADED TO OKC
No, but I read the tweet. I am sorry, I didn't realize that I couldn't comment on a tweet on Pacers Digest, and now I read the article, and don't think that teams like Cleveland and OKC have anything to complain about despite being small markets. Especially considering that CLE won a championship in a small market, with a free agent acquisition in Lebron. Paul could very well re-sign and the Thunder could manage to build around them some more before the season starts.Originally posted by Mourning View PostDid you read the article? Just asking
I don't understand why so many posters on PD gets their feathers ruffled so easily and get so rude about nothing. I have been on PD for years now and I quit posting because of people's attitudes on the keyboard. I thought I would start posting here more often and try to be positive about the Pacers and watch more closely at what is going on and what the direction is. I just want to talk Pacers and NBA basketball as a fan and it seems like people have to be careful with what they say or they will be ridiculed for nothing.
PG is gone, and we have to just build around that. I don't know what we do with our team now and how long it is going to take. I am also concerned that Lance and Myles are going to have it a whole lot tougher this year because other teams don't have to worry about Paul George on defense. I want and think that we will make some moves that will give us some hope. Give us a fun team to watch, regardless of record.Last edited by BringJackBack; 07-01-2017, 01:12 PM.Comment
-
Re: PG TRADED TO OKC
That is a terrible analogy to be honest. Thad Young is going into his 11th season and GR3 was a 2nd round draft pick. Vic was the #2 pick and is 25, and Sabonis was the #11 pick. Again, terrible comparison. Good try though!Originally posted by imawhat View PostComment
-
Re: PG TRADED TO OKC
Can be a solid trade in the future, but now, i can call one of the worst trades i ever seen...Comment
-
Re: PG TRADED TO OKC
Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
I'd be a whole lot more excited with OG than either Leaf or Oladipo!Comment
-
Re: PG TRADED TO OKC
Originally posted by Cactus Jax View Post
At ALL COSTS is costing the Pacers 84 mil for the next 4 years! Dumb boneheaded move on Pritchard's part, but then Simon signed off on the trade. LOL!Comment
-
Re: PG TRADED TO OKC
Welp, I have moved through all the stages of grief and onto acceptance. What's done is done. Bright side, Dipo is one of my all time favorite collegiate players and Arvydas one of my favorite pros, so whatever. Dipo isn't as good as I would like him to be, but his contract really isn't that bad. The length remaining is a plus not a negative. Seems like everybody is signing $20+ million dollar contracts these days and those are only going to go up. I'm just glad the drama is over. If Pritch can avoid spending our cap on mediocre role players this season might be at least fun to watch.Comment
-
Re: PG TRADED TO OKC
Haven't seen Zach Lowe's column about this posted. Apologies if it's a duplicate. The relevant sections:
This is almost a risk-free gamble for the Thunder. Oladipo is a nice player, but he's 25, and still hasn't developed into the two-way wing monster some projected. He's an average 3-point shooter opponents leave open, an erratic drive-and-kick guy, and a so-so defender with inconsistent habits. He's coming off the worst season of his career by most measures, though playing alongside Westbrook in the highest-usage season in recorded NBA history deflated everyone's numbers. Still: The fit was awkward.
Oladipo is fine. He's also making $21 million per year, a price point at which you hope to get better than fine. Domantas Sabonis, also headed to Indiana, is a mildly intriguing prospect who might turn into a playmaking power forward with some 3-point range. He flamed out after a promising start -- not unusual for rookies -- and attempted 67 free throws all season. You give up that stuff in a second for Paul freaking George. Paul George is a boss. In the worst case, he and Westbrook leave, and you start a new tanking scheme. (Whether Presti would stick around to guide it is an interesting hypothetical.)Given what else was out there, this is a disappointing return for Indiana and new president Kevin Pritchard, even with the Pacers negotiating from a position of weakness. Every team, even George's suitors in Boston and Cleveland, thinks there is at least a 75 percent chance George stays true to his L.A. plans. The Lakers certainly think that. It is unclear if they even engaged the Pacers Friday night. They didn't yield on either Brandon Ingram or Lonzo Ball, and if they are sure George is heading their way, they were right not to. The Pacers do not appear to have been interested in D'Angelo Russell. Time will tell on the L.A. front.
In what is now a time-honored tradition, reports quickly emanated from Boston last night about all the goodies the Celtics had offered: two starters (some combination of Avery Bradley, Jae Crowder, and Marcus Smart) and three draft picks in the most recent round of talks, and a mega-package at the trade deadline, per our Jeff Goodman and Steve Bulpett of the Boston Herald, that included what became the No. 1 pick in the draft. (League sources verified that tidbit to ESPN.com.)
As I reported Friday morning, Boston's most recent offer, whenever it was on the table, did not include any of the following: next year's Nets pick, Jayson Tatum, Jaylen Brown, or the Lakers-Kings pick Boston picked up from Philly in exchange for sliding down two spots in the draft. If the Celtics really offered three picks sometime in the last two weeks -- and I believe they did -- they came from some combination of Boston's own stash and extra protected 2019 first-rounders acquired from Memphis and the Clippers. Boston also offered a combination of three starter-level players and two picks, according to sources familiar with the talks.
All of those picks could end up in the 20s. The Pacers were open about their desire for a top-10 pick, or some equivalent talent. Boston's package would not have met that requirement. Bradley may earn as much as Oladipo in two seasons. Smart's next deal will also kick in then. It is not some killer, irresistible package.
It's still better than what the Pacers got. Picks are liquid trade assets, even if they are projected to land in the 20s. Just a week ago, Portland turned two sub-lottery picks into the No. 10 pick. Indiana might even have taken that Boston deal had it been clearly on the table last night, according to sources familiar with the talks. It may not have been, even if Boston had offered it days before.
Timing and human dynamics play a role in high-pressure negotiations. The Celtics, Cavs, Nuggets, and Pacers have been talking off and on for weeks in what insiders described as an ongoing auction-style negotiation with shifting deadlines set by the Pacers. Boston and Indiana couldn't agree on a deal before Friday, and with free agency looming, the Celtics had to turn their attention to Gordon Hayward. They wanted to sort that out first, and maintain space for Hayward, before sending away rotation players and picks for George. The lowered salary cap made any deal struck before free agency even trickier.
If you send out two starters for a rental and whiff on Hayward, how much have you narrowed the gap with LeBron and the Warriors?
The Pacers, for whatever reason, decided they didn't want to wait any longer. They wouldn't act on Boston's timeline. They like Oladipo as a worker who will help set the culture for a painful rebuild. They may have worried Boston would pull back entirely if Hayward signed elsewhere.
But the Thunder's deal would surely have been available to Indiana in 72 hours. The Thunder have no other pressing business. Indiana could have waited for the Hayward situation to resolve, and gone back to Boston -- and everyone else.
The Pacers, Cavs, and Nuggets on Friday resuscitated a three-way deal that would have sent George to Cleveland and Kevin Love to Denver, according to several league sources. The Pacers could have had a package centered around Gary Harris, Trey Lyles, and a protected first-round pick, sources say. The Cavs, Nuggets, and Celtics were stunned when news of the trade broke on Twitter.
Harris is about two-and-half years younger than Oladipo, and shot 42 percent from 3 last season. He is a more intriguing player than Oladipo.
Portland offered multiple picks and at least one player at the draft, sources say. The Pacers said no.
Unless you love Oladipo the way Vivek Ranadive loves Buddy Hield, it's hard to believe the Pacers couldn't have managed better acting earlier or later. If getting George out of the East was a top priority, well, that's silly. George might walk himself out of the East in a year.
It's easy to say the Pacers were foolish to turn down an offer that included the 2017 Nets pick at the trade deadline -- or to credit Boston's boldness in dangling it. History will say the Pacers blundered. They could have jumpstarted their rebuild with Markelle Fultz! (They also turned down four first-round picks from the Hawks, per ESPN's Brian Windhorst, though all four could have landed outside the lottery.)
It's also not super relevant. Larry Bird was running the Pacers then. He wasn't trading George for anything but an unobtainable motherlode, according to several teams who talked to Indiana before the trade deadline -- including teams other than Boston, Cleveland, Denver, and the other usual suspects. It almost didn't even matter what was offered.This is the darkest timeline.Comment
-
Re: PG TRADED TO OKC
What's your track record with hyping up draft picks? All in all, the Pacers scouts have been pretty good over the years, and Bird AND KP were in consensus about the Leaf pick. Not saying I would have drafted him, but I trust that they know far better than I do. Pritchard wanted Leaf and asked for a second opinion from Bird who almost verbatim said "Leaf is still there? If he is and we don't draft him, we're some dumb mother****ers."Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
Also, Oladipo is good. And has a chance to be very good.Comment
-
Re: PG TRADED TO OKC
He said they were offered deals that included all stars, offers with vets & picks......the implication was pretty clear that the deals on the table were better than this.....Originally posted by NapTonius Monk View PostComment
-
Re: PG TRADED TO OKC
I want to go back to a time when I wasn't aware that Gary Harris (>Oladipo), Lyles (>Sabonis) and a pick was on the table. Barf.Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View PostComment
-
Re: PG TRADED TO OKC
I adamantly disagree with that statement. I'm telling you guys the East just went from bad to worse and the field here is open. I would neither be surprised if we win 30 wins or if we somehow snuck into a near .500 record.Originally posted by imawhat View Post
This is why I believe the Pacers feel like that they could quickly rebuild again. Everybody keeps wanting a hot young prospect. We've got one, his name is Myles Turner. We also have a guy who may have potential in Sabonis. Oladipo is not an old man and if you've seen his body transformation this summer it tells me he is serious about improving.
The only teams in the East in 2 years that are going to be in the upper echelon are probably going to be the Bucks (assuming they continue to improve) and possibly Miami (never sleep on a Pat Riley team). Boston (maybe depending on what they do from here). Do the Wizards scare you? They don't me. Does Toronto scare you? Me neither. The Hawks? Please. The Cavs of course could still be above and beyond everybody depending of course on LaBron, but if he leaves?
Look losing George sucks, period. We were not going to be able to replace him with on court production no matter what. But overall IMO we actually may be a better team next year. Did the back court of Ellis and Teague do it for you? It didn't for me. To me the back court of Stephenson & Oladipo is light years above those two. Sure the down grade at the three is going to suck, but that was going to happen no matter who we traded for. Sabonis over Young at the 4 has potential IMO, but at worst Sabonis is the first big off of the bench.
As to your worries about cap space? Why? Who cares? What possible good would 47 instead of 29 do for us? (or whatever it is) There are no big name free agents out there and even if they were they are not coming here. We have plenty of space to work with if we need to take on a trade for a young asset and we need to take a salary to go with it. So unless you are convinced this is costing us a game changing free agent I just don't see why we should care.
Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13Comment
Comment