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
-
2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws
2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws
2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws
-
Re: How do we fix this team in the offseason?
Step 1 - poll the fans
Step 2 - do the exact opposite of everything they suggest
Step 3 (optional) - come up with yet another slogan, and roll tickets back to 1951 Olympian prices.
Comment
-
Re: How do we fix this team in the offseason?
I'd LUV to get us some G. Wallace in here, too, but I don't believe he's all that underrated and therefore will be highly sought after. I mentioned before Trevor Ariza. He's kind of a poor man's version that only seems to see the court consistently when the Magic have injuries. Carroll, Udoka, and Moore are guys I think are probably more realistic we land, ATC.
Dun looked really good shooting last night coming of screens for 15-18 footers. That's what he CAN do and he should continue to avoid 3 pt attempts like the plague. It's just not part of his repetoire right now. Unfortunately his D is beyond the point of no return I fear. Is he really moveable? I have my doubts for reasons laid out by CKC.
Nachbar has really come on in Jersey and the man can SHOOT. With his profile at an all time high I don't suspect they'd be so likely to deal him. Would be a bit of a defensive liability himself but the shooting might equal that out or better.I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.
-Emiliano ZapataComment
-
Re: How do we fix this team in the offseason?
I haven't looked on the trade forum for your explanation. Can you point me to your thread?Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
I will give my explanation as to why I think that he Knicks...much less any team...would not take on Tinsley and Dunleavy ( much less at the same time ) without the "proper incentive" ( sorry...but the Knicks have ZERO use for Foster since they are one of the best Rebounding teams in the league ). Although they do need defense......Foster is not that good on defense to justify taking on Tinsley and Dunleavy at the same time.
I'm going on the asusmption that there is very little reason for the Knicks to do that trade because of the "supposed" restrictions that Dolan has put on Zeke to not add significant salary to the payroll.
Although ( I am guessing ) the trade works in the Trade Machine.......the Knicks would be sending out approximately $48 mil in total contracts ( where both contracts expires in the 2008/2009 season ) while taking back approximately $77 mil in total contracts ( where Tinsley/Dunleavy's combined yearly average of 15 mil per year salary that expires in the 2010/2011 season and Foster expires in the 2008/2009 season ).
That IMHO is one of the big reasons why it was so difficult to move Tinsley and Dunleavy ( when he was on the Warriors )....its not because they are not talented players and have some skills to offer or that any GM would not want him if cost was not a factor......its that both of them have Cost-prohibitive long-term contracts that would affect any team from making any Salary-cap moves in the offseason for the very long term future.
Just because the Knicks were the worst managed Payroll team in recent memory....it doesn't mean that Zeke can freely waste $$$ on players now. I'm sure that there was some deals before the recent trade deadline that Zeke was itchin' to pull the trigger on but Dolan probably told him "no" a very long time ago.
I am of the belief that if Tinsley could have been moved by TPTB....he would have been moved a long time ago....just like SJax and Harrington were ejected near the closest airlock. IMHO...ONE of the main reasons why he is still here cuz (A) no GM wanted his 6-7 mil per year / 26+mil contract lasting until 2010/2011 and (B) the GMs that was willing to take him on wanted a player that TPTB would not part with.Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.Comment
-
Re: How do we fix this team in the offseason?
I don't have anything to add, but I had to acknowledge the reference.Originally posted by Doug View Post
Comment
-
Re: How do we fix this team in the offseason?
Actually, I do have something to add.
Trade JO, Trade Tinsley, Keep Carlisle. I've finally chosen a side. Last night's game and accompanying conversations sealed the deal for me.Comment
-
Re: How do we fix this team in the offseason?
After a lenghty debate with myself, whether to keep Carlisle or not, which ended last week with a very soft "yes, probably"... I might just revert to "uncertain" yet again.Originally posted by Hicks View Post
I like JO a lot, but when he's out we usually play better. IF that's due to other teams having to make the adjustment or something else I don't know, but it's there.
I guess it all depends on what we could get for JO. I think the chance of giving up JO is bigger when we don't get this top-10 pick this summer, because I don't believe that management wants to stay out of the first round of the draft all together.
They might use JO to get up higher in the draft too though, but I think the chances of that happenning are just smaller then trying to get into the first round at all.
Regards,
Mourning
2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws
2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws
2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.wsComment
-
Re: How do we fix this team in the offseason?
they need fosters defense desperately because frye and curry are liabilities defensively and cannot play at the same time. now you pair foster with one of those guys and the team improves immensely. their other C options are cato and jerome james? foster is a major upgrade for them so its not just rebounding but rebounding, defense and compatability.I will give my explanation as to why I think that he Knicks...much less any team...would not take on Tinsley and Dunleavy ( much less at the same time ) without the "proper incentive" ( sorry...but the Knicks have ZERO use for Foster since they are one of the best Rebounding teams in the league ). Although they do need defense......Foster is not that good on defense to justify taking on Tinsley and Dunleavy at the same time.
from what i have read, zeke was looking for a pure point and was trying to move robinson before the deadline AND francis' future with the team has been shaky all season. starbury isn't a pure point and mardy collins isn't the answer. yes tinsley is a defensive liability but so is robinson ... the difference is that robinson is a shooter and tinsley is a playmaker. the knicks have more of a need for the latter.
in dunleavy, yes you have a defensive liability but you also have someone who has demonstrated he can play a couple positions including the 2 and helps an offense gel. the pacers (especially its fans) would have a hard time having a guy on the bench that makes 7+ mill. the knicks wouldn't blink. so you put dun at the 2 behind crawford next season.
as far as i remember tins and foster were favorites of zeke so he wouldn't have the same reservations about tinsleys play or character that other GMs might.
well yeah but that was also when zeke was supposed to prove he could win with the team he had or else lose his job. he's keeping his job for next year and you have to be crazy if you don't think that dolan is going to allow him to make trades since they're this close to the playoffs. and even with the restrictions, zeke made a major boneheaded move in buying out jalen rose to literally save a few bucks when he was in the final year of his contract. it made no sense at all. so with this deal they add around 17ppg and 11rpg and around 7 or 8 apg AND they get younger. yes they take on more financial liability but that isn't nearly the problem in New York AS LONG AS THEY'RE WINNING. thats the thing, if they keep winning dolan won't care how much thomas spends.I'm going on the asusmption that there is very little reason for the Knicks to do that trade because of the "supposed" restrictions that Dolan has put on Zeke to not add significant salary to the payroll.
so that gives them a roster of (considering they plan on trading robinson in the future)...
Marbury/Tinsley/Collins/Robinson
Crawford/Dunleavy
Richardson/Jeffries/Balkman
Lee/Frye
Curry/Foster/James
I think that is a better lineup than what they have now.
Although ( I am guessing ) the trade works in the Trade Machine.......the Knicks would be sending out approximately $48 mil in total contracts ( where both contracts expires in the 2008/2009 season ) while taking back approximately $77 mil in total contracts ( where Tinsley/Dunleavy's combined yearly average of 15 mil per year salary that expires in the 2010/2011 season and Foster expires in the 2008/2009 season ).
like i said, i think dolan will be okay with it IF they're winning. and thomas has at least got them in the #8 spot for the moment which is better than they had been doing with all the payroll. i think this actually improves their team tremendously. as opposed to zeke adding francis in the first place. what ultimately makes this deal questionable for me is that it almost seems too logical for zeke to do -- definitely not his style.
yes but they have a history of not caring about this. in this situation however they get those contracts but they also get some production out of the players (which is more than they can say about jerome james who has a tinsley-ish contract with about 30% of tinsley's production.That IMHO is one of the big reasons why it was so difficult to move Tinsley and Dunleavy ( when he was on the Warriors )....its not because they are not talented players and have some skills to offer or that any GM would not want him if cost was not a factor......its that both of them have Cost-prohibitive long-term contracts that would affect any team from making any Salary-cap moves in the offseason for the very long term future.
yes but this will be the offseason. at the moment they are at #8 in the east first time back in the playoff picture in a while. dolan will lift the restrictions this summer to push his team either back into the playoffs as they were so close or higher up in the playoffs if they end up with the 7/8 seed. thomas' restrictions was more about the larry brown debacle and the fact that the team wasn't winning. but the team is playing fairly well and now they need the right parts to push the team over the top.Just because the Knicks were the worst managed Payroll team in recent memory....it doesn't mean that Zeke can freely waste $$$ on players now. I'm sure that there was some deals before the recent trade deadline that Zeke was itchin' to pull the trigger on but Dolan probably told him "no" a very long time ago.
or we weren't getting a remotely decent return. the problem with tinsley is he is a talented PG and earns his salary many nights. but given all the other factors... i think if thomas hadn't been required to not make deals tinsley would have been a knick by the deadline. if the knicks are looking to enhance their big defense, get a playmaking PG and unload francis this deal seems to make sense.I am of the belief that if Tinsley could have been moved by TPTB....he would have been moved a long time ago....just like SJax and Harrington were ejected near the closest airlock. IMHO...ONE of the main reasons why he is still here cuz (A) no GM wanted his 6-7 mil per year / 26+mil contract lasting until 2010/2011 and (B) the GMs that was willing to take him on wanted a player that TPTB would not part with.
now you could be right and dolan could leave thomas' hands tied or there is a better deal out there (which there could very well be). but i'm not about to jump on the "dolan finally saw the light" theory about spending. i think if he'd seen the light he'd have dumped thomas before brown. do you put your faith in a coach who just recently won a championship of a guy that could never cut it with the raptors, ruined the CBA, was none too impressive as pacers coach AND had brought in a ton of non-complimentary overly expensive players? anyway, i think it is at least within the realm of the plausibleThis is the darkest timeline.Comment
-
Re: How do we fix this team in the offseason?
What I think we should do:
http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthread.php?t=30286Comment
-
Re: How do we fix this team in the offseason?
You're right.......Foster would upgrade their frontline's defense....but I don't think that he will be enough to make a difference to justify wanting to take on the Dunleavy and Tinsley's long-term contracts. I could possibly see the Knicks taking on Tinsley with .....but I don't see them taking on both Dunleavy and Tinsley......that's just wishful thinking on our part.Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
I just think that there is a reason why it was so difficult to move players like Dunleavy, Murphy and Tinsley......not as much because of the issues that they had with the fans....but given today's climate of Owners wanting to avoid paying the luxury tax ( which has even affected the Knicks owners )...I just feel that it is near impossible to move any one of their contracts without the proper "incentive". I really hope that it will just take a package of Tinsley+Foster to get rid of Tinsley....but I doubt that the price is that low.
But that's fine...we will agree to disagree.
DisplacedKnick, what are your thoughts on this?Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.Comment
-
Re: How do we fix this team in the offseason?
Knicks aren't going to want Foster - they already have David Lee.
My offseason appraoch is this. In order
1) get rid of Tinsley - at all costs.
2) Replace Carlisle and the whole coaching staff. A change for change sake is needed. I'd take a long hard look at the following. Marc Ivaroni, Mario Ellie, Mark Jackson.
3) Explore trade possiblities for JO. Don't dunp him. You only get one time to trade a player like JO, and you have to make the most of it. We need some real talent in return.Comment
-
Re: How do we fix this team in the offseason?
Get rid of JO. This is not a knock on him but he's just not been the right man for this team, especially after the brawl. He's not going to lead us anywhere.
We have a core of good players, however we need to be strong enough of a team where Murph and Dun would be great bench players. If they are going to start we must be a much better team which I don't think is possible considering what we have to deal with.
We have about 3 players with any significant trading power, JO, Granger and Foster. Speaking of Granger, what has happened. Lately, he's not even playing up to this rookie level. I would like to keep all three but especially Granger.
It's a certainty that if JO stays, RC has to go or vice-versa. Good big men are hard to come by but these two have different philosophies.
Most great teams have a great PG or two explosive offensive players. We have one in JO. So we need another great scorer or need to get rid of JO for a top-notch PG. What are the Spurs without Parker, Suns without Nash, Nets without Kidd, Pistons without Billups, Wizards without Arenas, etc?
No doubt, JO is one of the top players in the league but our biggest need now without question is a leader and he should be a PG. If that means getting rid of JO, so be it. Start with the PG as the hub and then work out from there..Comment
-
Re: How do we fix this team in the offseason?
What if none of the coaches that you suggest is available? I seem to recall reading threads that suggest that Marc Ivaroni would likely be courted by teams in the offseason....if not by Bryan Colangelo in Toronto to eventually replace Sam Mitchell.Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
Are you willing to change the coaching staff if the head coach isn't a "defensive minded" one that we all know that we need?
It seems that we are at a crossroads ( assuming that JONeal doesn't force the issue ).....TPTB decide to get the best players available for JONeal, get a new coach or some combination of both ( get a new coach but keep JONeal or get rid of JONeal but keep Carlisle ).
Maybe this is more of a poll question.....but which would ( all of ) you prefer to do in the offseason?
A ) Keep JONeal, get rid of Carlisle ( before even knowing who we can get )
B ) Keep Carlisle, get the best deal available for JONeal ( that makes sense where we are not dumping him for cr@p )
C ) Keep both Carlisle, JONeal and roll the dice again on a mediocre season
I'm guessing that the answer maybe somewhere inbetween...based off of what coach is available....and what we can get for JONeal.Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.Comment
-
Re: How do we fix this team in the offseason?
I agree with this totally, as far as it goes.Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
1) and 2) are, at least for me, no brainers at this point.
As for 3), I think that it is imperative that we trade Jermaine at some point. There are a couple of reasons.
First of all, Jermaine is the one resource that can pretty much return us a signficant improvement in one or two starting positions in return.
Secondly, I don't know whether we can trust Jermaine to re-sign with the team, or to not take his player option after next season. We absolutely must have something in return if we lose Jermaine.
Not only that, but if we lose our supposed leader, then I think we need a leader in return. And, although Jermaine's loss would definitely leave a hole in the frontcourt, I would rather trade him for a harder position to fill.
A truly accomplished PG. One that can defend, shoot and perform all of the 'normal' functions of a PG... penetrating, distributing and especially LEADING.
For that reason, I think the previous suggestion of targetting Heinrich is an excellent one. At this point in time, if I can't get my hands on Nash, I think the PG that would be next in line for me would be Heinrich.
So, I would trade JO for Heinrich and a second accomplished player, or for Heinrich, a first round draft choice and a very good front-court sub.Comment
-
Re: How do we fix this team in the offseason?
I just want to add a few things.
If we get a top 10 pick this season, the pick will be unrestricted next season. And that might end up hurting us a whole lot more...even if someone i.e. Eric Gordon is available at where we're picking next year...we might miss out on someone great...then again, Acie Law...whew...Comment
Tweet
Comment