Tweet
Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread
What he's trying to say is Dunleavy has never missed a shot in the playoffs.
What he's trying to say is Dunleavy has never missed a shot in the playoffs.
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: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread
I don't think that you can make the conclusion that the players that we got in the trade are crap at this time. I will give you that Murphy is overpaid, however Dun and Ike show a lot of promise and just may swing the trade in our favor in the long run.Originally posted by JayRedd View PostComment
-
Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread
TT - I've seen those in Chicago as well, but thanks for confirming as sometimes people act like I'm crazy. I had a notion to tell the kids that as a Pacers fan I found the red jersey to be completely offensive. But let's face it, they weren't wearing red Pacers jerseys in Chicago as a fashion statement, they were identifying themselves. So I left them alone - no point in pissing off someone with as little respect of human life as a gang member. Besides, I had a train to catch...
That's a hollow response. If its true, then its just a terrible choice in fashion. If you are actually trying to convince someone that you aren't gang-banging anymore, then wear neutral colors, leave your weapens at home, etc.Originally posted by ajbry View Post
I've got a hard time believing a guy that recently fired off his gun into the air in a crowd of people and does a "getting frisked" dance as he's introduced before games even understands the message he is sending. At the very least, his actions indicate he's mocking us all.
But he's often said he's not changing, so why do you guys keep arguing that he has? He has said he is not changing, there is plenty of evidence that he is not changing.
The only difference is that he's playing the same error-prone basketball in an up-tempo system that has more tolerance for mistakes, in an urban city with much more of a hip-hop culture that glorifies violence, gun use, mistreatment of women, etc. than Indianapolis.
Good riddance.Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
And life itself, rushing over me
Life itself, the wind in black elms,
Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you
Comment
-
Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread
Originally posted by Mal View PostWhat he's trying to say is Dunleavy has never missed a shot in the playoffs.
I understood exactly what he meant, and in the context of basketball being a TEAM SPORT, his attempt at being funny flopped, imo. To lay the blame on Dun for GS not being in the playoffs is not funny, just plain stupid.IMO
What does Dun have to do with Jackson's poor shooting(not Club Rio)?
I find it pathetic that every time someone points out that Jack is not god, that his supporters throw up the yeah, but neither is Dun or Murph or Ike comment.
Jack is an average NBA player with a lot of negative baggage, and adding any qualifiers to that statement is admitting that the statement has merit.Comment
-
Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread
Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
Post Dirk's numbers for the playoffs
There you go again Seth, what does Dirk's numbers have to do with Jacks bad shooting and turnovers in the Utah series? UM, in case you have noticed Dirk and Jack are not the same person. Jack put up those terrible stats and to say but look how bad Dirk was in your defense of Jack is silly. You can rationalize all that you want, but Jack put up those terrible numbers and to say but look, but look, but look how bad Dirk was in the playoffs is nonsensical.
Comment
-
Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread
He's keeping it real for a very minute part of the population. He thinks it's rubbing "the man's" nose in it and the few who get off on it are trying to do the same.Originally posted by Jay View Post
If you take special notice, you'll see that there's only 4 or 5 posters on here who back Jax, fanatically. They just raise so much hell about it, that there just seems to be many Jax supporters..Comment
-
Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread
A lot of posters think that Ike is the "sleeper" of the trade. However, I believe it to be Murph. I think he will revert back to the manner in which he played the first two years and become much more effective. Dun speaks for himself, he's a bona fide good player who is team oriented.Originally posted by Elgin56 View Post
It will take a preseason and half of next season under a new coach to analyze the trade. I think that in the long run, we got the best deal by far. Al will be moving on because he doesn't fit in and Jax will self-destroy as we already have an indication of that in the Utah series. After Nellie figures out that his "small ball" is not going to work when the 3's don't fall because his team panics and self-destructs..Comment
-
Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread
Originally posted by Roferr View Post
I hope that your are right about Murph, he may well be the sleeper in the trade, time will tell.
I think that most reasonable people see the trade as a positive for the Pacers, in the long run, sometimes emotions cloud the positives of the trade and poster's views become distorted because of their emotions.Comment
-
Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread
They're both overpaid for too long.Originally posted by Elgin56 View Post
I'd rather have no players than overpaid ones through 2047 that no one else in the League seems to want.
And for the record...I love Ike, don't like Jack, don't really like Harrington anymore and think Sarunas is the third best mascot in the League after the Gorilla and Boomer.Comment
-
Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread
JayRedd,
Since even cutting Jackson would have still required us to pay that cash, we might as well be paying someone to be a decent roleplayer instead of paying Jackson to not be here. He's clearly overpaid (Murphy), but I still like that better than paying Jackson to not be an Indiana Pacer.Comment
-
Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread
By no players, I didn't mean we should have just cut him, although it may have been a better solution than what we got. I was just speaking theoretically about making a roster, i.e., it's easier to build from scratch than to be hamstrung by several albatrosses.Originally posted by Mal View Post
I'm just throwing out revisionist possibilities here, but....Jack for Murphy straight up...or Jack and Al for Dalembert...or some other trade where we only take on one problem would have been better IMO.
But as I see it, we gave up
A. our problem (Jack)
B. an asset (Al)
C. filler (mascot and Powell)
for
A. their problem (Murph)
B. their other problem (Dun Jr.)
C. a touted prospect (Ike)
D. filler (McLoed)
It was really nice to get Ike. But now we're on the hook for $17.4, $19.1, $20.8, $22.5 in each of the next four years for two guys I don't think our front office even particularly wanted.
You add that to above-MLE money for another guy we don't particularly want (Tinsley's $6.3, $6.75, $7.2 and $7.5) over the next four years, and you're talking about nearly half our salary cap until 2011 being tied up in three players I don't believe anyone in our front office really wants.
They may be able to finagle a deal to get rid of one of them, but it will likely mean trading JO, who, honestly, we can hardly even really afford anymore even if we wanted to---not if we're trying to improve the roster and stay somewhere under the luxury tax, anyway.
And meanwhile, we have to offer Danny an extension after next season, and Jeff will need one too if we want to keep him from opting out. (Because of him having a 08/09 player option that he's unlikely to trigger and our management's probable unwillingness to extend him long-term, I wouldn't be surprised to see him traded in the offseason while we can still get good value.)
So, I essentially see the deal as taking a bad PR situation (which I agree we HAD to fix) into a bad financial competitiveness situation.
That's what I mean when I say crap for crap.Comment
-
Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread
How do you know the Pacers COULD have gotten Dalembert or traded them straight up? We see the results of the trade process, instead of being privy to the whole scenerio.
I imagine the Ps went through their phonebook quite thoroughly, and thought this was the best deal they could get, or it's not a stretch to think the ONLY deal they could get.
As far as the salary cap situation, when was the last time they went out and landed a FA that took up more than their MLE? It's not like Donnie has the reputation of landing those big names during the summer and it's just going to kill his ability to do so for the next couple of years. He doesn't/hasn't done it during his tenure here, so why expect he would start?
When trading a bloated contract, atleast you get some talent in return with those bullcrap fillers, but when you trade away your problem child you tend to get raked over the coals.
And I know Al's signing this summer is going to be the rebuttal about the FA signing, but I'll say it took a 8.5mil TE that would run out in a year just to do that.“Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.Comment
-
Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread
I don't know they could have gotten Dalembert in particular, but I have to believe they could have come away with just one financial problem with a package of Jack/Al instead of two. I really doubt that in a league full of problem contracts and problem situations that this was the ONLY deal possible.Originally posted by Since86 View Post
It might have had to be Dampier or Eddie Jones. Or maybe straight up for Darius Miles or Marko Jaric. I don't know...I'm just throwing stuff out there. But I just feel like they got a little over-excited about getting Ike and took on too much other baggage for the baggage they're trying to unload.
It's not just about being able to sign free agents. It's about flexibility. If we don't lose a few million this summer we can't even even sign a full MLE player and stay under the luxury tax (which I believe is a mandate from the Simons and virtually every NBA owner at this point). Nor can we make trades where we take on the 25% in salary allowed. And like I said, it's very well gonna keep us from offering Foster an extension. And might make us lowball Danny, which isn't exactly what you wanna be doing to a guy who's probably had about a half-hour of positive experiences during his whole tenure in Indianopolis.Originally posted by Since86 View Post
Toeing the luxury tax line always makes things more difficult. And when you're doing it and haven't even assembled a roster of players you really want for the future, it's even worse. The whole situation forces your hand to do things you don't want to do.
So now, we're essentially sitting here looking like Minnesota...a roster full of overpaid bench players that no other GMs covet (if you think Dunleavy, Murphy and Tinsley are that much more desirable to GMs in this League than Jaric, Blount and Hudson you're crazy) with no real chance to improve aside from trading our one bonafide baller.
To me, that's backing yourself into a corner and cannot be seen as good management.Comment
-
Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread
I just gotta say I disagree that the PS are in the same position of Minny. I expect the Pacers are going to make the playoffs as a 6th or 7th seed next year, with no roster changes.
Yes, they are no way near Det. or Chicago, but their not nearly as bad as what their record this season would indicate.
And for the record, I would much rather have these problems then not wanting to read the paper to see who got in what trouble or waiting for Ron to implode again.“Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.Comment
-
Re: The Official Golden State/Stephen Jackson Thread
So might Minny in the East. I'm just saying, neither of us has any conceivable chance to even remotely contend for an NBA title with our rosters currently how they are...nor do we have many assets aside from our one trump card.Originally posted by Since86
As would the rest of Indiana. And that's why it happened.Originally posted by Since86Comment
Comment