Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

The Celtics and Lakers are struggling and I’m Happy!

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by sav View Post


    Maybe the Celtics struggle enough that Stevens leaves and goes to IU?

    I wonder about that a little bit. The NBA grind is hard on coaches and much more travel than college. They are under a lot of pressure.

    {o,o}
    |)__)
    -"-"-

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Strummer View Post
      Toronto is in a worse boat with Kawhi. Their active roster cap will still be over the salary cap if Kawhi leaves to go to the Clippers (for example).

      https://www.spotrac.com/nba/toronto-raptors/cap/2019/
      Not really so. If Kawhi goes, then there is no reason to retain Danny Green either (age 30+, team not seriously contending). Remove his 15 million cap hold and they are well below the salary cap. Although not in range to make any serious plays - just enough to pick up worthy unproven projects to be battle-tested. It would be re-building season(s), but re-building on reasonable monetary base.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Strummer View Post
        It'll be interesting if Kyrie opts out and signs somewhere else. Boston can get under the cap but won't be able to sign a max player to replace him.

        Toronto is in a worse boat with Kawhi. Their active roster cap will still be over the salary cap if Kawhi leaves to go to the Clippers (for example).

        https://www.spotrac.com/nba/boston-celtics/cap/2019/
        https://www.spotrac.com/nba/toronto-raptors/cap/2019/
        I am not a capologist by any stretch. I just do not want to spend the time figuring it all out but whenever we talk about the Pacers cap and how with all the cap holds the Pacers
        can sign no one basically. Yet we have teams like the Raptors seem to be able to sign everyone and no problem. Base salary of 58 million for Pacers and 127 million for Raptors next year.
        What gives?

        {o,o}
        |)__)
        -"-"-

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by PetPaima View Post

          Not really so. If Kawhi goes, then there is no reason to retain Danny Green either (age 30+, team not seriously contending). Remove his 15 million cap hold and they are well below the salary cap. Although not in range to make any serious plays - just enough to pick up worthy unproven projects to be battle-tested. It would be re-building season(s), but re-building on reasonable monetary base.
          I'm not sure that's true. I see an active roster cap of $131M. Removing Kawhi takes it down to $110M. That's independent of cap holds.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by sav View Post
            Maybe the Celtics struggle enough that Stevens leaves and goes to IU?
            Okay, I can get behind that idea.

            Comment


            • #21
              Did you all see this article about the Lakers and the Celtics?

              http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/2...ok-inspiration

              It literally compares and contrasts both teams to the Pacers, as an counterexample of how to correctly deal with adversity.

              Makes me super proud as a fan to read it.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Strummer View Post

                I'm not sure that's true. I see an active roster cap of $131M. Removing Kawhi takes it down to $110M. That's independent of cap holds.
                You were closer to the truth than me. Actually their committed payroll for next season (as long as Lowry & MGasol opt in) is abouts 107 million. It raises to 110 if you count in the incomplete roster charges.

                That means they would need to fill the roster with

                1) Mid-Level Exception
                2) Bi-Annual Exception
                3) Draft picks
                4) Minimum salary guys.

                At least they would then stay well below the luxury tax.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
                  Why isn't Brad Stevens getting any heat for the Celtics being bad this year? He has done a horrible coaching job.
                  Because he's just a figure head. Other than Horford, the players are running the team into the ground starting with Kyrie. Half of them are too immature to listen to Stevens and the other half think they know what's best. So it is what is. Another coach isn't going to help them. They probably need JOb in there to just blow it up.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by owl View Post

                    I am not a capologist by any stretch. I just do not want to spend the time figuring it all out but whenever we talk about the Pacers cap and how with all the cap holds the Pacers
                    can sign no one basically. Yet we have teams like the Raptors seem to be able to sign everyone and no problem. Base salary of 58 million for Pacers and 127 million for Raptors next year.
                    What gives?
                    The Raptors gave guys they already had big raises (Lowry, DeRozan, Valanciunas, Ross) and then either kept them or traded them away for players with other big salaries (Leonard, Gasol, and Ibaka). They haven't really used outside free agency so their cap holds haven't mattered, they've been able to re-sign everybody with Bird Rights.

                    The Pacers have the same ability to re-sign their own guys also and go way above the cap. They just can't do that and sign a high priced outside free agent. That's the difference.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post

                      The Raptors gave guys they already had big raises (Lowry, DeRozan, Valanciunas, Ross) and then either kept them or traded them away for players with other big salaries (Leonard, Gasol, and Ibaka). They haven't really used outside free agency so their cap holds haven't mattered, they've been able to re-sign everybody with Bird Rights.

                      The Pacers have the same ability to re-sign their own guys also and go way above the cap. They just can't do that and sign a high priced outside free agent. That's the difference.
                      Ok thats great. So next year to keep their team together they either let some go to stay under the caps or how do they sign Kawhi? Can they?
                      {o,o}
                      |)__)
                      -"-"-

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        I was watching Undisputed today, they were discussing how the Celtics indivual players who were heroes in the Playoffs are all have a worse season.

                        Horford's efficiency and production has taken a dip. Tatum hasn't taken the leap that most expected after the nice season last year and he's down in comparison to his play in the playoffs last year. Jaylen Brown has gone from leading scorer to bench player with less minutes.

                        Another point that was brought up is that everytime Kyrie says something about how the team needs to play, they have to be thinking, "man we almost made it to the Finals last year without you."

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by owl View Post

                          Ok thats great. So next year to keep their team together they either let some go to stay under the caps or how do they sign Kawhi? Can they?
                          No, not at all. Keeping your own free agents is not at all limited by salary cap nor by luxury tax level nor by luxury tax apron. This is the way how teams go to luxury tax after all...

                          No matter how high your payroll, you can always sign your OWN free agents upto the level permitted by the type of Bird rights you hold. As Raptors got Kawhi in a trade and thus inherited his Full Bird rights from Spurs, they can pay him a maximum contract and it is not by any means limited by anything.
                          Same applies to Danny Green as well.

                          As an 8-year veteran, Kawhi's max.salary will be abouts 33 million. Let's assume they would pay that and also 15 mil per year for Green.


                          That would push Raptors' payroll to around 155 million dollars (completely legally) and they would have 9 players in their roster. They would be heavily restricted in their efforts to re-sign Lin/Meeks/McCaw (only Non-Bird rights for that trio - that exception worth of just 120 % of minimum salary). So basically they are minimum salary guys or they are to be replaced by minimum salary guys...

                          They won't have a 1st-rounder in next draft so no help there either....

                          They have 2nd-round pick, but that is just another minimum wage-guy.


                          So - IF Toronto re-signs Kawhi, they can then only :

                          1) also keep Danny Green as described above.
                          2) use Taxpayer Mid-Level Exception worth of some 5,5 million dollars. Can e used for a single player or divided for more than one player.
                          3) add minimum salaries & two-way contracts for the rest of roster spots (everything beyond 11 guys at most)




                          About luxury tar repercussions...

                          Toronto would then be at least some 25 million above luxury tax line. I don't think they would have a "repeater" status (they are luxury tax team, but repeater-status requires having been that for 3 of last 4 seasons). If I'm correct about them being "non-repeater", they would then pay a luxury tax of abouts 35 million. As a repeater (if), it would be another 10 million added to that number.
                          Last edited by PetPaima; 02-27-2019, 07:52 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by owl View Post


                            I wonder about that a little bit. The NBA grind is hard on coaches and much more travel than college. They are under a lot of pressure.
                            IIRC, Stevens said he hated the recruiting aspect of college basketball.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              That is helpful. Thanks for the extended explanation. So 155 plus 35 equals 190 million??? Wow.
                              {o,o}
                              |)__)
                              -"-"-

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                What I found on the luxury tax....

                                The exact tax rates depend on a few different factors. For starters, and rather obviously, how far above the salary cap a team’s roster is:

                                For teams between $0 and $4,999,999 over the cap, the tax rate is $1.50 for every dollar over the cap.
                                The incremental maximum for this level is $7.5 million.
                                For teams between $5,000,000 and $9,999,999 over the cap, the tax rate is $1.75 for every dollar over the cap.
                                The incremental maximum for this level is $8.75 million.
                                For teams between $10,000,000 and $14,999,999 over the cap, the tax rate is $2.50 for every dollar over the cap.
                                The incremental maximum for this level is $12.5 million.
                                For teams between $15,000,000 and $19,999,999 over the cap, the tax rate is $3.25 for every dollar over the cap.
                                The incremental maximum for this level is $16.25 million.
                                And for teams $20,000,000 over the cap or above, the tax rate is $3.75 for every dollar over the cap, and increasing $0.50 for each additional $5,000,000 over $20,000,000.
                                So, for a simple example, let’s say a team is $18 million over the cap. Their luxury tax would then be $38.5 million. Why? Because we add the incremental maximums of $7.5 million, $8.75 million and $12.5 million to arrive at the bracket between $15.0 million and $19.99 million. That leaves us at $28.75 million. Then we multiply $3 million (the difference between the $18.0 million the team is over the tax and the $15.0 million of the relevant incremental maximum value) by $3.25, giving us $9.75 million. Add those two totals together and viola, we arrive at the $38.5 million luxury tax
                                {o,o}
                                |)__)
                                -"-"-

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X