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

Justin Holiday - Keep or Not?

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

  • Justin Holiday - Keep or Not?

    This topic rose up in recent Vic-thread and IMO deserved it's own topic...

    1st things 1st - I am a big fan of Justin and probably would rate him as one of our 3-4 most important players of last season (partly due to several others missing large chunks of time to injuries).
    So - I would obviously love to see him back for 2020-21... ...but is that realistic?

    As Justin was only signed for a 1-year contract, we hold just his Non-Bird Rights. Those rights enable us to sign him upto 4 years with a starting salary of 5.7 million and max 5 % raises.

    If we would be able to re-sign him for such a contract (or even better - 3 years / 18 million starting at 5.7 mil) that would be a no-brainer as far as I'm concerned. As we are above the salary cap and as that would be a signing using an exception, that wouldn't be money off any other deal or signing. You could call it "a bonus".


    But what if Justin has played himself to a higher pay bracket???

    Because of that 1-year nature of his current contract, we do NOT get any "home-team-advantage" or an exception to pay more. If price goes higher, we are on same playing field with everybody else and then our ONLY avenue of paying more is by using Mid-Level Exception (MLE). Let's assume the cap doesn't come down THAT drastically that we would become a tax-payer automatically - then we do have a regular non-taxpayer MLE (single one) in our use.

    This season it was worth of 9.258 million - will likely be little less next year. Let's assume 8.7 million like in 2018-19. Non-taxpayer MLE also allows 4 years & 5% raises. Due to Justin's age I would limit it to 3 years (or team option on 4th year).

    So the maximum contract we CAN offer to Justin becomes something like 3 years / 27.5 million. Should we bite on that???


    On one hand that is still less that what we pay for IMO a clearly lesser player in Jeremy Lamb. Justin is better shooter, more committed defender and has got much more fire under his bonnet. So in that sense even the full MLE deal is still acceptable.

    But the problem here is not only whether Justin is worth of that MLE deal - no, it have to be remembered that MLE represents our one & only chance to add anyone in free agency. So the real question is not whether Justin is worth that deal - it is actually whether Justin is better than ANY OTHER free agent in the league we could sign for that MLE!!! That is one darn tough question.


    So, personally my opinion is :

    1) Definitely offer Justin the Non-Bird extension. If he agrees to that, we have stroke really lucky.

    2) If he rejects Non-Bird extension then with a heavy heart, I'd rather look for a power forward with the MLE. Losing Justin would hurt but he doesn't play at our greatest need of a positional filler.

  • #2
    Originally posted by PetPaima View Post
    This topic rose up in recent Vic-thread and IMO deserved it's own topic...

    1st things 1st - I am a big fan of Justin and probably would rate him as one of our 3-4 most important players of last season (partly due to several others missing large chunks of time to injuries).
    So - I would obviously love to see him back for 2020-21... ...but is that realistic?

    As Justin was only signed for a 1-year contract, we hold just his Non-Bird Rights. Those rights enable us to sign him upto 4 years with a starting salary of 5.7 million and max 5 % raises.

    If we would be able to re-sign him for such a contract (or even better - 3 years / 18 million starting at 5.7 mil) that would be a no-brainer as far as I'm concerned. As we are above the salary cap and as that would be a signing using an exception, that wouldn't be money off any other deal or signing. You could call it "a bonus".


    But what if Justin has played himself to a higher pay bracket???

    Because of that 1-year nature of his current contract, we do NOT get any "home-team-advantage" or an exception to pay more. If price goes higher, we are on same playing field with everybody else and then our ONLY avenue of paying more is by using Mid-Level Exception (MLE). Let's assume the cap doesn't come down THAT drastically that we would become a tax-payer automatically - then we do have a regular non-taxpayer MLE (single one) in our use.

    This season it was worth of 9.258 million - will likely be little less next year. Let's assume 8.7 million like in 2018-19. Non-taxpayer MLE also allows 4 years & 5% raises. Due to Justin's age I would limit it to 3 years (or team option on 4th year).

    So the maximum contract we CAN offer to Justin becomes something like 3 years / 27.5 million. Should we bite on that???


    On one hand that is still less that what we pay for IMO a clearly lesser player in Jeremy Lamb. Justin is better shooter, more committed defender and has got much more fire under his bonnet. So in that sense even the full MLE deal is still acceptable.

    But the problem here is not only whether Justin is worth of that MLE deal - no, it have to be remembered that MLE represents our one & only chance to add anyone in free agency. So the real question is not whether Justin is worth that deal - it is actually whether Justin is better than ANY OTHER free agent in the league we could sign for that MLE!!! That is one darn tough question.


    So, personally my opinion is :

    1) Definitely offer Justin the Non-Bird extension. If he agrees to that, we have stroke really lucky.

    2) If he rejects Non-Bird extension then with a heavy heart, I'd rather look for a power forward with the MLE. Losing Justin would hurt but he doesn't play at our greatest need of a positional filler.
    Well put & this is why I don't think he will be back. He will simply cost us too much money.

    If we are serious about re-signing him it will come at the cost of Doug McDermott + what ever else we may need to shed in the way of cap, I'm not sure he is worth it, but I could see our front office prioritizing him over McDermott because of his 2-way play.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by festar35 View Post

      Well put & this is why I don't think he will be back. He will simply cost us too much money.

      If we are serious about re-signing him it will come at the cost of Doug McDermott + what ever else we may need to shed in the way of cap, I'm not sure he is worth it, but I could see our front office prioritizing him over McDermott because of his 2-way play.
      I like both McDermott and Talliday. But Justin is more of a prime time player. He is a starting quality wing IMO.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post

        I like both McDermott and Talliday. But Justin is more of a prime time player. He is a starting quality wing IMO.
        Would you

        a) expect him to be available for MLE ('cause if somebody pays even more we will have no way of matching)?

        b) think he will be both the BPA and best fit available for MLE?

        Those are the questions - not whether you like him or not...

        Comment


        • #5
          I would certainly choose Justin Holiday over McDermott. Is that a question?
          "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

          Comment


          • #6
            Short answer, PetPiama is right. Justin is worth 3yrs/$18M, but not 3yrs/$27M. That is an optimistic evaluation. I think it is important to remember that we've seen the best of Justin Holiday this season. This year has been a career year for him. It would be unlikely that he could repeat it. Especially his shooting. 3P% .424 vs .362 career avg, FG% .440 vs .362 and eFG% .581 vs .499. Pacers have gotten more than their money's worth out of Justin, but he still remains a bench/rotation maybe guy, not a foundation piece.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
              I would certainly choose Justin Holiday over McDermott. Is that a question?
              More of a question than might appear at first. This has been a career year for Justin. It is unlikely that he will play this well next year or any year after this given his age. He is a much better defender than McDermontt, that much is obvious. McDermott has shot over 40% from 3 in 4 of his 6 seasons. Justin has done it one time in 7, this season. Justin's 2nd best season .359 is worse than McDermontt's 2nd worst season .370.

              Doug has shown that we could expect good shooting year in and year out. Justin appears to be having a great year with no reason to expect another one next season.
              Last edited by xIndyFan; 05-06-2020, 11:31 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by xIndyFan View Post
                Short answer, PetPiama is right. Justin is worth 3yrs/$18M, but not 3yrs/$27M. That is an optimistic evaluation. I think it is important to remember that we've seen the best of Justin Holiday this season. This year has been a career year for him. It would be unlikely that he could repeat it. Especially his shooting. 3P% .424 vs .362 career avg, FG% .440 vs .362 and eFG% .581 vs .499. Pacers have gotten more than their money's worth out of Justin, but he still remains a bench/rotation maybe guy, not a foundation piece.
                This is why I am wary of offer too much money or too long of a contract. There is a good chance this season was just a fluke season and he'll revert back to his career averages. I personally believe a healthy Sumner would be a better player than a career average JHoliday. That brings up the question of if Sumner can stay healthy, which I admit is a huge question mark at this point. This is also why I would favor McDermott over him. We know what we got out of McDermott this season will be similar to what we can expect out of him next season. I do not think the difference between them is so great that you take the risk of choosing JHoliday over McDermott.

                Comment


                • #9
                  To be factual - this summer (or whenever Free Agency will occur) it is not about whether you prefer Justin or Dougie...

                  Doug has a season to go on his contract AND even shedding Doug in a trade for no incoming salary wouldn't actually push us down enough to have any useful cap room (if any).

                  So the question is actually whether you rather have Justin to take our MLE than some of these guys (few of them probably get paid more than MLE) :

                  Joe Harris
                  Christian Wood
                  Austin Rivers (probably opts out)
                  Marcus Morris or Montrezl Harrell (Clips should be able to pay one, not both)
                  Markieff Morris
                  Jae Crowder
                  Derrick Favors (may slide down in salary)
                  E'Twaun Moore
                  Juan Hernangomez
                  Bobby Portis / Taj Gibson (I doubt Knicks pick up either option)
                  Mo Harkless
                  Dario Saric
                  Kent Bazemore
                  Rondae Hollis-Jefferson

                  I guess it is likely that f ex Harris & Harrell get paid more than MLE eliminating them immediately from our horizon.

                  But as a guideline, those are the guys you scale Justin against. If he will be in Pacers' line-up next year it is not instead of Dougie/Sumner but instead of one of these guys.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I assume you keep him, but only if the price tag is fairly inexpensive. His play this season may have his market value well over that. The Oladipo injury return coupled with the COVID 19 outbreak has significantly stunted the ability for the admin to get as sense for how the team might work as a unit moving forward.

                    I liked J. Holiday more this season than Lamb and as much or more than Warren, given what we got of the season and the circumstances and expectations surrounding each player. But again, that's debatable when you get into "sample size" and context of observation. Hoping to see Justin back, but not going to expect to see him back.
                    I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                    -Emiliano Zapata

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      If you expect the MLE to go down next year even slightly, doesn't that mean the Pacers can't practically use the MLE? If the cap and tax stayed the same as it is this year (which means the MLE would as well) then the Pacers currently would only have roughly 6 million to spend. If the MLE went down, then that means the cap went down from this year which would leave the Pacers even less to spend. I am assuming by the way that the Pacers will not spend into the luxury tax for Justin, I think that's a pretty safe assumption.

                      Depending on how far the cap goes down as well I would be wary at assuming moves to cut cap elsewhere. There will be lots of teams trying to cut payroll in that scenario and only a few teams with cap space to be able to absorb contracts.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by PetPaima View Post
                        To be factual - this summer (or whenever Free Agency will occur) it is not about whether you prefer Justin or Dougie...

                        Doug has a season to go on his contract AND even shedding Doug in a trade for no incoming salary wouldn't actually push us down enough to have any useful cap room (if any).

                        So the question is actually whether you rather have Justin to take our MLE than some of these guys (few of them probably get paid more than MLE) :

                        Joe Harris
                        Christian Wood
                        Austin Rivers (probably opts out)
                        Marcus Morris or Montrezl Harrell (Clips should be able to pay one, not both)
                        Markieff Morris
                        Jae Crowder
                        Derrick Favors (may slide down in salary)
                        E'Twaun Moore
                        Juan Hernangomez
                        Bobby Portis / Taj Gibson (I doubt Knicks pick up either option)
                        Mo Harkless
                        Dario Saric
                        Kent Bazemore
                        Rondae Hollis-Jefferson

                        I guess it is likely that f ex Harris & Harrell get paid more than MLE eliminating them immediately from our horizon.

                        But as a guideline, those are the guys you scale Justin against. If he will be in Pacers' line-up next year it is not instead of Dougie/Sumner but instead of one of these guys.
                        Thanks. Clearly stated. And it does make it a hard choice. If we were discussing the 3 position, I would stick with Holiday. He's been stellar, clutch, defensive monster, powerful shooter. But as we really need a stretch 4, there are a few on that list that do capture my interest.
                        "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Holiday really impressed me this season. He is a winning player. I like Lamb but I think he should be moved to keep him.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Do we consider the pacers contenders or pretenders. If we are pretenders maybe we should focus more on developing our young talent. Sumner Alize, TJ leaf, etc. If Sumner reaches his potential he will be a better player than Holiday.

                            Holiday is the type of player that will give a contender a solid 15-22 MPG. He will play great defense, and hit open shots. But if we aren't getting deep in the playoffs IMO it would be better served if we develop his replacement.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by LilSean320 View Post
                              Do we consider the pacers contenders or pretenders. If we are pretenders maybe we should focus more on developing our young talent. Sumner Alize, TJ leaf, etc. If Sumner reaches his potential he will be a better player than Holiday.

                              Holiday is the type of player that will give a contender a solid 15-22 MPG. He will play great defense, and hit open shots. But if we aren't getting deep in the playoffs IMO it would be better served if we develop his replacement.
                              As long as Oladipo gets back to his all-star form, for sure they are. Don't forget they were the 3 seed before he went down last season.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X