-
look at this ****...if he's unvaxxed specifically to tank his trade value, i'm sorry, i hope he gets it and dies...what a piece of ****Leave a comment:
-
any adv“If it takes five steps for two teams to complete a trade, it’s been described to B/R that no conversation with Philadelphia has truly advanced past step one,” wrote Jake Fischer of Bleacher Report. “Few talks actually generated formal offers, and Philadelphia has informed most teams their best path to acquiring Simmons is in a three-team structure, sources said. The Cavaliers and [Minnesota] Timberwolves, for example, have largely made pick-heavy overtures that Philadelphia has urged Cleveland and Minnesota to bring to teams with specific All-Star-caliber players the Sixers actually covet.”
It’s clear that the Sixers’ asking price for Simmons is still exceptionally high. Philadelphia seemingly wants star players, not draft picks, who will help the team in its quest to contend for an NBA title in the 2021-22 season.
Simmons is reportedly in the process of rejoining the Sixers, but it seems like the team is still looking to trade him.
The Cavs continue being mentioned in rumors regarding Simmons. However, based on Fischer’s report, it sounds like Cleveland is going to have to offer a bigger package to Philadelphia if the Cavs want to get a deal done.
Simmons would be a fascinating addition for Cleveland. Although he has some imperfections, he would certainly make the Cavs a better team.
Leave a comment:
-
Which is ironic, since he wrote that as a response to my post(s) noting that if we trade those picks for Simmons, the team's not going to be IN that pick range bc it'll either make us quite good if we succeed (if we get Ben to buy in) or take BAD (if Ben doesn't buy in).
That point was completely ignored. He did not respond to, debate, or show any reaction to my original take and instead just gave a canned response on his opinion of our picks' usefulness in recent drafts.
Infact I doubt the aspect I submitted to you all of how and why our picks would be shifted outside the "middle tier" was even considered before he wrote a standard, knee-jerk reaction about how our picks have been wasted recently.
Honestly man, I shouldn't have to point this out.
Again, this is why I feel anyone's attempt at an in depth discourse is frequently wasted on this forum. It's nothing but 5-second read & react in most cases. Fine, whatever, it doesn't matter, I'm just serving notice I'm not going to try any more & what's going to come from me from this point forward is quick reactions, fan takes & participating in game threads for the fun of it. I'm done trying to contribute anything of substance or consideration, and if you want my opinion, having been posting on here only fairly recently but having followed this board since it's inception, I think this kind of thing has contributed to driving down interest in real discussions. Yes, there are still some good ones occasionally come up, but mostly...yeah...Last edited by OneMoreYear; 10-13-2021, 12:56 PM.Leave a comment:
-
I will be more specific. You missed V's point about draft picks being lower level picks and not lottery. That tends to be where the Pacers pick and would continue to pick.
That's...pretty ****ing unlikely considering it was my point being made to begin with, and therefore, my point being debated. I do not believe you are even vaguely aware of what point I was making in the first place, or indeed, read anything other than vnzla's response.
Disagree? Go ahead. Tell me what point I was making. See if you can do it without going back and finding my OP.
You can't, for the simple reason that vnzla's response was entirely irrelevant to the point I originally made.
You people crack me up. Because not many of you read anything except the latest response in a discussion, and ends up having no idea what the original idea/theory was. It's like a forum version of the telephone game.
I want to laugh. I really do.
But here's what I see. It is virtually impossible for anyone, not just me but posters in general, to posit a thought provoking idea here because what inevitably happens is six people glom onto an irrelevant point and run with it, or completely miss the idea under debate.
For instance, you have a discussion about how the Thunder are approaching things with this "assets" approach, essentially playing the middlemen to trade guys with diminished value on team A, show off something of value on a "window shopping" roster that exists only to boost guys' values, before trading him to team B for a different sort of asset. Then the conversation is completely hijacked as everyone chimes in about things like "oh can't do that it'll run our fit & defensive scheme for next season" which is of course utterly besides the point!
Or a post about how pick values change when you make a move that's squarely big risk, boom or bust. Trotting out examples of underwhelming late-teen picks is irrelevant when discussing making a move that's either going to vault you into a top team or crash and burn. Letting yeah choose to swap picks with you for 3 yrs is obviously a VERY bad idea of you've gone high-risk: because you're only going to be able to pick of it's in the 20-30 range (ie swap not wanted) and you're going to lose each pick if you're a lottery team. The chances being roughly 50/50 since you've vacated "mediocre" with the high risk high reward acquisition Obv, as anyone would agree, BOTH likely outcomes are undesirable; losing the high picks because well you're trapped in the cellar, keeping the low value picks bc those picks by their nature had more trade value as assets 3 yrs ago, but now it's the #29 and actually more of an anchor than a desired asset.
You have to look at it from a standpoint of the value everything has, both players and picks, and recognize how the value of those change from one year to the next. When you do that, it becomes apparent why I made my original point that trading 3 firsts in a "high risk" move of acquiring Simmons sets us up for a lose-lose situation where unless we win it all or very close to it, we've actually done more harm than good sucking ourselves in the "very good" category. That, I DO believe in, and I really don't want to be that club that has both maxed out their likely ceiling at 2nd Rd/fringe ECF pretender while also having mortgaged their future. Guys picked at 17, the TJ Leafs of the world, are irrelevant in that scenario bc they're not in your wheelhouse, as those next three picks are NOT going to be mid-1st picks.
Look, you're all fans, and I respect that, but I've lost my enthusiasm for trying to have a legit discussion with the "5 second read and react" mentality around here. It's fun to chime in with a comment or snap take, or chat during games, but I really have not seen anything here that leads me to believe folks by and large wish to participate in any in depth analysis. C'est la vie.
Leave a comment:
-
That's...pretty ****ing unlikely considering it was my point being made to begin with, and therefore, my point being debated. I do not believe you are even vaguely aware of what point I was making in the first place, or indeed, read anything other than vnzla's response.
Disagree? Go ahead. Tell me what point I was making. See if you can do it without going back and finding my OP.
You can't, for the simple reason that vnzla's response was entirely irrelevant to the point I originally made.
You people crack me up. Because not many of you read anything except the latest response in a discussion, and ends up having no idea what the original idea/theory was. It's like a forum version of the telephone game.
I want to laugh. I really do.
But here's what I see. It is virtually impossible for anyone, not just me but posters in general, to posit a thought provoking idea here because what inevitably happens is six people glom onto an irrelevant point and run with it, or completely miss the idea under debate.
For instance, you have a discussion about how the Thunder are approaching things with this "assets" approach, essentially playing the middlemen to trade guys with diminished value on team A, show off something of value on a "window shopping" roster that exists only to boost guys' values, before trading him to team B for a different sort of asset. Then the conversation is completely hijacked as everyone chimes in about things like "oh can't do that it'll run our fit & defensive scheme for next season" which is of course utterly besides the point!
Or a post about how pick values change when you make a move that's squarely big risk, boom or bust. Trotting out examples of underwhelming late-teen picks is irrelevant when discussing making a move that's either going to vault you into a top team or crash and burn. Letting yeah choose to swap picks with you for 3 yrs is obviously a VERY bad idea of you've gone high-risk: because you're only going to be able to pick of it's in the 20-30 range (ie swap not wanted) and you're going to lose each pick if you're a lottery team. The chances being roughly 50/50 since you've vacated "mediocre" with the high risk high reward acquisition Obv, as anyone would agree, BOTH likely outcomes are undesirable; losing the high picks because well you're trapped in the cellar, keeping the low value picks bc those picks by their nature had more trade value as assets 3 yrs ago, but now it's the #29 and actually more of an anchor than a desired asset.
You have to look at it from a standpoint of the value everything has, both players and picks, and recognize how the value of those change from one year to the next. When you do that, it becomes apparent why I made my original point that trading 3 firsts in a "high risk" move of acquiring Simmons sets us up for a lose-lose situation where unless we win it all or very close to it, we've actually done more harm than good sucking ourselves in the "very good" category. That, I DO believe in, and I really don't want to be that club that has both maxed out their likely ceiling at 2nd Rd/fringe ECF pretender while also having mortgaged their future. Guys picked at 17, the TJ Leafs of the world, are irrelevant in that scenario bc they're not in your wheelhouse, as those next three picks are NOT going to be mid-1st picks.
Look, you're all fans, and I respect that, but I've lost my enthusiasm for trying to have a legit discussion with the "5 second read and react" mentality around here. It's fun to chime in with a comment or snap take, or chat during games, but I really have not seen anything here that leads me to believe folks by and large wish to participate in any in depth analysis. C'est la vie.
Last edited by OneMoreYear; 10-11-2021, 08:32 PM.Leave a comment:
-
-
-
-
one way to look at it, another way is the sixers have tried for months to trade him at a ridiculous price and now everyone is making them eat this toxic, turd sandwich they've made until they wise up and take a reasonable deal.Leave a comment:
-
looks like it took about a $1M hit for simmons to ***** out and return lmaoLeave a comment:
-
That's not an overpay, that's probably what Philly is going to get. Regardless of the reduced trade value talk, Philly will still get some decent players and a couple 1st round picks from someone, be it Pacers or another team. Likely another team, and we will all comment about how it was a lot to give up and I'm glad the Pacers didn't give up that much.Leave a comment:
-
Philly let Jimmy go in FA, sort of. People have also said that there was basically no chance Jimmy was staying once he started talks with Miami, as the "culture" there alligns closely with his own ideals and work ethic.
Iirc, Philly was hesitant at first though to give him a max, so it did lead to him having discussions with Miami, at which point all hope was lost for him staying. That's what I think I remember at least.Leave a comment:
-
- If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
- 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:
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star
Rule #6And I would put the pasted article in quotes like this.
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.
all rights reserved Nije Dei Ltd
Powered by vBulletin® Version 6.0.7
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba vBulletin. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba vBulletin. All rights reserved.
All times are GMT-5. This page was generated at 11:09 PM.
Leave a comment: