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
-
28Traded before deadline10.71%3Paid 4/85 Pacers special64.29%18Pacers way ....Leaves for nothing ....or S&T25.00%7 -
I don’t get the whole “Pacers Way” stuff. We let some bench players go, but we always get something for our valuable players.
Antonio Davis
Dale Davis
Jalen Rose
Brad Miller
Jermaine O’Neal
Troy Murphy
Danny Granger
Roy Hibbert
George Hill
Paul George
Victor Oladipo
We got something for all these guys, this is just another stupid take from the loudest poster.
I expect that we re-sign him, but if it is clear that we won’t, we will probably get something for him -
-
HMM... that's funny. I see an OP making a valid argument, and then I see a respondent whose actually doing the trolling by doing nothing more constructive than criticizing the OP.Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
Now regarding the discussion at hand:
Exhibit A: every single player on that list was a starter and not only that but most were highly regarded enough to have been cornerstone players when traded. Of COURSE you don't let them go for nothing or that's truly a fireable offense.
After that, the Pacers roosters especially of late are littered with guys who could've drawn a return of bothered to be traded before we were backed into a corner.
Bojan Bogdonovich - has came out personally as saying he wanted to resign with the Pacers but Utah got to him first with a good offer
Thad Young - pretty similar circumstances, solid starter with value to other teams valuable enough to Chicago to get 14/yr from them in 2019
Ian Mahinmi - WAS signed him to a terrible deal, but that's not an indictment of his perceived value but rather supports how highly they regarded him & definitely could've received some assets back rather than letting him walk.
Mike Dunleavy - despite your opinion of him, Dunleavy played 6 more yrs in the league and several as a starter after walking as a UFA.
Jarrett Jack - Pacers declined to match Blazers offer.
Glenn Robinson III - UFA
Doug McDermott - just the latest Pacers discard.
I rest my case.
Now, about your attitude:
Just bc you don't agree with someone's opinions doesn't make that person a "troll". I have said before and I'll say it again a troll is a person who isn't attempting to argue a point, provide a take or an opinion but rather is solely interested in sowing discord. I've heard Ozy and Vnzla called trolls repeatedly but you know what, they make a case about Pacers topics and can defend their takes, yet because those takes are often unpopular or "negative" ppl make fun of them both. Whether the "Pacers Way" is a real thing or not, it's a valid argument & I don't know where you think you get off responding to that argument as "trolling" simply bc you happen to not agree with it.
Others, ironically, can't seem to do much more than create drama. That, good sir, sounds more like you. If you don't like an opinion or take feel free to refute it. If you don't like a poster, calling them "stupid" (KentBeckley) or in your case (Pacerduse) calling them a "troll" only makes YOU look bad. I'd rather debate things with Vnzla or Ozy than with a smug little boil like you.Last edited by OneMoreYear; 08-22-2021, 12:35 PM.Comment
-
Now, I actually think he'll get traded before the deadline bc this roster has enough flexibility (and a pressing need to develop guys) to shift minutes to either Brissett, Duarte, or Jackson. Other teams will certainly value Warren if he comes back healthy. And we're not "forced" to trade Warren so we have leverage to talk with multiple bidders. Warren is at this point probably more valuable than BB was when he left & that loss was a clear failing to act so I don't think TW will be allowed to come to the same result. He will be moved, which is the right decision for a piece that was basically free to acquire & has probably reached his maximum career value. He won't be resigned unless we get some real crap offers bc we've got the resources to replace him with long term solutions.
Any other move than trading him would IMO be a mistake, and ideally, you include him with another outgoing player to bring back one guy of significant value or a strong pick. Wash, Minn, or NOLA could be ideal trade partners as you wanna deal him to a team that is desperate to "break out" and you pry off a young prospect they're not willing to wait on (looking at you Minny) or next year's pick.
TJ's low salary at this time gives you a chance to actually trade him for a young guy still on a rookie deal or 2nd, middling contact (under 24yo), you do it now before you're forced to S&T for a vet making 20+mil (which you can't afford).
Unfortunately, these are not typically Pritch type moves...Last edited by OneMoreYear; 08-22-2021, 01:02 PM.Comment
-
-
He offers more to discuss & consider than you do. Case in point: this is a decent thread, the only thing ruining it is your involvement. Do us all a favor and if you have nothing to add than be gone.Originally posted by PacerDude View PostComment
-
Dunleavy and Bogdanovic were both guys that were looked at to resign, but the price was more than the front office wanted to pay, both were well into their 30’s.Originally posted by OneMoreYear View Post
The rest were bench players, which was my point.
I didn’t call anyone stupid, might try reading a little closer.Comment
-
Originally posted by kent beckley View Post
Of course the front office want willing to pay that price. That's the entire POINT. Every single GM has to face not being able to resign players who get overpriced. That's part of the job is not just throwing your hands in the air and ignoring the situation. You get paid as a GM to find ways to recoup some sort of value whether possible. Letting them walk for nothing is still a failure, because other GMs would rather than letting them simply walk away either A) have negotiated a trade in the year leaving up to their departure or B) sign and trade. The fact that SOMEONE was willing to pay Dunleavy that much is ALL that matters, because it means someone out there valued him more than our office did. Might I remind you that is exactly how we got Brogdon, if Mil had our office incompetence they'd have let Brog walk instead they said "psst hey, rather than having to bid for this guy on the FA market, give us something of value in return we'll sign him and then trade him to you before he ever hits the market". We benefited. Lots of teams would benefit in the same way if we made calls before letting guys just depart. We seem to not wanna do so, I'm not sure but I suspect the FO isn't even allowed to make that initial, short term foray over the cap even if it means soon thereafter moving the salary and getting back an expiring and pick.
Everyone else does it. Everyone. But we are averse to any transactions that are multi-part activities or anything risky.
And don't bother splitting hairs. You come in here and say "this is just another stupid take from the loudest poster", that's the kind of garbage no one around here wants to hear, as I say if you don't agree with an opinion feel free to lay out your argument, but you don't need to be calling posters OR their legit, completely valid Pacers takes "stupid" it just makes you look rather immature and unpleasant. Try to act better than a 10yr old. I disagree with people all the times, and sometimes I'm a smart@** in my response, but one thing you don't see me doing is replying to someone by saying "another stupid reply from the loudmouth".Last edited by OneMoreYear; 08-22-2021, 03:13 PM.Comment
-
*re-sign.
I have a 10 year old g'daughter who knows that.Comment
-
The front office is not psychic. If the player wants to shop around, the front office can’t force them to do anything. They can either try to sign them in the off-season, or trade a player that they want to keep.Originally posted by OneMoreYear View Post
I provided a full list of players that shows the team does not just let every player walk for nothing, so how can that be the “Pacers way”. Everyone else does it? For real? Everyone else?
You are definitely showing your maturity in this thread.
So glad we’ve got you to be the forum police.
Comment
-
Never said I was. I just enjoy calling out the real "trolls" around here.Originally posted by kent beckley View Post
Next time you wanna reply to someone's thread by telling them their post was "stupid" maybe you'll keep your opinion to yourself, because no one wants to hear it.
BTW the only person looking like a fool is you as you, for whatever reason, seem to be desperately trying to justify your coming on here and telling the OP how stupid their opinion is. This is the hill you wanna defend? By all means.
I'm done. They're will be no further responses to waste everyone's time. You did it to yourself I'm just hanging a lampshade on it.
Last edited by OneMoreYear; 08-22-2021, 04:41 PM.Comment
-
Every team losses players to free agency. That is not unique in any way to the Pacers. The only time teams make sure they get something for a player is when they are an all-star level or near all-star level player. That is only because those players are not seen as replaceable. McDermott, Dunleavy, and Bogdanovic level players are seen as easily replaceable.Comment
-
I guess my view is that this is much less common when said player is a starter, ie, a guy that's in demand. You could make an argument regarding Dun, but McD and Bogie both got paid starter money and that doesn't happen unless a team sees them as worth it. In most FA yrs, I'd argue that Bogie or McD (at the level they were when leaving Ps) are probably your in your top-8 of free agents. Generally speaking. They're players that usually will have competing offers for their services, ie, the reason their prices are too high for us to comfortably re-sign are exactly the reason they still have trade value: teams are willing to overpay for them. That's a lesson our FO doesn't seem to learn.Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
Again, I use Brogdon as an example. He's in Bogdonovich's value range, I think we can all agree. Mil was active in it's efforts & received a pick for him; in a similar situation with a similarly valued player, the Pacers wave the white flag. No team keeps from losing guys 100% of the time, but compared to the rest of the league, we recoup value for outgoing talent far less often than is average. And the reason is pretty clear: other clubs know we don't like doing S&T, or midseason trades... If they see an expiring they like, they won't contact us at the trade deadline bc they KNOW we won't trade that player to someone at the deadline, and they know we'll let him explore the market after the season & his contract have ended...they've learned we like to hang into guys until the bitter end, and that they can wait us out. There's no reason for them to do deals with us. Whether you call it "tough love" or not, there's a risk to the philosophy of letting players "test the market" bc other teams catch onto that and will wait you out. It only works if you have a desirable, first class destination (in football terms, the "Patriot Way" allows them to play hardball with guys for the same reason). Let the Patriots try that hard-line stance with guys exploring FA options, once it's been a decade since they've win a round in the playoffs, and see how well it works for them then. It won't, and if they try it, guys will walk.
This is Indiana, on top of that, this is a subpar team with a lot of recent instability, we have to work HARDER to not lose anyone of value w/o some compensation or else we'll just continually bleed talent.
Case: Warren is a low hanging fruit. You know teams see that. Unless we're proactive, teams will watch & be ready to grab him next yr for 20-24mil. No, we can't and shouldn't pay that, BUT it doesn't mean we can't recoup something in return by trading him to an eager buyer at the deadline. IF we had a reputation for that, teams would jump the gun instead of waiting for him to be a FA. Ideally, you look for a team with an "odd man out" like TJ himself was a couple yrs ago; you go get a guy who's not a good fit where he is and who's similarly fated to be moved, and you get him bc YOU act before the guy hits the market. Ball was a good example this yr; Wiggins in GS, Brogdon 3 yrs ago. Everyone has guys they know they're at risk of losing... You won't get an all star but you'll get decent value like a Brogdon. But we refuse to play that game.
Eat the Pritch.Last edited by OneMoreYear; 08-22-2021, 05:23 PM.Comment
-
If he has a good season, he walks. If he has a bad season, we'll try to bring him back on a budget deal (10-15/year for 4 years).
Traded? Very very unlikely"Josh Smith Re-building the city of Detroit one brick at a time"Originally posted by Piston PrinceComment
Tweet
Destiny of TJ Warren
Comment