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

IndyStar: Pacers' Granger wants long-term deal

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

  • Re: IndyStar: Pacers' Granger wants long-term deal

    Count55-

    On Foster, understood. Sentamentality-wise, I'd like to see the guy
    stay a Pacer forever. But as a big who relies as much on quickness
    as he does, at 32, he's moving into a stage where aches and pains
    and general slowing down a bit will diminish his effectiveness some.

    If he could shoot it well, it'd be a different story. But as is, from a
    purely biz perspective, it's probably in the Pacer org's best interest
    to try and maximize return on his present value by shopping him to
    a contender or using him to facilitate/sweeten another deal.

    As long as they don't overpay him if they decide to keep him, I'm ok
    with either scenario.

    Comment


    • Re: IndyStar: Pacers' Granger wants long-term deal

      Originally posted by purdue101 View Post
      I can see your point of view, definitely. Extending now has it's benefits and is the safer bet. Waiting is riskier but could potentially reap bigger rewards.

      I think Bird is more a risk taker than Donnie. Donnie seemed to always give out extensions a year before they hit FA.

      Bird had an interesting comment in the indystar today. "We're going to get an awful lot of money (in salary cap space) and be able to be a major player in free agency down the road"

      Obviously he is talking about next summer b/c we already had a ton of cap space coming in two summers w/ JO's expiring.

      Time will tell I guess.
      Didn't see this until after I posted mine second post.

      Comment


      • Re: IndyStar: Pacers' Granger wants long-term deal

        Originally posted by purdue101 View Post
        I can see your point of view, definitely. Extending now has it's benefits and is the safer bet. Waiting is riskier but could potentially reap bigger rewards.

        I think Bird is more a risk taker than Donnie. Donnie seemed to always give out extensions a year before they hit FA.

        Bird had an interesting comment in the indystar today. "We're going to get an awful lot of money (in salary cap space) and be able to be a major player in free agency down the road"

        Obviously he is talking about next summer b/c we already had a ton of cap space coming in two summers w/ JO's expiring.

        Time will tell I guess.
        I don't necessarily agree here. If this last offseason proves anything....Bird isn't as much of a Risk taker then most would think whereas Donnie has always been the one that would take risks ( as noted by draft picks and extensions ). Although I think that these last draft picks were dictated by our situation ( as in compete now instead of build for the future ), I don't get the sense that Bird would freely spend the new found $$$ that he has now. Just like before the draft....I don't think that we have the luxury to gamble now....we have to be very smart in the moves that we make over the next 2 or 3 seasons.

        I want to win a Championship now...but I am realistic enough to understand that this is a long 2-3 year process given the situation that we are in. This doesn't mean that if there is a no-brainer deal out there that make sense for us....like trading Tinsley for some Low-Post scoing PF that no one wants that won't kill us financially...that I wouldn't do it. I'm just saying that I would much rather be patient and see how things pan out then rush headlong into a situation based solely on a need to acquire a "Big Name" FA simply cuz we have the resources to do so.

        Keep in mind....slow and steady wins the race....not quick and potentially reckless.
        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

        Comment


        • Re: IndyStar: Pacers' Granger wants long-term deal

          Originally posted by count55 View Post
          There are a number of things, big and small, that gobble up that $19mm of cap space that you're proposing we use to get an FA. First, I think it's probably at least 50/50 that we pick up Shawne Williams' option of $2.4mm. It's far from a certainty, but it seems like a low risk gamble that we're likely to take. (At this point, I should note that for this discussion, I'm assuming no further trades that would material change our cap position for next summer.) That would leave us with only slightly over $16mm to sign a free agent. However, the Pacers will have somewhere in the neighborhood of $43mm in cap holds next summer, including an estimate for the 2009 1st round pick.

          These cap holds are salary allocations for free agents with Bird rights. You can renounce a free agent to remove their cap hold but can no longer sign them with an exception. (I have not found out how these are calculated.)

          The holds that are listed at Draft Express include Rasho, Danny, Jack, Foster, Graham, and McRoberts. In order to release these holds, we would need to renounce the free agent (as noted above), thereby basically losing any realistic chance of keeping them. Now, we'd probably fine doing this with Rasho ($12.6mm hold), Graham ($1.1mm), and McBob ($0.9mm). However, I think we're going to want to hold on to those rights for Jack ($8.7mm) and Foster ($8.3mm). Even if we didn't, we would absolutely, positively not relinquish Danny & his $9.9mm.
          Based off of your calculations, how much do you think we have to sign a FA next season assuming that we do resign Granger, Jack, Foster and whoever we draft next season?

          Maybe $3-4 mil to spend before hitting the Luxury Tax?
          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

          Comment


          • Re: IndyStar: Pacers' Granger wants long-term deal

            Originally posted by CableKC View Post
            Based off of your calculations, how much do you think we have to sign a FA next season assuming that we do resign Granger, Jack, Foster and whoever we draft next season?

            Maybe $3-4 mil to spend before hitting the Luxury Tax?
            Well, if we say $10mm start for Danny, $4 for Jack & $5 for Jeff (rough guesses), plus $1 for the 1st rounder (it might be closer to 2, but I think I'm heavy on the first three and possibly my Rush/Hibbert estimates), that puts us at 43+10+4+5+1, or $63mm vs. a cap of $61 (est) and a tax of just under $75 (est) with 10 players under contract. We could pick up Shawne's option ($2.4mm) and be at about $66mm, with 12 players under contract and around $8-9mm left under the tax. We'd be over the cap, so we'd have to use the MLE (and could use it, I think) without going over the tax.

            The following year (summer 2010), assuming we add another 1st rounder and pick up Rush/Hibbert's options, but let Shawne & Travis go (along with the signings mentioned above) we'd be at roughly $67mm against a cap of $65 (est) and a tax of $78 (est), but that would be for only 11 players. If we had used the full MLE in 2009, we'd have 12 players and roughly $73mm in salaries, so we could conceivably use the full MLE again, or close to it to and possibly stay under the tax. Then, summer of 2011 is when we really get a lot of space, with Murphy, Dunleavy, Ford, and Tinsley ($39mm) coming off the books.

            Really it depends on how the Pacers view their expirings. I would think that they do not have Rasho, Graham, McRoberts, and Daniels in their plans beyond this year. I would expect at least one of Jeff Foster or Jarrett Jack to be back next season with a new contract or extension, but both would be a luxury they couldn't afford if they want to make a splash in Free Agency.

            While we have certainly made large improvements in our financial position, we haven't exactly cleared the decks, unless we're willing to part with a number of players that could be contributors down the road.

            Comment


            • Re: IndyStar: Pacers' Granger wants long-term deal

              Originally posted by count55 View Post
              Well, if we say $10mm start for Danny, $4 for Jack & $5 for Jeff (rough guesses), plus $1 for the 1st rounder (it might be closer to 2, but I think I'm heavy on the first three and possibly my Rush/Hibbert estimates), that puts us at 43+10+4+5+1, or $63mm vs. a cap of $61 (est) and a tax of just under $75 (est) with 10 players under contract. We could pick up Shawne's option ($2.4mm) and be at about $66mm, with 12 players under contract and around $8-9mm left under the tax. We'd be over the cap, so we'd have to use the MLE (and could use it, I think) without going over the tax.

              The following year (summer 2010), assuming we add another 1st rounder and pick up Rush/Hibbert's options, but let Shawne & Travis go (along with the signings mentioned above) we'd be at roughly $67mm against a cap of $65 (est) and a tax of $78 (est), but that would be for only 11 players. If we had used the full MLE in 2009, we'd have 12 players and roughly $73mm in salaries, so we could conceivably use the full MLE again, or close to it to and possibly stay under the tax. Then, summer of 2011 is when we really get a lot of space, with Murphy, Dunleavy, Ford, and Tinsley ($39mm) coming off the books..
              I'm gonna be more conservative and go with Granger ( signing at $12 mil starting ), Jarrett ( signing $4.5 mil ) and Foster ( signing at $5.5 mil ) while picking up Shawne's Team Option and letting everyone else expire....with a Luxury Tax of about $73 mil ( let's say that it doesn't go up that much )...that would mean taht we would have about $4+ mil to spend on a FA before we hit the Luxury Tax.

              As for making a splash in FA next season...at best...I think that we can expect a player like Maggette ( basically what the Warriors got for 8-10 mil a year )....not an All-Star level type player. My priorities are resigning Granger, Jack and Foster...everything else is gravy.
              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

              Comment


              • Re: IndyStar: Pacers' Granger wants long-term deal

                Originally posted by ChicagoPacer View Post
                Before I hi-jacked this thread and turned it into a Jalen Rose post mortem, I guess the point I was trying to make is that while DG is a very good player, we need to consider the players surrounding him in the future and the impact this may have on his production and future value.

                We hitched our wagon to Croshere and Rose on the back of a very productive season, but mgmt failed to predict the future effectiveness of either under different personnel circumstances and we ultimately wound up overpaying. Both of those guys were very effective that finals season and especially during that playoff run, but it came on the backs of the vets. Jalen was the high minute, steady scorer type, and Croshere had spurts of great play. Smits couldn't play many minutes by this point in time, but when you look his production when he was on the court, it is pretty clear he was drawing doubles for the benefit of Cro and Jalen. You can see this in everyone's per 36 minutes stats from the run:

                Reggie 21.3 pts/36 min, Smits 18.8, Jalen 17.9, Travis and Cro 15.9.

                When Jalen, Reggie, and Smits were on the court together, Jalen was our third option.

                Smits retired and Reggie got a year older...Jalen got more touches the following year and scored more but at the expense of efficiency, and Cro... well let's just say those drives to the hoop for dunks are harder to come by when Smits isn't around to keep post defenders from cheating over to help. We failed to figure out what these two guys were capable of when they were asked to do more on the offensive end.

                With Granger, it's the opposite. We need to figure out what he is capable of if he is asked to do less on the offensive end. Is he putting up his numbers because he's a budding all-star, or is he putting them up because we stink and no one else is around to do the things he does? Are we paying for a future 22 pt, 7 reb, 4 assist kind of guy? Or, assuming our roster improves and DG's touches decline, are we paying for a 15-16 pt, 6 reb, 4 assist kind of guy? Because there is a big difference...

                Some guys, when asked to do less, do things better and more efficiently (Cro and Rose). Some, like an Allen Iverson or Adrian Dantley, don't. We don't want to pay too much if Danny can't pick up other parts of his game with less touches (defense and passing).
                I agree with most of what you are saying, but Jalen, IMO, was clearly the #1 option of that team, and Jalen was, IMO, the #1 option of the lockout season team, even when Reggie and Smits were on the court. Jalen was the only guy that could consistently create his own shot (at least after the Mark Jackson post-up rule was created), and Jalen created most of Smits' shots, too. There was a teamwork that, admittedly, relied on all five players together to complement each other. And that part of your point is well-taken.

                Now, at crunch time, Reggie became the #1 option again because he still had icewater in his veins. And yes, that accounts for something. But for the first 44 minutes of the game, the ball would go through Jalen. Reggie had already begun the "save it up for the last few minutes of the game" portion of his career - except when he was truly in a zone. And that's fine.

                I agree that every FA in the summers of 1999/2000 was vastly overpaid. That was long before anybody thought the luxury tax would ever kick in.

                I agree that I wouldn't want to pay Danny the max. But nobody seems to be looking at this from the player's/ agent's perspective: make the most money possible. Isn't that what we all do, too? Danny isn't going to get the max but I'll bet that is where his agent starts the negotiations. What good agent is going to leave money on the table for his player? Once the negotiations get down to a certain number (say, less than $11 million starting salary), why wouldn't Danny walk away and negotiate again next summer? The actuarial tables don't show that many career-ending injuries at this stage of the career.

                Sidebar: I know its heresy, but I think we would have had a better chance against the Lakers if Jalen were still the #1 option in that series instead of Reggie (and of course the stupid hack-a-Shaq approach in Game #2). In other words, if we had played that series like we played the regular season, working the ball through Jalen and playing Shaq straight-up while not allowing Rice, Harper, and Fisher to hurt us, we might have had a better outcome.
                Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                And life itself, rushing over me
                Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                Comment

                Working...
                X