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

2010 Pre-Draft Trade Rumors

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

  • Re: 2010 Pre-Draft Trade Rumors

    Here's a rumor that mentions revisiting the Ford trade of the last trade deadline.

    http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/features/rumors#16666

    The Felton dilemma
    9:01 AM ET
    Raymond Felton


    The Charlotte Bobcats have an interesting decision when it comes a starter at the point-guard position. Do they try to re-sign Raymond Felton or do they try to acquire a floor leader via a trade? The Bobcats would probably re-sign Felton, but they have to be careful how much they offer. Rick Bonnell of The Charlotte Observer has some thoughts on the subject.

    Bonnell writes: "Felton is an exceptional guy -- accountable, competitive, a leader. The problem is he has not proven he is an above-average NBA point guard. But he seemingly expects to be paid like one. I spoke to three current or former player-personnel guys in the league about this, and was struck by the similarity of their reactions: The Bobcats are in equal danger of overpaying Felton or being left with no real point guard. Dilemma is an overused word, but this is a dilemma. ... The Bobcats need to do something assertive. I understand more than ever why they tried to acquire T.J. Ford from the Indiana Pacers at the trade deadline. I don't know exactly what aborted that deal, but I'd guess it was then-owner Bob Johnson containing cost, while arranging a sale."

    Bonnell asked general manager Rod Higgins if the club would revisit a trade for Ford and Higgins said he'd revisit a lot of things.

    Comment


    • Re: 2010 Pre-Draft Trade Rumors

      Originally posted by Will Galen View Post

      The problem is he has not proven he is an above-average NBA point guard. But he seemingly expects to be paid like one.

      The Bobcats are in equal danger of overpaying Felton or being left with no real point guard.

      I understand more than ever why they tried to acquire T.J. Ford from the Indiana Pacers at the trade deadline.
      The things I've bolded point out problems to me.

      1. Felton thinks too much of himself.
      2. They have no faith in DJ Augustin
      3. They think that Ford is better than either of the others.

      Comment


      • Re: 2010 Pre-Draft Trade Rumors

        Originally posted by Tom White View Post
        The things I've bolded point out problems to me.

        1. Felton thinks too much of himself.
        2. They have no faith in DJ Augustin
        3. They think that Ford is better than either of the others.
        I think a change of scenery might do wonders for both players.

        Ford is not a bad basketball player. He just needs a coach who will let him have the ball in his hands 80% of the game. He's a horrible fit with O'Brien.

        Felton is big, plays defense, and is a pretty good outside shooter. He's also on one of the worst offensive teams in the NBA and in a system that makes it nearly impossible for him to put up the PG numbers he believes are commensurate with his talent level. I think with a year in Indy he'd at least put up the numbers of an above average PG, while still playing good defense.
        "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

        - Salman Rushdie

        Comment


        • Re: 2010 Pre-Draft Trade Rumors

          Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
          I think a change of scenery might do wonders for both players.

          Ford is not a bad basketball player. He just needs a coach who will let him have the ball in his hands 80% of the game. He's a horrible fit with O'Brien.

          Felton is big, plays defense, and is a pretty good outside shooter. He's also on one of the worst offensive teams in the NBA and in a system that makes it nearly impossible for him to put up the PG numbers he believes are commensurate with his talent level. I think with a year in Indy he'd at least put up the numbers of an above average PG, while still playing good defense.
          Good point....I totally agree here. Of the "rumored" PGs that the Pacers are "supposedly" interested in making some move for....Felton is the only one that IMHO makes the most sense.....assuming that we don't significantly overpay him ( as in signing him to some $9+ mil a year contract while having to give up #10 AND BRush ). I don't know how much he's asking for that would not seem totally unreasonsable ( hopefully between $7 to 8 mil a year ) but if I had to choose between giving up whatever assets to acquire a PG, I'd rank getting Felton #1, Sessions #2 and Tony Parker #3.

          Although Parker is the best PG of the bunch...but I don't think that he'll come cheap and wouldn't want to come to spend his last years on a Team that is in flux like the Pacers. In regards to Sessions....I don't think he's a long term solution to our Starting PG concerns....but it would have to depend on what else we get back along with who we'd intend to draft ( assuming that we get back some 2 pick combination of #16,#23 and the 1st 2nd round pick of the TWolves ).
          Last edited by CableKC; 06-14-2010, 12:50 PM.
          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

          Comment


          • Re: 2010 Pre-Draft Trade Rumors

            Some good stuff from Yahoo:

            http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slu...scousins061310

            Originally posted by Yahoo! Sports

            Favors, Cousins to face off on June 21

            By Adrian Wojnarowski, Yahoo! Sports
            Jun 13, 8:46 pm EDT

            After some gentle prodding by the New Jersey Nets’ front office, Georgia Tech’s Derrick Favors and Kentucky’s DeMarcus Cousins – the top two big men in the NBA draft – will work out one-on-one against each other on June 21 in East Rutherford, N.J.

            The Nets hold the third pick in the draft, and so far Favors’ agent Wallace Prather has been reluctant to let him get matched with the bigger, stronger Cousins on the floor. They worked out together in Sacramento on Saturday, but largely stayed in individual drills. Sources say Nets general manager Rod Thorn is leaning toward drafting Favors, but wants to see him in some contact drills with Cousins.

            The Nets have a talented young center with Brook Lopez(notes) and see Favors fitting into the power forward spot. For Cousins to leap over Favors into the third spot – assuming Kentucky point guard John Wall and Ohio State forward Evan Turner go first and second to the Washington Wizards and Philadelphia 76ers – he’ll have to show the Nets a level of agility and perimeter skill to play forward.

            Favors and Cousins are also expected to share a workout in Philadelphia on Friday, sources said, but they won’t go against each other.

            John Grieg, the agent for Cousins, won’t send his client to workout for the Minnesota Timberwolves, sources say, because he believes the Wolves have decided to draft Syracuse small forward Wesley Johnson.

            Cousins had an excellent workout with the Sacramento Kings, grading out as the best shooter to visit Sacramento in the predraft process. He hit 78 percent of his shots in the workout, including a lot of pick-and-pop attempts.

            Favors graded out as the far better athlete, but the Kings, who have the No. 5 pick in the draft, believed Cousins was a more advanced player. He showed Sacramento officials more range than they thought he had, consistently hitting the 17-foot jumper. The Kings are considering several players, but Cousins could be difficult to pass over.

            Sources say the Kings are also still open to trade possibilities, and Detroit and Utah are two teams eager to move up in the draft. The Pistons’ Tayshaun Prince(notes) could be intriguing to the Kings, who are eager to add a veteran small forward to the roster.

            Comment


            • Re: 2010 Pre-Draft Trade Rumors

              Originally posted by TheDoddage View Post
              If there was a scenario where the TWolves traded up to get the 10th pick....due to their apparent need to help fill out the SF and Center spots....I was hoping that the TWolves would pick Cousins with the 4th pick and then trade up to get the 10th pick to draft any one of the remaining SG/SFs that will likely be available...like George, Babbitt, Henry or Hayward....many of which MAY not be avaialable by the 16th spot.

              To me, this would be a more ideal situation for us to snag the 16th and 23rd picks....as there are more quality SG/SFs at the 10 spot as opposed to finding a quality Center at the 10th spot.

              The only other Big Man that would make sense would be Aldrich...but at the 10th spot, there's a possiblility that he could drop to the 16th spot.
              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

              Comment


              • Re: 2010 Pre-Draft Trade Rumors

                Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                Good point....I totally agree here. Of the "rumored" PGs that the Pacers are "supposedly" interested in making some move for....Felton is the only one that IMHO makes the most sense.....assuming that we don't significantly overpay him ( as in signing him to some $9+ mil a year contract while having to give up #10 AND BRush ). I don't know how much he's asking for that would not seem totally unreasonsable ( hopefully between $7 to 8 mil a year ) but if I had to choose between giving up whatever assets to acquire a PG, I'd rank getting Felton #1, Sessions #2 and Tony Parker #3.
                Of all the "vet" PGs mentioned for use in trade rumors, Felton is the best as long as the price is reasonable. Still young, has true PG skills, decent D. Not great, but even if only average by league starter standards, still a significant upgrade over what we've got. Others have issues. In TP's case, ones you've covered. Maynor still unprovedn. IMO, Sessions still somewhat uproven and not as much of a traditional PG.
                I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                -Emiliano Zapata

                Comment


                • Re: 2010 Pre-Draft Trade Rumors

                  I would pass on Felton. A change of scenary player(s) got the Pacers in their current predicament. Too much salary for a player that can be probably be had in the draft.
                  {o,o}
                  |)__)
                  -"-"-

                  Comment


                  • Re: 2010 Pre-Draft Trade Rumors

                    I agree on Felton. Lesser paid Augustin would be okay but not a major upgrade. To me the deal is about the mild upgrade from Rush to Henderson; IMO of course since Henderson couldn't get PT for Brown all year.

                    I think you could get a guy just as good this year or next in the draft or even just with whatever trades come up as teams needs to work salary issues.

                    I'm not against getting some guys, but I don't think the team needs to act in desperation to solve any one given thing. Go with the market flow and get the guys you can get cheap now and then worry about the holes when you can actually view the roster as only having 1-2 holes rather than a canyon.

                    Comment


                    • Re: 2010 Pre-Draft Trade Rumors

                      http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/pos...ve-up-in-draft

                      We just unloaded 2000 plus words of the latest draft talk on our NBA Draft Blog today. We covered the DeMarcus Cousins-Derrick Favors workout in Sacramento and gave the latest updates on what the Wizards, Sixers, Nets, Timberwolves and Kings were all up to. As we get closer to the draft the info just keeps rolling in. Here's a few bonus nuggets, that came in after the blog published:

                      A number of NBA sources are telling me that the Denver Nuggets are in the hunt for a Top 10 pick. Nuggets GM Mark Warkentein has been calling around trying to gauge interest in teams selling the pick. According to sources Warkentein is offering Ty Lawson for the pick. A Nuggets source said the Nuggets are looking for big man to fill up their front line. Several bigs including Cole Aldrich, Ed Davis, Ekpe Udoh, Patrick Patterson, Daniel Orton and Hassan Whiteside could be there at 10.

                      Butler's Gordon Hayward is getting serious looks from the Clippers, Jazz, Pacers and Bucks. But could he go even higher than No. 8. The Sacramento Kings (drafting at No. 5) have been pushing to get Hayward in and will have Hayward and Nevada's Luke Babbitt in for a workout on June 23rd, the day before the draft. Could the Kings take Hayward ahed of the two guys we have highest on their board -- DeMarcus Cousins and Greg Monore? Probably not. But the Kings have been talking to several teams about moving down in the draft. The Kings are looking for veterans and have been shopping Andres Nocioni and Francisco Garcia to see if they can get any takers. If they do move down a few notches, both players could be intriguing.
                      "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                      - Salman Rushdie

                      Comment


                      • Re: 2010 Pre-Draft Trade Rumors

                        Would you do #10 for Ty? I think I would.

                        Comment


                        • Re: 2010 Pre-Draft Trade Rumors

                          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                          Would you do #10 for Ty? I think I would.
                          Straight up? I don't know. Could we haggle a future-first out of them?

                          Comment


                          • Re: 2010 Pre-Draft Trade Rumors

                            Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                            Would you do #10 for Ty? I think I would.
                            Probably. If it includes the Nuggets pick too, definitely.

                            Comment


                            • Re: 2010 Pre-Draft Trade Rumors

                              Originally posted by Granville View Post
                              Probably. If it includes the Nuggets pick too, definitely.
                              They don't have a single pick in this year's draft.

                              Comment


                              • Re: 2010 Pre-Draft Trade Rumors

                                Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                                Would you do #10 for Ty? I think I would.
                                this goes back again to the draft last year, if you wanted him that bad(lawson) why not take him last year with the 13pick? so now you are giving up a 10th pick for him?


                                By the way I still like the Tyler pick
                                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X