Tweet
Re: David West might be the move to make...
Edit: wrong thread.
Edit: wrong thread.
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
-
-
Re: David West might be the move to make...
Very weak FA class. He was suppose to be one of the jewels in this class before his injury. IMO he is hoping someone will pay up long term sight unseen. If he goes out & under-whelms n/y, he will be lost in n/y's class. Risky? Yes, but a calculated & likely smart move.Originally posted by Karlton View Post
If I'm Larry, I stay the hell away. Pre-injury, likely Yes, but not now."Larry Bird: You are Officially On the Clock! (3/24/08)"
(Watching You Like A Hawk!)
Comment
-
Re: David West might be the move to make...
I'd take Gasol over a healthy West, I'd absolutely take him over West coming off a season ending injury.Originally posted by A.B.Hollywood View Post
Gasol can start with Hibbert, you can call it playing Gasol as PF or call it starting 2 centers, but it would work. It's not like they'd be playing together every minute.
For that matter I'd take Kaman over West as well as long as we didn't have to give up too much.Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.Comment
-
Re: David West might be the move to make...
And what are basing that on? The 2 players are different types of PFs that contributes in different ways.Originally posted by MillerTime View PostAsh from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.Comment
-
Re: David West might be the move to make...
CooperManning, we are both on the same page on thisOriginally posted by CooperManning View PostHump/Landry/DeAndre stat comparison for anyone who cares.
, but can you do me a favor and compare Tyson Chandler, Kris Humphries and SideShow Bob.
I know that it's not an entirely fair assessment because Humphries only put up these #s in a Contract season....but he's never been given more then 20 minutes prior to this season for the various reasons that ( I think ) you mentioned in another post.
At the very least, my guess is that we can argue that Humphries could be considered a "poor man's" version of Chandler that put up comprable ( if not slightly better ) #s and is likely more affordable then Chandler.
To be fair...if the Pacers were willing to offer Tyson some 4 year / $10 mil per season offer...I'd be cool with that. Before any of you balk at this......IMHO....the only way that the Pacers...much less any Team is going to persuade Chandler to leave a Championship Team is to overpay him while making the Mavs "blink".Last edited by CableKC; 06-28-2011, 01:26 AM.Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.Comment
-
Re: David West might be the move to make...
Why are people so high on Humphries? Even in this great contract year, he only averaged 10 and 10. The whole point is we want either a great defender who can play decent defense or a great offensive presence and who can contribute on defense (im talking about bigs here) I feel like Chandler, West, and NeNe are the only ones who fit the bill.
Carmel HS Class of 2011Comment
-
Re: David West might be the move to make...
So David West at 3 or 4 years and 8 million per is horrible but Tyson Chandler at 10 million per for 4 years is good? Are you all aware that Tyson has had one, yes ONE good season? Are you aware that the dude had more 3 second violations than assists two years ago? Are you aware that he has been *extremely* injury prone?Originally posted by CableKC View Post
Tyson is fine and I'd throw a bit at him but nothing inflates stock more than a great superbowl or finals performance. 10 million a season here is laughable for us and I don't get the logic for one damn second.
Also... Kris Humphries isn't anywhere near the defender Tyson is. So a DIRT poor mans version is more like it
I don't want to sound condescending, which means to talk down to you by the wayComment
-
Re: David West might be the move to make...
You don't think Marc Gasol fits that bill too? Of all three he has the most potential on both sides here. Especially offensively. He could become a 20+ ppg scorer with ease IMO.Originally posted by neosmndrew View Post
He's my far and away #1 choice of the Free Agents (with Josh Smith #1 overall of *available* PF's)I don't want to sound condescending, which means to talk down to you by the wayComment
-
Re: David West might be the move to make...
well i go to every game and i wouldn't mind seeing her at every gameOriginally posted by neosmndrew View Post
..............
Comment
-
Re: David West might be the move to make...
Well, that's not stopping anyone else from being concerned about making a run for him. My whole point is that ANY Big Man that we are going after that can do any of the things that you want them to do WILL HAVE TO BE overpaid...whether it be Chandler or Nene.Originally posted by A.B.Hollywood View Post
You don't get for one second why a Playoff Bubble Team that is in the market for a Big Man will have to overpay for a Top Tier Free Agent that just won a Championship with a Team that wants to do what they can to keep him?Originally posted by A.B.Hollywood View PostAsh from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.Comment
-
Re: David West might be the move to make...
Interesting query. Humphries continues to impress statistically against other available bigs. What do you know?Originally posted by CableKC View PostCooperManning, we are both on the same page on this , but can you do me a favor and compare Tyson Chandler, Kris Humphries and SideShow Bob.
I know that it's not an entirely fair assessment because Humphries only put up these #s in a Contract season....but he's never been given more then 20 minutes prior to this season for the various reasons that ( I think ) you mentioned in another post.
At the very least, my guess is that we can argue that Humphries could be considered a "poor man's" version of Chandler that put up comprable ( if not slightly better ) #s and is likely more affordable then Chandler.
To be fair...if the Pacers were willing to offer Tyson some 4 year / $10 mil per season offer...I'd be cool with that. Before any of you balk at this......IMHO....the only way that the Pacers...much less any Team is going to persuade Chandler to leave a Championship Team is to overpay him while making the Mavs "blink".
Did AV's 09-10 season since he was injured for most of last season.Comment
-
Re: David West might be the move to make...
Nets and Pacers both interested in West, reportedly. So for those more interested in Humphries this may also be good news...
Nets don't seem to view him as their long term starter.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slu...e_agent_062711Comment
-
Re: David West might be the move to make...
I hope NJ signs him before us.
Potential suitors for free agent David West
New Orleans Hornets | Comments
When healthy, David West has played at or near an All-Star level for several seasons. (Mark L. Baer/US Presswire)
David West, the Hornets’ leading scorer and Chris Paul’s longtime pick-and-pop partner, has opted out of his $7.5 million deal for next season and will test free agency, whenever it actually begins. The move carries a slight risk for West, who is rehabbing from ACL surgery in April, has an uncertain return date and passed up a pile of guaranteed cash and the chance to sign an extension right as the league prepares for a more restrictive collective bargaining environment.
Still, that extension would have used West’s under-market salary as its starting point, and the 30-year-old forward said he is confident in his recovery and intent on finding a team that offers him the best combination of money and a chance to contend. Finding a better package of those things outside of New Orleans might be difficult, though it’s hard to say that with any certainty until we see the specifics of the new CBA — where it puts next seson’s cap number, and whether it offers a market-changing amnesty clause or permits the kinds of sign-and-trade transactions that could broaden West’s market.
Under the current system, the Hornets appear set to be under next season’s cap, but that’s not actually true once you factor in charges tied to incumbent free agents, including West and Carl Landry. Those charges exist because the Hornets, like all teams, are allowed to exceed the cap to re-sign their players, a right most expect to slip into the new CBA in some form. If the Hornets lose both their power forwards without netting adequate replacements, they will have serious trouble making the playoffs in the ultra-competitive Western Conference.
And Landry, as good as he is, isn’t really an adequate replacement for West in the short term. Landry played well in New Orleans after coming over in a midseason trade from Sacramento for Marcus Thornton. His quickness gave the Lakers’ Pau Gasol trouble on both ends of the floor in the first round of the playoffs. He’s not on West’s level as a primary pick-and-roll threat, but he has a decent mid-range jumper, worked well as a face-up threat in the post and showed he can be effective as a cutter away from the ball on pick-and-rolls.
Landry, however, is not on West’s level as a scorer, defender and (especially) rebounder, and New Orleans would feel that drop-off more during the grind of an 82-game season. There’s a reason general manager Dell Demps said he wants West to retire a Hornet.
West wants to win, but the best teams in the league — Miami, Chicago, Dallas, San Antonio, Orlando, Boston, the Lakers — are all capped out, and an amnesty clause would probably be a short-term game-changer for just one of them (Dallas, which already has a pretty good jump-shooting power forward). People will rush to anoint the Thunder as the exception, and they are indeed set to be under the cap. But Oklahoma City is pretty happy with the Kendrick Perkins/Serge Ibaka big-man tandem, and it can’t take on a big long-term deal with Russell Westbrook, James Harden and Ibaka due extensions in the next two years.
Indiana and New Jersey have long been rumored as the most likely West destinations. The Nets might offer the best chance for West to land someplace with an intriguing nucleus. Of course, that depends on their ability to persuade their star point guard (Deron Williams) to stay, a massive “if” the Nets share with the Hornets. The Nets’ cap sheet is clean enough that they might be able to re-sign Williams, add West and have enough space left over a year from now to pursue a third star in free agency (or re-sign Brook Lopez). Signing West would mean saying goodbye to Kris Humphries, but even coming off a double-double season, the power forward (already 26, by the way) is not the type of player who should stand in the way of grander plans.
The New Jersey scenario probably carries more upside than that of Indiana, simply because of Williams. The Pacers have some nice pieces and a hole at power forward, but even with West knocking Tyler Hansbrough into a super-sub role, this would not be a team quite ready to compete with Miami and Chicago. That Pacers team — with Darren Collison, Danny Granger, Paul George, West, Roy Hibbert, Hansbrough and newly acquired George Hill — could well chase 50 or so victories, but that roster does not scream “championship.”
Denver might represent the most intriguing destination, provided it hits the double of re-signing Nene and letting Kenyon Martin walk. Depending on Nene’s new salary, that would leave the Nuggets with roughly $46 million (including money for their two first-round picks, Jordan Hamilton and Kenneth Faried) committed for next season. That leaves a batch of theoretical cap room that would shrink if the Nuggets bring back both Wilson Chandler and Arron Afflalo. The latter is probably a more crucial cog in Denver’s long-term picture. The Nuggets might be able to pull off the triple of re-signing Afflalo, extending Nene and chasing a third big piece. But there’s a lot of uncertainty here.
There are some other intriguing hypothetical fits, depending on next season’s salary cap. The Bucks could use a legitimate power forward and might be able to squeeze enough cap room if they make a few roster tweaks and take advantage of an amnesty clause. (Let’s be very clear here: It’s easy to fantasize about a team like the Bucks clearing some cap space by using amnesty to dump Drew Gooden, but they’d still be required to pay the veteran forward his full salary. Asking a team that borrowed at least $55 million from the NBA last year to pay Gooden $26 million for nothing might be asking too much.)
The Suns could create West-sized space by buying out Vince Carter (a near-certainty) and losing someone like Josh Childress via amnesty, but, again, ownership has not exactly been loose with the purse strings in the last half-decade. The Kings have cap space and the Cavaliers have a trade exception, but neither is close to being a serious contender. The Pistons and Raptors might have enough room for West, but both have crowded frontcourts and unexciting immediate futures.
West isn’t a glamorous star, but he’s a very, very good player — a borderline All-Star every season who can really help a team on both ends of the floor. It matters where he ends up, but he might have trouble finding a place where he can really tilt the championship balance over the next two seasons or so@WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!
Comment
-
Re: David West might be the move to make...
I'm going to have to see some tape to make sure that Humphries' rebounds aren't 'Fool's gold', meaning that he's rebounding for a team that doesn't have rebounding ability. For example, Troy Murphy isn't a great rebounder and he averaged a double double for us three years ago. And for the flip side, Paul Milsap is a glass eater and he doesn't average a whole bunch of rebounds because Al Jefferson and AK47 are very good rebounders.Comment
-
Re: David West might be the move to make...
if he signs with the Bucks via S&T ala David Lee that team would be dangerous.Comment
Comment