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

Pacers resign George Hill - 5 year deal

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

  • Re: Pacers resign George Hill - 5 year deal

    I'm okay with this deal. But that might just be all the years of paying Murphleavy skewing my judgment.

    I'd rather have Hill than Dragic (who wants 10 mil) or Lowry (whose defense is terrible) and Lin's Rockets offer sheet was 4/40 (with the final two years at $15 mil per). Plus none of these players can slide over and play the two if necessary. Also, it doesn't matter who starts between him and Collison, because Hill's playing at least 30 minutes regardless. We'll probably see Frank ride the hot hand or the better matchup to finish the game, as he did the past season.

    I don't see why this affects Granger or George at the 3. PG slides over to spell Granger at the 3. Collison can play the one and Hill can play the two. Or Hill can play the one and the guard we bring in (Mayo, for example) can play the two. And finally, you can play Collison and Mayo with PG at the 3.

    You're paying $8 mil for a versatile player; a good three point shooter, a good perimeter defender, a hard worker, a competitor, and someone good in the community. If you find the player you like, who also fits what you're looking for and provides your coach with flexibility in regard to lineups and matchups, why not lock him up? Worst case scenario, it's not like his contract is not tradeable.
    2015, 2016, 2019 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champions - DC Dreamers

    Comment


    • Re: Pacers resign George Hill - 5 year deal

      Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
      Recent contract comparisons:

      Conley: 5yrs 40mil(8yr)
      Stuckey: 3yr 25mil(8.3yr)
      Felton: 2yrs, 15.8mil (7.9yr)
      Hinrich: 5yr 47.5mil(9.5yr)

      Dragic expects 10mil/yr
      Lin expects 8mil/yr

      Obviously there are other comparisons where there were better contract terms for the team, but are any of those guys better than Hill? No. So even though id rather see rhat figure become 7.2-7.6/yr, I guess I don't think he's overpaid by much.

      YES! Conley is a better PG.

      Hinrich OVERPAID!

      Who gave Felton that contract? Was it Walsh when Felton was in NY?

      Comment


      • Re: Pacers resign George Hill - 5 year deal

        Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
        Recent contract comparisons:

        Conley: 5yrs 40mil(8yr)
        Stuckey: 3yr 25mil(8.3yr)
        Felton: 2yrs, 15.8mil (7.9yr)
        Hinrich: 5yr 47.5mil(9.5yr)

        Dragic expects 10mil/yr
        Lin expects 8mil/yr

        Obviously there are other comparisons where there were better contract terms for the team, but are any of those guys better than Hill? No. So even though id rather see rhat figure become 7.2-7.6/yr, I guess I don't think he's overpaid by much.
        Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of GH. I guess my problem with the contract is that I see Hill as a super sub/sixth man type rather than as a starting PG. That to me is worth a little less.

        Another problem I have is why we rushed out to sign a slightly overvalued contract when we have RFA matching rights as leverage. If another team is making an offer then we can just be patient and let them sweat for a while, as with Hibbert.

        At the end of the day though, I'm happy we're keeping Hill. I just don't think we played the situation right if we're paying 5/$40m - that's almost certainly an overpay, even if it's just slightly as you argued.

        Comment


        • Re: Pacers resign George Hill - 5 year deal

          Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
          YES! Conley is a better PG.

          Hinrich OVERPAID!

          Who gave Felton that contract? Was it Walsh when Felton was in NY?
          Hill is a better shooter, scorer, defender, and is more versatile. Conley is a better passer, and may be better at running the team, but the Griz aren't a very efficient offensive team, so idk how much better at that he is.

          But positions aside, is he a better PLAYER? No he is not

          Comment


          • Re: Pacers resign George Hill - 5 year deal

            Originally posted by wintermute View Post
            Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of GH. I guess my problem with the contract is that I see Hill as a super sub/sixth man type rather than as a starting PG. That to me is worth a little less.

            Another problem I have is why we rushed out to sign a slightly overvalued contract when we have RFA matching rights as leverage. If another team is making an offer then we can just be patient and let them sweat for a while, as with Hibbert.

            At the end of the day though, I'm happy we're keeping Hill. I just don't think we played the situation right if we're paying 5/$40m - that's almost certainly an overpay, even if it's just slightly as you argued.
            I'd agree with everything you said. Unfortunately we don't have any better options, so Hill is going to have to improve and become a good starting PG of we're going to be successful. He's fairly young still at only 24, so he's not even close to his prime just yet.

            Comment


            • Re: Pacers resign George Hill - 5 year deal

              Originally posted by Il Ragionier Ugo Fantozzi View Post
              Too much.
              I agree here...

              Originally posted by Psyren View Post
              Waaaay too much
              ... but not here. I think 7 would have been fair. This isn't that far off. If he improves at all it becomes fair. If not, oh well. I'm not going to lose sleep over 1m per year on our starting PG.

              Comment


              • Re: Pacers resign George Hill - 5 year deal

                Originally posted by LoneGranger33 View Post
                This will look much worse if Darren Collison retakes the starting spot during training camp, or when George Hill misses a game to injury and DC arbitrarily becomes the permanent starter.
                I'll believe it when I see it.

                Comment


                • Re: Pacers resign George Hill - 5 year deal

                  Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                  Another problem I have is why we rushed out to sign a slightly overvalued contract when we have RFA matching rights as leverage. If another team is making an offer then we can just be patient and let them sweat for a while, as with Hibbert.
                  what if another team offers a similar deal, but front-loads it? Lets say, it starts at 9 mil a year and goes down. that hurts us pretty badly. we wouldn't be able to use some of our cap.

                  what if some team decides to offer a bigger but shorter deal? He's not overpaid that much now; so what if someone really overpays? Do we just let him go? That clears 4 mil cap, so I guess we could add Steve Blake.

                  with Hibbert it's easy. he won't take anything under the max, we wait for him to get the max, we match it. With Hill it's more difficult.
                  We overpaid a little bit, but who's to say we wouldn't have been screwed otherwise on July 11th.

                  If Pritchard didn't do his due diligence here, that's one thing. But I don't know how we can assume that. If anything, so far he's been maniacal when it comes to probing and researching the market.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Pacers resign George Hill - 5 year deal

                    Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                    It's more about the 1.5 going to another player than it is about overpaying for Hill.

                    $8M is a lot to pay unless Hill is our future at PG, and even then it's a pretty penny. That's more than the Grizzlies gave Conley. Maybe the market would've dictated that price, but you have to at least see how it plays out (and yes, that's an assumption on the market).
                    The odds of this small bump biting us in the *** are so small I just don't care, personally. If in some bizarre scenario we just HAD to shed 1.5m off the books, there are ways of doing that with end of bench players; a very small sacrifice to have to make. This is especially non-threatening now that we are operating in the era of the stretch provision, which is a pseudo get-out-of-jail-free card:

                    http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.c...bad-contracts/

                    Comment


                    • Re: Pacers resign George Hill - 5 year deal

                      Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                      Look I love George Hill and wanted him to start and all but damn 8mil is really high for him, why not try to trade for a guy who I think is similar in Jarret Jack that makes less money and call it a day? I don't understand what's this team doing
                      Hill is better than Jack. More range on his jumper, can play the SG more legitimately than Jack ever could, longer wingspan, more athletic, can play with or without the ball.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Pacers resign George Hill - 5 year deal

                        This will most likely be the biggest move the Pacers make this offseason.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Pacers resign George Hill - 5 year deal

                          Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                          Lowry isn't going to be a b/u in Houston. Linsanity isn't coming at the salary Houston offer to be a b/u. Lowry will be traded. He has a 5 mil contract, and he's a better PG than Hill. Houston is intersted in picks and cap. Hmmm, how about offering the 013 20 something pick and 5 mil cap? Throw in Stanko or Stephenson if necessary. No reason to have immediately offered Hill a ridiculous 5 year contract. If Hill doesn't cut it, how many teams are interest in trading for a 5 year contract? It becomes an albatross to try and trade when Hill isn't that good.
                          Yeesh, you make it sound like we just signed Dunleavy to his old contract. Better player, better contract, more important position he plays.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Pacers resign George Hill - 5 year deal

                            Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                            The odds of this small bump biting us in the *** are so small I just don't care, personally. If in some bizarre scenario we just HAD to shed 1.5m off the books, there are ways of doing that with end of bench players; a very small sacrifice to have to make. This is especially non-threatening now that we are operating in the era of the stretch provision, which is a pseudo get-out-of-jail-free card:

                            http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.c...bad-contracts/
                            Here is my problem... We TRADED FOR HILL so lets just add that in there to his cost as well. He is a average pg in this league and there is nothing wrong with that but again we shouldnt' get in the habit in overpaying for guys. Collectively that does bite you in the hind end.

                            From a FO postion we could have signed Mayo or HIll and still had a lotto player in Leonard. I guess there is a reason why the spurs are the spurs and the Pacers are the Pacers.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Pacers resign George Hill - 5 year deal

                              Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                              YES! Conley is a better PG.

                              Hinrich OVERPAID!

                              Who gave Felton that contract? Was it Walsh when Felton was in NY?
                              Yeah, Walsh signed him. Wasn't a bad signing considering Felton's level of play in NY (obviously D'Antoni was a factor here).

                              Comment


                              • Re: Pacers resign George Hill - 5 year deal

                                Hill has excellent length, is a good shooter, a decent scorer, a strong defender, has decent court vision, is a good passer, has an excellent pedigree, has some swagger to his game, is mature, can play 2 positions, and is just about to enter his prime. It appears we got him for market value. I'm glad we're going to lock him up for 5 years.

                                He's not an elite PG, but no one's giving those up. If we've solidified our PG position for the foreseeable future, I'm happy. Now we can go out and improve the rest of the roster.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X