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

Which teams will try and sign Lance?

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

  • Which teams will try and sign Lance?

    Almost everybody agrees that Lance will get a nice contract this summer, but I haven't seen much discussion about who he'll get it from. I want to go through each team and try and pin point who we'll be bidding against.

    Let's start with the facts (or at least what's been reported at fact):

    -The Pacers will offer Lance a contract this summer
    -Other teams will offer Lance a contract this summer
    -Lance is valued right now at around $9 million a year
    -Lance wants to stay with the Pacers


    Not a reported fact but most probably true:
    -Lance will only go to a team where he is the starter and will play a big part in the offense.

    So what this means is that if the money is the roughly the same, Lance will re-sign with the Pacers. Let's say that the Pacers offer exactly that $9 million a year, and maybe even max out at $10/year. Meaning, only teams with over $10 million in cap space can plausibly make an offer Lance would accept and the Pacers won't match.

    According to this Hoopshype article, these are the teams with at least $10 million in cap space next summer:

    Los Angeles Lakers — $46-52 million
    Philadelphia 76ers — $34 million
    Dallas Mavericks — $31 million
    Utah Jazz — $23-43 million
    Phoenix Suns — $19.5 million
    Charlotte Bobcats — $19 million
    Orlando Magic — $19 million
    Washington Wizards — $15 million
    Atlanta Hawks — $12 million
    Detroit Pistons — $12 million
    Milwaukee Bucks — $12 million

    This article was written in September so it doesn't include a few recent trades that have opened up cap space for teams that could also be in the discussion:

    Boston Celtics
    Chicago Bulls (assuming they amnesty Boozer)

    Next, my speculation on whether each team could fit Lance as a free agent at $12+ million a year:

    X is no, O is a good fit, △ is a fit but with complications

    △ Los Angeles Lakers — $46-52 million (good system fit but they're saving money for Love, RWB, etc)
    O Philadelphia 76ers — $34 million (good fit next to MCW)
    △ Dallas Mavericks — $31 million
    X Utah Jazz — $23-43 million (no chance)
    X Phoenix Suns — $19.5 million (Bledsoe and Dragic)
    △ Charlotte Bobcats — $19 million (don't know where Lance fits)
    X Orlando Magic — $19 million (Oladipo and Afflalo, for now)
    X Washington Wizards — $15 million (Wall and Beal)
    △ Atlanta Hawks — $12 million (Don't know their plan, possible good fit)
    △ Detroit Pistons — $12 million (good fit, don't know how it works financially with Monroe)
    △ Milwaukee Bucks — $12 million (Who knows?)
    O Toronto Raptors — $8-26 million
    △ Cleveland Cavaliers — 6.5-$24 million (Depends on what happens with Waiters)
    O Boston Celtics (Stevens and Stephenson would work well together)
    O Chicago Bulls (Rose, Lance, Butler, Taj and Noah would be a hell of a team)

    That leaves,

    △ Los Angeles Lakers
    △ Dallas Mavericks
    △ Charlotte Bobcats
    △ Atlanta Hawks
    △ Milwaukee Bucks
    △ Toronto Raptors
    △ Cleveland Cavaliers
    △ Detroit Pistons
    O Philadelphia 76ers
    O Boston Celtics
    O Chicago Bulls

    as the teams I see as possible bidders for Lance, with the the 76ers, Celtics and Bulls being the best fit for Lance. Thoughts?
    Last edited by King Tuts Tomb; 01-08-2014, 07:10 AM.

  • #2
    Re: Which teams will try and sign Lance?

    I could definitely see the Lakers make a strong play. He would shine in showtime.
    "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Which teams will try and sign Lance?

      Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
      I could definitely see the Lakers make a strong play. He would shine in showtime.
      As KTT says though, Lakers probably go after a more high profile target.

      KTT: good list, mostly, though I'm not sure why you're ruling out Utah. Seems like Lance could play well with Hayward. Anyway, yeah, a large number of teams could possibly talk themselves into making a large offer for Lance.

      The Bulls would **** me off. IMO, he'd be a good fit there, and at the same time Lance going there would weaken us while strengthening a division rival. Hopefully though like the Lakers maybe they'll be aiming at more high profile guys, like Melo.

      Another thing to look at - who are the similar young swingman/combo guards who would be competing for the same FA dollars as Lance. The obvious ones I can think of are Bledsoe and Hayward, both RFAs. Maybe Avery Bradley and possibly Evan Turner. Parsons of course if Houston opts out of his contract, but that doesn't seem likely. Then there's older guys like Deng, Granger, Marion, Crawford, Stuckey who can soak up some FA money as well.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Which teams will try and sign Lance?

        LA Lakers...he will fit the run n' gun style of D'Antoni, just don't see it work with Kobe most probably healthy by next year, unless Kobe plays more off the ball. Also, it's likely possible that their main targets are UCLA guys like Westbrook and Love.

        Dallas is a nice fit "line up wise" I think. Just a lot of options on offense there. The problem will be the offensive system that Rick implements as he's strict with sets.

        Boston is a bit of a mess in their lineup right now, but I think their main target is to improve their front court.

        Bulls is a bad fit if he's playing alongside Rose. He would probably be just waiting at the corner looking for a drive-and-dish from Rose.

        Sixers is a good fit, but it will depend on what they'll do with Turner. 3-guard combo, maybe?

        The only teams that I think makes sense for Lance other than Indiana are Dallas and Philly.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Which teams will try and sign Lance?

          I think that Lance will get several competing offers and I know that there is a limit as to how much Bird will and should pay for Lance. Lance is not a keep at all cost player. If we lose Lance I doubt if we'd be able to replace what we lose with him with an MLE player but I still think this team would be fine in contending for a title without him. If it comes to losing Lance I think we'd be better off in keeping Granger then we would be with any player we could land with the MLE as a free agent and we could spend a little more then the MLE on him. I hope Lance has the loyalty to want to stay here if the dollars are close to what Bird's fair offer will be.
          It's going to get ugly on here when free agency starts.
          Larry Bird qouted March 25th. 2015:

          Bird: I wanted to keep our group together because in the summer, if David and Roy opt out, we're back to zero, really. We don't have that much, so you leave your options open. If we did make a trade, I didn't want to take on a lot of contracts -- because that's what usually happens. Plus, I liked my guys. They're playing well. If we keep the core together and Paul comes back healthy, we'll be right back to where we were.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Which teams will try and sign Lance?

            Lance wants to be the PG so does MCW I don't see them working that out.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Which teams will try and sign Lance?

              △ Los Angeles Lakers: Nope they have Kobe's huge contract for the next 2 years.


              △ Dallas Mavericks: No way they already have Monta.


              △ Charlotte Bobcats: Maybe.


              △ Atlanta Hawks: possible, he could be a good fit.


              △ Milwaukee Bucks: OJ Mayo is there.


              △ Toronto Raptors: They have a lot of guards nope.


              △ Cleveland Cavaliers: They got Waiters but maybe because they are crazy.


              △ Detroit Pistons: Not going to happen, Brandon J, Josh Smith and Lance on the same team? don't see it.


              Philadelphia 76ers: Nope, they got a bunch of guards.


              Boston Celtics: Best fit but with Rondo there I'm not sure how that is going to work out.


              Chicago Bulls: Probably but I have a feeling that Chicago is aiming for somebody else.
              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Which teams will try and sign Lance?

                Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post

                -Lance is valued right now at around $9 million a year
                Fact???

                Uh, no...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Which teams will try and sign Lance?

                  Originally posted by cinotimz View Post
                  Fact???

                  Uh, no...
                  "(or at least what's been reported at fact)"

                  Come on, man. Read the whole post.
                  The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
                  http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
                  RSS Feed
                  Subscribe via iTunes

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Which teams will try and sign Lance?

                    Originally posted by FlavaDave View Post
                    "(or at least what's been reported at fact)"

                    Come on, man. Read the whole post.
                    Reported guess? ...yes

                    Reported prognostication?...yes

                    Reported fact? Definitely not

                    Come on, man....understand the difference

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Which teams will try and sign Lance?

                      I would be absolutely shocked if Bird let Lance walk this offseason.

                      I simply don't see it.

                      He will trade anyone not named Paul, Roy, or David to ensure his future here if he has to, IMO.

                      The franchise is way too invested in the kid, and now that he's paying big dividends? Fuggetaboutit.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Which teams will try and sign Lance?

                        Lance has said he wants to be here and Larry has said he wants to keep Lance, worrying about it now is pointless.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Which teams will try and sign Lance?

                          Originally posted by Ragnar View Post
                          Lance wants to be the PG
                          says who?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Which teams will try and sign Lance?

                            Originally posted by cinotimz View Post
                            Reported guess? ...yes

                            Reported prognostication?...yes

                            Reported fact? Definitely not

                            Come on, man....understand the difference
                            I am stuck in a paradox. I was trying to keep this thread from becoming a semantics argument, but I can't respond without getting into a semantics argument.

                            Maybe we can agree that the statement "NBA beat writers have, by their own claim, spoken to anonymous front office sources who have stated that their particular front office considers Lance Stephenson to be worth about $9 million a year at this point in time, and that is roughly equal to claiming that Lance Stephenson is worth roughly $9 million a year" and move on?
                            The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
                            http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
                            RSS Feed
                            Subscribe via iTunes

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Which teams will try and sign Lance?

                              Boston doesn't really seem like the team that would sign him. They've got Rondo, Bradley, and Jordan Crawford.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X