Tweet
Re: Rumors from ClubLakers.com
I'm not calling you out here (I take your word for it), but I'm curious about that... when has he done that before?
Originally posted by CableKC
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
-
(She said) Oh ... oh ...
(And I said) Yeah ... yeah ...
(She said) Oh ... oh ...
(And I said) That's the one for me.
-Ron Artest making great music that I will always remember. -
Re: Rumors from ClubLakers.com
Maybe or maybe not. Walsh may have other trades down the road so who knows.Originally posted by mulisha
Comment
-
Re: Rumors from ClubLakers.com
Well I'm just saying that Murphy's contract is somewhere around 60 million until 2010/11 which is why I've been skeptical of this deal ever since it was rumored yesterday.Originally posted by OutlawMaybe or maybe not. Walsh may have other trades down the road so who knows. Comment
-
Re: Rumors from ClubLakers.com
Jalen Rose comes to mind.Originally posted by BryantDunkGiant
Donnie said he wouldn't be traded and next day ... off went Jalen to Chicago
.
2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws
2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws
2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws
Comment
-
Re: Rumors from ClubLakers.com
I think Murphy's contract will pretty much take over Jackson's spot $ wise, b/c if we get Pietrus, I can see Jackson on his way out...Originally posted by mulisha
"George's athleticism is bananas!" - Marc J. Spears 
Comment
-
Re: Rumors from ClubLakers.com
Well, to be fair, Indystar had an article speculating who we were interested in the summer before last, and one of the names they mentioned was Stephen Jackson, and this was about a week or so before we traded Al for him. The media was also all over the Ron for Peja talks, and I know those were legit.Originally posted by CableKCComment
-
Re: Rumors from ClubLakers.com
Everyone here would be able to give a better answer to this........but what I have learned here on PD is that Walsh is the "Wizard of Oz" when it comes to GMs......everything is smoke an mirrors with him until Stern finalizes any deal that Walsh is involved in.Originally posted by BryantDunkGiantAsh from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.Comment
-
Re: Rumors from ClubLakers.com
Gotcha. Meanwhile, Mitch and the Lakers haven't been very good at ducking and dodging the media (go figure, we're in Los Angeles here) so this should be interesting to watch.
(She said) Oh ... oh ...
(And I said) Yeah ... yeah ...
(She said) Oh ... oh ...
(And I said) That's the one for me.
-Ron Artest making great music that I will always remember.Comment
-
Re: Rumors from ClubLakers.com
There is about 3 million in luxury tax relief and several million in salary reduction THIS YEAR for the Pacers in the two-man straight up trade.Originally posted by mulishaComment
-
Re: Rumors from ClubLakers.com
Take this as a grain of salt... from ClubLakers' Greatest Ron Artest Thread in the History of Mankind:
http://www.clublakers.com/forums/vie...asc&start=4100Originally posted by KingLakers
Goes along with the Walsh smokescreen theory. Granted, this guy's a very new member but he's saying he will come with more information tonight. That's the fun of the internet.
(She said) Oh ... oh ...
(And I said) Yeah ... yeah ...
(She said) Oh ... oh ...
(And I said) That's the one for me.
-Ron Artest making great music that I will always remember.Comment
-
Re: Rumors from ClubLakers.com
Normally I don't give any type of attention to people like that but yesterday he did say some stuff that was confirmed today by ESPN. But I still take it as a grain of salt for obvious reasons.Comment
-
Re: Rumors from ClubLakers.com
From msb212, a longtime CL member and season-ticket holder. Once again, take this as a grain of salt... but he's got a better rep than KingLakers.
Originally posted by msb212
(She said) Oh ... oh ...
(And I said) Yeah ... yeah ...
(She said) Oh ... oh ...
(And I said) That's the one for me.
-Ron Artest making great music that I will always remember.Comment
-
Re: Rumors from ClubLakers.com
This is taken from post this morning on ClubLakers.com forum by user NDPacers. I don't know if he's a reliable source, but most of what he has to say sounds reasonable, and similar to what we've heard elsewhere:
http://www.clublakers.com/forums/vie...asc&start=4430
Hello all,
Thought i might provide some info for you. I know how interested most of you are, and probably distracted by all of the supposed events. Seems to be a lot of info around, however most of it seems to be more a figment of peoples imaginations. Either that, or some people who have heard a few things and try to be creative in an attempt to bring some sort of credit to themselves.
First off, there is no deal done yet. Not with GS or anyone else. While entirely possible, theres no guarantee a deal gets done in the next week or so.
Now, as far as the Lakers go. Seems to be a lot of misinformation here. Lets address the Odom issue first. As many of you may know, the Lakers approached the Pacers this past summer regarding the availability of Artest. They actually were interested in a package of Foster and Artest or even possibly a package of Croshere and Artest, though the Foster/Artest package was definitely the package of choice. Odom was discussed and the Pacers informed the Lakers they had no interest in Odom. Primary reason being his contract. The Pacers, as most know, are in a mode of watching their financial situation, and they feel Odom would not be viable for them-they feel his best position is PF. They have JO there and really feel strongly about whatever moves that are made are made with the goal in mind of playing him in the PF slot and not center.
Hence Odom has very little interest to them. When recent discussions resumed, they intimated this to the Lakers again. They told the Lakers that if the Lakers could come up with a 3rd team that would want Odom, and that team had some pieces that would be attractive to them, then that would be fine. The Pacers havent had anything on that front brought to them by the Lakers.
So these 'no Odom, no deal' things you hear are someones active imagination. As are the comments being made regarding Odom will not be traded to the Pacers for Artest. While true, its conveying a bit different meaning, but its more about spin than anything else. It appears some of the so called experts around here might be possibly being used as spin control experts in the event the Lakers dont get Ron. They can say they wouldnt trade Odom for Ron, no matter what, nevermind, that was never really an issue.
Heres the issue. Andrew Bynum. The Pacers made it very clear, early on, what they wanted from the Lakers. A package of Bynum, George and the Miami pick gets Ron. Any bigger package that might include Foster or Croshere must still include Bynum. And if Foster is in the package, then the Pacers want Kwame as well. The Pacers have Pollard and Benders contract that they would be willing to utilize to make a deal with the Lakers.
So far, the Lakers refuse to include Bynum, and thus there is no deal. Both teams seem steadfast in their stance here. I can tell you that from the Pacers side of things the following has been put before the Lakers as deals that would probably be doable.
Bynum, George, and the Miami 1st for Artest
Bynum, George, Kwame, the Miami 1st for Artest and Croshere
Bynum, George, Kwame, the Miami 1st for Artest and Foster(this would require the Pacers using a trade exception they gained in an earlier Phoenix deal-which the Lakers would then have-for Bynum's salary)
The Pacers have told them they will not trade both Foster and Croshere. Its one or the other only. They would be willing to include Pollard and Samaki in a deal for Slava, Cook, and Vujacic.
They have also added these options. If the Lakers do not reach the playoffs this season, the Lakers may keep the Miami 1st and replace it with a 2nd round pick of the Lakers choice. Also, Vujacic or Cook can be substituted for the Miami pick in any of the deals, and the Pacers would then use a trade exception which would then revert to the Lakers.
I will once again say Bynum has been the sticking point, as the Lakers have been willing to do the deal with Mihm, Slava, Cook, or Vujacic as a substitute for Bynum, but have been rebuffed to this point.
It appears the Pacers have said "No Bynum, no deal". To which the Lakers have responded, "No deal".
And there you have it. Thats the Laker story with regard to Artest.
Whether a deal gets done with any team right away, is anybody's guess at this stage. The Pacers seem to have a feel for whos really interested, and have basically given those teams what they would be willing to take.
If no team satisfies those wishes, then it appears the Pacers are going to continue to wait and see what continues to transpire as the deadline approaches in late February. They have decided its better to wait this all out, even waiting till the offseason, than make a deal theyre not comfortable with.
Good Luck. My personal opinion is that Phil would probably be the best coach to deal with Ron. So, wanting to see Ron succeed, it would be nice to see if Phil could make it work. Phil seems to think he can. So time will tell if he gets the opportunity.
Thx,
ND"I'll always be a part of Donnie Walsh."
-Ron Artest, Denver Post, 12.28.05Comment
-
Re: Rumors from ClubLakers.com
Talk like that makes me think we're going to be stuck with Ron and no help replacement(s) until August.Comment
-
Re: Rumors from ClubLakers.com
Here are a couple more follow-up posts by the poster NDPacer at ClubLakers.com:
...Franchises dont want to mortgage their futures completely, because they know there is no such thing as a 'sure thing'.
Any moves that are made always are looked at in two ways. How do they affect the 'now' and how will they affect the future-3 to 5 years down the line.
And then you have the nastiest word in the world of sports. And its not 4 letters. P-O-T-E-N-T-I-A-L. The game is dominated by star type players. Those that dont have them look for them. And thats where potential comes in.
Its really quite simple. Each year you have just a handful of teams that realistically have a shot at the championship. Everyone else are just pretenders. And most franchises realize this, and if they're not one of the handful of contenders, then they're left to market a team based on potential and/or having some sort of remote chance.
The Pacers were regarded as on of those handful. Due to circumstances, theyre now in a situation where they're probably not going to be one of those handful, because they're exploring the trade of one of their stars.
Artest is a top 15 talent. Hes one of the top 2-way players in the game. Problem is this-and its not his baggage, because any team that trades for him will have weighed that in and ultimately chosen to pursue him-but its that he is being paid average money. So its basically impossible to get equal value. So the approach is simple. Obtain a couple of young, raw talents, in the hope that one of them might actually deliver on some perceived talent. The odds of that player materializing into a top 15 player are highly unlikely, but thats the situation you find when you trade a star making less than 7 million. So any team that ultimately makes a deal for Ron will realize that they will have to give up some combination of 2 prospects-and in almost any case that will be the two best prospects a team has, whether its a player and a draft choice or two young players. If other players are thrown into the mix from the Pacers perspective, then the deal will adjust accordingly.
Thus, its not too hard to understand why, from a Pacers perspective, bynum must be included. He was a number 10 pick. Hes simply the best shot the Lakers have on their roster of obtaining a significant player. Would it really be reasonable to think that the Pacers would make a trade with a team-when theyre hoping to find a potential star-and not take that teams top prospect??? While its understandable that teams would want to hang onto those types of prospects, its really very simple. Ron is a star talent, the other is just a potential star. And fact of the matter is, most of these prospects arent likely to become a top 15 talent in the league, let alone one of the best two-way players in the league. So, believe it or not, a package of Bynum and miamis first barely satisfies the 2 prospect concept, as the miami pick looks to be very low. Realize also, as some of you have noticed, that with Bynum being so young, hes not necessarily ideal because he probably is a few years away from realizing whatever potential he has. Just as you have a window to win with Kobe, the Pacers have the same with Jermaine. So its hardly a lock to think that Bynum would impact the championship chances of the Pacers squad. As i mentioned this would be a move that probably addresses the Pacers long term future versus immediate.
If a move like this was to be done, the dynamic would appear to be simple. The Lakers would be convinced that bringing artest into the mix would make them one of the 'handful' over the next few years. And that the gamble that Bynum might turn out to be a great player would be offset by the ability to challenge for a championship in the next few years. Now does Kobes window factor into that decision? Does Phils window factor into that decision? They both surely do. And thats what the ownership and management of any franchise must weigh. If the ultimate goal is to win a title, when will they have the best chance and thus make the associated gambles with making the run. My guess is the Lakers were hoping to be in that position in a couple years. Artest's availability has probably caused them to revisit their plans. As Im sure it has caused a number of teams to analyze and possibly adjust their plans.
As always, good luck.
NDI think some might not fully understand the Pacers position with regard to Ron. Let me just say that, the Pacers DONT have to do anything with Ron, especially right away. The Pacers realize that without Ron they're probably not going to be a contender. And any move that would be made now is not likely to change that. And Rons trade value isnt going to drop by him not playing. Ron is what he is. Most everyone knows what he brings to the table, both positive and negative.
Now, Im sure that fans from other teams would like for Rons value to be low, as that would enable them to acquire him without tremendous cost. But in this case, that might be construed as wishful thinking. Rons value hasnt changed in the fact that everyone knows what hes going to bring on the court: 3rd Team All-NBA, DPOY, Allstar. Noone really doubts that. Those that say the Pacers are forced to take a bad deal are just hoping that is the case, but i assure you that wont happen. Not relatively speaking anyway. As i noted before, the deal will be somewhat lopsided because of Ron's salary not being commensurate with his talent level, not because the Pacers have to make a trade. And the same holds true for whatever baggage Ron brings. These are much more negotiating tactics than anything else. Everyone wants a great deal. Who wouldnt. And anyone that might suggest that either is this case would just be told that if thats the way the party feels then theyre probably not really interested in Ron and what he brings to the floor, but more interested in getting a good deal.
Think about how some of you might value Kobe or Bynum, for instance. And try to keep that in mind. You simply dont trade away and allstar, DPOY talent for a bench player's contract and a late first round draft choice.
Its a business. The Pacers have a highly valuable asset. Now if they choose to explore the departure of that asset, they will look for a deal that makes sense from a business standpoint. And you wont make a deal if it doesnt bring a desired value in return.
Quite frankly the Pacers have a number of options before them. What to do with Ron is the big question. And there are a number of different answers. Not everyone of those answers involves trading him in the next week, let alone by Feb. 23rd. If they get a deal that brings them the kind of value they feel they should get, then they will do so. If not, then they will continue to explore all their options.
Thx and good luck
ND...you wont see them pull the trigger on a deal now, if they believe a better deal can be gotten in a month. It really makes no sense to do so. And a deal that a team might not be willing to make now, could possibly be done nearer the deadline. Its amazing what happens, when management sees the opportunity to improve-whether its improving to become a contender, or improving to make the playoffs. So if the Pacers get a deal now that they feel confident will be similar to the one they get in a month, then they will go ahead. Otherwise, they will wait. Now, if they dont get a deal they feel comfortable with by the deadline, then they will reevaluate come the offseason and there are other possibilities that they then would look at.
And please dont misconstrue something. Its not that the Pacers are so enthralled with Bynum in particular. The Pacers are interested in young potential stars. The Lakers have no real draft picks to dangle. The Pacers would love a top 5 pick and a young player. Someone mentioned 'something daring'. Something daring might be making a trade that nets the pacers nothing more than a marginal starter who has a very reasonable contract that is nearing its end and a couple of draft choices with at least one assuredly in the lottery and most likely top 3. That would probably be considered daring. But due to the Lakers draft pick situation, the only real young talent is Bynum. After that its Vujacic and to a degree, Kwame-but Kwame makes alot of money, so the deal inherently gets more complicated.
Really, if you were looking for young potential stars on the Lakers, since youre trading a top 15 player, who would you look at?
Respectfully,
ND"I'll always be a part of Donnie Walsh."
-Ron Artest, Denver Post, 12.28.05Comment
Comment