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

Indy-Minny trade

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

  • Indy-Minny trade

    I was reading this on the RealGM Trade forum and thought that it may not be a bad trade between Indy and Minnesota.

    Tinsley+Foster for Mike James+Trenton Hassell

    Why Indy would do it?

    Tinsley for James - At worst...this is a lateral move for the Pacers at the PG spot...where we get a better shoot-first PG in Mike James compared to whatever Tinsley is...something that I think we will need ( assuming JONeal and Granger is still on the roster ). Apparently, Mike James isn't fitting in very well in Minny with the likes of Randy Foye running the point. From what I recall, he may have a mouth like SJax....but he does appear to be a decent defender ( which isn't hard compared to Tinsley ), is a much better 3pt and FT shooter then Tinsley is, and a slightly better 2pt shooter ( compared to Tinsley ). His contract is one season shorter then Tinsley. The only thing that is a concern is age.....James is 3 years older then Tinsley is ( James is 32 years old and Tinsley is 29 yeard old at the start of the 2007-2008 season ). But given his injury history...I would much rather live with an older James then whatever Tinsley is.

    Foster for Hassell - I know that you don't trade Big for Small....but we need a solid perimeter defender at this point. I will miss the defense that Foster provides against the Big Men that we play....but I would much rather have a perimter defender then a Big Man defender in the current state of the NBA. Also....moving Foster would allow us to make Ike the "undisputed" 3rd Big Man in the rotation ( hence guaranteeing 15-25 minutes a game for him ). Both are offensive liabilities....but I would much rather figure out a way to ensure that Ike gets minutes while getting a much needed perimeter defender.

    Why would Minny do it?

    Uhhhh...cuz McHale is Bird's buddy? The only real incentive that they have is because they need a solid Big Man defender that can rebound while thinning out the SG/SF rotation. The TWolves are thin at the Frontline....and are in desperate need for some rebounding help ( most notably in the Offensive Rebounding department ). I don't really know if the TWolves would do this if not for Tinsley's contract.....but I hear that James just doesn't fit with the rest of the TWolves roster and that he maybe expendable. I'm looking at taking on Tinsley as the price for getting Foster.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

  • #2
    Re: Indy-Minny trade

    I thought Hassell was a SF. If so, I don't want him...especially not for Foster.

    I would trade Tinsley for Mike James' used jock tho.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Indy-Minny trade

      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
      I thought Hassell was a SF. If so, I don't want him...especially not for Foster.

      I would trade Tinsley for Mike James' used jock tho.
      On ESPN...he's listed as a GF...on NBA.com..he's a Forward.

      He was often used to guard the opposing team's Guard. Either way...he's a solid perimeter defender roleplayer...something that we need.

      I figure that he will play behind Marquis in the SG rotation and used as a defensive minded player....something that we all need.

      To me....this would help improve our defense at the Guard position with Mike James and a solid defensive stopper at the SG spot.
      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Indy-Minny trade

        Originally posted by CableKC View Post
        On ESPN...he's listed as a GF...on NBA.com..he's a Forward.

        He was often used to guard the opposing team's Guard. Either way...he's a solid perimeter defender roleplayer...something that we need.

        I figure that he will play behind Marquis in the SG rotation and used as a defensive minded player....something that we all need.

        To me....this would help improve our defense at the Guard position with Mike James and a solid defensive stopper at the SG spot.
        Since James is a pretty good shooter, this might not be a bad option. I would prefer that on the floor than MDJ and Tinsley...obviously.
        But, I wouldn't mind Marquis starting over Hassel. Marquis is a good defender as well and better on offense. I think Marquis and James could be a good combination.

        Losing Foster will hurt us, but it might be time to bid him farewell....particularly if he is packaged with the Tinman.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Indy-Minny trade

          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
          Since James is a pretty good shooter, this might not be a bad option. I would prefer that on the floor than MDJ and Tinsley...obviously.
          But, I wouldn't mind Marquis starting over Hassel. Marquis is a good defender as well and better on offense. I think Marquis and James could be a good combination.

          Losing Foster will hurt us, but it might be time to bid him farewell....particularly if he is packaged with the Tinman.
          Looking at the last 3 seasons ( starting in 2003-2004 )

          Mike James ( 316 games since the 2003-2004 season )

          12.8 ppg
          40% 3pt percentage / 1.44 3ptFGM - 3.6 3ptFGA
          46% 2pt percentage / 4.67 2ptFGM - 6.9 2ptFGA
          44% Overall FG Percentage / 4.67 FGM - 10.56 FGA
          82% FT percentage / 2.05 FTM - 2.51 FTA
          4.36 Assists Per Game

          Jamaal Tinsley ( 206 games since the 2003-2004 season )

          11.5 ppg
          34% 3pt percentage / 1.03 3ptFGM - 3.0 3ptFGA
          43% 2pt percentage / 3.22 2ptFGM - 7.5 2ptFGA
          40% Overall FG Percentage / 4.25 FGM - 10.50 FGA
          71% FT percentage / 1.95 FTM - 2.72 FTA
          6.11 Assists Per Game

          James isn't a "shooter" per se....but he is definitely a better one then Tinsley is. The only difference is that James appears to be more of a "shoot first" PG compared to Tinsley. This doesn't mean that he isn't capable of being one....when he ran the point in Toronto...he averaged 5.8 assists per game.

          But given our lineup made up of JONeal and a bunch of "inconistent 2nd" / "decent 3rd" / "solid 4th" scoring options......I am more inclined to have a decent "shoot first" PG...as opposed to a "pass first" PG.
          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Indy-Minny trade

            There's a lot I like about James. He averaged over 20ppg at Toronto last year, seems to be a better offensive player than Tinsley, has to be a better defender.

            ...but he has had a reduced role this year. My main concern is...why has he moved nearly every year of his career? He has been on 7 teams in 8 years! That seems like a red flag.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Indy-Minny trade

              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
              There's a lot I like about James. He averaged over 20ppg at Toronto last year, seems to be a better offensive player than Tinsley, has to be a better defender.

              ...but he has had a reduced role this year. My main concern is...why has he moved nearly every year of his career? He has been on 7 teams in 8 years! That seems like a red flag.
              Yeah.....I noticed that too.....but considering that this is one of the few moves that I can think of where we can move Tinsley and get back another one in return that can start....I consider it a trade off.......especially if we are able to get one out of Tinsley's contract one year earlier.

              The other deal that I was thinking of was a straight-up trade of Foster for Hassell.
              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Indy-Minny trade

                The only reason I would consider taking on Mike James is to get out of Tinsley's lengthy contract. He is a better shooter than Tinsley, but I'm not sure he really has the quicks or willingness to be the defender that he used to be. I like his attitude at all, even more so than Tinsley's attitude.

                Foster for Hassell, nah. We already have a logjam at the SG/SF positions, I'd prefer Williams to get those minutes.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Indy-Minny trade

                  Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                  I was reading this on the RealGM Trade forum and thought that it may not be a bad trade between Indy and Minnesota.

                  Tinsley+Foster for Mike James+Trenton Hassell

                  Why Indy would do it?

                  Tinsley for James - At worst...this is a lateral move for the Pacers at the PG spot...where we get a better shoot-first PG in Mike James compared to whatever Tinsley is...something that I think we will need ( assuming JONeal and Granger is still on the roster ). Apparently, Mike James isn't fitting in very well in Minny with the likes of Randy Foye running the point. From what I recall, he may have a mouth like SJax....but he does appear to be a decent defender ( which isn't hard compared to Tinsley ), is a much better 3pt and FT shooter then Tinsley is, and a slightly better 2pt shooter ( compared to Tinsley ). His contract is one season shorter then Tinsley. The only thing that is a concern is age.....James is 3 years older then Tinsley is ( James is 32 years old and Tinsley is 29 yeard old at the start of the 2007-2008 season ). But given his injury history...I would much rather live with an older James then whatever Tinsley is.

                  Foster for Hassell - I know that you don't trade Big for Small....but we need a solid perimeter defender at this point. I will miss the defense that Foster provides against the Big Men that we play....but I would much rather have a perimter defender then a Big Man defender in the current state of the NBA. Also....moving Foster would allow us to make Ike the "undisputed" 3rd Big Man in the rotation ( hence guaranteeing 15-25 minutes a game for him ). Both are offensive liabilities....but I would much rather figure out a way to ensure that Ike gets minutes while getting a much needed perimeter defender.

                  Why would Minny do it?

                  Uhhhh...cuz McHale is Bird's buddy? The only real incentive that they have is because they need a solid Big Man defender that can rebound while thinning out the SG/SF rotation. The TWolves are thin at the Frontline....and are in desperate need for some rebounding help ( most notably in the Offensive Rebounding department ). I don't really know if the TWolves would do this if not for Tinsley's contract.....but I hear that James just doesn't fit with the rest of the TWolves roster and that he maybe expendable. I'm looking at taking on Tinsley as the price for getting Foster.
                  Like your thought process here, but Mike James would only create another Chemistry issue, not to mention that Indiana would never trade a big for a small forward straight up....If Foster is traded, which I do believe he will be, it will be in a multiple player trade that brings us back another big.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Indy-Minny trade

                    Originally posted by DaSMASH View Post
                    Like your thought process here, but Mike James would only create another Chemistry issue, not to mention that Indiana would never trade a big for a small forward straight up....If Foster is traded, which I do believe he will be, it will be in a multiple player trade that brings us back another big.
                    One of the problems that I think that we have for Ike is that I think we have too many Big Men sitting in front of him in the "Big Man" rotation for him to get any meaningful and consistent minutes to properly develop. I know that it was one of the problems for him in GS and IMHO a problem for him here in Indy. For Foster, outside of his nagging/lingering back injuries that he has from season to season that forces him to miss some games here and there and being one of the few tradeable assets that another team actually would want....I figure that we should move him while his trade value is still relatively high. Although I like Foster and thinks that he brings a lot to the table...assuming that JONeal and Murphy are not moved ( the former a small possiblility and the latter an near impossiblility )....Foster seems to be the logical person to move in order to ensure that Ike gets his minutes.

                    I look at any "loss" that we have in "trading Big for a Small" is balenced by the fact that we move Tinsley...something that I think is near impossible given the current climate of teams unwillingness to take on bad/long-term contracts. In addition, I view the move of Foster for Hassell more as a lateral move. We trade one non-offensive role-player for another one. I understand that roleplayers like Foster are hard to find ( if not acquire ), but I can argue that its equally hard to get a solid "lockdown" perimeter defender ( one of the key roleplayers that I recall that you had mentioned...in your various posts...that ALL championship caliber teams must have in order to properly compete and something that we are missing now ). There is a reason why players like Hassell, Bowen and Raja Bell are locked down with 3 to 4 season contracts and players like Adrian Griffin or Greg Buckner always finds teams to sign with...it because teams ( as you say ) need players like them in their rotation. I know that Granger is a decent perimeter defender...but I just don't think that he should be our answer to defending players like Wade or Rip. If this is one of our chances to acquire a solid perimeter defender...I think that we should take it.

                    I will agree with you that I don't like to lose a Big-Man like Foster, but I would easily move him IF it meant guaranteeing that Ike gets a solid 20 mpg game to properly develope while getting a solid perimeter defender to shore up our defense, we are able to do IMHO the near-impossible task of moving Tinsley and his bad contract while ( most notably ) not forcing us to package him with the likes of JONeal and Granger ( something that I know that we all do not want to do). I would understand that we should not do this trade IF it meant that we get back "lesser" players, but in this case....at worst...I think that it would be a lateral move for the players that we get in return...and at best....we get back some talented players that fill some of our needs.
                    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Indy-Minny trade

                      Originally posted by skyfire View Post
                      Foster for Hassell, nah. We already have a logjam at the SG/SF positions, I'd prefer Williams to get those minutes.
                      Assuming that we have a new coach that isn't so stringent on playing Marquis at the SG spot only ( while giving Marquis some backup PG minutes )....there is always ways to get Shawne minutes.
                      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X