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

Mike Wells Q&A

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

  • Mike Wells Q&A

    I don't think this has been posted, in fact I didn't know Mike Wells was answering questions.


    http://www2.indystar.com/articles/7/...-3967-116.html

    Mike Wells: Pacers Q&A
    Indianapolis Star sports reporter Mike Wells answers your questions about the Pacers.


    September 15, 2005


    Question: With Michael Finley signing in San Antonio, it appears that Brent Barry would be the odd man out. Do you think the Pacers have an interest in him? Scot Pollard straight up would be a fit, and San Antonio would probably want another big man.

    I'd think they'd love to have local boy Jeff Foster, but I don't think the Pacers would give up his active inside defense/rebounding. Your thoughts? (Steve from Tustin, Calif.)

    Answer: The salaries of Pollard and Barry would be a borderline fit under the rules regarding trades, but I don't believe it would fit either team's needs. Barry is a versatile backcourt player, and while he was somewhat of a disappointment for the Spurs last season, he proved to be valuable in the playoffs.

    The Pacers, however, have a full backcourt at the moment. They have too many point guards and at least three players -- Stephen Jackson, Fred Jones and Sarunas Jasikevicius -- who can play shooting guard.

    San Antonio, meanwhile, has Nazr Mohammed and Rasho Nesterovic to join Tim Duncan in the middle, and doesn't have a great need for another center.

    I don't see the Pacers trading Foster to the Spurs, unless they get Tim Duncan in return. Foster, in fact, is one of their least tradeable players, given his value and his reasonable contract.



    Question: I was hoping I could use this forum to get across a point that it seems many Pacers fans are forgetting. With all the griping about the Pacers standing still during the offseason while other teams make "big" moves, it seems some of us have forgotten that the biggest offseason move of the NBA has been getting Ron Artest back from suspension.

    There's not a better player that has been traded or has signed a free-agent contract this summer. Do you agree? (Zak from Springfield, Ill.)

    Answer: I understand your point, but I don't think it's fair to classify Artest as an acquisition. He's a current player who becomes eligible again, not an addition.

    I would argue that contending teams don't need to make major moves. If you're capable of winning a championship with your existing roster, as many people believe the Pacers are, why break it up?

    Some people are excited about all of Miami's moves this summer, but I question them. They would have reached the Finals last season if Dwyane Wade was healthy. Although Eddie Jones hasn't raised his level of play in the postseason, they were a contending team. They've taken a huge risk with all their changes.

    Fans like moves such as they've made because they inspire optimism and appeal to short attention spans, but most teams don't become champions by making major moves; they do it by tweaking their roster while building chemistry.

    The Pacers have lost Dale Davis and James Jones and added Danny Granger and Sarunas Jasikevicius. I expect other moves before training camp or early in the season, but as of now it's difficult to say whether they've improved their roster.

    Still, they qualify as a legitimate title contender, and given their financial restraint of being $10 million over the luxury tax threshold it's difficult to criticize their moves or lack of them. Beyond that, one would have to know what trade opportunities were available before offering an opinion.


    Answers Posted August 30, 2005

    Question: Was the James Jones trade a question of money or just too many players on the bench? Does this trade affect at all the Pacers options on trades (more cap space, exceptions, etc.)? Having lost all of their own free agents will the Pacers look to sign a free agent or be more aggressive about a trade now? I think their depth at center and power forward could be an issue now. (Bob from Brownsburg, Ind.)

    Answer: Trading James Jones was primarily a way to reduce their roster size. As promising as he is, it would have been difficult for him to get playing time in the upcoming season if the Pacers stay healthy. And we all know how big an if that can be. He would be playing behind Stephen Jackson, Fred Jones and perhaps Sarunas Jasikevicius at shooting guard and behind Artest and Jackson as small forward. Danny Granger could have wound up ahead of Jones on the depth chart, too.

    The Pacers didn't improve their financial position by trading Jones, but they did acquire a trade exception that can be used later. They will remain aggressive in their pursuit of moves, but most of them will be with the idea of lowering their payroll.

    I think their depth is adequate now, but it might not be if they unload more players for draft picks. They have Foster, Harrison and Pollard available at center, and O'Neal will play there some as well. They have O'Neal and Croshere available at power forward. Foster can play there, too, and so can Artest against certain teams.



    Question:With the recent release of the upcoming season's schedule, have the Pacers decided upon a date for retiring Reggie Miller's number? (Zak from Springfield, Ill.)

    Answer:What makes you think they'd ever retire that skinny guy's number? Just kidding.

    I checked with Rick Fuson, the executive director of Conseco Fieldhouse, about this. He said they're still working on a date for a retirement ceremony.

    Speaking of Reggie Miller's number, here's quick trivia: What other Pacers wore No. 31?

    The answer: Granville Waiters, Walker D. Russell and Phil Chenier. Maybe the Pacers will invite them to the ceremony, too, so they can see their number in the rafters.



    Question: Wanted to follow up on an answer you gave on 8/23. If the Pacers can trade players to teams under the salary cap for draft picks, why didn't the Pacers try to trade Pollard, Johnson, and/or Gill (Atlanta appears to be a reasonable destination) to free up room to keep Davis and James Jones? I am concerned that losing Davis lost interior toughness...we don't have an enforcer in the middle anymore. (John from Portland, Ore.)

    Answer: You make a good point. Perhaps they did try to do that, but Atlanta and other teams weren't willing. A team such as Atlanta, which is likely to have a poor record next season, values its draft picks because they'll likely bring good players -- even in the second round.



    Question: Is the luxury tax that important to the Pacers? I understand that they don't want to pay the tax, but why let a James Jones go? They have made no great move to help them in the frontcourt and now they let a young promising talent go. What are they thinking? Is it strictly penny-pinching? (John from Brownsburg)

    Answer: I guess you could put it that way, although the Simons have always spent freely to build a competitive team. So, rather than calling it penny-pinching, it's probably best to call it fiscal responsibility. They certainly have the right to draw the line somewhere, and the tax threshold is as good a place as any. So far the teams that have spent the most (New York and Dallas, for example) haven't been rewarded with titles.

    The Pacers traded Brad Miller two summers ago to stay under the threshold and now they are making other moves for the same reason. It would be a shame if those move cost them a championship. I'm sure the Simons would rather spend a few million dollars in taxes and win a title than avoid the tax and not win one. But they might wind up paying some tax this year anyway. We'll have to see.

    The bottom line is that the decision to give Jermaine O'Neal a max contract and pay Croshere and Bender so generously have put the franchise in this position. It would be hindsight to criticize those moves now, however. In the cases of O'Neal land Croshere, the Pacers paid market prices to keep their players. They speculated a bit on Bender, but he was coming off a healthy season and showed a lot of promise when the Pacers signed him to an extension.



    Question: First, I read that the Pacers are $10 million over the luxury tax threshold. Does this include Reggie Miller's $6 million? Second, can you explain how/why teams can trade players for draft picks? Examples are the recent James Jones trade and Marc Jackson going to New Jersey for a draft pick. I thought trades had to have matching salaries within a certain percentage. Thanks. (John from Portland, Ore.)

    Answer: The Pacers have nearly $73 million in salary obligations for next season according to my calculations, and the luxury tax threshold is to be $61.7 million. That's without Reggie Miller's contract, but with those of Jasikevicius and Granger.

    Teams under the salary cap, such as New Jersey was, can trade a draft pick for a player. As for the Pacers-Suns trade, the Pacers received a trade exception for about $2.4 million to balance Jones's first-year salary with the Suns. That's an asset that can be used in a trade with another team. It can't be used to sign a free agent, but it can be used to acquire an existing contract from another team. For example, they could trade two players earning a combined $10 million next season along with the trade exception to another team for a player earning within 125 percent of $12.4 million. This wouldn't necessarily accomplish their goal of lowering their payroll, but it shows how the exception can be used.



    Question: With the release of Dale Davis to the Pistons and the trade of James Jones to the Suns it seems the Pacers are intent on getting under the luxury tax threshold. How close are they now, and what other domino will need to fall for them to reach their goal? (Paul from Minneapolis)

    Answer: They're about $10 million over the threshold, so they have some work to do. The most efficient method for lowering their payroll would be to trade a veteran player to a team under the salary cap (such as Atlanta or the Clippers) for a draft pick. That obviously wouldn't improve the team, but it would help achieve their financial goals.

    They also can make player-for-player trades that lower their payroll, but only by 25 percent because of the rules regarding matching salaries.



    Question: The Pacers have one spot open on their roster since their 2nd round pick won't be joining the team until next year. What will we do with our last open spot? Get a minimum wage salary player? Get one of the cut amnesty players? I like the idea of getting Ronald Murray. (Sean from Zionsville, Ind.)

    Answer: At the moment, Jim "Snap" Hunter looks like the 15th man. He played well in summer league and he's already set up with housing in Indy and working out at the Fieldhouse. The Pacers still need to lower their payroll, however, and probably will reduce their roster in the process of doing that. In that case, they could have room for more low-priced free agents.

    Ronald Murray is a restricted free agent, so Seattle can match offers for him. He's an explosive scorer, but I'm not sure he would fit in with the Pacers roster as it stands. He wouldn't want to be stuck behind Tinsley and Jasikevicius and maybe Anthony Johnson.


    Answers Posted August 22, 2005

    Question: Are the Pacers finished with their offseason moves? Do you think it was all enough already for our team to compete and win the championship? (Meljohn from Quezon City, Philippines)

    Answer: I doubt they are finished making moves. I expect them to sign another free agent -- probably James Jones -- and I don't rule out a trade. Donnie Walsh and Larry Bird say they are willing to go into the season with the team they have, but are still exploring opportunities. They still have about six weeks before the start of training camp. Remember, they traded Dale Davis for Jermaine O'Neal on Aug. 31.



    Question: Since the Pacers waived Reggie Miller under the new amnesty rule will that free up enough money to be able to re-sign Dale Davis and James Jones? (Keith from Hayward, Wis.)

    Answer: Waiving Miller's contract doesn't have much influence on what the Pacers can offer Davis. They still only have a couple of salary cap exceptions to offer. They don't use exceptions to sign Jones, so waiving Miller's contract should increase their willingness to match another team's offer, because they have a general policy of not paying the luxury tax.



    Question: I saw on foxsports.com that the Knicks were going to try to sign James Jones. I know the Pacers have said they will likely match any offer to Jones. Do you know how high the Pacers are willing to go as far as a dollar amount to sign Jones? I believe he could be Reggie Miller's heir for the Pacers. (Jake from Greenwood, Ind.)

    Answer: There was a report in one or two of the New York papers that the Knicks had interest in Jones. As of last Friday (Aug. 19), however, Jones had not received an offer sheet from another team. I'm sure there's a limit to how high the Pacers would go in matching an offer, but I don't know what it would be. Although Jones is a promising player, he hasn't accomplished enough yet to command a major salary.



    Question: With Reggie Miller gone, who do you think will step up as the emotional leader? Jermaine O'Neal in my opinion couldn't handle this. A veteran leader in the locker room can make or break a team, especially a team of hot-heads like the Pacers. Should they sign Dale Davis just for this? (Robert from Wilmington, N.C.)

    Answer: You raise two good questions. It's difficult to say who will assume leadership of this team. That's the biggest question heading into the next season, and also the best argument for signing Dale Davis. Davis wouldn't be in position to exert a great deal of leadership because he's a relative newcomer to the team (the second time around) and at the end of his career. He certainly could be a positive influence, however.



    Question: Mark, thanks for all of the truthful info you dispense. You mentioned in a question last week that waiving Reggie Miller gets the Pacers under the luxury tax threshold. I thought the threshold was around 62 million. Aren't the Pacers still well over that amount? Are they looking to thin the roster to get under the threshold? The Simons are very generous, but not loose with their money. (Mike from Muncie, Ind.)

    Answer: (updated 8-23-05) The Pacers are over the luxury tax threshold, apparently by about $10 million. That's why they probably have another move or two ahead of them. For example, they could trade a player to one of the teams under the salary cap (Atlanta, Clippers, Seattle for example) for a draft pick to lower their payroll.


    Answers Posted August 17, 2005

    Question: Why do you think the Pacers didn't elect Austin Croshere for the amnesty rule? Relief from his contract would have been much more valuable. Would that mean he is a trade candidate? (Dave from Columbus, Ind.)

    Answer (updated 8-23-05): I am providing an update for this answer to correct a statement in the original answer. The only advantage to releasing Croshere or another highly paid player rather than Reggie Miller is that the Pacers would have lowered their exposure to the luxury tax by another $2 million this year and by $7,300,000 next year. However, they still are over the tax threshold, so there's no a substantial difference.

    Also, more importantly, Croshere is an active player who will help the team. Miller is retired and is going to stay retired, so the Pacers were only waiving his contract. Croshere has been valuable to the team, especially when injuries have mounted, and he will be no doubt be valuable at times in the upcoming season. The Pacers see themselves as a title contender, and wouldn't want to damage their chances by dropping a player they could need.

    I don't believe anybody on the roster is completely safe from a trade, although the front office certainly is willing to go into the season with its current group.



    Question: I was always under the impression when Reggie Miller signed his contract that it was a two-year deal with an option for a third year. At least that is what I thought I read in The Star way back when. Now, what with the Pacers waiving Miller (something that just isn't right, even though he is retiring), I am assuming that this third year was not an option year, but rather guaranteed. Could you please clarify? Thanks! (Jamie from Indianapolis)

    Answer: Sometimes it takes awhile to get all the details of contracts. If we originally reported that Miller's contract included an option year, someone must have led us to believe that was the case.

    Looking back, it's apparent the Pacers simply spread Miller's contract over three years, although he planned to play two at the time he signed it. This would qualify as a gentleman's agreement, although the Pacers weren't legally obligated to pay him for that third year if he retired. It no doubt helped them avoid the luxury tax the last two years.



    Question: This may be a stupid question, and I'm the perfect guy to ask it. Since Reggie Miller retired after last season, why is his $6M salary still on the books? Why are the Pacers obligated to pay him his 2005-2006 salary, when he quit? (Ray from Indianapolis)

    Answer: Hey, if you're the perfect guy to ask it, I'm the perfect guy to answer it. And I think I just did. Please check the previous answer.


    Answers Posted August 9, 2005

    Question: It seems every year about this time I ask myself the same question. Who do you have to know to get an opening home game? It just seems as if the Pacers never get a home game to start the season. I know it all evens out in the end, but come on, every once in a while it would be nice to start off with a home game. (Curtis from Fishers, Ind.)

    Answer: This is a good question, Curtis. I'm sure a lot of fans wonder the same thing. The truth is, however, the Pacers prefer not to open their season at home. They want their home opener to be played on a Friday or Saturday night, which requires them to open their season on the road. A weekend home opener helps ensure a sellout.

    The Pacers have opened their season at home just twice since the 1992-93 season. The last time came in the 2002-03 season against Houston -- and they drew 16,469 for Yao Ming's first NBA game. That was nearly 2,000 short of a sellout.

    ab

    Question: What can you tell me about the Pacers' contract situation over the next two years? I believe Scot Pollard is in the final year of his, while Austin Croshere and Jonathan Bender have two years left. Since Reggie Miller's contract has one year left, it appears that the team will be unloading a lot of salary.

    Neither of these four players are major contributors, but eat up big money collectively. So, aren't the Pacers sitting in pretty good shape?

    Is this my imagination? If so, what am I missing? FYI...I'd love to see Tyson Chandler in Pacer gear (via free agency). Thanks for the great coverage! (Jeff from Avon, Ind.)

    Answer: The Pacers don't get much salary relief until the 2007-08 season. They already have nearly $65 million in salary committed for the 2006-07 season, with commitments to Jermaine O'Neal, Croshere, Bender, Ron Artest, Stephen Jackson, Jeff Foster, Anthony Johnson, Jamaal Tinsley and David Harrison.

    They have about $50 million in salary commitments for the 2007-08 and the 08-09 seasons, although Artest can opt out of his contract before the 08-09 season -- and probably will if his career is going well at the time. They also have $37 million in commitments for the 2009-10 season, with O'Neal, Jackson and Tinsley under contract.



    Question: I was wondering about the rule where you can release a player without any penalties. Does this pertain to a trade as well? If the Pacers traded for a player could they release him and not have to pay the luxury tax? (Jim from Indianapolis)

    Answer: The new rule applies only to players on a team's roster as of June 21, so that would preclude it from waiving a player acquired in a trade for amnesty purposes.



    Question: I just don't understand why Indiana keeps getting passed over to host an NBA All-Star game. Conseco Fieldhouse is championed as the premier venue to see a basketball game in the entire universe, and for some reason it is still waiting to be celebrated by the league and NBA fans around the world.

    With news that a town like Vegas (that doesn't even have a team!) will be hosting before Conseco leaves me somewhat dumbfounded.

    Are the Pacers' executives interested in playing host to All-Star weekend, and if so, why are they rejected year after year? (Ray from Chicago)

    Answer: The answer to this question is similar to the earlier one about the home openers. The Pacers really don't have a great desire to host an All-Star game. It imposes a tremendous workload on the front office, and the people at Conseco Fieldhouse already have plenty to do with the Pacers, Fever and all the concerts that go through the building.

    Teams that host All-Star games also run the risk of alienating their fan base because so few tickets are made available to the season ticket holders. Most of the good seats at an All-Star game go to league officials, sponsors and celebrities. The host city benefits economically from an All-Star game, but the host team does not.

    In short, it's a lot of work with minimal reward.



    Question: Since Reggie Miller is still officially on the Pacers' payroll, let's say the Pacers win the NBA championship next season. Does Reggie Miller receive a ring? (Nathan from Avon, Ind.)

    Answer: If the Pacers win the championship next season without Reggie Miller, I believe they would want to give him a ring as an honorary team member. But I doubt Miller would accept it.



    Question: What do you think of a possible trade with the Raptors concerning Matt Bonner. The Raptors have stated that they need a backup point guard and the Pacers could use a power forward that could knock down the three. Have you heard any interest in Bonner? (Sean from Indianapolis)

    Answer: I haven't heard Bonner's name come up in relation to the Pacers, and I doubt the Raptors are looking to trade him. He's coming off a solid season in which he averaged 7.2 points and 3.5 rebounds off the bench, and they have extended a qualifying offer to make him a restricted free agent after the upcoming season.

    He'll be paid just under $900,000 next season, so the only point guard the Pacers have whose salary matches that is Eddie Gill. The Raptors also have extended an offer sheet to Chris Duhon, so he might become the backup point guard they're seeking.



    Question: In addition to speculation of the Pacers waiving Austin Croshere under the new amnesty clause, it's also been suggested that they waive Reggie Miller. If the Pacers waived Miller, and he did change his mind and wanted to join them for the playoffs (I know it's highly unlikely), would he be able to come back to the Pacers? Can a player who has been waived under the amnesty clause return to the team that waived him in the same season? (Adam from Abingdon, Va.)

    Answer (revised 8-10-05): The rules on amnesty are still vague since it's a new concept, so I checked with the NBA office. I was told that a player waived under this circumstance can not re-sign with that team until after his contract expires. So, if the Pacers waived Miller it would enforce his retirement unless he (1) returned to them after next season, which is very unlikely, or (2) signed with another team, which also seems unlikely.



    Question: What happened to Chris Thomas (Notre Dame) after working out on the Pacers' summer team? Is he going overseas or will he be picked up by another NBA team? (L.K. from Indianapolis)

    Answer: I haven't heard that Thomas has signed a contract with anyone. I have to believe he'll be in an NBA training camp this fall unless he chooses to sign a deal with a European team. I don't know if he's received an offer or not.

    It's funny you bring up Thomas. I had a request yesterday from someone trying to reach him because he's been named Pike High School's Alum of the Year. I can tell you that's a great honor, because I won the award two years ago. I don't know if they reached him or not, however.

  • #2
    Re: Mike Wells Q&A

    Originally posted by Mike Wells
    Foster, in fact, is one of their least tradeable players, given his value and his reasonable contract.
    WRONG! Let me try and fix that...

    Foster, in fact, is one of their most tradeable players, given his value and his reasonable contract.
    You're caught up in the Internet / you think it's such a great asset / but you're wrong, wrong, wrong
    All that fiber optic gear / still cannot take away the fear / like an island song

    - Jimmy Buffett

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Mike Wells Q&A

      The newest batch of questions were on Montieth's I think. The others I haven't seen before.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Mike Wells Q&A

        Yes it seems like many of those questions were MM's, and I guess they combined them into one long list. But I know several of those questions are new.
        The one Doug cited was on the old list

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Mike Wells Q&A

          Originally posted by Doug
          WRONG! Let me try and fix that...

          Foster, in fact, is one of their most tradeable players, given his value and his reasonable contract.
          No kidding. He may have meant "Player we'd be least willing to trade" but it sure didn't come out right.
          This space for rent.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Mike Wells Q&A

            I believe I've seen the question of "how can you trade a player for a pick" asked several times in these Q&A's.

            Trading a player for a pick isn't a recent phenomenon and many such trades happen ever year. It would seem to me that most who follow the sport enough to ask questions of beat reporters durring the offseason would not be unfamiliar with such situations. Do the Pacers simply not do this often or am I perhaps misjudging how often I've seen this question appear?

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Mike Wells Q&A

              Originally posted by Fool
              I believe I've seen the question of "how can you trade a player for a pick" asked several times in these Q&A's.
              The Q&A includes previous Q&As, so it was just asked once but you keep reading it.
              This space for rent.

              Comment

              Working...
              X