PDA

View Full Version : Indiana will get TMac and Detroit will get Marion..mark my words



Kstat
05-31-2004, 02:34 PM
Insider has both of these rumors, and I see a LOT of validity in both of them. I also think both franchises want to one-up the other THAT badly.

I think the Pistons will sign-and-trade Okur to Phoenix for Marion, and Indiana will trade Bender, Tinsley and Harrington to Orlando for TMac.

When both of these moves are made, I'm going to go back and find this thread.

Pig Nash
05-31-2004, 02:35 PM
:crazy: crazy for feelin

efx
05-31-2004, 02:36 PM
I hope you're right. Every time you can get a superstar, you get him.

TheSauceMaster
05-31-2004, 02:40 PM
please oh infinte one , tell me who will be the Starting PG for the Pacers ?

Hicks
05-31-2004, 02:40 PM
Oh God do I hope you're right.

Kstat
05-31-2004, 02:41 PM
please oh infinte one , tell me who will be the Starting PG for the Pacers ?

If Indiana is starting Ron Artest, Tracy McGrady and Jermaine Oneal, Rick Carlisle could play PG and get 8 assists a game :laugh:

Seriously, who would you even CARE who plays the point if you could put a big three like that on the floor?

Cactus Jax
05-31-2004, 02:43 PM
You think Okur alone would be enough for Marion? I think Prince would have to be included as well.

Also, I'm sure SOMEONE could sign for the Pacers to play PG at the 4.5 million exception. If that happens I will go insane, as I think that's robbery.

Hicks
05-31-2004, 02:43 PM
Detroit would need more than Okur for Marion, I think. At least one of their SFs, probably Prince.

And I think we'd have to give up Ron.

Kstat
05-31-2004, 02:45 PM
You think Okur alone would be enough for Marion? I think Prince would have to be included as well.

Also, I'm sure SOMEONE could sign for the Pacers to play PG at the 4.5 million exception. If that happens I will go insane, as I think that's robbery.

Well, the rumor on Insider was that Phoenix wanted Okur AND enough cap space to go after Kobe. Marion doesnt figure into their long term plans, and hes their highest paid player. It would serve Phoenix's interest to move Marion for Okur. But if they wanted Prince in the deal, I'd gladly add him.

bulletproof
05-31-2004, 02:47 PM
Sticky this thread Hicks so I have something positive to look at everytime I come here during the offseason. ;)

Hicks
05-31-2004, 02:49 PM
Sticky this thread Hicks so I have something positive to look at everytime I come here during the offseason. ;)

I'm tempted. ;)

Cactus Jax
05-31-2004, 02:49 PM
You think Okur alone would be enough for Marion? I think Prince would have to be included as well.

Also, I'm sure SOMEONE could sign for the Pacers to play PG at the 4.5 million exception. If that happens I will go insane, as I think that's robbery.

Well, the rumor on Insider was that Phoenix wanted Okur AND enough cap space to go after Kobe. Marion doesnt figure into their long term plans, and hes their highest paid player. It would serve Phoenix's interest to move Marion for Okur. But if they wanted Prince in the deal, I'd gladly add him.

I figured Phoenix would want at least a replacement for Marion if they don't get Kobe.

Also, is there a list of free-agents for this year somewhere? I want to see what PG's are around.

bulletproof
05-31-2004, 02:51 PM
Sticky this thread Hicks so I have something positive to look at everytime I come here during the offseason. ;)

I'm tempted. ;)

The idea of McGrady playing with JO makes me giddy.

Kstat
05-31-2004, 02:51 PM
You think Okur alone would be enough for Marion? I think Prince would have to be included as well.

Also, I'm sure SOMEONE could sign for the Pacers to play PG at the 4.5 million exception. If that happens I will go insane, as I think that's robbery.

Well, the rumor on Insider was that Phoenix wanted Okur AND enough cap space to go after Kobe. Marion doesnt figure into their long term plans, and hes their highest paid player. It would serve Phoenix's interest to move Marion for Okur. But if they wanted Prince in the deal, I'd gladly add him.

I figured Phoenix would want at least a replacement for Marion if they don't get Kobe.

Also, is there a list of free-agents for this year somewhere? I want to see what PG's are around.

Insider said that they also wanted to free up a chance for Joe Johnson to start at SF.

But once again, if they want Prince, he's all theirs.

Hicks
05-31-2004, 02:53 PM
Sticky this thread Hicks so I have something positive to look at everytime I come here during the offseason. ;)

I'm tempted. ;)

The idea of McGrady playing with JO makes me giddy.

Same.

It's like I said in the other thread on this, I think we'd be like the Lakers in that we'd have good, not great, team defense that we can turn up in spurts, but on offense we have too much for anyone to handle.

Shade
05-31-2004, 02:53 PM
I'd do Al, Jonny, and a filler or two for T-Mac, but I'd be highly reluctant to give up Tinsley too. I may even consider Freddie over Tinsley. :eek:

Kstat
05-31-2004, 02:56 PM
I'd do Al, Jonny, and a filler or two for T-Mac, but I'd be highly reluctant to give up Tinsley too. I may even consider Freddie over Tinsley. :eek:

I wouldnt want t give him up, but I KNOW Orlando would demand at least ONE starter, and Foster wont be it.

Orlando badly wants a real PG, if it doesnt cost you Ronnie or JO you should give Orlando whatever they want.

Cactus Jax
05-31-2004, 02:57 PM
I'd do Al, Jonny, and a filler or two for T-Mac, but I'd be highly reluctant to give up Tinsley too. I may even consider Freddie over Tinsley. :eek:

I'd definently do Freddie over Tinsley, they can have that, the Pacers can find a back-up 2 guard in the draft or a free agent or something. To not get T-Mac just cause of Freddie is just STUPID as much as I love Freddie.

Cactus Jax
05-31-2004, 02:59 PM
I'd do Al, Jonny, and a filler or two for T-Mac, but I'd be highly reluctant to give up Tinsley too. I may even consider Freddie over Tinsley. :eek:

I wouldnt want t give him up, but I KNOW Orlando would demand at least ONE starter, and Foster wont be it.

Orlando badly wants a real PG, if it doesnt cost you Ronnie or JO you should give Orlando whatever they want.

EXACTLY, the Pacers can find somebody who just MIGHT want to win a title as a free-agent PG.

TheSauceMaster
05-31-2004, 03:05 PM
I found my Dream Trade

Indiana trades: PF Austin Croshere (5.0 ppg, 3.2 rpg, 0.7 apg in 13.7 minutes)
PF Al Harrington (13.3 ppg, 6.4 rpg, 1.7 apg in 30.9 minutes)
PG Jamaal Tinsley (8.3 ppg, 2.6 rpg, 5.8 apg in 26.5 minutes)
Indiana receives: SG Tracy McGrady (28.0 ppg, 6.0 rpg, 5.5 apg in 39.9 minutes)
Change in team outlook: +1.4 ppg, -6.2 rpg, and -2.7 apg.

Orlando trades: SG Tracy McGrady (28.0 ppg, 6.0 rpg, 5.5 apg in 39.9 minutes)
Orlando receives: PF Austin Croshere (5.0 ppg, 3.2 rpg, 0.7 apg in 77 games)
PF Al Harrington (13.3 ppg, 6.4 rpg, 1.7 apg in 79 games)
PG Jamaal Tinsley (8.3 ppg, 2.6 rpg, 5.8 apg in 52 games)
Change in team outlook: -1.4 ppg, +6.2 rpg, and +2.7 apg.

TRADE ACCEPTED

Hicks
05-31-2004, 03:07 PM
Kstat, do you realize if Sauce's trade happened, that on NBA Live 2005, I could go at you with a lineup including JO, JB, Ron and T-Mac? :laugh:

Cactus Jax
05-31-2004, 03:10 PM
Kstat, do you realize if Sauce's trade happened, that on NBA Live 2005, I could go at you with a lineup including JO, JB, and T-Mac? :laugh:

Do you also realize that if Sauce's trade did occur, that the Orlando GM, would have to take an IQ test to make sure he's not completely retarded.

Kstat
05-31-2004, 03:13 PM
Kstat, do you realize if Sauce's trade happened, that on NBA Live 2005, I could go at you with a lineup including JO, JB, and T-Mac? :laugh:

Do you also realize that if Sauce's trade did occur, that the Orlando GM, would have to take an IQ test to make sure he's not completely retarded.

Yeah, Orlando would DEMAND Harrington, Tinsley AND Bender if Indiana told them they couldnt have Ronnie or JO.

BTW Hicks, I could come at YOU with Marion, Rip, Sheed, Ben and Chauncy :laugh:

TheSauceMaster
05-31-2004, 03:19 PM
Doesn't matter if my trade is not realisitc , I won't even bring up the sheed trade , how unrealistic was that trade ;)

Kstat
05-31-2004, 03:20 PM
Doesn't matter if my trade is not realisitc , I won't even bring up the sheed trade , how unrealistic was that trade ;)

I'm just saying it doesnt benefit orlando, they can get more than that elsewhere. Atlanta wasnt going to get a better offer for Rasheed.

Southside_Pacer
05-31-2004, 03:20 PM
Addition by subtraction (in regards to Orlando and McGrady) might be their offseason motto.

Kstat
05-31-2004, 03:23 PM
The bottom line is Orlando is going to want young talented guys to build around Okafor. I could see them starting Tinsley, Stevenson, HArrington, Bender and Okafor Next season. Thats a nice frontline for them.

Hoop
05-31-2004, 03:26 PM
The idea of McGrady playing with JO makes me giddy.

Me 2 :dance: :dance: :dance: :dance: :dance:

Southside_Pacer
05-31-2004, 03:30 PM
McGrady is also the type of player that we do need.......a shooting guard who can shoot, who's not afriad to shoot, can create his own shot, and draw fouls.

Right now, we really don't have an excellent shooter. We all know that McGrady can drop points from all over the court.

If it requires trading Al (who is at his prime, what we see now is what we'll get probably), Bender (the deer in headlights look in the playoffs does bother me), and Tinsley, then I hope Walsh does it.

Just do not involve Artest in a trade.

Jermaniac
05-31-2004, 04:17 PM
Man if we get T-Mac and dont have to give up Ron or Jermaine, I'm going to be the happiest man alive. But if we have to give up Ron to get T-Mac well so be it. How about a trade of Bender and Ron for T-Mac i would deffinetly do that.
Imagine this Line Up
PG-Tinsley
SG-Tracy
SF- Baby AL
PF-Jermaine
C-Jeff Foster
6th man-Reggie

waterjater
05-31-2004, 04:27 PM
Tmac would be awesome. I've been thinking about how you could pull this off.

Would rather give up Harrington than Bender! I still think Bender is going to show up, Harrington has had tons of playing time to show us he will always be short of the talent we need.

Tmac, Fjones, AJ, KA, and/or Brewer could handle the pt in the absence of Tinsley.

If we could Tmac with JO....Ahh! the possibilities with a guy who can shoot anytime anywhere...that would be awesome. I'd even give up Ron Artest to pull this fire power in. Tmac also plays decent defense with his length.

Pray for a miracle on this and tomorrow's game! Hell, go over the cap to get McGrady...it would be worth it!

Water

Hicks
05-31-2004, 04:28 PM
Here's a deal I came up with on RealGM that will work once the BYC's wear off:

We give: Artest, Tinsley, Jones, Bender, Pollard

We get: McGrady, Howard, Lue

Hicks
05-31-2004, 04:30 PM
Here's a deal I came up with on RealGM that will work once the BYC's wear off:

We give: Artest, Tinsley, Jones, Bender, Pollard

We get: McGrady, Howard, Lue

Projected lineup for us:

Lue - AJ
McGrady - Reggie
Harrington - James Jones
O'Neal - Croshere
Foster or Howard

75Ranger
05-31-2004, 04:51 PM
I love T-mac as a player I just don't know if he would fit in well with Ron Artest. Artest loves to jack up the ball sometimes in my oppinion way to much. T-mac is a player who needs the ball in his hands alot, similar to Ron. I would rather see Ray Allen here, he can give you 20points a game, he'll hand out 4 assists a game and get you 5bds and doesn't need the ball as much as hes comfortable running off screens. Also its possible if something like this goes down Orlando may hold out for Artest. Can't blame them for asking for a second team All NBA player in exhange for there superstar. It would also be a fair deal in my opinion but Walsh/Bird won't do it.

This could actually turn out to be a offseason with alot of movement. The nets are going hard after Ray Allen, Detroit is always looking to improve and I think Indiana may have to deal just to keep pace with them and improve there weaknesses on the offensive end which is finding shooters and creative scorers, both Allen and T-Mac can do that for Indiana.

Shade
05-31-2004, 05:04 PM
Okur for Marion? Why do teams keep GIVING the Pistons stars for peanuts? :shrug:

Anyway, on our front, do you think Orlando would do Ron and Al for T-Mac?

C - Foster
PF - JO
SF - Bender
SG - T-Mac
PG - Tinsley

:drool:

Southside_Pacer
05-31-2004, 05:12 PM
McGrady is also the type of player that we do need.......a shooting guard who can shoot, who's not afriad to shoot, can create his own shot, and draw fouls.

Right now, we really don't have an excellent shooter. We all know that McGrady can drop points from all over the court.

If it requires trading Al (who is at his prime, what we see now is what we'll get probably), Bender (the deer in headlights look in the playoffs does bother me), and Tinsley, then I hope Walsh does it.

Just do not involve Artest in a trade.

You're DAFT. AL isn't even CLOSE to his potential. Nor is Bender. He's TWENTY FOUR and Bender is TWENTY THREE and you think they're mature. Get a clue dude. :laugh:

And you tell me what else Al can do? What else is he going to show us that he hasn't already? If Al were here next year, I'd be shocked. He wants to start, and if he can get that opportunity in Orlando, and we can get TMac out of the deal, then it's a no brainer.

Bender has potential, but that's what it is. TMac right now is proven. TMac also fits what we need more than Bender.

So :rolleyes: and :unimpressed: at your post.

Ultimate Frisbee
05-31-2004, 06:57 PM
I was trying to find trades that work financially... It is rather hard...

try this:


Indiana trades: PF Austin Croshere (5.0 ppg, 3.2 rpg, 0.7 apg in 13.7 minutes)
PG Jamaal Tinsley (8.3 ppg, 2.6 rpg, 5.8 apg in 26.5 minutes)
PF Al Harrington (13.3 ppg, 6.4 rpg, 1.7 apg in 30.9 minutes)
SF Jonathan Bender (7.0 ppg, 1.9 rpg, 0.4 apg in 12.9 minutes)
Indiana receives: SG Tracy McGrady (28.0 ppg, 6.0 rpg, 5.5 apg in 39.9 minutes)
PF Juwan Howard (17.0 ppg, 7.0 rpg, 2.0 apg in 35.5 minutes)
Change in team outlook: +11.4 ppg, -1.1 rpg, and -1.1 apg.

Orlando trades: SG Tracy McGrady (28.0 ppg, 6.0 rpg, 5.5 apg in 39.9 minutes)
PF Juwan Howard (17.0 ppg, 7.0 rpg, 2.0 apg in 35.5 minutes)
Orlando receives: PF Austin Croshere (5.0 ppg, 3.2 rpg, 0.7 apg in 77 games)
PG Jamaal Tinsley (8.3 ppg, 2.6 rpg, 5.8 apg in 52 games)
PF Al Harrington (13.3 ppg, 6.4 rpg, 1.7 apg in 79 games)
SF Jonathan Bender (7.0 ppg, 1.9 rpg, 0.4 apg in 21 games)
Change in team outlook: -11.4 ppg, +1.1 rpg, and +1.1 apg.

TRADE ACCEPTED

OR

Indiana trades: PF Austin Croshere (5.0 ppg, 3.2 rpg, 0.7 apg in 13.7 minutes)
SF Jonathan Bender (7.0 ppg, 1.9 rpg, 0.4 apg in 12.9 minutes)
PF Al Harrington (13.3 ppg, 6.4 rpg, 1.7 apg in 30.9 minutes)
PG Jamaal Tinsley (8.3 ppg, 2.6 rpg, 5.8 apg in 26.5 minutes)
Indiana receives: SG Tracy McGrady (28.0 ppg, 6.0 rpg, 5.5 apg in 39.9 minutes)
PF Drew Gooden (11.6 ppg, 6.5 rpg, 1.1 apg in 27.0 minutes)
PG Tyronn Lue (10.5 ppg, 2.5 rpg, 4.2 apg in 30.7 minutes)
Change in team outlook: +16.5 ppg, +0.9 rpg, and +2.2 apg.

Orlando trades: SG Tracy McGrady (28.0 ppg, 6.0 rpg, 5.5 apg in 39.9 minutes)
PF Drew Gooden (11.6 ppg, 6.5 rpg, 1.1 apg in 27.0 minutes)
PG Tyronn Lue (10.5 ppg, 2.5 rpg, 4.2 apg in 30.7 minutes)
Orlando receives: PF Austin Croshere (5.0 ppg, 3.2 rpg, 0.7 apg in 77 games)
SF Jonathan Bender (7.0 ppg, 1.9 rpg, 0.4 apg in 21 games)
PF Al Harrington (13.3 ppg, 6.4 rpg, 1.7 apg in 79 games)
PG Jamaal Tinsley (8.3 ppg, 2.6 rpg, 5.8 apg in 52 games)
Change in team outlook: -16.5 ppg, -0.9 rpg, and -2.2 apg.

TRADE ACCEPTED

Or maybe a 3 way trade...

I wouldn't mind either of these really... we get rid of croshere and get a star...

ABADays
05-31-2004, 07:46 PM
Here's a deal I came up with on RealGM that will work once the BYC's wear off:

We give: Artest, Tinsley, Jones, Bender, Pollard

We get: McGrady, Howard, Lue

Projected lineup for us:

Lue - AJ
McGrady - Reggie
Harrington - James Jones
O'Neal - Croshere
Foster or Howard

Hm - the Indiana Magic. I don't think I like it!

sweabs
05-31-2004, 07:47 PM
Detroit would need more than Okur for Marion, I think. At least one of their SFs, probably Prince.

I agree. I don't think Phoenix is THAT desperate to get Okur...they will probably want Prince...

Oh my god all this T-Mac talk is making me crazy.
With all the hype about it - WE BETTER GET HIM.

sweabs
05-31-2004, 08:06 PM
I am also not sure if Larry/Donnie want to give up on Tinsley. They have made it clear that he is the "future" point guard for this team and Larry even went as far as to say that he could one day become an all-star. I'm just not sure...

MSA2CF
05-31-2004, 08:13 PM
Insider has both of these rumors, and I see a LOT of validity in both of them. I also think both franchises want to one-up the other THAT badly.

I think the Pistons will sign-and-trade Okur to Phoenix for Marion, and Indiana will trade Bender, Tinsley and Harrington to Orlando for TMac.

When both of these moves are made, I'm going to go back and find this thread.

I hope none of these things happen...

Kstat
05-31-2004, 08:28 PM
Kstat, do you realize if Sauce's trade happened, that on NBA Live 2005, I could go at you with a lineup including JO, JB, and T-Mac? :laugh:

Do you also realize that if Sauce's trade did occur, that the Orlando GM, would have to take an IQ test to make sure he's not completely retarded.

Yeah, Orlando would DEMAND Harrington, Tinsley AND Bender if Indiana told them they couldnt have Ronnie or JO.

BTW Hicks, I could come at YOU with Marion, Rip, Sheed, Ben and Chauncy :laugh:

NO you couldn't as there is NO WAY IN HELL that Detroit can pay Weed MAX dollars AND pay Marion. Or that they'd give you Marion for Okur. Dream on dude.
Pass that bad boy over here! Must be some GOOD *****!!!!!!!!!! :laugh:

As far as max dollars go, our owner is every bit as rich as mark cuban. We ARE able to sign rasheed and get Marion. And our total salary will STILL likely be below Indiana's.

And the way indider laid it out, I truly believe that Its in Phoenix's best intrests to clear Marion's salary off the books if they reall believe theyve got a legit shot at signing kobe.

Besides, after Joe's Rasheed trade, do you REALLY think Insider's rumor is so far-fetched?

MSA2CF
05-31-2004, 09:00 PM
Rasheed + Richard + Ben + Chauncey + Shawn? I don't know the exact figures (or even ANY of the figures), but it doesn't seem to me like they stand a chance to pay all those guys and stay under the cap.

Kstat
05-31-2004, 09:04 PM
Rasheed + Richard + Ben + Chauncey + Shawn? I don't know the exact figures (or even ANY of the figures), but it doesn't seem to me like they stand a chance to pay all those guys and stay under the cap.

Doesn't matter. Its not a hard cap. Its not like they'd be signing an unrestricted free agent, they'd be re-signing their OWN guy, which you can go over the cap to do, and making a trade.

I'll also add that if charlotte takes Campbell's expiring $5 million salary in expansion, the Pistons will be about $14 million under the cap before they would resign sheed or trade for marion. The deal on the table for Sheed is $10 million a year and Marion makes what, 6-7 million? So we'd go a few million over the cap, big woop. Its a legal deal,

I dont think Mr. Davidson cares how far over the cap we go, as long as its money well spent. I'm only concerend with wether its lgally allowable under the cap right now, and clearly its legal.

zxc
05-31-2004, 09:15 PM
Marion makes what, 6-7 million?

I thought he signed a near max extension last year?

MSA2CF
05-31-2004, 09:18 PM
Marion makes what, 6-7 million?

I thought he signed a near max extension last year?

He made $10,067,000 this season and he's signed through '08-09

Kstat
05-31-2004, 09:19 PM
Marion makes what, 6-7 million?

I thought he signed a near max extension last year?

Well, if I'm wrong and he makes 9-11 million (which I dont think he does) I still really dont care much. Mr. D would spend as much as possibile if he felt it would get his Pistons to the top one more time.

Hicks
05-31-2004, 09:21 PM
Marion makes what, 6-7 million?

I thought he signed a near max extension last year?

Well, if I'm wrong and he makes 9-11 million (which I dont think he does) I still really dont care much. Mr. D would spend as much as possibile if he felt it would get his Pistons to the top one more time.

You know, the more I see it discussed, the more mad I get that my team had a disadvantage over other teams for reasons the players, coach, and even the GM can't do anything about. That actually quite pisses me off.

I hope the NBA develops a hard cap, or whatever the hell it is the NFL does to make everyone even (or at least a hell of a lot closer than the NBA).

I think it should be even across the board with what teams can spend, and that # should be square in the middle between bottomless pockets and cheapskate.

Eindar
05-31-2004, 09:25 PM
Think Ron shoots so much because nobody else wants to?

Maybe he'd shoot less if he knew Tmac was willing to shoot :)

Kstat
05-31-2004, 09:25 PM
Marion makes what, 6-7 million?

I thought he signed a near max extension last year?

Well, if I'm wrong and he makes 9-11 million (which I dont think he does) I still really dont care much. Mr. D would spend as much as possibile if he felt it would get his Pistons to the top one more time.

You know, the more I see it discussed, the more mad I get that my team had a disadvantage over other teams for reasons the players, coach, and even the GM can't do anything about. That actually quite pisses me off.

I hope the NBA develops a hard cap, or whatever the hell it is the NFL does to make everyone even (or at least a hell of a lot closer than the NBA).

I think it should be even across the board with what teams can spend, and that # should be square in the middle between bottomless pockets and cheapskate.

The NFL cap is awful. You cant even resign your OWN players if you're under the cap. The Pacers would have had to choose between signing Oneal and releasing harrington and Bender last summer. You want that?

The NBA's salary cap is the best in all of sports. Everybody agrees. It allows teams to keep their own players and DISCOURAGES other teams from signing great players away from other teams. The only way to really aquire another big salary is via trade, and it takes TWO teams to make trades......

Anthem
05-31-2004, 09:36 PM
If we trade Harrington, Bender, and Tinsley for TMac, then I would try to include Croshere and Pollard and take back Gooden and Grant Hill.

Also, if we did any sort of TMac trade that included Tinsley, I'd love to start Fred Jones at PG next year. Unless, of course, we could get Payton to come to Indy. There aren't any other free agent PGs out there that I'd look at.

Anthem
05-31-2004, 09:38 PM
The NBA's salary cap is the best in all of sports. Everybody agrees. It allows teams to keep their own players and DISCOURAGES other teams from signing great players away from other teams. The only way to really aquire another big salary is via trade, and it takes TWO teams to make trades......

Agreed. It will be an even better system when a lot of the old bad contracts work their way out of the system.

Hicks
05-31-2004, 09:56 PM
Don't base it off anyone for all I care; I just want the same standards for every team. I think everyone should have said amount they can spend on their team, and that's that. None of this "but our owners rich, so there really isn't a limit" crap that gives certain teams unfair advantages.

Anthem
05-31-2004, 09:58 PM
Don't base it off anyone for all I care; I just want the same standards for every team. I think everyone should have said amount they can spend on their team, and that's that. None of this "but our owners rich, so there really isn't a limit" crap that gives certain teams unfair advantages.

It's worked out well for Portland, Dallas, and New York, hasn't it? :devil:

Walsh has said that the Simons would go over the cap if he asked them to... he just doesn't think it's a good idea. And it's not. Once you're there, you never come back.

Kstat
05-31-2004, 10:01 PM
I find this "Pacers are the poor financial stepchildren of the NBA" crap sad. Go take that crap elsewhere, you have one of the highest payrolls in the NBA. Jermiane Oneal makes more than any TWO Pistons combined. First its the refs fault, now its because teams with more money have unfair advantages? Whats next?

Hicks
05-31-2004, 10:03 PM
I find this "Pacers are the poor financial stepchildren of the NBA" crap sad. Go take that crap elsewhere, you have one of the highest payrolls in the NBA. Jermiane Oneal makes more than any TWO Pistons combined. First its the refs fault, now its because teams with more money have unfair advantages? Whats next?

Notice no where in this post does he deny that his team has an advantage in this regard; and it will be lived if they go over the cap and into the LT to keep Sheed and get Marion or keep Okur.

Hicks
05-31-2004, 10:06 PM
Also, the only reason it didn't work with the Knicks/Blazers is because their GMs ****ed up.

If Donnie Walsh had the greenlight to spend to his hearts desire, we would have had many different rosters over the years than we did I'd bet you.

Kstat
05-31-2004, 10:07 PM
I find this "Pacers are the poor financial stepchildren of the NBA" crap sad. Go take that crap elsewhere, you have one of the highest payrolls in the NBA. Jermiane Oneal makes more than any TWO Pistons combined. First its the refs fault, now its because teams with more money have unfair advantages? Whats next?

Notice no where in this post does he deny that his team has an advantage in this regard; and it will be lived if they go over the cap and into the LT to keep Sheed and get Marion or keep Okur.

Indiana has had a higher payroll that the Pistons for what, the last DECADE? And all of a sudden the Pistons are a threat to have a bigger payroll and all of a sudden its unfair? Hicks, if youre looking for sympathy, youve come to the wrong place.

In Rasheed we're re-signing our own guy.

In Marion we would be TRADING a player of ours for him.

Any team in the NBA could do that. It has NOTHING to do with deep pockets.

And by the way, we'd likely be $14 million UNDER the cap pre-Sheed/Marion, so I doubt they'd put us over the LT, not that I think Mr. D would care.

Hicks
05-31-2004, 10:10 PM
I find this "Pacers are the poor financial stepchildren of the NBA" crap sad. Go take that crap elsewhere, you have one of the highest payrolls in the NBA. Jermiane Oneal makes more than any TWO Pistons combined. First its the refs fault, now its because teams with more money have unfair advantages? Whats next?

Notice no where in this post does he deny that his team has an advantage in this regard; and it will be lived if they go over the cap and into the LT to keep Sheed and get Marion or keep Okur.

Indiana has had a higher payroll that the Pistons for what, the last DECADE? And all of a sudden the Pistons are a threat to have a bigger payroll and all of a sudden its unfair? Hicks, if youre looking for sympathy, youve come to the wrong place.

Oh, you mean a Pacers forum? :rolleyes:

In Rasheed we're re-signing our own guy.

In Marion we would be TRADING a player of ours for him.

Any team in the NBA could do that. It has NOTHING to do with deep pockets.

It does if the only reason you pull it off is your owner doesn't give a **** about the LT. Ours does. And that gives us a disadvantage. You try to make it sound like we're loading with superstars with big contract; and that's ********.

We've got overpaid Croshere, Pollard, and Reggie sucking up extra cash; that's not an advantage. It's a mistake.

Kstat
05-31-2004, 10:13 PM
I find this "Pacers are the poor financial stepchildren of the NBA" crap sad. Go take that crap elsewhere, you have one of the highest payrolls in the NBA. Jermiane Oneal makes more than any TWO Pistons combined. First its the refs fault, now its because teams with more money have unfair advantages? Whats next?

Notice no where in this post does he deny that his team has an advantage in this regard; and it will be lived if they go over the cap and into the LT to keep Sheed and get Marion or keep Okur.

Indiana has had a higher payroll that the Pistons for what, the last DECADE? And all of a sudden the Pistons are a threat to have a bigger payroll and all of a sudden its unfair? Hicks, if youre looking for sympathy, youve come to the wrong place.

Oh, you mean a Pacers forum? :rolleyes:

In Rasheed we're re-signing our own guy.

In Marion we would be TRADING a player of ours for him.

Any team in the NBA could do that. It has NOTHING to do with deep pockets.

It does if the only reason you pull it off is your owner doesn't give a **** about the LT. Ours does. And that gives us a disadvantage. You try to make it sound like we're loading with superstars with big contract; and that's bull****.

We've got overpaid Croshere, Pollard, and Reggie sucking up extra cash; that's not an advantage. It's a mistake.

You're right. And you know what, the Pistons DONT HAVE any bad overpriced deals. Our GM spent wisely, yours didnt spend as wisely. If you have bad deals weighing you down, you dont really have a leg to stand on as far as higher-spending teams are concerned.

You're loaded with big contracts already. We're not. I could care less WHAT all that money is going towards, but you spent it, and now you cant spend any more.

I also stress that we would NOT be going over the LT.

Hicks
05-31-2004, 10:16 PM
OK, fine, my team made mistakes, but they still aren't over the LT, and I bet you'd be pushing it to keep Sheed and get Marion (who already makes $10Mil at year).

But put that aside for a moment: Don't you agree that every team should be held to the same financial standard to ensure a fair playing field? Shouldn't there be a line that no one can cross, but not a line so high that only certain teams could even get there?

I think they should make it so every team is a "middle" market team, not a huge market like NY or LA, but not a small one either. Middle ground, same for everyone, so it's completely come down to whether your GM is better than the others or not, and then from there who has the better coaches and players. I'm only asking for a fair fight for all 30 teams, and I think anyone who is opposed to that has something in their favor with the way things are now.

Kstat
05-31-2004, 10:22 PM
I think the system is fine how it is. The only thing about baseball that irks me is guys can spend as much as they want to sign guys away from other teams. You CANT do that in the NBA. I think you should be able to spend as much as you want to re-sign your own players. I also think that if you want to take on salary in a trade, you should be able to do that too. The salary cap rules mean the salaries have to be close ANYWAY, and it takes TWO GMs to make a trade, so at the end of the day its just one GM fleecing another, as you said.

Hicks
05-31-2004, 10:25 PM
Do you agree it would be better if the money limits were exactly the same for everybody and they were all reasonable?

Kstat
05-31-2004, 10:29 PM
Do you agree it would be better if the money limits were exactly the same for everybody and they were all reasonable?

I think thats more or less the way it is now.

Hard salary caps scare the heck out of me because I've seen what its done to the NFL. To tell a team that it wont be ALLOWED to resign its OWN PLAYER is really a horrible thing. I want stars to stay with their teams and buld up franchises. You shouldnt punish a team that was smart enough to aquire a lot of young talaent, by telling the team it can only keep SOME of its players.

The only hard rule in the NBA is that you cant sign another team's superstar if you're already over the cap. Thats all I really want.

Hicks
05-31-2004, 10:32 PM
Do you agree it would be better if the money limits were exactly the same for everybody and they were all reasonable?

I think thats more or less the way it is now.

Screw "more or less". I'm talking 100%, no doubt about it, equal. Even moreso than now. So tight no one would even question that every team was on equal financial ground. Should or should it not be that way?

=============

As for the NFL, I'm not a big watcher (aside from now the Colts), but whenever I read NFL fans talk, I get the distinct impression it's a pretty balanced league.

Kstat
05-31-2004, 10:37 PM
Do you agree it would be better if the money limits were exactly the same for everybody and they were all reasonable?

I think thats more or less the way it is now.

Screw "more or less". I'm talking 100%, no doubt about it, equal. Even moreso than now. So tight no one would even question that every team was on equal financial ground. Should or should it not be that way?

=============

As for the NFL, I'm not a big watcher (aside from now the Colts), but whenever I read NFL fans talk, I get the distinct impression it's a pretty balanced league.

Yeah Hicks, it is. You kow why? Because when teams do TOO well, they are forced to RELEASE their best players that their GM aquired. Its IMPOSSIBLE to build a dynasty in the NFL now, because there is a cap limit on how well you can draft or how well you can trade. If you do TOO well, you have to give some of that talent back to the NFL.

Look at the champion 2000 Baltimore Ravens, maybe the best defense of all time. They had to release a THIRD of that defense because their players did TOO well and were due for a raise. Thats a hell of a thing to do to a team.

Will Galen
05-31-2004, 10:40 PM
I'll also add that if charlotte takes Campbell's expiring $5 million salary in expansion, the Pistons will be about $14 million under the cap before they would resign sheed or trade for marion. The deal on the table for Sheed is $10 million a year and Marion makes what, 6-7 million? So we'd go a few million over the cap, big woop. Its a legal deal,

Come on, pipe dreams are okay, but Charlotte isn't going to take Campbell's contract off Detroit's hands. They want young guys and cheap contracts. Campbell's contract would use up two spaces on their roster, even if Detroit gave Charlotte the max $3 million allowed to do it.

As for his contract expiring, why would Charlotte care? Say Detroit gave the Bobcats 3 million to take Campbell off their hands. Charlotte would then only have to pay Campbell $2 million. Then after having him on the roster a year they let him go. The problem with that is that he would still count against their roster until he signed with someone else or the Bobcats signed someone else. The problem being they couldn't sign as high priced a free agent.

Weigh that against Charlotte doing what they want and signing a young guy for $2-2.5 million that has potential.

Hicks
05-31-2004, 10:42 PM
Kstat, you didn't answer my question: Regardless of how good you feel the current rules are, should or should it not be set, so there's absolutley without a doubt no advantage or disadvantage between any team regarding how much they can spend, and that every team should have exactly the same amounts to work with, no ifs and or buts about it? Yes or no?

Kstat
05-31-2004, 10:44 PM
I'll also add that if charlotte takes Campbell's expiring $5 million salary in expansion, the Pistons will be about $14 million under the cap before they would resign sheed or trade for marion. The deal on the table for Sheed is $10 million a year and Marion makes what, 6-7 million? So we'd go a few million over the cap, big woop. Its a legal deal,

Come on, pipe dreams are okay, but Charlotte isn't going to take Campbell's contract off Detroit's hands. They want young guys and cheap contracts. Campbell's contract would use up two spaces on their roster, even if Detroit gave Charlotte the max $3 million allowed to do it.

As for his contract expiring, why would Charlotte care? Say Detroit gave the Bobcats 3 million to take Campbell off their hands. Charlotte would then only have to pay Campbell $2 million. Then after having him on the roster a year they let him go. The problem with that is that he would still count against their roster until he signed with someone else or the Bobcats signed someone else. The problem being they couldn't sign as high priced a free agent.

Weigh that against Charlotte doing what they want and signing a young guy for $2-2.5 million that has potential.

Joe is rumored to be sending a draft Pick Charlotte's way to take Campbell from them. Its also an expiring deal, so the Bobcats would have cap space the nest year. They arent looking for a set roster in year one. One or two pieces maybe, but not a whole roster. I'm sure theyd gladly take a future pick from Joe in return for a deal thats expiring anyway.

Kstat
05-31-2004, 10:46 PM
Kstat, you didn't answer my question: Regardless of how good you feel the current rules are, should or should it not be set, so there's absolutley without a doubt no advantage or disadvantage between any team regarding how much they can spend, and that every team should have exactly the same amounts to work with, no ifs and or buts about it? Yes or no?

No Hicks, I don't think that there's an advantage for big-mney teams in our current system. If you can point one out to me, feel free to let me know. You pnly reason so far has been the luxury tax, which no team has gone over, and there likely wont even BE a luxury tax next year.

Hicks
05-31-2004, 10:46 PM
I know what you are saying Hicks, but what is that line. Where is that fine median.

I don't know, but I'm sure the head ducks of the NBA are smart enough to figure it out. I'd say whatever the average amount spent in the NBA year-in-year out should be the limit, and allow inflation, as long as it applies the same to everyone.

Just to throw out a more specific area, lets say you look up the #s, and you find a clear bottom amount, a clear high amount, and a clear middle ground of what teams spend. I'd say either make it the middle ground, or as high above the middle as EVERY team can pay no matter what.

Kstat
05-31-2004, 10:48 PM
I know what you are saying Hicks, but what is that line. Where is that fine median.

I don't know, but I'm sure the head ducks of the NBA are smart enough to figure it out. I'd say whatever the average amount spent in the NBA year-in-year out should be the limit, and allow inflation, as long as it applies the same to everyone.

Just to throw out a more specific area, lets say you look up the #s, and you find a clear bottom amount, a clear high amount, and a clear middle ground of what teams spend. I'd say either make it the middle ground, or as high above the middle as EVERY team can pay no matter what.

Hicks, our system isnt perfect, but EVERY sports analyst says that the NBA has by FAR the best salary system in pro sports, and I agree. I can live with that for now.

Hicks
05-31-2004, 10:48 PM
Kstat, you didn't answer my question: Regardless of how good you feel the current rules are, should or should it not be set, so there's absolutley without a doubt no advantage or disadvantage between any team regarding how much they can spend, and that every team should have exactly the same amounts to work with, no ifs and or buts about it? Yes or no?

No Hicks, I don't think that there's an advantage for big-mney teams in our current system.

*sigh* That's NOT what I asked. I didn't ask if you thought there was an advantage right now, I'm asking you if it SHOULD BE (whether or not it is already is debatable) the exact same amounts for everyone to spend, and that no one team or groups of teams should be able to spend more than anyone else unless the other teams are under-spending?

Kstat
05-31-2004, 10:51 PM
Kstat, you didn't answer my question: Regardless of how good you feel the current rules are, should or should it not be set, so there's absolutley without a doubt no advantage or disadvantage between any team regarding how much they can spend, and that every team should have exactly the same amounts to work with, no ifs and or buts about it? Yes or no?

No Hicks, I don't think that there's an advantage for big-mney teams in our current system.

*sigh* That's NOT what I asked. I didn't ask if you thought there was an advantage right now, I'm asking you if it SHOULD BE (whether or not it is already is debatable) the exact same amounts for everyone to spend, and that no one team or groups of teams should be able to spend more than anyone else unless the other teams are under-spending?

So how exactly do you define whats overspending and whats underspending? The Luxury tax? Nobody in the entire league has gone OVER it yet.

There are three pro leagues out there wishing they had out salary system. NO teams have "overspent," going by what our standard is.

Ultimate Frisbee
05-31-2004, 10:55 PM
Shawn Marion will make $11,326,219 next year ( http://www.hoopshype.com/salaries/phoenix.htm ). However he is a full BYC player so his trade value is 1/2 of that for Phoenix and the full amount for Detroit. Since Detroit and Phoenix are over the cap, they can't make a trade unless each remains within $100,000 of 115% of the trade values traded... Hence, this makes Marion untradable by my estimation... (i'm not sure, but maybe a third team could fix all of this... the rules are so confusing, also, i'm not sure when marion's byc expires!!!)

Also, Okur only made 1.1 million this year and probably will not be resigned for more than 5 millions (and also be subject to BYC)... maybe sign and trade would fix it?

Hicks
05-31-2004, 10:57 PM
Kstat, you didn't answer my question: Regardless of how good you feel the current rules are, should or should it not be set, so there's absolutley without a doubt no advantage or disadvantage between any team regarding how much they can spend, and that every team should have exactly the same amounts to work with, no ifs and or buts about it? Yes or no?

No Hicks, I don't think that there's an advantage for big-mney teams in our current system.

*sigh* That's NOT what I asked. I didn't ask if you thought there was an advantage right now, I'm asking you if it SHOULD BE (whether or not it is already is debatable) the exact same amounts for everyone to spend, and that no one team or groups of teams should be able to spend more than anyone else unless the other teams are under-spending?

So how exactly do you define whats overspending and whats underspending? The Luxury tax? Nobody in the entire league has gone OVER it yet.

There are three pro leagues out there wishing they had out salary system. NO teams have "overspent," going by what our standard is.

OK, first of all, I want to make it clear that I'm talking philosophically here, I'm not rating our current system anymore. Just talking philosophically: Should the rules make it so every team can spend up to the same set point, and it's a point that by those 30 team's standards is enough to assemble a championship team (let them decide what that is), and the rules should be set up so no one can ever exceed that, and it's a bar that every teams' owners will always be able to pay. Do you agree that's how it should work?

Kstat
05-31-2004, 11:00 PM
Kstat, you didn't answer my question: Regardless of how good you feel the current rules are, should or should it not be set, so there's absolutley without a doubt no advantage or disadvantage between any team regarding how much they can spend, and that every team should have exactly the same amounts to work with, no ifs and or buts about it? Yes or no?

No Hicks, I don't think that there's an advantage for big-mney teams in our current system.

*sigh* That's NOT what I asked. I didn't ask if you thought there was an advantage right now, I'm asking you if it SHOULD BE (whether or not it is already is debatable) the exact same amounts for everyone to spend, and that no one team or groups of teams should be able to spend more than anyone else unless the other teams are under-spending?

So how exactly do you define whats overspending and whats underspending? The Luxury tax? Nobody in the entire league has gone OVER it yet.

There are three pro leagues out there wishing they had out salary system. NO teams have "overspent," going by what our standard is.

OK, first of all, I want to make it clear that I'm talking philosophically here, I'm not rating our current system anymore. Just talking philosophically: Should the rules make it so every team can spend up to the same set point, and it's a point that by those 30 team's standards is enough to assemble a championship team (let them decide what that is), and the rules should be set up so no one can ever exceed that, and it's a bar that every teams' owners will always be able to pay. Do you agree that's how it should work?

No, for this reason.

The better your team plays, the more the cost of keeping your roster intact increases. If you draft a kid and develop him into a good player, you should be able to keep him.

There's no HARD salary cap in the world that would be able to anticipate such a thing and allow for teams to keep their rosters intact.

Hicks
05-31-2004, 11:02 PM
God forbid not every kid gets to make a 7 figure salary. I'd rather do my idea and lower player salaries; but I know that's not realistic in our world.

Kstat
05-31-2004, 11:04 PM
God forbid not every kid gets to make a 7 figure salary. I'd rather do my idea and lower player salaries; but I know that's not realistic in our world.

In a Hard cap Hicks, you'd have to choose between resigning JO and RELEASING Bender and Croshere. Thats the definition of HARD cap- it means that you are penalized for having TOO good of a GM.

Hicks
05-31-2004, 11:08 PM
God forbid not every kid gets to make a 7 figure salary. I'd rather do my idea and lower player salaries; but I know that's not realistic in our world.

In a Hard cap Hicks, you'd have to choose between resigning JO and RELEASING Bender and Croshere. Thats the definition of HARD cap- it means that you are penalized for having TOO good of a GM.

There's got to be a better way. Look, I don't have the answer, I just want a system that doesn't need anyone to convince me that any team has a financial advantage over another. That's all I'm asking.

This is just my opinion, but I feel if we had an owner who didn't give a crap about the LT or overspending, we could have had Brad AND the coaching change. I feel money was the reason this couldn't happen. I know it seems DW didn't feel Brad was worth it, but I do believe he would have done it anyway if he felt he had no limits in spending cash. If he felt he didn't want to throw away the Simons money, then he had to feel he had some kind of limit. But if we had a Cuban-esque owner that told Donnie "spend as much as it takes to have a better team" , I think we could have had both.

Hicks
05-31-2004, 11:08 PM
So I guess if you look at my example above, the answer isn't a hard cap, but letting everyone spend even more. But there still has to be a limit somewhere; the last thing we'd need is a financial arms race between franchises.

Will Galen
05-31-2004, 11:12 PM
Joe is rumored to be sending a draft Pick Charlotte's way to take Campbell from them. Its also an expiring deal, so the Bobcats would have cap space the nest year. They arent looking for a set roster in year one. One or two pieces maybe, but not a whole roster. I'm sure theyd gladly take a future pick from Joe in return for a deal thats expiring anyway.

I understand, but I don't see it happening. Why would Charlotte want a future pick from Detroit? I see Detroit picks being in the last five for the forseeable future. As for the rumor, it's probably a press or internet rumor, I doubt if Joe has even talked to Charlotte yet. I don't think he can until the season's over.

Kstat
05-31-2004, 11:14 PM
So I guess if you look at my example above, the answer isn't a hard cap, but letting everyone spend even more. But there still has to be a limit somewhere; the last thing we'd need is a financial arms race between franchises.

We had that already Hicks- it was called 1996. Under the new system, salaries are actually much LOWER than they were a decade ago, which really is uhneard of in pro sports. Not to mention its almost impossible for a team to have an advantage simply by having large pockets.Look at the Knicks, Mavs and the blazers. All they can do is switch big salaries for other team's big salaries. It allows for more trade flexibility, but is anyone REALLY going to trade you a big-salary good player in return for you team's big salary garbage?

I think the BEST thing about the current NBA is the salary cap, bar none. If you had seen what the 3 other caps (or lack theirof) have done to their current sports, youd agree with me.

sixthman
05-31-2004, 11:15 PM
Hicks, are you asking if it is better for each team to have the same amount of payroll?

If so, I'd say it is not a desirable system. That is a hard cap! See the NFL for all the horror stories.

As has already been mentioned, a hard cap inevitably results in teams not being able to sign some of their own top stars, if the team becomes successful. I don't believe I like that. I think I'd rather have the current system with some minor tweaking.

As Pacers fans, I don't see how we can complain about the Pistons salaries next year. Our team salaries have been at the higher end of the spectrum for years and will undoubtedly remain so; the Pistons have been at the lower end.

Kstat, I don't understand what you mean when you say about the luxury tax, "Nobody in the entire league has gone OVER it yet." Lots of teams paid the luxury tax last season, didn't they? Including in a minor way, the Pacers. Just curious about what you meant.

Kstat
05-31-2004, 11:15 PM
Joe is rumored to be sending a draft Pick Charlotte's way to take Campbell from them. Its also an expiring deal, so the Bobcats would have cap space the nest year. They arent looking for a set roster in year one. One or two pieces maybe, but not a whole roster. I'm sure theyd gladly take a future pick from Joe in return for a deal thats expiring anyway.

I understand, but I don't see it happening. Why would Charlotte want a future pick from Detroit? I see Detroit picks being in the last five for the forseeable future. As for the rumor, it's probably a press or internet rumor, I doubt if Joe has even talked to Charlotte yet. I don't think he can until the season's over.

Because realistically, Charlotte is probably going to release or trade half their expansion team in 2 years. They may as well pick up a draft pick for a roster spot they were going to vacate anyhow.

Will Galen
05-31-2004, 11:16 PM
(i'm not sure, but maybe a third team could fix all of this... the rules are so confusing, also, i'm not sure when marion's byc expires!!!)


A year after he signed. It would be up sometime this summer.

Hicks
05-31-2004, 11:18 PM
All I'm saying is I don't like that my favorite team is under certain disadvantages because we're not willing to spend what other teams are. Just bums me out because that has nothing to do with the game of basketball; I can live with my team being outplayed (when they play hard, unlike last night), but I can't live with my team being outspent.

Kstat
05-31-2004, 11:19 PM
Hicks, are you asking if it is better for each team to have the same amount of payroll?

If so, I'd say it is not a desirable system. That is a hard cap! See the NFL for all the horror stories.

As has already been mentioned, a hard cap inevitably results in teams not being able to sign some of their own top stars, if the team becomes successful. I don't believe I like that. I think I'd rather have the current system with some minor tweaking.

As Pacers fans, I don't see how we can complain about the Pistons salaries next year. Our team salaries have been at the higher end of the spectrum for years and will undoubtedly remain so; the Pistons have been at the lower end.

Kstat, I don't understand what you mean when you say about the luxury tax, "Nobody in the entire league has gone OVER it yet." Lots of teams paid the luxury tax last season, didn't they? Including in a minor way, the Pacers. Just curious about what you meant.

As I remember it, (and i could be wrong) if the NBA's player salaries exceeded more than a certain percentage of the league's total profit, the luxury tax would be enacted THIS summer. And from what I gather, the salaries HAVENT exceeded the limit, so their WONT be a luxury tax this summer.

Will Galen
05-31-2004, 11:36 PM
As I remember it, (and i could be wrong) if the NBA's player salaries exceeded more than a certain percentage of the league's total profit, the luxury tax would be enacted THIS summer. And from what I gather, the salaries HAVENT exceeded the limit, so their WONT be a luxury tax this summer.

They have been saying there would be no tax this year since last year, but in the last couple of months I've been reading there may be a tax.

The leagues bean counters count the beans starting July 1st, so we will know if there is a tax or not about July 14th.

Artestaholic
05-31-2004, 11:41 PM
Neither deal will happen.
Though I'd love to see T-Mac here.

Unclebuck
05-31-2004, 11:43 PM
please oh infinte one , tell me who will be the Starting PG for the Pacers ?

If Indiana is starting Ron Artest, Tracy McGrady and Jermaine Oneal, Rick Carlisle could play PG and get 8 assists a game :laugh:

Seriously, who would you even CARE who plays the point if you could put a big three like that on the floor?



So true.

If the Pacers can get McGrady without trading J.O or Artest, I don't care who else they have to trade away.

Suaveness
05-31-2004, 11:49 PM
I actually think the NFL system is good. I think it is unfair that certain teams spend more money than others. How can that be fair? I think there should be a hard cap, and with that, salaries would have to likely go down in general to make it work.

Because even if we release a Bender, he would still sign big somewhere else. But there is no guarentee that that will happen, because most teams would have to try and fit their players under that cap. Therefore, Bender would have to sign for less anyway, so he might as well stay here. I really think the hard cap would work if given time to be implemented.

Kstat
05-31-2004, 11:53 PM
I actually think the NFL system is good. I think it is unfair that certain teams spend more money than others. How can that be fair? I think there should be a hard cap, and with that, salaries would have to likely go down in general to make it work.

Because even if we release a Bender, he would still sign big somewhere else. But there is no guarentee that that will happen, because most teams would have to try and fit their players under that cap. Therefore, Bender would have to sign for less anyway, so he might as well stay here. I really think the hard cap would work if given time to be implemented.

No suave, you'd have situations where teams who have no clue how to draft franchises simply keep their salaries low and wait for other team's stars to get cut and fall to them. The Raiders went to a superbowl that way.

Anthem
06-01-2004, 01:20 AM
Hey, somebody hijacked this thread! Call a moderator! Oh wait... :blush:

Seriously, Hicks, you're getting worked up over nothing. As has been stated multiple times, the Simons ARE willing to go over the cap. So there's no disadvantage.

In addition, take a look at the biggest spenders out there. New York, Portland, and Dallas, in that order. None of them even SNIFFED the second round. Coincidence? No! The cap is set at a reasonable level, and it's helping to keep salaries (and thus ticket prices) down. That's a Good Thing.

Finally, your worry about the Pistons is unfounded. As has been stated elsewhere, the Pistons have NO CHANCE of trading Okur+Prince for Marion. It literally isn't possible. Indiana, on the other hand, has a very good chance of trading for TMac. So try not to worry too much.

Now back to TMac... is it generally agreed that TMac for Bender+Harrington is not enough? That we'll need to include Tinsley or Freddy? If so, the balance is in their favor, IMO. Seems like we should ask for either a tweener forward or a pick in return.

wintermute
06-01-2004, 03:09 AM
actually marion's byc status should expire soon. that shouldn't be an impediment to trade.

however, salaries do have to match. if a marion for okur straight up trade occurs, then pistons need to be under the cap (unless suns want to sign okur for max money).

for pistons to be under the cap, they'll need to waive sheed's bird rights. there's a rule in the cba that prevents teams using their expiring fa's cap space from signing other teams' fa's, then turning around and signing their own fa using bird rights. to keep sheed's bird rights, pistons will have a rather large cap hold in the order of sheed's current salary. thus, if they get marion, they'll only have the mle to sign sheed.

so, in summary, a marion for okur trade can happen, but would almostly certainly cost the pistons sheed.

frankly though, i think rip is more of a go to player than marion. i think that guy is overpaid, if anything.

wintermute
06-01-2004, 03:14 AM
Now back to TMac... is it generally agreed that TMac for Bender+Harrington is not enough? That we'll need to include Tinsley or Freddy? If so, the balance is in their favor, IMO. Seems like we should ask for either a tweener forward or a pick in return.

bender and harrington is about balanced, imo. but i think kstat is right and that magic will demand tinsley, they're really in a bad way at pg. in which case we ought to ask for another young player back, keith bogans would be great, or maybe we'll settle for reece gaines if we see some hope for him.

bulletproof
06-01-2004, 10:24 AM
Check it out (most of the responses are from Pistons fans):

http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=2988435#2988435

able
06-01-2004, 10:32 AM
Check it out (most of the responses are from Pistons fans):

http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=2988435#2988435

well pray tell, what's more behing the story,

we all know that Ron has problems with the way rick coaches, and despite the fact that JO has pledged allegiance this year, doesn't mean he is utterly happy with the way things are going, as far as i can see we have few players standing up and saying how great it al lis and how much fun, even KA< (understable) *****ed in public and that is a good friend of rick.

kill the rumours, give at least leads

indygeezer
06-01-2004, 10:43 AM
Every year we seem to be the "favorite" target for the pundits. Seems as if it started with the Chris Weber talk and has become an annual rite of passage for the mediots.

Ain't happening folks. Unless a player demands to be traded away we will once again do nada. This team got us to the ECF and mgmnt has the salary structure laid out for a few years. They won't mess with that. Fill vacancies??? Promote from within.

bulletproof
06-01-2004, 11:21 AM
Every year we seem to be the "favorite" target for the pundits. Seems as if it started with the Chris Weber talk and has become an annual rite of passage for the mediots.

Ain't happening folks. Unless a player demands to be traded away we will once again do nada. This team got us to the ECF and mgmnt has the salary structure laid out for a few years. They won't mess with that. Fill vacancies??? Promote from within.

There will be a trade this off-season. And if I were betting, I'd say Al just might get his wish to startówith the Pacers. If you get my drift.

able
06-01-2004, 11:26 AM
Every year we seem to be the "favorite" target for the pundits. Seems as if it started with the Chris Weber talk and has become an annual rite of passage for the mediots.

Ain't happening folks. Unless a player demands to be traded away we will once again do nada. This team got us to the ECF and mgmnt has the salary structure laid out for a few years. They won't mess with that. Fill vacancies??? Promote from within.

There will be a trade this off-season. And if I were betting, I'd say Al just might get his wish to startówith the Pacers. If you get my drift.

If that happens we either have T-Mac or are so deep in **** that we are lottery bound

very little in between.

Arcadian
06-01-2004, 11:36 AM
In Chicago Ron would sit out when mad at the coach because of "injuries". I have no claim at inside sources and hope that I am wrong but I was worried a bit when I read that Ron sat out becasue of a headache.

Slick Pinkham
06-01-2004, 12:04 PM
Pacers contributing players 26 years old or less (pre-prime):

OíNeal
Artest
Harrington
Bender
Jones
Tinsley

Pistons contributing players 26 years old or less (pre-prime):

Hamilton
Okur (soon to be gone)
Prince

The Pacers have a good mix of young talent, players that work hard and who will get better as they mature physically and mentally. I can see where Detroit will want to get younger and more athletic to STAY at this level, especially is Rasheed and/or Okur leaves.

I don't see the same urgency for the Pacers to make major moves as opposed to tweaking.

MSA2CF
06-01-2004, 03:54 PM
Some more opinions:

http://www.pacersdigest.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1766

naptownmenace
06-01-2004, 03:58 PM
Do you agree it would be better if the money limits were exactly the same for everybody and they were all reasonable?

I think thats more or less the way it is now.

Screw "more or less". I'm talking 100%, no doubt about it, equal. Even moreso than now. So tight no one would even question that every team was on equal financial ground. Should or should it not be that way?

I actually agree with Kstat on this one. The NBA's collective bargining agreement is the best in professional sports. It's not perfect but it has accomplished exactly what it was intended. It's curbed the wild spending and player migration that was occuring in the late 90's. I think that NBA teams have a better chance now and their is more parity in the league than there ever was.

I don't see any problem with the way the salary cap rules are set up. An owner has the option to go over the Luxury Tax threshold but he has to pay a penalty for doing so. Those that are too cheap or cannot afford to spend beyond that amount receive a healthy kickback for their frugality.

No one should play the "poor Pacers can't afford the big players like LA and NY" card. The Simons/Pacers could afford to go over the luxury tax threshold but have choosen not to. I can't say that I blame them (it is their money) but it's not like they are are unable, as some would like to believe.

indytoad
06-01-2004, 04:08 PM
Every year we seem to be the "favorite" target for the pundits. Seems as if it started with the Chris Weber talk and has become an annual rite of passage for the mediots.

Ain't happening folks. Unless a player demands to be traded away we will once again do nada. This team got us to the ECF and mgmnt has the salary structure laid out for a few years. They won't mess with that. Fill vacancies??? Promote from within.

This is probably the most likely scenario. When's the last time the Pacers made a trade for a big-name player? There's a better chance of McGrady staying in Orlando than of him coming here.

IndyToad
What's really going on inside you

ChicagoJ
06-01-2004, 04:13 PM
In Chicago Ron would sit out when mad at the coach because of "injuries". I have no claim at inside sources and hope that I am wrong but I was worried a bit when I read that Ron sat out becasue of a headache.

True. And games too.

His "injured fingers" even cost him a couple of games his first spring with the Pacers.

I'll always be afraid that we can't teach the old dog new tricks.

bulletproof
06-01-2004, 04:49 PM
IndyToad
What's really going on inside you

Oo-oo that smell...can't you smell that smell...oo-oo that smell, the smell of death surrounds you...

Hicks
06-01-2004, 04:55 PM
IndyToad
What's really going on inside you

Oo-oo that smell...can't you smell that smell...oo-oo that smell, the smell of death surrounds you...

*backs away slowly, gradually turns, then runs away*

indygeezer
06-01-2004, 04:57 PM
In fairness to the Simons remember that they, and all the former ABA teams that merged into te NBA, are still paying a hefty percentage of their revenues to the former owners of the ABA St. Louis team. THis was agreed to at the time of the merger and goes on until either the owners of the non-merged St. Louis team die, are bought out, or <I think I'm right> St. Louis gains a NBA team.

Costing the Simons a big chunk. NOw if this has been settled someone correct me but just a couple of years ago the Star said it was still active.

fwpacerfan
06-01-2004, 05:21 PM
In Chicago Ron would sit out when mad at the coach because of "injuries". I have no claim at inside sources and hope that I am wrong but I was worried a bit when I read that Ron sat out becasue of a headache.

I wouldn't read anything into the Artest situation. He missed some practices earlier this year because of migraines. I believe there was even one game he was questionable because of them but he played anyway. I would be surprised if he didn't play tonight.

Shade
07-05-2004, 10:44 PM
:grumble:

MSA2CF
07-05-2004, 10:59 PM
In fairness to the Simons remember that they, and all the former ABA teams that merged into te NBA, are still paying a hefty percentage of their revenues to the former owners of the ABA St. Louis team. THis was agreed to at the time of the merger and goes on until either the owners of the non-merged St. Louis team die, are bought out, or <I think I'm right> St. Louis gains a NBA team.

Costing the Simons a big chunk. NOw if this has been settled someone correct me but just a couple of years ago the Star said it was still active.


Yeah, I think someone posted that article on the IS boards last year. It was a very interesting read. I'll see if I can find it.

MSA2CF
07-05-2004, 11:02 PM
Hall of Absurdly Great Deals: The Silna Brothers' Perpetual Money Machine

From time to time, Corp Law Blog will highlight absurdly great deals because (1) I like to read about absurdly great deals and (2) reading about absurdly great deals will hopefully teach me how to avoid being on the other end of absurdly great deals.

Last night's victory by the San Antonio Spurs over the New Jersey Nets -- the first NBA finals between two former ABA teams -- reminds me of one of the greatest sports deals ever. As discussed in this espn.com article last year (and on page 24 of the current paper version of Sports Illustrated), brothers Ozzie and Dan Silna have collected over $100 million over the past 25 years from the NBA despite the fact that their former ABA team -- the Spirit of St. Louis -- never played a game in the NBA.

To understand how this could happen, we must ask Peabody to dial the Wayback Machine to 1976, the year the ABA folded into (or merged with) the NBA. The NBA was willing to take only 4 of the 7 ABA franchises. Because the ABA bylaws had an "all for one, one for all" provision requiring the teams to join the NBA together or not at all, the 4 future NBA teams had to somehow buy off the 2 other teams (one other team had recently folded). John Brown, owner of the Kentucky Colonels, accepted a $3.3 million lump sum payout. The Silna brothers, owners of the St. Louis Spirit, instead negotiated for a $2.2 million lump sum and one-seventh of the television revenue earned by the 4 clubs merging into the NBA. As NBA TV revenues rocketed through the roof in the 1980, the Silnas are netting more from the NBA than any of its owners. As one of the other owners describes the Silna's deal:

"It's one of the most incredible deals in the history of the business world, and it has to be in the top 10, rivaling any deal that has taken place in Wall Street in the last 25 years," said Roy Boe, the New York Nets owner who was one of the principals to an agreement that allowed four ABA teams to join the NBA in 1976. "These guys collect that kind of money from the NBA and all they have to do is sit there...."

The deal has three absurdly great features:

1. No one, even the Silnas, anticipated the huge increases in TV revenues that would soon flow into the NBA. The brothers' shares of the TV revenues has increased from $500,000 per year in the 1970s to $24 million per year today.

2. The deal is as perpetual as deals can get -- as Sports Illustrated describes it: "so long as there is an NBA, the Silnas and their heirs (seven children and six grandchildren) will be paid." According to espn.com, the 4 former ABA teams have spent around $250,000 in legal fees trying to find a way out of the deal, so I'm guessing it does not violate the rule against perpetuities.

3. The 4 former ABA teams actually pay more than one-seventh of their TV revenues to the Silnas. The Silnas anticipated that the NBA may expand even further after merging with the ABA, so they included an anti-dilution clause in their deal calculating their one-seventh share based on the actual number of NBA teams or 28, whichever is less. When the NBA expanded to 29 teams in 1995, each NBA's owner slice of the TV pie was shaved. Only the Silnas' slice is protected from future shaving.

The first inductee into the Hall of Absurdly Great Deals was drafted in one night by Ozzie Selna and his attorney Donald Schupak on ten sheets of legal paper.
===========================
Here's that ESPN.COM article he was referring to:

http://espn.go.com/nba/s/2001/1213/1295194.html

Anthem
07-06-2004, 01:59 AM
Hey, Nawlins has a team looking for a new home... :devil:

vnzla81
04-24-2011, 10:44 PM
Bumping this thread so people can see that at one time we had a real chance to bring a huge free agent to Indy, could it be possible for us to make a deal happen and bring Howard or CP3? We have cap space, picks and young pieces.


Note: I goggled Tmac and Pacers rumors and this was one of the first things to come up.

Hicks
04-24-2011, 11:12 PM
A 7 year old thread?

Should I just go lock everything older than a month ago? I mean, I've thought about that before, but that's pretty drastic.

But this is kind of ridiculous.

vnzla81
04-24-2011, 11:13 PM
A 7 year old thread?

Should I just go lock everything older than a month ago? I mean, I've thought about that before, but that's pretty drastic.

But this is kind of ridiculous.

My bad then, lock it.

Heisenberg
04-24-2011, 11:19 PM
If you don't like my posting in this old, OLD thread sorry, I just want to point out again that we've never had this kind of money to outright spend on a FA. You can talk about market and all that, but money talks. We've never been in this kind of situation so no one really knows.

Trader Joe
04-24-2011, 11:20 PM
I think the main lesson of this thread is that T-Mac ended up going elsewhere. So yeah...

vnzla81
04-24-2011, 11:23 PM
I think the main lesson of this thread is that T-Mac ended up going elsewhere. So yeah...

Because Indy didn't want to give up too much for him, Tinsley and Bender? :laugh:

Hicks
04-24-2011, 11:47 PM
For what it's worth, I recall seeing/hearing that we ultimately turned down Orlando because they wanted something like Tinsley, Artest, Bender, AND Harrington.

In hindsight, we probably still should have done it.

vnzla81
04-24-2011, 11:56 PM
For what it's worth, I recall seeing/hearing that we ultimately turned down Orlando because they wanted something like Tinsley, Artest, Bender, AND Harrington.

In hindsight, we probably still should have done it.

I agree they should have done it, my intention in bumping the thread was for new people(and me) to see that the Pacers are able to make a deal happen if they want too, I was trying In some way to bring some hope to those that keep thinking that is impossible to bring a big name here, my bad.

Mackey_Rose
04-24-2011, 11:58 PM
For what it's worth, I recall seeing/hearing that we ultimately turned down Orlando because they wanted something like Tinsley, Artest, Bender, AND Harrington.

In hindsight, we probably still should have done it.

Probably? In hindsight that deal would have saved the franchise from the last 5 years of purgatory.

So yeah, probably should have gone ahead and done it.

Kaufman
04-25-2011, 12:05 AM
but no free agent really actually ever came.

off the top of my head the biggest free agent additions? byron scott. sam perkins. both thought to be at the end or twilights of their careers.

there was talk 5 years ago + of cwebber wanting to come here to play for isiah.

i can't think of any big free agent coup that we have ever ever pulled off. and i thought the biggest draw was going to be larry bird. it just never panned out.

wealthy athletes dont want to move to indianapolis unless they are compelled to, often by draft or by trade.

gummy
04-25-2011, 12:06 AM
A 7 year old thread?

Should I just go lock everything older than a month ago? I mean, I've thought about that before, but that's pretty drastic.

But this is kind of ridiculous.

I'm confused. Is there something inherently wrong with commenting in a thread that is old? Is there a particular cut off point? I am seriously asking, because I'm not seeing what the big deal is and I've never encountered any Internet etiquette about this issue before.

Seems to me if nobody cares it will quickly fall of the main page again. If people do care and an new discussion ensues - great! I guess some people might not realize how old it is and that could cause confusion, but it's pretty easy to remedy...

If we're going to lock everything older than a certain point we may as well consider disabling search (the main method of pulling up old threads) too, eh?

This was interesting to me because I have zero memory of this trade rumor. In hindsight yes, we definitely should have done this deal (though TMac probably still continues to be injury prone and there would have been a lot of second guessing the trade because of that).

vnzla81
04-25-2011, 12:08 AM
but no free agent really actually ever came.

off the top of my head the biggest free agent additions? byron scott. sam perkins. both thought to be at the end or twilights of their careers.

there was talk 5 years ago + of cwebber wanting to come here to play for isiah.

i can't think of any big free agent coup that we have ever ever pulled off. and i thought the biggest draw was going to be larry bird. it just never panned out.

wealthy athletes dont want to move to indianapolis unless they are compelled to, often by draft or by trade.

We never had this much money to make a deal happen.

Heisenberg
04-25-2011, 12:12 AM
So what would we of had, PG/Uncle Reg/McGrady/Odom/Bynum

If all those probably unsubstantiated started on a message board rumors actually happened.

Kaufman
04-25-2011, 12:12 AM
We never had this much money to make a deal happen.

i hope you are right in your thinking but my guess is that this translates into fringe players at best.

maybe maybe maybe you are right though

if i were a superstar, i would be looking for the big lights. yes the nba can pay you, but i think the bigger money is in the publicity and ability to increase the value of your own personal brand.

case in point: shaquille o'neal.

Heisenberg
04-25-2011, 12:15 AM
i hope you are right in your thinking but my guess is that this translates into fringe players at best.

maybe maybe maybe you are right though

if i were a superstar, i would be looking for the big lights. yes the nba can pay you, but i think the bigger money is in the publicity and ability to increase the value of your own personal brand.

case in point: shaquille o'neal.
counter point: Tim Duncan on a hometown discount. Overall I agree, we're pretty far down the list for the superstars of the league, I'm just saying, we've never really had the chance for it to be proven true.

Kaufman
04-25-2011, 12:18 AM
with tim duncan i refer back to my original statement in post 125? = athletes don't want to come to indy unless compelled to, either by trade or draft.

i'm not saying that once they get here, they won't like it. we've seen that that can happen: reggie, peyton, edgerrin james, smits.

Kaufman
04-25-2011, 12:20 AM
indy is just the right blend of city that if it were to get a #1 draft pick in the NBA, you would immediately start to worry that he was going to bolt after his contract expired.

nfl - different with franchise tag.

TheDon
04-25-2011, 12:45 AM
For what it's worth about these old threads I think they're an interesting read. I don't know if it's plausible or worth the effort or not, but maybe archive the threads somewhere separately like how we have I think it's called market square where people can talk about anything and have an archive of threads by seasons if people want to go back and relive some nostalgia they can just go there. The organization within would kind of be muddled but I'm sure someone on here could come up with something.

Kstat
04-25-2011, 03:44 AM
In hindsight, I guess I should have said "the Pacers will get Stephen Jackson and the Pistons will get Antonio McDyess."

I could have seen the Pistons getting Marion, but the championship changed all that.

mattie
04-25-2011, 03:50 AM
indy is just the right blend of city that if it were to get a #1 draft pick in the NBA, you would immediately start to worry that he was going to bolt after his contract expired.

nfl - different with franchise tag.

The NFL is not different. It's identical. If a star athlete needs a big market, they'll go to the big market no matter what, and a simple franchise tag cannot stop that from happening.

The only difference is in the NFL you don't have every media source, and every talking head ever involved with the sport preaching that stars need a market. That is the only difference.

That non stop false idea that stars need a big market has absolutely had an effect on FA signings, but even then if you have the right situation you can sign a big name FA even in a small market.

If the Pacers sit on their cap space with a ton of talent and 45-50 wins, they could easily sign any big name FA no questions asked.

Haywoode Workman
04-25-2011, 06:03 AM
I'm confused. Is there something inherently wrong with commenting in a thread that is old? Is there a particular cut off point? I am seriously asking, because I'm not seeing what the big deal is and I've never encountered any Internet etiquette about this issue before.

Seems to me if nobody cares it will quickly fall of the main page again. If people do care and an new discussion ensues - great! I guess some people might not realize how old it is and that could cause confusion, but it's pretty easy to remedy...

If we're going to lock everything older than a certain point we may as well consider disabling search (the main method of pulling up old threads) too, eh?

This was interesting to me because I have zero memory of this trade rumor. In hindsight yes, we definitely should have done this deal (though TMac probably still continues to be injury prone and there would have been a lot of second guessing the trade because of that).

exactly, i love seeing old threads bumped. i barely knew forums existed (except for the indiana high school wrestling board, we used to talk so much **** on that thing) until like 2008, so these are always interesting to me.

Unclebuck
04-25-2011, 09:31 AM
I am only speaking for myself, I'm not a big fan of bumping really old threads. What I think it a better approach is if we are discussing a topic and there is an old thread from years ago that adds some insight into the current topic, I think the best thing to do is just provide a link to the old thread.

You may ask why? one reason is if you are doing a search and think the thread you are looking for is from October 2005, there is no way you are going to find that thread if it was bumped in December 2009.

Bball
04-25-2011, 09:50 AM
Once again I need to point out that in the 90's Barkley wanted to come to Indy to play with Reggie. Indy ultimately turned him down citing finances.

Donnie Walsh had no real interest in signing big name FA's. His MO was to grow a team. We never dabbled in that market because we didn't try. And because we signed our own to generous contracts we also ate up the cap so we never had money to pursue FA's even if we'd wanted to.... So even though where there is a will there's a way... we never had the will...

Bird/Morway have been dealing with the repercussions of that method of team-building and a series of misses and mistakes on Walsh's part and only now have reached a point where it's possible we could dabble in that market if we wanted.

Kstat
04-25-2011, 10:05 AM
I am only speaking for myself, I'm not a big fan of bumping really old threads. What I think it a better approach is if we are discussing a topic and there is an old thread from years ago that adds some insight into the current topic, I think the best thing to do is just provide a link to the old thread.

You may ask why? one reason is if you are doing a search and think the thread you are looking for is from October 2005, there is no way you are going to find that thread if it was bumped in December 2009.

In fairness, you can do a search for the start date of threads. That's how I always find them, for that very reason.

the 03/04 season threads are still the most enjoyable to re-read. The old excitement is still visible in most of them.

Really?
04-25-2011, 10:22 AM
Lol just laughing at this Hindsight stuff... Oh if the world only worked like that wouldn't that be a beautiful thing.

But at the time situations were different, and no one knew what the future would hold... In hindsight I would have had a meeting with our players before the fight happened and sent ron to the locker room.

Then we wouldn't have had to trade everyone. I would have told the players not to go to the strip club that night, lol

The past 5 yrs wouldn't have been the way they were then.

It is always easier to make a decision in Hindsight...

Just saying, lol

bphil
04-25-2011, 10:37 AM
Oh brother. Howard and CP3? Are you kidding me? There NO CHANCE IN HELL of the Pacers ever landing anyone like that. Small market, land-locked midwestern town, lowest attendance in the league, and during home playoff games the crowds are 60-40 (or more) rooting for the OTHER TEAM. Sorry to keep bursting the blockbuster-trade-free-agent-dream bubbles that pop up on these boards, but they're so ridiculous that I feel I have to say something.

The only way the Pacers will get back to prominence is to do what the Colts do... draft really well and make trades when possible for solid second tier players. I think Bird has been doing a decent job of that and I think the team is on the rise, so let's roll with that instead of getting into all of this "We have a chance to get LeBron/Carmello/DWill/CP3/Howard/Kobe!!!!1!111!1!!" crap all the time.