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

A Fly in the Ointment - Next Year's Cap Could Be Flat

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

  • A Fly in the Ointment - Next Year's Cap Could Be Flat

    John Hollinger
    ESPN
    http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/s...dictions09/nba

    If you're looking for a significant development to watch in 2009, look no further than the economy's effect on the salary cap -- something that will have major implications as soon as the February trade deadline.

    Throughout the salary cap era, the modus operandi has been that the league's salary cap increases every season. This has been largely true over the past two decades and has become the cornerstone of both team cap planning and player contracts (most of which contain 10 percent annual raises).

    Plug a serious recession into the equation, however, and things change. Dramatically.

    ...

    hile much of the league's revenue for this season (season tickets, sponsorships, etc.) came in a long time ago, and thus wasn't affected by the changing economic conditions, there still should be enough of an effect on the revenue to make the revenue increase this season less than 4.5 percent -- kicking in the make-up provision in 2009-10.

    The net effect, multiple league sources tell me, is that the cap is likely to increase little, if any, next season. Whether it increases will depend largely on team's walk-up sales the rest of the season.

    That has huge implications league-wide because the luxury tax level moves in lockstep with the cap. Teams have built their salary structures on the assumption of a rising tax -- but instead, many teams are locked into salaries for next season that will increase 10 percent without any corresponding increase in the tax level.

    The upshot is if the tax level doesn't rise, at least 12 teams are threatening to be over next season's tax level on current contracts alone -- including several teams that have been adamant about staying under it in the past.

    That, in turn, is likely to make the next 12 months very interesting from a trade perspective, as teams try to move contracts to position themselves under the suddenly lowered tax line. We also might see shockingly little activity in the free-agent market, as too many teams will have their hands tied by financial considerations.

    And if you think the summer of 2009 looks bad, just wait until the much-hyped summer of 2010. First, the league's revenues are likely to be much lower in 2009-10 than they are this season, and that's the number that's the basis for setting the 2010-11 cap. The many season-ticket holders and sponsors who couldn't get out of their commitments this fall instead will jump ship a year from now, creating a revenue shortfall league-wide.

    That, in turn, will result in the make-up provision having a major effect in the summer of 2010. And since the cap in 2010 will have been set off a lowered revenue base, it will turn into a double-whammy.

    To illustrate, I modeled a situation in which league revenues increase by 2 percent in 2008-09 but declined by 3 percent in 2009-10. I'm not saying this will happen, but just humor me for a second.

    If that were the case, the cap would decrease by about 0.5 percent in 2008-09 ... and then it would decrease by a whopping 5.6 percent in 2009-10. The cap would go all the way down to $55.2 million that year.

    Remember all those teams that projected to be able to offer max deals to the likes of LeBron James and Chris Bosh in the summer of 2010? Those projections were based on a cap number in the $60 million range, not the $50 million range; needless to say, some of them might have to rework their plans. And others, like the Knicks, might not find it so easy to squeeze in two max-level contracts under the cap if it's not at the $63-65 million level we heard thrown around this fall.

    Players will feel the effects as well. Max- and mid-level contracts will be scaled lower, and in general, free-agent money will be far less plentiful. It also means fewer players are likely to opt out of contracts over the next two summers.

    So as we go into 2009, pay attention to all that arcane financial data and contract legalese that goes into setting the cap level. The effect could end up being far greater than anything that takes place on the court.
    Yeah, I know...I quoted too much, but I couldn't figure out where to parse it.

    What's it mean for the Pacers?

    Well, if the tax stays flat, it probably means that instead of re-signing Jack and doing one of the following: (1) Pick up Quis' option, (2) Re-sign Rasho, (3) sign someone to a full MLE; the Pacers will be able to do only one thing.

    It will have conflicting impacts on the Pacers. It will likely make the expiring contracts of Daniels and Rasho more valuable as trading commodities, but it would also mean that to capitalize on that value, the Pacers would either have to be willing to go over the tax or to forgo re-signing Jack.

    It probably also makes Dunleavy and Murphy less movable, but that's not particularly devastating. However, I would also think that as long as the economic outlook is bleak, we will be unable to find a taker for Jamaal.

    I'd have to look at the salaries to see which 12 teams are going over the tax on current contracts to see if there are any deals that make sense.

    However, this recession is going to have a very real, and likely very negative impact on the NBA and the Pacers.

  • #2
    Re: A Fly in the Ointment - Next Year's Cap Could Be Flat

    Thanks, Count. This issue has been on my mind since I did my New Year's report. Despite people's grumblings that the upcoming draft class looks weak, I'm hoping that TPTB acquires a second 1st-rounder ... perhaps through a Quis-related trade. (I'm also hoping that they re-sign Jack while letting Rasho go.)

    In terms of utility, the team is providing about as much entertainment and generating as much fan interest as any owner could hope for, given their record. Fans have accepted that we're rebui ... "retooling." Modest rookie contracts will offset the excesses of Murphy's and Tinsley's, so that IF we choose wisely, we indeed will be in position to contend in 2-3 years, all while being fiscally responsible.


    "He’s no shrinking violet when it comes to that kind of stuff."

    - Rick Carlisle on how Kevin Pritchard responds to needed roster changes.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: A Fly in the Ointment - Next Year's Cap Could Be Flat

      Ugh. This is just awful. Especially for a team like the Pacers.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: A Fly in the Ointment - Next Year's Cap Could Be Flat

        Originally posted by count55 View Post
        What's it mean for the Pacers?

        Well, if the tax stays flat, it probably means that instead of re-signing Jack and doing one of the following: (1) Pick up Quis' option, (2) Re-sign Rasho, (3) sign someone to a full MLE; the Pacers will be able to do only one thing.

        It will have conflicting impacts on the Pacers. It will likely make the expiring contracts of Daniels and Rasho more valuable as trading commodities, but it would also mean that to capitalize on that value, the Pacers would either have to be willing to go over the tax or to forgo re-signing Jack.

        It probably also makes Dunleavy and Murphy less movable, but that's not particularly devastating. However, I would also think that as long as the economic outlook is bleak, we will be unable to find a taker for Jamaal.

        I'd have to look at the salaries to see which 12 teams are going over the tax on current contracts to see if there are any deals that make sense.

        However, this recession is going to have a very real, and likely very negative impact on the NBA and the Pacers.
        I'm guessing that we will resign Jack or sign someone to the full MLE as my top choice.

        It's a very tough...but if there is no Top-Tier PF FA out there that we can realistically make an offer with the full MLE that can score/defend in the Low-Post ( which I doubt there is ), I'm guessing that the priority will be to resign Jack first and then draft the low-post scoring and defending option.

        Given these circumstances, I'm guessing that picking up Marquis' and Rasho's Team Options now are less likely.

        count55, if we intend to resign Jack......doesn't this also limit our options to make a trade involving Marquis and/or Rasho while getting back players that have contracts that last beyond this next season? I would think that we would be over the luxury Tax IF we resign Jack after we make any type of trade involving Rasho or Marquis since we would be getting back players with contracts that will impact the 2009 Salary Cap.
        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: A Fly in the Ointment - Next Year's Cap Could Be Flat

          He's been playing above and beyond what I expected, but all the same I won't cry if Marquis moves on. With Granger, Dunleavy, Rush at the wings, I'm not particularly concerned about finding the 4th best swingman on the team. That's usually the easiest spot to find a willing and able body for.

          I want the November Rasho back, but not the January one. If he wants to stick around for peanuts, that's cool, but I expect he'll move on and Jeff will be the backup center to Hibbert.

          I don't know if there's a PF to land with the MLE that would take over for Murphy in the starting lineup. If there is, then that's probably a no-brainer, but I'm not holding my breath.

          I'm generally for keeping Jack if it's not going to brake the bank, which I doubt it will.

          I'm really curious to see who gets drafted with their 1st round pick this year. I have this weird hunch it'll be Hansbrough, but if the pick is single digits or 10/11, I doubt it. You'd still figure it to be a PF, but then again, I was convinced they were taking a point guard in 2006 and they ended up with Shawne Williams.

          Now that I think about it, there's a very plausible scenario of this draft being about as effective for the Pacers as the 2006 draft ended up being.....

          When I think of it that way, I hope we can land a PF at the trading deadline for one or two of our expiring contracts. Not holding my breath, but dreaming.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: A Fly in the Ointment - Next Year's Cap Could Be Flat

            Originally posted by CableKC View Post
            count55, if we intend to resign Jack......doesn't this also limit our options to make a trade involving Marquis and/or Rasho while getting back players that have contracts that last beyond this next season? I would think that we would be over the luxury Tax IF we resign Jack after we make any type of trade involving Rasho or Marquis since we would be getting back players with contracts that will impact the 2009 Salary Cap.
            Roughing this out, with the following assumptions:

            Cap same as this year: $58.65, Tax: $71.15

            Payroll prior to extensions
            $41.8m

            Extensions already signed
            Danny $10.5mm (it will be between $10 & $10.5, 90% sure)
            Jeff $6.0mm

            Updated Payroll:
            $58.3mm

            Anticipated re-signings/signings

            Jarrett Jack $4.0mm
            1st Round pick $2.0mm

            New Payroll: $64.3mm

            Space left under Tax: $6.8mm

            Players under contract: 11 (including Tinsley)

            Therefore, we'd have to use that $6.8mm to sign three to four players.

            If we traded Rasho or Quis for a player with a longer term contract (than theirs), that would eat into the $6.8mm.

            Also, the $6.8mm is less than the $7.4mm that Quis is owed. Even if my estimates on Jack, Danny, the pick and Jeff are a little high, signing Jack and picking up the option on Quis would put us right at or just over the tax with only 12 players (11 playing) under contract.

            I firmly believe we should re-sign Jack, but I understand that others may disagree.

            If the cap figure does not move, I would make the following predictions:

            1. Daniels and Rasho will be allowed to walk.
            2. Jack will be re-signed.
            3. One or both of McBob and Graham will be re-signed on the cheap.
            4. We will not be in the free agent market at all.

            As the trade deadline approaches, the Pacers may make a deal, but I would guess that they will be very hesitant to deal Rasho or Daniels without sending out one of their big contracts with them: Murphy, Dunleavy, or Tinsley...and I believe that will significantly reduce the chances of any other team being interested.

            The net impact of the cap being flat is a reduction in available space below the tax of about $3.5 to $4.0mm...effectively, a player.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: A Fly in the Ointment - Next Year's Cap Could Be Flat

              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
              He's been playing above and beyond what I expected, but all the same I won't cry if Marquis moves on. With Granger, Dunleavy, Rush at the wings, I'm not particularly concerned about finding the 4th best swingman on the team. That's usually the easiest spot to find a willing and able body for.

              I want the November Rasho back, but not the January one. If he wants to stick around for peanuts, that's cool, but I expect he'll move on and Jeff will be the backup center to Hibbert.

              I don't know if there's a PF to land with the MLE that would take over for Murphy in the starting lineup. If there is, then that's probably a no-brainer, but I'm not holding my breath.

              I'm generally for keeping Jack if it's not going to brake the bank, which I doubt it will.

              I'm really curious to see who gets drafted with their 1st round pick this year. I have this weird hunch it'll be Hansbrough, but if the pick is single digits or 10/11, I doubt it. You'd still figure it to be a PF, but then again, I was convinced they were taking a point guard in 2006 and they ended up with Shawne Williams.

              Now that I think about it, there's a very plausible scenario of this draft being about as effective for the Pacers as the 2006 draft ended up being.....

              When I think of it that way, I hope we can land a PF at the trading deadline for one or two of our expiring contracts. Not holding my breath, but dreaming.
              count55 will need to go over the $$$ for me, but if we can only do one of the following without going over the Luxury Tax:

              (A) Resign Jack
              (B) Resign Rasho
              (C) Resign Marquis
              (D) Sign some full MLE FA

              assuming that we will likely go with option (A) or (C), then the only way that we can trade Rasho or Marquis without going over the Luxury Tax in 2009 is if we get back a corresponding 2008 Expiring Contract ( which is highly unlikely ).....otherwise, we will get a player in return that will have a 2009 salary that will push us over the 2009 Luxury Tax.

              Someone, please correct me if I am wrong in this assumption.....I am hoping that I am wrong in this.
              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: A Fly in the Ointment - Next Year's Cap Could Be Flat

                Interesting. This actually makes our expiring contracts more valuable.
                This space for rent.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: A Fly in the Ointment - Next Year's Cap Could Be Flat

                  Originally posted by count55 View Post
                  Roughing this out, with the following assumptions:

                  Cap same as this year: $58.65, Tax: $71.15

                  Payroll prior to extensions
                  $41.8m

                  Extensions already signed
                  Danny $10.5mm (it will be between $10 & $10.5, 90% sure)
                  Jeff $6.0mm

                  Updated Payroll:
                  $58.3mm

                  Anticipated re-signings/signings

                  Jarrett Jack $4.0mm
                  1st Round pick $2.0mm

                  New Payroll: $64.3mm

                  Space left under Tax: $6.8mm

                  Players under contract: 11 (including Tinsley)

                  Therefore, we'd have to use that $6.8mm to sign three to four players.

                  If we traded Rasho or Quis for a player with a longer term contract (than theirs), that would eat into the $6.8mm.

                  Also, the $6.8mm is less than the $7.4mm that Quis is owed. Even if my estimates on Jack, Danny, the pick and Jeff are a little high, signing Jack and picking up the option on Quis would put us right at or just over the tax with only 12 players (11 playing) under contract.

                  I firmly believe we should re-sign Jack, but I understand that others may disagree.

                  If the cap figure does not move, I would make the following predictions:

                  1. Daniels and Rasho will be allowed to walk.
                  2. Jack will be re-signed.
                  3. One or both of McBob and Graham will be re-signed on the cheap.
                  4. We will not be in the free agent market at all.

                  As the trade deadline approaches, the Pacers may make a deal, but I would guess that they will be very hesitant to deal Rasho or Daniels without sending out one of their big contracts with them: Murphy, Dunleavy, or Tinsley...and I believe that will significantly reduce the chances of any other team being interested.

                  The net impact of the cap being flat is a reduction in available space below the tax of about $3.5 to $4.0mm...effectively, a player.
                  count55, sorry.....just to be clear......going based off of your assumption after we resign Jack to $4mil and our draft pick to $2mil.....we would have about $6.8 mil to sign 3 to 4 players. I would much rather go with McRoberts for that 12th spot, then look for some GF lockdown perimeter defender roleplayer for about $2-3 mil a year ( yes, me and TBird are still looking for that elusive lockdown perimeter GF defender ).

                  Well....if this happens...that sucks. Since we will likely go with some Low-Post scoring/defending PF in the draft next season.....whose out there that will likely be available in the low to mid teens?

                  On top of that.....does that mean that our Expiring contracts don't have as much value as we think? it sounds like if we do move Marquis or Rasho......assuming we get Players in return that doesn't expire in 2008-2009...then we would be eating up the $6.8 mil in cap space we have left.
                  Last edited by CableKC; 01-09-2009, 01:03 AM.
                  Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: A Fly in the Ointment - Next Year's Cap Could Be Flat

                    It will have conflicting impacts on the Pacers. It will likely make the expiring contracts of Daniels and Rasho more valuable as trading commodities, but it would also mean that to capitalize on that value, the Pacers would either have to be willing to go over the tax or to forgo re-signing Jack.
                    My early guess, especially after seeing how Jack has played (and TJ's injury situation), is that they would move Rasho to get a starting PG, or perhaps both Daniels and Rasho if Dunleavy stays on the healthy side.

                    They'd look to take less back per year of course, and this would then lead to them letting Jack go and drafting a big.


                    But then so much of this depends on where they think they might fall in the draft and what kind of options are out there at PF/PG. I mean if you are tracking in the Jennings region then you let Jack go and use expirings on a big. But if Thabeet is falling to you then you trade for a PG solution, and maybe only a backup using just 1 of the expirings.


                    I've never even slightly thought the Pacers were going to use the FA/MLE options as solutions and this doesn't change that, it only reinforces it. I did think they were looking to move Rasho's deal later on and I still do now. So ultimately this seems like really good news for the Pacers IMO.

                    Plus lowering the cap reduces costs to finally start to match the lowered attendance. That's also good for Pacers fans that worry about the books being in the red so much that a team move would be considered.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: A Fly in the Ointment - Next Year's Cap Could Be Flat

                      count55, if we intend to resign Jack......doesn't this also limit our options to make a trade involving Marquis and/or Rasho while getting back players that have contracts that last beyond this next season? I would think that we would be over the luxury Tax IF we resign Jack after we make any type of trade involving Rasho or Marquis since we would be getting back players with contracts that will impact the 2009 Salary Cap.
                      As I alluded to in my previous post, I'd assume that the Pacers would be pushing that 25% range on contracts in return to it's fullest. So you send out 125% and get back 100%. This means you take a trade exception too, but in this case you're going to let that one die instead.

                      Why would a team do that? Why not is more the question. For another team it means a jump in short term salary but a huge drop for next season. The Pacers do it as a way to maintain or improve team structure but at slightly less cost.

                      Let's say you have a David Lee caliber player but don't really have huge need to keep him. You could use the Pacers to clear him off the books since you are facing big financial problems. For the Pacers they are keeping some of that money on the books, but at some point you do need to fill out the roster.

                      Really to me it means that teams need to get more top heavy in talent, the Pacers can't afford 4-5m players all the way out to 11-12. You are locked in with Danny, Dun, Jeff and Troy. Probably TJ isn't moved either. So you add one other "expensive" piece and fill the rest out with rooks and McBob types.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: A Fly in the Ointment - Next Year's Cap Could Be Flat

                        Originally posted by count55 View Post
                        1. Daniels and Rasho will be allowed to walk.
                        2. Jack will be re-signed.
                        3. One or both of McBob and Graham will be re-signed on the cheap.
                        4. We will not be in the free agent market at all.
                        .
                        That sounds about right. Daniels' option is guaranteed not to be picked up by the team, though I'm sure they'd be willing to bring him back at a lower rate. I think he's most likely gone.

                        The only way the scenario works out differently (when it comes to this offseason anyways) is if the Pacers are able to move Murphy or Tinsley at the deadline for an expiring deal.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: A Fly in the Ointment - Next Year's Cap Could Be Flat

                          Jack needs to be re-signed, as long as the contract is reasonable.

                          Let Quis and Rasho walk. I have nothing against Quis, and he's had an excellent season, but we're just too log-jammed at his position and we need to spend that money to fix a glaring deficiency (frontcourt). Plus, I'm always wary of that "big contract year" so many players tend to have.

                          And Rasho is aging rapidly before our eyes.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: A Fly in the Ointment - Next Year's Cap Could Be Flat

                            I would do everything to resign McBob,Graham and Jack... if reasonable. I would let Rasho,Daniels and Baston walk. (-17 million). I don't know why people here still want to trade the 4th leading rebounder and outside 3pt threat in Murphy. Why trade Dun? He's worth the 10M he's making and is playing great. Would we have won without him in Phx? Trade a couple 2nd rnd picks with Tinsley for someone that can help us. We are obligated next year to about 57M - not counting the re-signings or draft picks. Jack accounts for 3m of that 57M total
                            "He wanted to get to that money time. Time when the hardware was on the table. That's when Roger was going to show up. So all we needed to do was stay close"
                            Darnell Hillman (Speaking of former teammate Roger Brown)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: A Fly in the Ointment - Next Year's Cap Could Be Flat

                              Originally posted by aceace View Post
                              Trade a couple 2nd rnd picks with Tinsley for someone that can help us.
                              That would have been done long ago if some other team agreed to it.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X