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

Why we might waive Powell and Marshall.

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

  • Why we might waive Powell and Marshall.

    I wasn't going to do this until I found out what happens tomorrow. However, nothing is guaranteed to happen tomorrow and I wanted to see what our cap looks like. Since other people are interested I thought I would share my findings. Figures are correct as far as I could check. I did estimate James White's salary.

    This is our salary cap situation according to various sites, as of 07-24-06.

    PLAYER SALARIES
    Jermaine O'Neal..........18,084,000
    Steven Jackson............6,080,000
    Marquis Daniels............5,883,600
    Jamaal Tinsley.............5,714,286
    Jeff Foster..................5,200,000
    Sarunas Jasikevicius.....4,000,000
    Danny Granger.............1,417,800
    Darrel Armstrong..........1,178,348 vet minimum for 13 years.
    Shawne Williams..........1,139,800
    David Harrison...............960,840
    Josh Powell...................744,551 not guaranteed
    Rawle Marshall...............664,209 not guaranteed
    Orien Greene.................664,209
    James White..................664,209 est.

    Total.........................52,395,852

    Exceptions count against the cap just as player salaries do. We have 4 exceptions.

    7,500,000 Peja trade exception.
    ..535,791 remaining from the James Jones trade exception. Expires 08-25-06.
    5,215,000 Mid level Exception.
    1,750,000 Biennial Exception.

    Total....................... 15,000,791

    Salaries plus exceptions equal 67,396,643.

    The salary cap for the coming year is set at $53.135 million. So even if we renounced all of our exceptions we would be less than a million dollars under the salary cap.

    53,135,000 salary cap.
    52,395,852 player salaries.
    -------------------------
    739,148 under the cap.

    Observation #1
    Looking at the figures there is no way the Pacers can get far enough under the cap to sign Al Harrington out right. For the Pacers to get Al it has to be a sign and trade or Al would have to accept the mid-level exception.

    Now lets look at player salaries with Al added.

    PLAYER SALARIES
    Jermaine O'Neal..........18,084,000
    Al Harrington................7,600,000 (Trade exception plus 100,000)
    Steven Jackson............6,080,000
    Marquis Daniels............5,883,600
    Jamaal Tinsley.............5,714,286
    Jeff Foster..................5,200,000
    Sarunas Jasikevicius.....4,000,000
    Danny Granger.............1,417,800
    Darrel Armstrong..........1,178,348 vet minimum for 13 years
    Shawne Williams..........1,139,800
    David Harrison...............960,840
    Josh Powell...................744,551
    Rawle Marshall...............664,209
    Orien Greene.................664,209
    James White..................664,209 est.

    Total.........................59,999,852

    The luxury tax level is 65.42 million for the coming year.

    65,420,000 The point where the luxury tax kicks in.
    59,999,852 player salaries.
    -------------------------
    5,420,148 under the luxury tax.

    Observation #2.
    We could use all the mid level exception and still be under the luxury tax.

    Observation #3.
    The reason for the rumors we might waive Josh Powell and Rawle Marshall might be so we could sign Scott Pollard to the vet minimum (1,071,225 for 9 years) and still use the full mid level exception and stay under the luxury tax threshold.

    With Pollard signed and and a player signed to the full mid level we would have 17 players so we would have to get rid of two players anyway. That would likely be Josh Powell and Rawle Marshall because their contracts are not guaranteed.

  • #2
    Re: Why we might waive Powell and Marshall.

    I'm too lazy to look it up, but I thought someone posted that we used the Jones exception to sign Greene?

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Why we might waive Powell and Marshall.

      Originally posted by SycamoreKen
      I'm too lazy to look it up, but I thought someone posted that we used the Jones exception to sign Greene?
      We picked him up off of waivers.

      Pacers Pick Up Greene

      http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/green...ed_060709.html
      By Conrad Brunner | July 9, 2006
      --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      The Pacers added point guard Orien Greene to their roster Sunday. The former Celtics reserve will join the team in Orlando, where the Pacers begin summer-league play Monday, but it is uncertain if he will play. The Pacers have 15 players on their summer-league roster.
      The 6-4 Greene was a second-round pick of the Celtics in 2005 from Louisiana-Lafayette and appeared in 80 games as a rookie, averaging 15.4 minutes, 3.2 points and 1.6 assists.

      He was waived after the Celtics picked up two point guards on draft night, selecting Rajon Rondo of Kentucky and acquiring Sebastian Telfair in a trade with Portland.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Why we might waive Powell and Marshall.

        Originally posted by Will Galen
        We picked him up off of waivers.
        Waivers aint free ya know. We did use the TE

        http://www.pacersdigest.com/forums/s...04&postcount=2
        STARBURY

        08 and Beyond

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Why we might waive Powell and Marshall.

          Originally posted by Robertmto
          Waivers aint free ya know. We did use the TE

          http://www.pacersdigest.com/forums/s...04&postcount=2
          Ah . . . I didn't have him down as free. Anyway thanks, I'll edit my post.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Why we might waive Powell and Marshall.

            Originally posted by Will Galen
            Ah . . . I didn't have him down as free. Anyway thanks, I'll edit my post.
            no problem
            STARBURY

            08 and Beyond

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Why we might waive Powell and Marshall.

              Since when does the MLE count against the cap if you don't use it? That doesn't make any sense.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Why we might waive Powell and Marshall.

                Originally posted by SycamoreKen
                I'm too lazy to look it up, but I thought someone posted that we used the Jones exception to sign Greene?
                They did. edit - WG fixed it, but I did some work here so I'll leave my response.

                Greene was on WAIVERS and as I understand it you claim him at the salary he was getting by the team that waived him. Was Boston only paying him the minimum? I didn't realize that, I thought he was getting a little more.

                Anyway, all this means is that PART of the JJ TE has been used, whatever the difference between Greene's salary with Boston for year 2 (664 is league min for signing a player with 1 year experience, but that's not what Indy did here).

                I found this on his Boston contract (ledger.southofboston.com)
                the Celtics offered him a three-year, $1.8 million contract
                Off of waivers the Pacers pick up the last 2 years of that deal. From the SalaryCap FAQ (Larry Coon)
                If a player on waivers is claimed, the new team acquires his existing contract and pays the remainder of his salary.
                and
                A team can claim a waived player only if one of the following is true:
                (#3) The team has a Traded Player exception for at least the player's salary


                Another slight mistake here is assuming that Armstrong does not retire. If he does Indy does not have to pay him, and if they don't then he comes off the cap. Whatever you pay to a retired player counts vs the cap, but only if you pay them (like Reggie or James Worthy got).

                In essence a retiring Armstrong allows the Mavs to receive salary in the form of AJ without the Pacers really having to take any back. Mavs get something for nothing, Pacers get salary relief and perhaps something to use toward another situation.



                The salary cap for the coming year is set at $53.135 million. So even if we renounced all of our exceptions we would be less than a million dollars under the salary cap.
                You don't "renounce" exceptions, you LOSE THEM if you go under the cap. Yes, even the traded player exceptions. They are called EXCEPTIONS meaning exceptions you get if you are over the cap that allow you to do moves when the cap says you shouldn't be able to. They are spaces in the cap in which you can add salary when the cap says you aren't supposed to be able to add any more. You can't combine them either. And the space + 25% you get when you send a player(s) out is considered another exception, so no combining a player's salary (an exception) with the MLE or TE.

                If you are under the cap then there is no limit to have an exception for, at least in the sense of these.


                Maybe it was at RATS, but I went through this in detail yesterday and it boils down to this, with Fred going out the Pacers can use the full MLE and stay under the tax. Going below the CAP would be horrible because it would cost them the 7.6m space they want to use for AL (or something at the very least). They are no way near going 7.6m under the cap to make up for losing that if they went a little under the cap even.

                So this is about being above the cap, using the exceptions they can to the point of avoiding the lux tax. You get Al in, lose Fred and AJ, perhaps have Armstrong retire, use the MLE, all's well and you miss the lux tax. Heck, you still have room for the vet minimum in that case, even if you sign Pollard at his seniority value.

                In fact DA would basically be getting the contract Pollard would get if he was signed. So it could be that he retires and Pollard takes his place against the cap.


                Also, until Pollard signs with another team he counts against the Pacers cap. All FA's create "holds" on their last team's cap until they are signed (or the Pacers renounce their BIRD rights for resigning him as they did with Fred). Pollard counts 150% against the Pacers cap because he wasn't on a rookie contract and his salary was at or above the NBA average I believe. I could be wrong and if his salary was actually below the average then he counts at 200% of last years salary.

                Anyway, if they do renounce then they can't use the Bird rights to give him a better deal, but they can still sign him to a league minimum deal. In this case it's likely their intention to do that, so it wouldn't hurt them. At this point they probably want to maintain their above cap status (in order to retain the TE and MLE) and want to hold on to all their options for signing him until they are sure that they do or don't want to keep him.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Why we might waive Powell and Marshall.

                  Originally posted by Hicks
                  Since when does the MLE count against the cap if you don't use it? That doesn't make any sense.
                  It's counted again the cap for purposes of signing players. It's not actually added to the payroll.

                  http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#20

                  20. How do exceptions count against the cap? Does being under the cap always mean that a team has room to sign free agents? Do teams ever lose their exceptions?

                  If a team is below the cap, then their Disabled Player, Bi-Annual, Mid-Level and/or Traded Player exceptions are added to their team salary, and the league treats the team as though they are over the cap. This is to prevent a loophole, in a manner similar to free agent amounts (see question numbers 29, 30, 31, 32). A team can't act like they're under the cap and sign free agents using cap room, and then use their Disabled Player, Bi-Annual, Mid-Level and/or Traded Player exceptions. Consequently, the exceptions are added to their team salary (putting the team over the cap) if the team is under the cap and adding the exceptions puts them over the cap. If a team is already over the cap, then the exceptions are not added to their team salary. There would be no point in doing so, since there is no cap room for signing free agents.
                  So it is not true that being under the cap necessarily means a team has room to sign free agents. For example, assume the cap is $49.5 million, and a team has $43 million committed to salaries. They also have a Mid-Level exception for $5 million and a Traded Player exception for $5.5 million. Even though their salaries put them $6.5 million under the cap, their exceptions are added to their salaries, putting them at $53.5 million, or $4 million over the cap. So they actually have no cap room to sign free agents, and must instead use their exceptions.

                  Teams have the option of renouncing their exceptions in order to claim the cap room. So in the example above, if the team renounced their Traded Player and Mid-Level exceptions, then the $10.5 million is taken off their team salary, which then totals $43 million, leaving them with $6.5 million of cap room which can then be used to sign free agent(s).


                  Starting January 10 of each season, the Mid-Level, Bi-Annual, Larry Bird, Early-Bird and Non-Bird exceptions begin to reduce in value. For example, if there are 180 days in the season, then these exceptions (if they are still unused) reduce by 1/180 of their initial value each day starting January 10. If a team uses their $5 million Mid-Level exception on February 1, then the exception is actually worth $4,361,111.


                  The Disabled Player, Bi-Annual, Mid-Level and Traded Player exceptions may be lost entirely, or the team may never receive them to begin with. This happens when their team salary is so low that when the exceptions are added to the team salary, the sum is still below the salary cap. If the team salary is below this level when the exception arises, then the team doesn't get the exception. If the team salary ever drops below this level during the year, then any exceptions they had are lost.

                  For example, with a $49.5 million salary cap, assume it's the offseason, and a team has $41 million committed to salaries, along with a Mid-Level exception for $5 million, a Traded Player exception for $2.5 million, and an unrenounced free agent whose free agent amount is $2 million. Their salaries and exceptions total $50.5 million, or $1 million over the cap. What if their free agent signs with another team? The $2 million free agent amount comes off their cap, so their team salary drops to $48.5 million. This total is below the cap so the team loses its Mid-Level and Traded Player exceptions.

                  There is logic behind this. The whole idea behind an "exception" is that it is an exception to the rule which says a team has to be below the salary cap. In other words, an exception is a mechanism which allows a team to function above the cap. If a team isn't over the cap, then the concept of an exception is moot. Therefore, if a team's team salary ever drops this far, its exceptions go away. The effect is that a team may have either exceptions or cap room, but they can't have both.
                  ----------------------------------------------------------
                  [QUOTE=Naptown_Seth]

                  Another slight mistake here is assuming that Armstrong does not retire. If he does Indy does not have to pay him . . .


                  It's not a mistake to assume he's not going to retire. He said in one of his press confrences that he wanted to play one more year then go into coaching.


                  You don't "renounce" exceptions, you LOSE THEM if you go under the cap.

                  You only lose them if you go the amount of your total exceptions under the cap. If we go a million dollars under the cap we don't lose them, it has to be their total. We are under the cap right now and haven't lost them.

                  And teams can renounce exceptions.

                  http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#14

                  The combined amount of any Mid-Level, Bi-Annual, Disabled Player (see question number 19) or Traded Player exceptions (see question number 69) available to the team (see question number 20), if the team is under the salary cap. (Teams may renounce these exceptions, in which case they no longer are included in team salary.)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Why we might waive Powell and Marshall.

                    My mistake on the exceptions counting on cap status. I misunderstood Donnie Walsh in his press conference 2 weeks ago, he must have meant that it wasn't worth giving up (losing them in that sense) the exceptions. I also thought the FAQ had it in there, but obviously this contradicts it and I probably misread.

                    edit - I see what I misread now. I overlooked that in making this example he was already including the exceptions. Ooops.

                    For example, with a $49.5 million salary cap, assume it's the offseason, and a team has $41 million committed to salaries, along with a Mid-Level exception for $5 million, a Traded Player exception for $2.5 million, and an unrenounced free agent whose free agent amount is $2 million. Their salaries and exceptions total $50.5 million, or $1 million over the cap. What if their free agent signs with another team? The $2 million free agent amount comes off their cap, so their team salary drops to $48.5 million. This total is below the cap so the team loses its Mid-Level and Traded Player exceptions.

                    There is logic behind this. The whole idea behind an "exception" is that it is an exception to the rule which says a team has to be below the salary cap. In other words, an exception is a mechanism which allows a team to function above the cap. If a team isn't over the cap, then the concept of an exception is moot. Therefore, if a team's team salary ever drops this far, its exceptions go away. The effect is that a team may have either exceptions or cap room, but they can't have both.


                    On Armstrong, I do think its a mistake to assume he won't retire. I'm not saying its right to assume he will either. My point is that from our view the team could have something planned with that either way, it could be that DA has an understanding now behind the scenes. So for the sake of looking at salary situation I think you look at it the same as considering if they will resign Pollard or not.


                    Anyway, at least I was right about the Pollard on the cap still thing. What was the average salary last year because I don't know.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Why we might waive Powell and Marshall.

                      Originally posted by Naptown_Seth

                      What was the average salary last year because I don't know.
                      I don't remember either. Let me Goggle it.

                      According to Wikipedia, "The mid-level exception in 2004-05 was $4.9 million, while in 2005-06 it is $5 million under the terms of the new CBA."

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Why we might waive Powell and Marshall.

                        Originally posted by Will Galen
                        I don't remember either. Let me Goggle it.

                        According to Wikipedia, "The mid-level exception in 2004-05 was $4.9 million, while in 2005-06 it is $5 million under the terms of the new CBA."
                        I am an idiot. I forgot the last CBA put the MLE at average right off the bat, so that knowing the MLE answered the question. Its basically the point of the MLE.


                        Pollard at 6.270 last season, goes to 9.405 (150%) against the cap as an FA hold then. One thing is certain, good guy or not, he ain't getting that 6.2 again.


                        ollard:

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Why we might waive Powell and Marshall.

                          Exceptions count against the cap, but not against the LT barrier. So for a team already over the cap, it's essentially meaningless to worry about exceptions. They're only a problem if they're under the cap.
                          This space for rent.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Why we might waive Powell and Marshall.

                            Originally posted by Anthem
                            Exceptions count against the cap, but not against the LT barrier. So for a team already over the cap, it's essentially meaningless to worry about exceptions. They're only a problem if they're under the cap.
                            I think you misunderstood the tract of the discussion. The point was to look at where the Pacers were technically speaking (which is why you count Pollard and the TE/MLE on the salary), and then see where they could get to downward and what they had to worry about upward.

                            If they sign players to those TE and MLE amounts they clearly do count toward the lux tax. I'm certain that neither Will or I were saying otherwise, just considering "what if those exceptions are used on players".

                            The other side discussion was my misunderstanding that you couldn't give up your exceptions and that they didn't count toward your status as being over the cap, and therefore capable of keeping them. I was obviously wrong in thinking that. Will set me straight without ripping me, which I appreciate.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Why we might waive Powell and Marshall.

                              I think that, unless we include one or both in a trade as filler, we'll take Powell and Marshall into training camp -- even if it's a 17/18-man roster -- and give them a look.

                              The real question here is whether or not the Pacers will use their Mid-Level or Biennial Exceptions. I expect them to sign one or two more free agents -- even if it's just Pollard -- but I have serious doubts we'll use the MLE. And if we do, I think we'd be more likely to split it or just use part of it rather than using it all on one player. Besides, what FAs are left that are worth the full MLE?. Since use of the MLE requires at least a 3-year contract, I don't see us extending that to anyone that's still available in free agency.
                              "I'll always be a part of Donnie Walsh."
                              -Ron Artest, Denver Post, 12.28.05

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X