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

Realistic pacers roster resignings.

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

  • Realistic pacers roster resignings.

    I see everyone talk on a daily basis about what we can do and cannot do. I do not understand the salary cap or how it works. Can someone with some knowledge please explain who we can expect to keep?

    How much can we realistically offer each player? I see this team being two years out with the current roster. Will we be a.e to make it that far with who we have or what pieces can we expect to lose due to not having enough money?

  • #2
    Re: Realistic pacers roster resignings.

    Google nba CBA and you should be able to find several good sources

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Realistic pacers roster resignings.

      Originally posted by beast23 View Post
      Google nba CBA and you should be able to find several good sources

      Or I can simply ask someone who has more knowledge on the situation and not try to act like I understand something I don't. Of course that may be to much to ask on a forum that discusses basketball and the pacers huh.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Realistic pacers roster resignings.

        Originally posted by dohman View Post
        Or I can simply ask someone who has more knowledge on the situation and not try to act like I understand something I don't. Of course that may be to much to ask on a forum that discusses basketball and the pacers huh.
        Nobody is trying to downplay the question, it's just that there are a lot better written descriptions of the salary cap out there than someone is going to come up with writing on the forum. We're not talking about a 1-paragraph answer here, we're talking about a couple of pages to describe it thoroughly.
        BillS

        A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
        Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Realistic pacers roster resignings.

          Originally posted by BillS View Post
          Nobody is trying to downplay the question, it's just that there are a lot better written descriptions of the salary cap out there than someone is going to come up with writing on the forum. We're not talking about a 1-paragraph answer here, we're talking about a couple of pages to describe it thoroughly.
          All I am looking for is. If we sign George we cannot afford granger but not west. I am not looking for figures or pages of numbers. I am just curious who can expect on keeping after we pay PG.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Realistic pacers roster resignings.

            Originally posted by dohman View Post
            All I am looking for is. If we sign George we cannot afford granger but not west. I am not looking for figures or pages of numbers. I am just curious who can expect on keeping after we pay PG.
            Then what you are looking for is one person's opinion. Which is going to very and get into another off-topic discussion that will go on forever and forever. That is exactly the way I pegged it when I was the first to answer your question. And, to avoid that, it is exactly why I suggested you take 10 minutes to read the appropriate portion of the CBA and form your own opinions. We know nothing more than you do, we just simply know where to look to form the fundamental understanding to formulate our own opinions.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Realistic pacers roster resignings.

              If you're asking whether or not we can afford all five of: maxed out Paul George, Danny, D-West, Hibbert, and Hill, the answer is no. For it to be possible, Danny and D-West would both have to take pay cuts and Simon would having to be willing to dip into luxury tax. Neither is likely.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Realistic pacers roster resignings.

                Originally posted by dohman View Post
                I see everyone talk on a daily basis about what we can do and cannot do. I do not understand the salary cap or how it works. Can someone with some knowledge please explain who we can expect to keep?

                How much can we realistically offer each player? I see this team being two years out with the current roster. Will we be a.e to make it that far with who we have or what pieces can we expect to lose due to not having enough money?
                Assuming we can shed the final year of Green's 3.5M/yr contract in a trade, in the summer of 2014 we can offer Paul the max, Lance 5M/yr, and Danny about 8-9M/yr. All are "possible." This is assuming West will take about 9-10M/yr this summer and we pay no more than $5M/yr this summer on DJ/Hans or whoever their replacements are. I am hoping we can draft a good bench player on a rookie contract to supplement backup PF or PG and then spend $4M on the other position, which could net us a pretty good bench player. Under that scenario, we should stay under the tax, which is the absolute cap for a small market team.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Realistic pacers roster resignings.

                  Originally posted by CooperManning View Post
                  If you're asking whether or not we can afford all five of: maxed out Paul George, Danny, D-West, Hibbert, and Hill, the answer is no. For it to be possible, Danny and D-West would both have to take pay cuts and Simon would having to be willing to dip into luxury tax. Neither is likely.
                  especially with the new revenue sharing system. You not only have to pay the harsher tax but you lose out on the new revenue sharing kind of like a double jeopardy situation for small markets(big market don't get the revenue sharing pie for staying under the tax so no real incentive not to pay the tax other than the insane dollar amount. and obviously if you are rebuilding no point to pay it. But teams like the Lakers with Time Warner Cable and the Knicks with MSG the tax wont be that big of a detractor IMO if the team makes enough to pay it. So if you are a team in win now mode it is a no brainier. However for a small market team it int that easy of choice. The new LT sharing will cover the losses that the Pacers normally have so paying the tax makes very little sense in almost any situation. ). We wont fully know this answer until the new LT goes into effect. It could slow down all the teams and thus guys like West and Granger's value could be deflated. It isn't likely IMO but possible. I am pretty sure teams like the Bucks Kings us ect. who don't make a lot off the tv deals and ticket revenue wont be willing to pay the tax. So it should deflate the value of the middle class player pretty good IMO. We have some smart guys in our FO who do contracts I know they will try to get creative when trying to make the money work so we can keep the team together.
                  Last edited by pacer4ever; 01-27-2013, 08:05 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Realistic pacers roster resignings.

                    Originally posted by CooperManning View Post
                    If you're asking whether or not we can afford all five of: maxed out Paul George, Danny, D-West, Hibbert, and Hill, the answer is no. For it to be possible, Danny and D-West would both have to take pay cuts and Simon would having to be willing to dip into luxury tax. Neither is likely.
                    And I disagree with that. With a luxury tax point of 74.5mil (likely a little more in 2 years) we can pay Hibbert his 15, Hill 8, PG 14, and both Granger and West 11 each. That's 59 mil on the starters with 15.5 mil to spend on a bench, it's tight but it can be done. Granger will have no choice but to take a paycut and West may make a little more then he is now. We don't get what we're paying for with our bench right now so I don't mind seeing a few players go. We'll have to keep our picks for the next 2 years though if we hope to keep the bench salary down.
                    Larry Bird qouted March 25th. 2015:

                    Bird: I wanted to keep our group together because in the summer, if David and Roy opt out, we're back to zero, really. We don't have that much, so you leave your options open. If we did make a trade, I didn't want to take on a lot of contracts -- because that's what usually happens. Plus, I liked my guys. They're playing well. If we keep the core together and Paul comes back healthy, we'll be right back to where we were.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Realistic pacers roster resignings.

                      Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
                      And I disagree with that. With a luxury tax point of 74.5mil (likely a little more in 2 years) we can pay Hibbert his 15, Hill 8, PG 14, and both Granger and West 11 each. That's 59 mil on the starters with 15.5 mil to spend on a bench, it's tight but it can be done. Granger will have no choice but to take a paycut and West may make a little more then he is now. We don't get what we're paying for with our bench right now so I don't mind seeing a few players go. We'll have to keep our picks for the next 2 years though if we hope to keep the bench salary down.
                      Current lux tax threshold is $70.307 mil. Ian and Gerald Green make $7.5 mil between them. With the 59 that you just estimated (though I'd be surprised to see Danny sign for 11), that's $66.5 for seven players. Even if the tax raises a bit, it's a stretch.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Realistic pacers roster resignings.

                        Originally posted by CooperManning View Post
                        Current lux tax threshold is $70.307 mil. Ian and Gerald Green make $7.5 mil between them. With the 59 that you just estimated (though I'd be surprised to see Danny sign for 11), that's $66.5 for seven players. Even if the tax raises a bit, it's a stretch.
                        I could have sworn I read an article about a month ago that the LT level increased to 74.5 but when I google it, it looks like you're right. I had already figured on Green and possible Ian being moved after PG was signed. Our bench does very little compared to some benches and our starters carry a larger load already. If I have to pick my poison and it means losing Ian to clear Green out or losing Danny, that's an easy choice. I think at 75 it's very possible to keep our core together, at 70 it would be very tough and require losing Lance and our current bench. We don't have to address that all at once though.
                        Larry Bird qouted March 25th. 2015:

                        Bird: I wanted to keep our group together because in the summer, if David and Roy opt out, we're back to zero, really. We don't have that much, so you leave your options open. If we did make a trade, I didn't want to take on a lot of contracts -- because that's what usually happens. Plus, I liked my guys. They're playing well. If we keep the core together and Paul comes back healthy, we'll be right back to where we were.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Realistic pacers roster resignings.

                          Originally posted by CooperManning View Post
                          If you're asking whether or not we can afford all five of: maxed out Paul George, Danny, D-West, Hibbert, and Hill, the answer is no. For it to be possible, Danny and D-West would both have to take pay cuts and Simon would having to be willing to dip into luxury tax. Neither is likely.
                          I tend to agree, but obviously there are a lot of variables, like how much West and Granger's new contracts are going to be, what the lux tax level will be in a few years, even how well we do in the draft. But I do agree that chances are we'll be choosing between West and Granger in 2 years time, or even earlier.

                          Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
                          especially with the new revenue sharing system. You not only have to pay the harsher tax but you lose out on the new revenue sharing kind of like a double jeopardy situation for small markets(big market don't get the revenue sharing pie for staying under the tax so no real incentive not to pay the tax other than the insane dollar amount. and obviously if you are rebuilding no point to pay it.
                          The bolded part isn't quite right. There are two forms of revenue sharing, one is from lux tax payments and yes taxpaying teams lose out on a share of the tax payments. The other form of revenue sharing is strictly based on market size and revenue benchmarks, so this part won't be affected by the tax. These points are covered in Q22 and Q24 of Larry Coon's FAQ. But for the Pacers, both forms of revenue sharing are probably important so I agree that luxury tax isn't in our future. Even a fairly successful team like OKC is going out of their way to avoid it.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Realistic pacers roster resignings.

                            On a similar note, I see all these people talking about how we can't retain everyone because of penalties etc etc. My question is, what about Bird rights?? We own the Bird rights to PG24, Danny, Roy, Lance, and Tyler since we drafted them all (Maybe not Roy since we technically traded for him on draft night)....Doesn't that give us the ability to go above and beyond the salary cap in order to retain them??
                            http://www.nba.com/gamenotes/pacers.pdf

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Realistic pacers roster resignings.

                              Originally posted by ejwallace View Post
                              On a similar note, I see all these people talking about how we can't retain everyone because of penalties etc etc. My question is, what about Bird rights?? We own the Bird rights to PG24, Danny, Roy, Lance, and Tyler since we drafted them all (Maybe not Roy since we technically traded for him on draft night)....Doesn't that give us the ability to go above and beyond the salary cap in order to retain them??
                              We have Roy's Bird rights. He's been here 3 years.

                              BTW, Larry Coon has a great FAQ for the NBA CBA. It is an easy read and will answer basically whatever question you have about the NBA and its trading rules. Here is the link

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X