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

Tbird topics: Salary cap update as of 6PM July 6th, 2015 (after Stuckey and West decisions), and some speculation

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

  • Tbird topics: Salary cap update as of 6PM July 6th, 2015 (after Stuckey and West decisions), and some speculation

    Here are the updated numbers, using our friend Tim Donahue's salary estimated instead of my own today:

    Already officially signed:

    Paul George...............................17,120,106
    George Hill..................................8,000,000
    C.J. Miles....................................4,394,000
    Ian Mahimni................................4,000,000
    Solomon Hill................................1,358,880
    Damjan Rudez.............................1,149,500

    That total is 36,022,711

    Add to that these extremely likely signings from Turner, Young, and Whittington still to come:

    Myles Turner...............................2,357,000
    Joe Young...................................525,093
    Shane Whittington........................947,276

    That total is 3,829,369

    Now add Monta Ellis and Rodney Stuckey, who you are signing purely with cap room we can now assume (I will not add Lavoy Allen yet, as we will sign him last I believe since his cap hold is so low, and we can go over the cap to sign him)

    Monta Ellis..................................10,304,450
    Rodney Stuckey...........................6,698,565

    That adds up to 17,003,015

    Add that up for those 11 players, and you get: 56,855,095 + 947,276 (Allen's cap hold)=57,802,371

    If you assume a cap number of 68,886,000 (9% increase from a year ago is my estimate), then we have this available to spend: 68,886,000-57,802,371

    = $11,083,629 to spend, but......

    Before the Pacers can actually spend that amount, they will either need to renounce Luis Scola or re-sign the veteran forward, because his cap hold of 9,300,000 would eat almost all of that up.

    Any guaranteed contract we take back in any transaction with the Dallas Mavericks or Los Angeles Lakers would also come off of that $11,083,629. And we would need to resolve Scola most likely prior to taking any significant salary back, because with his cap hold still on our books our flexibility is hampered quite a bit.

    We also have the "room exception" available to us of 2,814,000 to spend on a player because we have operated this summer as a "below the cap" type of team apparently. And obviously we can sign any player who agrees to a veteran's minimum deal no matter our cap situation.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    So now, the moves left to do likely will come in this order:

    1. If you could do it, sign one more veteran minimum type guy FIRST, to fill that 12th roster spot and eliminate the Lavoy Allen cap hold, thereby giving you an extra 947,276 in cap space. Or, you can use taking a non guaranteed stiff back from either Dallas or (more likely) the Lakers to get that 12th roster spot taken up with a warm body.

    2. Next, we need to resolve Scola one way or the other. We either need to sign him using cap space, renounce him and let him go, or I suppose you could renounce him, then use the "room exception on him, if you so chose. Or, you could still sign/trade him somewhere if you want to get creative, and if he and the other team want to cooperate. Or, you could renounce him and then just use cap space to sign him back later.

    I would assume at this point that he will return for some modest salary, but either way we need to resolve his situation one way or the other.

    3. After we do that, we will have around 11,000,000 to spend on a salary dump from another franchise, or to sign a free agent or multiple free agents. If we do sign Scola, then we can just subtract his 2015/2016 salary from that 11,000,000 estimated total.

    4. Next move would be to finish the Lavoy Allen contract officially.

    5. Next move after that is to use your "room exception" now, or perhaps carry it over until the season begins in case someone unexpectedly becomes available for whatever reason as an in season free agent.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All in all, I would have liked the flexibility of trying to remain an "over the cap" type of team simply from a flexibility standpoint, because I would have liked to keep that mid level exception and bi annual exception slot as tools. But apparently, we have chosen to do our books in a slightly different method.....which may all come out the same anyway.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Now for some speculation and thoughts:

    1. I am assuming that we may take a warm body back from Los Angeles in the Hibbert deal.

    2. I highly doubt that we would take Ray Felton back from Dallas without being highly incentivized to do so, but you cannot rule out the possibility.

    3. I would not rule out the possibility of Joe Young potentially being sent overseas for a year for development purposes, based on the fact that playing time will be scarce here for him, especially if we decide we want a more veteran 3rd point guard. It's unlikely that happen, but it isn't impossible.

    4. Kenneth Faried would fit almost perfectly from a financial, age, and positional standpoint if for some reason Denver would want to dump his contract. I am not a huge fan of his, but I also haven't watched him play much since college.

    5. A Scola sign and trade is unlikely but not impossible, if he wants to chase a ring somewhere. If he does, we should accommodate him if possible. I am sure I can find a young player somewhere on each roster that might make sense for us to take flyer on, if he wants to do that. No clue about how much money he wants, but a trade to Cleveland might be feasible if they want him, and if he wants to go there.

    6. Not that any of us really wanted him anyway, but we no longer have the money under the cap to trade for David Lee, so speculation about that can end.

    7. I would have tried to do a sign and trade with San Antonio involving West, and I wonder if hurt feelings played a role at all in that not happening apparently. I would have been interested in the rights to Livio Jean-Charles, and/or Patty Mills. Maybe nothing would have come of that, but I would have been calling them. They need Mills now I guess since Joseph signed such a ridiculous contract in Toronto. I guess West signing a veteran minimum deal eliminated any reason for San Antonio to do it that way, but they are very close to the salary limit and might have been willing to do something creative if we had pushed it earlier.

    8. Speaking of the Spurs, how lucky are they that they have legitimate hall of fame guys like Duncan and Ginobili willing to stay there and play at very below market rates? Compare that to some other places, and it is really remarkable.

    9. Kevin Seraphin would be an interesting signing for us, simply because he is young and fills a need size wise. I also wonder how cheap Andrea Bargnani might end up being. I don't really like him as a player, but at this point, beggars can't be choosers, and in this different attack he might be an option as a 2nd unit type scorer off the bench. Yes, he is soft as a marshmellow, but he still is likely the best offensive option left on the board at this point, and he is young and fills a need position.

    Seraphin and Bargnani are at least worth discussing I think, though watching Bargnani might make my head explode potentially if I have to watch his sieve like defense all year.

    More updates as events warrant.

    Tbird

  • #2
    Re: Tbird topics: Salary cap update as of 6PM July 6th, 2015 (after Stuckey and West decisions), and some speculation

    Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
    Here are the updated numbers, using our friend Tim Donahue's salary estimated instead of my own today:

    Already officially signed:

    Paul George...............................17,120,106
    George Hill..................................8,000,000
    C.J. Miles....................................4,394,000
    Ian Mahimni................................4,000,000
    Solomon Hill................................1,358,880
    Damjan Rudez.............................1,149,500

    That total is 36,022,711

    Add to that these extremely likely signings from Turner, Young, and Whittington still to come:

    Myles Turner...............................2,357,000
    Joe Young...................................525,093
    Shane Whittington........................947,276

    That total is 3,829,369

    Now add Monta Ellis and Rodney Stuckey, who you are signing purely with cap room we can now assume (I will not add Lavoy Allen yet, as we will sign him last I believe since his cap hold is so low, and we can go over the cap to sign him)

    Monta Ellis..................................10,304,450
    Rodney Stuckey...........................6,698,565

    That adds up to 17,003,015

    Add that up for those 11 players, and you get: 56,855,095 + 947,276 (Allen's cap hold)=57,802,371

    If you assume a cap number of 68,886,000 (9% increase from a year ago is my estimate), then we have this available to spend: 68,886,000-57,802,371

    = $11,083,629 to spend, but......

    Before the Pacers can actually spend that amount, they will either need to renounce Luis Scola or re-sign the veteran forward, because his cap hold of 9,300,000 would eat almost all of that up.

    Any guaranteed contract we take back in any transaction with the Dallas Mavericks or Los Angeles Lakers would also come off of that $11,083,629. And we would need to resolve Scola most likely prior to taking any significant salary back, because with his cap hold still on our books our flexibility is hampered quite a bit.

    We also have the "room exception" available to us of 2,814,000 to spend on a player because we have operated this summer as a "below the cap" type of team apparently. And obviously we can sign any player who agrees to a veteran's minimum deal no matter our cap situation.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    So now, the moves left to do likely will come in this order:

    1. If you could do it, sign one more veteran minimum type guy FIRST, to fill that 12th roster spot and eliminate the Lavoy Allen cap hold, thereby giving you an extra 947,276 in cap space. Or, you can use taking a non guaranteed stiff back from either Dallas or (more likely) the Lakers to get that 12th roster spot taken up with a warm body.

    2. Next, we need to resolve Scola one way or the other. We either need to sign him using cap space, renounce him and let him go, or I suppose you could renounce him, then use the "room exception on him, if you so chose. Or, you could still sign/trade him somewhere if you want to get creative, and if he and the other team want to cooperate. Or, you could renounce him and then just use cap space to sign him back later.

    I would assume at this point that he will return for some modest salary, but either way we need to resolve his situation one way or the other.

    3. After we do that, we will have around 11,000,000 to spend on a salary dump from another franchise, or to sign a free agent or multiple free agents. If we do sign Scola, then we can just subtract his 2015/2016 salary from that 11,000,000 estimated total.

    4. Next move would be to finish the Lavoy Allen contract officially.

    5. Next move after that is to use your "room exception" now, or perhaps carry it over until the season begins in case someone unexpectedly becomes available for whatever reason as an in season free agent.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All in all, I would have liked the flexibility of trying to remain an "over the cap" type of team simply from a flexibility standpoint, because I would have liked to keep that mid level exception and bi annual exception slot as tools. But apparently, we have chosen to do our books in a slightly different method.....which may all come out the same anyway.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Now for some speculation and thoughts:

    1. I am assuming that we may take a warm body back from Los Angeles in the Hibbert deal.

    2. I highly doubt that we would take Ray Felton back from Dallas without being highly incentivized to do so, but you cannot rule out the possibility.

    3. I would not rule out the possibility of Joe Young potentially being sent overseas for a year for development purposes, based on the fact that playing time will be scarce here for him, especially if we decide we want a more veteran 3rd point guard. It's unlikely that happen, but it isn't impossible.

    4. Kenneth Faried would fit almost perfectly from a financial, age, and positional standpoint if for some reason Denver would want to dump his contract. I am not a huge fan of his, but I also haven't watched him play much since college.

    5. A Scola sign and trade is unlikely but not impossible, if he wants to chase a ring somewhere. If he does, we should accommodate him if possible. I am sure I can find a young player somewhere on each roster that might make sense for us to take flyer on, if he wants to do that. No clue about how much money he wants, but a trade to Cleveland might be feasible if they want him, and if he wants to go there.

    6. Not that any of us really wanted him anyway, but we no longer have the money under the cap to trade for David Lee, so speculation about that can end.

    7. I would have tried to do a sign and trade with San Antonio involving West, and I wonder if hurt feelings played a role at all in that not happening apparently. I would have been interested in the rights to Livio Jean-Charles, and/or Patty Mills. Maybe nothing would have come of that, but I would have been calling them. They need Mills now I guess since Joseph signed such a ridiculous contract in Toronto. I guess West signing a veteran minimum deal eliminated any reason for San Antonio to do it that way, but they are very close to the salary limit and might have been willing to do something creative if we had pushed it earlier.

    8. Speaking of the Spurs, how lucky are they that they have legitimate hall of fame guys like Duncan and Ginobili willing to stay there and play at very below market rates? Compare that to some other places, and it is really remarkable.

    9. Kevin Seraphin would be an interesting signing for us, simply because he is young and fills a need size wise. I also wonder how cheap Andrea Bargnani might end up being. I don't really like him as a player, but at this point, beggars can't be choosers, and in this different attack he might be an option as a 2nd unit type scorer off the bench. Yes, he is soft as a marshmellow, but he still is likely the best offensive option left on the board at this point, and he is young and fills a need position.

    Seraphin and Bargnani are at least worth discussing I think, though watching Bargnani might make my head explode potentially if I have to watch his sieve like defense all year.

    More updates as events warrant.

    Tbird
    Are you saying that the Pacers can ( if they play their cards right ) absorb a Player that is owed $11 mil in the 2015-2016 season with or without sending anyone back?
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Tbird topics: Salary cap update as of 6PM July 6th, 2015 (after Stuckey and West decisions), and some speculation

      Originally posted by CableKC View Post
      Are you saying that the Pacers can ( if they play their cards right ) absorb a Player that is owed $11 mil in the 2015-2016 season with or without sending anyone back?
      Yes, if Tim and my own math is correct, and you renounce Scola. And of course if the cap comes in where I am guessing it will. Obviously I won't hit it right on the head exactly, so take all of that with a slight grain of salt.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Tbird topics: Salary cap update as of 6PM July 6th, 2015 (after Stuckey and West decisions), and some speculation

        Faried would be nice. I have thought about him as a potential target for a while. Obviously, the Nuggets are looking to rebuild now.
        "We've got to be very clear about this. We don't want our players hanging around with murderers," said Larry Bird, Pacers president.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Tbird topics: Salary cap update as of 6PM July 6th, 2015 (after Stuckey and West decisions), and some speculation

          Originally posted by CableKC View Post
          Are you saying that the Pacers can ( if they play their cards right ) absorb a Player that is owed $11 mil in the 2015-2016 season with or without sending anyone back?
          Someone in mind?

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Tbird topics: Salary cap update as of 6PM July 6th, 2015 (after Stuckey and West decisions), and some speculation

            Originally posted by Speed View Post
            Someone in mind?
            -Too bad Varejao is old & broken cause he'd work.
            -Cha wanted shooting, we need a big, jump in w/ LAC & turn Crawford into Zeller?
            (or to Chi for Gibson)
            -Would love to know what Utah wants for Favors - he's just barely over the $[/Speed]
            "Larry Bird: You are Officially On the Clock! (3/24/08)"
            (Watching You Like A Hawk!)

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Tbird topics: Salary cap update as of 6PM July 6th, 2015 (after Stuckey and West decisions), and some speculation

              Why is everyone so high on Faried ? He can't shoot, can't really defend, he is just a high-energy guy on an expensive contract...

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Tbird topics: Salary cap update as of 6PM July 6th, 2015 (after Stuckey and West decisions), and some speculation

                Originally posted by immortality View Post
                Why is everyone so high on Faried ? He can't shoot, can't really defend, he is just a high-energy guy on an expensive contract...
                Really really good rebounder, imo. When I saw him, he looks like an above average defender. Beats guards downthe floor often. You're right, only offense is garbage buckets, but that's perfect for this team. Im on board with any rebounding defending hustle PF for this group.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Tbird topics: Salary cap update as of 6PM July 6th, 2015 (after Stuckey and West decisions), and some speculation

                  Originally posted by Speed View Post
                  Really really good rebounder, imo. When I saw him, he looks like an above average defender. Beats guards downthe floor often. You're right, only offense is garbage buckets, but that's perfect for this team. Im on board with any rebounding defending hustle PF for this group.
                  I agree with this. High motor and extremely athletic. His skillset seems to fit what Larry is looking to do.

                  His contract, though, make him becoming a Pacer highly unlikely.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Tbird topics: Salary cap update as of 6PM July 6th, 2015 (after Stuckey and West decisions), and some speculation

                    Anybody know what PF FAs for next offseason look like?
                    I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

                    -Emiliano Zapata

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Tbird topics: Salary cap update as of 6PM July 6th, 2015 (after Stuckey and West decisions), and some speculation

                      I looked earlier today. Not good...
                      "Larry Bird: You are Officially On the Clock! (3/24/08)"
                      (Watching You Like A Hawk!)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Tbird topics: Salary cap update as of 6PM July 6th, 2015 (after Stuckey and West decisions), and some speculation

                        http://www.vavel.com/en-us/nba/50996...ied-trade.html

                        Fun little trade the internet people put together regarding exactly the Pacers getting Faried for Solo and next years first.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Tbird topics: Salary cap update as of 6PM July 6th, 2015 (after Stuckey and West decisions), and some speculation

                          Originally posted by joew8302 View Post
                          I agree with this. High motor and extremely athletic. His skillset seems to fit what Larry is looking to do.

                          His contract, though, make him becoming a Pacer highly unlikely.
                          Sorry not trying to hijack this, I hadn't really even thought about Faried or know if they'd trade him, but his salary would seem like a bargain with the new structure of the league.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Tbird topics: Salary cap update as of 6PM July 6th, 2015 (after Stuckey and West decisions), and some speculation

                            Originally posted by Speed View Post
                            Really really good rebounder, imo. When I saw him, he looks like an above average defender. Beats guards downthe floor often. You're right, only offense is garbage buckets, but that's perfect for this team. Im on board with any rebounding defending hustle PF for this group.
                            Faried is not a good defender. Too short. Active, yes. Nice offensive rebounder, I think. But severely undersized.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Tbird topics: Salary cap update as of 6PM July 6th, 2015 (after Stuckey and West decisions), and some speculation

                              Faried is in my opinion a perfect match with Turner. Put Turner in the high post, on a shot he takes off down the floor while Faried attacks the offensive glass. After the defensive board, he can definitely fill a lane on the fast break. I have been high on him for awhile. I would do Solo and next years lottery protected first.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X