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

Chad Ford on who the Pacers (and other teams) should cut.

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

  • Chad Ford on who the Pacers (and other teams) should cut.

    I agree with Chad. Cro might be needed. Cut Reggie


    http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/colum...had&id=2101836

    Celtics, Lakers, Sixers need 'Allan Houston

    Chad Ford
    ESPN Insider

    The "Allan Houston Rule" allows teams a one-time opportunity to release a player and avoid paying the luxury tax on his salary.

    The teams asked for the rule as part of the collective bargaining agreement, and it gives teams a unique opportunity to save money now and in the future that could be better spent on bringing in players.

    But now that they have it, most teams, it appears, will shun the opportunity, including several teams in danger of paying the luxury tax this season and in future seasons.

    Here is our team-by-team report, based on conversations with a number of team executives, that reveals what each team is expected to do, and what each team should do.




    Note: Salaries are estimated numbers, as of the morning of July 25, based on committed payroll and updated to reflect recent agreements on free agents and trades. Salaries in red denote teams that are expected to have to pay the luxury tax (expected to start at between $60-64 million) for next season.


    The Allan Houston Rule:


    Atlanta Hawks $25M None
    The Hawks don't have a lot going for them right now. However, one thing they do have is an absence of bad contracts. GM Billy Knight has done a good job of stripping the books of any long-term deals. They have zero use for the amnesty rule.


    Boston Celtics $51M Mark Blount
    The Celtics have two pretty bad contracts on the books and are dangerously close to paying the luxury tax. Raef LaFrentz has the worst contract, with four years, $47 million remaining on his deal. However, he still a productive player when he's healthy. Blount signed a six-year deal at the mid-level last summer, and it immediately looked as though the Celtics had made a mistake. He was a major disappointment and the Celtics could use relief from the five years, $33 million remaining on his contract. Dumping Blount would be admitting an expensive mistake, but it could also free up the Celtics to spend more money down the road.



    Charlotte Bobcats $25M None
    GM Bernie Bickerstaff has kept the Bobcats' payroll thin so they'll have big cap room going into summer 2006. The Bobcats have zero bad contracts on their books and no real use for the amnesty rule.


    Chicago Bulls $36M None
    GM John Paxson has done a great job of getting the Bulls' books in order. The Bulls should have major cap room in 2006 if they don't go hog wild re-signing Eddy Curry and Tyson Chandler this summer. They don't have any bad contracts left on the books and won't need to use the amnesty clause.


    Cleveland Cavaliers $46M Eric Snow
    This is a tough one. The Cavs' payroll is under control, but they do have a bad contract they could dump. Snow has four years, $25 million left, and his talent doesn't justify that. Then again, he is the Cavs' only point guard, is a solid veteran presence and still can play defense. If the Cavs aspire to make a run at a championship this year, dumping Snow wouldn't be smart. However, if the team wants maximum flexibility in the future, he would be worth cutting.


    Dallas Mavericks $88M Michael Finley
    Owner Mark Cuban loves Michael Finley, but he might have little choice but to waive him. The Mavs are hopelessly over the luxury tax threshold and could save as much as $51 million in tax penalties by letting him go. Cuban was a carefree spender his first few years in the league, but he has gotten more conservative lately. As good as Finley has been, there's no way he's worth the extra $51 million in taxes. Look for Finley to be the most sought-after amnesty-rule casualty.


    Denver Nuggets $44M Eduardo Najera
    The Nuggets made a slight misstep in February when they traded the expiring contracts of Nikoloz Tskitishvili and Rodney White for Najera. Not only did his contract prevent them from getting far enough under the cap to make a run at a top free agent, it also could hurt them down the road as they continue to make forays into the free-agent market. Najera's a nice hustle player, but he's not really worth the three years, $13 million he has left on his contract. I'm not sure the Nuggets will waive him, but they probably should.


    Detroit Pistons $54M None
    President Joe Dumars has done a great job of keeping a winner on the floor without overpaying for players. The only contract on the books that could be considered bad is Rasheed Wallace's. Wallace is due $50 million over the next four years, and with Larry Brown's leaving the Pistons, it's unclear whether Wallace will continue to stay under control. Still, it's highly unlikely that the Pistons would waive Wallace, and given their cap position the next few seasons, they probably don't have to.


    Golden State Warriors $56M Adonal Foyle or
    Derek Fisher
    The Warriors look as though they're on the cusp of being a playoff team, but a couple of rookie mistakes by GM Chris Mullin might come back to haunt them. Mullin gave huge deals to Foyle and Fisher last summer. Foyle has four years, $35 million left on his contract. Fisher has five years, $32 million left on his. Although both players provide a veteran presence on a young roster, they can't produce at the rate they're getting paid. If the Warriors are going to avoid future luxury tax problems and retain some flexibility to use their mid-level exception down the road, they'll need to swallow their pride and let one of these players go this summer. Look for it to be Fisher. Although he was more productive than Foyle last season, his contract is longer and the Warriors need him less.


    Houston Rockets $59M Clarence Weatherspoon or Juwan Howard
    The Rockets have done a good job of ridding their team of bad long-term contracts. Only two, Weatherspoon's (1 year, $6.4 million) and Howard's (four years, $26.5 million), remain on the books. Given their current tax situation, the Rockets could just dump Weatherspoon and be done with it. As it stands the Rockets will be under the cap next season. But long term, they need to seriously consider Howard. With Yao Ming entering extension talks soon and the recent signing of Stromile Swift, they might want to get Howard's contract out of the way to facilitate a large payroll bump in the coming years.


    Indiana Pacers $78M Austin Croshere or
    Reggie Miller
    The Pacers are a small-market team with a large-market payroll. They certainly have an excuse to take advantage of the amnesty rule. Croshere is the most obvious candidate. He has two years, $15.2 million on his contract and hasn't lived up to expectations. However, team president Larry Bird loves Croshere and the Pacers have made it clear that they're going for a title this summer. Dumping a player, even a role player, doesn't necessarily fit with that goal. The team also could choose to dump Reggie Miller's contract -- since he's retiring anyway. But the savings would be much more modest with that move.


    Los Angeles Clippers $40M None
    Give Donald Sterling some credit for being a cheapskate. When you hardly ever sign free agents (including your own), and seldom trade for a big contract, you don't have too many bad deals on the books, and you don't pay the luxury tax.


    Los Angeles Lakers $69M Brian Grant
    The Lakers are another year away from getting big-time cap/tax relief, but you can expect owner Jerry Buss to start the party early. Grant didn't play a big role in L.A. last season and isn't worth the two years, $30 million left on his contract. Given that the Lakers are already in luxury tax land, and they've brought in Kwame Brown and rookie Andrew Bynum to patrol the paint, this one seems to be a slam dunk.


    Memphis Grizzlies $65M Brian Cardinal
    Owner Michael Heisley wants the team to start trimming the payroll. The Grizzlies can get under the luxury tax threshold by doing nothing this summer. Unfortunately for Grizz fans, that means letting three important role players -- Stromile Swift, Earl Watson and Bonzi Wells -- walk out the door. Still, the Grizzlies might need to swallow their pride and let Cardinal walk, as well. The five-year span (totaling $29 million) left on his contract is too much to bear and takes away any cap flexibility the Grizzlies might have for future signings. Cardinal is a great asset at 1 or 2 million a year, but not at 6 million apiece.


    Miami Heat $63M None
    You'd think the Heat would dump Eddie Jones and the two years, $30 million left on his contract. Although Jones is still productive, cutting him would provide great savings and flexibility to keep spending. However, the Heat are determined to make a run at an NBA title this coming season. With Shaq not getting any younger, the window is closing. Jones might not be earning his paycheck these days, but he's an integral part of the team. Pat Riley insists that the Heat won't waive him, luxury tax be damned.


    Milwaukee Bucks $57M Calvin Booth
    GM Larry Harris went on a spending spree this summer. Once you factor in the new contracts for Michael Redd, Bobby Simmons, Dan Gadzuric, Andrew Bogut and possibly Zaza Pachulia, the Bucks will be looking at a payroll that comes very near the luxury tax threshold. If the team wants to retain any flexibility, it'll dump the two years, $13 million of Booth's contract. He is unnecessary, given the pieces the Bucks have acquired, and could save them a tax payment next season should the team decide to add another player with the mid-level exception.


    Minnesota Timberwolves $58M Troy Hudson
    Minnesota is trying its best to trade away Sam Cassell and Hudson. Cassell shouldn't be too hard to move, being in the last year of his deal and still productive (though temperamental). No team, however, wants to pay the $29 million (for five years) left on Hudson's deal. That puts the Timberwovles in a quandary. Given their problems at the point, they probably need Hudson. But he's so overpaid as a backup that the team is likely to invoke the luxury tax if it spends any more money. This one is really a toss-up.


    New Jersey Nets $59M None
    President Rod Thorn and GM Ed Stefanski have done a great job assembling the Nets and doing it in a cost-conscious way. They wisely resisted the temptation to pay Kenyon Martin the max and now have landed a better player (Shareef Abdur-Rahim) for half the cash. The truth is that the Nets have no bad deals on the books and therefore no use for the amnesty rule.


    New Orleans Hornets $37M None
    The Hornets are well under the cap and don't need to take advantage of the rule. The closest thing they have to a bad contract is the two years, $16 million left on P.J. Brown's contract. However, Brown is veteran role model and a local celeb who is providing solid production, so look for them to keep him around.


    New York Knicks $120M Allan Houston
    Well, it's called the Allan Houston rule. However, we could call it the New York Knicks rule -- because most of the roster Isiah Thomas has assembled needs to be discarded under the amnesty provision. Though, to be fair, Thomas didn't sign Houston to his monstrous contract. By waiving Houston, the Knicks will save $40 million in luxury tax fees over the next two years. We'll see whether they use it wisely.


    Orlando Magic $73M Doug Christie
    Christie was one of former GM John Weisbrod's biggest missteps. The Magic needed Cuttino Mobley more than they realized, and Christie didn't want to play in Orlando. He has asked for a trade. The problem is that no one is beating down the door to pay him $8.2 million next season. The Magic will be taxpayers next year, and the $8.2 million in savings will be worth losing Christie. There's talk that Grant Hill would be a more financially prudent way to go, given that the Magic could save $32.5 million in tax penalties by waiving him. The problem is that fans and the media would stage a revolt. And after years of rehabbing a bad ankle, Hill is finally earning his salary.


    Philadelphia 76ers $80M Aaron McKie
    Their payroll is already out of control and they added another $14 million by agreeing to terms with Samuel Dalembert, Kyle Korver and Willie Green in free agency. That gives them a payroll of nearly $80 million (though that number will likely be reduced to $70 million in March once Jamal Mashburn retires). Chris Webber has a terrible contract. He has 3 years, $62 million left and no one believes he's going to be able to earn it. However, the Sixers just traded for him in February and with new head coach Mo Cheeks running the show, they believe they'll be able to get some value out of Webber for the next couple of years. McKie was once a solid role player, but he's way past his prime. He turns 33 in October, and there's no way the Sixers can justify keeping the three years, $20 million left on his contract on the books. The team would save $20 million in luxury tax penalties by letting him go.


    Phoenix Suns $52M Howard Eisley
    The Suns bought out Eisley's contract at the start of last season and still owe him $5.6 million in 2005-06 and 162,660 in 2006-07. Under the amnesty rules, the Suns would be allowed to apply for amnesty for Eisley's contract, even though he's no longer with the team. While the team isn't currently in danger of paying the tax, if they're forced to match a Hawks' max offer for Joe Johnson, they're looking at a potential $64 million payroll next season, which means Eisley's contract could provide some serious tax relief.


    Portland Trail Blazers $55M Derek Anderson or Theo Ratliff

    GM John Nash says the team has no intention of dumping Ratliff. Maybe that's because Nash signed Ratliff to a ridiculous three-year, $35 million extension last summer. With owner Paul Allen preaching fiscal responsibility and a host of young players starving for playing time, Ratliff looks like a luxury the Blazers no longer can afford. Instead, look for the Blazers to dump Anderson who, mostly because of injuries, has been a big disappointment in Portland. Dropping Anderson would save the Blazers $18 million in luxury tax penalties over the next two seasons.


    Sacramento Kings $58M None
    Some will argue that Kenny Thomas and Brian Skinner are overpaid, but the truth is that neither is in serious danger of being waived. Look for the Kings to sit this one out.


    San Antonio Spurs $59M Rasho Nesterovic
    The Spurs tried to pawn off Nesterovic to the Blazers for Abdur-Rahim but look as though they're now out of luck. Given where their payroll seems to be heading, they might want to get out of the four years, $30 million left on Nesterovic's deal before it's too late.


    Seattle SuperSonics $39M Danny Fortson
    The Sonics are not in danger of paying the luxury tax unless they start spending like crazy for their remaining free agents. Fortson is the only guy in danger of being waived. He's an excellent rebounder who nonetheless seems to fall out of favor with every team he plays for. He has two years, $13 million left on his contract.


    Toronto Raptors $56M Jalen Rose
    The Raptors are very close to the tax threshold, and Rose is one of the most overpaid players in the league. He's still fairly productive, but if the team continues to spend this summer, it will be tough to justify the two years, $32 million left on his contract. That said, a source in Toronto says the team is leaning strongly toward keeping him. Go figure. Instead, look for them to use Alonzo Mourning's buyout as the contract they try to get amnesty for.


    Utah Jazz $49M None
    The Jazz never have been big spenders, which keeps them off the taxpayer list this fall. They paid too much money to Mehmet Okur and Carlos Boozer, no question. But both players are productive and neither will be waived by the Jazz.


    Washington Wizards $52M None
    The Wizards have stayed out of trouble. Etan Thomas' contract is a bit excessive, but only if he can't get healthy.

  • #2
    Re: Chad Ford on who the Pacers (and other teams) should cut.

    Disappointing read really, nothing much new but great great thanks UB, I was hoping you'd post it today, just disappointed there isn’t anything new in there, very sad attempt at making money...
    Ya Think Ya Used Enough Dynamite there Butch...

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Chad Ford on who the Pacers (and other teams) should cut.

      Obviously he's never heard of a player named Jonathon Bender.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Chad Ford on who the Pacers (and other teams) should cut.

        Originally posted by Harmonica
        Obviously he's never heard of a player named Jonathon Bender.
        After seeing the grammar thing in the other thread, this is taking serious restraint ...

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Chad Ford on who the Pacers (and other teams) should cut.

          Originally posted by Chad Ford
          Indiana Pacers $78M Austin Croshere or
          Reggie Miller
          The Pacers are a small-market team with a large-market payroll. They certainly have an excuse to take advantage of the amnesty rule. Croshere is the most obvious candidate. He has two years, $15.2 million on his contract and hasn't lived up to expectations. However, team president Larry Bird loves Croshere and the Pacers have made it clear that they're going for a title this summer. a player, even a role player, doesn't necessarily fit with that goal. The team also could choose to dump Reggie Miller's contract -- since he's retiring anyway. But the savings would be much more modest with that move.
          I know some of you think championships are won in November, but this is the first time I've ever heard that the Pacers are trying to win a summertime title.
          Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
          Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
          Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
          Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
          And life itself, rushing over me
          Life itself, the wind in black elms,
          Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Chad Ford on who the Pacers (and other teams) should cut.

            Originally posted by Jay@Section204
            I know some of you think championships are won in November, but this is the first time I've ever heard that the Pacers are trying to win a summertime title.

            maybe thats why they played artest in the summer league?

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Chad Ford on who the Pacers (and other teams) should cut.

              Originally posted by Jay@Section204
              I know some of you think championships are won in November, but this is the first time I've ever heard that the Pacers are trying to win a summertime title.
              I get excused from missing that mistake but if that's correct OUCH !!!
              Ya Think Ya Used Enough Dynamite there Butch...

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Chad Ford on who the Pacers (and other teams) should cut.

                I'm a little confused by all the back and forth on this issue. If all the players he mentioned really are released, there are going to be some REALLY interesting players on the market in a few weeks. Is that why we were able to sign Saras now? The real frenzy will happen then? But then I've seen some articles saying it won't make that much difference. What's the story?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Chad Ford on who the Pacers (and other teams) should cut.

                  Originally posted by foretaz

                  maybe thats why they played artest in the summer league?


                  And what was the team's record?

                  Time to pull out this one again:


                  Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                  Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                  Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                  Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                  And life itself, rushing over me
                  Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                  Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Chad Ford on who the Pacers (and other teams) should cut.

                    I think it's BS and i can see all but a hand few of players being released, the hype was good but now people are comming back down to earth, and no I don't think Bender or Cro will be released, I still think the Franchise holds hope that Bender will come threw this year and a mid-season trade may see him elsewhere..


                    Grant,Finley, Cardinal, Blount, booth Houston & Anderson are they only given in my book

                    and out of them only FInley and Blount and maybe Anderson should find a new home, I wish G State would trade Fisher back to the Fakers...
                    Ya Think Ya Used Enough Dynamite there Butch...

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Chad Ford on who the Pacers (and other teams) should cut.

                      So this houston clause allows any team to drop any contract? Wow.

                      What do they mean by only using it once? Is that literal. Like, once 'ever' and that's it?

                      If a team doesn't use it this year, can they use it next year?

                      Man, if Bender is gonna be sidelined again, I'd seriously consider dropping him.
                      I like cro, but he is overpaid. Dropping Reggie wouldn't save us much.
                      :thepacers
                      No Linking to your own site if it sells something.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Chad Ford on who the Pacers (and other teams) should cut.

                        Chad Ford is missing a big point. I quote:The "Allan Houston Rule" allows teams a one-time opportunity to release a player and avoid paying the luxury tax on his salary.

                        He has some teams that are way under what the luxury tax will be, waiving players because of the luxury tax. That's just being dumb!

                        Why should teams waive a player that isn't going to cost them the luxury tax? Then they have to not only pay the player anyway but find a replacement.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Chad Ford on who the Pacers (and other teams) should cut.

                          LOL @ the Cavs cutting Snow. He's their only PG! Is he serious?!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Chad Ford on who the Pacers (and other teams) should cut.

                            Originally posted by Harmonica
                            Obviously he's never heard of a player named Jonathon Bender.
                            He's heard of him... it's just that he's so forgettable....

                            -Bball
                            Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                            ------

                            "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                            -John Wooden

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Chad Ford on who the Pacers (and other teams) should cut.

                              Originally posted by Bball
                              He's heard of him... it's just that he's so forgettable....

                              -Bball
                              actually, i believe its chad ford that cant stand bender, is it not?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X