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

Star}NBA's High-Priced Superstars-Are they worth it?

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 4
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 template Next
  • #1

    Star}NBA's High-Priced Superstars-Are they worth it?

    http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...606070512/1088

    NBA's High-Priced Superstars-Are they worth it?

    By Mark Montieth
    mark.montieth@indystar.com

    In the NBA, it's difficult for general managers to cover up their mistakes.
    So how do general managers decide who's deserving?

    "You've got to use your research and, if it's your own player, your history," Philadelphia general manager Billy King said. "And even using all that" -- King paused to chuckle -- "you still don't know."

    Such is the guessing game general managers play with their livelihood. But it might be instructive that the league's most underachieving team, New York, finished its 23-win season with three max players -- not including Allan Houston, a max player sidelined by a knee injury -- while just three players in the NBA Finals have what can technically be called maximum contracts.

    Dallas' Dirk Nowitzki and Keith Van Horn each have one, although Van Horn's was inherited by the Mavericks from a deal he signed with New Jersey in 1999. So does Miami's Shaquille O'Neal, whose five-year, $100 million contract signed last summer personifies the quandary personnel executives face.

    The Heat, who lost to Detroit in seven games in the Eastern Conference finals last year, couldn't let him lumber off to another team, taking their title hopes with him. But at 34 and no longer an MVP candidate, he could quickly become an albatross if he decides to continue collecting paychecks until he's 39.

    After next season, the Heat will have to award Dwyane Wade a max contract to keep him tethered to South Beach. But if O'Neal's play declines too much and he receives $20 million of their payroll, they'll have little chance to win a title or improve their roster.

    Which would mean a few years in a painful state of limbo.

    Some NBA general managers yearn for a system more like that of the NFL, where contracts are not guaranteed and players may be cut at any time -- or at least after the first two or three years of a long-term deal. Such a proposal would meet resistance from the players' union and probably lead to a lengthy work stoppage, and nobody in the league is pushing hard for it yet.

    In the meantime, the luxury tax, which assesses a dollar-for-dollar tax after a team's payroll surpasses a threshold, has made teams more hesitant to hand out max deals. The tax was a factor in the Pacers' thinking in 2003. They awarded Jermaine O'Neal a max deal but elected not to re-sign Brad Miller when the bidding approached $70 million over seven seasons because of the tax implications.

    "When the tax kicked in . . . that seemed to get owners' attention across the league," said Pete Babcock, former general manager in Toronto, Atlanta and Denver.

    Yet it hasn't alleviated the pressure to keep young talents. While some players are so good they offer no-brainer decisions for GMs, others fall into a gray area. Their talent and potential might be obvious, but they haven't proved they can lead a team to title contention year after year.

    But if only one other team is willing to make a major offer, how do you let them walk?

    "Your fans and your media play into it," said Jim Lynam, who was Philadelphia's general manager from 1992-94. "They'll ask, 'How could you lose him?' It's tough for me to look into the camera and say, 'We think he's a good player; we just don't think he's worth this much money.' "

    More than ever, general managers are forced to make tough predictions. Which players will view a max contract as an indicator of heightened responsibility and work harder? Who will take it as an indication they have it made, and slack off? Who, for that matter, will stay healthy?

    "There's been some great returns on investments and there's been some busts," said former Pacers point guard Mark Jackson, who played 17 seasons before becoming a television commentator.

    "Some guys wrap it up when they sign for $20 million and become content. And I've watched guys make a million dollars but play like they make $20 million."

    Overpaid employees, of course, can be found in any profession. In the NBA, however, they can cause the unemployment of those who hire them.
    "You're going to be wrong sometimes," Jackson said. "You just want to be right way more than wrong. The great GMs are able to do that."
    Mad money

    A look at the players who have received the maximum salaries allowed under the NBA's collective bargaining agreement, according to realgm.com:

    Earning their money

    Player Team 2005-06 Skinny
    Elton Brand L.A. Clippers $13,152,000 No longer league's most underrated player.
    Kobe Bryant L.A. Lakers $15,946,875 Like him or not, he's a force at both ends.
    Tim Duncan San Antonio $15,845,156 Primary factor behind three championships.
    Kevin Garnett Minnesota $18,000,000 Supreme talent in need of supporting cast.
    Allen Iverson Philadelphia $16,453,125 Passion, production can't be debated.
    Jason Kidd New Jersey $18,000,000 Once elite, but fading into overpriced status.
    Shawn Marion Phoenix $13,770,0004 Perfect fit for Suns' up-tempo system.
    Dirk Nowitzki Dallas $13,843,157 Could lead Mavs to first championship.
    Shaquille O'Neal Miami $20,000,000 He's fading, and owed $80M next four years.
    Paul Pierce Boston $13,843,157 Coming off most productive season.
    Michael Redd Milwaukee $12,000,000 Averaged 25.4 pts in first year of max deal.


    Jury is still out

    Player Team 2005-06 Skinny
    Vince Carter New Jersey $13,843,157 Great talent, but something is missing.
    Antawn Jamison Washington $13,843,157 Offensive threat, but not a complete player.
    Joe Johnson Atlanta $12,000,000 Was major producer on bad Hawks team.
    Tracy McGrady Houston $15,694,250 Elite talent, but health is always an issue.
    Jermaine O'Neal Pacers $16,425,000 Team's record without him raises questions.
    Chris Webber Philadelphia $19,125,000 All-around talent, but past his prime.


    Questionable investment

    Player Team 2005-06 Skinny
    Baron Davis Golden State $13,770,000 Talent is there, but attitude is lacking.
    Steve Francis New York $13,770,000 Orlando took off after trading him.
    Grant Hill Orlando $15,694,250 Collecting dust from all his injuries.
    Stephon Marbury New York $16,453,125 Like Francis, doesn't contribute to winning.
    Jalen Rose New York $15,694,250 Traded three times since signing max deal.
    Keith Van Horn Dallas $15,694,250 Mavs paying for New Jersey's mistake.
    -----

    Example of a maximum contract

    The maximum salary a player may receive is 105 percent of his previous salary or between 25 percent and 35 percent of that season's salary cap, whichever is greater, with annual raises thereafter. The percentage is based on experience. For example, Player A has fewer than six years' experience and made $5 million last season. The most he could make next season is $12.375 million, which is 25 percent of the new team cap of $49.5 million. (A player with 10 or more years could earn 35 percent of the team's cap.) Player A can get a 10.5 percent raise for each year of the contract if he stayed with the same team. If Player A signed with a new team, his annual raise shrinks to 8 percent per season.

    Contracts can cover as many as six years -- seven until last summer's rule change -- and are guaranteed, meaning a bad deal made of misguided exuberance can hinder a franchise's ability to improve for years.

    It's the dilemma of the maximum contract. A GM has to give them to keep great or even potentially great players and avoid looking like he's not trying to win a championship. But if he gives one to the wrong player, or the right player becomes too old or too injured to live up to the extreme expectations of a max player . . . well, that's often how ex-GMs are created.

    The Indiana Pacers have awarded max contracts to two players, Jalen Rose and Jermaine O'Neal, and have received mixed results. Rose signed a deal for nearly $100 million in the summer of 2000, after he had been the leading scorer on a team that reached the NBA Finals. He failed to mesh with the Pacers' emerging young talent and coach Isiah Thomas and was traded to Chicago in 2002. He's since been traded twice, and with one year left on his deal, could be traded again next season.

    O'Neal signed a seven-year, $127 million contract in the summer of 2003. He was one year removed from being named the league's Most Improved Player and had just averaged 22.8 points and 17.5 rebounds in a first-round playoff loss to Boston. He has been named to the Eastern Conference All-Star team every season since then, and has been voted a starter twice. But some fans became disenchanted with him this season, when the Pacers lost in the first round of the playoffs.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Star}NBA's High-Priced Superstars-Are they worth it?

    Heck no, max contracts are not worth it. They don't guarantee that the team will win a majority of its games, let alone a championship. And they don't guarantee that the player will stay healthy to earn his max money.

    Anyway, the performance of players making only $6-$10 million is very comparable to that of players making $12 million and over. LeBron James doesn't have a max contract. Gilbert Arenas doesn't have one. And they were both in the top 5 in scoring. Dwayne Wade doesn't have one. Seventeen of the 23 players listed in the article scored over 1,000 points during the past season, but so did 55 other guys making less.

    Dallas has Nowitski's max contract and they are in the finals. Miami has O'Neal's max contract and they are in the finals. But there is no logical connection. Both teams have a lot more going for them than fat contracts.


    .
    And I won't be here to see the day
    It all dries up and blows away
    I'd hang around just to see
    But they never had much use for me
    In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Star}NBA's High-Priced Superstars-Are they worth it?

      Not to pull a Bball here, but does anybody else see something written between the lines with this article? What am I saying, of course, people will. Problem is, I can't really discount it.
      Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Star}NBA's High-Priced Superstars-Are they worth it?

        Originally posted by Kegboy
        Not to pull a Bball here, but does anybody else see something written between the lines with this article? What am I saying, of course, people will. Problem is, I can't really discount it.

        Help me out, please. Are you saying this may have been written to pave the way for dumping a certain player from the Pacers roster?


        .
        And I won't be here to see the day
        It all dries up and blows away
        I'd hang around just to see
        But they never had much use for me
        In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Star}NBA's High-Priced Superstars-Are they worth it?

          I was thinking more along the lines of not resigning a certain player.
          “Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Star}NBA's High-Priced Superstars-Are they worth it?

            Originally posted by Since86
            I was thinking more along the lines of not resigning a certain player.
            Hey, what do you have against Scot Pollard? He needs the money for his hair stylist! Not to mention feeding Sprewell's family.
            Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Star}NBA's High-Priced Superstars-Are they worth it?

              No, no.

              I was thinking more a long the lines of Freddie. His voice creeps me out.
              “Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Star}NBA's High-Priced Superstars-Are they worth it?

                Originally posted by Putnam
                LeBron James doesn't have a max contract. Gilbert Arenas doesn't have one. And they were both in the top 5 in scoring. Dwayne Wade doesn't have one.
                LeBron and D-Wade are still in their rookie contracts, right? And Gilbert...I dunno :P

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Star}NBA's High-Priced Superstars-Are they worth it?

                  Originally posted by Kegboy
                  Not to pull a Bball here, but does anybody else see something written between the lines with this article? What am I saying, of course, people will. Problem is, I can't really discount it.
                  So your saying we are going to get:

                  Player Team 2005-06 Skinny
                  Baron Davis Golden State $13,770,000 Talent is there, but attitude is lacking.
                  Steve Francis New York $13,770,000 Orlando took off after trading him.
                  Grant Hill Orlando $15,694,250 Collecting dust from all his injuries.
                  Stephon Marbury New York $16,453,125 Like Francis, doesn't contribute to winning.
                  Jalen Rose New York $15,694,250 Traded three times since signing max deal.
                  Keith Van Horn Dallas $15,694,250 Mavs paying for New Jersey's mistake.

                  For JO.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Star}NBA's High-Priced Superstars-Are they worth it?

                    Originally posted by Gamble
                    So your saying we are going to get:

                    Player Team 2005-06 Skinny
                    Baron Davis Golden State $13,770,000 Talent is there, but attitude is lacking.
                    Steve Francis New York $13,770,000 Orlando took off after trading him.
                    Grant Hill Orlando $15,694,250 Collecting dust from all his injuries.
                    Stephon Marbury New York $16,453,125 Like Francis, doesn't contribute to winning.
                    Jalen Rose New York $15,694,250 Traded three times since signing max deal.
                    Keith Van Horn Dallas $15,694,250 Mavs paying for New Jersey's mistake.

                    For JO.
                    JO for Rose... 1 year left on Rose's contract. Does anyone really think the Pacers would look to a 3 year plan and clean the slate like that?

                    -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

                    • #11
                      Re: Star}NBA's High-Priced Superstars-Are they worth it?

                      THat would also get rid of our coaching problem as well.
                      RC couldn't get anything done with that roster and it might even
                      make him play Harrison.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Star}NBA's High-Priced Superstars-Are they worth it?

                        I have one question: Who has caused these over paid men? The owners, and then they just jack up the price for a seat, to where the avg. person cannot pay. If they would stop trying to get a player off of other team, running the price up on each other.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Star}NBA's High-Priced Superstars-Are they worth it?

                          Originally posted by Putnam
                          Help me out, please. Are you saying this may have been written to pave the way for dumping a certain player from the Pacers roster?
                          I kind of wondered the same thing. There have been a number of times in the past where it seems as though the "skids were greased" through a Star article before the axe fell.

                          Is this coincidence, or is it possible that JO might be traded?

                          Or, is it possible that they are justifying why Peja might not be re-signed?

                          As for Freddy, he won't get enough money from anybody to make that much of a difference one way or another.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Star}NBA's High-Priced Superstars-Are they worth it?

                            Originally posted by Bball
                            JO for Rose... 1 year left on Rose's contract. Does anyone really think the Pacers would look to a 3 year plan and clean the slate like that?

                            -Bball
                            This is from a post I made in another thread:

                            Indiana Trade Breakdown
                            Outgoing
                            Jermaine O'Neal
                            Stephen Jackson
                            Jamaal Tinsley

                            Incoming
                            Jalen Rose (expiring)
                            Jamal Crawford
                            Channing Frye
                            David Lee
                            #20 Pick
                            #29 Pick

                            That gives us only about $25,000,000 million in committed salaries for the 2007 / 08 season (not counting three late draft choices or resigning Peja / Freddie)

                            AJ / Sarunas
                            Crawford / Rose
                            Granger / Rose
                            Fry / Croshere / Lee
                            Foster / Harrison
                            3 late draft picks + possible S & T of Peja and Freddie

                            Thats ugly, but we would clear our past sins, have some young talent, caproom, and flexibility (with Croshere + Rose expiring contracts).

                            Even though that team would suck, I'd bet the fans would like it more.
                            -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            Obviously you would like to get better talent or higher draft choices, but I think to do that you will have to take back bad contracts. Golden State has some talent and a higher pick, but I wouldn't want Fishers, Foyles, or etc contracts.

                            I like JO more than some, but we are dangerously close to being what Minnesotta is - one really good player surrounded by mediocre talent. Our talent (or potential) has gone steadily down hill the last 2-3 years. Unless we want to remain mediocre we have two options IMO - roll the dice with someone elses high priced headache (Steve Francis, etc) or blow it up completly, clear capspace and acquire young talent / picks.

                            If there is ever a year that the fans will except a poor team it will be this upcoming season. As long as they play hard and there is a longterm plan think it would be excepted. With next year being touted as a deep draft the time is right IMO to start clean.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Star}NBA's High-Priced Superstars-Are they worth it?

                              Originally posted by OTD
                              I have one question: Who has caused these over paid men? The owners, and then they just jack up the price for a seat, to where the avg. person cannot pay. If they would stop trying to get a player off of other team, running the price up on each other.
                              Mmm hmm...and if the Sixers let Iverson walk for free, or if the Heat let Dwayne Wade go, I'm sure their fans will reasonably and calmly argue that although their team will suck, it's worth it since the declining salaries will allow them to get front row seats as Udonis Haslem and the Heat take on Steven Hunter and the 76ers.
                              2010 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champion Baltimore Bulldogs

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 4 template Next
                              Working...
                              X