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

Are guaranteed contracts killing the NBA?

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

  • Are guaranteed contracts killing the NBA?

    I used to think the guaranteed contracts were good for all parties.

    But now I think this might be true from both a "lack of player discipline" perspective (e.g., its believed to be so difficult to void a contract that teams have no choice but to hold onto players that no other franchise would take, like Bender and perhaps SJax).

    And from a "team mismanagement" perspective. See Exhibit I, the New York Knicks. See also Exhibit II, the Portland TrailBlazers under Bob Whitsett.

    I'm starting to believe the teams need a quicker way to remedy problems. New contracts were shortened one year by the lastest CBA. Was that just applying a bandaid to an arm that's been severed?

    Do fans benefit or lose from guaranteed contracts?

    The NFL, of course, does not have such guarantees.

    Discuss...
    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


  • #2
    Re: Are gauranteed contracts killing the NBA?

    The NFL isn't made any better because of non-guarenteed contracts. The owners are just made richer and the NFL is more financially stable.

    Fans neither win nor lose from guarenteed contracts. The same amount of money will be spent either way, the names will just be different.

    On one hand, you could say that a player that isnt performing worth his deal could be let go in favor of a cheaper player that can do the same job. Sure.

    But on the other hand, owners (like the NFL) can just as easily let go of GOOD players and fan favorites simply to save a buck.

    Also, you can re-negotiate a new contract with non-guarenteed deals. In the NBA, contracts are set in stone, so you don't have the player holdouts in the NBA that you see in the NFL.

    Say Al Harrington has a superb season this year, and plays at the level of a $12 million player. He then can go to Indiana management and demand to be PAID like a $12 million player next year, if he has a non-guarenteed deal. The Pacers would be forced to either pay him, release him, or trade him to teams that are going to lowball the Pacers.

    I'll take the guarenteed contracts and hope my GM is smart enough not to break the bank on a lemon.

    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Are gauranteed contracts killing the NBA?

      I think non-guaranteed contracts could encourage selfish basketball because every season players are playing for a contract.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Are gauranteed contracts killing the NBA?

        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
        I think non-guaranteed contracts could encourage selfish basketball because every season players are playing for a contract.
        Precisely.

        In addition, anybody in the league could hold out whenever they wanted to in order to get a bigger contract.

        It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

        Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
        Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
        NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Are gauranteed contracts killing the NBA?

          Conversley, a player could play at a $12M player, get a guaranteed contract for 3 years and play like a $3M player. As much as I hate to say it because I love the guy but we had one like that in Cro.
          The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Are gauranteed contracts killing the NBA?

            I think you have to keep contracts in the NBA guaranteed, but give teams an out for situations like the ones we've had with Artest and now perhaps with Jackson. Something that makes us pay in something other than money to do it (perhaps a forfeit of a draft pick), but allows a team to get rid of a player and have the players' contract be paid by all 30 teams and/or the league itself. For instance, Jackson has about what, $24mm left on his deal? Divided by 30, that's $800,000 per team. Over 4 seasons that's $200,000 a season. Maybe a draft pick isn't the right type (or too much/little) of payment. What do you think of something like that? I'm not as much asking if it's realistic, but rather, if something like that were to happen, how do you feel about it, and how would you modify it?

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Are gauranteed contracts killing the NBA?

              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
              I think you have to keep contracts in the NBA guaranteed, but give teams an out for situations like the ones we've had with Artest and now perhaps with Jackson. Something that makes us pay in something other than money to do it (perhaps a forfeit of a draft pick), but allows a team to get rid of a player and have the players' contract be paid by all 30 teams and/or the league itself. For instance, Jackson has about what, $24mm left on his deal? Divided by 30, that's $800,000 per team. Maybe a draft pick isn't the right type (or too much/little) of payment. What do you think of something like that? I'm not as much asking if it's realistic, but rather, if something like that were to happen, how do you feel about it, and how would you modify it?
              How would that be fair? I think the problem is how much they are making. These are people with usually only a HS degree or 1-2 years of college. They don't have much bargaining power. They can't say oh no I don't want to make $100k to play basketball. I'll go work at so-and-so for $30-40k a year.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Are gauranteed contracts killing the NBA?

                Originally posted by Leisure Suit Larry View Post
                How would that be fair?
                I think the part where they're free to sign with any team that will take them while still making every bit of their multi-million dollar contract is what makes it fair.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Are gauranteed contracts killing the NBA?

                  Originally posted by Leisure Suit Larry View Post
                  How would that be fair? I think the problem is how much they are making. These are people with usually only a HS degree or 1-2 years of college. They don't have much bargaining power. They can't say oh no I don't want to make $100k to play basketball. I'll go work at so-and-so for $30-40k a year.
                  Um, that's what unions are for.

                  The owners can't simply tear up the CBA and offer 100k contracts, the union would revolt, and you'd be stuck watching sub-par talent in the NBA.

                  You wouldn't even get the best college players, because none of them would want to side against the players union.

                  So actually, the players have a TON of bargaining power.

                  It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                  Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                  Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                  NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Are gauranteed contracts killing the NBA?

                    Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                    Um, that's what unions are for.

                    The owners can't simply tear up the CBA and offer 100k contracts, the union would revolt, and you'd be stuck watching sub-par talent in the NBA.

                    You wouldn't even get the best college players, because none of them would want to side against the players union.

                    So actually, the players have a TON of bargaining power.
                    How?! If they decline, what else are they going to do? I'm sure 10% could get decent jobs (still not making $100k) but the majority would be working bad jobs just like everyone else with a HS education.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Are gauranteed contracts killing the NBA?

                      Originally posted by Leisure Suit Larry View Post
                      How?! If they decline, what else are they going to do? I'm sure 10% could get decent jobs (still not making $100k) but the majority would be working bad jobs just like everyone else with a HS education.
                      If they decline, what are the owners going to do?

                      (A) they have $300+ million investments they now can't make money off of.

                      (B) they have contracts ALREADY guarenteed that they will be under OBLIGATION to pay (since they'd be the ones violating the CBA to begin with)

                      (C) The TV companies woul in turn rip up their deals with the NBA, having no elbron or Wade to show off on friday nights.

                      There is no NBA without the players.

                      The players know this.

                      The players have enough power to get guarenteed contracts and keep them.

                      As meddling at Stern is, he's the one that AGREED to give the players guarenteed deals in the first place, because he knows that ultimately will keep a happy ship.

                      It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                      Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                      Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                      NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Are gauranteed contracts killing the NBA?

                        I'm not saying they should do it, especially right now, I'm saying it should have never gotten this far out of hand. Think how much salaries have escalated over the past 10-20 years. It's ridiculous. If they are that great they can still get endorsement money.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Are gauranteed contracts killing the NBA?

                          Originally posted by Leisure Suit Larry View Post
                          Think how much salaries have escalated over the past 10-20 years. It's ridiculous. If they are that great they can still get endorsement money.
                          Actually, salaries have gone DOWN over the last 10 years.

                          Mediocre players aren't getting $105 million deals anymore.

                          As for the 10 years previous to that, the NBA started to make more money, and the players, knowing they were as big a part of the growth as anybody, wanted their chunk of the profits.

                          It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                          Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                          Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                          NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Are gauranteed contracts killing the NBA?

                            Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                            Actually, salaries have gone DOWN over the last 10 years.

                            Mediocre players aren't getting $105 million deals anymore.

                            As for the 10 years previous to that, the NBA started to make more money, and the players, knowing they were as big a part of the growth as anybody, wanted their chunk of the profits.
                            No.

                            Top Salaries for the '95-'96 season....


                            1. Patrick Ewing (NY) ......... $18,724,000
                            2. Clyde Drexler (Hou) ......... 9,810,000
                            3. David Robinson (SA) ......... 7,700,000
                            4. Chris Webber (Was) .......... 7,000,000
                            5. Joe Dumars (Det) ............ 6,881,000
                            6. Danny Manning (Pho) ......... 6,833,000
                            7. A.C. Green (Pho) ............ 6,473,000 (average)
                            8. Shaquille O'Neal (Orl) ...... 5,700,000
                            9. Derrick Coleman (Phi) ....... 5,476,000
                            10. Sean Elliott (SA) ........... 5,333,000 (average)
                            11. Hakeem Olajuwon (Hou) ....... 5,305,000
                            12. Anfernee Hardaway (Orl) ..... 5,230,000
                            13. James Worthy (LAL) .......... 5,150,000 (retired)
                            14. Detlef Schrempf (Sea) ....... 5,000,000
                            15. Sam Bowie (LAL) ............. 4,800,000 (retired)
                            16. Charles Barkley (Pho) ....... 4,760,000
                            17. Brad Daugherty (Cle) ........ 4,700,000
                            18. Danny Ferry (Cle) ........... 4,643,000
                            19. Alonzo Mourning (Mia) ....... 4,560,000
                            20. Tom Gugliotta (Min) ......... 4,500,000
                            21. Clarence Weatherspoon (Phi) . 4,500,000
                            22. Shawn Bradley (NJ) .......... 4,320,000
                            23. Larry Johnson (Cha) ......... 4,295,000
                            24. Brian Shaw (Orl) ............ 4,250,000
                            25. John Williams (Pho) ......... 4,151,000 (average)
                            26. Dale Davis (Ind) ............ 4,050,000
                            27. Grant Hill (Det) ............ 4,050,000


                            Teams payrolls
                            Team Payroll
                            Toronto Raptors ........ $17,955,000
                            Vancouver Grizzlies .... $18,413,000
                            Boston Celtics ......... $20,219,000
                            Los Angeles Clippers ... $21,165,000
                            Dallas Mavericks ....... $21,753,000
                            Miami Heat ............. $22,087,000
                            Washington Bullets ..... $22,224,000
                            Atlanta Hawks .......... $22,227,000
                            Utah Jazz .............. $22,451,000
                            New Jersey Nets ........ $22,580,000
                            Minnesota Timberwolves . $22,642,000
                            Golden State Warriors .. $22,877,000
                            Milwaukee Bucks ........ $23,011,000 (paper lists total as $23,309,000)
                            Charlotte Hornets ...... $23,084,000
                            Chicago Bulls .......... $23,512,000
                            Indiana Pacers ......... $23,909,000
                            Portland Trailblazers .. $23,926,000
                            Detroit Pistons ........ $23,970,000
                            Sacramento Kings ....... $24,391,000
                            Denver Nuggets ......... $24,553,000
                            Philadelphia 76ers ..... $25,133,000
                            Houston Rockets ........ $25,632,000
                            Seattle Supersonics .... $25,852,000
                            San Antonio Spurs ...... $26,553,000
                            Cleveland Cavaliers .... $27,695,000
                            Los Angeles Lakers ..... $30,073,000
                            Phoenix Suns ........... $36,525,000
                            Orlando Magic .......... $36,526,560
                            New York Knicks ........ $43,329,000 <---Some things never change, huh?

                            Only 7 players earned more than $6 million.

                            http://www.nationwide.net/~patricia/misc/salaries96.txt

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Are gauranteed contracts killing the NBA?

                              Clearly, guarenteed contracts cause some problems. If a GM misjudges talent even once or twice and overpays or if a serious injury or "quick aging" player (for example, CWebb or KMart) occurs, it can really end almost any chance for competitiveness.

                              But the NBA Player's Union is too strong for the owners to ever change to non-guarenteed contracts, so even debating it is somewhat pointless.

                              What I think the owners/League needs to do is try to shorten the contract length once again to say four years (I doubt they could ever get shorter than that). The blunders become less magnified and you'd have a lot less situations where someone becomes "untradable" just because their agent got them an incredible deal (Dunleavy, KMart) or the GM was an idiot (Peja, Nene).

                              Also, I'd like to see a bi-annual exception where a GM is free to release one player and it won't count against the cap. The player would still get his money from the team, but it wouldn't effect the cap. I suppose that would enable rich owners (Dolan, Buss), and probably hurt teams like us, but it would be a nice way for teams that are willing to spend money to be able to take chances on guys and not have to suffer competitively for years if it doesn't work out.
                              Read my Pacers blog:
                              8points9seconds.com

                              Follow my twitter:

                              @8pts9secs

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X