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

A Realistic Look at JO's chances of Opting out.

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

  • A Realistic Look at JO's chances of Opting out.

    The Bones
    Jermaine O’Neal signed a seven-year, $123 million contract, the maximum allowed, on July 16, 2003. According to ESPN, and Storyteller's site, JO will make $19,728,000 this year. After this season he has an (ETO) Early Termination Option, which gives him the right to terminate his contract early. JO was born on Oct 13, 1978, so right now he is 28 years old and in his prime. He will turn 29 years old right before the regular season starts this year.


    Currently
    (2007) $19,728,000..... age 29, this coming season.
    (2008) $21,352,500......age 30
    (2009) $22,995,000......age 31

    If JO opted out he would be opting out of $44,347,500.00 million dollars.


    Extension?
    JO could sign an extension for up to 4 years with raises of 10.5% each year. (NBA raises are not compounded) The only way I see that happening is if he leads a team to the NBA championship this year. That won't happen, even the Lakers couldn't afford to extend both Kobe and JO. Just for example JO would be making.
    (2010) $25,409,475.....age 32
    (2011) $27,823,950.....age 33
    (2012) $30,238,425.....age 34
    (2013) $32,652,900.....age 35
    Total $116,124,750

    After actually putting the figures down, I would have to say that would be a JO fantasy, because it's not happening!

    Well on second thought, it being LaLa land I guess if he was traded to the Lakers and they won three straight championships with him as a major piece it would be possible. Kobe makes a hair less than JO so the Lakers would be paying two players about $65 million at the end of JO's extension.


    ETO Invoked
    Okay now lets see what a more relistic outcome tells us. If he invokes his ETO, he would have three options.

    One) He could then resign with the Pacers for six years with 10.5% raises each year.
    Two) He could be part of a sign and trade to another team, and still get the above.
    Three) Or he could opt out and just sign with another team. His maxamum would be 5 years with raises of 8%.


    The Math
    If JO is still with the Pacers next year and opts out, or hes traded and opts out, his likely expectations are about that of Vince Carter's. Carter just opted out and resigned with New Jersey for a rumored "$66 million guaranteed -- which includes four years plus a partial guarantee for a fifth year -- and could make as much as $80 million." Carter is 30 years old. That means Carter will start his new contract at around $13 million. So starting JO at $13m, and giving him 10.5% raises for six years his contract would look like this.
    (2008) $13,000,000.....age 30
    (2009) $14,365,000.....age 31
    (2010) $15,973,325.....age 32
    (2011) $17,540,024.....age 33
    (2012) $19,381,726.....age 34
    (2013) $21,416,807.....age 35
    Total $101,676,882

    If he started at $14 million you would add $1,547,000 million for each of 5 years. That would be $7,735,000 million more, or $109,411.882 million total.




    Now if he opts out and just signs with another team his maximum would be 5 years with raises of 8%.
    (2008) $13,000,000.....age 30
    (2009) $14,040,000.....age 31
    (2010) $15,163,200.....age 32
    (2011) $16,376,256.....age 33
    (2012) $17,686,356.....age 34
    Total $76,265,812

    For the purpose of comparing six year periods.
    (2013) $19,543.423.....age 35
    That would be his pay in the first year if he signed a contract extension. An extension is doubtful at age 35 though. If he did sign an extension the total would be $94,809,235 over six years when including the first year of his extension.

    The reality is he would probably sign a new contract and get the minimum of about $6 million, which would be a total of $82,265,812 over six years.



    Status Quo
    Now lets look at the figures if JO doesn't opt out. He would be starting his 32nd year so lets say he signs a new contract starting at $10 million a year.

    (2008) $21,352,500.....age 30
    (2009) $22,995,000.....age 31
    (2010) $10,000,000.....age 32 Conjuncture. If he would start at $13m, this obviously would be the way to go.
    (2011) $11,050,000.....age 33
    (2012) $12,210,250.....age 34
    (2013) $13,492,326.....age 35
    Total $91,100,076


    Wrap
    Over a six year period the figures are thus;

    $116,124,750....If he signs an extension. Obviously JO would think he would have a better chance of signing an extension with a team like the Laker's.

    $101,676,882 to $109,411.882.....if he opts out and either resigns with the Pacers or does a sign and trade at either $13 or $14 million. If he thinks he can resign for more than $14 million he will obviously opt out.

    $76,265,812 to $82,265,812.....if he just signs with another team and leaves the Pacers with nothing.

    $91,100,076.....if he doesn't opt out.

    Basically it comes down to what you think JO is going to be worth at certain periods in his life. If this coming year is a year like the past couple he probably won't opt out. If he has a MVP type year he no doubt will.

    My conclusion is I see no way JO just walks and leaves the Pacers with nothing. That could cost him $40 million dollars.
    Last edited by Will Galen; 08-06-2007, 09:55 PM.

  • #2
    Re: A Realistic Look at JO's chances of Opting out.

    Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
    My conclusion is I see no way JO just walks and leaves the Pacers with nothing. That could cost him $25 million dollars.
    I remember like right after the season, someone asked JO if he would even consider opting out. He insisted that he wouldn't opt out and leave the Pacers with nothing. Something about how he wants the best situation for both teams and that he felt he owed it to the organization and it's fans. Sorry, I'm too lazy to look for the link.
    I think KP is a Captain Planet fan. He believes that the collective will of five decent starters can outweigh the power of top-level talent. Too bad Herb won't cut the check for their Planeteer rings.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: A Realistic Look at JO's chances of Opting out.

      Just based on statements he has made in the past I doubt he opts out and screws us over. He seems to appreciate this franchise and what we have done for him, and he seems like a class guy.

      Although I do think he is far more concerned about championship contention than money... I mean if I had like 80 million dollars in the bank I cant imagine, well any amount of money really mattering at all.
      "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

      - ilive4sports

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: A Realistic Look at JO's chances of Opting out.

        Vince Carter isn't a post player, and we know post players command salary premiums over wing players and guards.

        I know what you're trying to do, but if that is the best comparison you need to add a "post player premium."
        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


        • #5
          Re: A Realistic Look at JO's chances of Opting out.

          Considering Darko just got 9 and has done little, if JO opts out I seriously doubt he's taking a paycut at all.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: A Realistic Look at JO's chances of Opting out.

            Originally posted by 2Cleva View Post
            Considering Darko just got 9 and has done little, if JO opts out I seriously doubt he's taking a paycut at all.
            Bingo! We have a winner.

            He also won't take much of a paycut if he plays out his contract. He just may get fewer seasons on the new contract. But knowing the NBA, he'll get another max contract from somebody.

            Look at Peja. Somebody will pay the $$$.
            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


            • #7
              Re: A Realistic Look at JO's chances of Opting out.

              Originally posted by Jay View Post
              Vince Carter isn't a post player, and we know post players command salary premiums over wing players and guards.

              I know what you're trying to do, but if that is the best comparison you need to add a "post player premium."
              I did say, "Basically it comes down to what you think JO is going to be worth at certain periods in his life." That was my guess.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: A Realistic Look at JO's chances of Opting out.

                Originally posted by 2Cleva View Post
                Considering Darko just got 9 and has done little, if JO opts out I seriously doubt he's taking a paycut at all.
                I believe Darko is getting $7 million per. It's 3 years for $21 million, no?
                Read my Pacers blog:
                8points9seconds.com

                Follow my twitter:

                @8pts9secs

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: A Realistic Look at JO's chances of Opting out.

                  Oh, without a doubt, JO's taking a pay cut if he opts out. Best case scenario, he's looking at VC/Ben Wallace type money...in the $15 to $16 million dollar a year range.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: A Realistic Look at JO's chances of Opting out.

                    But it doesn't matter if he opts out or if he doesn't... both are not good for the Pacers and our long term future.

                    -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: A Realistic Look at JO's chances of Opting out.

                      Originally posted by Bball View Post
                      But it doesn't matter if he opts out or if he doesn't... both are not good for the Pacers and our long term future.

                      -Bball
                      Not really cutting 20 million in salary can only result in good things, considering how bad the team is, and how we would have to overpay a guy to come here. Something we haven't been able to do because of having JOs contract

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: A Realistic Look at JO's chances of Opting out.

                        Originally posted by Bball View Post
                        But it doesn't matter if he opts out or if he doesn't... both are not good for the Pacers and our long term future.

                        -Bball
                        Bingo!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: A Realistic Look at JO's chances of Opting out.

                          Originally posted by Pacersin2033 View Post
                          Not really cutting 20 million in salary can only result in good things, considering how bad the team is, and how we would have to overpay a guy to come here. Something we haven't been able to do because of having JOs contract
                          We can and do go over the cap to sign our own FA's. So depending on the Lux Tax scenario and what existing players we'd need to sign either immediately or in the immediate future, it wouldn't suddenlt be 20 million we'd have available to us to sign an outside FA if JO left.

                          I'm sure a capinator can predict fairly accurately what we'd be able to pay an outside FA if JO opted out and I'm fairly comfortable in saying it wouldn't be JO's 20mil.

                          -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


                          • #14
                            Re: A Realistic Look at JO's chances of Opting out.

                            Originally posted by Bball View Post
                            We can and do go over the cap to sign our own FA's. So depending on the Lux Tax scenario and what existing players we'd need to sign either immediately or in the immediate future, it wouldn't suddenlt be 20 million we'd have available to us to sign an outside FA if JO left.

                            I'm sure a capinator can predict fairly accurately what we'd be able to pay an outside FA if JO opted out and I'm fairly comfortable in saying it wouldn't be JO's 20mil.

                            -Bball
                            Jermaine O'Neal........$19,728,000
                            Troy Murphy.............$9,206,349
                            Mike Dunleavy..........$8,219,008
                            Marquis Daniels.........$6,373,900
                            Jamaal Tinsley............$6,300,000
                            Jeff Foster.................$5,500,000
                            Ike Diogu..................$2,286,360
                            Danny Granger..........$1,516,800
                            Shawne Williams........$1,470,360
                            David Harrison...........$1,734,316
                            Kareem Rush.............$770,610 (a)
                            Stephen Graham.........$770,610
                            Guaranteed................$100,000 (b)
                            ----------------------------
                            Total................$63,976,313..........($3,888, 687) under the lux tax as of this date.

                            Removing JO's salary puts us at $44,248,013.

                            The NBA salary cap for 2006-07 is $55,630,000.
                            The luxury tax threshold is $67,865,000

                            We would be $11,381,987 under the cap.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: A Realistic Look at JO's chances of Opting out.

                              Thanks for crunching the numbers Will.

                              The Ben Wallace and Vince Carter comparisons are completely flawed. Both were older at the time of the deal. Ben Wallace only impacts one side of the floor and Vince Carter is a perimeter player.

                              The original figures are also a misrepresentation, specifically the projections for 2013-2014. So he won't get 20mil in free agency that year but a team will willingly pay it just because he happens to be in his sixth year? Best case scenario, he gets a team option for that year in which case it's unlikely the team exercises it. Nobody wants to guarantee, 20+ mil to a 35 year-old, especially one with a significant history of injuries. So a better representation would be (over the next 5 years):

                              1) Opt-out and stay or S&T: 80mil
                              2) Opt-out and sign with another team: 76mil
                              3) Don't opt-out: 78mil

                              Don't forget option #3 comes with the risk of any major injury before 2010 having a significant impact on his value.

                              The posts about JO not wanting to screw over Indy are valid but only to a certain extent. If a team under the cap simply refuses to send out any players and JO is set on going there, there's simply nothing you can do about it. Teams aren't interested in helping other teams when they don't need to. Exhibit A: Chicago stealing Wallace from the Bulls
                              Last edited by gng930; 07-18-2007, 03:51 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X