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

Aaron McKie is Not the Only NBA Coach Who Could Get Traded

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

    Aaron McKie is Not the Only NBA Coach Who Could Get Traded

    Moderately interesting read....

    Aaron McKie is Not the Only NBA Coach Who Could Get Traded

    February 4, 2008 4:03 PM

    This time last week, Aaron McKie was an unpaid assistant coach for the Philadelphia 76ers (although he is still making money from his last contract as a player).

    Then McKie was traded from the Los Angeles Lakers to the Memphis Grizzlies.

    What?

    Even better, now he's going to get a chance to be that rarest of things, a player/assistant coach. And for his troubles, he'll reportedly make an additional $750,000 or so.

    Not bad!

    But how did that happen?

    McKie was included in the deal to make the salary cap numbers work. The Lakers could have renounced McKie, but instead -- as teams often do -- held onto his rights. Sometimes the rights to retired players can come in handy, and the cost of keeping them is only some salary cap inflexibility.

    A free agent like McKie stays on the books as a "cap hold" until he re-signs with his own team, signs with another team, or is renounced. UPDATE: These players are not under contract and are typically not paid (exception: McKie, and all those bought out under the one-time amnesty rule). But they have not been renounced either -- it's like the team has a right of first refusal to their playing services if they want to come back. And that right costs the team a little bit of space under the salary cap. Teams that are trying to maximize cap space to sign free agents typically will renounce these guys. But in the meantime, they hang around on the books.

    This allows a team, like the Lakers with Aaron McKie, to use that player in a trade, instead of a player on their current roster.

    Some of the names might surprise you -- like current Raptors head coach Sam Mitchell, who could in theory be traded by Minnesota. (Based on a conversation I just had with the league office, for the league to approve such a trade, the NBA would have to be satisfied that Mitchell's contract with the Raptors was completley resolved -- bought out, terminated etc. -- and that whichever team was acquiring Mitchell was doing so to get him to play basketball for them. They frown on retired players moving around on paper just to satisfy the collective bargaining agreement.)

    Here is a list of some other "Aaron McKies" that are on the books and eligible to be traded, even though most have retired. Some have big cap holds, and could have big new contracts without becoming difficult-to-trade "base year compensation" players. That means they could become part of big trades.

    High Salary
    Chicago P.J. Brown ($8,560,000)
    Dallas Keith Van Horn ($15,694,250)
    Indiana Rik Smits ($12,250,000)
    Minnesota Latrell Sprewell ($14,625,000)

    Medium Salary
    Boston Roshown McLeod
    Chicago Michael Sweetney
    Detroit Victor Alexander, Dale Davis, Don Reid
    Golden State Calbert Cheaney
    Houston Maciej Lampe, Jake Tsakalidis
    Indiana Zan Tabak
    LA Lakers Ron Harper, Karl Malone, Shammond Williams
    New Orleans Marc Jackson
    Philadelphia Rodney Rogers
    Phoenix Jalen Rose
    Portland Voshon Leonard, Detlef Schrempf
    Sacramento Vitaly Potapenko, Brent Price, Corliss Williamson
    Seattle Danny Fortson
    Utah Greg Ostertag
    Washington Anthony Peeler

    Minimum Salary
    Boston Dana Barros, Grant Long
    Dallas Vernon Maxwell, Johnny Newman, Walt Williams, Kevin Willis
    Denver Wesley Person
    Detroit Tony Delk, Danny Manning
    Indiana Tyus Edney, Tim Hardaway, Terry Mills, LaSalle Thompson
    LA Lakers Horace Grant, Mitch Richmond, John Salley, Brian Shaw
    Miami Shandon Anderson, Christian Laettner, Gary Payton, John Wallace, Zhi-zhi Wang
    Minnesota Oliver Miller, Sam Mitchell
    New Jersey Travis Best, Hubert Davis, Sherman Douglas, Gheorghe Muresan
    New York Kelvin Cato, Andrew Lang, Felton Spencer, Bruno Sundov
    Philadelphia Rick Mahorn, Derrick McKey
    Portland Chris Dudley
    San Antonio Glenn Robinson, Nick Van Exel
    Washington Chris Whitney
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Aaron McKie is Not the Only NBA Coach Who Could Get Traded

    Interesting! It seems like nearly every team in the league has a little flexibility in making huge moves for this year's (and frankly, the years to come) deadline.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Aaron McKie is Not the Only NBA Coach Who Could Get Traded

      How the hell is Rik Smits' salary on our cap? Or any of those players, actually?

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Aaron McKie is Not the Only NBA Coach Who Could Get Traded

        Some of the names might surprise you -- like current Raptors head coach Sam Mitchell, who could in theory be traded by Minnesota. (Based on a conversation I just had with the league office, for the league to approve such a trade, the NBA would have to be satisfied that Mitchell's contract with the Raptors was completley resolved -- bought out, terminated etc. -- and that whichever team was acquiring Mitchell was doing so to get him to play basketball for them. They frown on retired players moving around on paper just to satisfy the collective bargaining agreement.)
        If this is true, why did the NBA approve the Lakers/Grizzlies trade? It's obvious that McKie is never going to play for Memphis.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Aaron McKie is Not the Only NBA Coach Who Could Get Traded

          Originally posted by Shade View Post
          If this is true, why did the NBA approve the Lakers/Grizzlies trade? It's obvious that McKie is never going to play for Memphis.
          He's going to be a player coach.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Aaron McKie is Not the Only NBA Coach Who Could Get Traded

            psh, yea right...wouldn't this have come up a long time ago? You mean to tell me we have 12 million dollars that we can just toss into a trade, or even 12 million dollars that is taking up our payroll with no one playing for it right now? Get outta towwn...I will freak..
            Roy Hibbert.... It's the POWER!!!

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Aaron McKie is Not the Only NBA Coach Who Could Get Traded

              Originally posted by Mal View Post
              How the hell is Rik Smits' salary on our cap? Or any of those players, actually?
              The Weekend Dime mentioned this. I guess he never officially retired, so in some strange way he is still a Pacer. The only reason they haven't traded his rights is because resigning him to a three year deal would put them over the luxury tax line.

              I'm sure you probably saw the article, but here's a link anyway for anyone else that wants to see it:

              http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/dailyd...dime-080209-10

              It would be nice to see them use that to trade for something at least.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Aaron McKie is Not the Only NBA Coach Who Could Get Traded

                I was really hoping this thread was about trading JO'B.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Aaron McKie is Not the Only NBA Coach Who Could Get Traded

                  But even if he never officially retired, shouldn't his contract have finished years ago?

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Aaron McKie is Not the Only NBA Coach Who Could Get Traded

                    Originally posted by Mal View Post
                    But even if he never officially retired, shouldn't his contract have finished years ago?
                    Just guessing... But if he 'retired' with hypothetically 3 years left on the contract, wouldn't he still owe those 3 years to the Pacers if he was to return to the NBA?

                    What I don't understand I guess is if a player voluntarily sits out games, then the CBA allows that team doesn't have to pay him?



                    -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: Aaron McKie is Not the Only NBA Coach Who Could Get Traded

                      some of you are confused. we're not talking about rights to those (retired) players. this is purely nba salary cap rules.

                      what is in play here is that the nba has a complicated set of rules in order to close the loopholes in the salary cap system. there are two rules in particular which are relevant to the aaron mckie situation. first, and more important, is the byc rule. basically, the byc rule says that if a player gets a raise of more than 20% from his previous contract, then byc rules apply and the player becomes very difficult to trade (counts as 50% salary for trade purpose). the byc rule is in place precisely to avoid the situation where a player gets signed just to make the numbers match in a trade (i.e. like mckie).

                      so this is exactly why those names listed are special. for example, smits' last salary was $12m from the pacers. so theoretically, pacers could sign smits to a new $12m contract and promptly trade him, without trigerring byc status.

                      why is it possible for the pacers to do that with smits, and not, say, with reggie? we come now into the second rule, known as "cap hold". basically, we can keep the right to sign smits to a $12m contract forever, as long as we never renounce him. the cost of not renouncing is that smits' $12m salary remains as a "cap hold" on our cap. but since we are over the salary cap anyway, having such a large cap hold has no effect on us. (i realize this is the confusing part). a cap hold doesn't cost anything, other than the use of cap space. since we have not been in a position to use cap space since smits retired (we've only been signing people using exceptions), his cap hold has cost us nothing.

                      notes: if smits had signed with another team as a player, then his cap hold with us would vanish. also, we don't have reggie's cap hold because we renounced his contract for luxury tax amnesty.

                      i think my explanation has been long winded and confusing, but the key take away here is that those guys on the list can basically be used to circumvent byc rules in a trade. they still have to be signed to new contracts (but why not? it's free money for them) and of course they'll have to be on the rosters of their new teams.

                      btw, i think it can be argued that someone wants mckie to be their player coach, but no one is going to buy that about smits...

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Aaron McKie is Not the Only NBA Coach Who Could Get Traded

                        Originally posted by lenin_fresh View Post
                        The Weekend Dime mentioned this. I guess he never officially retired, so in some strange way he is still a Pacer. The only reason they haven't traded his rights is because resigning him to a three year deal would put them over the luxury tax line.

                        I'm sure you probably saw the article, but here's a link anyway for anyone else that wants to see it:

                        http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/dailyd...dime-080209-10

                        It would be nice to see them use that to trade for something at least.
                        ah marc stein explained it better than i could. good link. copy & paste below:

                        by Marc Stein, ESPN.com
                        http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/dailyd...dime-080209-10

                        The events of the past week -- and the fact that players can't start collecting pension benefits before the age of 45 -- raise an interesting question: Why would any retiring player ever turn in a retirement letter to the league?

                        If Aaron McKie had officially retired in writing, he wouldn't have been able to answer the recent phone call informing him that the Lakers were about to throw him into the Pau Gasol trade … even though he was working as an assistant coach in Philly.

                        Our own Henry Abbott of TrueHoop compiled a handy list this week of all the players who are out of the league at present but whose rights are held by the team they last played for. This happens as long as the player doesn't sign somewhere else or notify the league that he's retiring and if the ex-team chooses not to renounce its rights to the player.

                        Teams that want to create as much salary-cap space as possible will usually renounce such players. But it's clearly useful for teams -- since they're always trying to find creative ways of obtaining expensive players -- to keep the rights to a former player or two in this manner just in case they need one more piece to make the salary-cap math work on a trade, as seen with L.A. and McKie.

                        There are also four such players at present who are truly special. They're the ones who haven't officially retired and whose last NBA salaries were high enough that they can be re-signed by their most recent employer for a very substantial amount … and then added to a trade as an on-the-spot expiring contract without base-year compensation rules kicking in.

                        Players who are signed and traded must sign a three-year deal. But only the first year is guaranteed, creating an expiring-contract effect. That means Minnesota (Latrell Sprewell), Dallas (Keith Van Horn), Chicago (P.J. Brown) and Indiana (Rik Smits) all possess a very valuable trade chip if they can find a way (yes, we jest) to convince the ex-player, like McKie, to take a lucrative handout without anyone expecting him to do anything more than sit at home and start waiting for the checks.

                        So why haven't we seen, say, Indiana take advantage, considering Smits last played in 1999-2000, meaning that the Pacers have had this option for some time? Luxury-tax concerns, as usual, are the deterrent, as explained in Box 1 with Dallas and Van Horn. If the Mavs were to use Van Horn as the primary piece in a Kidd trade, without sending out more long-term salary besides point guard Devin Harris, Kidd would almost be a $40 million player next season, costing Dallas nearly double his $21.4 million salary.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Aaron McKie is Not the Only NBA Coach Who Could Get Traded

                          Alright, if someone could explain this to me it would help me greatly because I'm a little confused. So if the Pacers "re-signed" Smits and traded him to another team he would have to do something (such as a player coach)? The way Stein made it sound all he would have to do is sit at home and draw a salary, and after a year he could be cut. Also, if he is cut does the team doing the cutting have to still pay any of that remaining salary or is he completely off of the books? Thanks, I'm not the best at this contract stuff.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Aaron McKie is Not the Only NBA Coach Who Could Get Traded

                            Originally posted by lenin_fresh View Post
                            Alright, if someone could explain this to me it would help me greatly because I'm a little confused. So if the Pacers "re-signed" Smits and traded him to another team he would have to do something (such as a player coach)? The way Stein made it sound all he would have to do is sit at home and draw a salary, and after a year he could be cut. Also, if he is cut does the team doing the cutting have to still pay any of that remaining salary or is he completely off of the books? Thanks, I'm not the best at this contract stuff.
                            ah...

                            technically, smits could just stay at home and draw checks, as you say. after all, plenty of active players already do that however, the league will not look kindly to such an obvious bending of the rules. perhaps they'll make a new "rik smits rule" to make sure it never happens again.

                            mckie's case is a lot easier to swallow because, after all, he's only one year removed from playing and the grizz arguably could use his "veteran presence".

                            because of sign and trade rules, the player must be signed to a 3 year deal, but only the first year needs to be guaranteed. the cutting team will have to pay for the guaranteed amount, though the original team can send cash up to $3m to cover the traded player's salary.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Aaron McKie is Not the Only NBA Coach Who Could Get Traded

                              Okay, that makes sense then. I thought the NBA would be alright with that loophole. After thinking about it I can't really see a deal being made that would work out anyway. It's not like a rebuilding team would give up a good young prospect for an expiring contract and the Pacers aren't in a position to take on a bad contract just for the fun of it. Not sure if it would stop Larry, but all the same.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X