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

Millionaires and Billionaires

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

  • Millionaires and Billionaires

    I don't think this topic deserves to be in the Pacers section, but I'm curious. The question is, how does someone's attitudes towards money changes when they become rich and super-rich? Not being rich myself, I know that I don't know how they think.

    Consider the issue of a buyout of Jamaal Tinsley's contract. Jamaal is already a multi-millionaire. A lot of people are saying he would never consider a buyout for a reduced amount because he would want all the millions he is promised under his contract. I ask, why?

    It seems just as likely to me that he would prefer to take the money and run. He obviously doesn't enjoy playing basketball very much. He has never been any kind of a Chris Mullin gym rat who just loves to be on the court shooting. And he doesn't seem to have any pride compelling him to prove that he is a competitor and a winner.

    Why wouldn't Tinsley be happy to take $40 million or even $35 million and go play with it? Doesn't he see that, in order to get the full amount of his contract, he's got to go through the motions for 3 more years, attending team meetings and sitting behind the players in a suit during games and actually playing in 20-30 games a season? If he could take 2/3 or 3/4 of the amount of his contract, and go back to New York with it he could go to all the 3am titty bars he wants to. Why wouldn't he want to do that?

    Now look at the issue from Herb Simon's point-of-view. He's well more than a billionaire. Even Tinsley's multi-millions are small change to him. I would guess that Simon is more used to discussing investments of hundreds of millions than tens of millions, and he makes decisions involving tens or hundreds of millions of dollars every week. Simon wants results, and he knows that decisions lead to results. He's already got plenty of personal wealth and a successful family business. What he wants out of the Pacers is respect in the community and a sense that he's used his wealth and his business acumen to help the community.

    Simon has taken over as GM because he wants to accomplish the change. He wants to get the recent malaise behind and make the team popular and profitable again. He knows that current investment leads to future revenue streams. So why wouldn't Simon buy out Tinsley's contract, if no trades can be accomplished? The coach has already said Tinsley is not in the team's future. Tinsley's contract is not much to Simon's wealth, thought it is an apalling amount in the Pacers' bottom line.

    Again, my question is less about the Pacers roster and salary cap than about the mentality of millionaires and billionaires. What do you think?
    And I won't be here to see the day
    It all dries up and blows away
    I'd hang around just to see
    But they never had much use for me
    In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

  • #2
    Re: Millionaires and Billionaires

    When you look at Tinsley's salary you have to look past Tinsley. Based off of what I have read about him in the past, the dude supports like 20 members of his family and friends off of what he makes in the NBA. That could have something to do with it.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Millionaires and Billionaires

      And along with what dcpacersfan said, I think the mentality of any player is "get what you can get", with rare exception.

      I'm moving this to the Pacers board because it's about Jamaal Tinsley and Herb Simon.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Millionaires and Billionaires

        Greed.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Millionaires and Billionaires

          Originally posted by Putnam View Post
          I don't think this topic deserves to be in the Pacers section, but I'm curious. The question is, how does someone's attitudes towards money changes when they become rich and super-rich? Not being rich myself, I know that I don't know how they think.

          Consider the issue of a buyout of Jamaal Tinsley's contract. Jamaal is already a multi-millionaire. A lot of people are saying he would never consider a buyout for a reduced amount because he would want all the millions he is promised under his contract. I ask, why?

          It seems just as likely to me that he would prefer to take the money and run. He obviously doesn't enjoy playing basketball very much. He has never been any kind of a Chris Mullin gym rat who just loves to be on the court shooting. And he doesn't seem to have any pride compelling him to prove that he is a competitor and a winner.

          Why wouldn't Tinsley be happy to take $40 million or even $35 million and go play with it? Doesn't he see that, in order to get the full amount of his contract, he's got to go through the motions for 3 more years, attending team meetings and sitting behind the players in a suit during games and actually playing in 20-30 games a season? If he could take 2/3 or 3/4 of the amount of his contract, and go back to New York with it he could go to all the 3am titty bars he wants to. Why wouldn't he want to do that?

          Now look at the issue from Herb Simon's point-of-view. He's well more than a billionaire. Even Tinsley's multi-millions are small change to him. I would guess that Simon is more used to discussing investments of hundreds of millions than tens of millions, and he makes decisions involving tens or hundreds of millions of dollars every week. Simon wants results, and he knows that decisions lead to results. He's already got plenty of personal wealth and a successful family business. What he wants out of the Pacers is respect in the community and a sense that he's used his wealth and his business acumen to help the community.

          Simon has taken over as GM because he wants to accomplish the change. He wants to get the recent malaise behind and make the team popular and profitable again. He knows that current investment leads to future revenue streams. So why wouldn't Simon buy out Tinsley's contract, if no trades can be accomplished? The coach has already said Tinsley is not in the team's future. Tinsley's contract is not much to Simon's wealth, thought it is an apalling amount in the Pacers' bottom line.

          Again, my question is less about the Pacers roster and salary cap than about the mentality of millionaires and billionaires. What do you think?

          1. We only owe Tinsley $21.6 mil over the next three years, so I hope nobody throws $35 or $40 mil at him to make him go away.

          2. I'm sure that Tinsley would be amenable to a buyout at perhaps a cash-discounted rate because then he could go out and get another paycheck (yes, another team would sign him on the cheap). However, he's not going to give a huge discount because he'd be right in thinking that he could make himself more money, faster. If it's not about the game, as you say, then it's gotta be only about the green.

          3. Simon and guys like him didn't get to be mega-millionaires by piling $20 mm in the middle of the floor and setting fire to it. Essentially, your proposing that Herb hand over roughly 15-20% of next year's revenue just to get rid of a PR problem. Do you suppose that we'll immediately be able to sell about 8,500 more seats a night? (One Year Payback) 5,000? 2,500? There's simply no return on the investment of the buyout, particularly with three years left. If you buy him out, you're out the money sooner, and I believe (though I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong) Tinsley will still sit on our cap/tax figure for the next three years like the giant turd that he is. Keep him, you can maybe deal him for a player who, though they may have a grotesque contract, could at least be serviceable for more than 35 games a year.

          4. Money is money, and more often than not, the idea that more is better holds pretty true regardless of one's tax bracket. I've never been wild about speculating about what we would do if we were that rich, because none of us have a single flipping clue. Odds are we'd be completely different than who we are now. I couldn't care less about Tinsley, but a buyout is a bad fiscal decision for the Pacers organization.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Millionaires and Billionaires

            I believe once a person reaches a point where money is no longer a concern it becomes about ego, legacy, and respect of peers.

            I also think this is pure human nature not exclusive to athletes.

            Although they are obviously far more likely to reach the point of not needing any more money.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Millionaires and Billionaires

              Originally posted by Twes View Post
              I believe once a person reaches a point where money is no longer a concern it becomes about ego, legacy, and respect of peers.

              I also think this is pure human nature not exclusive to athletes.

              Although they are obviously far more likely to reach the point of not needing any more money.
              I think this is true, with two adjustments:

              1. They still use money to keep score

              and

              2. Very few people reach that point in their heads. (They may be financially secure for generations, but most will always want more.)

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Millionaires and Billionaires

                Originally posted by count55 View Post
                I think this is true, with two adjustments:

                1. They still use money to keep score

                and

                2. Very few people reach that point in their heads. (They may be financially secure for generations, but most will always want more.)
                I agree with the keeping score part.

                And as Pat Ewing said they make a lot of money but they spend a lot of money.

                And taking that to the extreme we always have the Mike Tyson example.

                Dying broke one day after $400 million in earnings -- I guess he just needed a bigger cushion for rainy days.
                Last edited by Twes; 04-23-2008, 12:12 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Millionaires and Billionaires

                  Count55, that's a good reply.

                  First, thanks for clarifying Tinsley's actual salary through 2011. I wrote before I looked up the amount and then neglected to revise it.


                  "Simon and guys like him didn't get to be mega-millionaires by piling $20 mm in the middle of the floor and setting fire to it."

                  Well, your analogy may not be the right one, but I'd say wealthy people cut their losses all the time. I'm sure they've divested many times of properties that were harmful to their bottom line. Other Simon malls around Indianapolis suffered when Circle Center opened. But I'm sure the bottom line of Simon Properties gained. The willingness to cut losses is just as essential to getting rich as finding profitable ventures is.


                  In your reply, you assess Tinsley's salary as a share of the Pacers' payroll. Yeah, it is a whopping part of Pacers' revenue. But his salary is puny compared to Simon's bank account. The interesting question is, does it make sense for a billionaire to sit for years watching the team slowly pull itself up from the muck, all the time hurting his reputation, or to reach into his pocket and push the process along with an amount of money that he won't even feel?

                  When I started this thread, I asked about the mentalities of the rich and the super rich -- not about the adviseability of buying out Tinsley. I understand that he may be worth the most as an expiring contract a year or two in the future.
                  Last edited by Putnam; 04-23-2008, 01:06 PM.
                  And I won't be here to see the day
                  It all dries up and blows away
                  I'd hang around just to see
                  But they never had much use for me
                  In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Millionaires and Billionaires

                    the other thing to consider with buying out tinsley say this summer is that for the next three years it will count against our cap. his $6.75mil doesn't just disappear - it'll hold the spot whether he is still on the team or not. some teams will do it with two years left on the deal but i doubt the pacers would want to stomach three years of his deal holding us hostage.
                    This is the darkest timeline.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Millionaires and Billionaires

                      Originally posted by Putnam View Post
                      Count55, that's a good reply.

                      First, thanks for clarifying Tinsley's actual salary through 2011. I wrote before I looked up the amount and then neglected to revise it.


                      "Simon and guys like him didn't get to be mega-millionaires by piling $20 mm in the middle of the floor and setting fire to it."

                      Well, your analogy may not be the right one, but I'd say wealthy people cut their losses all the time. I'm sure they've divested many times of properties that were harmful to their bottom line. Other Simon malls around Indianapolis suffered when Circle Center opened. But I'm sure the bottom line of Simon Properties gained. The willingness to cut losses is just as essential to getting rich as finding profitable ventures is.


                      In your reply, you assess Tinsley's salary as a share of the Pacers' payroll. Yeah, it is a whopping part of Pacers' revenue. But his salary is puny compared to Simon's bank account. The interesting question is, does it make sense for a billionaire to sit for years watching the team slowly pull itself up from the muck, all the time hurting his reputation, or to reach into his pocket and push the process along with an amount of money that he won't even feel?

                      When I started this thread, I asked about the mentalities of the rich and the super rich -- not about the adviseability of buying out Tinsley. I understand that he may be worth the most as an expiring contract a year or two in the future.
                      OK...I probably blurred the lines on the question because that's how it is in my mind. Yes, you're right, that someone as obscenely wealthy is more likely to say "**** it" and dump Tinsley, but I think that would have to be a major departure from what most people would consider to be a reasonable decision.

                      I also agree and understand with your "cut the losses" analogy, but my view is that this type of move would be more of a "cut your nose off to spite your face" type of move, increasing our losses.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Millionaires and Billionaires

                        The idea that Jamaal doesn't enjoy playing basketball is so utterly absurd I don't even know where to begin.

                        Jamaal, the kid who grew up in the ghetto without any money or a father, who stayed clean despite all the people around him resorting to gang banging and drugs, just so he could focus on playing more basketball. This guy, it turns out, doesn't like basketball?

                        Basketball, the game he has devoted his life too, which has helped him, and then his entire family, get out of the ghetto, has certainly been a bane on his existence, right?

                        "He obviously doesn't enjoy playing basketball much..." dude, you're so out of your mind biased against the guy I'm sure you probably believe any slander or libel about him without a second thought.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Millionaires and Billionaires

                          Putnum, I think another key point Count made was that there is a reason for "cutting losses". Having an investiment that will CONTINUE to lose money is not the same as as a buy out in a pure sense. If they could "get out now" before having to pay Tinsley even more that would be one thing, but they've already made the full purchase. So the benefits are tied to getting the most value out of the product they now own in full. They incur no new costs simply to keep Tins (barring a Starbury "you don't know what I've got on Bird" arrangement ).

                          What are the BENEFITS financially?

                          Buyout - if a full cash-out then you assume a discount. How much would that be?

                          Attendence - would Tinsley remaining on payroll continue to ON IT'S OWN make a significant difference to attendence? Would ticket sales go up simply because Tins was bought out with no other changes/improvements, and how much would that be?

                          General sales - would merchandising and other corollaries also see any kind of significant impact from this move?

                          Chemistry - does having Tins on payroll even if he's not with the team impact their mood and ability to play to their fullest, thus impacting wins and attendence?


                          Now the costs
                          Cap hit - would maintaining a cap hit for Tinsley with NO POSSIBILITY to remove it (ala a trade) impact the team's ability to compete and therefore to improve sales.

                          Loss of asset - even if he's worth a bag of basketballs, you just gave those balls away for free if you buy him out. ANYTHING you could get for Tins for equal or less cost in total is lost in a buyout. And less cost in a deal would mean some small cap relief too.


                          Many of us have said that image vs wins is no contest when it comes to impacting ticket sales and I still stand by that. Buying out Tinsley doesn't come close to improving the chance for wins that dealing him properly does, even if that requires a passing of some amount of time to improve what his deal means to other teams.

                          Tinsley wasn't on the court for something like 3 months to end the season. Attendence remained terrible, or perhaps even got worse as the losses piled up. The same was true with Jackson/Rio as post-trade the losses brought attendence lower than it already was in response to the Rio thing, rather than improving the situation.

                          I also agree and understand with your "cut the losses" analogy, but my view is that this type of move would be more of a "cut your nose off to spite your face" type of move, increasing our losses.
                          I agree.
                          Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 04-23-2008, 03:23 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Millionaires and Billionaires

                            Depending on what they're using for Cost of Capital, the buyout could be anywhere from $16 to $19 million, but that would be just cash factoring. From a return on investment basis, the Pacers would need to convince Tinsley to take something less than the value of the Discounted Cash Flows, (probably in the $12-14 million range), but I can't think of any even vaguely competent financial advisor that wouldn't be able to tell Tinsley he was coming out on the short end of that scenario.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Millionaires and Billionaires

                              As much as I have been disgusted with Tinsley , his bad decision making skills , not only off the court... but on the court running the team. , I don't dislike the guy as a person.....

                              But if ANY trades are to be made this summer.. he better be the FIRST in line.. before ANY player on our current roster...

                              But unless the only way we can get a piece we NEED... is if we have to package him up with the likes of Owens , Marquis , or Harrison... We need to figure out a way to get something in return for him...

                              I still love JO , and want to see him come back full force ... but if it means getting letting him go with Tinsley together... to get a starting defensive big man , or a smart defensive point guard to run along-side Diener... then that is what we have to do...
                              "Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X