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

ESPN: The Top 10 Expiring Contracts

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

    ESPN: The Top 10 Expiring Contracts

    1. Jason Kidd (Dallas Mavericks)
    Expiring Salary: $21,372,000
    Soon to be traded? HIGHLY UNLIKELY

    All the regret that the Mavericks are supposed to feel about parting with Devin Harris in February's megatrade for Kidd fails to account for a few key developments in Dallas. 1. Kidd's arrival, if nothing else, rejuvenated Dirk Nowitzki to the point that Nowitzki carried the Mavs into the playoffs late last season, which might have been the only way Dallas was going to get there. 2. Kidd is quietly playing quite well this season under Rick Carlisle, leading the Mavs to believe that one successful trade addition to fortify its woeful bench -- which they're presently pursuing hard by offering up Jerry Stackhouse's cap-friendly contract -- could keep their Nowitzki-Kidd-Josh Howard-Jason Terry core in the West elite. 3. Sources say Dallas has been rejecting all Kidd inquiries because it would prefer to A) put off any drastic alterations until after giving this group an entire season with its new coach and B) definitely play out the season without taking back any salary that extends past the 2009-10 season and into the free-agent bonanza that will follow.

    2. Allen Iverson (Detroit Pistons)
    Expiring Salary: $20,840,625
    Soon to be traded? HIGHLY UNLIKELY

    The Answer, as you undoubtedly know, began the season with a HIGHLY LIKELY next to his name and was indeed already traded once. But he'd have to skip out on numerous practices for the Pistons to consider trading him again, since their desire to have loads of salary-cap flexibility to replenish their aging team -- either in July or in the summer of 2010 -- outweighs any concerns about in-house tension Iverson might cause or fears that the Chauncey Billups-for-Iverson gamble is already backfiring. You also have to believe that Pistons president Joe Dumars, having maintained began chasing Iverson since he moved into management at the turn of the century, wants to give his dice roll a full season to pan out.

    3. Stephon Marbury (New York Knicks)
    Expiring Salary: $20,840,625
    Soon to be traded? HIGHLY UNLIKELY

    Trading Marbury is more like impossible … as much because of New York's unwillingness as anything. It's almost inconceivable that the Knicks could concoct a trade for Marbury that didn't require them to take back an unpalatable contract or two, which would potentially undo all the future promise created by their recent deals that shed the contracts of Jamal Crawford and Zach Randolph. Buying out Marbury or releasing him outright and paying Steph's full salary were always the only options here. (Malik Rose, by contrast, is No. 13 on this list and does still rank as a trade candidate, but only if the player(s) coming back to the Knicks, as you probably could have guessed, has/have a contract that runs out after the 2009-10 season.)

    4. Shawn Marion (Miami Heat)
    Expiring Salary: $17,810,000
    Soon to be traded? SOMEWHAT LIKELY

    Marion's fate is one of the hardest for folks around the league to forecast. Some teams remain convinced that Miami is determined to keep Marion on its books through the end of the season and then let him walk so the Heat can use the resultant salary-cap space to make a run at Utah's Carlos Boozer seven months from now. Others believe that the Heat are willing to trade Marion between now and February if they can get back "star quality" or at least players they like whose contracts don't extend beyond 2009-10, when Dwyane Wade hits free agency. The strongest thing we can say is that Marion does have trade suitors (like Toronto) and is the most likely to be moved of the players in our top five here. Which might or might not be saying much.

    5. Mike Bibby (Atlanta Hawks)
    Expiring Salary: $14,983,603
    Soon to be traded? UNLIKELY

    Bibby is a good fit with the Hawks fiscally and on the floor, as an accomplished shooter who plays well off star guard Joe Johnson … and without taxing Atlanta's well-documented financial restrictions. It remains to be seen if the Hawks will defy the skeptics and try to re-sign Bibby at season's end, but things have gone so well since Bibby arrived -- with Atlanta halting its long playoff drought and taking Boston to seven games in the first round, then starting well this season in spite of multiple injuries -- that you'd expect them to knock back any trade interest. One scenario floated this week suggested that Portland is putting Bibby proposals together.

    6. Lamar Odom (Los Angeles Lakers)
    Expiring Salary: $14,148,596
    Soon to be traded? UNLIKELY

    Odom has repeatedly insisted that, even in a contract year, he's OK with his new role as the Lakers' sixth man. If the Lakers are convinced of that, why would they dare mess with their chemistry by trading Odom during the season, especially given how well they've played in November? -- why would they dare mess with their chemistry by trading Odom during the season? Even an Odom-for-Marion swap, which does make some sense for both teams, represents a risk for L.A. because Marion isn't big enough to stand in for Andrew Bynum should Bynum's injury issues return. So it's probably smarter for L.A. to wait until the offseason and bank on the idea that they could convince Odom to participate in a sign-and-trade -- and thereby avoid losing him without compensation -- if the current harmony doesn't last.

    7. Rasheed Wallace (Detroit Pistons)
    Expiring Salary: $13,930,000
    Soon to be traded? HIGHLY UNLIKELY

    As with Iverson, 'Sheed offers a one-of-a-kind presence and skill set combined with a contract that folds perfectly into the Pistons' plans to enter the offseason with numerous options. It's a package way too valuable, in other words, to surrender between now and the deadline.

    8. Wally Szczerbiak (Cleveland Cavaliers)
    Expiring Salary: $13,275,000
    Soon to be traded? LIKELY

    Expensive as it'll be for a tax-paying team with Cleveland's $91 million payroll to take on more long-term salary by parting with Szczerbiak, imagine how costly it could be to the value of owner Dan Gilbert's asset if the Cavs don't load up as much as they can between now and July 1, 2010. They already know LeBron James is going to consider all his options in free agency and they know 10 (or more) teams are going to try to sign him away. The Cavs' best counter is getting as good as they possibly can before LeBron hits the open market in an attempt to convince him that Cleveland is the place to stay. One plugged-in exec insists that he can only see the Cavs parting with Szczerbiak in a deal for New Jersey's Vince Carter, but I'm (grudgingly) more inclined to agree with Bill Simmons' belief that the Cavs are after Michael Redd, Mike Miller and several other recognizable names.

    9. Raef LaFrentz (Portland Trail Blazers)
    Expiring Salary: $12,722,500
    Soon to be traded? UNLIKELY

    If the Blazers could get an undeniable impact player or a top-notch veteran point guard who doesn't carry a long-term contract, such as Kidd or Bibby, then you suspect they'd part with LaFrentz's last-year deal, which is largely covered by insurance payments. In the likely event that they can't? The Blazers have other pieces to keep offering in trades -- such as Sergio Rodriguez, Channing Frye and Ike Diogu, although teams prefer to ask for Travis Outlaw -- and good reason to hang onto LaFrentz and let him come off the payroll at season's end, with several talented kids on the roster soon to be looking for contract extensions.

    10. Andre Miller (Philadelphia 76ers)
    Expiring Salary: $10,333,334
    Soon to be traded? UNLIKELY

    There will be no shortage of interest in Miller if the Sixers do decide to make him available. Most teams don't expect that to happen, given Philadelphia's playoff aspirations and the fact that Miller and high-profile newcomer Elton Brand already have some familiarity after playing together with the Clippers. But if the Sixers continue to disappoint/underachieve, there's a sense that Miller could end up on the market, since he's the most movable player Philly has and since the Sixers are already out of the 2010 free-agent frenzy.

    The next 10 richest expiring contracts:

    11. Memphis' Antoine Walker ($9,052,460);
    12. Indiana's Rasho Nesterovic ($8,400,000);
    13. New York's Malik Rose ($7,647,500);
    14. Houston's Ron Artest ($7,400,000);
    15. Cleveland's Eric Snow ($7,312,500);
    16. Chicago's Drew Gooden ($7,151,183);
    17. Indiana's Marquis Daniels ($6,864,200) );
    18. Oklahoma City's Chris Wilcox ($6,750,000);
    19. Sacramento's Bobby Jackson ($6,487,888);
    20. Chicago's Ben Gordon ($6,404,750)
    http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/dailydime
    "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: ESPN: The Top 10 Expiring Contracts

    I didnt realize Gooden was a FA next summer. I think he would be perfect for us. Very athletic, young and doesnt seem to have many "character issues".

    Maybe Count could answer this, could the Pacers afford to sign Gooden to a contract in the summer? Possibly $8.5 million a season? http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/player...?playerId=1711
    "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


    Comment

    • #3
      Re: ESPN: The Top 10 Expiring Contracts

      Originally posted by MillerTime View Post
      I didnt realize Gooden was a FA next summer. I think he would be perfect for us. Very athletic, young and doesnt seem to have many "character issues".

      Maybe Count could answer this, could the Pacers afford to sign Gooden to a contract in the summer? Possibly $8.5 million a season? http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/player...?playerId=1711
      Problem is he already turned down 10 Mil. from Chi last summer, & we will likely only have the MLE $ (6+ Mil) to spend. Also, w/ Dun & Rush, @ the 2 (+ Daniels & Jack for now), where do you see him? Rush is the 2-guard of the future for this team. We need to be looking @ 4/5's, & need to resign Jack.
      "Larry Bird: You are Officially On the Clock! (3/24/08)"
      (Watching You Like A Hawk!)

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: ESPN: The Top 10 Expiring Contracts

        Originally posted by PacerGuy View Post
        Problem is he already turned down 10 Mil. from Chi last summer, & we will likely only have the MLE $ (6+ Mil) to spend. Also, w/ Dun & Rush, @ the 2 (+ Daniels & Jack for now), where do you see him? Rush is the 2-guard of the future for this team. We need to be looking @ 4/5's, & need to resign Jack.
        I said Drew Gooden, not Gordon. Or did Gooden turn down a $10 mill deal?
        "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


        Comment

        • #5
          Re: ESPN: The Top 10 Expiring Contracts

          i don't think gooden was offered or turned down anything.

          as far as signing him goes, we'd be in the same situation as before: we could probably manage signing two out of jack, quis, gooden and rasho.
          This is the darkest timeline.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: ESPN: The Top 10 Expiring Contracts

            Originally posted by MillerTime View Post
            I said Drew Gooden, not Gordon. Or did Gooden turn down a $10 mill deal?

            me no read so well....
            "Larry Bird: You are Officially On the Clock! (3/24/08)"
            (Watching You Like A Hawk!)

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: ESPN: The Top 10 Expiring Contracts

              Originally posted by MillerTime View Post
              I said Drew Gooden, not Gordon. Or did Gooden turn down a $10 mill deal?
              Gordon turned down a 6/59 deal.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: ESPN: The Top 10 Expiring Contracts

                Originally posted by MillerTime View Post
                I didnt realize Gooden was a FA next summer. I think he would be perfect for us. Very athletic, young and doesnt seem to have many "character issues".

                Maybe Count could answer this, could the Pacers afford to sign Gooden to a contract in the summer? Possibly $8.5 million a season? http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/player...?playerId=1711
                Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
                i don't think gooden was offered or turned down anything.

                as far as signing him goes, we'd be in the same situation as before: we could probably manage signing two out of jack, quis, gooden and rasho.
                Actually, the most we could offer Gooden would be the MLE (about $6mm to start). That would be the case with any UFA that doesn't belong to us.

                Also, if we offer Rasho anything above the MLE, or pick up Quis' option, we start running a high risk of having to let Jack go because we'll start flirting with the tax threshold.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: ESPN: The Top 10 Expiring Contracts

                  If we ever gained a significant amount of capspace and used it to sign Drew Gooden, I'd strongly contemplate suicide. I bet I'm not the only one.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: ESPN: The Top 10 Expiring Contracts

                    Daniels has a team option according to hoopshype. I expect the Pacers to pick up this option if he keeps playing the way he does.
                    "He wanted to get to that money time. Time when the hardware was on the table. That's when Roger was going to show up. So all we needed to do was stay close"
                    Darnell Hillman (Speaking of former teammate Roger Brown)

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: ESPN: The Top 10 Expiring Contracts

                      Originally posted by MillerTime View Post
                      Maybe Count could answer this, could the Pacers afford to sign Gooden to a contract in the summer? Possibly $8.5 million a season? http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/player...?playerId=1711
                      The answer to that question is always the same, no matter who we're talking about.

                      No, we can't sign anybody to anything more than the MLE.
                      This space for rent.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: ESPN: The Top 10 Expiring Contracts

                        Originally posted by aceace View Post
                        Daniels has a team option according to hoopshype. I expect the Pacers to pick up this option if he keeps playing the way he does.
                        I would put the odds of picking up his option at less than 50%, probably closer to 25%.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: ESPN: The Top 10 Expiring Contracts

                          I almost am leaning towards us trying to trade Marquis Daniels towards the trading deadline to a contender for young talent. He is an expiring contract who is performing at a high level.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: ESPN: The Top 10 Expiring Contracts

                            Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                            The answer to that question is always the same, no matter who we're talking about.

                            No, we can't sign anybody to anything more than the MLE.

                            Frustrating that people don't understand it after as many times as it's been discussed on this board. Just like Daniels doesn't have an expiring contract, he has a team option. Oh well, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't force him to drink it.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: ESPN: The Top 10 Expiring Contracts

                              Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                              Frustrating that people don't understand it after as many times as it's been discussed on this board. Just like Daniels doesn't have an expiring contract, he has a team option. Oh well, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't force him to drink it.
                              If no action is taken by the Pacers, Daniels' contract will expire at the end of this year. For all intents and purposes, it is an expiring contract. Yes, the Pacers have a team option, which provides more flexibility (to the Pacers or any other team), but it can be treated by the Pacers, or by any team that he's traded to, as an expiring contract.

                              If it were a player option (like Diener's) or an ETO (like JO's was), then it would not be an expiring.

                              Also, since Daniels has no guarantee of any contract for next year, he is effectively in a "contract year". He is playing either to earn the extra year on the Pacer contract or to enhance his chances to pick up a contract from another team on the free agent market. His motivations are identical to someone who is in the final year of his contract.

                              To say that Daniels is not an expiring contract and is not in a contract year is precise, but it is not accurate in any meaningful way. Both the player and the team(s) will behave as if it were the actual final year of his deal.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X