Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

A glimmer of light in the distance for Pacers finances?

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

  • A glimmer of light in the distance for Pacers finances?

    I want to add another detail to the ongoing discussion about Pacers' profitability and viability. That detail is the expiration of the CBA in June 2011. The owners have a chance to renegotiate the agreement. They are likely to demand a better deal, and even the players association anticipates the owners will demand a lot of concession and may resort to a lock-out to get it.

    http://nba.fanhouse.com/2008/11/26/h...the-nbas-summ/

    Now, between now and then our whole economy is going to change and many kinds of assets are going to devalue. Your stocks and 401K, your house, and many kinds of property are going to devalue. Government revenues may take an L-shaped drop that requires structural changes. The imminent renegotiation between the CIB and PS&E is just one example. Professional athletes earnings may have to share the pain, too.

    How does a professional sports team manage in a bearish market, especially when it can see bargains on the horizon?

    A new collective bargaining agreement may help the Pacers bottom line . There are no guarantees, but they ought to plan to be in the position to take advantage as soon and as much as possible. To my mind, I would not want to encumber the payroll very much beyond 2011. Right now, the Pacers have Granger under contract and options on Hibbert and Rush. That is all. (Am I correct on that?) Those are great deals to have. But they may be smart to avoid other lengthy deals.

    How should the Pacers manage the need to win games and fans in the short run and the prospects of a very significant change in the business side 28 months away?
    Last edited by Putnam; 02-12-2009, 01:20 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)

  • #2
    Re: A glimmer of light in the distance for Pacers finances?

    Good post.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: A glimmer of light in the distance for Pacers finances?

      Professional athletes(not just NBA guys) should have to shoulder some of the burden of the economic crunch. I mean if Joe Public who makes $25,000 a year is being laid off or having to cut back personally, or having his salary frozen, that should be the same for professional athletes with salaries that are arguably exorbitant even in stable econcomic times.
      I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

      -Emiliano Zapata

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: A glimmer of light in the distance for Pacers finances?

        Originally posted by Putnam View Post
        How should the Pacers manage the need to win games and fans in the short run and the prospects of a very significant change in the business side 28 months away?

        That's a poser, right there.


        [~]) ... Cheers! Go Pacers!

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: A glimmer of light in the distance for Pacers finances?

          If teams across the board were to try and make the players shoulder some of the crunch and work for devalued contracts, it will never work, and will only put the Pacers at a disadvantage to try and do that on their own. Unfortunately, that is what is likely to happen.
          Certain teams will always be in a position to spend more on key players than other teams, and those teams are the ones who are going to sign them, period. The players are going to go where the money is, and without committing collusion, the teams (and owners) will be at the mercy of the hired gun players.

          Now are you happy, Putty?

          Whiner.



          RESIDENT COUNTING THREAD PHILOSOPHIZER

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: A glimmer of light in the distance for Pacers finances?

            Originally posted by heywoode View Post
            If teams across the board were to try and make the players shoulder some of the crunch and work for devalued contracts, it will never work, and will only put the Pacers at a disadvantage to try and do that on their own. Unfortunately, that is what is likely to happen.
            Certain teams will always be in a position to spend more on key players than other teams, and those teams are the ones who are going to sign them, period. The players are going to go where the money is, and without committing collusion, the teams (and owners) will be at the mercy of the hired gun players.

            Now are you happy, Putty?

            Whiner.
            But thats the whole idea of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Notice the word 'collective'. What is being stated is that the with the current economic situation, the teams are going to push hard to get some concessions from the players association. Collectively, as in all together, as in no one team will have to try and do it alone, nor will some more financially secure teams be able to forego that (ala the yankees).

            Now will the owners succeed? We will see, but as the post said, even the players association-the collective group of players-is aware of the economic times and struggles and realizes the owners will be pushing for concessions and that such requests would not be without merit or substantiation.
            The Most Common Cause of Stress is Dealing with Idiots

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: A glimmer of light in the distance for Pacers finances?

              Originally posted by D-BONE View Post
              Professional athletes(not just NBA guys) should have to shoulder some of the burden of the economic crunch. I mean if Joe Public who makes $25,000 a year is being laid off or having to cut back personally, or having his salary frozen, that should be the same for professional athletes with salaries that are arguably exorbitant even in stable econcomic times.
              Completely disagree. Their salary shouldn't be dependent on Joey P. It should be dependent on demand for their abilities. They should feel a hit because attendance is down (i.e., their product is not selling). NFL players shouldn't feel a hit -- they're still filling stadiums. NASCAR drivers will feel a hit -- attendance and total gate #s are decreasing.

              The only time Joe Public cares about the salaries of others is when his wallet gets hit.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: A glimmer of light in the distance for Pacers finances?

                So you have millionaires fighting with billionaires.

                1. Who cares?

                2. What would a lock-out do to the league?

                The repeal of Bush's tax cuts will be in place by then and hitting both groups. And the more money one makes, the more Uncle Sam takes, so they're already paying a higher % than we do. This would just lead to a higher %.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: A glimmer of light in the distance for Pacers finances?

                  I'm with the owners if they want to ban guaranteed contracts... and I'd support a lockout for it. It doesn't have to be exactly in the form of NFL contracts but if you sign a player to a monster contract and he decides to put it into cruise control (or worse.. or doesn't live up to it), you need an escape clause.
                  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


                  • #10
                    Re: A glimmer of light in the distance for Pacers finances?

                    Originally posted by Bball View Post
                    I'm with the owners if they want to ban guaranteed contracts... and I'd support a lockout for it. It doesn't have to be exactly in the form of NFL contracts but if you sign a player to a monster contract and he decides to put it into cruise control (or worse.. or doesn't live up to it), you need an escape clause.
                    The NFL owners have the most favorable contract system, but they don't even have an escape for making bad deals. Yeah, I know the contract isn't guaranteed, but there is still a consequence for "cutting" a player you signed to a monster contract. That consequence is all that signing bonus money that was paid to that player comes off the salary cap the year a player is cut from their team. Normally, that bonus money is pro-rated over the length of the contract.

                    Remember T.O.'s time in Philly? Remember they had to pay him to stay away from the team (sounds familiar)? They could have just cut him, but with a hard cap.. The Eagles would have also had to cut a about half of their team for their cap to absorb the bonus money that Owens was given in his contract. Eventually, they found a place to trade him.

                    Even closer to home... Rob Morris, sure he was what we needed at the end of his career, but when he got that monster contract at the beginning, no one felt he was living up to his contract. Could the Colts cut him? Sure... Did they? Nope! Cutting him would have been a cap catastrophe.

                    Now, I know that you said that the system doesn't have to be like the NFL's, but I don't ever see any player's union giving up more concessions then what the NFL players union did for their owners. A system like what you mentioned just doesn't exist and I doubt it ever could.

                    Personally, I think the system of guaranteed contracts isn't perfect, but it has fewer flaws in comparison to the NFL system when you also consider the "franchise tag" system, the hard cap that discourages player stability, and worst of all... Player holdouts!

                    IMO, guaranteed contracts can be fixed by making the maximum length of the contracts shorter then the 6 years max that can be done now. Personally, 3 years should be about it.
                    Last edited by Roaming Gnome; 02-13-2009, 02:01 AM.
                    ...Still "flying casual"
                    @roaminggnome74

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: A glimmer of light in the distance for Pacers finances?

                      Here's something new:


                      Stern says NBA will withstand economic crisis

                      Associated Press
                      Sunday, Feb. 15, 2009

                      http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/29201705/


                      Stern said he believed the league was in a “golden age of basketball,” but there are potential concerns should the economic situation not improve. It’s expected to lead to a decrease in the salary cap, and could eventually land some teams in financial jeopardy.

                      This suggests that next year's salary cap may be lower than this year's. That would happen under the current agreement, just because of how the 30 teams are doing this year.

                      Bear this in mind as you think about trades and salary extensions!
                      Last edited by Putnam; 02-15-2009, 10:19 AM.
                      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


                      • #12
                        Re: A glimmer of light in the distance for Pacers finances?

                        Btw, that's how the players "feel the pain" of the economic times. The salary cap is the limit on paying player wages and it is determined base on the NBA's Basketball Related Income (BRI). It's always wild coming here and seeing the incredibly pro-owner attitudes.

                        Also, ironic that the 2010 free agent class will come during a salary cap down-**** (probably).

                        [edit: I think the censored word was "size" or "turn", definitely not a swear word though.]
                        Last edited by Fool; 02-15-2009, 05:51 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: A glimmer of light in the distance for Pacers finances?

                          Originally posted by Fool View Post
                          Btw, that's how the players "feel the pain" of the economic times. The salary cap is the limit on paying player wages and it is determined base on the NBA's Basketball Related Income (BRI). It's always wild coming here and seeing the incredibly pro-owner attitudes.
                          (probably).
                          It's not just here... It seems like that is a prevailing attitude of most fans that are on any message board or call-in type radio show. "The athlete that makes the sport happen doesn't deserve the money he is paid".

                          Why do most fans usually fall on the side of ownership? Is it that belief that sports would be more affordable to Joe six-pack if owners paid the players 6 figure salaries or better yet, "what I get paid"?

                          Anyway, sports isn't the only place this thought process exist...
                          ...Still "flying casual"
                          @roaminggnome74

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: A glimmer of light in the distance for Pacers finances?

                            Originally posted by Roaming Gnome View Post
                            It's not just here... It seems like that is a prevailing attitude of most fans that are on any message board or call-in type radio show. "The athlete that makes the sport happen doesn't deserve the money he is paid".

                            Why do most fans usually fall on the side of ownership? Is it that belief that sports would be more affordable to Joe six-pack if owners paid the players 6 figure salaries or better yet, "what I get paid"?

                            Anyway, sports isn't the only place this thought process exist...
                            Owners are technically the ones taking the financial risk so they should see the rewards of that risk. I say 'technically' because corporate welfare has crept into the equation and now the taxpayers are expected to bear part of the burden that allows these billionaires to pay these millionaires what they do. Taxpayers have become the 'safety net' instead of owners adjusting to market realities.

                            Sports -should- be more affordable to Joe Sixpack but that is a mistake made further up the foodchain in how the sport is governed and allows owners to do what they do. There could be some rules in place that better cap ticket prices, and/or tie them to some base, regardless of what the owners COULD charge... especially in 'up' years.

                            Besides corporate welfare changing the equation we can't forget how guaranteed contracts don't allow owners to adjust to market realities either. In most cases an overpaid and underperforming player will be the situation that sends you spiraling downward in the market in the first place. It doesn't get any better if you have more than one player overpaid and underperforming.

                            This is probably the wrong thread to mention this, but in the case of the Pacers and their 'losses', as anyone considered just how much fat there is and has been in the upper-echelons of the Pacer hierarchy? At one point weren't we paying Walsh, Bird, and Morway for essentially the same job (or what should be the same job)? It's not just player salaries on the team's payroll... but at least player roster has a 15 man limit. There's apparently no limit to the jobs and job titles that PS&E have handed out. It's an Old Boy's Club it appears.

                            ...But I digress...

                            Player salaries aren't based on reality. If there was no corporate welfare owners would be forced to operate these businesses in a whole different way.
                            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


                            • #15
                              Re: A glimmer of light in the distance for Pacers finances?

                              I think the questions about how much players ought to be paid are good questions. As an economist, I've always found the theory of price a complex and fascinating topic. If you all want to discuss that here you may, of course. But please don't overlook the topic I've tried to start.

                              How does a diminishing salary cap impact all the NBA teams, and especially the Pacers? This latest mention from Stern suggests a bear market for players' salaries may last a long time (in the short run because of the economy and a salary cap adjustment; in the long run because of a re-negotiated collective bargaining agreement.)

                              Faced with a diminishing cap, how do you negotiate differently with players? Don't TPTB have to take this into account in a big way as they consider what to do about the free agents, and about building a roster for next year?


                              Player
                              2008/09
                              2009/10
                              2010/11
                              2011/12
                              2012/13
                              2013/14
                              Troy Murphy
                              $10,126,984
                              $11,047,619
                              $11,968,253
                              $0
                              $0
                              $0
                              Mike Dunleavy
                              $9,000,000
                              $9,780,992
                              $10,561,984
                              $0
                              $0
                              $0
                              Radoslav Nesterovic
                              $8,400,000
                              $0
                              $0
                              $0
                              $0
                              $0
                              $8,000,000
                              $8,500,000
                              $8,500,000
                              $0
                              $0
                              $0
                              $6,860,000
                              $7,350,000
                              $0
                              $0
                              $0
                              $0
                              Jamaal Tinsley
                              $6,750,000
                              $7,200,000
                              $7,500,000
                              $0
                              $0
                              $0
                              $6,175,000
                              $6,077,500
                              $6,655,000
                              $0
                              $0
                              $0
                              Danny Granger
                              $2,329,804
                              $9,930,500
                              $10,973,202
                              $12,015,904
                              $13,058,606
                              $14,021,788
                              $2,002,623
                              $2,899,798
                              $0
                              $0
                              $0
                              $0
                              $2,000,000
                              $0
                              $0
                              $0
                              $0
                              $0
                              $1,970,000
                              $0
                              $0
                              $0
                              $0
                              $0
                              $1,799,160
                              $1,934,160
                              $2,069,040
                              $2,956,658
                              $4,089,058
                              $0
                              $1,620,000
                              $1,740,000
                              $0
                              $0
                              $0
                              $0
                              $1,465,440
                              $1,575,360
                              $1,685,280
                              $2,588,590
                              $3,655,089
                              $0
                              $826,269
                              $0
                              $0
                              $0
                              $0
                              $0
                              Josh McRoberts
                              $711,517
                              $0
                              $0
                              $0
                              $0
                              $0
                              TOTALS:
                              $70,036,797
                              $57,786,131
                              $56,158,439
                              $12,015,904
                              $13,058,606
                              $14,021,788

                              http://hoopshype.com/salaries/indiana.htm
                              Last edited by Putnam; 02-15-2009, 06:20 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

                              Working...
                              X