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 Chad Ford Chat: His take on why we didn't make good of our expirings.

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

  • #16
    Re: ESPN Chad Ford Chat: His take on why we didn't make good of our expirings.

    I think the injuries were partly the reason we stayed put, but at the same time I only think the pacers were only looking to move tins. in my opinion TPTB are happy to let the expirings expire.
    Haggard's Blog: Can't Buy a Basket. Covering the highs and lows of the NBL

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: ESPN Chad Ford Chat: His take on why we didn't make good of our expirings.

      Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
      This was the best possible use of our expirings, assuming we couldn't swing any additional draft picks out of them. The worst thing we could have done was take on additional salary beyond this season.
      Well, maybe if your last name is Simon. From a fan point of view, it would do no harm to have traded them for players with a couple years left on their deals. With Dunleavy, Murphy, and god help us Tinsley on the books for a couple more years, the Pacers can't really get significantly under the cap. Granger also has a sizable salary that runs far beyond that.

      So if the Pacer had traded those expiring contracts for a quality player with 2 more years on his deal, it wouldn't have made our "cap hell" last any longer at all.

      I understand why the Simons did't want to do it. The pacer fans aren't a big revenue stream these days, so they want to save some money.

      But if you were hoping for a more talented Pacer team, those expiring deals were a lost opportunity.
      Last edited by danman; 02-24-2009, 11:08 PM.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: ESPN Chad Ford Chat: His take on why we didn't make good of our expirings.

        No they weren't. Those players/ deals weren't going to fetch "talent", they were going to fetch somebody else's bad contract. The only hope for improving talent was and is to draft our way into more players like Granger - hopefully Rush and Hibbert are on their way but we still need a couple of drafts.

        It took a long time to make this Pacers team as bad as it currently is, it will take a while to make it better as well. Trading an expiring for somebody's problem or bad contract doesn't get them any closer.
        Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
        Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
        Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
        Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
        And life itself, rushing over me
        Life itself, the wind in black elms,
        Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: ESPN Chad Ford Chat: His take on why we didn't make good of our expirings.

          Jay - plenty of expirings become good players, that's not the issue here. Maybe Tinsley would require a contract hit in return, but Rasho for a solid player from a team looking to cut costs is realistic. It wouldn't have to be a bad contract coming back, just one that no longer made sense for the other team, maybe because they were losing so much.

          The issue as Ford alludes to is you don't swap expiring for talent if the team isn't just that one step away from making a move. The only trade that would make sense right now is to get a young piece as part of the build, or pull in a draft pick with a less returned contract.

          But right now I don't think any team looking to take on an expiring is willing to give up young talent or a pick. Those teams are trying to get into the exact same position as the Pacers. Picks and young players.

          If the team was right on the edge then you turn Rasho into Baron Davis or some other big time guy on a team going nowhere.


          I agree that TPTB traded the expirings correctly - to themselves. The Pacers got what other teams wanted - expiring contracts.

          The only bummer to me is that Quis is playing out of his mind and makes a monster impact for this team, but they won't be able to keep him while being forced to retain the more expensive Dun and Troy. Figures you get one guy who can D up and he's financially squeezed out.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: ESPN Chad Ford Chat: His take on why we didn't make good of our expirings.

            Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
            But right now I don't think any team looking to take on an expiring is willing to give up young talent or a pick. Those teams are trying to get into the exact same position as the Pacers. Picks and young players.
            That's a given. Thus, I jumped straight to:

            Those players/ deals weren't going to fetch "talent", they were going to fetch somebody else's bad contract.
            ... because to me the statement you made is so painfully obvious that I didn't think it needed to be said.
            Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
            Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
            Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
            Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
            And life itself, rushing over me
            Life itself, the wind in black elms,
            Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: ESPN Chad Ford Chat: His take on why we didn't make good of our expirings.

              I think it goes back to the Foster extension. We would have more flexibility without it. Has it even been worth it so far?

              I'd love to keep Jack and Quis at the expense of not having Foster. Hindsight is 20/20, though.
              Last edited by Kuq_e_Zi91; 02-24-2009, 11:55 PM.
              2015, 2016, 2019 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champions - DC Dreamers

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: ESPN Chad Ford Chat: His take on why we didn't make good of our expirings.

                Originally posted by danman View Post
                Well, maybe if your last name is Simon. From a fan point of view, it would do no harm to have traded them for players with a couple years left on their deals. With Dunleavy, Murphy, and god help us Tinsley on the books for a couple more years, the Pacers can't really get significantly under the cap. Granger also has a sizable salary that runs far beyond that.

                So if the Pacer had traded those expiring contracts for a quality player with 2 more years on his deal, it wouldn't have made our "cap hell" last any longer at all.

                I understand why the Simons did't want to do it. The pacer fans aren't a big revenue stream these days, so they want to save some money.

                But if you were hoping for a more talented Pacer team, those expiring deals were a lost opportunity.
                As a fan, I'm not just hoping for a more talented team, I'm hoping for a team that will contend. It appears that the deals available may have made the Pacers marginally better in the short term, but there cost would have far outweighed their benefits. As you note, it may not have made our cap hell last any longer, but it certainly would have made it much harsher and more damaging while it lasted.

                Using the Chandler as an example, trading expirings only for him could have resulted in perhaps as much as $40 million in additional salaries, taxes, and tax penalties over the next two years. It is doubtful that adding a player like Chandler does much more than put us in the fringes of the playoffs, so they probably wouldn't be able to recoup much more than a quarter of that money in additional revenues.

                Essentially, trading the expiring contracts for the rumored available deals would have been one of the most damaging things you could do to the franchise. Financially, it could have been a worse version of the Murphleavy trade, where even the solid-to-good performance of the players involved is forever offset by the way their contracts hamstring further improvement.

                Originally posted by tbabyy924 View Post
                I think it goes back to the Foster extension. We would have more flexibility without it. Has it even been worth it so far?

                I'd love to keep Jack and Quis at the expense of not having Foster. Hindsight is 20/20, though.
                Of course, hindsight also now knows that the LT threshold is only $69.4mm, instead of the $75-ish that was anticipated last summer. The salary cap had been growing at a relatively steady rate (5-6%) since the signing of the CBA, but the economic events of late last fall have negatively impacted the NBA's finances, resulting in $5mm less room under the tax.

                I go back and forth on the Foster extension. I probably would not have done it, but I didn't think it was a terribly unreasonable move at the time. At the time of Jeff and Danny's extension, they had still left themselves room to do two of the following:

                - Re-sign Jack
                - Pick up Quis' option
                - Re-sign Rasho at a reduced rate
                - Sign a FA at the full MLE

                The drop in BRI and the tax threshold now means that they won't be able to do anything with either Rasho or Quis, and they likely will have to choose between re-signing Jack or signing a FA, but they'll probably only be able to use part of the MLE, instead of all of it.

                Also, the lottery will go a long way to determining what they'll be able to do, as well. If they were to pick according to their current standings, 10th, they'll have to pay their rookie about $2.2mm. However, if we were to get into the top three, the rookie could command anywhere from $3.5 to $5.0mm, depending on his slot. Getting the first pick in the draft would likely mean that we'd have to fill the roster out with min players, forgoing the re-signing of Jack or pursuing any other FA's.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: ESPN Chad Ford Chat: His take on why we didn't make good of our expirings.

                  Originally posted by count55 View Post
                  As a fan, I'm not just hoping for a more talented team, I'm hoping for a team that will contend. It appears that the deals available may have made the Pacers marginally better in the short term, but there cost would have far outweighed their benefits. As you note, it may not have made our cap hell last any longer, but it certainly would have made it much harsher and more damaging while it lasted.

                  Using the Chandler as an example, trading expirings only for him could have resulted in perhaps as much as $40 million in additional salaries, taxes, and tax penalties over the next two years. It is doubtful that adding a player like Chandler does much more than put us in the fringes of the playoffs, so they probably wouldn't be able to recoup much more than a quarter of that money in additional revenues.

                  Essentially, trading the expiring contracts for the rumored available deals would have been one of the most damaging things you could do to the franchise. Financially, it could have been a worse version of the Murphleavy trade, where even the solid-to-good performance of the players involved is forever offset by the way their contracts hamstring further improvement.
                  other FA's.
                  Again, the "harsher and more damaging" is oriented towards the Simon bank account. Swapping Rasho and Marquis for a good player(s) with a 2 year deal does not hamstring anything. It is not comparable to the Murphleavy trade AT ALL. That trade extended our capped status -- it's the parameter of this discussion. Now, if you're talking about trading the expiring for players with 3 or more years left, that's a different story.

                  The only thing helping fans from letting the expiring players walk is the draft. Essentially, by lessening talent, we're going to get slightly better picks. May be even the diff between a #15 pick and a #8 or something. Impossible to know, really.

                  Of course, we've also got 2 more years of bad basketball in this bargain.
                  Last edited by danman; 02-25-2009, 11:38 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: ESPN Chad Ford Chat: His take on why we didn't make good of our expirings.

                    Trading Rasho and Marquis is not enough to get a "good" player in return.

                    Let's put it this way: if you were offered Rasho and Marquis, what "good" player making $1x-1x million (whatever it is that works) would you be willing to trade for them?

                    On a 0.500 team, they are both backups/ role players. They'd barely play on a legit contender. You're not going to get a young stud on his rookie contract in a deal like that - the math doesn't work. A contender is not going to give up a starter in exchange for two expiring contract backups in February. (Unless, of course, the starter is a troublemaker or grossly overpaid.)

                    If there was actually a trade out there to improve talent, they would have taken it. But trading is a zero-sum game unless you get into a "trading for potential" scenario. Expensive expiring contracts do not generally turn into "trading for potential" assets because of the salary cap math.
                    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                    And life itself, rushing over me
                    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: ESPN Chad Ford Chat: His take on why we didn't make good of our expirings.

                      Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                      Let's put it this way: if you were offered Rasho and Marquis, what "good" player making $1x-1x million (whatever it is that works) would you be willing to trade for them?

                      ...

                      A contender is not going to give up a starter in exchange for two expiring contract backups in February. (Unless, of course, the starter is a troublemaker or grossly overpaid.)
                      It's not the contenders that are looking to shed salary; it's the bad teams. It's the guys like Richard Jefferson or Vince Carter that could have been had. I'm not saying those would have been good trades, but don't act like there are no upgrades to be had from expiring contracts.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: ESPN Chad Ford Chat: His take on why we didn't make good of our expirings.

                        Originally posted by danman View Post
                        Again, the "harsher and more damaging" is oriented towards the Simon bank account. Swapping Rasho and Marquis for a good player(s) with a 2 year deal does not hamstring anything. It is not comparable to the Murphleavy trade AT ALL. That trade extended our capped status -- it's the parameter of this discussion. Now, if you're talking about trading the expiring for players with 3 or more years left, that's a different story.

                        The only was that letting the expiring players walk helps the fan is in the draft. Essentially, by lessening talent, we're going to get slightly better picks. May be even the diff between a #15 pick and a #8 or something. Impossible to know, really.

                        Of course, we've also got 2 more years of bad basketball in this bargain.
                        Well, I don't think you can actually separate the Simons bank account from the health of the team, and I consider the health of the team and its future in Indy to be a very important issue to me as a fan.

                        Second, I believe it is directly comparable to the Murphyleavy trade because it is an absolute case of confusing activity with accomplishment. There is very little reward, and I consider the risks to be pretty great.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: ESPN Chad Ford Chat: His take on why we didn't make good of our expirings.

                          Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                          If there was actually a trade out there to improve talent, they would have taken it. But trading is a zero-sum game unless you get into a "trading for potential" scenario. Expensive expiring contracts do not generally turn into "trading for potential" assets because of the salary cap math.
                          I know one example is an exception rather than a rule, but what I was really hoping for was a trade like this one:

                          February 20, 2002

                          Phoenix Gets: Joe Johnson, Randy Brown, Milt Palacio, 1st Round Pick
                          Boston Gets: Rodney Rogers & Tony Delk
                          "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                          - Salman Rushdie

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: ESPN Chad Ford Chat: His take on why we didn't make good of our expirings.

                            Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
                            I know one example is an exception rather than a rule, but what I was really hoping for was a trade like this one:

                            February 20, 2002

                            Phoenix Gets: Joe Johnson, Randy Brown, Milt Palacio, 1st Round Pick
                            Boston Gets: Rodney Rogers & Tony Delk
                            I'm assuming we're the Phoenix side, and yes, that would have been good, but where could we have gone to get that deal?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: ESPN Chad Ford Chat: His take on why we didn't make good of our expirings.

                              Originally posted by count55 View Post
                              I'm assuming we're the Phoenix side, and yes, that would have been good, but where could we have gone to get that deal?
                              Nowhere. That's why it didn't happen. It's just little pieces of history like that always give me hope that we're going to benefit from another GM's stupidity or short-sightedness.

                              In his deadline review Ford took a shot at Houston for not going after Daniels as a fill-in for McGrady. If we could have landed Carl Landry for Daniels...

                              The great thing about hope is not allowing yourself to temper it with realism.
                              "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                              - Salman Rushdie

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: ESPN Chad Ford Chat: His take on why we didn't make good of our expirings.

                                Originally posted by binarysolo View Post
                                It's not the contenders that are looking to shed salary; it's the bad teams. It's the guys like Richard Jefferson or Vince Carter that could have been had. I'm not saying those would have been good trades, but don't act like there are no upgrades to be had from expiring contracts.
                                This is on target. I'm not saying Bird or the Pacers messed up and that there was a great deal available. Unlike me, they are also accountable to explaining to the Simons why spending more millions is a good idea. I absolutely concede the point that the Simons may not want to spend the money, especially with the lux tax, etc.

                                But for the sake of discussion, suppose a team had a good player who they felt was somewhat overpaid. Maybe he doesn't fit in with the team somehow. This team's salary is about at the cap. Moreover, there are a couple free agents they would love to get in the offseason. Or next year's offseason.

                                Problem is, the overpaid good player is signed for 2 more years.

                                Furthermore this overpaid good player is liked by Bird/JoB, who feel he would fit their system well. Heck, the player is a PF shotblocker who gets up and down the floor well. He's just not a real scorer or whatever.

                                If this imaginary player matched with one our expirings, or a combo of them, the Pacers could have made a trade that would not affect their cap hell status by extending it. Cap hell is cap hell from a fan's view... There is no "degree of cap hell" -- it's how long it will last.
                                Last edited by danman; 02-25-2009, 12:13 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X