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

{IndyStar}Kravitz: For Next Year, Pacers Need Some Nastieness

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

  • #16
    Re: {IndyStar}Kravitz: For Next Year, Pacers Need Some Nastieness

    Originally posted by Roaming Gnome View Post
    And the Pacers will get some cash and cap relief the longer Mike Dunleavy remains out of commission, once the insurance payoff kicks in.
    Kravtiz really needs to do a little research on this subject.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: {IndyStar}Kravitz: For Next Year, Pacers Need Some Nastieness

      Originally posted by Bricklayer View Post
      That's why I'm a little surprised nobody around here seems to be talking about Ronny Turiaf... and I'm posting (for the first time in months) to find out why. So please tell me! Ronny Turiaf instantly springs to mind as someone who could fill the PF (or even C from time to time) role nicely and not cost us too much in terms of what we would need to trade for him.

      He's 6'10" and, in only 20 minutes, he's averaging about 6 points (51% FG), 5 rebs, and over 2 blocks per game. If he doesn't have much of a mid-range game yet, I'm sure it could develop into a very solid aspect of his game. He's shooting free throws at nearly 80%.

      As a starter with us, I could see him averaging 10 points, 8 rebs, and 2-3 blocks per game. And, with him and Hibbert patrolling the lane, we'd be awfully tough inside. You can even match him up with Murphy. So what gives? I'm almost tempted to trade our draft pick for him and something else (2nd rounder, future draft pick, etc.). Why would we not go after this guy? .
      Couple things.

      1st, the Warriors have Turiaf on a semi-reasonable 4 year/$16M deal that isn't escalating. He adds an element to them that they need.

      Second, this guy would be poor as a fulltime starter. He's undersized as a starter at center and underskilled as a starter at PF. He's an energy player with some bulk.

      His shotblocking is good but a bit overrated. He'll get some blocks from hustling and meeting unsuspecting guys at the rim, but overall he's not a guy who's going to deter people from always coming into the lane and changing the strategy of opposing offenses. Not that you'd expect a $4M a year backup to be able to do that. His rebounding also suffers because he's caught out of position going for blocks.

      All that being said, he's a good guy to have around as an energy bigman off the bench, he's a likable guy around his teammates and with the fans. With his semi-reasonable deal and his ability to fill a roll the Warriors need, I don't see any viable trade between the Pacers and Warriors involving Turiaf that would make both teams happy.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: {IndyStar}Kravitz: For Next Year, Pacers Need Some Nastieness

        Originally posted by d_c View Post
        Kravtiz really needs to do a little research on this subject.
        Most of 'em do.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: {IndyStar}Kravitz: For Next Year, Pacers Need Some Nastieness

          I have a feeling that Blair could be a bust, especially with conditioning issues. I have a feeling he could become another tractor Traylor

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: {IndyStar}Kravitz: For Next Year, Pacers Need Some Nastieness

            Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
            There you go doing what I'm talking about.
            I'm glad that our Psychic link is working

            Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
            Everyone is wanting to replace a guy averaging 12 rebounds a game. I just want a big like O'B is talking about.
            What do you mean that everyone wants to replace a guy averaging 12 rebounds a game?
            Last edited by CableKC; 04-12-2009, 10:51 PM.
            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: {IndyStar}Kravitz: For Next Year, Pacers Need Some Nastieness

              I think drafting for need is overrated especially in basketball. Adding a role player isn't going to do much to help the record. The Pacers need to add another scorer. I like Gerald Henderson from Duke, he can create his own shot and he can score at the rim. Great athelete and great potential. He has a high reward with low risk at the same time. If all pans out he is as good as Granger if it doesn't pan out he is another Courtney Lee type rookie.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: {IndyStar}Kravitz: For Next Year, Pacers Need Some Nastieness

                Originally posted by lavell12 View Post
                I think drafting for need is overrated especially in basketball. Adding a role player isn't going to do much to help the record. The Pacers need to add another scorer. I like Gerald Henderson from Duke, he can create his own shot and he can score at the rim. Great athelete and great potential. He has a high reward with low risk at the same time. If all pans out he is as good as Granger if it doesn't pan out he is another Courtney Lee type rookie.
                I don't entirely agree here.......we do need some talented, athletic players that have some basketball IQ....but the last thing this team needs is another offensive-minded player.

                If anything....we have as much of a need for a defensive-minded player that does all those things that the rest of the team doesn't do to complement the other scorers that aren't that great defenders ( Ford and MurphLeavy ). If TPTB decide to go after a Frontcourt player....as suggested before...we need a meaner, more aggressive, mirror-universe version of Jeff Foster.
                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: {IndyStar}Kravitz: For Next Year, Pacers Need Some Nastieness

                  Originally posted by lavell12 View Post
                  I think drafting for need is overrated especially in basketball. Adding a role player isn't going to do much to help the record. The Pacers need to add another scorer. I like Gerald Henderson from Duke, he can create his own shot and he can score at the rim. Great athelete and great potential. He has a high reward with low risk at the same time. If all pans out he is as good as Granger if it doesn't pan out he is another Courtney Lee type rookie.
                  I like your point here. Drafting by need based on position is overrated. However, drafting by need based on skill is not overrated. Whatever the position and where ever the Pacers pick, I would almost guarantee that they will draft a player with a strong basketball IQ and impressive defensive skills--regardless of that player's position. Those are their biggest needs, although it seems that those needs won't be filled in this draft, unless luck shines it's light on us this draft lottery.

                  As far as free agency or trade speculation, I am intrigued by Brandon Bass.

                  Read this snippet about Bass playing impressive defense against Shaq. This comes from a Dallas Mavs blog in the Dallas Morning News, written by Tim MacMahon.
                  http://mavsblog.dallasnews.com/archives/brandon-bass/
                  The majority of the coverage of the Mavs' crucial blowout of the Suns will focus Jason Kidd and Josh Howard.

                  Rightfully so. Kidd's 19-point, 20-assist afternoon is on the short list of best performances by a point guard in Mavs' history. Howard played extremely well despite chronic ankle pain, providing energy and putting up 24 points in 27 minutes.

                  But Brandon Bass' contributions shouldn't be overlooked.

                  Shaq had his way with his old buddy Erick(a) Dampier in the first quarter. The best big man of our generation didn't do much once his fellow LSU alum Bass got off the bench, scoring only eight points in the final three quarters.

                  Bass had 14 points on 6-of-8 shooting, but his defense against Shaq was a big reason the Mavs were plus-31 in Bass' 27 minutes.

                  Bass' primary goal was to keep Shaq out of the paint. Easier said than done, considering Bass is about seven inches shorter and 90 pounds lighter than Shaq. How did he do it?

                  "Man, I don't know, to tell you the truth," Bass said. "I don't know. I was like, I'm gonna bump him when I see him coming down. I'm going to try to give him the three-bump rule from the free throw line, you know what I mean? Then I'm just hoping they don't want to give him the ball."
                  I'm not sure what our options are in regards to having a chance to get Bass, but he seems like a player that is about ready to blossom if given the opportunity.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: {IndyStar}Kravitz: For Next Year, Pacers Need Some Nastieness

                    I honestly think that McRoberts could be what the Pacers really need. IMO, he's already a more offensively talented version of Jeff Foster. He's shown the ability to defend the paint and score on the low block effectively. I thought he did a good job against Brad Miller in the Chicago game and Maxiel against the Pistons.

                    If the Pacers can't address their PF/Post defender needs through the draft, they should work on grooming McBob for the job.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: {IndyStar}Kravitz: For Next Year, Pacers Need Some Nastieness

                      Originally posted by Peck View Post
                      BTW, what is he talking about a young Jeff Foster for.

                      I was under the impression we wanted a physical defender and rebounder, not a hustler and finesse player.
                      First off, this is coming from a coach that nearly refuses to work McRoberts up to speed despite him already being the most athletic, power PF/big on the team. So that confuses the heck out of me.

                      But worse is this as Will pointed out...
                      And the Pacers will get some cash and cap relief
                      Don't look now Dave Morway, someone's after your job.

                      GDit Bob, you've got 2 f'ing pro teams in town and you still don't come close to understanding a damn thing about at least one of them. WTF is it that you do all day because it's clearly not focused on sports. It's not just me here, clearly guys like Count get this far better and we all have non-sports day jobs. For F's sake, if all I did was sports writing I'd know everything about the Colts, Pacers and the track. I'd also try to know as much about the other sports in town at all levels naturally, but those 3 I'd be perfect on.

                      Every single opinion from a guy who's sole job is to write opinions goes right out the window when we see that his opinion is based on blatently incorrect facts. He might as well tell us we don't need a center with Roy going 36 minutes and night averaging 20-10.


                      Why did I even bother, I don't know. Actually I do know, its because I enjoy the Pacers enough to read just about anything about them, even when I shouldn't.


                      ps - welcome to the Blair wagon, that ship came and went months ago, but boy you sure know how to spot 'em early.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: {IndyStar}Kravitz: For Next Year, Pacers Need Some Nastieness

                        Originally posted by d_c View Post
                        Kravtiz really needs to do a little research on this subject.
                        You know I thought about it a bit more while reading the rest of the comments here and it got me wondering. What are the chances that Bob would be so off on Dun's situation and yet know that Eddie Jones still was a cap hit and was coming off?

                        My guess is he's asking, not researching (ie, at least starting with Hoops Hype or Coon's FAQ). So then my 2nd guess is perhaps the word inside the org is that they are anticipating that Dun won't return and will be injury exempted.

                        A little too conspiracy minded I realize, but I still wonder. They sure as F didn't come one bit clean on Dun's original situation till well after the fact. It makes me also wonder why they'd suddenly change their stance on that now too (the "almost career ending" story).

                        Maybe Bob was told more and in his confusion let some of it slip by leaving out the "IF" portion that a speculative comment would require.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: {IndyStar}Kravitz: For Next Year, Pacers Need Some Nastieness

                          Originally posted by QuickRelease View Post
                          Nice article. I like DuJuan Blair in a Pacers uni next year. I just hope he isn' the 2nd coming of Big Baby Davis. 6'6 PF have to be extraordinary in some way.
                          I agree. But at the Pacers spot and with their needs it's a sensible risk. The fact is that this year its going to be really tough to get a legit solution to any need at 12-13th. Someone's going to get LUCKY with a pick here and there, but right now it sure does seem unlikely that we won't see a lot of short time stays among the top 20 picks.

                          At least if Blair makes it he would be something this team could use. Then again you could have done just as well with Joey Dorsey last year, a guy who's motor runs more like Ben Wallace than Tractor Traylor, for better and worse.



                          For those of you who don't venture into the prospects thread we had a pretty good debate on the merits of Blair a few months ago, basically between him being tough vs how motivated he is from play to play.

                          And my previous "ship came and went" comment was meant for Bob only. I know plenty of PD posters don't have the time to follow these college prospects and I have no problem with people asking about guys that have been debated for some time in the prospect thread. It's not your job to know. It's Bob's job.
                          Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 04-13-2009, 11:17 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: {IndyStar}Kravitz: For Next Year, Pacers Need Some Nastieness

                            Bob is not the answer. We need something of quality at one of the big positions

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: {IndyStar}Kravitz: For Next Year, Pacers Need Some Nastieness

                              Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                              You know I thought about it a bit more while reading the rest of the comments here and it got me wondering. What are the chances that Bob would be so off on Dun's situation and yet know that Eddie Jones still was a cap hit and was coming off?

                              My guess is he's asking, not researching (ie, at least starting with Hoops Hype or Coon's FAQ). So then my 2nd guess is perhaps the word inside the org is that they are anticipating that Dun won't return and will be injury exempted.

                              A little too conspiracy minded I realize, but I still wonder. They sure as F didn't come one bit clean on Dun's original situation till well after the fact. It makes me also wonder why they'd suddenly change their stance on that now too (the "almost career ending" story).

                              Maybe Bob was told more and in his confusion let some of it slip by leaving out the "IF" portion that a speculative comment would require.
                              Now that... is a very interesting line of thought. The P's might be getting that "career-ending" word out and around. I'll have to ponder.
                              This space for rent.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: {IndyStar}Kravitz: For Next Year, Pacers Need Some Nastieness

                                Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                                You know I thought about it a bit more while reading the rest of the comments here and it got me wondering. What are the chances that Bob would be so off on Dun's situation and yet know that Eddie Jones still was a cap hit and was coming off?

                                My guess is he's asking, not researching (ie, at least starting with Hoops Hype or Coon's FAQ). So then my 2nd guess is perhaps the word inside the org is that they are anticipating that Dun won't return and will be injury exempted.

                                A little too conspiracy minded I realize, but I still wonder. They sure as F didn't come one bit clean on Dun's original situation till well after the fact. It makes me also wonder why they'd suddenly change their stance on that now too (the "almost career ending" story).

                                Maybe Bob was told more and in his confusion let some of it slip by leaving out the "IF" portion that a speculative comment would require.
                                Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                                Now that... is a very interesting line of thought. The P's might be getting that "career-ending" word out and around. I'll have to ponder.
                                Occam's Razor, boys. It's more likely that Kravitz is being sloppy about stringing disparate pieces of information together. He's probably been told that if Dunleavy retires, then we would get cap relief and insurance reimbursement...

                                or...

                                We know from Larry Coon that there will be no cap relief without a medical retirement confirmed by a League Doctor. However, I have never seen the actual insurance policies that get carried by the teams for players. It is not out of the realm of possibility that there are clauses in the insurance policies that would allow teams to collect partial reimbursement for significant games lost, even if it doesn't result in retirement. It would not help the cap situation, but could help the team's cash flow.

                                The only indicator that would tell me almost definitively that the Pacers are considering Dunleavy's career to be over would be if they put themselves in a position to significantly exceed the tax threshold for next season. That would tell me that they are expected Junior's $9mm+ to come off the books before the 2009-2010 luxury tax reckoning.

                                Beyond that, I'm assuming that they're in the same boat as the rest of us: hoping that he either recovers fully or determines retirement is the only option as soon as possible.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X