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

Salary Cap for the 2009-10 announced...

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

  • #16
    Re: Salary Cap for the 2009-10 announced...

    Ya know, I might be looking at this all wrong but I think 3.5 might be the ceiling for Jack.

    When you combine the financial state of most NBA teams with the large number of guards taken in last months draft.... I just don't see that many teams wanting to add a solid bench player like Jack for more than 3M to start.

    The "solid bench player" comment wasn't ment to start yet another side arguement about Jack's ability, so please try to stay on topic.

    There will a lot of guys looking for more money than teams will be offering over the rest of the summer. There will a ton of players signing for the veteran minimum for one season. Just to stay in the league with the hopes of getting their payday next year.

    If the Pacers sign Price, which I would put at about 25%, then I would bet they let Jack walk & go into the season with Ford, Diener & Price.

    If they re-sign Jack, Price is gone.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Salary Cap for the 2009-10 announced...

      Originally posted by Will Galen View Post

      A significant drop for the luxury-tax threshold is also projected going into the summer of 2010. If basketball-related income drops by 2.5 percent in 2009-10, league officials are projecting a 2010-11 salary cap of $53.6 million and a luxury-tax line of $65 million. If BRI, as it is referred to in the NBA, decreases by five percent, teams would be looking at a $50.4 million salary cap and a luxury-tax line of $61.2 million in 2010-11.
      luxury tax line of between $61 and $65 million in 2010? holy cow.

      if this is true, pacers must really be having second thoughts about re-signing jack. our payroll in 2010 will be getting pretty close to $65m even without jack. now, is jarrett worth $3-4m per year, sure. but worth the huge luxury tax hit in 2010? yikes.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Salary Cap for the 2009-10 announced...

        Originally posted by wintermute View Post
        luxury tax line of between $61 and $65 million in 2010? holy cow.

        if this is true, pacers must really be having second thoughts about re-signing jack. our payroll in 2010 will be getting pretty close to $65m even without jack. now, is jarrett worth $3-4m per year, sure. but worth the huge luxury tax hit in 2010? yikes.
        Point taken. My attention is taken back to Tinsley, for his contract is the biggest link in our hand-cuffs. However, timing-wise, we probably will have to decide on Jack and others before the arbitration hearing is resolved.

        The other thought on my mind is that this news may delay our moves (and other teams' moves) to the mid-season trade deadline. We're playing low ball now, but surely we must be searching for another long-termer, another piece. If we can just get rid of one of the two-years-remaining contracts (Murphy/Dunleavy/Foster/Ford/Tinsley), life will be soooo much better!


        "He’s no shrinking violet when it comes to that kind of stuff."

        - Rick Carlisle on how Kevin Pritchard responds to needed roster changes.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Salary Cap for the 2009-10 announced...

          You really have to think about it now. Jack signing could cost you for every dollar you go over the cap AND you wouldn't get the rebate, so to speak. Is JJ a luxury at this point with having TJ and Deiner. I still say you sign him because it's the equivalent of signing a back up Point Guard and Wing, so you get value along with the Hx of him playing a full season. At this point though you may have to really be conservative on what you intend to match.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Salary Cap for the 2009-10 announced...

            Also, they aren't winning a championship next year, your main player is locked up long term in DG, why not take this year to fully develop the youngens? In two years you may be one of a very few team with money to spend and you've readied the other guys to make a run.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Salary Cap for the 2009-10 announced...

              This is scary.

              Color me concerned.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Salary Cap for the 2009-10 announced...

                Originally posted by DrFife View Post
                We'll know soon enough, but I'm standing my ground that y'all are low-balling Jack at ~$3.5 mil.

                That said, if we don't make a significant trade this summer, I'm becoming more desirous of Jack playing for his $2.9 mil option this year, thus giving us time to trade one of Murph/Foster/Ford mid-season for an expiring. Then again, maybe some arbitration-driven fiscal relief from The Tinsley Chronicles will prove the sweetest form of resolution.
                $3.5mm is the starting salary for a 4/$16mm contract.

                Originally posted by DrFife View Post
                BTW, what planet does Gortat live on?
                Gortat is a legitimate 7-footer who provides a physical, defensive, shot blocking presence. He was the primary backup on the EC Champion and played in the finals.

                McBob is a 6-10 'tweener who's currently projecting to be an energy type guy, and has only played 41 games in his two-year NBA career. Thirty three of them came in largely spot minutes for a 36-win team.

                If McBob went on the open market, the far and away most likely scenario is a minimum contract. The most wildly optimistic contract for him would be one similar to Diener's which started at around $1.5.

                Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
                Here's dire news on the cap and tax for 2010.

                http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4312837

                Updated: July 8, 2009, 2:34 AM ET
                2010 cap may limit signings

                By Marc Stein
                ESPN.com

                The NBA's ballyhooed free-agent summer of 2010 might have quietly taken another hit late Tuesday night.

                In a memo announcing next season's salary cap and luxury-tax threshold, sent out shortly before the league's annual July moratorium on signings and trades was lifted at 12:01 a.m. Wednesday, NBA teams also received tentative projections from the league warning that the cap is estimated to drop to somewhere between $50.4 million and $53.6 million for the 2010-11 season.

                The official league memorandum, obtained by ESPN.com, forecasts a dip in basketball-related income in the 2009-10 season of 2.5 percent to 5 percent, which threatens to take the 2010-11 cap down some $5 million to $8 million from last season's $58.7 million salary cap.

                NBA Rumor Central

                A significant drop for the luxury-tax threshold is also projected going into the summer of 2010. If basketball-related income drops by 2.5 percent in 2009-10, league officials are projecting a 2010-11 salary cap of $53.6 million and a luxury-tax line of $65 million. If BRI, as it is referred to in the NBA, decreases by five percent, teams would be looking at a $50.4 million salary cap and a luxury-tax line of $61.2 million in 2010-11.
                ...
                Hollinger wrote a column on this a few weeks back, and this is why I've consistently said that the Pacers probably couldn't avoid the tax next year.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Salary Cap for the 2009-10 announced...

                  Originally posted by count55 View Post
                  Hollinger wrote a column on this a few weeks back, and this is why I've consistently said that the Pacers probably couldn't avoid the tax next year.
                  count, what in your mind are realistic options to get under the luxury tax threshold next year? I realize in any trade we have to take back roughly the same amount of salary, but do you think this makes players like Murphy, Foster, and TJ more expendable? Say we deal one (or more) of them during the season for a package of players where one of them has a small expiring contract. Could we avoid the tax?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Salary Cap for the 2009-10 announced...

                    Hitting the tax next year would be a big blow to the franchise's bottom line. I don't know what they're going to do about that. They'd be paying a few mil in taxes, AND losing around 3 mil from the league from other tax-payers, AND whatever they would/could have gotten from revenue assistance plan. This is really bad.

                    Contracts around the league were already bad, but to watch them all keep growing while the cap is about to sink........

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Salary Cap for the 2009-10 announced...

                      Originally posted by cdash View Post
                      count, what in your mind are realistic options to get under the luxury tax threshold next year? I realize in any trade we have to take back roughly the same amount of salary, but do you think this makes players like Murphy, Foster, and TJ more expendable? Say we deal one (or more) of them during the season for a package of players where one of them has a small expiring contract. Could we avoid the tax?
                      To be honest, I cannot see any aggressive measures to avoid next year's tax that wouldn't do more harm than good. The only sure way I could think of, that absolutely would guarantee that we could clear cap space, would be to trade Danny for an expiring contract.

                      We already have just over $60mm in guaranteed contracts for next year. Once Hansbrough signs, it will be very close to $62mm, and that's for just 9 players. Our first round pick will add another $1.5mm or so, and we're sitting at $63.5 with 10 players, one of which is Tinsley.

                      A buyout for Droopy might save a few hundred k to a mil or 2 at most, but probably not a lot.

                      If we curl up this summer, let Jack go, and sign a bunch of one-year vet mins, we'll still have to do it again next year, and the cost of our 1st rounder will go up (as we'll almost certainly be pretty bad on the court).

                      I really don't think it's avoidable. My instinct would be to stand firm, continue the three-year plan, and sign players to prudent contracts (including the 4/$16 for Jack, and McBob for a couple of years), because the best solution to my long term fiscal health is to get back to being a contender.

                      The problem with taking desperate measures to avoid next year's tax is that you're likely to get killed coming and going. You'll hurt your product on the floor, thereby setting back your rebuild and your standing with the fanbase, and you'll probably still end up paying the tax anyway.

                      Of course, it's not my money, but if it was, I wouldn't let this prevent me from signing players (like Jack) that I considered a part of the long term future...provided that someone didn't offer stupid money.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Salary Cap for the 2009-10 announced...

                        Originally posted by count55 View Post
                        Hollinger wrote a column on this a few weeks back, and this is why I've consistently said that the Pacers probably couldn't avoid the tax next year.
                        i know the cap going down in 2010 has been mentioned before, but luxury tax threshold of $61-65m in 2010 down from $69m this year?? that's a huge (and painful) drop. it's conceivable that pacers could be over the tax line in 2010 even without jarrett jack on the roster. i mean, i could see the pacers taking a one year $1-2m tax hit for jack, but now we're talking $5-6m range.

                        i found this from a hollinger article back from the all-star break:

                        http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/column...otebook-090215

                        Finally, let me share a juicy tip from a league source on the state of the salary cap. Basically, the situation will be worse than many people expect, and the luxury-tax level next season will be set even lower than what several teams are currently planning for. The implications will be huge as we head into next season.

                        Here's the more interesting part of what I was told: Next season's luxury tax might just be the tip of the iceberg. The salary cap (and thus the tax level) could drop massively in 2010; my source used the term "bloodbath."

                        This would have huge effects on the pursuit of big-game free agents, of course, but also on the luxury-tax level for that season … which could push many more teams over the line and lead to fire-sale-type trades.
                        turns out "bloodbath" is an understatement.

                        on the bright side, we probably won't be one of the teams holding a fire sale. on the other hand, we won't be taking advantage of other teams' fire sales either.

                        regarding jarrett, i am starting to think that the pacers won't re-sign him anymore other than for the qualifying offer, unless we can swap one of our big contracts (ford, murphy, dunleavy, tinsley) for an expiring. with money so tight leaguewide though, it's probably hard to find takers.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Salary Cap for the 2009-10 announced...

                          Originally posted by count55 View Post
                          To be honest, I cannot see any aggressive measures to avoid next year's tax that wouldn't do more harm than good. The only sure way I could think of, that absolutely would guarantee that we could clear cap space, would be to trade Danny for an expiring contract.

                          We already have just over $60mm in guaranteed contracts for next year. Once Hansbrough signs, it will be very close to $62mm, and that's for just 9 players. Our first round pick will add another $1.5mm or so, and we're sitting at $63.5 with 10 players, one of which is Tinsley.

                          A buyout for Droopy might save a few hundred k to a mil or 2 at most, but probably not a lot.

                          If we curl up this summer, let Jack go, and sign a bunch of one-year vet mins, we'll still have to do it again next year, and the cost of our 1st rounder will go up (as we'll almost certainly be pretty bad on the court).

                          I really don't think it's avoidable. My instinct would be to stand firm, continue the three-year plan, and sign players to prudent contracts (including the 4/$16 for Jack, and McBob for a couple of years), because the best solution to my long term fiscal health is to get back to being a contender.

                          The problem with taking desperate measures to avoid next year's tax is that you're likely to get killed coming and going. You'll hurt your product on the floor, thereby setting back your rebuild and your standing with the fanbase, and you'll probably still end up paying the tax anyway.

                          Of course, it's not my money, but if it was, I wouldn't let this prevent me from signing players (like Jack) that I considered a part of the long term future...provided that someone didn't offer stupid money.
                          Yeah, I tend to agree. What is the point of having a three year plan if you bail on it after two years? The front office knew this was coming, and it hasn't deviated them from their plan yet. It sucks, and it will be a huge blow, but it is what it is.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Salary Cap for the 2009-10 announced...

                            Isn't the CBA being renegotiated either after the upcoming season or the next?

                            The question is, in my mind, will the Players Association be understanding and compassionate with the situation due to the economy and simply take whatever deal they can get with the next CBA, or will they decide to take action and walk out due to feeling threatened with being "underpaid"?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Salary Cap for the 2009-10 announced...

                              Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                              i know the cap going down in 2010 has been mentioned before, but luxury tax threshold of $61-65m in 2010 down from $69m this year?? that's a huge (and painful) drop. it's conceivable that pacers could be over the tax line in 2010 even without jarrett jack on the roster. i mean, i could see the pacers taking a one year $1-2m tax hit for jack, but now we're talking $5-6m range.

                              i found this from a hollinger article back from the all-star break:

                              http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/column...otebook-090215



                              turns out "bloodbath" is an understatement.

                              on the bright side, we probably won't be one of the teams holding a fire sale. on the other hand, we won't be taking advantage of other teams' fire sales either.

                              regarding jarrett, i am starting to think that the pacers won't re-sign him anymore other than for the qualifying offer, unless we can swap one of our big contracts (ford, murphy, dunleavy, tinsley) for an expiring. with money so tight leaguewide though, it's probably hard to find takers.
                              Yeah, but we're offering money to guys like Shannon Brown, so why not spend it on Jack? I still believe that 4/$16 makes sense for both sides.

                              Originally posted by cdash View Post
                              Yeah, I tend to agree. What is the point of having a three year plan if you bail on it after two years? The front office knew this was coming, and it hasn't deviated them from their plan yet. It sucks, and it will be a huge blow, but it is what it is.
                              It's difficult to tell exactly how much the FO saw coming, and when they saw it. I would hope that these kind of numbers wouldn't be a surprise at this point, but...

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Salary Cap for the 2009-10 announced...

                                Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
                                Isn't the CBA being renegotiated either after the upcoming season or the next?

                                The question is, in my mind, will the Players Association be understanding and compassionate with the situation due to the economy and simply take whatever deal they can get with the next CBA, or will they decide to take action and walk out due to feeling threatened with being "underpaid"?
                                They can all go play baseball if they want to be overpaid for all I care.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X