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

2nd update: Raptors sign Jack for 4 years, $20mm (see page 9); Pacers have 7 days to match

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

  • Re: 2nd update: Raptors sign Jack for 4 years, $20mm (see page 9); Pacers have 7 days to match

    Originally posted by PacerGuy View Post
    You always seem to be able to provide more of an "inside" POV, so.... Any thought you can share on TPTB's thoughts on this deal? Do they thing 5 mil/yr is doable for Jack? Do you?

    Also, do we like Price as a possible #3 PG? And, if so, is there any thought in trying to move Diener to a team w/ cap for a pick of draftee that may never play (Andrew Betts'ish)? This would free up some needed cash to resign Jack.
    Sorry I don't have any inside information.
    Report: 82% Of Wiseguys Think They're Real Funny

    Comment


    • Re: 2nd update: Raptors sign Jack for 4 years, $20mm (see page 9); Pacers have 7 days to match

      Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
      Where are you getting your data?

      Using hoopshype we are 57 next year without Mac, Price or Jones. Those three should cost 5M giving us 62 and the new rookie contract should be offset by Diener coming off the books. So unless the LT is 62 or less I can't see how we are in LT danger. Are there more reliable figures?
      I'm also using Hoopshype. It currently lists the 2010/11 salary at $58,157,039.

      However, that not only doesn't include the second year of Dahntay Jones' deal, but it also doesn't figure in the team options that we'll certainly be taking on Roy Hibbert and Brandon Rush. It lists the worth of their options on the table, but it doesn't actually figure them into the total listed at the bottom.

      When you add in Hibbert and Rush, you add approximately $3.7 million onto that total. That brings it to about $61.9 million total.

      Then you add Jones, which is another (about) $2.6 million, and you're suddenly at about $64.5 million.

      Then you have to account for our next rookie from the 2010 draft, which should be about $1.5 million, leaving us at about $66.0 million.

      Without Jarrett Jack being in the picture. Or McRoberts. Or AJ Price.

      We are paying the LT next year. One way, or another.

      Comment


      • Re: 2nd update: Raptors sign Jack for 4 years, $20mm (see page 9); Pacers have 7 days to match

        Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
        Let me get this straight, FOSTER cost the team Jack? Not the 20m or so to Dun/Murph, or Tinsley's money?

        No, Foster getting about market value. Foster who is the most often mentioned trade chip the Pacers actually own. Foster, one of 2 serious "face of franchise" players going into last season (Granger the other).

        This isn't even hindsight 20/20, this is blurry vision hindsight as Cable pointed out.
        Although I think that Foster would have gotten some comprable contract out there that would have been the same......I will admit that it would have been more prudent to wait for an extension during this offseason as opposed to last season. If anything, Foster's extension last offseason could have easily fallen into the "I understand that we want to keep him, but why the rush to extend him when he wasn't doing asking for one before it's time ( a la SJax )" catagory as much as the "TPTB wants him as part of the Team over the next 2 years and signed him at ( what would be considered, at that time ) a reasonable price" catagory.

        Unfortunately, I can't blame TPTB for extending him without knowing the current Luxury Tax situation way back then.
        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

        Comment


        • Re: 2nd update: Raptors sign Jack for 4 years, $20mm (see page 9); Pacers have 7 days to match

          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
          The money issue isn't now, it's next year. No point in clearing more space right now. And we're paying the luxury tax next year. Jack, or no Jack.
          To be clear.......I think that there is a point to clear space this season.....specifically between now and the 2009-2010 Trade Deadline. There is a difference between trading ( let's say for the sake of argument ) a Contract like Foster's before the 2009-2010 Trade Deadline and trading him in the 2010-2011 Offseason.

          Let's say that we are able to trade Foster right before the 2009-2010 Trade Deadline for an Expiring contract. That would mean that we'd be able to clear $6+ mil from the 2010-2011 season.

          If we end up trading Foster in the 2010-2011 Offseason....unless we are able to trade him to a Team under the Cap ( and we therefore do not need to take back Salary but a TPE )....then we'd be forced to take back about $5.45 mil in 2010-2011 salary ( the minimal amount that we can take back in any deal AFTER the 2010-2011 Offseason ).

          The difference is having the option to clear as much salary as possible in the 2010-2011 season. If it were up to me and I can push my NBA2k9 Trade Override button, I'd do my best to trade Ford or Foster before the 7 days is up for some 2009-2010 Expiring Contracts then match Jack. In essense, a trade of Ford or Foster would ( unfortunately ) be primarily used as a Salary Dump so that we are in a position to match the offer by Jack...something that I have been wanting to do for the longest time since we learned about the lowering of the Luxury Tax threshold.
          Last edited by CableKC; 07-12-2009, 07:54 PM.
          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

          Comment


          • Re: oh oh- Raptors close to signing Jarrett to offer sheet

            Originally posted by CableKC View Post
            Wasn't Foster going to be an Unrestricted FA?

            Unlike Jack's situation where we can choose to match any offer that Jack gets, if Foster was an UFA....we wouldn't have had that choice. As for giving him $6 mil a year, wasn't he already earning $5.5 mil at the end of his contract. I don't think that he'd be earning that much less ( despite being a "one-trick" pony that was injury prone ) over the next 2 years....ESPECIALLY if TPTB saw him as a key Player to help the Pacers return to the Playoffs over the next 2 seasons.

            With 20/20 clear hindsight now, I ( and many of you ) agree that extending Foster may cost us Jack. Of course, knowing what we know now makes the decision to extend Foster at $6mil a year look bad. But giving Foster a $6 mil a year contract LAST SEASON ( before anyone knew that the Luxury Tax was going to be reduced and...as a result....be put in a tough position to match a decent contract for Jack for fear of going over the Luxury Tax ) was IMHO a reasonable ( if not sound ) decision given what TPTB knew AT THAT TIME. The Pacers FO didn't want to risk the chance of losing a Player like Foster to the FA as a UFA and therefore decided to extend him at a price that seemed reasonable at that time.

            If TPTB knew that the Luxury Tax threshold was going to be reduced that much a full season ago when Foster's contract was extended....it's entirely possible that we'd have waited until after Foster's Contract expired to extend him.

            Please, you act like my comment is revisionist history. I was upset about the extension when Bird gave it to Foster last year. I said it was a poor decision THEN, not just recently. When Bird gave Foster the extension then I said he should have waited until he could see how the season was going. That was the crux of my complaint. Not so much he gave Foster one, but WHEN he gave it and how much it was. I felt he overpaid Foster. There was no valid reason to give it early in the season b4 he knew what was going on and what was happening.

            You are right Foster was a UFA and not a RFA, and Foster had already stated when asked in an interview, maybe Stacey Paetz, about leaving the Pacers. His comment was "he was not leaving the Pacers unless the FO didn't want him." That pretty much said he'd take less to stay a Pacer than the 5 mil he was making.

            Some seem to think that an over 30 with past health problems one trick pony is where the sun rises and shines. In the 10 years he's been a Pacer what has he done to improve his game? Shoot 80% FT, develop a consistant mid range jump shot, develop any kind of an outside shot so teams can't sag off him to double another player? What was he a 6 & 6 or a 7 & 7 player last year? It's great he's popular with the fans, but the bottom line is he's overpaid. Many complain about Cro being overpaid, but are willing to look the other way when it comes to Foster and his "golden parachute" contract. That's absolutely laughable!

            My feeling now as it was when Bird gave Foster the extension is that it was a POOR DECISION way too early. Bird wasn't willing to let the market decide Foster's value, but was more than willing to let the market set Jack's value. Another poor decision that is going to cost the Pacers the type player that the Pacers are trying to build with. I'd rather give Jack with youth, honing his future game, and who has showed me more leadership in 1 season 6 mil than an aging injury prone one trick pony on the downside of his career. Let's all hope for the Pacers sake Foster doesn't have any injuries the next 2 seasons, or this 2 year 12 mil extension is going to have bitten Bird in the posterior.

            Comment


            • Re: 2nd update: Raptors sign Jack for 4 years, $20mm (see page 9); Pacers have 7 days to match

              The first thing is you all are putting WAY too much stock into what Hoopshype states. Hoopshype does not and I repeat does NOT know the exact numbers from the contracts that we have signed. They take guesses based on how much the reported amount is. A great example was Austin's contract a few years back. He actually made I believe it was a million or more less that what everyone was thinking because of the way his contract was. The Pacers DO NOT tell ANYONE how the contract is written up they just say it was for x amount of dollars and for x amount of years. So People need to take a step back and not take Hoopshype as the end all be all. If Bird says we have about 8 million to spend without going into the LT then that is how much we have. I love how so many people try to play the numbers game instead of actually listening to someone that actually knows how much every player is making this year. I mean too many people are trying to act like they know the exact cap numbers but they don't. Please don't think I am calling anyone out I just am tired of people trying to act like they know more than our GM.

              Comment


              • Re: 2nd update: Raptors sign Jack for 4 years, $20mm (see page 9); Pacers have 7 days to match

                Originally posted by Placebo View Post
                2010 - 2011

                Murphy 11,968,255
                Granger 11,323,967
                Dunleavy 10,561,984
                Ford 8,500,000
                Tinsley 7,500,000 (Could be few k less due to arbitration)
                Foster 6,655,000
                Rush 2,069,040
                Hibbert 1,685,280
                Hansbrough 1,665,500
                Jones 2,651,785
                1st Rounder 1,549,000
                McRoberts ~1,200,000 (guesstimate)
                Price ~500,000 (guesstimate)
                =
                67,821,000

                That's WITHOUT Jack.
                13 players under contract.

                I believe you are $300,000-400,000 too much for McBob. A good many 2nd year 2nd rounders made $711, 000 last season.

                Comment


                • Re: 2nd update: Raptors sign Jack for 4 years, $20mm (see page 9); Pacers have 7 days to match

                  Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                  I believe you are $300,000-400,000 too much for McBob. A good many 2nd year 2nd rounders made $711, 000 last season.
                  Yeah thanks for pointing out, I'm sure there are tricky parts of some contracts as well. I use this number only as a reference.

                  Comment


                  • Re: oh oh- Raptors close to signing Jarrett to offer sheet

                    Originally posted by SoupIsGood View Post
                    I guess so... but over the 6.35 per year we gave him, really? For Jeff Foster? What team w/ cap space would have shelled out nearly seven mil a year for Jeff?
                    MLE with max raises would be close to that.
                    This space for rent.

                    Comment


                    • Re: 2nd update: Raptors sign Jack for 4 years, $20mm (see page 9); Pacers have 7 days to match

                      Originally posted by PacerFreak31 View Post
                      The first thing is you all are putting WAY too much stock into what Hoopshype states. Hoopshype does not and I repeat does NOT know the exact numbers from the contracts that we have signed. They take guesses based on how much the reported amount is. A great example was Austin's contract a few years back. He actually made I believe it was a million or more less that what everyone was thinking because of the way his contract was. The Pacers DO NOT tell ANYONE how the contract is written up they just say it was for x amount of dollars and for x amount of years. So People need to take a step back and not take Hoopshype as the end all be all. If Bird says we have about 8 million to spend without going into the LT then that is how much we have. I love how so many people try to play the numbers game instead of actually listening to someone that actually knows how much every player is making this year. I mean too many people are trying to act like they know the exact cap numbers but they don't. Please don't think I am calling anyone out I just am tired of people trying to act like they know more than our GM.
                      I don't think anyone here is pretending to know more than our GM does about the salary situation. I think we're just trying to find the best guess available.

                      Larry said we had about $8 million available. I think I remember that same number you're saying.

                      Let's compare that to said HH numbers.

                      Assuming he was referring to the Luxuary Tax, that would suggest we had a team salary of about $61.9 million before signing Dahntay Jones.

                      Going by the HH numbers, if you subtract Dahntay Jones (I already have his added in, but they don't) that would leave the Pacers at about $59,645,291 or $59.6 million. That would be about $10 million in LT space.

                      That's a discrepancy of about $2.3 million.

                      So what to make of it? I see two possibilities:

                      1) The numbers on HH are simply off a bit (most likely).

                      or

                      2) The luxury tax ended up being higher than Bird thought (Assuming he said that before the LT was officially announced by the NBA. A possibility, but less likely than 1.)

                      Either way, not a huge difference. However, it is a significant difference.

                      Comment


                      • Re: 2nd update: Raptors sign Jack for 4 years, $20mm (see page 9); Pacers have 7 days to match

                        Well, the sites, particularly hoopshype (I tend to use Shamsports), have had errors, but they have been largely accurate, and have been proven so over the years. The discussions that have been had on this topic have been on point, and none of the numbers have been misleading.

                        Second, at no point in time have I, or anyone else, pretended to know more than Bird. I, personally, have expressed frustration when writers like Kravitz, Wells, or even Brunner have made comments that were specifically wrong, and proven so later (such as Wells citing the wrong tax number). However, whenever Bird made comments that conflicted with info that I had, I would adjust my information...(though that has been rare.)

                        There are two places where the $8mm figure comes up. It was mentioned in a Mike Wells article earlier this summer:

                        They have about $8 million to spend, and their priorities are to re-sign restricted free agent Jarrett Jack and stay below the luxury tax, expected to kick in at about $68 million next season.
                        This was clearly a thumbnail, and the tax threshold was later announced (by the NBA) to be just shy of $70mm.

                        The second was a direct quote attributed to Bird in a Brunner article:

                        "We've got $8 million and, the way I look at it, three holes to fill," said team President Larry Bird. "I think we're going to have the opportunity to pick up a pretty good player for a lot less money than he would've gotten if the economy was a lot better.
                        However, that was not meant to describe the open space under the tax, it was meant to speak of the money available to sign FA's using their MLE and LLE, which were estimated at $5.6mm and $1.9mm each...(later to be $5.9mm and $1.9mm).

                        With the opening of the free agent market today, the Pacers will be able to take an active stance thanks to two salary cap exceptions, roughly $8 million available and a payroll that offers room for modest expansion.
                        Is there a margin of error in these numbers? Yes. Is it material? No, probably not. There has been no intent to mislead, and the numbers that are used here do more good than harm.

                        No one here has perfect inside information, nor do we expect those who do (ie, Bird) to be 100% forthcoming with their financial information. In the absence of perfect information, we do with the best we can get...which, in this case, tends to be solid.
                        Last edited by count55; 07-12-2009, 09:12 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Re: 2nd update: Raptors sign Jack for 4 years, $20mm (see page 9); Pacers have 7 days to match

                          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                          I'm also using Hoopshype. It currently lists the 2010/11 salary at $58,157,039.

                          However, that not only doesn't include the second year of Dahntay Jones' deal, but it also doesn't figure in the team options that we'll certainly be taking on Roy Hibbert and Brandon Rush. It lists the worth of their options on the table, but it doesn't actually figure them into the total listed at the bottom.

                          When you add in Hibbert and Rush, you add approximately $3.7 million onto that total. That brings it to about $61.9 million total.

                          Then you add Jones, which is another (about) $2.6 million, and you're suddenly at about $64.5 million.

                          Then you have to account for our next rookie from the 2010 draft, which should be about $1.5 million, leaving us at about $66.0 million.

                          Without Jarrett Jack being in the picture. Or McRoberts. Or AJ Price.

                          We are paying the LT next year. One way, or another.
                          Maybe, but Im not so sure. I cant help but think with all the financial problems the Pacers have rumored to have, that they are not just going to go forward assuming theyre going to pay the luxury tax for the 2010-11 season.

                          In fact, I believe quite the contrary. I believe the marching orders are to absolutely keep the team below the LT threshhold. And with the recent publicized projections as far as the cap goes for 2010-11 season, I tend to believe that is why they are probably reassessing how much they will actually spend this year and the impact it will have on the following season and the LT implications. The difficult part is there are going to be lots of teams looking to shed salary in the season after next, which means its probably not prudent to just assume you will just cut a bunch of salary as the possibilities of doing so will likely be limited.

                          The key is all the money being spent on pgs. You have TJ, you have Tinsley and if you match the Jack deal-then you have his money as well. TJ and Tins are not going to be easy to get rid of, at all. Ford is generally considered to be overpaid and has baggage. And of course we all know the baggage Tinsley has. Plus, since getting rid of Tinsley is obviously an immediate concern-one wonders about the likelihood of being able to do so, the cost of doing so, and the likelihood of being able to eliminate his salary from 2011 in the process.

                          I really believe they feel if they match Jacks deal, they make it almost impossible to stay below the tax in 2010-11. And I believe they feel if they dont match, then they feel like they can maneuver below the LT by the time the trade deadline comes around in Feb. 2011.

                          I guess we will see.
                          The Most Common Cause of Stress is Dealing with Idiots

                          Comment


                          • Re: 2nd update: Raptors sign Jack for 4 years, $20mm (see page 9); Pacers have 7 days to match

                            Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                            I don't think anyone here is pretending to know more than our GM does about the salary situation. I think we're just trying to find the best guess available.

                            Larry said we had about $8 million available. I think I remember that same number you're saying.

                            Let's compare that to said HH numbers.

                            Assuming he was referring to the Luxuary Tax, that would suggest we had a team salary of about $61.9 million before signing Dahntay Jones.

                            Going by the HH numbers, if you subtract Dahntay Jones (I already have his added in, but they don't) that would leave the Pacers at about $59,645,291 or $59.6 million. That would be about $10 million in LT space.

                            That's a discrepancy of about $2.3 million.

                            So what to make of it? I see two possibilities:

                            1) The numbers on HH are simply off a bit (most likely).

                            or

                            2) The luxury tax ended up being higher than Bird thought (Assuming he said that before the LT was officially announced by the NBA. A possibility, but less likely than 1.)

                            Either way, not a huge difference. However, it is a significant difference.
                            I agree but to me it seems a bit obsessive to try to find all of this out. I mean really why even try? I say this because none of us know for sure. We can guess but thats about it and in the end Bird will spend what he can to help the team. I mean does it matter to us how much we have to spend? Bird will make the correct decision with what money we do have left.

                            Comment


                            • Re: 2nd update: Raptors sign Jack for 4 years, $20mm (see page 9); Pacers have 7 days to match

                              David Aldrige on NBA TV didnt say a definite yes or no if we would match, he actually didnt understand why toronto signed him since they have two backup pg's...so we will see....

                              Comment


                              • Re: 2nd update: Raptors sign Jack for 4 years, $20mm (see page 9); Pacers have 7 days to match

                                Originally posted by PacerFreak31 View Post
                                I agree but to me it seems a bit obsessive to try to find all of this out. I mean really why even try? I say this because none of us know for sure. We can guess but thats about it and in the end Bird will spend what he can to help the team. I mean does it matter to us how much we have to spend? Bird will make the correct decision with what money we do have left.
                                I guess my answer is:

                                1) Why not?

                                2) Our guesses are close enough to allow us to reasonably speculate on upcoming moves. I think as die hard fans who admittedly obsess over the Pacers relative to Joe Sixpack, this is not that strange of a thing to be doing.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X