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

Pacers asking too much for Murph

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

  • #76
    Re: Pacers asking too much for Murph

    Originally posted by Speed View Post
    What about this next year if they don't move Murphy now though.

    Let's say you are convinced Amare is fully recovered and deserves a full max contract. Stay with me, I'm trying to make a point. Phoenix does not think he is worth that, by any means, so they sign and trade him (I think he picks up his 17 million player option for next season) and the Pacers trade Murphy and Dunleavy (expirings) and a future #1 pick for him. Phoenix does it for the #1, Pacers do it for a multi time allstar who plays a position of need.

    Don't get caught up in whether you agree with the trade components or not. My point is this, can't you keep Murphy and still trade him for a player like Amare or Monte Ellis even who Golden State see as overpriced, but may be ready to rebuild. Even if you have to trade Dun and Murph for Magette and Ellis. I mean my point is those expirings still have tons of value, right.

    What about if a team is woefully over the cap next year and just need to shed salary.

    What if Rudy Gay is seen as wanting too much, couldn't you do the same deal with Memphis and sweeten it with a pick?

    Please don't respond to this by saying oh I'd never spend money on Amare or I'd never give up a 1st round pick. I'm talking concept here, execution can be debated later.

    My point is, isn't there scenarios that you can actually use these expirings next year to get instantly better? Isn't that not only an option, but the plan? Capspace is meaningless to me unless it turns into a player who can at least contribute somewhat equal to his pay.
    I have to agree with you. Cap space does need to be turned into productive player(s). I wonder what effect on revenue adding someone like Amare would have for the Pacers? Is he someone who could play PF next to Hibbert? I don't know the answers, but it might be fun to find out.

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Pacers asking too much for Murph

      Originally posted by Smoothdave1 View Post
      Keeping Murphy (assuming we go over the LT): Pay an additional 19-20 million in the 2010-2011 season
      Trading Murphy: Savings of 19-20 million
      Fixed...for clarification.

      Originally posted by Smoothdave1 View Post
      I'm not the one signing the checks, but you know that Morway and Bird know the implications.

      My main concern is that the Pacers are playing musical chairs with Murphy and once the trade deadline comes, they might be stuck with Murphy if another team comes in with a better deal that Cleveland jumps at first. In this NBA environment, other teams are looking at savings and may make a deal that may not make sense from a talent standpoint, but they realize savings.
      For this very reason, that is why I am on the "dump Murphy for Z+$$$ and Powe ( if we can get him ) " camp....as opposed to the "dump Murphy for Z+$$$+1st round" camp. Because I do not want to go into next season with the same situation that the Jazz were in at the beginning of this season....I just want to dump Murphy and be done with it...I don't even want the 1st round pick....$$$ ( for the buyout ) and Powe ( if he's available and can play after the ASB ) would be sufficient for me. I know that I am the "lone voice" when it comes to not even asking for the 1st round pick...much less Hickson....but I think that it's so important to move one of the Big 4 Contracts that I'd be willing to not ask for it just to come in with a much better asking price then the Wizards.

      It's not that I'm trying to undervalue Murphy and what he brings to the floor.....the problem is that I know what Murphy doesn't brings to the floor. Unfortunately, the list of things he "doesn't bring to the floor" far outwieghs the list of things that he "does bring to the floor". As many have said...his value isn't going to be any higher then it is now.....we should move him when we have the chance.

      Originally posted by Smoothdave1 View Post
      My dark horse team to acquire Murphy: Dallas. Dampier's contract is not guaranteed for next season and they could obtain immediate salary cap relief.
      IMHO...to the Mavs, Dampier is like Foster to the Pacers. He's the closest thing ( next to Gooden ) that would be considered their Defensive anchor. I think that the Mavs keep Dampier unless he can be used in a trade to balence out salaries to acquire a Player that gets them over the hump. And as d_c like to point out , Murphy isn't that type of Player....especially when they have a much better version of Murphy in Dirk.
      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Pacers asking too much for Murph

        Originally posted by Tom White View Post
        I have to agree with you. Cap space does need to be turned into productive player(s). I wonder what effect on revenue adding someone like Amare would have for the Pacers? Is he someone who could play PF next to Hibbert? I don't know the answers, but it might be fun to find out.
        I'm totally guessing here....but I think that the "Non-Franchise Level Players that are better suited to be the 2nd Best Player on the Team and the occasional Best Player on the Team" type players like Amare and Bosh ( both of which have heavily hinted that they want to play in a better situation ) will be "sign and traded" by their current Team between now and ( more then likely ) the 2010-2011 Offseason. If this scenario is likely true....then for Players like Amare...the Team doing the S&T will likely be asking for more then just a 1st round pick....they'd be asking for multiple 1st round picks and/or some prospect. I'd guess that it depends on what the opposing Teams would be asking for...but I have a feeling the cost would simply be too high.
        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Pacers asking too much for Murph

          http://ken-berger.blogs.cbssports.co...8893/19891570?

          Via CBS Sports by Ken Berger:

          It’s been well documented that the Cavaliers’ infatuation with Antawn Jamison has been rekindled. What’s been underplayed is the reason behind it: LeBron James is the one driving the team’s pursuit of Jamison, according to a source, and Cavs GM Danny Ferry – as usual – is trying to appease the King. A couple of problems: The Wizards want a young asset in return, and Zydrunas Ilgauskas – while a fit salary-wise – doesn’t fit that description. The sensible piece to include in the deal would be J.J. Hickson, whom the Cavs are reluctant to give up. But if the Cavs got Jamison, what value would Hickson be to them as their fifth big man? One scenario that is believed to be under discussion would have the Cavs hoping the Wizards bought out Ilgauskas after the trade, using some cash added to the deal by Cleveland. That way, the Cavs could sign Ilgauskas back on a minimum deal, giving them the player James covets (Jamison) and a 7-foot-4 insurance policy for Shaquille O’Neal. The Wizards would have to ask themselves if getting out from under Jamison’s contract and adding Hickson is enough to justify a deal that would get them under the tax next summer, but not under the cap.
          If Lebron wants Jamison......I can totally see the Cavs doing what they can to get him. Not only as a way to fill their need for a Stretch PF...but to say to Lebron..."look we did what you wanted us to do to help win a Championship" in an effort to keep him in Cleveland ( which I think will happen anyway ). Hickson can be a sticking point....since Lebron likes to keep him as well. What's funny is that Lebron is pretty much the "guy behind the curtain" running the show. I'd guess it all comes down to what the King wants....keep Hickson and not get Jamison...or give up Hickson to get Jamison.

          This is one of the reasons why I have always thought that we shouldn't have set the asking price too high.....we should have "struck when the iron was hot". Jamison is simply a better player then Murphy. The only way that we could have negated that would have been to come in with a lower asking price.
          Last edited by CableKC; 02-03-2010, 12:53 PM.
          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Pacers asking too much for Murph

            It appears to me that Cleveland will soon stop looking into Troy and either look at their top choice in Jamison and see if Washington is still interested or just forget about about getting shooting PF and just use Jawad Williams some more. He's been looking good for them and I'm surprised they want more.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Pacers asking too much for Murph

              Originally posted by Trophy View Post
              It appears to me that Cleveland will soon stop looking into Troy and either look at their top choice in Jamison and see if Washington is still interested or just forget about about getting shooting PF and just use Jawad Williams some more. He's been looking good for them and I'm surprised they want more.
              It's not hard to convince the Wizards to move Jamison....it all comes down to the Cavs meeting the asking price for Jamison. I think that the Cavs are going to make a major move before the trade deadline and doubt that they would settle for living with Jawad Williams.

              The Cavs are in a position where they have to not only make a serious run at the Championship WHEN they have Lebron as a member of the Team....they have to show him that they are serious in surrounding him with a Team that can win them a Championship going forward. Sitting and doing nothing isn't going to get them over that hump. Sure, the Cavs will have a fairly expensive 2nd/3rd scoring option on the Team that will just stand there and take 3pt shots....but he'll satisfy Lebron while filling a need.
              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Pacers asking too much for Murph

                I think Jamison is a much better player than Murphy, first off. Much, much. Murphy is younger and has a shorter contract though. I don't agree that just because the first offer was too high that you just say forget about it. If Jamison doesn't work out and we are approaching the deadline, I think the Cavs are stupid to not call and see if there is room to negotiate for Murph.

                I'd guess in the NBA you never come to the table with your best offer, a month before the deadline, unless your desperate. Desperate usually means your willing to make a bad deal. Pacers don't need to make a bad deal here.

                If the Cavs are so incredulous about the ridiculous low offer from the Pacers and refuse to try to improve their team because they are offended. That's just poor management. I mean it's still busniness.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Pacers asking too much for Murph

                  If the Cleveland deal falls through, are there any other teams who might have an interest in Troy? I really don't know of any off the top of my head. I mentioned Dallas before, simply because Cuban seems willing to do about anything. But would a team like Houston or someone else have any interest in Murph?

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Pacers asking too much for Murph

                    Originally posted by Smoothdave1 View Post
                    If the Cleveland deal falls through, are there any other teams who might have an interest in Troy? I really don't know of any off the top of my head. I mentioned Dallas before, simply because Cuban seems willing to do about anything. But would a team like Houston or someone else have any interest in Murph?
                    Unlike the Foster rumors....the only team that I recall being interested in Murphy was the Cavs. That's the problem....I think that there may have been some cursory interest....but probably nothing that really surfaced.

                    If the rumor that Foster really is retiring.....I'm guessing that they don't feel as much pressure to try to move Murphy this season.
                    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Pacers asking too much for Murph

                      here is more info from yahoo

                      http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slu...yhoo&type=lgns

                      The Indiana Pacers have asked a steep price from the Cleveland Cavaliers for Troy Murphy: Zydrunas Ilgauskas, J.J. Hickson and a No. 1 draft pick. So far, Cleveland has balked. The Pacers would buy out Z’s contract, though, and he would be free to return to the Cavs in 30 days. This is still the Cavs’ No. 2 option behind making a deal for Washington’s Antawn Jamison.
                      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Pacers asking too much for Murph

                        Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                        here is more info from yahoo

                        http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slu...yhoo&type=lgns

                        The Indiana Pacers have asked a steep price from the Cleveland Cavaliers for Troy Murphy: Zydrunas Ilgauskas, J.J. Hickson and a No. 1 draft pick. So far, Cleveland has balked. The Pacers would buy out Z’s contract, though, and he would be free to return to the Cavs in 30 days. This is still the Cavs’ No. 2 option behind making a deal for Washington’s Antawn Jamison.
                        thats not too much in my opinion..............they're raping us if we accept anything less.
                        I'm not perfect and neither are you.

                        Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the esteem of Elohim,
                        Ephisians 4: 32 And be kind towards one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as Elohim also forgave you in Messiah.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Pacers asking too much for Murph

                          I would be happy with Z and either Hickson or the pick. But I'm not going to freak if we keep Murphy. After all, he is still a big expiring contract next season, so he'll still be very tradable.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Pacers asking too much for Murph

                            Originally posted by sportfireman View Post
                            thats not too much in my opinion..............they're raping us if we accept anything less.
                            I sincerely hope that Cleveland doesn't expect us to trade them Murphy for just cap relief.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Pacers asking too much for Murph

                              Pretty much the same information, from another source

                              http://www.sbnation.com/2010/2/3/129...andre-iguodala

                              Indiana Pacers

                              Status: Seller
                              Team Weaknesses: Outside shooting, perimeter defense, team speed, interior scoring
                              Projected 2010 cap room: $-13 million ($1 in luxury tax room)
                              Untouchables: Danny Granger, Roy Hibbert
                              Potentially on the block: Troy Murphy ($11 million this year, one more year), Mike Dunleavy ($9.8 million this year, one more year), T.J. Ford ($8.5 million this year, one more year)
                              Expiring Contracts: Earl Watson ($2.8 million)
                              Prospects: Tyler Hansbrough, Brandon Rush, A.J. Price
                              Good trade partners: Cleveland, Denver, Houston, Phoenix
                              Possible targets: Any expiring contract

                              Indiana wants to move guys to "refreshen the stagnant air in the fieldhouse," as SB Nation's Indy Cornrows e-mails, but they aren't finding many takers. Nobody wants T.J. Ford, and pretty much nobody wants Mike Dunleavy. Jeff Foster would have been a nice piece ... if he didn't just get hurt. That leaves Troy Murphy, who is a nice player, but one that only really fits in well on one team: Cleveland.

                              Despite that, Indiana's driving a really hard bargain for Murphy right now, which of course makes no sense considering their lack of leverage. Keeping Murphy isn't the end of the world -- the Pacers are all-in on the 2011 plan -- but immediate salary relief would be nice for a non-playoff team pushing the luxury tax.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Pacers asking too much for Murph

                                Originally posted by pwee31 View Post
                                Indiana Pacers

                                Status: Seller
                                Team Weaknesses: Outside shooting, perimeter defense, team speed, interior scoring, coaching
                                Projected 2010 cap room: $-13 million ($1 in luxury tax room)
                                Untouchables: Danny Granger, Roy Hibbert
                                Potentially on the block: Troy Murphy ($11 million this year, one more year), Mike Dunleavy ($9.8 million this year, one more year), T.J. Ford ($8.5 million this year, one more year)
                                Expiring Contracts: Earl Watson ($2.8 million)
                                Prospects: Tyler Hansbrough, Brandon Rush, A.J. Price
                                Good trade partners: Cleveland, Denver, Houston, Phoenix
                                Possible targets: Any expiring contract

                                Indiana wants to move guys to "refreshen the stagnant air in the fieldhouse," as SB Nation's Indy Cornrows e-mails, but they aren't finding many takers. Nobody wants T.J. Ford, and pretty much nobody wants Mike Dunleavy. Jeff Foster would have been a nice piece ... if he didn't just get hurt. That leaves Troy Murphy, who is a nice player, but one that only really fits in well on one team: Cleveland.

                                Despite that, Indiana's driving a really hard bargain for Murphy right now, which of course makes no sense considering their lack of leverage. Keeping Murphy isn't the end of the world -- the Pacers are all-in on the 2011 plan -- but immediate salary relief would be nice for a non-playoff team pushing the luxury tax.
                                Fixed.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X