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

NBA aims to crush union in labor battle

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

  • NBA aims to crush union in labor battle

    http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_yl...yhoo&type=lgns
    NBA aims to crush union in labor battle

    Here’s how an NBA front-office executive described the document the commissioner’s office delivered to the union to start labor negotiations: “It’s just a photocopy of Stern’s middle finger.”

    He was kind of kidding.

    The owners delivered an opening proposal to the Players Association this week, CBSSports.com first reported, and months of private assurances turned out to be true: The owners want to fundamentally change the salary structure of the NBA. They don’t want to negotiate a fresh collective bargaining agreement, as much as they want to crush the union once and for all.

    Related CoverageSlam-dunk apps for iPhone More From Adrian WojnarowskiNets' immaturity wore on Harris Feb 4, 2010 Age, injuries muting K.G.'s fury Feb 1, 2010 The owners want to take a far greater percentage of the basketball-related income. They want to pay millions less for maximum deals and shorten contracts. Most of all, they want a hard salary cap and assurances that protect themselves against a diminished economy and, well, themselves. Everything is hurtling toward a 2011 lockout, a negotiation that’ll likely feel far more like a standoff.

    Owners have delivered commissioner David Stern an unmistakable mandate: Get our money back and get us profitable. The tone is downright nasty on the owners’ side. There exists an undercurrent of desperation within much of ownership, a sense they’re hell-bent on bringing the players to their knees.

    Players Association executive director Billy Hunter is preparing for the fight of his life, with the agents armed to advance to Defcon 1 with him.

    “I have so much respect for David Stern, and I know he wants to create the most competitive environment possible for the fans, but the current system is broken,” agent Mark Bartelstein said. “The luxury-tax concept is anti-competitive. We’ve created a system where in the midst of trying to sell tickets in the summer, we have teams admitting to their fans, ‘We’re not trying to win this year. …We’re waiting for 2010 or some year beyond.’

    “We need to start from scratch and develop a system in which everything is designed about creating the most competitive environment possible so that we drive revenue.”

    It is improbable the owners will go that way, but Hunter has a restless membership desperate to make a stand with Stern going for the jugular. “It isn’t just a matter of the union losing,” one Eastern Conference GM said. “It’s a matter of how badly they lose.”

    Who stands to lose the most? That’s the compelling subplot. Where do the players give and where do they stand ground? The players most responsible for selling tickets, television ratings and merchandise – the Kobe Bryants, LeBron Jameses and Dwyane Wades – could be the ones taking the biggest hit. The nine-man executive committee of players has just one star: Chris Paul(notes). The days of the insufferable David Falk trying to control the union are long gone, his bellows of “Michael Jordan is the league,” a distant echo in union meetings.

    The idea of raising superstar salaries and paying the middle- and lower-class players less won’t wash in a one-man, one-vote union. “If they cut the highest 25 or 30 salaries by, say, 35 percent, you’re not going to have to change that much more for [the owners] to get what they want financially,” another player agent said. “LeBron can scream and shout all he wants, but this is a one-man, one-vote union. Once guys figure out that 400 or so players will benefit by the top few taking a major cut, what do you think they’re going to do?”

    Here’s an issue some believe the union could make a bargaining chip: contraction. Hunter has never been open to losing jobs with the elimination of the most financially strapped teams, but some believe he might be more accepting of the idea with the massive losses some owners insist they’re incurring in fledgling markets. Let the rest of the owners buy out, say, two teams, and then share the larger piece of TV and merchandising money.

    Of course, that talk will go nowhere with Stern, whom one owner insisted would “never let [contraction] happen on his watch.” As another GM said, “Stern won’t let the WNBA go under, even though most of his owners are tired of taking losses on it. You think he’s going to let that happen with his NBA teams?”

    This is a desperate time in the NBA, and there will be desperation in these talks. They’ll go into these negotiations with 30 teams and they’ll come out with 30, but the landscape of the NBA could be dramatically different. The way trades are done and free agents are signed and teams are likely be transformed, and it could take a long lockout – maybe much, if not all, of the 2011-12 season – to get there.

    Yes, the NBA delivered its players an initial proposal and it sure did look like a big finger flicked in the union’s face.
    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

  • #2
    Re: NBA aims to crush union in labor battle

    Well if they can get rid of the guaranteed contracts, or atleast change how bullet proof they are, will go along way to saving this league. How about change the contracts so that players must report and play for teams they are traded to. How many times have stars in this league stopped a trade by threatening not to report. No team is going to take on a big contract if that player isn't going to play and compete for them.
    You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: NBA aims to crush union in labor battle

      I kind of hope for the owners to push the new rules, Im tired of seeing players not caring to play well because they have guarentee contracts.
      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: NBA aims to crush union in labor battle

        This all goes into play in 2011 right?

        The Pacers have the lower money situation in 2011 right?

        Why God must we be cursed? Did we win to much in the 90's? Did we celebrate to hard when Reggie sunk the three after shoving off Jordan?

        You know how this is going to go. We will get rid of our money players, then the lockout/strike will last an entire season and then we will come back with all teams having a new salary structure and Danny Granger now reaching the beginning of the latter half of his career and we will be years away from being any good.

        Sigh.....


        Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: NBA aims to crush union in labor battle

          in a lockout, do the players lose their salary for that season?

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: NBA aims to crush union in labor battle

            This is gonna be fun ....

            Originally posted by Frostwolf View Post
            in a lockout, do the players lose their salary for that season?
            Yes. Players are not paid during this time. This is why the owners will get close to what they want. Easily.

            -- Steve --

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: NBA aims to crush union in labor battle

              I'm with the NBA on this one. The players make so much now that it's detrimental to the league itself. The inmates are running the asylum.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: NBA aims to crush union in labor battle

                Originally posted by Peck View Post
                This all goes into play in 2011 right?

                The Pacers have the lower money situation in 2011 right?

                Why God must we be cursed? Did we win to much in the 90's? Did we celebrate to hard when Reggie sunk the three after shoving off Jordan?

                You know how this is going to go. We will get rid of our money players, then the lockout/strike will last an entire season and then we will come back with all teams having a new salary structure and Danny Granger now reaching the beginning of the latter half of his career and we will be years away from being any good.

                Sigh.....
                er...

                actually it could work out nicely for us. a lower salary structure at a time when we have cap space, that means we could rebuild the team at a more reasonable price while other teams are stuck with their expensive legacy contracts - especially those teams that are bound to overpay this summer.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: NBA aims to crush union in labor battle

                  I can hardly believe the reactions here, but that will be my fault entirely.

                  Way i read it is that the owners want to get more more more more just like the banks and screw the ppl who make the league (hint the owners are easier replaced)

                  Losing money ??

                  Tell me what they bought for and what current (estimated) value is.
                  Tell me if they still lost money over that period.

                  We all that jealous they make so much more then us that we forget how we would feel if our bosses did what is planned here ?

                  If you all feel the product is that bad, why watch ?
                  IF the result of the NBA is in the red, the players already receive significantly less then their contract let them make max under ideal conditions.
                  In fact, bri down = payment down and for the top earners that is millions less, not pennies.

                  Losses hurting ? FFS, it's a hobby to most of them, one that makes them look good in the community and is a nice tax write off, I am sure Jay can enlighten you all much better in that part then i can, but a loss aint always a loss.

                  And face it, are the people paying to see Kobe, Lebron, KG and perhaps even DG or Roy, or are they paying to see mr. Simon's team play the Comcast team ?

                  This aint even about greed, though it comes close, it is all about "POWER"

                  This is about being able to "BREAK" an athlete who does not toe the company line.
                  This is still the same issues that ran in 94, 99 and so on.
                  Owners want to be able to "sit his arse" if need be for 3 yeatrs (we are paying him aren't we?) just to show who is the boss, like LB likes to do in Indiana.

                  Or do you really think that if we pay our entire team a couple of million less, people like Murphy are hurt by it ?
                  Do you really think that you are going to pay less for tickets ?

                  Are you sure that once the team heads to playoffs again regularly, ECF and perhaps beyond, prices for season tickets wont go up ???

                  The less overhead, the less salary, more from the bri, it is to create a point where you can make even more out of your hobby, not to support the players, fans or casual viewers.

                  I will admit they make a lot of money, but they have special talents and one wrong landing ends it all.
                  and no, they dont all make that much, think of guys like Roy or AJ, if something happens to their health now, (someone lands on their knee, back or something similar) and they are wheelchair bound, tell me if they were really that lucky.

                  Or is the owner now sharing his additional income on the team with those that played for him but were less fortunate?
                  So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                  If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                  Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: NBA aims to crush union in labor battle

                    Originally posted by able View Post
                    I can hardly believe the reactions here, but that will be my fault entirely.

                    Way i read it is that the owners want to get more more more more just like the banks and screw the ppl who make the league (hint the owners are easier replaced)

                    Losing money ??

                    Tell me what they bought for and what current (estimated) value is.
                    Tell me if they still lost money over that period.

                    We all that jealous they make so much more then us that we forget how we would feel if our bosses did what is planned here ?

                    If you all feel the product is that bad, why watch ?
                    IF the result of the NBA is in the red, the players already receive significantly less then their contract let them make max under ideal conditions.
                    In fact, bri down = payment down and for the top earners that is millions less, not pennies.

                    Losses hurting ? FFS, it's a hobby to most of them, one that makes them look good in the community and is a nice tax write off, I am sure Jay can enlighten you all much better in that part then i can, but a loss aint always a loss.

                    And face it, are the people paying to see Kobe, Lebron, KG and perhaps even DG or Roy, or are they paying to see mr. Simon's team play the Comcast team ?

                    This aint even about greed, though it comes close, it is all about "POWER"

                    This is about being able to "BREAK" an athlete who does not toe the company line.
                    This is still the same issues that ran in 94, 99 and so on.
                    Owners want to be able to "sit his arse" if need be for 3 yeatrs (we are paying him aren't we?) just to show who is the boss, like LB likes to do in Indiana.

                    Or do you really think that if we pay our entire team a couple of million less, people like Murphy are hurt by it ?
                    Do you really think that you are going to pay less for tickets ?

                    Are you sure that once the team heads to playoffs again regularly, ECF and perhaps beyond, prices for season tickets wont go up ???

                    The less overhead, the less salary, more from the bri, it is to create a point where you can make even more out of your hobby, not to support the players, fans or casual viewers.

                    I will admit they make a lot of money, but they have special talents and one wrong landing ends it all.
                    and no, they dont all make that much, think of guys like Roy or AJ, if something happens to their health now, (someone lands on their knee, back or something similar) and they are wheelchair bound, tell me if they were really that lucky.

                    Or is the owner now sharing his additional income on the team with those that played for him but were less fortunate?
                    This is about rich people fighting with rich people. I have a hard time taking either side.
                    Jealous of the players? You sound jealous of the owners.
                    I am sure something will be worked out and both groups will still be well off.
                    Players will still make millions and owners will make millions.
                    The fans.......we will still have basketball.
                    {o,o}
                    |)__)
                    -"-"-

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: NBA aims to crush union in labor battle

                      There's another way to look at this.

                      It is a labor dispute. Labor disputes can be interesting. We have laws in this country (Wagner Act, Taft-Hartley) that set the rules for how one side can try to beat the other. Labor disputes are contests of power, just like a sports game is.

                      But these disputes seldom play out as expected. There are plenty of cases when one side or the other was confidence that it had all the advantages, but ended up losing the dispute, or having to compromise.

                      We don't know what is going to happen when this collective bargaining agreement expires. Right now all we've got are a bunch of sports writers who've never read the CBA and aren't privy to the new proposals yacking about what it all means. All the talk of what the owners will do and what it will mean is premature.

                      Let's wait and see. Sometimes when things get shaken up, they work out for the better.
                      And I won't be here to see the day
                      It all dries up and blows away
                      I'd hang around just to see
                      But they never had much use for me
                      In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: NBA aims to crush union in labor battle

                        Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                        er...

                        actually it could work out nicely for us. a lower salary structure at a time when we have cap space, that means we could rebuild the team at a more reasonable price while other teams are stuck with their expensive legacy contracts - especially those teams that are bound to overpay this summer.
                        I agree, I think it puts the Pacers totally in the drivers seat with their expiring contracts coming at the right time. What ever happens to the cba it will be phased in over a period of years so teams aren't over the hard cap or new salary guidelines as soon as the new contract begins. However teams with too many long term contracts will still have to face dumping some of those contracts at some point. It's possible that the Pacers could find some real fire sales in the summer of 2011.

                        For the most part I agree with the owners position. It's sad that they ever agreed to guaranteed unbreakable contracts, and it's sad that the owners have to be protected from themselves in running up the salaries they way they did in the early 90's. The average NBA player makes more in a year then the average person does in a lifetime. I think they can get by on a little less, but I don't care as much about the salaries as I do guaranteed contracts. The attitude and behavior of a select few players and the inability of teams to cut players to serve justice for the fans leaves me with no sympathy for the players in this negotiation.
                        Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: NBA aims to crush union in labor battle

                          Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                          er...

                          actually it could work out nicely for us. a lower salary structure at a time when we have cap space, that means we could rebuild the team at a more reasonable price while other teams are stuck with their expensive legacy contracts - especially those teams that are bound to overpay this summer.
                          I agree it COULD work out nicely for us. However as Peck is thinking, it COULD hurt us too. The owners could level the playing field just when we were going to be one of the teams in a good position, thus wiping out our 3 year rebuilding plan and advantageous financial position.

                          EDIT; The more I think about it the more I think Peck is right. Stern will see to it that legacy contracts won't hamstring teams with the Stars. Like the Laker's and Boston's of the NBA world.
                          Last edited by Will Galen; 02-07-2010, 11:45 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: NBA aims to crush union in labor battle

                            this is making me think that the pacers won't take in any longer contract or sign anybody until 2011, we are hoping for the pacers to make a trade either this or next year and I think that this is not going to happen, I have a feeling that they are going to wait for 2011 to make any moves and next year would maybe suck as much as this year
                            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: NBA aims to crush union in labor battle

                              Okay, well, you know how there was talk of NBA stars going overseas to play? If they get a 30% pay cut forced upon them, guess what I see happening?
                              "man, PG has been really good."

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X