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

Dampier speaks

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

  • Dampier speaks

    I apologize for starting another Dampier thread, but I think this is some new info and did not want to get it buried at the end of a long thread. Plus I could not decide which Dampier thread to post this on. So yell at me if you wish.

    Of course the interesting part is where Dampier says he might sign a two year deal for the MLE.

    http://www.ajc.com/thursday/content/...91272004c.html


    PRO BASKETBALL

    From staff and news services

    Thursday, July 22, 2004

    Dampier tells TV Hawks 'option'

    Golden State Warriors free agent center Erick Dampier hasn't made a decision regarding the Hawks' multiyear contract offer, which is believed to start at $8 million in the first year. But upon arriving home in Jackson, Miss., Tuesday night, he told ABC affiliate WAPT-TV he considers Atlanta "an option."
    "Atlanta is close to home," Dampier told the station from the Jackson International Airport. "It's a team in a rebuilding process. Hopefully something can be worked out between me and Atlanta.


    If not, I have to work something out, maybe sign for the mid-level [exception, which is valued around $5 million] for two years. Either way it goes, I don't think I can go wrong."


    Dampier averaged career-highs with 12.3 points and 11.9 rebounds last season and opted out of a contract that would've paid him about $17 million over the next two seasons. He is the best center on the free agent market, but his options have diminished in recent days.

    The New York Knicks tried to work out a sign-and-trade deal in which the Warriors would sign Dampier to a six-year deal starting at $9 million a year, then trade him to the Knicks for former Hawk Nazr Mohammed and Othella Harrington. But that deal fell through when the Warriors traded Nick Van Exel to Portland for Dale Davis and Dan Dickau.
    "It hasn't really been a frustrating process," Dampier said of his summer. "It's up to me or whether the Warriors are willing to do a sign-and-trade. Even if they don't, I have other options."


    The Memphis Grizzlies and Indiana Pacers are also interested in Dampier, but both teams are above the salary cap. They would have to acquire Dampier through a sign-and-trade or offer him the mid-level exception. The Hawks have about $12 million in cap room and can sign Dampier outright.



  • #2
    Re: Dampier speaks

    I'm in the "I don't want Damp" camp.

    But for the MLE and 2 years. Heck yes.
    You're caught up in the Internet / you think it's such a great asset / but you're wrong, wrong, wrong
    All that fiber optic gear / still cannot take away the fear / like an island song

    - Jimmy Buffett

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Dampier speaks

      I was under the impression that MLE deals have to be for at least 3 years...
      "I'll always be a part of Donnie Walsh."
      -Ron Artest, Denver Post, 12.28.05

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Dampier speaks

        I'm a little confused about whether we even have the full MLE to offer. There were lots of reports about AJ getting half of the MLE, but as a returning vet (Bird rights?) does his contract have to be considered a partial use of the MLE?

        If we have all of it to give, full MLE for 2 years for Dampier, HECK YEAH!
        The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Dampier speaks

          Damp will come here if he finally wants to play in the playoffs. Even with Damp in ATL they will not make the playoffs. Im all for getting Damp if we dont have to trade Bender or Artest. Its up to Damp if he wants to play for a winner or not.


          2006 WORLD CHAMPION INDIANAPOLIS COLTS

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Dampier speaks

            Someone correct me if I am wrong. But because AJ was the Pacers own free agent they don't have to technically use the MLE to re-sign him. Now I think the Pacers don't want to sign AJ for 2 million and then use the full 4.9 MLE as that would increase payroll too much so the MLE worked as a budget restraint.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Dampier speaks

              Can somebody clear this up? Do we still have the full MLE, or did we use part of it on AJ?
              Official Member of the Anti-Alliteration Association

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Dampier speaks

                Originally posted by Snickers
                Can somebody clear this up? Do we still have the full MLE, or did we use part of it on AJ?
                Wow... so confusing... I remember reading somewhere that we used part of our MLE to sign AJ, but it seems that we could have used a Larry Bird exception or a non-Bird exception...

                See

                http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#17

                for more info.

                "17. Are there exceptions to the salary cap?
                Yes. Here is what they are:

                LARRY BIRD EXCEPTION -- This is the best known one. Players who qualify for this exception are called "Qualifying Veteran Free Agents" in the CBA. This exception allows teams to exceed the salary cap to re-sign their own free agents, up to the player's maximum salary. The free agent in question must have played for three seasons without being waived or changing teams as a free agent. This means a player can obtain "Bird rights" by playing under three one-year contracts, a single contract of at least three years, or any combination. It also means that when a player is traded, his Bird rights are traded with him, and his new team can use the Bird exception to re-sign him. These contracts can be up to seven years in length. A player can receive 12.5% raises using this exception. This exception is known as the Larry Bird exception because the Celtics were the first team allowed to exceed the cap to keep their own free agent, and the player happened to be Bird.

                There is one more limit to the maximum salary that can be given using the Larry Bird exception. If the player was a first round draft pick and just completed his three-year rookie scale contract, but his team did not exercise their option to extend the contract for the fourth season (see question number 38 ), then this exception cannot be used to give him a salary greater than he would have received had the team exercised their fourth year option. For example Devean George was selected by the Lakers with the 23rd pick in the 1999 draft. He finished his three-year rookie scale contract in 2002. The Lakers had the option to extend him for the 02-03 season for $1,415,722 until October31, 2001, but did not do so. So while the Lakers were allowed to use the Larry Bird exception to re-sign George, they were limited to a first-year salary (using this exception) of $1,415,722. They instead used their mid-level exception to re-sign him, which allowed them to give him more money.


                EARLY BIRD EXCEPTION -- This is a weaker form of the Larry Bird exception. Players who qualify for this exception are called "Early Qualifying Veteran Free Agents" in the CBA. A player qualifies for this exception after just two seasons without being waived or changing teams as a free agent. Using this exception, a team may re-sign its own free agent for 175% of his salary the previous season or the average player salary, whichever is greater (see question number 22 for the definition of "average salary"). Early Bird contracts must be for at least two seasons (which limits this exception's usefulness -- it's often better to take a lower salary for one more season and then have the full Bird exception available the next season) and no longer than six seasons. A player can receive 12.5% raises using this exception.

                NON-BIRD EXCEPTION -- Players who qualify for this exception are called "Non-Qualifying Veteran Free Agents" in the CBA. They are defined as veteran free agents who are neither Qualifying Veteran Free Agents nor Early Qualifying Veteran Free Agents. This exception allows a team to re-sign its own free agent to a salary starting at 120% of the player's salary in the previous season or 120% of the minimum salary, whichever is greater, even if they are over the cap. Raises are limited to 10% and contracts are limited to six years when this exception is used.

                MID-LEVEL SALARY EXCEPTION -- This exception is also called the "Middle Class Exception." This exception says that a team can offer any player a contract equal to the average NBA salary every year, even if they are over the cap. This exception is new to the current CBA, and was "ramped up" to the average salary over a period of four years (see question number 22 for the definition of "average salary"). Here is the value of the mid-level salary exception for each year of the CBA:
                98-99 $1.75 million
                99-00 $2.00 million
                00-01 $2.25 million
                01-02 $4,538,000
                02-03 $4,546,000
                03-04
                $4,917,000



                This exception may be split and given to multiple players. It may be used for contracts of up to six years in length. Signing a player to a multi-year contract does not affect a team's ability to use this exception every year. For example, a team can sign a player to a six-year contract using this exception and still use the exception the following year to sign another player. Also see question number 18 for more information on the availability and use of this exception.

                $1 MILLION EXCEPTION -- This exception carries over from the previous CBA. Like the mid-level salary exception, it ramps up over several years:
                98-99 $1.00 million
                99-00 $1.10 million
                00-01 $1.20 million
                01-02 $1.30 million
                02-03 $1.40 million
                03-04 $1.50 million
                04-05 $1.60 million


                This exception may not be used two years in a row. It may also be split and given to more than one player, and can be used to sign players for up to two years. Also see question number 18 for more information on the availability and use of this exception.

                ROOKIE EXCEPTION -- Teams may sign their first round draft picks to rookie "scale" contracts even if they will be over the cap as a result.

                MINIMUM PLAYER SALARY EXCEPTION -- Teams can offer players minimum-salary contracts even if they are over the cap. Contracts can be up to two years in length. For two year contracts, the second season salary is the minimum salary for that season. For example, when the capped-out Lakers signed Dennis Rodman in the middle of the 98-99 season, they used this exception to give Rodman the minimum salary, which was $1 million for the 10+ year veteran. This exception also allows minimum-salary players to be acquired via trade. See question number 69 for more information.

                TRADED PLAYER EXCEPTION -- This is a "credit" teams can use to replace the salary of a player traded to another team. This credit cannot be used to sign free agents -- it is only available for trades. This exception is discussed in detail in question number 68 . Also see question number 18 for more information on the availability and use of this exception.

                DISABLED PLAYER EXCEPTION -- This exception allows a team which is over the cap to acquire a replacement for a disabled player who will be out for the remainder of the season. This exception can also be granted in the event of a player's death. This exception can only be used to acquire one player. The maximum salary for the replacement player is 50% of the injured player's salary, or the average salary, whichever is less (see question number 22 for the definition of "average salary"). Approval from the league (based on a determination by an NBA-designated physician) is required for this exception to be used. This exception can be used to sign a free agent, or to create room to accept a salary in trade. When used for trade, it is treated in a similar fashion to the traded player exception (see question number 68 ). If a team is under the salary cap by more than the combined amount of their exceptions, or drops below the cap by more than the combined amount of their exceptions after receiving this exception, then they lose this exception. If a team is under the salary cap and has this exception available to use, then it is included in their team salary.

                If a player is disabled between July 1 and November 30, the team must acquire the replacement player within 45 days. If the player is disabled between December 1 and June 30, and the physician determines that the player will be out the entire following season as well, then the team has until October 1 to sign a replacement. If the disabled player comes back sooner than expected, then he may be activated immediately, and the replacement player (or exception, if it hasn't been used yet) is not affected.

                Teams sometimes have had difficulty getting the NBA to approve an injury exception. For example, Danny Manning tore an ACL toward the end of the 97-98 season, yet the NBA would not approve the Suns for an injury exception. More recently, the Magic did not receive this exception in 2003 for Grant Hill. However, this exception was granted in the 1999 offseason to San Antonio, so they could replace Sean Elliott, who was disabled due to kidney problems. This exception was also granted to Charlotte soon after Bobby Phills was killed. A vote of the NBA Board of Governors is actually required for this exception to be granted. Also see question number 18 for more information on the availability and use of this exception.

                Don't confuse this exception with the salary cap relief teams can apply for two years after losing a player to a career-ending injury or death (see question number 51 ). This exception allows a team to acquire a replacement player. The salary cap relief removes a contract from the books.


                QUALIFYING OFFER -- Certain players become restricted free agents at the end of their contract if their team submits a qualifying offer (see question number 34 ). For players who entered the NBA in 98-99 or later, through their third year in the league, the qualifying offer must be for 125% of the player's previous salary, or the player's minimum salary (see question number 9 ) plus $150,000, whichever is greater. Teams are given an exception in this amount for the purpose of making a qualifying offer. This exception is not necessary for players finishing the fourth year of their rookie scale contracts, because teams may use the Larry Bird exception for these players."


                Here, everyone have a : on me

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Dampier speaks

                  It doesnt matter. He's playing the Hawks. Trying to make them THINK he'd do that when in reality he knows that he could turn into this years Jackson if he screws around too long.

                  After giving up 2 years totalling 13 mil, he isn't going to sign for the MLE unless he gets caught in the door. Then he has a whole host of teams that would be willing to sign him for that.

                  WE WILL NOT LAND DAMP FORGET IT!!!
                  Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Dampier speaks

                    Yeah, we get no love from the AJ signing.
                    This space for rent.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Dampier speaks

                      As for AJ, I think it would have to have been using our MLE, since he joined us as a FA and had not been with the Pacers for three years before signing his deal.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Dampier speaks

                        I think it is posturing by Dampier.

                        But if he really would sign for the MLE, then let the Warriors re-sign him for 3 years (rather than 2) starting at $6M and trade him to us for Bender.

                        Yes, I know, I am back on the Bender kick. But a straight up 1-for-1 trade without having to throw in Jeff or Freddie? I'd do it.

                        And the 3-year duration would enable us to have Bird rights if we would want to re-sign Dampier after 3 years.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Dampier speaks

                          Originally posted by blanket
                          I was under the impression that MLE deals have to be for at least 3 years...
                          Maybe you are thinking about sign and trades. They have to be for three years.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Dampier speaks

                            I don't think he will leave $8 mil on the table to go sign an MLE (even if it is the Hawks).

                            If we want Dampier (which certainly seems debatable) we have to
                            1) offer a S&T and
                            2) we have to match the 4 years at $40 mil that Atlanta is apparently offering.

                            I'm sure most of us agree that he would be a good addition but the price may be too steep. Even if we unloaded bad contracts (Croshere or Pollard), we would still have to agree to the second point.

                            I'm with IndyGeezer on this one, he's squeezing Atlanta for an extra mil or two.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Dampier speaks

                              Btown -

                              What the heck? The guy just turned 30 a week ago. And you think his body is shot?

                              Grant -

                              One reason that Dampier was giving in mid-season when he all but announced that he would probably opt out of his contract was that he wanted to play for a contender before his career was over.

                              If that really is a primary reason, I can't believe he really wants to sign with the Hawks.

                              I know it is rare, but maybe Dampier is smart enough to know that his life is already made financially. Maybe he is a rare breed that would like to have the money if he can get it, but not at the expense of having to play on a bottom-dweller.

                              I suppose we'll find out over the next few weeks.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X