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

[ESPN] Nick Collison's unique extension

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

  • [ESPN] Nick Collison's unique extension

    This is an interesting one. OKC used their leftover cap space to give Nick Collison a huge first year salary, followed by very small numbers for the rest of his contract. Essentially it's a 5 year $24m extension, but with more than half of it coming in the first year.

    It's perhaps something the Pacers could emulate if they end up with leftover cap space next year.

    http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/pos...ract-extension

    Inside Collison's unique contract extension
    By Marc Stein

    Leave it to Oklahoma City Thunder general manager Sam Presti to conceive a contract extension for glue-guy forward Nick Collison that forces me to consult every salary-cap reference book I can find.

    This is a fun one.

    Sources with knowledge of the contract specifics told ESPN.com that the value of the four-year extension that starts in the 2011-12 season is a modest $11 million and change. Highly favorable numbers for the Thunder.

    However ...

    The Thunder -- as a team slightly more than $6.5 million under the salary cap before re-signing Collison -- took advantage of that below-the-cap status to unexpectedly award Collison all of their space as a signing bonus that takes his 2010-11 compensation to a whopping $13.3 million.

    Signing bonuses in extensions are usually pro-rated through the life of the contract. Teams under the cap, though, can apply the entire signing bonus at the time the extension is signed, as long as the bonus doesn't exceed the available cap space.

    So Oklahoma City's motivation here is fairly obvious, no matter how out of place it looks to suddenly see All-Star dollars attached to Collison's name in this season's NBA salary documents ... and then a smaller figure for the next four seasons combined.

    This is OKC's thinking:

    With Collison now scheduled to earn $3.3 million in 2011-12 -- and with his salary descending all the way to $2.2 million in 2014-15 -- Oklahoma City has secured a valued member of its rotation at a very cap-friendly price that puts the smallest possible drain on its payroll in coming seasons when the Thunder have to accommodate the extension raises due Kevin Durant as well as future extension receipient Russell Westbrook (and possibly Serge Ibaka).

    Oklahoma City clearly made the determination that it couldn't do anything better with that $6.5 million in leftover cap space from the summer between now and June 30, when it vanishes. Which means Collison can face the prospect of a lockout this summer and potential contract rollbacks in a new CBA knowing he has long-term security that comes with the added bonus of getting a substantial safe-from-rollbacks chunk of extra change immediately.

    The Wizards actually (and quietly) did something similar when they extended Andray Blatche's contract in September, but the jumps in Blatche's deal weren't nearly as dramatic as the notification teams received Tuesday that Collison's salary-cap number for the 2010-11 season is now $13,270,000.

    And if you're wondering why the Thunder did this with Collison as opposed to one of their more prized youngsters, it's simple: He's the only player they regard as a definite keeper who is currently eligible for an extension.

    Jeff Green's window for an extension, remember, closed Oct. 31. And Westbrook won't even be eligible for an extension for the first time until July ... and only then if there's no lockout.

    The precise year-by-year breakdown:

    2010-11: $13,270,000 (Upped from $6.75 million with a signing bonus of slightly more than $6.5 million)

    2011-12: $3,272,997 (First year of extension)

    2012-13: $2,929,332

    2013-14: $2,585,668

    2014-15: $2,242,003

    *Extension totals $11,030,000 over four years

  • #2
    Re: [ESPN] Nick Collison's unique extension

    Very interesting. Have to wonder why it's so unique as there's a few teams 'wasting' cap space almost every year. Certainly they could use it on role guys like this.
    Last edited by ballism; 11-24-2010, 12:59 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: [ESPN] Nick Collison's unique extension

      Whoever manages the Cap for the Thunder over the last couple of years is a genius.
      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: [ESPN] Nick Collison's unique extension

        I would hope the Pacers use a similar strategy next off season. We will have a ton of cap room but likely can't go overboard due to Hibbert/Collison/Rush needing extensions on the horizon. You could sign high quality bench players with a lot of money up front that reduces significantly just in time to pay Roy, Collison, etc...

        You could sign someone like Dalembert to play backup center, give him huge money up front, but have the later contract years be next to nothing, allowing you to extend your players without an issue. I'm surprised you don't see this done more often.

        This is of course assuming this doesn't only apply to extensions. cap experts?
        "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

        - ilive4sports

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: [ESPN] Nick Collison's unique extension

          The only risk with this I see is if you use it on an older player who ends up retiring in the middle of the deal. Or on someone with medical issues, since you will only get a fraction of the money back from insurance. That would be a bummer for the owner who spent all the money

          It's also nice to retain some cap for free/cheap pickups like Eric Maynor or Beasley.

          Otherwise, a very nice little strategy.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: [ESPN] Nick Collison's unique extension

            Frontloading a contract is unique? Really? Thats salary cap 101.

            Then again I pay zero attention to NBA player salaries.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: [ESPN] Nick Collison's unique extension

              To the guys who are saying save the cap space to extend our players: Aren't we allowed to go over the cap to extend them?? Because of Bird Rights??

              So what's the point of saving money on our own players and essentially wasting money when we could go out and get a star forward and then sign our players and be over the cap?

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: [ESPN] Nick Collison's unique extension

                Originally posted by BringJackBack View Post
                To the guys who are saying save the cap space to extend our players: Aren't we allowed to go over the cap to extend them?? Because of Bird Rights??

                So what's the point of saving money on our own players and essentially wasting money when we could go out and get a star forward and then sign our players and be over the cap?
                yes we Are allowed to go over the cap to extend ur players.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: [ESPN] Nick Collison's unique extension

                  Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
                  yes we Are allowed to go over the cap to extend ur players.
                  im in ur cap space extendin ur doodz...
                  BillS

                  A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                  Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: [ESPN] Nick Collison's unique extension

                    Originally posted by tfarks View Post
                    Frontloading a contract is unique? Really? Thats salary cap 101.

                    Then again I pay zero attention to NBA player salaries.
                    There are quite a few of frontloaded salaries, but it's the first time i hear of using 'signing bonus' to basically pay 1/3 of a contract in advance, a year before the extension.

                    Lets say we resign TJ for the next 5 years, pay him a huge bonus this year, and then we have a cheap backup with very low salary and little effect to cap in the future. Only we can't do it, we are over cap.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: [ESPN] Nick Collison's unique extension

                      Using signing bonuses is the same way Dan Snyder overpays all of his players on the Washington Redskins. I'm just not grasping the uniqueness here.

                      I understand the explanation given, its not that. Is this just more unique in basketball? As the rules I'm sure are different.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: [ESPN] Nick Collison's unique extension

                        Originally posted by BringJackBack View Post
                        To the guys who are saying save the cap space to extend our players: Aren't we allowed to go over the cap to extend them?? Because of Bird Rights??

                        So what's the point of saving money on our own players and essentially wasting money when we could go out and get a star forward and then sign our players and be over the cap?
                        If Bird Rights are here in the new CBA, sure.
                        But it's always nice to have cap space next year too, and with such deals, you use up unnecessary cap this year, but save some cap next year when you might use it to sign other players.

                        Of course, if you resign your rookies to big deals next year, you possibly won't have any cap left anyway, so no big difference in that case. Still, even in that case, it helps your owner to save some money with luxury tax so you don't have to give away rookies like Utah.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: [ESPN] Nick Collison's unique extension

                          Originally posted by tfarks View Post
                          Using signing bonuses is the same way Dan Snyder overpays all of his players on the Washington Redskins. I'm just not grasping the uniqueness here.

                          I understand the explanation given, its not that. Is this just more unique in basketball? As the rules I'm sure are different.
                          Well I don't follow other American sports, so I wouldn't know. You might be right. Is there a cap in NFL?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: [ESPN] Nick Collison's unique extension

                            Originally posted by ballism View Post
                            Well I don't follow other American sports, so I wouldn't know. You might be right. Is there a cap in NFL?
                            Yeah. The cap is around 67 million and Snyder paid over 100 million.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: [ESPN] Nick Collison's unique extension

                              If what I just read on NFL cap is correct, in NFL those bonuses get payed in order to add security for players, as their contracts can be canceled before each season. In NFL, you can 'clean up' the cap by simply letting players go before each year.

                              In NBA, players get (mostly) guaranteed deals. For the most part, you can't clean up the cap by cutting players. So, the initial bonus is payed in order to reduce payroll in future years. It's a good way to get rid of the future payroll, since it's way harder to reduce it in NBA.

                              So the procedure is more or less the same, only the purpose is different. In NFL you can just pay higher salary and get rid of the player later on - when you need some cap room; in NBA you can't get rid of the player, so you'd prefer lower salary with big initial bonus.

                              But I may be wrong, that's just my understanding from taking a peak at NFL rules. I'm not even sure if there's a cap this year, i saw something about NFL canceling their CBA.
                              Last edited by ballism; 11-24-2010, 04:04 PM. Reason: poor grammar

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X