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

AMNESTY

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 5
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 template Next
  • #1

    AMNESTY

    If an Amnesty Clause is approved, could that serve to add more available talent to this offseason? Not exactly sure how an Amesty works in terms of signing those players.

    http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?story_id=19808

    Dwight Howard to the Los Angeles Lakers? Chris Paul to the New York Knicks?
    Slow down.
    Here's the problem with those super trades. What incentive do the Orlando Magic and New Orleans Hornets (owned currently by the NBA itself) to make a deal before knowing the rules of the new, yet-to-be-written Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)?
    It may be inevitable Howard and Paul relocate eventually, but why should their respective franchises assume inevitability when the new CBA may ensure the opposite?
    Rule changes could involve a hard cap, no Mid-Level Exception, no sign-and-trades, a non-mandatory franchise tag and who knows what else?
    Almost every minute rule in the CBA impacts player movement on some level. So far there isn't even an agreement to speak off. The NBA landscape may have a very different look once everything is hashed out.
    Expect a lockout July 1st which could last part or all of the summer. Lost games are not a given but certainly a possibility. A late start to the season may be more likely than a full year off. Will the league be ready for business on opening day? Hopefully.
    The new agreement is expected to have some variation of the "Allan Houston Amnesty," which in the current CBA allowed for a team to cut a player without that salary counting against the luxury tax. Ironically the New York Knicks used this one-time cost saver on Jerome Williams instead of Houston.
    The players still get paid which is why it's favorable to the union. The owners gain flexibility and save money. It's a win-win.
    Word is there may be another amnesty clause (even possibly two) in the new deal, with the money not only coming off the tax but the cap as well.
    Notice all the trade proposals flying around the internet and radio? The Lakers should take on the contract of Gilbert Arenas to entice the Magic to deal Howard?
    An amnesty clause would change that significantly.
    There's a good chance Arenas may be waived via amnesty before next season, allowing for the Magic to save roughly $6-$19.2 million in tax in the first year, depending on the tax threshold, total salary for Orlando and the new CBA.
    Obviously rules on tax may change completely but the current owners' proposal has the existing system gradually evolve to a hard cap, phasing out luxury tax altogether. It remains to be seen how a compromise is reached but the point is the same on Arenas.
    Suddenly the Magic, without Arenas, have just $57 million committed to next season. Technically there's still the payment to be made to Arenas, so it doesn't solve everything but it puts Orlando in a different position financially.
    Given the chance, the preference for the Magic is to rebuild a contender around Howard rather than dealing him.
    With so much up in the air, why would they deal him before July, prior to knowing full well what options they might have had?
    The Hornets aren't even in a difficult cap/tax position. They have to wait and see if David West opts out of the final year on his contract at $7.5 million. Given he's coming off of a severe knee injury, that's still up in the air.
    The pressure is to sign Paul to extension before he hits free agency. He may or may not but the answer won't be known before the new CBA is rolled out.
    Neither Howard nor Paul is applying Carmelo Anthony-like pressure to their teams and how long did it take for the Denver Nuggets to drag out that situation?
    Perhaps Orlando or New Orleans prefers to take the Utah Jazz/Deron Williams approach, deal before months of distraction and negotiation . . . but it's just short-sighted to do it before the new CBA.
    Maybe there's a Kwame Brown/Pau Gasol deal to be made and every GM with the interest and the capacity should do their due diligence . . . but honestly, save the pipe dreams until after the expected lockout is resolved.

    Then again the Grizzlies aren't looking so "foolish" these days any more.
    Amnesty-ville Horror
    It's not just the $62.4 million owed to Arenas by the Magic that may see an amnesty cut. Almost every team has some contact they regret:
    Atlanta Hawks: Marvin Williams makes $25 million over the next three years.
    Boston Celtics: Boston has done a fine job making sure they don't have any salaries on the books beyond next season save Rajon Rondo and Paul Pierce. If the Celtics believe their run is over, would Boston actually amnesty long-time star Paul Pierce?
    Probably not, but it could open up a tremendous amount of spending power in 2012. Perhaps more likely would be the one year left on Jermaine O'Neal's contract, but Boston may be a team that opts not to amnesty at all.
    Charlotte Bobcats: The obvious choice for the Bobcats would be DeSagana Diop and his two years for $14.3 million. Then again they could look to go in a different direction with Stephen Jackson and his two years, $19.3 million but obviously there's a big drop-off in production from Jackson to Diop.
    As with Pierce and Boston, it'd probably make more sense to look for a trade if it's time to move Jackson.
    If Charlotte has buyer's remorse on Tyrus Thomas, he is owed $33.4 million over the next four years.
    Chicago Bulls: Given that Chicago is about to start the Eastern Conference Finals, this is a team that has done well when it comes to constructing a team around Derrick Rose.
    Carlos Boozer hasn't quite lived up to expectations but he doesn't seem like an amnesty candidate. If there's anyone, perhaps it's C.J. Watson who is owed $3.4 million next season.
    Cleveland Cavaliers: The Cavs traded for Baron Davis midseason but that wasn't about Baron as much as it was about the L.A. Clippers first-round pick this June, unprotected. Given that Davis is owed $28.7 million over the next two, his stay in Cleveland may be short-lived.
    Dallas Mavericks: The Mavericks need to re-sign Tyson Chandler which would open the door to cutting backup center Brendan Haywood who is on the books for $45.4 million over the next five (although his finally year isn't fully guaranteed).
    Haywood can still produce so that wouldn't necessarily be an easy decision but it might be the inevitable one.


    Considering how much the Mavs have spent through the years, the franchise is otherwise in a good place with no true junk contracts.
    Denver Nuggets: Al Harrington made more sense when the team was looking to contend around Carmelo Anthony. His $27.7 million over the next four may not fit, even though his final two years are only 50% guaranteed.
    Chris "Birdman" Anderson is also on the books for $15.6 million over the next three but the fans still seem to love him in Denver.
    Detroit Pistons: The Pistons would most certainly get rid of Rip Hamilton's $25 million, of which $21.5 million is guaranteed. Investing in Ben Gordon and Charlie Villanueva haven't exactly paid dividends.
    Jason Maxiell's $10 million over two is superfluous as well.
    Golden State Warriors: The Warriors need to get out of Andris Biedrins' deal as soon as they can. His game is about as shaky as his free throw shooting. He's set to earn $9 million a year for the next three seasons.
    Houston Rockets: The Rockets don't have much to regret on their books. Hasheem Thabeet may never pan out. Is it worth $5.1 million next season to find out? How about Brad Miller's $4.8 million?
    Indiana Pacers: The Pacers could have used more than one amnesty the last few years but they've finally gotten to the point where their bad contracts are gone. James Posey for just one year ($7.6 million) would probably be the choice.
    Los Angeles Clippers: The Clippers are in good shape financially. If there's one guy they might cut, it'd be Ryan Gomes at $8 million over two seasons.
    Los Angeles Lakers: Luke Walton's 25-year contract (seemingly) is actually nearing its end but given that his role in the rotation had dropped significantly (with Coach Phil Jackson), the Lakers make jump at the chance to drop his $11.5 million remaining (two season).
    An argument can be made to drop Ron Artest's $21.8 million or Steve Blake's $12 million, both over three.
    Memphis Grizzlies: Things have certainly changed for the Grizzlies. Has O.J. Mayo turned a bad situation into possibly a long-term destination? Does Memphis need Rudy Gay?
    Gay is too valuable an asset to amnesty. Memphis may pass on it altogether.
    Miami HEAT: At the time, Mike Miller seemed like a great fit. Instead he hasn't and is still owed $24 million over the next four years.
    Milwaukee Bucks: Corey Maggette at $21.2 million over the next two. There's your amnesty.
    Then again, was Drew Gooden a good investment with $26.3 million due over the next four?
    Minnesota Timberwolves: The Wolves don't have a lot of money down long-term unless they want to park with serviceable point guard Luke Ridnour's $12 million over three, but that doesn't make a lot of sense given his level of production.
    Perhaps if the team isn't happy with Nikola Pekovic, Martell Webster or Jonny Flynn but amnesty just doesn't seem to make sense for Minnesota.
    New Jersey Nets: Travis Outlaw at $7 million a season for the next four can't seem like a great idea but that's the deal the Nets gave him. Do they want out?
    If not, the amnesty would probably be Johan Petro's $6.8 million over two.
    New Orleans Hornets: It would be a very bold move for the Hornets to dump Emeka Okafor who is due $40.5 million over the next three. Although he's not an All-Star, he's still a productive player at the center position.
    Jarrett Jack is solid at $10 million over the next two. Trevor Ariza played big in the playoffs with $21.8 million due over the next three. New Orleans may also be a team with no reason to use the amnesty.
    New York Knicks: Years of terrible contracts have come of the books. Now the worst might be Renaldo Balkman's $3.4 million over two.
    Oklahoma City Thunder: What's amazing about the Thunder is what they've been able to accomplish without breaking the bank. The only player who doesn't seem to fit would be Nate Robinson who is owed $4.5 million next season.
    Orlando Magic: While the obvious choice is Gilbert Arenas, it's not like Hedo Turkoglu has an attractive contract at $34.8 million over the next three. Given that Hedo's last year isn't fully guaranteed and Arenas makes almost twice as much, Gil looks like the no-brainer.
    Philadelphia 76ers: Elton Brand seemed like a bust in first year with the team but he's gotten healthy and productive. Instead Andres Nocioni is the odd man out with $6.7 million due next year (plus a team option for $7.5 million the following season).
    Phoenix Suns: Josh Childress. Period. $27 million due over the next four and he doesn't crack the rotation.
    Portland Trail Blazers: It's a crazy argument but if the team truly believes that Brandon Roy will not be healthy over the duration of his contract (four years left at $68.7 million), this is one way out of that. Hopefully it won't come to that and Roy can go on to a productive career.
    Otherwise the Blazers have invested in a solid roster that just needs to stay healthy.
    Sacramento Kings: Francisco Garcia has had some strong moments for the Kings and some completely invisible stretches. He has two more years guaranteed at $18.3 million along with a team option for another at $6.4 million.
    There's a chance that the rules won't allow a team under the cap to use the amnesty and Sacramento may not want to cut anyone with it anyway, given the chance.
    San Antonio Spurs: Would the Spurs cut Richard Jefferson after he opted out of a big year to take a lengthy - but cheaper per season deal? He's on hook to make $30.5 million over the next three but proved to be a much improved player in his second year with San Antonio.
    Toronto Raptors: The Raptors are heading into a much better place financially after years of spending through the Chris Bosh era. They tried to trade Jose Calderon at different times but at this one can they get a better player in given there's no other point on the roster?
    Calderon makes $20.3 million over the next two but he may be a player the Raptors need to keep. Perhaps Linas Kleiza but he can still be productive. The Raptors may not move on the amnesty at all.
    Utah Jazz: Raja Bell didn't give much in his first year with the club. It's not a lot but it may make sense to get out of his $6.7 million over two.
    Washington Wizards: The Wizards will look at Rashard Lewis who makes $21.1 million next year and is on the books for $22.7 the following season (albeit $11-17 million is guaranteed). If cut, Lewis would become a key free agent this summer for a playoff team in need of outside shooting.
    Some of the interesting players who could end up free agents: Rashard Lewis, Rip Hamilton, Marvin Williams, Baron Davis, Al Harrington, Andris Biedrins, Mike Miller, Corey Maggette, Nate Robinson, Gilbert Arenas, Andres Nocioni, etc.
    That's a lot of talent that could (somewhat unexpectedly) end up on the market. Ultimately teams will be active through the NBA Draft and up until the June 30th deadline. There's as good a chance as any for multiple trades but when it comes to a team dumping their franchise player on a maybe, that's going to have to wait until the new CBA is locked in . . . not out.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: AMNESTY

    Yeah...Posey would be "Reggie-d" this time around if there is Amnesty for this round of CBA negotiations.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: AMNESTY

      Why couldnt of this happen 3 yrs ago that would make me mad if it happens.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: AMNESTY

        The issue now is timing. Everyone will be on hold awaiting details on the new agreement. If we could count on a one-person amnesty, we still could pull off a draft-day trade. If we won't know by then, however, I'll be surprised if Larry pulls off a trade anyway without full knowledge of possibilities in the bigger picture.


        "He’s no shrinking violet when it comes to that kind of stuff."

        - Rick Carlisle on how Kevin Pritchard responds to needed roster changes.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: AMNESTY

          The question is who would we like of all those players. I like Emeka Okafor.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: AMNESTY

            This could definitely add a little intrigue to an otherwise underwhelming free agent class. I agree that out of the realistic names mentioned, Okafor is the most interesting for us.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: AMNESTY

              if they became free agents another owner would just overpay and the cycle could keep going lol.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: AMNESTY

                I think the amnesty provision would probably hurt us. It brings more players into the free agent market. We don't know how things will look after the CBA, but on the flipside there would be more free agents to go around. I just think the money that other teams would get would prevent us from getting a more marquee target. I would love for us to sign Wilson Chandler, Kenyon Martin, and Aaron Afflalo. Get McRoberts resigned. That's a lot of strength and athleticism. If we could get them on reasonable contracts, by saying to them, "we want all three of you (and McRoberts) and we have $25M to do it with." McRoberts $3.5M, Afflalo 6.0, Chandler 7.0, and Martin 9.5. Martin's would be for lesser years than the other three. I would sign the three kids to maximum length contracts. That takes up some space, but we get a lot of talent, toughness, and rebounding in return.

                Denver will probably decide to keep Nene happy. I could see them keeping Afflalo around. Felton and Lawson are redundant, but they will keep him around for the year because he is a good ball player and could be a great trade chip. I think the Nuggets will opt to keep Gallinari at SF and let Chandler walk. They have a deep front court and would have to make a decision on keeping Martin at a higher contract. I think the Nuggets are a prime candidate to not resign some of their free agents. If one of the three backout it gives you a little more ammo for the others and some cap space leftover.

                You could insert some other players you prefer, but I think this needs to be the sort of approach we take. I think Denver is weak in their position to keep their talent. I think an approach where we talk to a couple of guys to all come here together would be effective in this free agent climate. I am hoping for tighter restrictions, which gives us more spending power. The new CBA is a good excuse to pay guys less in a down free agent year. You just pray some idiot doesn't pay Eddy Curry $10M, even if he lost 100 pounds and all of a sudden loved the game. The amnesty provision would probably be a bad thing for us, but unfortunately I think Stern would think it was a great idea for the league.
                "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: AMNESTY

                  Originally posted by pacergod2 View Post
                  I think the amnesty provision would probably hurt us. It brings more players into the free agent market.
                  When you've got lots of money to spend, more choices is a good thing, not a bad thing.

                  Amnesty might hurt our ability to make lopsided trades with teams over the cap, but it won't hurt us in the free agent market. Quite the reverse.
                  This space for rent.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: AMNESTY

                    The latest I've read is that the proposed hard cap would be 45 mil. Even with current salary rollbacks and a waived amnesty player, there would still be a lot of teams over that cap. We don't know how teams over the cap during the 2 year grace period will be allowed to operate as oposed to teams that are under it. A team like Memphis may not be allowed to use it's Bird rights on Gasol if they're over the cap, which they would be. Things like this could still force a lot of lopsided trades or sign and trades for cap space. I think the article is dead on in that we have to see how the details of the new cba play out before attempting to trade for anyone. Whatever advantage we give up to amnesty could be outweighed by gaining leverage in another area of the cba.
                    Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: AMNESTY

                      Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
                      The latest I've read is that the proposed hard cap would be 45 mil. Even with current salary rollbacks and a waived amnesty player, there would still be a lot of teams over that cap. We don't know how teams over the cap during the 2 year grace period will be allowed to operate as oposed to teams that are under it. A team like Memphis may not be allowed to use it's Bird rights on Gasol if they're over the cap, which they would be. Things like this could still force a lot of lopsided trades or sign and trades for cap space. I think the article is dead on in that we have to see how the details of the new cba play out before attempting to trade for anyone. Whatever advantage we give up to amnesty could be outweighed by gaining leverage in another area of the cba.

                      I don't know, but there is one thing I can assure you. It will be much higher than $45 million. The owners are always going to start low, while the players are going to start high ($70 million or possibly higher is my guess). My guess is it will end up somewhere between $55 million and $65 million.

                      If it is a soft cap though I could see it stay at $45 million where the negotiations focus more around how soft of a soft cap it is. Like where the luxury tax begins, if there is a hard cap much higher, and exceptions.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: AMNESTY

                        Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                        I don't know, but there is one thing I can assure you. It will be much higher than $45 million. The owners are always going to start low, while the players are going to start high ($70 million or possibly higher is my guess). My guess is it will end up somewhere between $55 million and $65 million.

                        If it is a soft cap though I could see it stay at $45 million where the negotiations focus more around how soft of a soft cap it is. Like where the luxury tax begins, if there is a hard cap much higher, and exceptions.
                        I agree it's a pie in the sky request by the owners so they have room to negotiate up. I think we'll see something closer to a cap in the 56-58 mil range though, nothing as high as the current LT. Even at that a waived player won't get that many teams under the cap, and those who are over may not be allowed to sign long term contracts, excerise Bird rights, or use exceptions during the 2 yr. grace period. I don't think a team running a payroll in the range of LA will be allowed to continue with business as usual next season. We'll have added leverage over them with our cap space that we didn't have this year.
                        Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: AMNESTY

                          I honestly feel that the Hawks would cut Joe Johnson if possible, he makes so much money its absurd, and Rudy Gay may not be far behind him out the door, especially if a hard cap is pretty low.
                          "It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

                          ----------------- Reggie Miller

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: AMNESTY

                            This time around they should name this the "Rashard Lewis" Amnesty clause. He is owed $21 mil next season....seriously WTF was wrong with the Magic when they signed him to that big of a contract?
                            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: AMNESTY

                              I posted this in another thread. This is the list of amnesty players from 2005

                              http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q18

                              Originally posted by Larry Coon
                              Although the amnesty provision was informally referred to as the "Allan Houston provision," the Knicks chose not to use it on Houston. The actual list of players on whom the amnesty provision was used is (* = players who were previously waived): Derek Anderson (Blazers), Vin Baker* (Celtics), Troy Bell* (Grizzlies), Calvin Booth (Bucks), Doug Christie (Magic), Derrick Coleman* (Pistons), Howard Eisley* (Suns), Michael Finley (Mavericks), Brian Grant (Lakers), Fred Hoiberg (Timberwolves), Aaron McKie (76ers), Ron Mercer (Nets), Reggie Miller* (Pacers), Alonzo Mourning* (Raptors), Wesley Person* (Heat), Eddie Robinson* (Bulls), Clarence Weatherspoon (Rockets), Jerome Williams (Knicks). The Bobcats, Cavs, Clippers, Hawks, Hornets, Jazz, Kings, Nuggets, Sonics, Spurs, Warriors and Wizards did not utilize this provision.
                              Note that the list is dominated by previously waived players, with most of the rest being injured/retiring players. Finley I think was the only impact player available from amnesty.

                              I think teams are wary of waiving useful players no matter what their contracts are like. Amnesty doesn't mean the contract just goes away - the player still gets paid after all, it's just that the team gets more room to maneuver under the salary cap rules. So the list of free agents coming from the amnesty clause may not be as attractive as we hope.

                              I'm not even sure that the Pacers would use the amnesty clause on Posey - we'd lose the use of his expiring contract in trade, AND we'd still have to pay him. Granted, we may find ourselves needing the extra cap space if we have a FA or trade target in the works. But otherwise it might not be worth it.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 4 5 template Next
                              Working...
                              X