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

According to ESPN, we have the 2nd most cap space

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

    According to ESPN, we have the 2nd most cap space

    This is the first part in our two-part series on NBA teams' cap situations heading into the 2011 offseason. Today, we are looking at the teams with the most room to maneuver. Editor's note: The numbers here were compiled and organized completely by ESPN Insider.

    The cap is complicated. Just consider all the factors that actually determine a "team salary" for each year. It's no wonder teams have to hire resident capologists to keep it all square. You can't simply add it all up. And dissecting a cap situation can feel like being handed a complex dish and asked to peg the ingredients, and amounts used. Consider some variables:

    • The total includes salaries to veteran players on the current roster and money owed to players who have been waived.
    • There are cap holds used to replace veteran free agents until they are signed or renounced; there are unsigned past and current first-round picks.
    • A rookie minimum cap hold is also included when a roster falls below a combination of 12 players that are under contract and those that have cap holds. For example: A team with just nine players counting against the cap will get three rookie minimum salary cap holds. Those will be eliminated each time a player is signed and the roster gets back to 12.
    • Then there's an offer sheet. A team's salary total also will include an offer sheet that has been signed by a restricted free agent.

    Easy, right?

    The new CBA is bound to have new rules moving forward and will partly determine who will have the most salary cap room. But for now, we'll use the old rules, meaning the same salary cap number ($58,044,000) for 2011-12 that was used for 2010-11. The new collective bargaining agreement will have new criteria for determining salary cap room. However, these teams should have the most to spend regardless of the rules. Listed are the likeliest scenarios for each team. Note that free agents that could be renounced by each team are not listed.


    Sacramento Kings
    Nine players under contract: Omri Casspi, DeMarcus Cousins, Tyreke Evans, Francisco Garcia, Donte Greene, Pooh Jeter, John Salmons, Jason Thompson and Hassan Whiteside
    Total Payroll: $29.68 million
    1 Free-Agent Cap Hold: Marcus Thornton
    Total: $1,059,293
    1 First-Round Cap Hold: Jimmer Fredette (No. 10)
    Total: $1,923,600
    1 Minimum Roster Charge
    Total: $490,180
    Estimated Cap Room: $24.89 million

    Notes: The Kings will have the most cap room of any team, regardless of the new collective bargaining agreement, after they renounce the rest of their free agents, including Samuel Dalembert, who under the 2010-11 maximum salary slot would have a cap hold of $16,324,500. The Kings have said they'd like to retain Dalembert, however the free-agent center is expected to sign with a playoff contender. Will the team make big moves? Given the ownership situation, it all appears to be up in the air for the Kings.

    Indiana Pacers
    11 Players under contract: Darren Collison, Paul George, Danny Granger, Tyler Hansbrough, Roy Hibbert, George Hill, Dahntay Jones, James Posey, A.J. Price, Brandon Rush and Lance Stephenson
    Total Payroll: $37.09 million
    1 Free-Agent Cap Hold: Josh McRoberts
    Total: $884,293
    Estimated Cap Room: $20.06 million

    Notes: The Pacers finally have cycled out of all their bad high-end contracts and will enter the 2011-12 year with the second-most cap room. Jeff Foster could be re-signed, but his cap hold of $9,982,500 will need to be renounced for the Pacers to open free agency with just over $20 million in cap room. This is a team that can be active, but it also has some nice young pieces, and might be content with the addition of Hill.

    New Jersey Nets
    Seven players under contract: Jordan Farmar, Damion James, Brook Lopez, Anthony Morrow, Travis Outlaw, Johan Petro and Deron Williams
    Total Payroll: $39.81 million
    1 Waived Player: Stephen Graham
    Total: $100,000
    1 First-Round Cap Hold: Marshon Brooks (No. 25)
    Total: $954,000
    4 Minimum Roster Charges
    Total: $1,960,720
    Estimated Cap Room: $16.09 million

    Notes: Stephen Graham only has a partial guarantee for 2011-12 and is expected to be waived, so his minimum contract doesn't become fully guaranteed. Sundiata Gaines is currently under contract for next season, however his minimum salary is not guaranteed and he, under this scenario, will be waived to give the Nets a little more cap room. For now he will be listed as a renounced free agent. The Nets are expected to re-sign Kris Humphries, but the Nets will need to renounce his $6.4 million cap hold to have the $16.09 million cap room. Their cap room will be reduced if and when Humphries signs his new contract. Long term, it's obviously all about whether they can keep Williams around.

    Washington Wizards
    Seven players under contract: Andray Blatche, Trevor Booker, Jordan Crawford, Rashard Lewis, JaVale McGee, Kevin Seraphin and John Wall
    Total Payroll: $39.66 million
    1 Waived Player: Mike Bibby
    Total: $1,125,874
    2 First-Round Cap Holds: Jan Vesely (No. 6) and Chris Singleton (No. 18)
    Total: $3,910,000
    3 Minimum Roster Charges
    Total: $1,470,540
    Estimated Cap Room: $11.87 million

    Notes: The Wizards have tendered qualifying offers to Othyus Jeffers, Hamady Ndiaye, Larry Owens and Nick Young. All four players will need to be renounced to give the Wizards the $11.87 million cap room. It will decrease by $7,891,509 while Young remains on the salary cap. Given the youthful pieces on this roster, we don't expect the Wiz to be too aggressive.

    Los Angeles Clippers
    10 Players under contract: Al-Farouq Aminu, Eric Bledsoe, Brian Cook, Randy Foye, Ryan Gomes, Eric Gordon, Blake Griffin, Chris Kaman, Willie Warren and Mo Williams
    Total Payroll: $44.91 million
    1 Free-Agent Cap Hold: DeAndre Jordan
    Total: $1,091,100
    1 Minimum Roster Charge
    Total: $490,180
    Estimated Cap Room: $11.54 million

    Notes: The Clippers could gain a little more room if they waive Warren and his nonguaranteed contract, however, it won't increase their cap room that much if they do. They will have more cap room than Washington and will move up to fourth if Nick Young and the other three free agents are not renounced by the Wizards. They could also move up to third if the Nets do not renounce Sundiata Gaines and Kris Humphries. The hole on this team is clear, and we don't expect the trade talk surrounding a fix at the 3 to subside.

    Oklahoma City Thunder
    13 Players under contract: Cole Aldrich, Nick Collison, Kevin Durant, James Harden, Serge Ibaka, Royal Ivey, Eric Maynor, Byron Mullens, Kendrick Perkins, Nate Robinson, Thabo Sefolosha, Russell Westbrook and Robert Vaden
    Total Payroll: $49.85 million
    1 First-Round Cap Hold: Reggie Jackson (No. 24)
    Total: $993,700
    Estimated Cap Room: $7.19 million

    Notes: The Thunder can increase their cap room to $9.18 million if they waive Ivey by Sept. 16, when his contract becomes fully guaranteed, and Vaden, who does not have any salary protection. They won't have that much room and won't make this list if they don't renounce Daequan Cook. While trade talk seems constant around this team, this was still the NBA's youngest team in 2010-11.

    Toronto Raptors
    10 Players under contract: Solomon Alabi, Leandro Barbosa, Andrea Bargnani, Jerryd Bayless, Jose Calderon, Ed Davis, DeMar DeRozan, Amir Johnson, James Johnson and Linas Kleiza
    Total Payroll: $47.18 million
    1 First-Round Cap Hold: Jonas Valanciunas (No. 5)
    Total: $2,900,100
    1 Minimum Roster Charge
    Total: $490,180
    Estimated Cap Room: $7.47 million

    Notes: The Raptors will end up in the top five if the Wizards don't renounce Nick Young and the Thunder don't renounce Daequan Cook and waive Royal Ivey and Robert Vaden.

    Chris Sprow is a senior editor for ESPN The Magazine and Insider. He reports and edits across many sports, with an emphasis on the NFL, MLB, NBA and college football and basketball; he also works year-round with Mel Kiper on NFL draft coverage. He also oversees all sports in ESPN's Rumor Central and has been a regular guest on ESPN networks in that role. You can find his ESPN archives here, and reach him on Twitter here.

    http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insid...3fid%3d6715519
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: According to ESPN, we have the 2nd most cap space

    I am so envious of how young, good and well managed the OKC Thunder are right now. To have all this AND Cap Room just frustrates me. They will win an NBA Championship in the next 5 years. I really believe this.

    Bah Humbug.
    I don't want to sound condescending, which means to talk down to you by the way

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: According to ESPN, we have the 2nd most cap space

      But how much cap space will the Thunder have after Harden and Westbrook are done with their rookie contracts?

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: According to ESPN, we have the 2nd most cap space

        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
        But how much cap space will the Thunder have after Harden and Westbrook are done with their rookie contracts?
        And Ibaka...


        Comment

        • #5
          Re: According to ESPN, we have the 2nd most cap space

          I swear, maybe i'm just stoopid but I do not understand the concept of a Cap hold. 9.9 million cap hold on Jeff Foster, what in the world does that mean when he is a UnFA as of tomorrow.
          You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: According to ESPN, we have the 2nd most cap space

            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
            But how much cap space will the Thunder have after Harden and Westbrook are done with their rookie contracts?
            They won't be that bad. This is one of the reasons why they traded Jeff Green. They should be able to keep just about everyone if they play their cards right and given how everything has gone so far this is all very likely.

            The point isn't the cap space in the future. Its that they have the space now to keep these players later. They were in the WCF's and were the youngest team in the NBA AND they will keep those young players.

            Thats just unfair. (yes, yes I'm just pouting. I know)

            I don't want to sound condescending, which means to talk down to you by the way

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: According to ESPN, we have the 2nd most cap space

              Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
              I swear, maybe i'm just stoopid but I do not understand the concept of a Cap hold. 9.9 million cap hold on Jeff Foster, what in the world does that mean when he is a UnFA as of tomorrow.
              It may have to do with our ability to re-sign him under the Larry Bird rule. Of course we wouldn't need to because we're so far under the cap.

              For example, I think cap holds prevents a team $5 million under the cap from signing a $5 million free agent and then trying to re-sign their own player for $9.9 million using the Larry Bird rule. If they want the first guy bad enough then they have to renounce the bird rights to their guy first.

              I think.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: According to ESPN, we have the 2nd most cap space

                Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                I swear, maybe i'm just stoopid but I do not understand the concept of a Cap hold. 9.9 million cap hold on Jeff Foster, what in the world does that mean when he is a UnFA as of tomorrow.
                Originally posted by Strummer View Post
                It may have to do with our ability to re-sign him under the Larry Bird rule. Of course we wouldn't need to because we're so far under the cap.

                For example, I think cap holds prevents a team $5 million under the cap from signing a $5 million free agent and then trying to re-sign their own player for $9.9 million using the Larry Bird rule. If they want the first guy bad enough then they have to renounce the bird rights to their guy first.

                I think.
                yes, you are correct. miami did something like that with alonzo morning several years ago. the cap hold closed the loophole.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: According to ESPN, we have the 2nd most cap space

                  Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                  But how much cap space will the Thunder have after Harden and Westbrook are done with their rookie contracts?
                  I have a feeling westbrook will be signing elsewhere. Most likely destination be the Lakers. He is from long beach and went to ucla.
                  I'm a Beast

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: According to ESPN, we have the 2nd most cap space

                    Originally posted by PaulGeorge View Post
                    I have a feeling westbrook will be signing elsewhere. Most likely destination be the Lakers. He is from long beach and went to ucla.
                    AND they need a new PG.
                    Senior at the University of Louisville.
                    Greenfield ---> The Ville

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: According to ESPN, we have the 2nd most cap space

                      With the Kings picking up Hickson.....that likely knocks the Kings out of the race to get a Big Man ( assuming that they don't simply trade Jason Thompson or do some S&T that would send JT to the Nuggets or Mavs ).

                      I'd think that IF the Pacers really wanted to get a Big Man and wanted to spend the $$$ for it...they can get Nene, Chandler or David West ( assuming that Nene or Chandler are willing to leave their respective Teams ).

                      Again...that's IF they want to spend $$$.
                      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: According to ESPN, we have the 2nd most cap space

                        I don't think this is entirely correct. Since Nene opted out the Nuggets now have about 27 mil tied up in 8 players. Throw in 3 min. roster charges and they're still around 28.5 mil which would give them the most cap room. I don't know why they're not even mentioned in the article. I really hope we go after Nene but if he wants to stay in Denver they can pay him just as much as anyone.
                        Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: According to ESPN, we have the 2nd most cap space

                          Originally posted by PaulGeorge View Post
                          I have a feeling westbrook will be signing elsewhere. Most likely destination be the Lakers. He is from long beach and went to ucla.
                          He's going to be RFA, not UFA. OKC will match any offer
                          Originally posted by Piston Prince
                          Bobcat fans telling us to cheer up = epic fail season
                          "Josh Smith Re-building the city of Detroit one brick at a time"

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: According to ESPN, we have the 2nd most cap space

                            Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
                            I don't think this is entirely correct. Since Nene opted out the Nuggets now have about 27 mil tied up in 8 players. Throw in 3 min. roster charges and they're still around 28.5 mil which would give them the most cap room. I don't know why they're not even mentioned in the article. I really hope we go after Nene but if he wants to stay in Denver they can pay him just as much as anyone.
                            They have a ton of cap holds (Nene, K-Mart, JR Smith, Chandler, pick, a few others). They are closer to 90 mil with cap holds.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: According to ESPN, we have the 2nd most cap space

                              Originally posted by ballism View Post
                              They have a ton of cap holds (Nene, K-Mart, JR Smith, Chandler, pick, a few others). They are closer to 90 mil with cap holds.
                              Nene has opted out so I'm not sure if a cap hold applys there especially since they'd be using there cap space to try to resign him. I was counting Chandler into the figure. The article took assumptions that that we'd renounce our cap hold on Dun, Ford, and Foster. It's obvious that Denver will do the same with Martin and most likely will with Smith. Take out the cap holds that they'll renounce and Denver does have the lowest payroll.
                              Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X