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

Today's meetings are over: Don't expect NBA ball until 2012

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

  • Re: Today's meetings are over: Don't expect NBA ball until 2012

    http://espn.go.com/dallas/nba/story/...ys-owners-rift

    Seems like Fisher was right, when he said that the owners had problems within their own rows. The article says that Clevelands Dan Gilbert and Phoenix' Robert Sarver were the two guy who didn't like what the other people worked out...

    Comment


    • Re: Today's meetings are over: Don't expect NBA ball until 2012

      Screw what Gilbert thinks. I have a feeling that if it were up to him, the only way we'd get playing would be if Lebron were to be forcibly returned to Cleveland!
      "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

      "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

      Comment


      • Re: Today's meetings are over: Don't expect NBA ball until 2012

        Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
        This is a different argument than you were making before. Do you have a problem with Miami supposedly overspending or for superstars deciding to play together?



        And I'll say it once again: they didn't overspend.
        I know you didnt address me personally man but I will chime in of OK

        I personally didnt hate the fact LeBron, Wade, and Bosh teamed up

        I just hate the whole cherade the put on meeting with teams acting like they were serious about signing there when they new since the last Oylmpics what they were going to do

        It reaked of Egomaniaisim (is that a word)

        Of all people in the league that should have been able to carry a team and deliver it was LeBron

        He is free to do what he wants, but I would have had a lot more respect if he took the "Kevin Durrant route" and simply tweeted that Ohio will always be his home, but he wants to play with Dwayne
        Sittin on top of the world!

        Comment


        • Re: Today's meetings are over: Don't expect NBA ball until 2012

          Originally posted by InYaFace View Post
          http://espn.go.com/dallas/nba/story/...ys-owners-rift

          Seems like Fisher was right, when he said that the owners had problems within their own rows. The article says that Clevelands Dan Gilbert and Phoenix' Robert Sarver were the two guy who didn't like what the other people worked out...
          Called it. The BRI is really not the big issue. Owners were not planning to "rollback" the players' current salaries. It's all about the owners deciding if they want revenue sharing w/soft cap or hard cap.

          In any event, the overspenders (LA/NY) probably don't mind keeping the current CBA, while the small markets (PHX/CLE) are pushing for the hard cap or revenue sharing (if they were truly losing money). Given what happened last summer, It stands to reason for why CLE is fighting so hard. Would a hard cap had prevented Lebron from leaving? Maybe or maybe not, but it may have made Miami rethink the future impacts of the contracts, since they wouldn't be able to "overspend" down the road. They could have "low balled" Lebron to stay underneath a hard cap, and Lebron may have had to give more thought to his "Decision".


          Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

          Comment


          • Re: Today's meetings are over: Don't expect NBA ball until 2012

            Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View Post
            I know you didnt address me personally man but I will chime in of OK

            ...

            He is free to do what he wants, but I would have had a lot more respect if he took the "Kevin Durrant route" and simply tweeted that Ohio will always be his home, but he wants to play with Dwayne
            I don't want to turn this into another LeBron argument, but I'll just say that all these are legitimate, fine reasons to dislike the him and the Heat, I disagree but I have no problem with what you're saying.

            To the crux of the argument: big market teams having a severe advantage over smaller market teams. In the current system, the scales are weighted a little too much toward bigger markets but also remember that economic markets in general are weighted toward bigger, or more desirable markets. I'd like to see revenue sharing and maybe a heavier luxury tax.

            There will always be an inherent advantage for bigger markets in every aspect of the economy and in every sport. That's not to say that league rules can't help tip the scales a little but better players will try and play in bigger or better cities no matter what rules the league puts in place.

            Comment


            • Re: Today's meetings are over: Don't expect NBA ball until 2012

              Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
              This is a different argument than you were making before. Do you have a problem with Miami supposedly overspending or for superstars deciding to play together?



              And I'll say it once again: they didn't overspend.
              Let me clarify and let's try to look at the BIG picture...

              My argument (as it always been), since Miami has the OPTION to overspend in the future to maintain the Big 3, then OTHER teams may not have the competitive advantage to steal one of their players. If NY acquires Chris Paul, then they will have the same competitive advantage down the road too. With a hard cap, the other teams would least have the assurance that they could have a chance of snatching one of those players, UNLESS they truly love the game of basketball and would take $15MIL instead of $23MIL when the resign under the new CBA.


              Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

              Comment


              • Re: Today's meetings are over: Don't expect NBA ball until 2012

                Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
                Let me clarify and let's try to look at the BIG picture...

                My argument (as it always been), since Miami has the OPTION to overspend in the future to maintain the Big 3, then OTHER teams may not have the competitive advantage to steal one of their players. If NY acquires Chris Paul, then they will have the same competitive advantage down the road too. With a hard cap, the other teams would least have the assurance that they could have a chance of snatching one of those players, UNLESS they truly love the game of basketball and would take $15MIL instead of $23MIL when the resign under the new CBA.
                You want a hard cap so it's easier for small market teams to sign away good players from large market teams?

                Comment


                • Re: Today's meetings are over: Don't expect NBA ball until 2012

                  Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                  You want a hard cap so it's easier for small market teams to sign away good players from large market teams?
                  Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! We have ourselves a winner!


                  Remember when we could have gotten 1-2 solid players and a possible Top 3 draft pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by trading away Paul George?

                  Comment


                  • Re: Today's meetings are over: Don't expect NBA ball until 2012

                    Here is an article with some new info

                    http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/69...arate-meetings

                    Players, then owners declare unity

                    By Dave McMenamin and Tim MacMahon
                    ESPNLosAngeles.com and ESPNDallas.com



                    Amid rumors of a rift among NBA owners, fueled by an email from players' union president Derek Fisher to his colleagues, commissioner David Stern declared "virtual unanimity" after meeting with the owners for more than four hours Thursday in Dallas.

                    Stern said the "vast majority" of the owners remain firmly in favor of a hard salary cap, a major sticking point in the negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement.

                    Sources confirmed to ESPN The Magazine's Chris Broussard that there were disagreements among owners.
                    Stern, however, adamantly denied that there is a split among the owners.

                    "I don't know what the basis of Derek's belief is," Stern said. "But I can tell you, having just come out of the meeting, the vast majority of owners are indeed in favor of a 'hard cap system,' as Derek refers to it. Having said that, they authorized the committee to be ready to negotiate on all points, and the committee is."

                    Meanwhile, NBA players will remain unified and calm in what could be a lengthy pursuit of a labor agreement, Fisher vowed Thursday in Las Vegas.

                    About 40 players got an update on collective bargaining talks from Fisher and executive director Billy Hunter in what Fisher described as "a very colorful and engaging meeting" at a casino. NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith also spoke to the players, who were mostly in town to play in an Impact Basketball academy league.

                    "There is not the fracture and the separation amongst our group that in some ways has been reported," said Fisher, the Los Angeles Lakers point guard. "We just want to continue to reiterate that point."




                    The players echoed their leaders' stance, promising they won't allow the union to splinter when the players start missing paychecks in a few weeks. NBPA members have been educated for several years about the steps necessary to survive a long lockout, and Fisher said the union will continue to protect the rights of players who sign overseas this fall.

                    "I've never seen this union as strong as we are collectively right now," said Boston Celtics center Jermaine O'Neal, among the few remaining players who participated in the 1998-99 labor dispute. "A lot of our young guys are wide-eyed when they see the numbers at first, but now they're educated. We don't need to make a temporary, emotional decision. We need to make a long-term decision for a bigger purpose."

                    Before the NBA's owners and players' union returned to their respective corners on Thursday -- the owners in Dallas, the players in Las Vegas -- to regroup following Tuesday's negotiating session that ended with the lockout still very much intact, Fisher sent out an email to the players asking for solidarity.

                    The email, first printed by SI.com, challenged the faction of player agents who wish to decertify the union, and it also hinted that there may be some division growing between the league's 29 owners.

                    "The most recent meetings in New York were effective," Fisher wrote. "What you have been told by your agents, representatives and the media is probably speculative and inaccurate.

                    "What actually happened in those meetings was discussion, brainstorming and a sharing of options by both sides. The turning point this past Tuesday was not a disagreement between the players and the owners. It was actually a fundamental divide between the owners internally. They could not agree with each other on specific points of the deal and therefore it caused conflict within the league and its owners."

                    However, on Thursday deputy commissioner Adam Silver echoed Stern in refuting Fisher's assertion that owners were divided. Silver said that owners' discussions were fluid and that varying proposals did not reflect any fundamental rift among their ranks.

                    "From the beginning, we were never caught up with the label of a hard cap," Silver said. "What we've said from day one is we need a system where all 30 teams can compete for a championship and we have absolute unanimity among our owners on that principle. So while we've discussed over the last several hours, and the last several weeks, different concepts to achieve that result, there is absolute agreement, and it's a complete fiction coming from somewhere that there isn't among our owners."

                    Owners and players initially found reason for optimism during Tuesday's meetings. Stern and Peter Holt, the head of the owners' executive committee, felt that the players' proposal to take 52 or 53 percent of basketball-related income, compared to 57 under the previous agreement, was basically fair, sources said.

                    Owners were seriously considering coming off of their demand for a salary freeze and would allow players' future earnings to be tied into the league's revenue growth, a critical point for players. The owners also were willing to allow the players to maintain their current salaries, without rollbacks, sources said.

                    But when the owners left the players to meet among themselves for around three hours, Cleveland's Dan Gilbert and Phoenix's Robert Sarver expressed their dissatisfaction with many of the points, sources said. The sources said that the Knicks' James Dolan and the Lakers' Jerry Buss were visibly annoyed by the hardline demands of Gilbert and Sarver.

                    On Thursday, players discussed union decertification during their Las Vegas meeting, but Hunter emphasized the union believes such a drastic step isn't an imminent strategy despite behind-the-scenes calls for the move from several agents. NFL players dissolved their union to file an antitrust lawsuit against the league earlier this year.

                    "We've kind of dispelled the notion that the players were not together and they were not in support of the union," Hunter said. "If the owners were looking for a break in the ranks ... I think that notion has been dispelled."

                    Fisher also rejected the notion that the NBPA is waiting for a ruling on a charge filed with the National Labor Relations Board for unfair bargaining practices, although Hunter said he plans to travel to Washington next week in hopes of getting an expedited ruling.




                    "Sometimes it's implied that we're waiting, posturing, sitting on the sideline and waiting for something to happen favorable for us with the NLRB," Fisher said. "That's just not the case. It's part of this process, but we're still taking action. We have to negotiate a deal, and that's the only way we'll get what's fair for these guys."

                    If NBA owners are searching for cracks in the players' unity, as Fisher and Hunter believe, the union attempted to provide a visual answer. Over 30 players stood together behind Fisher and Hunter at a brief news conference, wearing identical gray T-shirts with one large word in yellow: "STAND."

                    "All the agendas that might be pushed by different groups, they don't have a way in as long as we stand shoulder to shoulder," Fisher said.

                    Earlier in the week, Fisher used his letter to challenge the motives of the agents seeking to disband the NBPA.

                    "What would be appreciated by the 400-plus players would be the support of our agents and constructive ideas, suggestions and solutions that are in our best interests," wrote Fisher. "Not the push for a drastic move that leaves their players without a union, without pensions, without health care. We just aren't there."

                    Broussard and ESPN.com's Henry Abbott reported that five of the league's most influential player agents -- Arn Tellem, Bill Duffy, Mark Bartelstein, Jeff Schwartz and Dan Fegan -- spoke Monday about the process of decertifying the union.

                    With the lockout reaching 2½ months and Hunter telling reporters Tuesday that he has already cautioned players to expect to miss up to half of the upcoming season, Fisher made another move in addition to the email to try to inspire trust and patience among his players.

                    According to Broussard, NFLPA executive director Smith spoke to the players Thursday in Las Vegas at the behest of Fisher.
                    Sources said that his message centered on the pros and cons of decertification.

                    The union had hoped that Smith's story of the NFL players enduring a 4½-month lockout before securing a season-saving deal will convince NBA players that the same outcome can be achieved if they, too, stay unified.

                    A source who was at the meeting told Broussard that both Fisher and Smith stressed the importance of being unified, and players took the message to heart. Some players who had been on the fence about decertifying learned that they had been misinformed by agents who had said that the union wasn't even considering decertification, the source said. The union clarified that decertification has always been an option, but it's not something the leadership
                    is considering right now because they have a plan in place and progress is being made, according to the source.

                    "I get reports that the union is coming out of their meeting today unified," Stern said Thursday. "We think that's a good thing. We would like to negotiate with a strong union that's capable of delivering a deal. I think that's a very positive step."

                    The only action taken at the owners meeting was ratifying a five-year deal with the league's referees.

                    The big question now, as it has been throughout the lockout, is whether the referees will have games to officiate when the season is scheduled to begin.

                    "That's a really good question," Stern said. "It depends upon our negotiation with the players. The clock is ticking, but it hasn't struck midnight yet. We have time to do what has to be done and we'd like to do it, actually."

                    Dave McMenamin covers the Lakers for ESPNLosAngeles.com. Tim MacMahon covers the Mavericks for ESPNDallas.com. Information from The Associated Press was used in this report
                    Last edited by Unclebuck; 09-15-2011, 10:13 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Today's meetings are over: Don't expect NBA ball until 2012

                      Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
                      Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! We have ourselves a winner!
                      My thoughts exactly!

                      No reason big markets/other teams containing superstars should be able to get an easy ride while we and the majority of the league are out of the picture to get in on the FA Frenzy.
                      In 49 states it's just basketball, but this is Indiana!

                      Comment


                      • Re: Today's meetings are over: Don't expect NBA ball until 2012

                        Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
                        Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! We have ourselves a winner!
                        Now forgive me for asking a stupid question, but wouldn't the big market teams playing by those same rules be able to steal superstars from small market teams?

                        Comment


                        • Re: Today's meetings are over: Don't expect NBA ball until 2012

                          http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.c...ial-labor-deal

                          Report: Owners of Cavs, Suns killed potential labor deal

                          Kurt Helin

                          Sep 15, 2011, 10:19 PM EDT
                          8 Comments
                          Dan Gilbert

                          UPDATE 10:19 pm: David Stern called this report “incorrect and fictional” in his press conference following Thursday’s Board of Governor’s meetings.

                          You can take that as the gospel truth or you can take it as Stern covering the backside of his owners. We all know this was the only thing Stern could say, he had to shoot it down. Decide for yourself what you want to believe, as Agent Mulder always told us “the truth is out there.”

                          ————————————–

                          6:49 pm: Right now, the hardliners among the NBA owners are driving the labor negotiations bus — they want a larger share of the overall basketball related income, they want revenue sharing and they want a hard salary cap. All of it.

                          The bigger point is that right now the heavyweight, veteran owners are not blocking them (see the Lakers and Jerry Buss).

                          Which brings us to this account of Tuesday’s big negotiating session in New York between the owners and players, as reported by Dave McMenamin at ESPN. (Hat tip to I am a GM.)

                          Owners and players initially found reason for optimism during Tuesday’s meetings. Commissioner David Stern and Peter Holt, the head of the owners’ executive committee, felt that the players’ proposal to take 52 or 53 percent of basketball-related income, compared to 57 under the previous agreement, was basically fair, sources said.

                          Owners were seriously considering coming off of their demand for a salary freeze and would allow players’ future earnings to be tied into the league’s revenue growth, a critical point for players. The owners also were willing to allow the players to maintain their current salaries, without rollbacks, sources said.

                          But when the owners left the players to meet among themselves for around three hours, Cleveland’s Dan Gilbert and Phoenix’s Robert Sarver expressed their dissatisfaction with many of the points, sources said. The sources said that the Knicks’ James Dolan and the Lakers’ Jerry Buss were visibly annoyed by the hardline demands of Gilbert and Sarver.

                          Now, let’s start by taking all this with a little salt. The public relations battle of the day is an effort by the players to paint themselves as unified and the owners as divided and in the way of the deal. They did it after Thursday’s union meeting, they did it in Derek Fisher’s letter. McMenamin is a good reporter (and a friend of this blog), and I don’t know his (or ESPN’s Chris Broussard, who is named in the story) sources, but if the report paints the owners in a bad light, you can guess it came from someone with the players’ interests at heart. That does not make it objective truth.

                          A second point — Sarver and Gilbert speak for other owners. They are speaking from a small market perspective, and while we can easily say “they are stopping progress” for them this bit of progress is not the end goal. They may want to go too far, but right now who is stopping them? And some of their points may be valid.

                          That said, it’s not hard to visualize this playing out pretty much like this. And it’s easy to point out the irony that if Gilbert still had LeBron James in Cleveland he would view all of this very, very differently.

                          The players have their lines in the sand, too — and keeping salaries tied to league revenues is one of them. As it should be — the league is expected to get massive new television deals in the coming years (local now and national in 2016) and the players should not be totally shut out of all that new money flowing into the league. This should be a partnership.

                          There no doubt are differences in owners’ opinions. No doubt they will paint themselves as unified but the disagreements and differences are there. And as long as the hardliners are allowed to drive the boat with key owners sitting back, as long as a radical overhaul is the demand, then the lockout will drag on.

                          some tension among the owners? I hope they dont accept 53% the highest I would accept is 50% and a hard cap but that's just me.
                          Last edited by pacer4ever; 09-16-2011, 03:03 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Today's meetings are over: Don't expect NBA ball until 2012

                            Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
                            http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.c...ial-labor-deal

                            Report: Owners of Cavs, Suns killed potential labor deal

                            Kurt Helin

                            Sep 15, 2011, 10:19 PM EDT
                            8 Comments
                            Dan Gilbert




                            some tension among the owners? I hope they dont accept 53% the highest I would accept is 50% and a hard cap but that's just me.
                            its not surprising to see its the Cavs and Suns owners being the ones doing this. Gilbert still feels jilted about losing LeBron and Sarver has been cutting costs in Phoenix for awhile now.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Today's meetings are over: Don't expect NBA ball until 2012

                              Originally posted by ksuttonjr76 View Post
                              Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! We have ourselves a winner!
                              If you're expecting elite free agents to flock to Indy because of the hard cap... well I think that's pretty naive.

                              The fundamental problem in the NBA is that there isn't enough elite talent to go around. The likes of Dwight Howard or Chris Paul won't be limited to Indiana even with a hard cap - any time guys like that are available, you can be sure other cities are clearing cap space just for them. All we'd gain is the privilege of paying second tier guys like Joe Johnson and Rudy Gay max money.

                              The other point is, and it's one which I've been making for a while, is that all the previous examples of small market success that we've seen all required overspending to some extent or another. The basic blueprint is: 1) Assemble young talent (by getting lucky in the draft, or stealing young players in trade); 2) Pay (sometimes overpay) your core players as they become veterans; 3) Continue to improve by adding moderately expensive veterans. If you're lucky, step 2 doesn't require overpaying (like the Spurs) but step 3 often does. That's where guys like PJ Brown or Jeff Foster get MLE size contracts. Small market teams like the Spurs, Jazz, Hornets, TWolves, Thunder, and yes the Pacers have found success using this blueprint.

                              Now this goes away in a hard cap. I'm not saying the old system is perfect - small market teams basically have no margin of error, they have to execute perfectly otherwise they'd end up with a capped out team with no capacity to improve - but some chance is still better than no chance. Most of you seem to think that a hard cap will change things for the better, but I for one think it will actually make things worse. In a hard cap system, I'd expect every offseason to look like the free agent frenzy of 2010, with multiple teams clearing cap space to gamble on whichever elite free agent is available that year. In that scenario, I think the Pacers will perennially come up empty - plenty of money to spend, but no one worthwhile to spend it on. Instead, we'd be handing contracts to the likes of Travis Outlaw.

                              People like to point at the Miami trio and say under a hard cap that wouldn't be possible. That may be true, but think on what would have happened if they couldn't join up in Miami. LeBron would have gone to Chicago or New York. Bosh to Houston or Dallas. In no case where any of them intending to go to a small market anyway. Atlanta managed to retain Johnson, and Memphis Rudy Gay, but only because they massively overpaid.

                              I know I'm in the minority here, but I just don't think that a hard cap would improve things. The old system is unfavorable to small market teams, but I think the hard cap would actually be even worse.
                              Last edited by wintermute; 09-16-2011, 05:32 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Today's meetings are over: Don't expect NBA ball until 2012

                                Originally posted by ilive4sports View Post
                                its not surprising to see its the Cavs and Suns owners being the ones doing this. Gilbert still feels jilted about losing LeBron and Sarver has been cutting costs in Phoenix for awhile now.
                                Stern said it was completely BS and the owners are unified. And It was just unnamed sources that claimed this happen so i dont know if you can read too much into it.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X