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

Should we rent Chris Kaman?

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

  • Re: Should we rent Chris Kaman?

    Originally posted by DrFife View Post
    I agree (very much) with most of your argument. Just to know, though, let's say Phoenix decides to trade Nash (who also is in the last year of his contract). Larry calls you and says, "Bullet, you're my negotiator on this one. Bottom line: Get Nash, even if it stings ... but figure out our minimum bid that still will be more than anyone else's bid?"

    What's your answer?
    My answer would be that we're probably not getting Nash.

    I have a tendency to look long term in almost every decision I make. I play some video games (text based simulations of being an NBA, MLB and NFL general manager - which are exceedingly fun) and when I do so, I have a really hard time making 'win now' decisions unless they are championship moves. Do I feel this team can beat Miami/Chicago in a 7 game series with Steve Nash? I don't think so. I may be wrong, and I could see an argument made for it. That team has year or two window with a 38 year old PG.

    That's why I would chase Deron Williams. He's a very, very good PG but it's a long term move as well as a help you win now decision. He has also shown that he can be content in a small market, he really didn't want to leave Utah.

    Comment


    • Re: Should we rent Chris Kaman?

      I thought it might be worth it to link the Pacers crate interview with David Morway from the beginning of December. I think the first 5-6 minutes are the most relevant.

      Seems doubtful the FO will be willing to forfeit all their cap space on a rental of Kaman.

      http://www.nba.com/pacers/video/2011...536/index.html

      Comment


      • Re: Should we rent Chris Kaman?

        Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
        My answer would be that we're probably not getting Nash.

        I have a tendency to look long term in almost every decision I make. I play some video games (text based simulations of being an NBA, MLB and NFL general manager - which are exceedingly fun) and when I do so, I have a really hard time making 'win now' decisions unless they are championship moves. Do I feel this team can beat Miami/Chicago in a 7 game series with Steve Nash? I don't think so. I may be wrong, and I could see an argument made for it. That team has year or two window with a 38 year old PG.

        That's why I would chase Deron Williams. He's a very, very good PG but it's a long term move as well as a help you win now decision. He has also shown that he can be content in a small market, he really didn't want to leave Utah.
        If we can land Deron, great (at least from a talent perspective) ... but chasing Deron goes against the depth-instead-of-superstar mindset of TPTB. Kaman suggested some weeks ago that he was interested in re-signing with NOH because it was a well-run organization. Players usually go where the dollars are, of course, but if we were to trade for him now and then offer him a new contract with decent money and 30 mpg (some at PF), it may be attractive to both sides. How do you feel about our chances to contend this year and/or next if we could add both Nash and Kaman?


        "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


        • Re: Should we rent Chris Kaman?

          Our first round pick would probably be in the 20's, so it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world to trade it. At this point, we have a young developing player at every position, so it's not like we need an infusion of young talent either.

          I'd be okay with Kaman if it was just for cap space and our first round pick, but I imagine Bird and Morway will wait until the deadline to see if something better comes along (a true difference maker like Steve Nash?). Kaman is a nice player, and we could probably use another big body to push Amundson further out of the rotation, but I'm not sure we need a 14 million dollar caddy for Hibbert. If nothing better comes around or isn't brewing though, sure.

          Comment


          • Re: Should we rent Chris Kaman?

            http://twitter.com/wojyahoonba


            Hornets asking price for Kaman too high. "They were asking for draft picks, cap space and a young player," one executive says.

            Comment


            • Re: Should we rent Chris Kaman?

              Originally posted by Larry Staverman View Post
              http://twitter.com/wojyahoonba


              Hornets asking price for Kaman too high. "They were asking for draft picks, cap space and a young player," one executive says.
              Still NBA owned, so they'll continue to try and milk other teams in order to make that franchise look better for potential owners. No way I would want to do a trade with the Hornets right now..for ANYONE

              Comment


              • Re: Should we rent Chris Kaman?

                I'm glad no other team is (allegedly) considering him at that price; makes it more likely we can make something happen if/when reality sets in with NOH.

                Comment


                • Re: Should we rent Chris Kaman?

                  Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                  I'm glad no other team is (allegedly) considering him at that price; makes it more likely we can make something happen if/when reality sets in with NOH.
                  Or we could be the 3rd involved to make something happen.
                  @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                  Comment


                  • Re: Should we rent Chris Kaman?

                    Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
                    ... Chris Kaman ... can't be moved in multi-player deals until February 14th (60 days after the Chris Paul trade)
                    Watching us keep winning against our competition in the East (e.g., Orlando) makes me want us to hit the acquisition nitrous that much more. I can't wait 'til Feb 14th!


                    "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


                    • Re: Should we rent Chris Kaman?

                      A couple 2nd rounders and a young player in Pendergraph sounds like a good plan to me? If not oh well. The only way I would give up a 1st is if we got him to sign a 2 year moderately priced extention.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Should we rent Chris Kaman?

                        Considering that Lou's contract is expiring and he would never see the court again if we landed Kaman, I think he should be thrown in for any deal if possible.
                        Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Should we rent Chris Kaman?

                          Here's the Pacers edition on trading for Kaman by Rohan:
                          He does clarify our position of being under the cap far enough to absorb all of Kaman's salary without sending anything back. I don't think he places enough value on this and what it means to the Hornets and the NBA to save that money. He just discounts it and focuses on the pieces being traded. IMO due to the Hornets unique situation, the cold cash we save the team is worth more then a pick or a player, but time will tell.


                          http://www.atthehive.com/2012/1/30/2...pacers-edition

                          On Friday, the New Orleans Hornets made it clear that Chris Kaman has played his last game for the team; Dell Demps, David Stern, and the front office are actively seeking trade options. Since the announcement, Kaman has missed two straight games - a home blowout of the Orlando Magic on Friday followed by a home blowout at the hands of the Atlanta Hawks yesterday. In both cases, the box score has listed him, rather uniquely as a "DNP - Organizational Decision."
                          The Houston Rockets, Indiana Pacers, and San Antonio have been the three reported front runners for Kaman's services via a trade. On Saturday, we looked at possible trade options with the Houston Rockets, concluding that some combination of 1. Hasheem Thabeet, 2. Jonny Flynn/Jordan Hill/Courtney Lee, 3. the lower of their and New York's 2012 1st round picks could be a possible return.
                          Today, let's move onto the Indiana Pacers, the home of former Hornets Darren Collison, David West, and James Posey.

                          From the Rockets column, here is the relevant information on Chris Kaman's contract itself:
                          Trade Restrictions

                          There are two primary restrictions that affect Chris Kaman trades
                          (1) he can't be moved in multi-player deals until February 14th (60 days after the Chris Paul trade). The NBA trade deadline comes about a month after this date - March 15th
                          (2) per the new CBA, teams that pay the luxury tax "can acquire no more than 125 percent plus $100,000 of the salaries they trade away," and teams that are under the luxury tax (after a trade has been made) "can acquire up to the lesser of 150 percent plus $100,000, or 100 percent plus $5 million of the salaries they trade away."
                          This means it's theoretically easier to trade Kaman's contract now than it would have been before the lockout. San Antonio is the only team among the three that is in the luxury threshold, but they're close enough to the line that a potential deal could put them under the tax (and make the 150% rule applicable).
                          Don't let the "150% + 100K or 100% + 5M" line confuse you too much. The 150% rule will always be the lesser up to a difference of $9.8M in the incoming to outgoing salary in the trade. More on this in one second.
                          Chris Kaman's Contract

                          Chris Kaman is due $13,672,927 this season, which includes a $1,472,927 trade kicker he received for being dealt from the Clippers. There's a little quirk with the kicker itself that needs to be sorted here. Kaman's pre-kicker salary - about $12,200,00 - is used in the calculation to match salaries between the two trading teams.
                          If we refer back to the 150% line for a second, this means that the Hornets have a well-defined range of contract values they can acquire back in a Kaman deal - $8.13M to $18.3M. You can see now how the 100% rule can't ever come into play in a potential Kaman deal. This is, of course, operating under the assumption that the Hornets' trading partners will also be under the luxury tax line after any trade has been completed.
                          A rapid summary:
                          - Kaman can't be in multiplayer deals till February 14th, without trade exceptions
                          - Kaman's salary for trade purposes is $12.2M
                          - Hornets must take back between $8.13M and $18.3M in any trade to a team over the cap but under the tax.

                          Indiana Pacers



                          Players, Salaries, Trade Exceptions, and Draft Pick (protection in parentheses) Statuses
                          Player2011/20121sts Owed2nds Owed1sts Owned2nds Owned
                          Danny Granger$12,015,904NoneNoneNone'15 GSW
                          David West$10,000,000
                          Jeff Foster$3,000,000
                          Louis Amundson$2,763,450
                          Dahntay Jones$2,700,000Exceptions
                          Roy Hibbert$2,588,590None
                          Paul George$2,406,240
                          Tyler Hansbrough$2,138,040
                          George Hill$1,540,463
                          Jeff Pendergraph$1,500,000
                          Darren Collison$1,455,960
                          A.J. Price$854,389
                          Lance Stephenson$810,000


                          Before we start - the Kaman regulations from above? Throw all of them out for Indy, except the multiplayer one. The Pacers are significantly below the salary cap ($43M) and even if they absorbed the entirety of Kaman's contract in exchange for no salaries (i.e., just a draft pick), they'd still be under the cap.
                          Essentially, a Chris Kaman to Indiana deal will come entirely down to agreeing to who goes where. Unlike a Houston deal, there will be no "fulcrum" piece necessary to the completion of a deal (Thabeet's $5M+ salary).
                          Danny Granger and David West - both $10M+ players - are clearly off limits. From there, the next biggest contract is Jeff Foster at $3M. The Pacers are very interesting that way; the majority of their important contributors are on rookie deals, including Collison, Paul George, Roy Hibbert.
                          Because of their lack of exceptions, any conventional multiplayer deal (where the Hornets are sending out additional players with Kaman) with the Pacers will come after February 14th. But there's one additional deadline that could come into play here. By the terms of the new CBA, any free agent that signs with a team in 2011-2012 (this year only) cannot be traded before completing two months with his team or March 1st. This rule applies to both Jeff Foster and Jeff Pendergraph. If either of these players is in a potential deal, the Hornets will have two weeks to work a trade with the Pacers - March 1st to March 15th, the trade deadline. Obviously, terms can be agreed to beforehand, but nothing could become official.
                          There is, ostensibly, a method of performing multiplayer deals before February 14th, assuming the Hornets are after smaller contracts. New Orleans could conceivably deal Kaman to the Pacers for cash or a pick, bringing their total payroll into the $52M range. They could turn then turn around and execute a smaller trade that was initially agreed to. In a sense, Indiana's position below the cap can serve a similar function to a trade exception in terms of bypassing the February 14th deadline.
                          We can run down the list of Pacer contracts and see who would reasonably be included in a proposal:
                          Foster - ?
                          Amundson - yes (expiring)
                          Jones - yes
                          Hibbert - no
                          George - no
                          Hansbrough - no*
                          Hill - no*
                          Pendergraph - yes
                          Collison - no
                          Price - yes
                          Stephenson - yes
                          Most of the no's are pretty self explanatory. The two I'm less certain on are Hansbrough and Hill. I lean "no" on Hansbrough just because he's considered a "young" player, but keep this in mind - Chris Kaman is actually less than three years older than Hansbrough. I lean "no" on Hill as well since he's such an integral part of Indiana's current setup. Foster is a wild card. Healthy, he's one of the very, very best rebounders in the NBA. The problem is that he's not healthy. Foster hasn't played in a game since January 14th, when he underwent a back procedure.
                          So where does this leave us? Not much further (if at all) than Houston I'm afraid. A summary:
                          Plus Assets Indiana Might Give Up
                          1. 2012 1st Round Pick (projected in the ~20 range)
                          2. Tyler Hansbrough (stats)
                          3. George Hill (stats)
                          Random Pieces That Make Trades Work
                          - Not applicable to Indiana
                          Ultimately, it looks like Indiana has far fewer assets to get a Kaman deal done than Houston. It will come down to who's actually willing to give up what, of course. Perhaps Indy's possible ability to make a multiplayer trade before February 14th changes things, but I don't think it's too much of an advantage.
                          Post up your Trade Machine creations if you so wish, and we'll review some of them (along with the Houston ones from Saturday) before the San Antonio Spurs edition of this series.
                          Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Should we rent Chris Kaman?

                            http://nba-point-forward.si.com/2012...sct=nba_t11_a0

                            Over the weekend, the Hornets announced that they would like to trade Chris Kaman and his $14 million expiring contract, and as a rebuilding club, New Orleans would like a productive young player and/or draft picks in return. Kaman isn’t a star, but he’s the kind of player fans love to speculate about around the trade deadline — a solid contributor who could (in theory) help a decent team reach the “next level” by working as a serviceable sixth man/backup big. Kaman and Antawn Jamison possess the only big-money expiring contracts that might be realistically movable, though the Hornets could tell you from experience (see the Peja Stojakovic deal last season) that huge expiring deals linked to so-so players rarely bring the sort of return fans dream about.

                            That will almost certainly be the case with Kaman, a nice jump-shooting big who doesn’t draw many free throws, shoot a high percentage for a center or contribute better-than-average defense, passing and rebounding. Only a team that’s confident it is one player away from joining the undisputed trinity of contenders — the Bulls, Heat and Thunder — has incentive to deal anything of even minor value for a half-season rental. Kaman’s market is thus a useful prism through which to examine the “other” 26 teams in the league, and which of them might fit that description. What follows is a list of potential Kaman destinations, from most to least intriguing. As you go through this, keep in mind two things:

                            1. Those pesky salary rules. All but two teams listed below are over the cap, meaning they’d have to send out roughly $9.5 million in salary under the league’s newly liberalized matching rules in order to absorb Kaman. The requirement is even stricter — and the outgoing salary thus higher — for teams over the tax line.

                            2. Teams cannot use the amnesty provision on players they acquire via trade. In other words, the Hornets cannot acquire a team’s albatross and amnesty it away.
                            (All stats are through Jan. 29.)

                            HOUSTON ROCKETS
                            Houston has won eight of its last nine to vault into the playoff picture. The emergence of Kyle Lowry as an All-Star candidate and the presence of a real center (Samuel Dalembert) have the Rockets looking as good as any other team in the Western Conference’s jumble from Nos. 2-10. But the numbers show that Houston is almost precisely the same kind of team as the one that missed the playoffs last season — a high-efficiency scoring club that takes care of the ball, wins the three-point battle every night, avoids gambles (and fouls) on defense and has trouble protecting the defensive glass. Dalembert might help the rebounding over the long haul, but he’s not a 36-minute-per-game player. You can bet the Rockets will at least think about how Kaman might look as his backup.

                            Houston also has a pile of lottery-bust flotsam — Hasheem Thabeet, Jonny Flynn, Terrence Williams, Jordan Hill (productive now and then) — that can add up, in some combination, to the kind of salary required to fit Kaman. The Rockets also own New York’s 2012 first-round pick, though they may be hesitant to deal that asset, given they owe a lottery-protected pick to the Nets.

                            The Hornets might cringe at those names, but doing much better with just Kaman will be hard. Things change if the Hornets are willing to sweeten things with the inclusion of a young player, and they change in the opposite way if New Orleans tries to dump an undesirable salary (Trevor Ariza, perhaps) along with Kaman.

                            Kaman is not a game-changer for Houston, but with plenty of room under the tax line, he might be worth a shot if Houston’s brain trust believes the Thunder — with crunch-time and rebounding issues — are vulnerable.

                            ATLANTA HAWKS
                            Wouldn’t this be fun? If Al Horford returns from injury, Atlanta would suddenly be loaded and versatile on the front line, able to go big or small without sacrificing offense (i.e., without playing Jason Collins). The Hawks played Chicago to a competitive six-game series last season. The Bulls are better this season, but a Joe Johnson/Josh Smith/Horford/Kaman/Jeff Teague core could make Miami or Chicago work a bit, providing some entertainment before the inevitable conference finals clash. Toss in an injury, and who knows what might happen?

                            Alas, there are huge obstacles. The tax-phobic Hawks are right at the threshold now, meaning they’d have to send out just about 100 percent of Kaman’s salary, or more, in order to avoid moving up too far to duck back under via waiving players on non-guaranteed deals. That would mean including Marvin Williams and/or Kirk Hinrich (on an expiring contract) in any Kaman deal, and though Williams is playing better than ever, it’s hard to see how either has much value to the Hornets. A third team might be necessary.

                            INDIANA PACERS
                            A long-shot dream for fans hoping one Eastern Conference team can push the big two. The Pacers are so far under the cap they could actually absorb Kaman’s contract without sending anything in return, something that will make Indiana a potential player in any big trade — as a direct participant or third-party facilitator. Roy Hibbert and David West are working nicely as a starting front court, but the big men beyond those two have been inconsistent. Jeff Foster’s return will help, but he’s not on Kaman’s level as a scoring threat — and the Pacers could use more scoring punch.

                            Still, New Orleans would want something in return, and dealing any of Indiana’s cheap, young and valuable parts — George Hill, Paul George, Darren Collison, Tyler Hansbrough — would be a no-go and counter to everything Larry Bird has done to this point.
                            MINNESOTA TIMBERWOLVES
                            The Wolves are 9-11, but they have the scoring margin of an 11-9 team, and one of the more interesting things to watch is what might happen if Minnesota — high on Ricky Rubio-fueled ecstasy and without a guaranteed first-round pick — believes in February or March that it could snag the eighth seed. If they get aggressive, the Wolves have exactly the kind of player that might be the Hornets’ ceiling here: a flawed young player on an affordable and/or expiring contract that has been a disappointment so far. New Orleans stole one guy fitting this type — Xavier Henry — in the three-team Marreese Speights deal. The Wolves have Michael Beasley, Wesley Johnson, Nikola Pekovic, Wayne Ellington and Anthony Randolph, and though every one of them has been an important cog for at least a few games this season, none have done enough to project as long-term starters.

                            The center pairing of Pekovic and Darko Milicic was on a bit of a hot streak before Milicic went out with an illness. And if you think Minnesota is better off with those two — and the occasional stint with Kevin Love at center — there’s no reason to look at Kaman. And of course, New Orleans doing anything to help Minnesota succeed in the short-term would devalue a key asset–Minnesota’s unprotected first-rounder–the Hornets nabbed in the Chris Paul deal.

                            MEMPHIS GRIZZLIES
                            Lots of unknowns here, including whether Zach Randolph will play again this season. If the internal Z-Bo prognosis is negative, perhaps Memphis kicks the tires on Kaman, even if playing him alongside Marc Gasol in a twin towers lineup might be untenable defensively. Memphis is scrambling with Gasol as its only reliable big; Speights is working hard despite his limitations and Dante Cunningham can hold the fort in small stretches, but neither is a consistently productive two-way player. As a result, Memphis is playing small a ton, with Rudy Gay and Sam Young serving as nominal power forwards. That kind of thing is dicey against strong front-line opposition.

                            The elephant in the room: The Grizzlies are just over the tax line, and though they could come back down to it by waiving Josh Davis, adding a few million in salary by acquiring Kaman would blow up the tax bill. And finding $14 million to send out isn’t easy, even if you include O.J. Mayo, emerging as a crucial cog on a playoff-level roster.

                            SAN ANTONIO SPURS
                            The Spurs are asking so much of so many limited players, you almost forget Manu Ginobili is lurking, and that San Antonio won 61 games last season. The emergence of Tiago Splitter lately blurs any theoretical Kaman situation, especially if Gregg Popovich is willing to play Splitter with Duncan — something he has done in small doses over the last two weeks. DeJuan Blair has been more aggressive offensively this season — and more central to what San Antonio does on that end — but he’s undersized and a liability on defense. Matt Bonner is Matt Bonner.

                            San Antonio could use the extra piece, if only to get through the cramped schedule. But any offer would have to start with Richard Jefferson’s deal going somewhere, and there is not much desire around the league to pay Jefferson $21 million combined over 2012-13 and 2013-14.

                            DENVER NUGGETS
                            It’s nice that the Nuggets have done well playing so much small-ball with Al Harrington at power forward, but they will need the flexibility to go big at some point in the postseason. Do they trust Timofey Mozgov and the recently re-signed Kosta Koufos to provide that flexibility, along with Chris Andersen? Mozgov’s minutes have been up lately, he has looked good offensively in spurts and he has cut his fouls per minute to a sustainable number. Koufos remains a project.

                            As appealing as adding Kaman might sound, finding the salary would prove impossible, unless Denver is willing to send out a key component (Andre Miller, Arron Afflalo, even Harrington) — something that might require finding a replacement elsewhere.

                            ORLANDO MAGIC
                            Orlando has no true backup center, and don’t put it past GM Otis Smith to reach (again) with the team floundering to the point of implosion. Could the Magic convince the Hornets to take J.J. Redick and local guy Glen Davis, fresh off signing a four-year, $26 million deal to become Dwight Howard’s chosen power forward? Seems a bit much, even if the Hornets could use Redick’s skill set and the insurance “Big Baby” would provide should Carl Landry walk after the season. Also, as shaky as Davis has been this season, dealing multiple rotation players for a center who might not be able to play alongside Howard damages Orlando’s depth.

                            PORTLAND TRAIL BLAZERS
                            Kaman would be a luxury in case Marcus Camby, rebounding everything in site, wears down in this crazy season, or if the backup duo of Craig Smith/Kurt Thomas falls off for whatever reason. The Blazers could start a semi-interesting package with Raymond Felton (an expiring $7.6 million deal) or Jamal Crawford (with a $5.2 million player option for next season), but they need both, and neither holds much appeal for a rebuilding Hornets team.

                            The calculus changes a bit if the Blazers are ready to deal Nicolas Batum, but that seems unlikely.

                            PHILADELPHIA 76ERS
                            Injuries to Spencer Hawes and Nikola Vucevic forced the Sixers to start (!) Tony Battie at center over the weekend, but any move for Kaman would reek of needless panic — and require some pretty deft cap work. The Sixers have Andres Nocioni’s $6.6 million expiring deal to start with, but they’d need to add a minimum of nearly $3 million to that to make the math work under the league’s new trade rules. Finding a non-essential $3 million in player salary isn’t easy, and adding too much money via a Kaman deal would take Philly very close to the tax line. This team is good enough to wait out the injuries, and adding Kaman doesn’t change its status in the Eastern Conference hierarchy.

                            MILWAUKEE BUCKS
                            There is a hole in the middle with Andrew Bogut injured (again), and though Drew Gooden is on fire lately, asking him to play center all season is too much. But there is very little here for New Orleans, unless they love Tobias Harris enough to swallow Stephen Jackson’s deal. That would be a short-sighted deal for Milwaukee, who shouldn’t trade an intriguing young asset to chase the eighth seed.

                            BOSTON CELTICS
                            Boston could absolutely use big-man depth, but it has few (if any) unneeded high- or mid-priced parts to offer the Hornets. The team acknowledged this over the weekend by leaking the news that they’d chase Kaman if the Hornets buy him out, at which point the Celtics could sign him to the veteran’s minimum salary.

                            LOS ANGELES LAKERS
                            They could use the depth, though the Hornets would surely demand Josh McRoberts — a playable front-court player — in any deal. And beyond McRoberts, the Lakers have zilch to offer anyone, unless the Hornets think Luke Walton would make a great assistant coach in two years. Kaman’s salary is much too big to fit in the trade exception the Lakers acquired in the Lamar Odom deal.
                            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                            Comment


                            • Re: Should we rent Chris Kaman?

                              INDIANA PACERS
                              A long-shot dream for fans hoping one Eastern Conference team can push the big two. The Pacers are so far under the cap they could actually absorb Kaman’s contract without sending anything in return, something that will make Indiana a potential player in any big trade — as a direct participant or third-party facilitator. Roy Hibbert and David West are working nicely as a starting front court, but the big men beyond those two have been inconsistent. Jeff Foster’s return will help, but he’s not on Kaman’s level as a scoring threat — and the Pacers could use more scoring punch.

                              Still, New Orleans would want something in return, and dealing any of Indiana’s cheap, young and valuable parts — George Hill, Paul George, Darren Collison, Tyler Hansbrough — would be a no-go and counter to everything Larry Bird has done to this point.
                              So....you say that there's still a chance?

                              << INSERT OBLIGATORY "DUMB AND DUMBER" SMILEY >>
                              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Should we rent Chris Kaman?

                                This was posted on a hornets site. Sorry, but I had to digress.
                                Kaman vs. Evans.
                                This is hilarious.
                                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cv1cBN8M-9I
                                Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X