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

Off season Rumors and Speculation

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

  • Re: Off season Rumors and Speculation

    Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
    Durant and Westbrooks contracts will continue to escalate. Right now, it would work, sure. In the future when KD and Westbrook are combining for 40 million by themselves instead of the 28 million this year, it will not continue to work. They will eventually end up in the tax. You can't always look at now as a GM, you have to plan for the future as well.

    I think the other thing you're missing is the year before the lockout the Thunder lost money. Top half of the NBA in attendance, and with one of the lowest salaries in the NBA, they still lost money. It doesn't matter what the Lakers, or Nets, or Knicks spend they'll still be profitable. Such is the life as an NBA small market. You simply can't spend like some of the other teams.

    *EDIT* Oh yeah, and as far as the losing money issue, if they amnesty Perkins they still have to pay it. It just doesn't count against the cap.
    they won't combine for 40 mil until 2017 or 18. By that time, Harden (and Westbrook, and Durant) will be looking for another contract.
    Keep in mind, the luxury tax line will continue to escalate as well. And it's bound to take a major jump in a couple years once new TV contracts are up.
    And so many things could go right or wrong by that time... a Westbrook injury? another rookie gem turning into a star? who knows. Is what you suggest really a plan for the future? IMO, it would be rather shortsighted to get rid of a very young, all star caliber player now because you might not be able to resign him 5 years from now.

    re losing money, i'm not sure i understand the argument. A, most of the NBA lost money pre-lockout. B, what does it mean? is the argument now that they'd let Harden go not because of luxury tax concerns, but because they will want to stay considerably under tax? that would sound rather far-fetched.

    Comment


    • Re: Off season Rumors and Speculation

      Originally posted by hackashaq View Post
      Keep in mind, the luxury tax line will continue to escalate as well.
      The rest of it we just disagree on, but this isn't factually correct. It's not a guarantee that the tax line will continue to go up.

      The 40 million dollar mark isn't a hard line where the problem starts happening. It was just an example. Their contracts will continue to escalate and if you're trying to toe the tax line like you're suggesting, you're playing with fire.

      *EDIT* - To continue on the tax not going up in the future, the current cap numbers are based on the last CBA that had the players getting 57% of revenue. Part of the agreement is that the cap numbers wouldn't change until next season. Last years short season would have come up with a very low revenue number and screwed the cap numbers up this year. So we won't see the effects of the new CBA until next season. The new CBA can only be as high as 51%, but can be as low as 49%. So, even if revenue stays flat from pre-lockout numbers, the players will get less. Meaning the cap (and tax number) could very well go down.
      Last edited by xBulletproof; 09-12-2012, 08:29 PM.

      Comment


      • Re: Off season Rumors and Speculation

        Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
        The rest of it we just disagree on, but this isn't factually correct. It's not a guarantee that the tax line will continue to go up.

        The 40 million dollar mark isn't a hard line where the problem starts happening. It was just an example. Their contracts will continue to escalate and if you're trying to toe the tax line like you're suggesting, you're playing with fire.

        *EDIT* - To continue on the tax not going up in the future, the current cap numbers are based on the last CBA that had the players getting 57% of revenue. Part of the agreement is that the cap numbers wouldn't change until next season. Last years short season would have come up with a very low revenue number and screwed the cap numbers up this year. So we won't see the effects of the new CBA until next season. The new CBA can only be as high as 51%, but can be as low as 49%. So, even if revenue stays flat from pre-lockout numbers, the players will get less. Meaning the cap (and tax number) could very well go down.
        i understand that it's an example and an exaggeration, but your argument was based on this exaggeration. once you put it into perspective and apply realistic numbers, the problem disappears.

        re edit part:
        1. luxury tax is not calculated based on the BRI split between players and teams. it's based on % of total BRI, mainly. if it results in players getting more than their 51%, the owners get it back via escrow.
        2. BRI is growing. Which means tax line should be expected to keep growing as well.

        Comment


        • Re: Off season Rumors and Speculation

          Originally posted by hackashaq View Post
          i understand that it's an example and an exaggeration, but your argument was based on this exaggeration. once you put it into perspective and apply realistic numbers, the problem disappears.

          re edit part:
          1. luxury tax is not calculated based on the BRI split between players and teams. it's based on % of total BRI, mainly. if it results in players getting more than their 51%, the owners get it back via escrow.
          2. BRI is growing. Which means tax line should be expected to keep growing as well.
          Here's a short reason why the luxury tax won't necessarily go up. http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#appendix

          In the prior CBA, the luxury tax was 61% of BRI. In this current CBA, it's 53.51% of BRI. In the 2011-12 and 2012-13, it was guaranteed to go no lower than $70.307 million.

          Comment


          • Re: Off season Rumors and Speculation

            Originally posted by hackashaq View Post
            you aren't answering the question at all, i don't think you understood me there.
            The Nets have an expensive core + cheap role players. The Thunder can have a better cheaper core + cheap role players. And not go into luxury tax.
            Ah, I get your point now. But I'm not sure holding up the Nets as an example of anything other than profligate spending is in order here. They haven't won anything yet. And I suspect their bench will be a weak point all year long.

            And even if we accept your premise, the math is very tight. If OKC keeps the 8 you proposed at ~$67m, that leaves somewhere between $3m-$5m (depending on where the tax falls) to split on 5 players. It's still possible to fit 5 players in a $3m budget, but they'd have to be players with 0 years of NBA experience.

            Originally posted by hackashaq View Post
            So why do they have to go into luxury tax, again? Why can't they follow the Nets model, just in a cheaper, better, more efficient way and with a more talented core that they've built through their smarts? Why do they have to break that core? You say financial reasons. But what financial reasons? Why not just finish the roster with cheaper guys?
            They could, if you put it that way. For a year, sure. But what happens if a bench guy plays his way into a bigger contract? Say in your Nets example, what if CJ Watson plays well and looks for a bigger payday? The Nets can say sure, here's the $3m mini MLE for you, because they're already paying a ton of tax anyway. But if it's OKC already operating at the tax limit? They have no margin.

            So it's either the cheap guy they sign sucks, or he plays well and gets better offers. Do they keep looking for 1-year guys with something to prove? I suppose it's possible, but seems very hit-and-miss. Even the Spurs (who are really the pioneers of the keep-the-core, swap-the-spare-parts model) had some misses along the way.

            Originally posted by hackashaq View Post
            Re the Pacers: IF George Hill was a max player (remember, we are talking in hypotheticals here), the Pacers wouldn't have been able to both keep him and add all those role players, while staying under luxury tax. So yes, there'd be a choice.
            Hill is being paid $8m this year. Max contract would have (hypothetically) been $13.7m, same as Hibbert. Difference of $5.7m. Pacers are currently at $65.1m (not counting the training camp contracts). Not sure what the tax level is exactly, but yeah it will be close.

            Comment


            • Re: Off season Rumors and Speculation

              Originally posted by shags View Post
              Here's a short reason why the luxury tax won't necessarily go up. http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#appendix

              In the prior CBA, the luxury tax was 61% of BRI. In this current CBA, it's 53.51% of BRI. In the 2011-12 and 2012-13, it was guaranteed to go no lower than $70.307 million.
              that's why they've set the transitional period, though. those numbers aren't accidental. BRI growth per CBA is projected at ~4.5% a year (though it's very dependent on TV revenue which is bound to take a massive leap soon). 4.5% growth over a 3 year period would result in a luxury tax (based on 53.51% of BRI) over 70.307 million. (1.045)^3 x 53.51% is slightly over 61%

              will that growth stand, idk of course. Considering current state of the league it seems very likely.
              but even if we are to be very pessimistic and predict the growth based on NBA's leanest years (~4% a year), we'd be looking at - at worst - a very minor tax line decrease in 2013-2014 and then growth after that.

              Comment


              • Re: Off season Rumors and Speculation

                Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                Ah, I get your point now. But I'm not sure holding up the Nets as an example of anything other than profligate spending is in order here. They haven't won anything yet. And I suspect their bench will be a weak point all year long.

                And even if we accept your premise, the math is very tight. If OKC keeps the 8 you proposed at ~$67m, that leaves somewhere between $3m-$5m (depending on where the tax falls) to split on 5 players. It's still possible to fit 5 players in a $3m budget, but they'd have to be players with 0 years of NBA experience.



                They could, if you put it that way. For a year, sure. But what happens if a bench guy plays his way into a bigger contract? Say in your Nets example, what if CJ Watson plays well and looks for a bigger payday? The Nets can say sure, here's the $3m mini MLE for you, because they're already paying a ton of tax anyway. But if it's OKC already operating at the tax limit? They have no margin.

                So it's either the cheap guy they sign sucks, or he plays well and gets better offers. Do they keep looking for 1-year guys with something to prove? I suppose it's possible, but seems very hit-and-miss. Even the Spurs (who are really the pioneers of the keep-the-core, swap-the-spare-parts model) had some misses along the way.



                Hill is being paid $8m this year. Max contract would have (hypothetically) been $13.7m, same as Hibbert. Difference of $5.7m. Pacers are currently at $65.1m (not counting the training camp contracts). Not sure what the tax level is exactly, but yeah it will be close.
                tax is 70.3 atm.
                re role players playing into bigger contracts - well, Harden played himself into a bigger contract too. I'd give preference to Harden over role players. Let role players go, or trade them. Keep the core. Considering all solid players who got cheap contracts this summer, role players are easier to find than Hardens.

                Comment


                • Re: Off season Rumors and Speculation

                  Originally posted by hackashaq View Post
                  tax is 70.3 atm.
                  re role players playing into bigger contracts - well, Harden played himself into a bigger contract too. I'd give preference to Harden over role players. Let role players go, or trade them. Keep the core. Considering all solid players who got cheap contracts this summer, role players are easier to find than Hardens.
                  I think you are, in turn, missing my point. Look at the Heat as an example. The year they signed their big 3, they had to work under the salary cap (i.e. below $60m) and had to assemble their bench from cheap veterans. That worked short term, but they're at the $85m team salary level now, which is deep in the tax. Similarly with the Nets, they went with a sparse bench this year, because of the rules, but you know they'll spending as much as they can as soon as they are allowed.

                  What you are proposing with the Thunder is different and unprecedented. The Thunder aren't expected to go into the tax the same way that the Heat and Nets are. Maintaining a sparse bench through the lifetime of their big 4 contracts is mathematically possible, but to my knowledge no one's made a go of it. If the Thunder did try, they'd be the first I think.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Off season Rumors and Speculation

                    Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                    I think you are, in turn, missing my point. Look at the Heat as an example. The year they signed their big 3, they had to work under the salary cap (i.e. below $60m) and had to assemble their bench from cheap veterans. That worked short term, but they're at the $85m team salary level now, which is deep in the tax. Similarly with the Nets, they went with a sparse bench this year, because of the rules, but you know they'll spending as much as they can as soon as they are allowed.

                    What you are proposing with the Thunder is different and unprecedented. The Thunder aren't expected to go into the tax the same way that the Heat and Nets are. Maintaining a sparse bench through the lifetime of their big 4 contracts is mathematically possible, but to my knowledge no one's made a go of it. If the Thunder did try, they'd be the first I think.
                    The Heat never planned to stay under tax. They are at 70 mil right now just from 7 guys they got under contract during the summer of the Decision.

                    The Thunder on the other hand is itself unprecedented. No team during the luxury tax era was able to collect 4 young rising stars (one of them a mega star) so cheaply. No team was in position to maintain such a core without going over tax. Not to mention several underpaid role players they have under contract for the next few years. The question is what's the best way to proceed. Letting Harden go seems unnecessary and a waste.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Off season Rumors and Speculation

                      I don't see how they can pay Harden, Durant and Westbrook max deals with IBaka's contract as well.


                      Comment


                      • Re: Off season Rumors and Speculation

                        Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                        I don't see how they can pay Harden, Durant and Westbrook max deals with IBaka's contract as well.
                        I'd really like to offer Paul George and as many picks as it took to get Harden.

                        Unfortunately, I don't think we can offer him a max deal after the moves we made this offseason.
                        "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                        -Lance Stephenson

                        Comment


                        • Re: Off season Rumors and Speculation

                          Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
                          I'd really like to offer Paul George and as many picks as it took to get Harden.
                          It's definitely an interesting scenario. If Paul was still a 12PPG, 5rpg guy by trade deadline this year, I'd be ready to pull the trigger.

                          Of course, the Pacer homer in me wishes we could see Harden and George together. That'd be a hell of a wing combo I think.

                          EDIT: Wouldn't we have his bird rights?
                          Last edited by Trader Joe; 09-13-2012, 02:20 PM.


                          Comment


                          • Re: Off season Rumors and Speculation

                            Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                            It's definitely an interesting scenario. If Paul was still a 12PPG, 5rpg guy by trade deadline this year, I'd be ready to pull the trigger.

                            Of course, the Pacer homer in me wishes we could see Harden and George together. That'd be a hell of a wing combo I think.

                            EDIT: Wouldn't we have his bird rights?
                            Yeah... But I would think it would push us into LT if we plan on keeping West or getting someone comparable... But I'm no cap expert...
                            Nothing in life worth having comes easy.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Off season Rumors and Speculation

                              Originally posted by hackashaq View Post
                              The Thunder on the other hand is itself unprecedented. No team during the luxury tax era was able to collect 4 young rising stars (one of them a mega star) so cheaply.
                              They won't stay cheap. I finally decided to really look it up, next year Ibaka, Durant and Westbrook account for 45 million. Harden gets near the max and you're looking at 57. Then Perkins makes that 66. Then you've got 4 million between the next 8 guys?

                              Not going to work.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Off season Rumors and Speculation

                                Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
                                They won't stay cheap. I finally decided to really look it up, next year Ibaka, Durant and Westbrook account for 45 million. Harden gets near the max and you're looking at 57. Then Perkins makes that 66. Then you've got 4 million between the next 8 guys?

                                Not going to work.

                                Can OKC stay within the apron/5M low tax rate range. The tax cost is not too bad if you just cross the threshold. Miami, LAL, NYK et al will be facing the new tax rate and the 4th yr penalty both at the same time. But OKC will be a new tax payer and therefore paying less tax.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X