Tweet
Re: Off season Rumors and Speculation
heard that we agree deals with Mayo, Barbosa, and Fenesko
heard that we agree deals with Mayo, Barbosa, and Fenesko
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.
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
-
-
Re: Off season Rumors and Speculation
This has been discussed.Originally posted by Grangerous View Post
"I've got an idea--an idea so smart that my head would explode if I even began to know what I'm talking about." - Peter Griffin
Comment
-
Re: Off season Rumors and Speculation
I remember a few members of the national media thinking that Lowry was def an all-star snub.(see link below)Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
He was playing at a very high level before his injury.
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page/...nubs-surprisesComment
-
Re: Off season Rumors and Speculation
oh i must ve missed it thanks thoOriginally posted by DGPR View PostComment
-
Re: Off season Rumors and Speculation
Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
Yeah, Mayo thinks he's a PG.Comment
-
Re: Off season Rumors and Speculation
Someone asked for this article to be posted...
Top NBA amnesty candidates
Andray Blatche, Carlos Boozer and Darko Milicic all could be sent packing
By Larry Coon | ESPN Insider
The NBA's July moratorium comes to an end Tuesday, so beginning Wednesday teams are free to put ink to paper, collectively committing hundreds of millions of dollars to this year's pool of free agents. But just as many once-prized purchases eventually find their way to pawn shops and donation bins, the NBA provides its teams with an opportunity to do a little housecleaning of their own.
It's the amnesty clause -- a one-time opportunity to kick a player to the curb, and take his contract off the team's books.
This year's amnesty period runs from July 11 to 17, during which teams may waive one player. The team must continue to pay his salary, but the player no longer counts against the team's salary cap or luxury tax. For teams looking to clear cap space to chase free agents or reduce an onerous luxury-tax bill, the amnesty clause can be a magic bullet.
Here are the ground rules: Amnesty is a one-time opportunity, so the seven teams that used the amnesty clause in 2011 (see sidebar) have to sit and watch this time. To be eligible, the player must have been with the team continuously since day one of the current CBA. In other words, a team cannot use the amnesty clause on any player it has signed or acquired via trade under the new agreement. And once he is waived via the amnesty provision, the team cannot reacquire the player for the life of his waived contract.
Teams are free to choose the year in which they use the amnesty clause on a player, or to not use the amnesty clause at all. The 23 teams that didn't dump a player last December can take advantage of the opportunity this week, or they can wait another year.
And proving that one man's junk is another man's treasure, the amnesty clause also gives teams the opportunity to pluck players off the waiver wire at a reduced rate. Other teams can submit a bid for a player who has been waived via the amnesty clause, in a process called a partial waiver claim. The team with the highest bid gets to keep the player, paying only the amount of its bid. The waiving team then gets to reduce the amount it still owes the player by a corresponding amount.
For example, last season the New York Knicks used their amnesty clause on Chauncey Billups, who had one year left on his contract at about $14 million. The Los Angeles Clippers submitted a winning bid for about $2 million. Billups became a Clipper with Los Angeles paying $2 million of his salary, and the Knicks picking up the remaining $12 million.
Partial waiver claims are available only to teams under the salary cap, and a team's bid amount can't exceed its cap room. This keeps players who have been waived via the amnesty clause from congregating together and joining contending teams at cut-rate prices.
Teams must meet a minimum payroll each year, which this season is 85 percent of the salary cap. Even though players waived via the amnesty clause are wiped from the team's books, they still count toward the team's minimum payroll obligation -- so teams don't have to shy away from using the amnesty clause because they need to have more salary on their books.
With the ground rules out of the way, here's our annual team-by-team breakdown of which teams are likely to use their amnesty waiver this season, and which players are likely to be set free. Keep in mind that most teams are in no rush to cut productive players, even if they are expensive. Unless the team needs to clear additional cap room for a free agent or get out from under a hefty luxury-tax bill, it is much more likely to keep its players than to pay them to leave.
Teams are also more likely to use the amnesty clause when their player has a better chance to be picked up through a partial waiver claim, because they owe less money when a player is claimed by another team. For this reason a team might wait another year to use the amnesty clause on a player with two or three years remaining on his contract, reasoning that such a player might command a higher bid later in his contract. So as with all other front-office gamesmanship, correctly utilizing the amnesty provision requires a hefty dose of strategy.
Atlanta Hawks
Most likely amnesty cut: None
How likely to use amnesty this season: Outside shot
Other amnesty candidates: Zaza Pachulia
Notes: New GM Danny Ferry already unloaded the Hawks' "most likely to be waived via the amnesty clause" candidate, Marvin Williams.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Celtics
Most likely amnesty cut: None
How likely to use amnesty this season: Outside shot
Other amnesty candidates: None
Notes: There are no bad contracts on the Celtics' roster that are amnesty eligible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charlotte Bobcats
Most likely amnesty cut: None
How likely to use amnesty this season: Outside shot
Other amnesty candidates
eSagana Diop, Matt Carroll
Notes: Although the team's 2011-12 campaign was among the all-time worst and Diop remains the most likely candidate to get the ax, it's more likely the team will stand pat this year.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Bulls
Most likely amnesty cut: None
How likely to use amnesty this season: Outside shot
Other amnesty candidates: Carlos Boozer
Notes: The Bulls are desperately trying to stay below the tax line, especially if they match Omer Asik's offer sheet from the Houston Rockets. But this is one time that desperate times do not call for desperate measures. The Bulls are much more likely to wait a year or two before making a tough decision on Boozer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dallas Mavericks
Most likely amnesty cut: Brendan Haywood
How likely to use amnesty this season: Jump ball
Other amnesty candidates: None
Notes: Using the amnesty clause on Haywood once seemed like a foregone conclusion as the Mavs maneuvered to clear cap room for the likes of Deron Williams. But after failing to land a big-name free agent, the Mavs are no longer desperate for the cap room.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Denver Nuggets
Most likely amnesty cut: None
How likely to use amnesty this season: Outside shot
Other amnesty candidates: Chris Andersen
Notes: The Nuggets are more inclined to save their amnesty for later, when they might be closer to the tax line.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Detroit Pistons
Most likely amnesty cut: None
How likely to use amnesty this season: Outside shot
Other amnesty candidates: Charlie Villanueva
Notes: Joe Dumars has maintained that he has no intent to dump Charlie Villaneuva.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Houston Rockets
Most likely amnesty cut: None
How likely to use amnesty this season: Outside shot
Other amnesty candidates: None
Notes: Daryl Morey seems to be conducting an experiment to see if an entire NBA roster can be converted to future draft considerations. Players like Luis Scola have trade value, so it's more likely Morey sits this amnesty period out.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Los Angeles Clippers
Most likely amnesty cut: None
How likely to use amnesty this season: Outside shot
Other amnesty candidates: Ryan Gomes
Notes: Another team without a bad contract to use the amnesty clause on. Mo Williams would have been a dark-horse candidate, but the Clips traded him to the Utah Jazz.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Los Angeles Lakers
Most likely amnesty cut: Metta World Peace
How likely to use amnesty this season: Jump ball
Other amnesty candidates: None
Notes: Mitch Kupchak has been trying to move World Peace, and if he fails it's possible he will use the amnesty clause in order to take a bite out of the team's tax bill.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Memphis Grizzlies
Most likely amnesty cut: None
How likely to use amnesty this season: Outside shot
Other amnesty candidates: None
Notes: The Grizzlies are still a year or two away from pulling the trigger on an amnesty waiver.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miami Heat
Most likely amnesty cut: Mike Miller
How likely to use amnesty this season: Slam dunk
Other amnesty candidates: None
Notes: Ray Allen's arrival in Miami likely signaled Mike Miller's departure. Despite his Game 5 heroics in the Finals, his body is breaking down, he is owed $5.8 million this season and his team is firmly entrenched in luxury-tax territory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Milwaukee Bucks
Most likely amnesty cut: None
How likely to use amnesty this season: Outside shot
Other amnesty candidates: Drew Gooden, Luc Richard Mbah a Moute
Notes: The Bucks are another team more likely to stand pat this year, saving their amnesty for later when another team is more likely to claim the player they waive. Gooden would likely be that player, although Mbah a Moute is also a possibility.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minnesota Timberwolves
Most likely amnesty cut: Darko Milicic
How likely to use amnesty this season: Slam dunk
Other amnesty candidates: None
Notes: David Kahn intends to offer Nicolas Batum a maximum contract the first chance he gets. In order to do so, he will need to clear additional cap space. Milicic is likely to be shown the door.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Orleans Hornets
Most likely amnesty cut: None
How likely to use amnesty this season: Outside shot
Other amnesty candidates: Jarrett Jack
Notes: Dell Demps could trade Jack if necessary, so there is no reason to use the amnesty clause on him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oklahoma City Thunder
Most likely amnesty cut: None
How likely to use amnesty this season: Outside shot
Other amnesty candidates: None
Notes: While Sam Presti has to be worried about his tax bill in a couple of years, everyone on the team is either a valuable contributor, has a short contract or has trade value.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philadelphia 76ers
Most likely amnesty cut: Elton Brand
How likely to use amnesty this season: Slam dunk
Other amnesty candidates: None
Notes: Unless the Sixers can pull off a miracle trade in the next week, Brand being waived via the amnesty clause is a foregone conclusion in order to give the team enough cap room to sign Nick Young and Spencer Hawes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phoenix Suns
Most likely amnesty cut: Josh Childress
How likely to use amnesty this season: Jump ball
Other amnesty candidates: None
Notes: The Suns are ready to move on from the Steve Nash era, but may hold on to their amnesty for one more year in order to be players in the 2013 free-agent market.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sacramento Kings
Most likely amnesty cut: John Salmons
How likely to use amnesty this season: Outside shot
Other amnesty candidates: None
Notes: One of the cheapest teams in the league would be loath to pay a player $8 million to play somewhere else.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Antonio Spurs
Most likely amnesty cut: None
How likely to use amnesty this season: Outside shot
Other amnesty candidates: None
Notes: As reported here last season, Spurs owner Peter Holt was the leading proponent for an amnesty clause that teams could "pocket" for later use. But while Richard Jefferson may have had an outside shot of being shown the door last season, the team has no likely amnesty candidates this season.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toronto Raptors
Most likely amnesty cut: Amir Johnson
How likely to use amnesty this season: Jump ball
Other amnesty candidates: Jose Calderon
Notes: The Raptors now say they intend to keep Calderon to play him with Kyle Lowry. Using the amnesty clause on Amir Johnson remains a possibility, especially since he would likely be picked up on waivers, which would save the team additional money.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utah Jazz
Most likely amnesty cut: None
How likely to use amnesty this season: Jump ball
Other amnesty candidates: Raja Bell
Notes: The Jazz are working on a buyout agreement with Bell, who clashed with head coach Ty Corbin last season and is unhappy in Utah. The team is likely to use its amnesty clause on Bell if it is unable to reach a buyout agreement.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington Wizards
Most likely amnesty cut: None
How likely to use amnesty this season: Outside shot
Other amnesty candidates: Andray Blatche
Notes: Washington will keep its options open, but its most likely action is to stand pat.
Last edited by tennymf; 07-10-2012, 12:13 PM.Comment
-
Re: Off season Rumors and Speculation
Which would mean that the West would have had to have FIVE point guard All-Stars....Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
Not sure how it can be a "snub" when the roster already has 4 players more deserving ahead of you. 4 PGs is too many PGs. 5 is in Kahn territory.Last edited by Since86; 07-10-2012, 12:16 PM.“Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.Comment
-
Re: Off season Rumors and Speculation
So the Wizards might amnesty Andray Blatche and I know he is a headache but I would make an offer for 2-3 million per year. IF he doesn't work out it wouldn't be much of a loss.Comment
-
Re: Off season Rumors and Speculation
Originally posted by vnzla81 View PostDamn you Spurs damn you
@WojYahooNBA: Boris Diaw has reached agreement on a two-year, $9 million-plus contract to stay with San Antonio, league source tells Y! Sports.
R C Buford strikes again!Comment
-
Re: Off season Rumors and Speculation
Amir Johnson could be interesting back up big at a discount via an amnesty bid.Comment
-
Re: Off season Rumors and Speculation
Mayo and Barbosa would make me puke. How many SGs does this team need? Let's not be Houston here and just collect a bunch of guys at a single position.First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.Comment
-
Re: Off season Rumors and Speculation
No reason to sign Barbosa AND Mayo (as many have said), particularly because we already have DC, Orlando Calrissian, and Lance to come off the bench. That's five backup guards (no es bueno). I say back out on Barbosa and sign GERALD GREEN! Then trade DC and Hansbrough for a big man. I'm all right with re-signing Fes.witters: @imbtyler, @postgameonline
Originally posted by Day-VOriginally posted by Slick Pinkham
Comment
-
Re: Off season Rumors and Speculation
IF this rumor was true are the Pacers planning on playing in the under 6'6" division?
Dahntay
Hill
DC
Barbosa
Johnson
Mayo
Stehenson
Dahntay C
Johnson PF
Mayo SF
Hill SG
DC PG
Barbosa and Stephenson off the bench.
I don't see Barbosa coming back. Fez, I can see retuning.Comment
-
Re: Off season Rumors and Speculation
Yeah, if you are going to sign someone with no defense, but offers an offensive punch, I'd rather have Green. He'd probably be cheaper and he's tall and athletic enough to provide a better backup to Granger.Originally posted by imbtyler View PostFirst time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.Comment
-
Re: Off season Rumors and Speculation
He's not a bad defender, but he provides more defense in transition than on-ball. And with Mayo, we'd have more of a one-two offensive punch. Two scorers off the bench is better than one (or none).Originally posted by Sparhawk View Postwitters: @imbtyler, @postgameonline
Originally posted by Day-VOriginally posted by Slick Pinkham
Comment
Comment