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

NBA Debate: Should They Match The Offers

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

  • NBA Debate: Should They Match The Offers

    http://www.hoopsworld.com/nba-debate...tch-the-offers



    Although deals cannot officially be signed until after the league moratorium is lifted on July 11, there has been a flurry of activity on the free agency front since the session began on July 1. Understanding the details of the frenzy can be a bit complex, but it is important to note there are two types of free agents – restricted and unrestricted.

    An unrestricted free agent is free to sign with any team around the league without restriction, provided the pursuing team can meet the financial obligation within their salary cap.

    However, when it comes to restricted free agency, a player’s current franchise has the right to match any offer proposed from an opposing team to retain their restricted free agent’s services. Restricted free agency is where you typically see rebuilding teams with significant cap space looking to pry young and emerging talent away from their current clubs. Pursuing teams routinely tend to overpay slightly during this process banking on the player’s upside, which in turn puts pressure on the current team to either match the deal or let their young talent leave without any compensation.

    The list below contains a summary of restricted free agents who have received offers and our HOOPSWORLD panel debates whether their current team should match or not match the reported deals on the table.

    Roy Hibbert, Center
    Current Team: Indiana Pacers
    Pursuing Team: Portland Trail Blazers
    Offer on Table: 4 years, $58 million (Max)

    Stephen Litel: Roy Hibbert was an NBA All-Star and is a good center, but he is not worth a maximum contract. Maximum contracts should be reserved for franchise players, the players you build your entire team around and the one player the team wouldn’t have a chance to win without. In the lockout-shortened 2011-12 season, Hibbert averaged 12.8 points, 8.8 rebounds, 1.7 assists and 2 blocks, his career year. While those are solid numbers, they also do not make him a franchise player. With the Pacers flirting with Chris Kaman lately, the Indiana Pacers should not match Portland’s offer to Roy Hibbert.

    Derek Page: While there are other options for the Pacers at the center position, namely Chris Kaman, none compare to the current production or possible potential of Roy Hibbert. Sure, the Blazers are vastly overpaying Hibbert in this situation, but letting him walk would be a huge blow to the Pacers’ franchise.

    Talented, 7-foot-3-inch centers don’t exactly grow on trees and, at just 25 years old, Hibbert still has plenty of room to grow so I see Indiana matching this contract.

    Lang Greene: The Indiana Pacers have slowly (and frugally) built a team on the rise over the past few seasons, but now comes the business portion of the process. Do you overpay your homegrown All-Star talent and anchor in the paint to continue the team’s upward trajectory? Hibbert isn’t your typical max level talent, but Portland gave him the deal since big men still come at a premium and he’d work nicely with their franchise player LaMarcus Aldridge in the frontcourt. One area of concern is in Indiana’s biggest three contests of the season, Games 4-6 of the second round versus the Miami HEAT, Hibbert shrank in the moment. Still, losing him for nothing in return is too big of a blow for Indiana to absorb and would derail their process. Match.

    Tommy Beer: This is a tough call for the Pacers. Hibbert certainly still has some growing to do as a player, and the flaws in his game are apparent for all to see. However, with that said, the dearth of quality big men in undeniable. When you have a seven-footer that competes and can contribute on both ends of the floor, it is extremely difficult to let him walk without receiving anything in return. In addition, the Pacers are clearly a team on the rise, as evidenced by their supremely impressive postseason push, when they fought the HEAT hard and were even leading 2-games-to-1 in that series. Moreover, if Indiana is willing to pony up $40 million to re-sign George Hill, I’d argue that by comparison, it would be foolish to then not spend $58 million to keep their starting center.

    Landry Fields, Small Forward
    Current Team: New York Knicks
    Pursuing Team: Toronto Raptors
    Offer on Table: 3 years, $20 million

    Stephen Litel: Landry Fields is a good locker room guy, a solid professional on and off the court and a fine off-the-bench addition to any team. In a perfect world, the New York Knicks would love to have Fields back in their mix, but the Raptors offer is simply too much for them to match. Now that Jason Kidd looks to be a Knick in a matter of days, as well as New York’s plans to match Jeremy Lin’s offer sheet from the Houston Rockets, the team has a lot of money on their books (and that’s not even discussing the money owed to Carmelo Anthony and Amar’e Stoudemire.) Simply put, this one is a no-brainer not to match.

    Derek Page: In what originally appeared to be a ploy by the Raptors to keep Steve Nash away from the Knicks, Toronto has offered Landry Fields a three-year deal with a dramatic spike expected to take effect in the final year of the contract. Now, neither Toronto nor New York were able to acquire Nash, but the Raptors are still on the hook to pick up the second-year swingman.

    Tommy Beer is the go-to guy on this, but I don’t see the Knicks matching this offer, especially after likely matching the offer sheet currently extended to Jeremy Lin.

    Lang Greene: Fields is a role player, a decent one, but as role players go you can find much cheaper options on the open market than paying him a reported $6.3 million per season. Fields is a good complimentary piece, excellent team player and solid locker room guy but the price here just isn’t right or logical. I don’t believe the Knicks should match this deal.

    Tommy Beer: This is the easiest decision of the bunch. The Knicks would have to be insane to even consider matching this ludicrous offer from Bryan Colangelo and the Raptors. In their defense, the Raps originally made the offer in hopes that it would block a potential sign-and-trade deal between Phoenix and New York, which would have brought Steve Nash to NYC. The hope was that if the Knicks couldn’t use Fields as a piece in a trade with the Suns, Toronto would swoop in and sign Nash to a massive contract. However, with Nash now in Los Angeles, the Raptors are left holding the contract that will drastically overpay Landry Fields.

    After a promising start to his NBA career, Fields saw his statistics plummet dramatically as his confidence eroded. Over the second half of the 2011-12 season, Fields (the Knicks starting shooting guard), shot just 23.7 percent on three-point attempts and 48 percent from the free-throw stripe. Yes, Fields had a lower free-throw percentage than Dwight Howard during that stretch. In addition, Fields struggled mightily when New York needed him the most – in the postseason. Here are Fields’ career playoff numbers (9 games, all starts): 4.8 points (39.1 FG%, 11.1 3PT%, 46.2 FT%), 2.2 rebounds, 1.3 assists, 1.4 turnovers… Fields does have some redeeming qualities. He rebounds well and is a solid citizen and a quality character guy who always plays hard and gives maximum effort; however, he is not worth half of what Toronto will be paying him over the next three seasons.

    Eric Gordon, Shooting Guard
    Current Team: New Orleans Hornets
    Pursuing Team: Phoenix Suns
    Offer on Table: 4 years, $58 million (Max)

    Stephen Litel: What a situation in New Orleans with Eric Gordon. The main asset the team received in the Chris Paul trade last year, now – like Paul earlier – doesn’t want to stay with the Hornets. While Gordon may be a player on the verge of deserving a max contract, which is the offer sheet he received from Phoenix, the Hornets now have the tough decision on whether to match and keep a player and asset or just cut ties and move forward with their new core of Anthony Davis and Austin Rivers. Situations like this rarely turn out well and give more headaches than they are worth, so in this case it is probably best for New Orleans to allow the disgruntled Gordon to go to the Phoenix Suns.

    Derek Page: This is a no-brainer: the Hornets must match the Suns’ offer to Eric Gordon – no ifs, ands or buts about it. If New Orleans was to let the key acquisition from the Chris Paul trade go after just one season, it could only be seen as disastrous both for the team and the franchise as a whole.

    Even though Gordon is scheduled to make over $6.4 million per contest he played in this past season (9) over the course of this contract, the Hornets have no choice but to bring their cornerstone back – even if his heart is in Phoenix.

    Lang Greene: Gordon only played in nine games for the Hornets last season, but re-signing him is the franchise’s biggest priority this summer. Gordon was the centerpiece asset returned when the team dealt Chris Paul to the Los Angeles Clippers and is a bona fide 2o-point-per-game scorer, who has yet to reach his prime. Couple those facts by adding No. 1 overall pick Anthony Davis into the mix and the Hornets’ future appears bright just seven months after dealing away a perennial MVP candidate. There’s no conceivable way here where the Hornets don’t match this deal – happily, even if Gordon wants a change of scenery. Gordon is too valuable of a future trade chip if the relationship ultimately goes sour. Match.

    Tommy Beer: Despite that fact that Gordon has made it known that he’d prefer the Hornets not match the Suns offer (apparently “his heart is in Phoenix”), New Orleans should certainly match the deal on the table. In the NBA, when you have the ability to retain a valuable asset, it is usually in your best interest to do so.

    Gordon was the centerpiece of the deal in which they traded away franchise cornerstone Chris Paul. Letting Gordon leave town without having anything to show for it would be devastating to the New Orleans franchise. When they made the trade for Gordon last winter, they were well aware that they’d have the opportunity to match any offer he received in free agency this summer. They will take advantage of that contract caveat to keep EG in NOLA. The worst case scenario is an unhappy Eric Gordon, in which case the Hornets can then trade him for another player(s)/picks that would address various holes on the roster. Bottom line, for a team in rebuilding mode, it doesn’t make much sense let a valuable asset walk out the door.

    Jeremy Lin, Point Guard
    Current Team: New York Knicks
    Pursuing Team: Houston Rockets
    Offer on Table: 4 years, $29 million (back loaded)

    Stephen Litel: A back-loaded offer sheet from the Houston Rockets may make the New York Knicks take a slight pause with the amount of money they have on the books for years to come, but in the end the Knicks should match for Jeremy Lin. All indications from New York are very strong stating they will, in fact, match and retain Lin’s services. With Jason Kidd in the mix reportedly, Lin will have the opportunity to learn from a sure-fire Hall of Famer while continuing his own growth as a basketball player. He is a media darling, sells tickets, jerseys and other merchandise and still has a great number of years ahead of him in the NBA. The Knicks should and will match.

    Derek Page: After missing out on Steve Nash, the Knicks must bring back the young and talented Jeremy Lin regardless of the amount of the contract currently on the table. Lin proved last season that he had the ability to successfully run a team and it will be interesting to see what he can accomplish with a full preseason and training camp under his belt.

    New York will likely match this contract and the point guard guidance of veteran Jason Kidd is going to work wonders for the 23-year old Lin. Even though Linsanity had its ups and downs this past season, NY letting Lin go without a better option in place is highly unlikely.

    Lang Greene: Take a deeper look at Lin’s numbers and subtract the Linsanity hype and you have an average point guard as NBA starters go. However, Lin hasn’t reached his full potential and with Carmelo Anthony and Amar’e Stoudemire expected to do the heavy lifting, he doesn’t have to be an elite floor general for the Knicks. Reports also indicate the Knicks have reached an agreement with veteran point guard Jason Kidd, which will do wonders for Lin’s development as he learns the subtle nuisances of the game under Kidd’s tutelage. And since this is a business and Lin offers mainstream appeal, there’s no way the Knicks don’t match Houston’s offer – especially at the price tag. Match.

    Tommy Beer: As I have addressed previously this week, the Knicks will match the Rockets offer primarily because it makes fiscal sense to do so. Just one example: Through the first seven games on MSG after Lin was installed as the team’s starting point guard, the Knicks’ average household rating has increased 138% compared to the previous 20 games. In addition, the jersey sales and assorted streams of revenue via the sale of various other merchandise were unparalleled.

    If Houston had maxed out an offer approaching $40 million over four years, then I suppose there might be some shred of doubt as to whether or not the Knicks would match. But considering the offer sheet the Lin will bring to the Knicks doorstep has only three guaranteed seasons, and team option on the fourth year – it is all but a forgone conclusion that New York will retain Lin long-term. When you factor in Lin upside, and the lack of quality point guards left on the open market, the decision is that much easier.

    Omer Asik, Center
    Current Team: Chicago Bulls
    Pursuing Team: Houston Rockets
    Offer on Table: 3 years, $25 million (back loaded)

    Stephen Litel: Yes, if the Chicago Bulls decide to match the offer sheet Omer Asik is expected to sign with the Houston Rockets, they will have a player they value highly for three more seasons. However, when looking at value for performance, matching for Asik would not be a wise move for the Bulls. While he is a good NBA player, Asik has only started two games in his career and has career averages of 2.9 points, 4.4 rebounds and 0.8 blocks per game. $25 million dollars for that type of production? Unfortunately, the Bulls should not match.

    Derek Page: The Rockets have been looking for a young, quality center since Yao Ming was forced to retire due to injury after just nine NBA seasons and may have found just that with Omer Asik. With All Star center Joakim Noah already firmly situated as the Bulls’ starting center, it would appear that Chicago could be apt to let Asik depart, especially with the third year of that contract ballooning up to $15 million.

    Although it doesn’t seem like the most prudent of moves, the Bulls have maintained that retaining Asik is a top priority so, if you believe the Bulls’ brass, Asik will return to Chicago for at least the next three seasons. However, the reality is the Bulls simply might not be able to afford that type of contract for a second string center.

    Lang Greene: Asik’s legend has developed sort of a cult following here on HOOPSWORLD within the weekly chat circuit as an asset fans would love to have on their respective teams. That’s fine at the right price because, in reality, Asik is a very limited offensive player and coming off a season with averages of 3.1 points and 5.3 rebounds per night. With a borderline All-Star caliber talent starting at center in Joakim Noah already eating up rotation minutes, the price tag for a backup here is too high, especially factoring in the back-loaded third year which could be in the neighborhood of $15 million. Asik is a very strong defender and the cap hit the first two seasons isn’t bad, but Chicago should look to pass here. You just can’t tie up this type of long term money on a 15 minute per night rotation guy. No match.

    Tommy Beer: Another difficult call here… When you look at Asik’s numbers, they are by no means overwhelming. Last season, Omer posted a scoring average lower than Sheldon Williams or Chris Duhon. And Asik’s free-throw percentage was actually worse than Dwight Howard and Blake Griffin. Omer’s season high was just 11 points, and he didn’t record a single double-double the entire season. Obviously, Asik played limited minutes, and this has to be factored into the equation. In addition, Asik’s true value lies on his defensive contributions. He was considered by many to be one of the more underrated and effective low-post defenders in the Eastern Conference.

    However, if I am Chicago, I think I have to let him walk. Maintaining cap space to build around Derrick Rose is of the utmost importance, and tying up $25 million in Asik may eventually be a decision Gar Forman might regret. Early word out of Chicago is that in order for the Bulls to match, they would have to amnesty Carlos Boozer. That is a very heavy price to pay.

    Nicolas Batum, Small Forward
    Current Team: Portland Trail Blazers
    Pursuing Team: Minnesota Timberwolves
    Offer on Table: 4 years, $45 million (base)

    Stephen Litel: The Minnesota Timberwolves are always going to have to overpay for free agents if they want a legitimate shot at players going north, but Portland should really think about this one. Does Batum really want out or not? Reports have been all over the place on this one, but the Blazers have stated they will match any offer sheet Batum signs. If the Timberwolves do, in fact, make the offer as reported, the Blazers would be committing a lot of money to another player who is not a franchise player. Batum is talented and worth a lot of money in the market, but how much does the Pacers matching/not matching the offer to Hibbert factor in? Portland should match this deal if they truly believe they are only a piece or two away from legitimately contending, but, if not, they should let him go to Minnesota. This may be a good place to at least explore a sign-and-trade.

    Derek Page: After touting Nicolas Batum as a franchise player and a future building block in Portland, all signs point to the Blazers bringing back the 23-year old Frenchman. Even though four years at $11.25 million per is excessive, this might be a crucial move for Portland – especially if the Indiana Pacers match the Blazers offer to Roy Hibbert.

    Minnesota is making a bold move here in offering that type of money to Batum and the price of acquiring Hibbert and keeping Batum might be too much for the Blazers to stomach. Expect Batum back in a Blazers uniform if the Hibbert deal falls through, otherwise Batum could be sporting a Wolves jersey at some point next season.

    Lang Greene: The Portland Trail Blazers have made it known they are not interested in any sign-and-trade scenarios with Minnesota and will match the Timberwolves’ offer to retain Batum. The young man is extremely talented, young and undoubtedly a key building block for the team during their current rebuilding project. Batum is poised for a breakout year with a full season ahead without having to compete with Gerald Wallace for minutes and a coach who has faith in him. Yes, the price tag is a little high, but all signs indicate Batum’s play on the court will ultimately grow into the dollars offered here. Match.

    With the new collective bargaining agreement designed to be more punitive towards luxury tax paying teams, the importance of leveraging the salary cap is at an all-time high around the league. Factor in “poison pill” provisions where pursuing teams can heftily backload contracts while averaging the contract amount on their own books, and the choice to overpay in order to retain homegrown talent becomes even more risky.
    Sittin on top of the world!

  • #2
    Re: NBA Debate: Should They Match The Offers

    I think some of these guys only looked at Hibberts stats, and not his impact. Paying him max may be over paying, but max isn't vastly overpaying him. If it is then Danny Granger is vastly overpayed. Hibbert deserves a similar contract to Granger, and giving him $2 million more per year is not a vast overpay.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: NBA Debate: Should They Match The Offers

      I hate the term max. I'm confident if Hibbert's offer was referred to as a 14.5 million a year contract instead of a max contract there would be virtually no one arguing to let him walk.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: NBA Debate: Should They Match The Offers

        I will not say "virtually no one" but I will say "many."

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: NBA Debate: Should They Match The Offers

          Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
          I think some of these guys only looked at Hibberts stats, and not his impact. Paying him max may be over paying, but max isn't vastly overpaying him. If it is then Danny Granger is vastly overpayed. Hibbert deserves a similar contract to Granger, and giving him $2 million more per year is not a vast overpay.
          I think we tend to forget Hibbert's downs and just remember his ups. Frequently on this board we were complaining just last year about his lack of confidence, his inconsistent play and how he frequently got pushed around by strong but much less talented centers. He was, in a way, a difference maker for us in the post season; however, he never played against a starting center in the post season. This made him look much better than he really is.

          Is the deal overpaying? I say definitely. I also don't think Hibbert has much room for growth. But I really like the guy and think he's great for the locker room and the community. A case can be made either way, but one thing is for certain, if they FO don't match, they better have a good plan B in place.
          Danger Zone

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: NBA Debate: Should They Match The Offers

            My problem with Hibbert is he's a non-issue defensively away from the basket, and that's tough when Miami, OKC, and Boston, even San Antonio don't rely on low post offense. The positive is that he can be effective offensively away from the basket, not just in terms of scoring, which is certainly an option, but as a passer to movement by others who can also get to the rim. The question is can the Pacers find a suitable alternative that cures the defensive issue. I'm far more concerned about the defensive issue than I care about what Hibbert brings offensively. I think he's peaked offensively, and I'd much rather see the Pacers funnel post touches through West.
            Courtside: Featuring Indiana boys' high school basketball

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: NBA Debate: Should They Match The Offers

              The one guy said it right: It'd be pretty foolish of the Pacers to be willing to commit $40M to their backup combo guard while being unwilling to commit $58M to their starting center.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: NBA Debate: Should They Match The Offers

                Originally posted by d_c View Post
                The one guy said it right: It'd be pretty foolish of the Pacers to be willing to commit $40M to their backup combo guard while being unwilling to commit $58M to their starting center.
                Yeah except Hill is or starting PG, who happens to be a combo guard

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: NBA Debate: Should They Match The Offers

                  Originally posted by d_c View Post
                  The one guy said it right: It'd be pretty foolish of the Pacers to be willing to commit $40M to their backup combo guard while being unwilling to commit $58M to their starting center.
                  Darren, is that you?
                  Courtside: Featuring Indiana boys' high school basketball

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: NBA Debate: Should They Match The Offers

                    Originally posted by Jim R View Post
                    My problem with Hibbert is he's a non-issue defensively away from the basket, and that's tough when Miami, OKC, and Boston, even San Antonio don't rely on low post offense. The positive is that he can be effective offensively away from the basket, not just in terms of scoring, which is certainly an option, but as a passer to movement by others who can also get to the rim. The question is can the Pacers find a suitable alternative that cures the defensive issue. I'm far more concerned about the defensive issue than I care about what Hibbert brings offensively. I think he's peaked offensively, and I'd much rather see the Pacers funnel post touches through West.
                    It's definitely a problem. If they do let Roy go, they probably need to replace him with a guy who blocks shots and is mobile enough to handle pick and rolls well out near the perimeter. Run the post with West and then concentrate on finding a successor at the position. I don't see how Kaman helps in that department at all, which is why he doesn't excite me much as a plan B. Nice scorer, though.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: NBA Debate: Should They Match The Offers

                      Originally posted by d_c View Post
                      The one guy said it right: It'd be pretty foolish of the Pacers to be willing to commit $40M to their backup combo guard while being unwilling to commit $58M to their starting center.
                      We've clearly decided Hill is the starter.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: NBA Debate: Should They Match The Offers

                        My argument:

                        Who else are we going to use that money on? This offseason has made it clear that a big name won't go to a small market. I'd rather pay Hibbert that money than someone who isn't as good as him. We aren't signing a player better than Hibbert and we aren't winning a Championship. Let's keep the guy that has won the community over as oppose to paying someone else.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: NBA Debate: Should They Match The Offers

                          Originally posted by d_c View Post
                          The one guy said it right: It'd be pretty foolish of the Pacers to be willing to commit $40M to their backup combo guard while being unwilling to commit $58M to their starting center.
                          Absolutely. We had many routes to go to replace G Hil

                          Would you rather have : signed Kaman, let Roy walk , and sign G Hill or sign Roy , let Hill walk and DC start at PG, then sign Mayo, Lee or similar for less ?
                          Sittin on top of the world!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: NBA Debate: Should They Match The Offers

                            Originally posted by Rogco View Post
                            I think we tend to forget Hibbert's downs and just remember his ups. Frequently on this board we were complaining just last year about his lack of confidence, his inconsistent play and how he frequently got pushed around by strong but much less talented centers. He was, in a way, a difference maker for us in the post season; however, he never played against a starting center in the post season. This made him look much better than he really is.
                            I remember all of that, but I have also seen him improve every season in those areas, and believe his ups overshadow his downs.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X