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

Pacers FA and Cap Timeline?

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

  • Pacers FA and Cap Timeline?

    Can someone with more time and cap knowledge than me please put together an accurate idea of the Pacers' cap space and moves on an event-by-event basis from July 1?

    I think people are getting confused as to when signings took place and therefore when cap holds changed to actual cap usage. I also wonder exactly what the rule is for having made an agreement with a player - I thought there were issues with making an agreement and then just not signing the player until later in order to fudge the cap space.
    BillS

    A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
    Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

  • #2
    Re: Pacers FA and Cap Timeline?

    According to the transaction timeline on hoopshype, it looks like the first transaction the Pacers did was the Mahinmi for Jones and Collison trade. This trade works under the cap and created a small trade exception ($1.2 million) for the Pacers.

    They then renounced the rights to all exceptions (MLE, BAE, and the aforementioned trade exception), along with several free agents (Barbosa, Foster, Fesenko, potentially Amundson and Price), and signed Green and Augustin to their contracts. Also, I believe the Pacers signed Orlando Johnson to a contract during this time. According to RealGM, he received a 3 or 4 year contract at slightly above the minimum for the first year. In this case, cap space or an exception needs to be used. I'm guessing the Pacers signed him prior to Hibbert and Hill.

    Then they re-signed Hibbert and Hill to their contracts using their Bird rights, since neither were renounced.

    This leaves the Pacers over the cap. The only exception they have is a $2.575 million "room" exception to sign a player(s).

    Oh, and Plumlee was signed to a standard rookie contract during the moratorium, prior to all of this. You're allowed to exceed the cap to sign first rounders.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Pacers FA and Cap Timeline?

      Thanks. Is there a link to the transaction timeline?

      Mainly, a lot of criticism is coming that the Pacers didn't wait for all the amnesties to happen before signing their guys, so they were over the cap and not able to make a play for Brand and Scola. I want a better understanding of how long they went before being actually over the cap (at which point they could not bid any more).
      BillS

      A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
      Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Pacers FA and Cap Timeline?

        Not sure a timeline matters in this disagreement. Because the fact that the Pacers couldn't bid on a guy doesn't matter. Because "They could have if they'd managed things better." You're attempting to introduce facts into a fantasy.

        This is a guess, but it is based on the statements that Roy would sign the exact contract that Portland offered. That implies the same contract and the same timeline. Pretty sure Roy and/or his agent was not interested in 'waiting' for the Pacers to get all their other stuff done before signing. Not after having to go to Portland, say nice things about the team, get ready to sign with them and even be getting on the plane. By this point, it's pretty sure that Roy's team gave the Pacers two choices, either sign with IND on the 14th/15th or sign with Portland. I don't think the option to wait was one the Pacers had.

        Originally posted by BillS View Post
        Thanks. Is there a link to the transaction timeline?

        Mainly, a lot of criticism is coming that the Pacers didn't wait for all the amnesties to happen before signing their guys, so they were over the cap and not able to make a play for Brand and Scola. I want a better understanding of how long they went before being actually over the cap (at which point they could not bid any more).

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Pacers FA and Cap Timeline?

          The one shags referenced is hoopshype: http://hoopshype.com/transactions.htm

          Probably shouldn't take it as an "official" record though - I'd guess it's pieced together from team announcements and guess work.

          As to the cap amounts, after signing Plumlee our cap looked like this:

          1) As FA period starts

          Granger $13m
          West $10m
          Hibbert $6.5m (cap hold)
          Hill $3.9m (cap hold)
          Hansbrough $3m
          Jones $2.9m
          George $2.6m
          Collison $2.3m
          Pendergraph $1.5m
          Plumlee $1m (assuming 120% of rookie scale)
          Stephenson $0.9m
          Roster charge $0.5m

          TOTAL $48.1m (of the guys we want to keep; other cap holds still present)

          2) After the Mahinmi S&T, we had a net loss of one player so had to add another roster charge:

          + Mahinmi $4m
          - Collison $2.3m
          - Jones $2.9m
          + Roster charge $0.5m

          TOTAL $47.4m

          3) After renouncing the non-relevant cap holds, we now had $10.6m in cap space, which we used to sign Green, Augustin, and presumably OJ. Since our roster is now up to 12 (13 actually), we can take off the roster charges.

          + Green $3.5m
          + Augustin $3.5m
          + Orlando Johnson $0.5m
          - Roster charge $0.5m
          - Roster charge $0.5m

          TOTAL $53.9m

          So now our remaining space is $4.1m, before Hibbert and Hill are re-signed. The winning bid for Scola is $13.5 over 3 years, presumably evenly distributed ($4.5m per year), so we wouldn't have won the bid even if we use our entire remaining cap. I'll note though that we didn't have to sign OJ right away - 2nd round picks have zero cap hold until signed - which would have given us $4.6m. Still dicey though, so I guess I should stop complaining about not bidding for Scola The flat contracts we gave Mahinmi and Hill used up a bit more cap than I originally expected. however, the $4.1m amount is more than enough space to bid for Brand.

          I'd also like to thank shags for reminding me of why not every team signs their second rounders to 3 or 4 year contracts (a question that came up in another thread). 2nd round picks don't get their own exception, so signing a 2nd rounder to anything more than a minimum deal (2 years max) requires cap space or using the MLE. Which is why a guy like Asik was signed for only 2 years - Chicago used their exception on somebody else.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Pacers FA and Cap Timeline?

            I have never heard of a roster charge. Is this something new in the new CBA? Half mil to do a roster change seems high to me.

            Is the roster charge just for incoming players added to the roster, or is it charged if a team cut/waives a player too?

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Pacers FA and Cap Timeline?

              Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
              I have never heard of a roster charge. Is this something new in the new CBA? Half mil to do a roster change seems high to me.

              Is the roster charge just for incoming players added to the roster, or is it charged if a team cut/waives a player too?
              Roster charges are simply another type of cap hold. There is a minimum amount of players an NBA team must carry. Every additional open roster spot under the minimum has a roster charge (or hold) of the minimum rookie salary for that year. This reflects the reality that a team is going to have to fill that spot with somebody, and a rookie minimum player is the absolute cheapest player they could fill that spot with. As those open roster spots are filled with players, the roster charges go away.

              In the Pacers case, the Mahinmi sign and trade caused 1 less player on the roster, so the additional roster charge was applied as a cap hold in their place. Once the Pacers signed players to get to the minimum, there was no need for the roster charges anymore.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Pacers FA and Cap Timeline?

                Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                I have never heard of a roster charge. Is this something new in the new CBA? Half mil to do a roster change seems high to me.

                Is the roster charge just for incoming players added to the roster, or is it charged if a team cut/waives a player too?
                Nah, it was there in the last CBA too. Probably doesn't come up on PD because Pacers are rarely under the cap

                http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q14

                A roster charge if the team has fewer than 12 players (players under contract, free agents included in team salary, players given offer sheets, and first round draft picks). The roster charge is equal to the rookie minimum salary for each player fewer than 12. For example, if there are 11 players included in team salary, then an amount equal to the rookie minimum salary is added to the team salary; if the roster is completely empty, then 12 times the rookie minimum salary is added to the team salary. This roster charge only applies during the offseason.
                EDIT: or what Cubs said

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Pacers FA and Cap Timeline?

                  Originally posted by BillS View Post
                  I also wonder exactly what the rule is for having made an agreement with a player - I thought there were issues with making an agreement and then just not signing the player until later in order to fudge the cap space.
                  I thought the same thing. I read somewhere once that you couldn't reach an agreement and then just wait til a lot later to sign. I figured that was why Roy and George were signed on the 3rd day. Any longer would have looked like they were "fudging". But I don't know where I read that. I kept thinking one of the cap guys on here would say something about it when people were complaining about not waiting but they never did.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Pacers FA and Cap Timeline?

                    What about Barbosa's caphold? over 10 mio
                    So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                    If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                    Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Pacers FA and Cap Timeline?

                      Originally posted by Strummer View Post
                      I thought the same thing. I read somewhere once that you couldn't reach an agreement and then just wait til a lot later to sign. I figured that was why Roy and George were signed on the 3rd day. Any longer would have looked like they were "fudging". But I don't know where I read that. I kept thinking one of the cap guys on here would say something about it when people were complaining about not waiting but they never did.
                      I doubt you can legally agree and sign paperwork to 'wait' on a deal, but I also doubt a gentlemen's agreement to wait could be challenged by the NBA. Technically that wouldn't be an enforceable agreement anyway but it would have some teeth to it if both parties felt it in their best interests not to break it for future relations.
                      Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                      ------

                      "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                      -John Wooden

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Pacers FA and Cap Timeline?

                        If your Elton Brands agent and your say Roy Hibberts agent and you want Elton to go to Dallas. Don't you tell the Pacers, NO YOU CAN'T WAIT TO SIGN Roy to try to undermine Elton going to Dallas. I mean in the end the agent couldn't say no, but it could cause some bad blood, hard feelings between an agent and a team's executives. Not saying this happened, just saying I think on the amnesty thing, the agents do have some pull,

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Pacers FA and Cap Timeline?

                          Originally posted by Strummer View Post
                          I thought the same thing. I read somewhere once that you couldn't reach an agreement and then just wait til a lot later to sign. I figured that was why Roy and George were signed on the 3rd day. Any longer would have looked like they were "fudging". But I don't know where I read that. I kept thinking one of the cap guys on here would say something about it when people were complaining about not waiting but they never did.
                          It's in the CBA (see the sixth bullet here http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q14), but it's rarely (if ever) enforced. For example, Wojo from Yahoo reported the Raptors were going to re-sign Aaron Gray on July 7th. http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nba--aa...h-raptors.html

                          However, he still hasn't officially signed. Why? Because the Raptors are re-signing him using the "room exception", and they are waiting until they use all of their cap space before signing him. Once they sign John Lucas, they'll sign Gray. If they signed Gray first, they wouldn't have the cap room to sign Lucas to a 2 year, $3 million deal.

                          As far as the Pacers are concerned, Hibbert and Hill may have both agreed to wait until a certain date before officially signing. That way it gives the Pacers time to make moves, but they don't risk injury by waiting.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Pacers FA and Cap Timeline?

                            Originally posted by shags View Post
                            . . . As far as the Pacers are concerned, Hibbert and Hill may have both agreed to wait until a certain date before officially signing. That way it gives the Pacers time to make moves, but they don't risk injury by waiting.
                            more likely the deal was the Pacers had to sign Roy by the same timeline as if he signed Portland original offer. IIRC, the Pacers agreed to sign Roy to an agreement exactly the same as the Portland one. That seems to indicate they had to be signed early.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X