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

George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

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

  • Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

    Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
    OK, what is your point? Yeah obviously it would have been better to get him at $6 million, everyone knows that without you going on and on about it.

    $2 million is the difference between not needing to have a great season, and needing to have a super season? At that standard only LeBron consistently lives up to his contract. If you have some information from a credible source that says we didn't try to get him for cheaper than by all means present it. If all you are doing is speculating because you personally don't think he is worth $8 million, please stop talking about how we didn't try to get him for less.
    I can see we have different opinions about my views. I put my views in a polite mannerly fashion w/o any gutteral verbage. If you don't agree, then fine. I don't always agree with your views, but I don't tell you to stiffle them. Nor do I appreciate you telling me to stop talking about the issue.


    NO, I have no info, but then neither do you or others to the contrary, now do you? I have opinions the same as you. If my posts aren't to your liking and you deem them repetitive, might I suggest you put me on ignore, so you won't have to read my repetitive views. Please have a nice day.

    Comment


    • Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

      Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
      NO, I have no info, but then neither do you or others to the contrary, now do you?
      No, but I am not making accusations either. That is the difference. I am not going around acting like I have some kind of idea of how it went down. All I know is that we signed Hill for a flat $8 million a year(not abnormal for a starter of his quality), and so far he has lived up to his contract. That is all I know. You might think he hasn't, and you have the right to that opinion, I am not arguing against your opinion, that doesn't mean it is ok to go around making accusations about how the front office should have done it when you have no idea how it actually happened. You are just creating baseless rumors.

      Comment


      • Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

        Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
        I agree that $854,389 are peanuts. But that was not the risk involved. The risk involved was not having a b/u 5 in case Blatche didn't pan out.
        I would argue the risk was primarily PR. The Pacers still have a fragile fanbase who is just beginning to show interest in the team again. If Blatche comes in and has another major off the court issue, that could easily contaminate the entire team for the fans. I know they were willing to take that risk with Lance, but he didn't have quite as long of a history of incidents as Blatche does. Also, there was more upside with Lance since they had him cheaply for four years if he worked out.

        Comment


        • Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

          While the Pacers may be over paying George Hill , his contract does not increase each season which is a plus.

          Thats the key reason why Roy Hibbert's contract is the Pacers bad contract. Unlike Hill's , Hibbert's contract goes higher and higher each season. He was rewarded with a new contract with a 1st year raise in excess of 10 million dollar , with future increses to 14.3, 14.9 and 15.5 mil a season.

          While George Hill has increased his productivity , thru a 5th of the season Roy has become an even more inconsistant player than at any time since his rookie season. People talk oh he just posted a triple double - yes he did his 11 rebounds were in large part to his own lousy shooting 3 of13 fga. His fg% has dropped from almost 50% to less than 39% even in his worse seasons JO on too many fade aways shot better. His ft% from 71% to 53% . Do you think the Blazers are wishing Walsh didn't resign Roy at the moment? More likely they sent him a Christmas card with a huge thank you .

          The one plus is with looser calling of fouls he has increased his blocks per game from 2 to 3. Roy is a great guy but he has come no where near earning his money , not even earning what he was paid last season. At least in Hill's case you make a strong case he has been clutch late in games.
          Last edited by diamonddave00; 11-30-2012, 03:55 PM.

          Comment


          • Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

            I really don't see all the need for argument concerning how the Pacers and Hill arrived at 8M per year.

            First off, it's not like the Pacers started with a 20M per year offer and worked there way DOWN to 8M per year. Duh. Isn't it far more likely that the Pacers, not wanting to be too confrontational, started at some offer and worked their way UP to 8M per year? Of course it is.

            I doubt this negotiation was very formal in nature at all. I'm sure a lot of it was verbal until the Pacers either offered a number or agreed to a number that both parties could easily sign off on. Again, I think that they wanted the negotiations to remain amicable and did not want to risk confrontation at all. It was probably a pretty simple negotiation for both sides.

            Does it really matter how they got there? The fact is, that they are at 8M per year. Whether you think that is too much is a different story.

            Comment


            • Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

              Originally posted by beast23 View Post
              I really don't see all the need for argument concerning how the Pacers and Hill arrived at 8M per year.

              First off, it's not like the Pacers started with a 20M per year offer and worked there way DOWN to 8M per year. Duh. Isn't it far more likely that the Pacers, not wanting to be too confrontational, started at some offer and worked their way UP to 8M per year? Of course it is.

              I doubt this negotiation was very formal in nature at all. I'm sure a lot of it was verbal until the Pacers either offered a number or agreed to a number that both parties could easily sign off on. Again, I think that they wanted the negotiations to remain amicable and did not want to risk confrontation at all. It was probably a pretty simple negotiation for both sides.

              Does it really matter how they got there? The fact is, that they are at 8M per year. Whether you think that is too much is a different story.


              Ist let me say in the 4 years I've been associated with PD you are one of my favorite posters. I might add I wish you posted more!

              Now to your post which has merit. I have neogiated business deals most of my life, and I absolutely can't stand to leave money on the table b/c of poor neogoiating. My main issue is that Walsh was bidding against himself, since Hill's agent never tendered an offer sheet. People can say other teams had interest in Hill all day long, but there was never an offer sheet. An offer sheet says someone is truly interested and not just speculation that other teams were interested. W/o an offer sheet Walsh was bidding against himself. This just grinds my gears.

              Yes, I feel Hill is overpaid. IF the Pacers could have saved 2 mil on Hill it was 2 mil more Walsh could have spent on better upgrading the bench. The same can be said concerning Hibbert's overpaid contract.

              I fully realize BIG men get paid more, and that Hibbert would get paid well. But why overpay? After Portland pulled out of the bidding, who was left that had the money and need? Both J McGee and D Jordan signed contracts that pay them 10 mil this year. Jordan is averaging 10/7 per game and McGee is 10/6. Personally, I feel they both are overpaid for those numbers. Where as DWest is an absolute bargain this year at 10 mil!

              I will admit some of my being upset with what I feel are overpaid contracts and poor contracts is, b/c I NEVER wanted Walsh back. I had NO confidence in Walsh being able to do the job properly. So far he's justified my belief. Walsh was the reason Chris Mullins got Exec of the Year for pawning Dunleavy and Murphy's albatross contracts off on the Pacers. I really wish I didn't feel as harshly about Walsh as I do, but he's done nothing to change my mind about him.

              I will end by saying I hope both Hill and Hibbert's play justify their contracts. I never mind having to say I'm wrong or having to eat crow when I'm wrong.

              Comment


              • Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

                Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                I fully realize BIG men get paid more, and that Hibbert would get paid well. But why overpay? After Portland pulled out of the bidding, who was left that had the money and need?
                But Portland pulled out because the Pacers announced they would match the offer. Is it your position that once Portland pulled out the Pacers should have said, "Ha ha fooled you here's a non-matching offer"?

                That seems wrong on so many levels as well as meaning Portland could have just gone ahead and come right back with their offer sheet.
                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


                • Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

                  Originally posted by BillS View Post
                  But Portland pulled out because the Pacers announced they would match the offer. Is it your position that once Portland pulled out the Pacers should have said, "Ha ha fooled you here's a non-matching offer"?

                  That seems wrong on so many levels as well as meaning Portland could have just gone ahead and come right back with their offer sheet.
                  IIRC, Portland had to re-sign their own FA Batum. They were considering signing BRoy as well. The Pacers were leaning towards matching the Portland's offer sheet. Once an offer sheet has been signed it puts a hold on Portlands cap space. Portland decided to not sign Hibbert and re-signed Batum. Once Portland was out of the picture, who did Walsh have to bid against?

                  Once Portland re-signed Batum they couldn't make another offer sheet to Hibbert. Pacers in drivers seat. BB is 1st and foremost a business. It's not a business for the faint of heart. Was there ever anything concrete from the Pacers to Hibbert saying they would match Portland's offer?

                  Hibbert and agent knew the Pacers were going to sign Hibbert to a contract. The point is the Pacers were in the drivers seat once Portland backed out. Walsh was bidding against himself again.

                  I have to give Walsh credit when credit is due, he only gave Hibbert a 4 year contract instead of a 5 year contract. The contract is bad enough now, but a 5 year contract would have been an absolute financial disaster for the Pacers for years to come.

                  Comment


                  • Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

                    Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                    IIRC, Portland had to re-sign their own FA Batum. They were considering signing BRoy as well. The Pacers were leaning towards matching the Portland's offer sheet. Once an offer sheet has been signed it puts a hold on Portlands cap space. Portland decided to not sign Hibbert and re-signed Batum. Once Portland was out of the picture, who did Walsh have to bid against?
                    You can't do this. Once you promise to match an offer sheet there's no taking it back, unless you never want to sign another free agent again.

                    Comment


                    • Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

                      Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post
                      I would argue the risk was primarily PR. The Pacers still have a fragile fanbase who is just beginning to show interest in the team again. If Blatche comes in and has another major off the court issue, that could easily contaminate the entire team for the fans. I know they were willing to take that risk with Lance, but he didn't have quite as long of a history of incidents as Blatche does. Also, there was more upside with Lance since they had him cheaply for four years if he worked out.
                      That's a good point as well.
                      Originally posted by IrishPacer
                      Empty vessels make the most noise.

                      Comment


                      • Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

                        Originally posted by BillS View Post
                        But Portland pulled out because the Pacers announced they would match the offer. Is it your position that once Portland pulled out the Pacers should have said, "Ha ha fooled you here's a non-matching offer"?

                        That seems wrong on so many levels as well as meaning Portland could have just gone ahead and come right back with their offer sheet.

                        Who was the player that agreed to re-sign with Cleveland then signed with Utah for more money? Just the opposite I know, but no team after that refused to sign him over doing it. Verbal agreements aren't worth the paper they are written on.(Yogi Berra?)

                        Comment


                        • Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

                          Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                          You can't do this. Once you promise to match an offer sheet there's no taking it back, unless you never want to sign another free agent again.

                          Didn't Portland rescind Hibbert's offer sheet? Isn't that a sign of bad faith and business? They made the offer 1st, so shouldn't they have to stick with their offer sheet?

                          Let's face it, in the business world companies rescind offers on deals all the time. I wouldn't be surprised if Herb Simon's company hasn't done that exact thing.

                          Comment


                          • Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

                            Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                            Didn't Portland rescind Hibbert's offer sheet? Isn't that a sign of bad faith and business? They made the offer 1st, so shouldn't they have to stick with their offer sheet?

                            Let's face it, in the business world companies rescind offers on deals all the time. I wouldn't be surprised if Herb Simon's company hasn't done that exact thing.
                            No, they didn't. They offered it, Indiana told Roy they were matching, so Roy never signed it.

                            Now, I think someone reported that the deal was rescinded after Indiana matched...which basically means nothing.

                            Comment


                            • Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

                              Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                              IIRC, Portland had to re-sign their own FA Batum. They were considering signing BRoy as well. The Pacers were leaning towards matching the Portland's offer sheet. Once an offer sheet has been signed it puts a hold on Portlands cap space. Portland decided to not sign Hibbert and re-signed Batum. Once Portland was out of the picture, who did Walsh have to bid against?

                              Once Portland re-signed Batum they couldn't make another offer sheet to Hibbert. Pacers in drivers seat. BB is 1st and foremost a business. It's not a business for the faint of heart. Was there ever anything concrete from the Pacers to Hibbert saying they would match Portland's offer?

                              Hibbert and agent knew the Pacers were going to sign Hibbert to a contract. The point is the Pacers were in the drivers seat once Portland backed out. Walsh was bidding against himself again.

                              I have to give Walsh credit when credit is due, he only gave Hibbert a 4 year contract instead of a 5 year contract. The contract is bad enough now, but a 5 year contract would have been an absolute financial disaster for the Pacers for years to come.
                              The Pacers called Hibbert to tell them they were going to match. They almost certainly didn't put it in writing because they needed Hibbert to wait to sign his contract to use the extra cap space. If they put an intention to sign him to a contract in writing, they would have risked running afoul of the NBA's rule about abusing the cap.

                              Portland still had money to spend after Batum signed. They just didn't have the potential to offer the max anymore. IIRC, they were only a couple of million off from being able to afford both. Dallas to name another example also had cap space available after missing out on Williams. Plus, Hibbert's an emotional guy. If the Pacers suddenly pulled the rug out from him and withdrew the offer after promising him they would match, don't you think Hibbert likely bolts for one of those teams even if it ends up being slightly less money?

                              Comment


                              • Re: George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil

                                Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post
                                The Pacers called Hibbert to tell them they were going to match. They almost certainly didn't put it in writing because they needed Hibbert to wait to sign his contract to use the extra cap space. If they put an intention to sign him to a contract in writing, they would have risked running afoul of the NBA's rule about abusing the cap.

                                Portland still had money to spend after Batum signed. They just didn't have the potential to offer the max anymore. IIRC, they were only a couple of million off from being able to afford both. Dallas to name another example also had cap space available after missing out on Williams. Plus, Hibbert's an emotional guy. If the Pacers suddenly pulled the rug out from him and withdrew the offer after promising him they would match, don't you think Hibbert likely bolts for one of those teams even if it ends up being slightly less money?

                                I never liked the fact Hibbert was bolting the Pacers for Portland for more money in the 1st place. The Pacers drafted him and invested 4 years in him to only be slapped in the face b/c Hibbert wanted the BIG BUCKS and didn't care who paid them. This is a reason after Portland was out of the picture I'd never have matched Portland's offer. He'd have signed somewhere in the D Jordan and J McGee money range. If he was unhappy with the offer, S&T his rear to another team.

                                As far as Dallas goes, I don't see Cuban spending the money this past off season. I'm sure Portland and whoever else aren't sad they didn't sign Mr. Fragibility to the contract Hibbert got from the Pacers. Portland's FO has to be smiling over their loss of Hibbert.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X