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

Forbes: Pacers value increased from $383M in 2013 to $475M in 2014

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

  • #31
    Re: Forbes: Pacers value increased from $383M in 2013 to $475M in 2014

    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
    Yeah, my comments were mostly in jest. You gave a good overview of the situation though. Thanks.
    Its all good. During the 2008 deal I was pretty worked up about how the proposition was so one sided, but it was the City leaderships who decided to invest thru the CIB in these "industries". One could argue about the return, but I think they made a pretty good gamble.

    But there is also a limit to what the public will swallow and its best that they/we don't overplay our hands.

    Even in the Heart of Basketball Country, there are some who don't know Pick and Pop from picking your seat.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Forbes: Pacers value increased from $383M in 2013 to $475M in 2014

      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
      And Lance is a big part of that. He brings that extra pizzazz. I have quite a few friends that are fans of other teams, and they now enjoy watching the Pacers and even root for them when they're not playing their favorite teams. And that's saying something, because most of them are moronic Bulls fans. They aren't buying jerseys, but they are buying tickets and concessions. They're watching from home driving up TV ratings.

      Outside of Lance, and PG on occassion, the Pacers are bland and boring IMHO. No one else on the roster is exciting to watch, outside the basketball purist view.
      Yeah, Lance is definitely one of the biggest fan favorites since Reggie retired. People at the Fieldhouse love Lance. He routinely brings the crowd to their feet. Lance gives the Pacers personality. Pacer fans love him and a lot of opponents/opposing fans don't like him. But everyone pays attention to him and knows who he is. Everyone has an opinion on him.

      We're obviously going to win a lot of games with or without Lance, but Lance could definitely be the difference in us having the best record in the league as opposed to having just a really good record. Their are multiple reasons we will blow last year's record out of the water, such as PG's explosion and better bench play. But Lance's explosion is a huge reason to. I just don't buy that we're going to be able to replace most of Lance if he leaves. Coaching has definitely played a huge factor in Lance's development, but the main reason Lance is great is because he possesses a very unique skill set that cannot be coached. Lance is a true talent.

      If they don't pay the LT for Lance, then fine. But be ready for potential reduced fan buzz, reduced national buzz, teammates upset that they lost their pal, and maybe a dent in the W/L column. Doesn't seem like an ideal path for a team that has only recently regained it's stature in the local community. It's not my money, but not paying Lance will be a bitter pill to swallow given the amount of money that we shelled out to garbage players over the years, plus the fact that the franchise has been given so much taxpayer subsidies.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Forbes: Pacers value increased from $383M in 2013 to $475M in 2014

        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
        If they don't pay the LT for Lance, then fine. But be ready for potential reduced fan buzz, reduced national buzz, teammates upset that they lost their pal, and maybe a dent in the W/L column. Doesn't seem like an ideal path for a team that has only recently regained it's stature in the local community. It's not my money, but not paying Lance will be a bitter pill to swallow given the amount of money that we shelled out to garbage players over the years, plus the fact that the franchise has been given so much taxpayer subsidies.
        That's the case whenever any player with a local fanbase and close teammates goes. There will be people (and teammates) upset when Danny moves on. I know people who were upset when Dunleavy was let go (probably not teammates, though ). Few of them decided to just chuck the team because of it.

        Lance has moved into this position over part of a single season. To say that Herb needs to bet tens of millions on him because the city expects or requires it is ignoring the realities. I don't know many people out there who think of the Indiana Stephensons and those other guys they can't remember who are on the floor with him.

        We get a little confused because the Pacers haven't had this kind of exciting player for years (if ever - previous players one might mention still didn't stir up the constant excitement Lance does). Therefore, we think people are putting their eggs in one basket and that the business of the NBA requires keeping that one player At All Costs. Far too many teams have done that and lost their fans anyway when they mortgaged fundamental parts of their team to keep that one guy.

        Besides, what happens if Lance simply decides that he wants to play in the New York spotlight? Will that be blamed on Herb?
        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


        • #34
          Re: Forbes: Pacers value increased from $383M in 2013 to $475M in 2014

          I don't think anyone is saying Herb needs to bet tens of millions on him, nor saying he needs to be kept at all costs.

          But if the Pacers go up to the LT, and Lance signs for 2-3 mil extra, that's a hard pill to swallow. If someone just gives him a ridiculous contract then you let him walk, but like I've said before, you'd really have to look at the committment Herb has to winning a ring if 2-3 million is too much, which is peanuts in the grand schme of things.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Forbes: Pacers value increased from $383M in 2013 to $475M in 2014

            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
            I don't think anyone is saying Herb needs to bet tens of millions on him, nor saying he needs to be kept at all costs.

            But if the Pacers go up to the LT, and Lance signs for 2-3 mil extra, that's a hard pill to swallow. If someone just gives him a ridiculous contract then you let him walk, but like I've said before, you'd really have to look at the committment Herb has to winning a ring if 2-3 million is too much, which is peanuts in the grand schme of things.
            Only if you think the cost is the cost only of the additional money paid to Lance. At minimum, even by only going over the initial LT threshold, we'd be talking a $3M LT break equaling about $10M in costs. And if the only possible way to structure it means Roy's next contract pushes us higher into the LT and for more years (so the repeater kicks in), that's some pretty significant expenses that begin to be more than what the CIB kicked in.

            All I'm saying is that it isn't quite as simple as "pay Lance an extra few $M and it really doesn't cost that much".
            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


            • #36
              Re: Forbes: Pacers value increased from $383M in 2013 to $475M in 2014

              Originally posted by sam kaiserblade View Post
              Maybe Simon can sell to a rich owner who isnt afraid to go into the luxury tax.
              I understand there's an owner in Seattle looking for a team. That'd work for everyone...
              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


              • #37
                Re: Forbes: Pacers value increased from $383M in 2013 to $475M in 2014

                Originally posted by BillS View Post
                Only if you think the cost is the cost only of the additional money paid to Lance. At minimum, even by only going over the initial LT threshold, we'd be talking a $3M LT break equaling about $10M in costs. And if the only possible way to structure it means Roy's next contract pushes us higher into the LT and for more years (so the repeater kicks in), that's some pretty significant expenses that begin to be more than what the CIB kicked in.

                All I'm saying is that it isn't quite as simple as "pay Lance an extra few $M and it really doesn't cost that much".
                But it's only for one year, then you get cap relief.

                Scola/Copeland/OJ fall off the books. Solo will have a team option. They'd have $10-15M+ to get a bench and fill out the lineup gaps. Not the greatest, but not unworkable, especially with such a strong starting lineup.

                Say Lance gets 11M for that year, you're looking at just south of $66M total. The LT cap for14-15 season is projected to be around $75M, so the LT threshold for 15-16 would probably be around $78M. You'd have $12M to get you 7 players. You can fill your end of the bench guys, say 3 of them, at less than $1M but we'll just keep it even 1M. So you'd have about $9M left with at least 4 spots to fill. It's not the best, but it's certainly feasible.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Forbes: Pacers value increased from $383M in 2013 to $475M in 2014

                  Originally posted by BillS View Post
                  Only if you think the cost is the cost only of the additional money paid to Lance. At minimum, even by only going over the initial LT threshold, we'd be talking a $3M LT break equaling about $10M in costs. And if the only possible way to structure it means Roy's next contract pushes us higher into the LT and for more years (so the repeater kicks in), that's some pretty significant expenses that begin to be more than what the CIB kicked in.

                  All I'm saying is that it isn't quite as simple as "pay Lance an extra few $M and it really doesn't cost that much".
                  How much do you think that the Pacers would make from hosting three or four NBA Finals games? My guess is that routinely advancing far into the NBA playoffs would cover a nice chunk of the LT expenses. There's no way to get around the fact that losing Lance would make the Pacers a weaker basketball team. They could still be great without him, but they will have definitely lost something. Lance gives the Pacers a better chance of advancing far into the NBA playoffs and therefore making more money.

                  Besides, the only people who really understand the whole luxury tax stuff are diehard types that post on forums like this. Most casual observers don't really care about nuances like that. They will go to the Fieldhouse and see that the Pacers are without an exciting young player that they used to have.

                  It's going to come down to how much ownership values putting the best possible product on the floor. There are a lot of billionaire owners out there who would kill to be in the Pacers' position and would spend whatever it took to hang that championship banner.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Forbes: Pacers value increased from $383M in 2013 to $475M in 2014

                    While I'm looking at future salary, it should be noted the Pacers only have two players (George Bros.) under contract for the 16-17 season. The Pacers have staggered their salaries nicely. A core of PG/GHill/Lance/Roy will keep you competitive.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Forbes: Pacers value increased from $383M in 2013 to $475M in 2014

                      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                      How much do you think that the Pacers would make from hosting three or four NBA Finals games? My guess is that routinely advancing far into the NBA playoffs would cover a nice chunk of the LT expenses.
                      Assuming an average ticket price of $100 and sold-out 7-game series Finals with HCA gives an additional ticket sales revenue of about $1.85M per game and a total of about $7.4M. Assuming there are absolutely no variable costs associated with the extra games means it covers at most75% of the non-repeater tax. Of course, you'd have to base your decision on the idea that it's a pretty good lock that you get to the Finals with HCA and it goes all 7 games. Once you get into repeater land the fraction drops significantly.

                      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                      There's no way to get around the fact that losing Lance would make the Pacers a weaker basketball team. They could still be great without him, but they will have definitely lost something. Lance gives the Pacers a better chance of advancing far into the NBA playoffs and therefore making more money.
                      Meaning you disagree with Larry that a piece can be found to put in place. Fair enough.

                      As much as there are players I love and would hate to lose, Lance is not like a LeBron or a Durant or even a Paul George to the extent that losing him means the team will never be as good.

                      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                      There are a lot of billionaire owners out there who would kill to be in the Pacers' position and would spend whatever it took to hang that championship banner.
                      People keep saying that, but how many of them are in Indiana?
                      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


                      • #41
                        Re: Forbes: Pacers value increased from $383M in 2013 to $475M in 2014

                        Originally posted by sam kaiserblade View Post
                        Maybe Simon can sell to a rich owner who isnt afraid to go into the luxury tax.
                        Herb Simon has to easily be in the top half of NBA owners when it comes to net worth.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Forbes: Pacers value increased from $383M in 2013 to $475M in 2014

                          Originally posted by BillS View Post
                          Assuming an average ticket price of $100 and sold-out 7-game series Finals with HCA gives an additional ticket sales revenue of about $1.85M per game and a total of about $7.4M. Assuming there are absolutely no variable costs associated with the extra games means it covers at most75% of the non-repeater tax. Of course, you'd have to base your decision on the idea that it's a pretty good lock that you get to the Finals with HCA and it goes all 7 games. Once you get into repeater land the fraction drops significantly.



                          Meaning you disagree with Larry that a piece can be found to put in place. Fair enough.

                          As much as there are players I love and would hate to lose, Lance is not like a LeBron or a Durant or even a Paul George to the extent that losing him means the team will never be as good.



                          People keep saying that, but how many of them are in Indiana?

                          Bird's comments about Lance were mostly GM-speak. If he said that he'd pay Lance whatever it took, then it would look like he put his foot in his mouth if we are unable to keep him. But there's no doubt that Bird wants to keep this kid badly. Of all of Bird's great moves, picking Lance in the second round when no one else was willing to take a chance on him might be his best.

                          I'm not saying that Lance will ever be as good as Lebron or even Paul George. But Paul George wasn't "Paul George" immediately. Even though PG and Lance came in the same year and are the same age, PG basically has two years of substantial experience over him right now. PG was starting by the end of their rookie season while Lance barely touched the court. In year 2, PG continued to have a substantial starting role while Lance had a very small bench role. It wasn't until last year that Lance had an important role on the team.

                          I don't know how good Lance will be, but I do know that he has taken drastic leaps in each of the last two seasons. After watching the NBA for years, I also know that it's extremely rare for a good player to peak as young as 23. The best years of Lance are still in the future and there is no telling how good he will be. I want him to be in a Pacer uniform when we find out. Having two wings like PG and Lance is a once in a lifetime opportunity for a franchise. They are the same age, came into the league the same year, and have games that complement each other perfectly. You don't let that get away.

                          Who are we going to replace Lance with if he leaves? We don't have much flexibility to upgrade from the outside. If he leaves, there is going to be a massive talent downgrade anyway you slice it.

                          I'll give ownership the benefit of the doubt that they'll do the right thing.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Forbes: Pacers value increased from $383M in 2013 to $475M in 2014

                            Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
                            Herb Simon has to easily be in the top half of NBA owners when it comes to net worth.
                            He's just outside the top-10. Forbes has 16 NBA owners listed as billionaires.

                            NBA owners by individual net worth:

                            1. Paul Allen (Blazers): $15 billion
                            2. Mikhail Prokhorov (Nets): $13 billion
                            3. Micky Arison (Heat): $5.7 billion
                            4. Richard DeVos (Magic): $5.1 billion
                            5. Stan Kroenke (Nuggets): $5 billion
                            6. Dan Gilbert (Cavs): $3.5 billion
                            7. James Dolan (Knicks): $3.1 billion
                            8. Herb Kohl (Bucks): $3 billion
                            9. Tom Gores (Pistons): $2.6 billion
                            10. Mark Cuban (Mavs): $2.4 billion
                            11. Herb Simon (Pacers): $2.2 billion
                            12. Joshua Harris (76ers): $2.1 billion
                            13. Donald Sterling (Clippers): $1.9 billion
                            14. Glen Taylor (T-Wolves): $1.7 billion
                            15. Robert Pera (Grizzlies): $1.5 billion
                            16. Tom Benson (Pelicans): $1.2 billion
                            "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                            -Lance Stephenson

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Forbes: Pacers value increased from $383M in 2013 to $475M in 2014

                              Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
                              He's just outside the top-10. Forbes has 16 NBA owners listed as billionaires.

                              NBA owners by individual net worth:

                              1. Paul Allen (Blazers): $15 billion
                              2. Mikhail Prokhorov (Nets): $13 billion
                              3. Micky Arison (Heat): $5.7 billion
                              4. Richard DeVos (Magic): $5.1 billion
                              5. Stan Kroenke (Nuggets): $5 billion
                              6. Dan Gilbert (Cavs): $3.5 billion
                              7. James Dolan (Knicks): $3.1 billion
                              8. Herb Kohl (Bucks): $3 billion
                              9. Tom Gores (Pistons): $2.6 billion
                              10. Mark Cuban (Mavs): $2.4 billion
                              11. Herb Simon (Pacers): $2.2 billion
                              12. Joshua Harris (76ers): $2.1 billion
                              13. Donald Sterling (Clippers): $1.9 billion
                              14. Glen Taylor (T-Wolves): $1.7 billion
                              15. Robert Pera (Grizzlies): $1.5 billion
                              16. Tom Benson (Pelicans): $1.2 billion

                              This is why I as a fan just won't be able to sleep at night if we lose Lance because of LT concerns. Wouldn't paying the LT be akin to chipping off some Simon Mall stock? It won't make a dent to a guy worth two billion dollars.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Forbes: Pacers value increased from $383M in 2013 to $475M in 2014

                                That's what TV revenue, winning, and having a superstar does (just ask Cleveland).

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X