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

Offseason News, Trades, Rumors, Etc.

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Offseason News, Trades, Rumors, Etc.

    Originally posted by Kstat View Post
    uh...he paid $275 million for the team just four years ago. They are at least worth $600 million now. He made roughly a quarter of a billion dollars in just four years.

    The value of NBA teams would not have skyrocketed like they have since the 2011 lockout if they weren't profitable. Anyone who says otherwise is straight up lying.
    That doesn't mean Kohl turned a profit during that time.

    Profit and value aren't mutually exclusive.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • Re: Offseason News, Trades, Rumors, Etc.

      Originally posted by Kstat View Post
      uh...he paid $275 million for the team just four years ago. They are at least worth $600 million now. He made roughly a quarter of a billion dollars in just four years.

      The value of NBA teams would not have skyrocketed like they have since the 2011 lockout if they weren't profitable. Anyone who says otherwise is straight up lying.
      First, I'm not arguing with that. The goal of the owners was to make more franchises profitable. Yes, that adds to the asset value - but using the final asset value to offset operating expenses is crappy economics, particularly when the value at sale time can be affected by short-term issues that won't somehow be projected back in time for that owner to get more operating money from BRI in the past.

      We're essentially back to one of the fundamental arguments in capitalism - what premium (if any) is placed on the risk associated with owning an asset without a fixed valuation (or fixed growth)? And at what point is the income owners have due to those assets equivalent to what players would have if they invested the bulk of their salaries over the same period of time? For that latter, I'd argue a top-paid NBA star could invest 10 years of income into something and realize a gain similar to or even exceeding what the owners are getting on their franchises.

      If ownership is such a great deal, then the Players Association should negotiate a co-op where instead of getting BRI they get a percentage of franchise value. I'm sure the guy at the Porsche dealership will take that as part of the purchase price.
      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: Offseason News, Trades, Rumors, Etc.

        Originally posted by BillS View Post
        Basing your valuation of any industry on the profits and values of the top companies is like basing Indianapolis home loan values on Los Angeles prices.

        The idea is to have a competitive league that can employ 390 players, not a league that employs 104 players at really high salaries and everyone else playing for peanuts in a minor league somewhere.

        "only" 9 teams are losing money right now, so that is indication the owners are making too much. What's the idea of a fair league - 15 teams lose money?
        I went back to my first post and realized my mistake. Let me my position clear before addressing my points.

        1: I think that uncapped max salaries would be fine. I think teams would have to be really smart in addressing how they would want to pay players and would lead to smart teams getting rewarded.
        2: On top of that, I think the current BRI band of 49-51 percent is much too low- I would aim for something much higher. The NBA has around 5-6 billion in revenue, with a lux tax of around 77 million. The MLB has around 8 billion in revenue, with a tax around 189 million. I think the NBA tax probably, to be fair, should be around 90-100 million.

        The league overall in the last CBA lost around 300 million. In this season, the Nets lost 144, and the wizards were the 2nd largest losers at around 14. 9 teams lost money. Assuming each team other team lost 14, we are looking at 256 million in losses- thats already less than the 300 lost in the last CBA. Combine that with the fact that the top 5 teams made around 250 in profit- the rest of the teams in the league (16) would have to make less than .375 million dollars in profit for the NBA to be operating in a net loss. (which I highly, HIGHLY doubt)

        I think its clear the players lost big in BRI alone. Take into account the big amounts of salary restrictions that make larger contracts harder to sign (hidden spolier- this makes it much less likely for owners to lose large amounts money in the BRI split via the escrow system), then the players got screwed over big time.

        21 teams are making profits this year. The league is most likely looking at least a net profit of 10 million (assuming the other 16 teams are making at least 1 million in profit, which i think is more than reasonable). I think the BRI is way to low because of these reasons.

        Comment


        • Re: Offseason News, Trades, Rumors, Etc.

          When exactly can guys sign officially?

          Comment


          • Re: Offseason News, Trades, Rumors, Etc.

            Originally posted by Speed View Post
            When exactly can guys sign officially?

            Thursday.

            Comment


            • Re: Offseason News, Trades, Rumors, Etc.

              Originally posted by flox View Post
              21 teams are making profits this year. The league is most likely looking at least a net profit of 10 million (assuming the other 16 teams are making at least 1 million in profit, which i think is more than reasonable). I think the BRI is way to low because of these reasons.
              I deleted the previous post thinking I had screwed up the math then realized (too late) I had it right.

              A net profit of $10M is .2% (that's two tenths of a percent) of a BRI of $5B. That would tell me we're actually pretty fair in the split, to be off by that little - unless the goal is for teams to lose money.

              But let's say we want to punish teams worse for being run badly. A shift of 1% in BRI is a net loss of $50M. That's still only about $128K per player if split evenly. But it wouldn't be split evenly - it would disproportionately go to the top players, and in a scenario with no individual player cap it would go only to the 30 top players (along with a HUGE chunk of the money currently going to mid-level players).

              Comparing the tax levels of MLB and NBA is a bit silly, since MLB pays a lot more players per team than the NBA. Assuming half the NBA teams went over the cap but not over the tax you'd be shifting about $300M (15 teams spending $20M per more than they do today) in BRI to the players. That's an increase in BRI percentage of 6%, and a net loss to the league (based on your estimates) of about that much, give or take $10M. The top teams are still going to make profits, but other teams would have to choose to be competitive or stay in business.

              A real business model means that it takes a finite pool (the revenue generated from operations) and splits it. The problem with most people's views of sports money is that they want one or the other (or both) parties to be responsible for putting in income from somewhere else ("owners are rich and therefore if they lose a few million dollars a year so what?" or "players have endorsement deals and all kinds of outside income, so why should they get so much BRI?" or even "taxpayers are covering the costs of stadiums, so owners should be expected to lose that much operating their teams to be fair").
              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: Offseason News, Trades, Rumors, Etc.

                Originally posted by Ichi View Post
                Can you ever say LeBron and Bosh? lol but I'd bet any offers they can make to the 3 you mentioned would be matched without hesitation.
                Nope, I can no longer do that.
                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                Comment


                • Re: Offseason News, Trades, Rumors, Etc.

                  Originally posted by flox View Post
                  Sorry, I didn't make my point clear.

                  http://www.nba.com/freeagents/2014/

                  Who would you want to replace Bosh with on that salary slot that isn't a RFA that is most likely to be matched?

                  The answer (and btw, this is the big thing for all of the people who think we can get Lance back at the lowball offer we gave him), is Lance/Deng/Ariza. And I'd rather have Bosh over those 3.
                  Individually, TagAlong maybe better than Deng, Lance or Ariza.....but they won't cost as much. Could the $$$ be spread among the rest of the lineup if TagAlong isn't the 2nd option so that the remaining Starting Lineup and the rest of the regular rotation can be improved?

                  I'd have to see what Wade is offered with LeDecision getting the MAX and how much is left over to spend on the remaining 8 to 9 man rotation before I can answer that.
                  Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Offseason News, Trades, Rumors, Etc.

                    Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                    Individually, TagAlong maybe better than Deng, Lance or Ariza.....but they won't cost as much. Could the $$$ be spread among the rest of the lineup if TagAlong isn't the 2nd option so that the remaining Starting Lineup and the rest of the regular rotation can be improved?

                    I'd have to see what Wade is offered with LeDecision getting the MAX and how much is left over to spend on the remaining 8 to 9 man rotation before I can answer that.
                    There is some discussion on radio that if Bosh signs with Houston Carmelo may consider Miami.
                    {o,o}
                    |)__)
                    -"-"-

                    Comment


                    • Re: Offseason News, Trades, Rumors, Etc.

                      Originally posted by BillS View Post
                      I deleted the previous post thinking I had screwed up the math then realized (too late) I had it right.

                      A net profit of $10M is .2% (that's two tenths of a percent) of a BRI of $5B. That would tell me we're actually pretty fair in the split, to be off by that little - unless the goal is for teams to lose money.

                      But let's say we want to punish teams worse for being run badly. A shift of 1% in BRI is a net loss of $50M. That's still only about $128K per player if split evenly. But it wouldn't be split evenly - it would disproportionately go to the top players, and in a scenario with no individual player cap it would go only to the 30 top players (along with a HUGE chunk of the money currently going to mid-level players).

                      Comparing the tax levels of MLB and NBA is a bit silly, since MLB pays a lot more players per team than the NBA. Assuming half the NBA teams went over the cap but not over the tax you'd be shifting about $300M (15 teams spending $20M per more than they do today) in BRI to the players. That's an increase in BRI percentage of 6%, and a net loss to the league (based on your estimates) of about that much, give or take $10M. The top teams are still going to make profits, but other teams would have to choose to be competitive or stay in business.

                      Sorry, I'll do the exact math now. I didn't think I had the time to do it before but I do now...

                      I'm being very conservative with the 10 million in net profit. For instance, the Pacers alone made 7 million in net profit this season, and teams 6,7,8 are implied to have made much more than that (Spurs, Jazz, Nuggets all made less than 29 million but more than 7 million). If we wanted to assume the rest of the 15 teams made lets say made an average of 10 million in profit, we are all of a sudden looking at a net profit of 150 million.

                      I also would like to point out that BRI is based off of basketball related income, NOT basketball related revenue. We can actually find the BRI number pretty easily, it should be (assuming BRI is 50% this year) cap space * 30 teams * 2.

                      So.... 63.2 million * 30 teams * 2 = 3.792 billion is the rough BRI. We're look at 4% of the BRI in that case in regards to net profit . I wish I had the exact numbers. You are correct that if split evenly, that amount is still not a lot. If we do the 300M proposal that you had addressed it would be around 8-9% if BRI. This number will only fall by the next lockout (2017?), as I believe the projected growth is around 7.7% per year for NBA revenue (dunno about income). I still think the players got cleaned out.

                      As a side note, if the players exceed their % of BRI, it is taken out of their escrow fund, which is 10% of all NBA players salaries. Whatever is left over after the BRI is calculated is returned back to the players. However, if the escrow fund + the pension fund (1% of BRI taken out of the players share) is emptied, the loss is put on the owners.
                      Last edited by flox; 07-08-2014, 04:16 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Offseason News, Trades, Rumors, Etc.

                        Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                        Individually, TagAlong maybe better than Deng, Lance or Ariza.....but they won't cost as much. Could the $$$ be spread among the rest of the lineup if TagAlong isn't the 2nd option so that the remaining Starting Lineup and the rest of the regular rotation can be improved?

                        I'd have to see what Wade is offered with LeDecision getting the MAX and how much is left over to spend on the remaining 8 to 9 man rotation before I can answer that.
                        Well, remember that with the McRoberts and Granger signings, it will be 20 million (Bosh cap hold) - 7 million (granger + mcroberts combined) so around 13 million... which might get you one of the three + someone like CJ Miles.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Offseason News, Trades, Rumors, Etc.

                          Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz just give me an hour long ESPN special already please


                          Comment


                          • Re: Offseason News, Trades, Rumors, Etc.

                            Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                            Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz just give me an hour long ESPN special already please

                            ESPN schedule for the day:

                            - Commemorate the four year anniversary of "The Decision" as if it's D-Day. Show all of the footage of Lebron jerseys burning, people crying at bars, and Dan Gilbert.

                            - Parade Mark Schwarz all around the country following Lebron.

                            - Bring in Broussard, who will say that his hunch says Laaabron is going to Cleveland.

                            - Bring in Windhorst to say that being slow with this was Lebron's plan all along.

                            - Do a Top 10 for the best moments of the Big 3 Heat era.

                            - Give Melo and Bosh "updates" that merely rehash everything we already know.

                            - Bring in some hack from Cleveland or Miami to give their opinion.

                            - Rinse, lather, repeat all day.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Offseason News, Trades, Rumors, Etc.

                              Originally posted by owl View Post
                              There is some discussion on radio that if Bosh signs with Houston Carmelo may consider Miami.
                              I was reading this CBS article on Melo to Miami:

                              http://www.cbssports.com/nba/writer/...dd-up-in-miami

                              Trying to get Melo math to add up in Miami

                              As we wait for Carmelo Anthony to make his free-agent decision (he's making Dwight Howard seem decisive, by the way), it's worth trying to decipher the salary cap logistics of a popular theory:

                              If Chris Bosh left Miami for a four-year, $88.4 million max deal with the Rockets, could the diabolical Pat Riley steal Anthony from the Knicks and squeeze the seven-time All-Star into Bosh's vacated cap space?

                              It's possible, though not as simple as it might seem.

                              LeBron James is seeking a maximum salary next season to stay in Miami. Based on his $19.1 million salary last season, James' max for '14-'15 is approximately $20.7 million.

                              Anthony, who made more than James last season, is thus eligible for a higher max -- $22.5 million -- in the first year of his new contract.

                              Given LeBron's stature, it seems unrealistic for Melo to join him in Miami at a higher number.
                              Of course, giving Melo a higher starting salary would allow him to recoup some of the millions he'd be losing by accepting a four-year deal with lower annual increases (totaling $88.4 million) vs. the five-year, $129.5 million deal he could get in New York. But it would also leave a potentially insufficient slice of room to retain Dwyane Wade.

                              For the sake of argument, let's say the Heat got James and Melo at identical $20.7 million salaries for next season. Here's how the cap gymnastics would play out:

                              The Heat would have to account for Norris Cole ($2 million), Justin Hamilton ($816,000) and the 24th pick, Shabazz Napier (about $1 million). That's $42.5 million for five players.

                              There's currently an $8.25 million cap hold on Miami's books for free agent Udonis Haslem. The easiest way to make that go away and preserve room to retain Wade would be to renounce Haslem. With seven minimum cap holds, the Heat would then be at $48.8 million.

                              With a $63.2 million projected cap, that would leave Riley with $14.4 million for Haslem and Wade combined. Though Wade is expected to take a pay cut, it seems unrealistic that he'd come back for less than $14.4 million. So let's assume for the sake of this illustration that the Heat persuade Haslem to re-sign for the veteran's minimum of $1.45 million, which they would not need to fit under the cap. (Teams can go over the cap to sign minimum players.)

                              It would be a tough sell for Haslem, who opted out of a $4.6 million deal for next season, but A) he is represented by the same agent as Wade, Henry Thomas, B) isn't likely to get that kind of deal on the open market, and C) could recoup most of it with a multi-year deal.

                              As was always the case with the Heat's efforts to keep their superteam going under the current CBA restrictions, everyone is going to have to sacrifice.

                              So let's say Wade signs a four-year deal starting at $14.4 million; that's a four-year, $64.1 million deal, which seems reasonable for a 32-year-old player on the decline. (Easy for me to say. I'm not Wade or his agent.)

                              In a perfect world -- a pre-2011 lockout world -- the Heat would then use their cap exceptions to formally bring aboard Josh McRoberts ($5.3 million) and Danny Granger ($2.1 million), then fill out the roster with minimums. Not so fast.

                              Under the current rules, once the Heat became a "room" team (i.e., created cap space with Bosh's departure), they would lose the ability to sign McRoberts with the full mid-level exception. Thus, LeBron, Melo, McRoberts and all the other salaries and cap holds previously mentioned -- including Wade -- would have to fit under the cap. So between James, Anthony and Wade, they'd have to come up with $5.3 million more in paycuts. Adios, Nuevo Tres Grande.

                              Was any of this realistic to begin with? Roster-wise, the Heat's new Big Three would've been LeBron, Melo and Wade. They'd have McRoberts starting in the middle and Cole -- or possibly a free-agent pickup if they can find one for the minimum -- at point guard, with Napier waiting in the wings.

                              Financially, it's absurd to think that Anthony would leave $30-$40 million on the table depending on which max he started at -- much less an amount higher than that to it McRoberts under the cap.

                              That's why, if Bosh left, it would seem more practical for the Heat to add multiple players -- perhaps Luol Deng or Trevor Ariza, plus Marvin Williams -- rather than use Bosh's $20 million slot for one player. Depending on how all of this came together, they'd alternatively be in a position to deliver an offer sheet to either Chandler Parsons or Gordon Hayward, both restricted free agents seeking in the $13-$14 million range.

                              Perhaps those more expertly familiar with cap mechanics than I will have components of this illustration to add or subtract, but one thing is clear: The Melo math in Miami is possible, but challenging to say the least.
                              Like everything else in the universe....it's possible that Melo joins LeDecision if TagAlong leaves.....but IMHO....near impossible unless either of them takes a paycut while subjugating their egos.
                              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Offseason News, Trades, Rumors, Etc.

                                Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                                And replacing them with a bunch of role players? Yeah, that worked out great for him in Cleveland.
                                Yeah, that has a direct effect on the future. All Wade and Bosh will be is overpaid role players soon anyway, if not this year.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X