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.
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
Insider Article
Collapse
X
-
Re: Insider Article
Updated: Feb. 17, 2005, 1:41 PM ET
By Chad Ford
ESPN Insider
Want to know what your team has to offer in a trade? Whether it needs to cut cap space? If it has a valuable trade exception or expiring contracts? Who on the team is untradeable?
As Insider runs through every NBA team digging for answers, here are a few notes to keep in mind:
Team payroll: The 2004-05 payroll numbers for each team are estimated. The exact numbers aren't available right now due to slight fluctuations with non-guaranteed contracts and trades. However, the numbers are close.
This year, the cap came in at $43.87 million. The 2005-06 payroll figures are for committed salaries only. First-round draft picks and free-agent cap holds can potentially reduce the amount of cap space the team has available.
The Hawks, Bobcats, Cavaliers, Bulls, Clippers and Sonics should have significant cap room next summer if the cap comes in at around $45 million. The Sonics (Ray Allen, Vladimir Radmanovic, Antonio Daniels), Bulls (Eddy Curry, Tyson Chandler), Cavs (Zydrunas Ilgauskas, Jeff McInnis) and Clippers (Marko Jaric, Bobby Simmons) have significant free agents they intend to re-sign, which will cut well into their cap room.
Team assets: This contains a list of all current cap room, owned draft picks and trade exceptions. Only three teams have cap room for the trade deadline: Hawks ($3.3 million), Bobcats ($6 million) and Jazz ($5.5 million).
A team cannot trade consecutive future first round picks. However, once the team has made its draft selection, it is free to trade the rights to the player it selected. Teams that are prohibited from trading their first-round pick are noted below.
Trade exceptions can be used to acquire a player or players whose salary equals the trade exception, or to claim a player off waivers whose contract equals the trade exception. Free agents cannot be signed using the exception, however. For a more detailed explanation of how the exception is aquired and used, see our trade primer.
Tradeable expiring contracts: Under each team is a list of expiring and non-guaranteed contracts, and contracts with team options for '05-06, that teams can deal before the Feb. 24 trade deadline. Several players, such as Stromile Swift and Toni Kukoc, are not on this list, despite having expiring contracts. That's because the contracts they signed prohibit them from being traded this season.
These expiring contracts are valuable trading chips. Teams want to acquire them to cut payroll for the upcoming summer. A team willing to trade an expiring contract for one with a few years on it can get a lot in return.
With that said, expiring contracts aren't as valuable this year as they normally would be. Teams believe there won't be a luxury tax this year. In past years, teams have tried to radically reduce payroll at the deadline in order to avoid paying the tax.
Untradeable or difficult-to-trade contracts: The term "poison pill" is not a derogatory term for a player. It's a specific term for a certain type of contract tied to rookie extensions.
Check out our trade rules story for fuller definitions of all the terms we've used on the team assets page.
Atlanta Hawks
Team payroll:
2004-05: $40.5 million
2005-06: $18 million
Team assets:
# $3.3 million in cap space
# 2005 first-round pick
# Draft rights to David Andersen ('02, Austraila)
Tradeable expiring contracts:
Kenny Anderson, $745,046
Chris Crawford, $3,250,000
Predrag Drobnjak, $2,550,000 ('05-06 not guaranteed)
Tyronn Lue, $1,650,000
Antoine Walker, $14,625,000
Kevin Willis, $1,300,000
Boston Celtics
Team payroll:
2004-05: $63.6 million
2005-06: $49.9 million
Team assets:
# 2005 first-round pick
# Lakers' 2005 first-round pick (top-14 protected)
# Trade exception: $1,337,500
Tradeable expiring contracts:
Tom Gugliotta, $2,700,000
Gary Payton, $5,408,700
Justin Reed, $385,277
Yogi Stewart, $4,800,000
Untradeable or difficult-to-trade players:
Mark Blount (base-year player)
Charlotte Bobcats
Team payroll:
2004-05: $23 million
(Note: Charlotte's cap, because it is an expansion team, is $29,250,000 this year.)
2005-06: $10.7 million
(Note: Charlotte's cap, because it is an expansion team, is restricted to 75 percent of the cap in 2005-06.)
Team assets:
# $6 million in cap room
# 2005 first-round pick
# Cavs' 2005 first-round pick (top-13 protected)
# Raptors' 2005 first-round pick (top-17 protected)
Tradeable expiring contracts:
Keith Bogans, $620,046
Jason Kapono, $620,046
Brevin Knight, $745,046
Bernard Robinson, $385,277
Kareem Rush, $1,174,200
Steve Smith, $745,046
Theron Smith, $620,046
Gerald Wallace, $1,652,454
Jahidi White, $6,146,465
Chicago Bulls
Team payroll:
2004-05: $57 million
2005-06: $33.7 million
Team assets:
# Trade exception: $1,746,434
Tradeable expiring contracts:
Tyson Chandler, $4,801,102
Eddy Curry, $3,896,402
Chris Duhon, $385,277
Adrian Griffin, $870,046
Othella Harrington, $3,150,000
Jannero Pargo, $695,046
Jared Reiner, $385,277
Frank Williams, $957,480
Cleveland Cavaliers
Team payroll:
2004-05: $49 million
2005-06: $22.6 million
Team assets:
# Trade exception: $1,585,920
Tradeable expiring contracts:
DeSagana Diop, $2,695,164
Zydrunas Ilgauskas, $14,625,000
Jeff McInnis, $3,600,000
Robert Traylor, $1,600,000
Dajuan Wagner, $2,643,600
Scott Williams, $1,600,000
Dallas Mavericks
Team payroll:
2004-05: $88.1 million
2005-06: $79.3 million
Team assets:
# Trade exception: $893,400
Tradeable expiring contracts:
Darrell Armstrong, $2,270,000
Alan Henderson, $8,273,125
Denver Nuggets
Team payroll:
2004-05: $46 million
2005-06: $38.7 million
Team assets:
# 2005 first-round pick (can't be traded before the draft)
# Wizards 2005 first-round pick (top-13 protected)
# Draft rights to Xue Yuyang ('03, China) and Sani Becirovic ('03, Slovenia)
Tradeable expiring contracts:
Francisco Elson, $620,046
DerMarr Johnson, $745,046
Voshon Lenard, $3,275,000 ($250,000 in salary protection next season)
Bryon Russell, $745,046
Nikoloz Tskitishvili, $2,910,600
Rodney White, $1,800,000
Detroit Pistons
Team payroll:
2004-05: $53.3 million
2005-06: $52.5 million
Team assets:
# 2005 first-round pick (can't be traded before draft)
# Draft rights to Andreas Glyniadakis ('03, Greece) and Ricky Paulding ('04, Missouri)
Tradeable expiring contracts:
Horace Jenkins, $620,046
Untradeable or difficult-to-trade players:
Darvin Ham (untradeable, one-year Bird right contract)
Golden State Warriors
Team payroll:
2004-05: $51 million
2005-06: $47.9 million
Team assets:
# 2005 first-round pick
# Mavs' 2007 first-round pick
# Future first-round pick from Sixers (two years after Sixers send a pick to the Raptors)
# Trade exception: $5,287,100
# Draft rights to Mladen Secularac ('02, Serbia)
Tradeable expiring contracts:
Dale Davis, $10,068,750
Untradeable or difficult-to-trade players:
Adonal Foyle (base-year player)
Troy Murphy ("poison pill" contract)
Jason Richardson ("poison pill" contract)
Houston Rockets
Team payroll:
2004-05: $60.9 million
2005-06: $55.4 million
Team assets:
# 2005 first-round pick
# Trade exception: $5,480,000
# Draft rights to Malick Badiane ('03, Germany) and Vassilis Spanoulis ('04, Greece)
Tradeable expiring contracts:
Andre Barrett, $385,277
Jon Barry, $1,800,000
Ryan Bowen, $745,046
Dikembe Mutombo, $4,496,434
Untradeable or difficult-to-trade players:
Scott Padgett (untradeable)
Indiana Pacers
Team payroll:
2004-05: $65.4 million
2005-06: $73.9 million
Team assets:
# 2005 first-round pick
# Trade exception: $1,225,000
Tradeable expiring contracts:
John Edwards, $385,277
James Jones, $620,046
Untradeable or difficult-to-trade players:
Michael Curry (untradeable before deadline)
Jamaal Tinsley (base-year player)
Los Angeles Clippers
Team payroll:
2004-05: $45.9 million
2005-06: $29 million
Team assets:
# 2005 first-round pick if in top 14 (can't be traded before the draft)
# Draft rights to Sofoklis Schortsanitis ('03, Greece)
Tradeable expiring contracts:
Rick Brunson, $745,046
Lionel Chalmers, $450,000
Marko Jaric, $2,100,000
Kerry Kittles, $10,266,666
Mikki Moore, $745,046
Mamadou N'diaye, $750,000
Zeljko Rebraca, $2,500,000
Quinton Ross, $620,046
Bobby Simmons, $825,000
Los Angeles Lakers
Team payroll:
2004-05: $64.8 million
2005-06: $66.3 million
Team assets:
# 2005 first-round pick if in top 14 (can't be traded before the draft)
# Heat 2006 first-round pick (top 14 protected)
# Trade exceptions: $1,983,720; $2,038,700
Tradeable expiring contracts:
Tierre Brown, $720,046
Vlade Divac, $4,903,000 ($2 million in salary protection next season)
Luke Walton, $620,046
Untradeable or difficult-to-trade players:
Kobe Bryant (no-trade clause)
Slava Medvedenko (base-year player)
Memphis Grizzlies
Team payroll:
2004-05: $65.7 million
2005-06: $55.7 million
Team assets:
# 2005 first-round pick
# Draft rights to Sergei Lishouk ('04, Ukraine)
Tradeable expiring contracts:
Ryan Humphrey, $1,223,160
Earl Watson, $1,458,000
Bonzi Wells, $7,700,000
Untradeable or difficult-to-trade players:
Shane Battier ("poison pill" contract)
Pau Gasol ("poison pill" contract)
Mike Miller (base-year player)
Stromile Swift (one-year tender offer contract, untradeable)
Miami Heat
Team payroll:
2004-05: $58.7 million
2005-06: $58.8 million
Team assets:
# 2005 first-round pick (can't be traded before the draft)
# Draft rights to Albert Miralles ('04, Spain)
Tradeable expiring contracts:
Malik Allen, $1,697,500
Shandon Anderson, $692,455
Udonis Haslem, $620,046
Christian Laettner, $745,046
Wang ZhiZhi, $745,046
Untradeable or difficult-to-trade players:
Rasual Butler (base-year player)
Milwaukee Bucks
Team payroll:
2004-05: $56.1 million
2005-06: $37.7 million
Team assets:
# 2005 first-round pick
# Draft rights to Szymon Szewczyk ('03, Poland)
Tradeable expiring contracts:
Marcus Fizer, $736,281
Dan Gadzuric, $695,046
Zaza Pachulia, $620,046
Michael Redd, $3,000,000 ('05-06 player option; will opt out)
Daniel Santiago, $1,320,000
Erick Strickland, $1,650,000
Untradeable or difficult-to-trade players:
Toni Kukoc (untradeable, one-year Bird right contract)
Desmond Mason (base-year player)
Minnesota Timberwolves
Team payroll:
2004-05: $70.1 million
2005-06: $53 million
Team assets:
# 2005 first-round pick
Tradeable expiring contracts:
Anthony Carter, $745,046
Eddie Griffin, $720,046
Ervin Johnson, $4,909,062
Mark Madsen, $745,046
Latrell Sprewell, $14,625,000
Untradeable or difficult-to-trade players:
Troy Hudson (base-year player)
New Jersey Nets
Team payroll:
2004-05: $63.7 million
2005-06: $49.8 million
Team assets:
# 2005 first-round pick
# Clippers 2005 first-round pick (top-14 protected this year; no protection thereafter)
# Trade exception: $4,979,167
# Draft rights to Christian Drejer ('04, Denmark)
Tradeable expiring contracts:
Travis Best, $745,046
Rodney Buford, $745,046
Cliff Robinson, $5,287,500 (cannot be aggregated in a trade)
Brian Scalabrine, $850,000
Jabari Smith, $745,046
Jacque Vaughn, $745,046
Untradeable or difficult-to-trade players:
Elden Campbell (claimed off waivers in last 30 days)
Jason Collins ("poison pill" contract)
Richard Jefferson ("poison pill" contract)
New Orleans Hornets
Team payroll:
2004-05: $64.6 million
2005-06: $49.4 million
Team assets:
# 2005 first-round pick
# Trade exception: $1,376,600
# Trade exception: $1,538,667
Tradeable expiring contracts:
Dan Dickau, $893,400
Casey Jacobsen, $1,082,160
Bostjan Nachbar, $1,493,880
Lee Nailon, $745,046
Rodney Rogers, $2,700,000
Jackson Vroman, $385,277
Untradeable or difficult-to-trade players:
Jamaal Magloire (base-year player)
New York Knicks
Team payroll:
2004-05: $101.6 million
2005-06: $109.0 million
Team assets:
# 2005 first-round pick (can't be traded before the draft)
Tradeable expiring contracts:
Trevor Ariza, $385,277
Jamison Brewer, $720,046
Bruno Sundov, $745,046
Orlando Magic
Team payroll:
2004-05: $67.4 million
2005-06: $70.2 million
Team assets:
# 2005 first-round pick
# Kings 2005 first-round pick (top-13 protected)
# Draft rights to Remon Van de Hare ( '03, Belgium)
Tradeable expiring contracts:
Andrew DeClercq, $2,560,000
Brandon Hunter, $620,046
Mario Kasun, $385,277 ('05-06 salary becomes 25 percent guaranteed Feb. 21)
Untradeable or difficult-to-trade players:
DeShawn Stevenson (base-year player)
Philadelphia 76ers
Team payroll:
2004-05: $66 million
2005-06: $53.8 million
Tradeable expiring contracts:
Kedrick Brown, $2,332,388
Samuel Dalembert, $1,599,549
Josh Davis, $620,046
Willie Green, $620,046
Kyle Korver, $620,046
Glenn Robinson, $12,071,250
Phoenix Suns
Team payroll:
2004-05: $44.4 million
2005-06: $45.4 million
Team assets:
# Bulls first-round pick (top 3 protected)
# Draft rights to Milos Vujanic ('02, Serbia)
Tradeable expiring contracts:
Joe Johnson, $2,358,954
Walter McCarty, $1,337,500
Bo Outlaw, $718,750
Portland Trail Blazers
Team payroll:
2004-05: $81 million
2005-06: $49.9 million
Team assets:
# 2005 first-round pick
# Draft rights to Federico Kammerichs ('02, Argentina, Nedzad Sinanovic ('03, Bosnia) and Sergey Monia ('04, Russia)
Tradeable expiring contracts:
Shareef Abdur-Rahim, $14,625,000
Richie Frahm, $695,046
Damon Stoudamire, $12,500,000
Nick Van Exel, $11,931,875
Untradeable or difficult-to-trade players:
Darius Miles (base-year player)
Zach Randolph ("poison pill" contract)
Sacramento Kings
Team payroll:
2004-05: $61.6 million
2005-06: $61.2 million
Team assets:
# Trade exception: $1,652,454
# Trade exception: $1,665,500
Tradeable expiring contracts:
Matt Barnes, $695,046
Erik Daniels, $385,277
Maurice Evans, $695,046
Bobby Jackson, $3,150,000
San Antonio Spurs
Team payroll:
2004-05: $46.9 million
2005-06: $55.1 million
Team assets:
# 2005 first-round pick
# Suns 2005 first-round pick (top-20 protected)
# Draft rights to Luis Scola ('02, Argentina), Viktor Sanikidze ('04, Georgia) and Sergei Karaulov ('04, Russia)
Tradeable expiring contracts:
Devin Brown, $695,046
Linton Johnson, $620,046
Tony Massenburg, $745,046
Mike Wilks, $720,046
Untradeable or difficult-to-trade players:
Sean Marks (untradeable, one-year Bird rights contract)
Tony Parker ("poison pill" contract)
Seattle SuperSonics
Team payroll:
2004-05: $53.5 million
2005-06: $21 million
Team assets:
# 2005 first-round pick
# Draft rights to Peter Fehese ('02, Germany), Paccelis Morlende ('03, France)
Tradeable expiring contracts:
Ray Allen, $14,625,000
Antonio Daniels, $2,200,000 ('05-06 player option; will opt out)
Reggie Evans, $880,000
Jerome James, $5,455,200
Ronald Murray, $695,046
Vitaly Potapenko, $6,191,250
Vladimir Radmanovic, $2,300,984
Damien Wilkins, $385,277
Toronto Raptors
Team payroll:
2004-05: $61 million
2005-06: $54.5 million
Team assets:
# 2005 first-round pick if in top 17 (can't be traded before draft)
# 76ers 2005 first-round pick (top-8 protected)
# Nuggets 2006 first-round pick (top-5 protected)
Tradeable expiring contracts:
Matt Bonner, $385,277
Donyell Marshall, $5,032,850
Milt Palacio, $807,546
Pape Sow, $385,27
Untradeable or difficult-to-trade players:
Morris Peterson (base-year player)
Utah Jazz
Team payroll:
2004-05: $38.4 million
2005-06: $48.3 million
Team assets:
# $5.5 million in cap room
# 2005 first-round pick
# Mavericks 2005 first-round pick (top-3 protected)
# Pistons 2006 first-round pick (top-14 protected)
# Knicks 2006 first-round pick (top-23 protected)
Tradeable expiring contracts:
Raja Bell, $1,320,000
Howard Eisley, $740,663
Keith McLeod, $750,000
Untradeable or difficult-to-trade players:
Andrei Kirilenko ("poison pill" contract)
Washington Wizards
Team payroll:
2004-05: $49.6 million
2005-06: $38.6 million
Team assets:
# Draft rights to Juan Carlos Navarro ('02, Spain)
Tradeable expiring contracts:
Steve Blake, $620,046
Kwame Brown, $5,361,873
Juan Dixon, $1,348,200
Larry Hughes, $5,455,200
Anthony Peeler, $1,650,000
Laron Profit, $745,046
Michael Ruffin, $745,046
Samaki Walker, $745,046
Untradeable or difficult-to-trade players:
Brendan Haywood ("poison pill" contract)
Etan Thomas (base-year player)
-
Re: Insider Article
In the corporate world a company may have agreements with others (employees or customers perhaps) that they will perform some financial promise if acquired by another company. This makes the acquisition expensive -- the acquiring company has to swallow a poison pill.
Sooooo, maybe there are contract provisions or options which enhance the value to the player if he is traded.
I'll bet someone else can come up with an example.
Comment
-
Re: Insider Article
Where the hell did the Pacers get that $1,225,000 trade exception???
Well they could get a cheap player if they wanted I guess for it, if it werr an expiring contract.
Man, the cap situation isn't all that good; that's the only reason why I wish the Pacers could get a Glenn Robinson or Antoine Walker for cheap."It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."
----------------- Reggie Miller
Comment
-
Re: Insider Article
Originally posted by ILovethePacersAnyone know what a "poison pill" contract is??
Originally posted by PacerFanInAZWhere the hell did the Pacers get that $1,225,000 trade exception???
Comment
-
Re: Insider Article
It has nothing to do with run ins with the law they might have had, dipper is right, it is usually a clause in a contract that makes it all the more difficult to trade a player, it can be any from many cluases, like a huge bonus they become entitled to (say 10 mio) or their contract gets an option year where the player can opt out of the contract the next year, or there is another sort of option becoming open when traded or the player may have the right to outright refuse the trade.
In general poison pills are not alike, they are individually tailored and in general make trading "iffy" at best.So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.
If you've done 6 impossible things today?
Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!
Comment
-
Re: Insider Article
I thought a 'poison pill' contract was one where you have a talented 7 foot player who always gets hurt but who just signed a long extension. You can't trade him and he can't play so it's 'poisoning' your team! Actually Dipper and Able's description make sense as well."The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
- Benjamin Franklin
Comment
-
Re: Insider Article
The article is wrong, Tinsley is "poison pill" as well.
He's still on his rookie contract, but he's signed a new contract that begins next season.
Next season, because the Pacers used his "Bird rights" to sign him to a new contract with a raise > x% (don't remember the exact number off the top of my head, if you really care then I recommend Larry Croon's FAQ), he's BYC (if that exists under the new CBA).
Two seasons from now, he's unrestricted in terms of trades.
Poison Pill players work fairly similar to BYC. In a nutshell, the Pacers can only take back a guy making +/- 15% of Jamaal's current (rookie - 27th pick contract), but the other team must be able to absorb his new contract without going over the cap. Since just about everybody is over the cap, it would take a very, very complicated multi-team trade to make it work.Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
And life itself, rushing over me
Life itself, the wind in black elms,
Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you
Comment
-
Re: Insider Article
Originally posted by Jay@Section204Poison Pill players work fairly similar to BYC. In a nutshell, the Pacers can only take back a guy making +/- 15% of Jamaal's current (rookie - 27th pick contract), but the other team must be able to absorb his new contract without going over the cap. Since just about everybody is over the cap, it would take a very, very complicated multi-team trade to make it work.
Clear as mud?
Comment
Comment