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

Free agency of 2017 - analysis for every team (in six separate posts)

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 7
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 template Next
  • #16
    Re: Free agency of 2017 - analysis for every team (in six separate posts)

    Cleveland Cavaliers : Not only over the cap, but over the tax threshold as well. Question – Will they try to retain Korver? They will pay 2,5 x each dollar they give out... Other than that – hunting for ring-chaser veterans on minimum contracts.

    Free agents available : Korver? Derrick/Deron Williamses?


    Dallas Mavericks : Can and absolutely will splash the money for Nerlens Noel. Long-term max. Contract – no doubts.

    And as long as Nowitzki doesn't decide to retire – that will be that. They could of course exercise the Team Option on Dirk's contract , re-negotiate a much cheaper one , try to get some salary room to strengthen the team and all that. But it would still fall woefully short of any serious improvement.

    The bond between Mavs & Dirk (Cuban & Dirk) is so strong that I either see a swansong season with a reasonably good, marginally playoff-worthy outfit or a retirement already in upcoming summer. ...and when Dirk finally goes, then Dallas will start anew... Nucleus is already forming in Wes-Barnes-Noel.

    Free agents available : NONE


    Denver Nuggets : One of the most interesting teams to watch this off-season. Will take a long write-up and gets it''s own post later.


    Detroit Pistons : Our resident Piston-specialist (Kstat) seems pretty convinced that a) they like KCP (Kentavious Caldwell-Pope) a lot and will do whatever is necessary to keep him. But if that takes a max. Contract, it will push Pistons into a luxury tax territory. Not by much, but nevertheless...

    That has following repercussions : 1) Reggie Bullock will likely be available to any bidder (despite his RFA-status), 2) Much more importantly, I expect Detroit looking for a way to replace either Reggie Jackson or Tobias Harris with someone making 8-10 million less.

    Free agents available : Reggie Bullock, Beno Udrih (meh)

    Potential salary dumps available : Reggie Jackson, Tobias Harris


    Golden State Warriors : Well, basically whole team will be free agents. Dubs have just 5 players under contract for next season (Klay, Draymond, Damian Jones, McCaw & Looney). A playoff collapse this season might change the scenery quicker than basketball bounces, but let's assume Durant & Curry both will re-sign with Warriors. Even if signing is delayed, just the cap holds of these two would restrict Warriors to a war kitty of about 10 mil in free agency. Enough to add a solid veteran – yes. Enough to justify renouncing Iggy, Livingston AND Pachulia. Probably not.

    So, at this point I expect GSW to resemble Cavs (only targetting ring-chasers on minimum contracts) and putting their effort in re-signing their current players.

    Free agents available (in order of likelihood) : Likely = David West, J.M.McAdoo / Possible = Iggy, Pachulia / Unlikely = Durant, Livingston, Javale McGee, Ian Clark / Hell no = Curry


    Houston Rockets : On 1st glance, Rockets are not a sexy discussion point for next free agency. Only pending free agents are Nene & Bobby Brown. Otoh, they only have some 8 mil available under the projected cap which is of course too little for major acquisition..

    But but – IF Rockets will get a hint of being positioned in f ex Durant-sweepstakes, they absolutely CAN open up a max. space by waiving couple of non-guaranteed contracts and salary dumping Ryan Anderson. That will likely cost them some, but it is perfectly doable.

    Free agents available : I doubt it...

    Potential salary dumps available : Highly speculative, but Ryan Anderson could be. And team with room to take him inside cap (= no necessity to send salaries back) could get a REALLY SWEET deal.


    P.S. I assume that only teams with serious title aspirations will be "happy" to even pay a tax. Golden State, Cleveland definitely are ready to do so... In right circumstances, Toronto/Washington/Utah/Clippers/Houston might also do so... I also assume that f ex Detroit will not pay luxury tax for their current line-up!
    Last edited by PetPaima; 03-13-2017, 06:16 PM.

    Comment

    • #17
      Re: Free agency of 2017 - analysis for every team (in six separate posts)

      Originally posted by cdash View Post
      He's worth it.
      I'm old school. IMO, only a very players are worth more than 25 million.

      Comment

      • #18
        Re: Free agency of 2017 - analysis for every team (in six separate posts)

        INDIANA PACERS :

        We will enter the free agency at above the salary cap and unable to make any offers as :

        1) We have $57,925,047 of guaranteed contracts for next season. That sum includes PG13, Thad, Monta, AlJeff, Myles and 50,000 bucks for Xmas.
        2) We have $16,572,675 bound in optional contracts of Stuckey, CJ & Lavoy
        3) We have $6,022,065 bound in non-guaranteed contracts of Seraphin, JoeYoung, GRIII and Niang + the non-guaranteed mil of Xmas
        4) We have $18,330,000 bound on cap holds of Teague & Brooks
        5) We have rookie cap holds

        So altogether we will start around 101 mil before starting to ”drop” guys. Cap is likeliest to be about 98 mil.

        Step 1) renounce Brooks – opens up 5,130,000. 2 million under the cap
        Step 2) CJ picks his option, becomes a cap hold. Add 4,125,105. Back over the cap.
        Step 3) Stuckey does not pick his option. Monetarily you stay where you were.

        Step 4) Re-sign Teague & CJ with the Bird Rights. Pay an approximate 30 mil for that duo. End up very close to a luxury tax threshold (but probably below) with the draft pick as the only new asset.

        Alternative step 4) Renounce CJ's rights, do NOT pick Lavoy's option, waive 2 non-guaranteed contracts (Seraphin/JoeYoung). End up roughly 14 mil under the cap. Make a pitch for some 2nd tier free agent (or two). Afterwards sign Teague with Bird rights, end up with something like presented below. Avoid luxury tax too... :

        PG : Teague, Monta
        SG : 1st-round pick, GRIII, Stuckey
        SF : PG13, 2nd-round pick
        PF : Thad, Jerebko, Xmas
        C : Myles, Pachulia, AlJeff


        Alternative step 4, version 2) Like above, but also renounce Teague... Get room for 1 x max. Contract under the salary cap. Swing for the fences for difference-maker and fill the rest with minimum contracts + (no-longer-so-useful) MLE.


        Salary dump candidates : If our FO wants to simultaneously retain Teague AND add even a single top-level player, we need to do some salary dumping. Monta, AlJeff and Stuckey will be hard to move for salary relief (yes, you can always move players but not so easily when you don't want to take any salary back). Thad might be little easier to move, but would also leave a sizable frontcourt hole.

        Worth mentioning : It is a bold move and I doubt our current GM would be able to eat his pride in order to do so, but AlJeff is a nice stretch candidate. If we use stretch provision on him, we only would need to pay his remaining GUARANTEED salary of $13,769,821 to pay over 5 seasons! That would save us 7 million next season and enable us to be semi-serious free agent hunter while still keep Teague!
        Last edited by PetPaima; 03-14-2017, 09:55 AM.

        Comment

        • #19
          Re: Free agency of 2017 - analysis for every team (in six separate posts)

          I love the stretch Al Jeff concept. That's a move that gets PG's attention.


          Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

          Comment

          • #20
            Re: Free agency of 2017 - analysis for every team (in six separate posts)

            Originally posted by jrwannabe View Post
            I'm old school. IMO, only a very players are worth more than 25 million.
            Salary cap has increased 30%. So $32.5 million is literally the new $25 million.

            Comment

            • #21
              Re: Free agency of 2017 - analysis for every team (in six separate posts)

              Originally posted by PetPaima View Post
              INDIANA PACERS :

              We will enter the free agency at above the salary cap and unable to make any offers as :

              1) We have $57,925,047 of guaranteed contracts for next season. That sum includes PG13, Thad, Monta, AlJeff, Myles and 50,000 bucks for Xmas.
              2) We have $16,572,675 bound in optional contracts of Stuckey, CJ & Lavoy
              3) We have $6,022,065 bound in non-guaranteed contracts of Seraphin, JoeYoung, GRIII and Niang + the non-guaranteed mil of Xmas
              4) We have $18,330,000 bound on cap holds of Teague & Brooks
              5) We have rookie cap holds

              So altogether we will start around 101 mil before starting to ”drop” guys. Cap is likeliest to be about 98 mil.

              Step 1) renounce Brooks – opens up 5,130,000. 2 million under the cap
              Step 2) CJ picks his option, becomes a cap hold. Add 4,125,105. Back over the cap.
              Step 3) Stuckey does not pick his option. Monetarily you stay where you were.

              Step 4) Re-sign Teague & CJ with the Bird Rights. Pay an approximate 30 mil for that duo. End up very close to a luxury tax threshold (but probably below) with the draft pick as the only new asset.

              Alternative step 4) Renounce CJ's rights, do NOT pick Lavoy's option, waive 2 non-guaranteed contracts (Seraphin/JoeYoung). End up roughly 14 mil under the cap. Make a pitch for some 2nd tier free agent (or two). Afterwards sign Teague with Bird rights, end up with something like presented below. Avoid luxury tax too... :

              PG : Teague, Monta
              SG : 1st-round pick, GRIII, Stuckey
              SF : PG13, 2nd-round pick
              PF : Thad, Jerebko, Xmas
              C : Myles, Pachulia, AlJeff


              Alternative step 2, version 2) Like above, but also renounce Teague... Get room for 1 x max. Contract under the salary cap. Swing for the fences for difference-maker and fill the rest with minimum contracts + (no-longer-so-useful) MLE.


              Salary dump candidates : If our FO wants to simultaneously retain Teague AND add even a single top-level player, we need to do some salary dumping. Monta, AlJeff and Stuckey will be hard to move for salary relief (yes, you can always move players but not so easily when you don't want to take any salary back). Thad might be little easier to move, but would also leave a sizable frontcourt hole.

              Worth mentioning : It is a bold move and I doubt our current GM would be able to eat his pride in order to do so, but AlJeff is a nice stretch candidate. If we us stretch provision on him, we only would need to pay his remaining GUARANTEED salary of $13,769,821 to pay over 5 seasons! That would save us 7 million next season and enable us to be semi-serious free agent hunter while still keep Teague!


              Currently though we're already $4.1 mil under the cap. So what does our situation look like if:


              CJ opts out and we don't re-sign him.
              Stuckey opts in but we trade him and our 2017 2nd rounder to Portland for Alan Crabbe and the #22 pick.
              We drop Lavoy, Joe, Brooks, Seraphin.
              We move Al to a team like the Nets or Sixers and take back no salary, while keeping Monta.

              Comment

              • #22
                Re: Free agency of 2017 - analysis for every team (in six separate posts)

                Here's a question for you guys. Would you be willing to offer Al Jefferson, Monta Ellis, and our 2018 1st to the Knicks for Carmelo Anthony in the Summer? This would require Larry to talk with him into waiving the no trade clause. But if he were to waive it to come to Indiana and pair up with Paul as a dynamic duo would you do it? Keep in mind he makes $24 mil next season and the season after that. He has an ETO (early termination option) in the Summer of 2019.

                Comment

                • #23
                  Re: Free agency of 2017 - analysis for every team (in six separate posts)

                  Originally posted by Grimp View Post
                  Here's a question for you guys. Would you be willing to offer Al Jefferson, Monta Ellis, and our 2018 1st to the Knicks for Carmelo Anthony in the Summer? This would require Larry to talk with him into waiving the no trade clause. But if he were to waive it to come to Indiana and pair up with Paul as a dynamic duo would you do it? Keep in mind he makes $24 mil next season and the season after that. He has an ETO (early termination option) in the Summer of 2019.
                  He wouldn't waive his NTC to come here, but yes, I would do that deal.

                  Comment

                  • #24
                    Re: Free agency of 2017 - analysis for every team (in six separate posts)

                    Originally posted by cdash View Post
                    He wouldn't waive his NTC to come here, but yes, I would do that deal.
                    It would take some convincing but if Larry calls him and works some of that magic. Then he chats with Paul, I don't see how he could not at least consider waiving the NTC.

                    Comment

                    • #25
                      Re: Free agency of 2017 - analysis for every team (in six separate posts)

                      Originally posted by Grimp View Post
                      It would take some convincing but if Larry calls him and works some of that magic. Then he chats with Paul, I don't see how he could not at least consider waiving the NTC.
                      Lala would divorce Carmelo if he came here.

                      Comment

                      • #26
                        Re: Free agency of 2017 - analysis for every team (in six separate posts)

                        Originally posted by pogi View Post
                        Lala would divorce Carmelo if he came here.
                        I know. It's not just him his wife doesn't wanna move to Indy. That's the real sticking point, the 'better half.'

                        Comment

                        • #27
                          Re: Free agency of 2017 - analysis for every team (in six separate posts)

                          Originally posted by Grimp View Post
                          Currently though we're already $4.1 mil under the cap.
                          As soon as season ends, Teague's current contract of 8,8 Mil transforms to a cap hold of 13,2 Mil. That takes care of what we are currently under the cap...

                          The rest of your writing is rose-coloured joke which Portland/Brooklyn/Philadelphia would laugh out of the door.

                          Btw, Crabbe's contract has a 15 % trade kicker which would make him even more overpaid at 21 mil plus. (22 plus M for 2018-19)

                          Comment

                          • #28
                            Re: Free agency of 2017 - analysis for every team (in six separate posts)

                            Havent read over this entire thread but the posts I am reading has PG on the team next season. I don't think that's going to happen. Can we talk about where we'll be if we do in fact trade Paul before the draft? How would our cap space look this summer and going forward? Much better than having a non-superstar on some mega deal in a small market like Indiana. I'd love to keep PG for the right price but overpaying for him is something we cannot afford

                            Also Big Al's final 3rd year is a team option...so next season he's essentially an expiring contract. Nice trade chip. We're setting ourselves up for big time cap space in 2019.

                            Comment

                            • #29
                              Re: Free agency of 2017 - analysis for every team (in six separate posts)

                              Originally posted by I Love P View Post
                              Havent read over this entire thread but the posts I am reading has PG on the team next season. I don't think that's going to happen. Can we talk about where we'll be if we do in fact trade Paul before the draft? How would our cap space look this summer and going forward? Much better than having a non-superstar on some mega deal in a small market like Indiana. I'd love to keep PG for the right price but overpaying for him is something we cannot afford

                              Also Big Al's final 3rd year is a team option...so next season he's essentially an expiring contract. Nice trade chip. We're setting ourselves up for big time cap space in 2019.
                              Bird has made it clear that he wants to retain Paul long term. I think you can not only plan on Paul's salary being here next year but plan for a big raise from an extension. If he gets the DPE then his raise will be about 13 mil, if he doesn't then his raise will be around 10 mil.
                              Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                              Comment

                              • #30
                                Re: Free agency of 2017 - analysis for every team (in six separate posts)

                                Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
                                Bird has made it clear that he wants to retain Paul long term. I think you can not only plan on Paul's salary being here next year but plan for a big raise from an extension. If he gets the DPE then his raise will be about 13 mil, if he doesn't then his raise will be around 10 mil.
                                Unless we trade him, PG's salary is what it is next year--even if he signs a max or supermax extension that won't go into effect until 2018-2019.

                                Comment

                                Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 template Next
                                Working...
                                X