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

Player acquisition idea, part #2: Further study of using our trade exception

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

  • Player acquisition idea, part #2: Further study of using our trade exception

    As I explained in the first thread in this series, the Pacers have an approximately 2,000,000 trade exception to be used in a trade with another team for an existing contract (a non free agent player). I have searched to try and find out the EXACT amount of this trade exception, but have failed to find an exact number...the amount of 2,000,000 comes from reporting of last year's Jermaine O'Neal trade with Toronto, and from a recent Mike Wells blog mentioning it.

    What this means is this: We can trade an asset with no current monetary value (i.e. a future conditional draft pick, probably a second rounder) to a team which simply wants to pare payroll, thin their roster, or to simply get rid of a player they are having issues with. With our trade exception, we can take back a contract of that amount. Since I don't know the exact number on this trade exception we have, in the examples listed below I've fudged it just a little to include some players who are paid just a smidgen above that amount. Whether it would work or not for those exact players would depend on the specific amount of the money we have to work with.

    The point of this series was to get us all in the mode of thinking outside the box a bit on who we could acquire, and hopefully identify a "diamond in the rough" out there who might actually be obtainable in this way.

    In my research for this I've identified a few interesting names that I like and want to discuss. First, I am going to list my preliminary names that qualify and that would be at least worth discussing:

    JR Giddens and Bill Walker (Boston), Josh Boone (New Jersey), Wilson Chandler (NY), Patrick O'Bryant (Toronto), JJ Hickson (Cleveland), Aaron Afflalo (Detroit), Daequan Cook (Miami), Anthony Johnson (Orlando), Dominic McGuire (Washington), Devean George (Dallas), Brent Barry (Houston), Julian Wright and Devin Brown (New Orleans), Renaldo Balkman and Sonny Weems (Denver), Kyle Weaver (OKC), Mardy Collins (LAC), Mikki Moore (Sacramento), Rudy Fernandez and Nicolas Batum (Portland)


    Ok, now obviously some of these teams have little motivation to make a deal like this. On top of that, some of these guys are held in such high regard by their current teams that just giving them away to save money isn't going to happen. And obviously there are some older players or players with issues on this list that would make us queasy about inquiring about them to start with.

    But, even after you eliminate the unrealistic or undesirable from your list of prospects, there are a couple on this list that I think would be very nice future pieces for us, and would be obtainable for various reasons from their current squads.

    One of the main reasons that some of these guys may be available for bid from their current teams would be that some of these teams will either be JUST OVER the projected luxury tax, or needing to clear room to sweeten offers to prospective unrestricted free agents they covet. We covered some of this area in the first thread on this topic I know, but if a team (such as Toronto or Portland for instance) would deal an existing salary off their books, that would enable them to slightly sweeten an offer on the first year salary of Hedo Terkoglu or some other free agent out there.

    With all of that in mind, let's take a look at a few interesting possibilities, and I will have a recommendation on which player I'd go after this way.

    1. Trade a future second round pick to New Jersey for Josh Boone.

    Boone is a young big who is blocked in New Jersey a little bit by Yi Jianlian. Boone isn't a great player, but he can rebound and defend a little bit, and he isn't a stiff. He also would give us probably our only real legitimate shotblocker, and would be a young decent big to have for a year. Boone is still on his rookie deal I think, and is unlikely to stay in New Jersey for another season.

    The Nets aren't in superbad financial shape, but if there is indeed a player they would rather sign as a free agent for this upcoming season, they could partially pay for that by in effect selling Boone to us.

    2. Trade a future second round pick to Toronto for Patrick O'Bryant

    I actually think some team in the league will make this trade before July 8, as Toronto scrambles to put their finishing touches on the structure of Hedo Terkoglu's offer without having to renounce the rights to Carlos Delfino, who they seem to like. Clearing the young but relatively useless O'Bryant off their books might be a way they would consider saving some cash.

    O'Bryant is a true center who hasn't really lived up to his high draft status. (He was a top 10 pick once upon a time by Golden State). He still is just 23 years old, and may at some point finally develop into the player some scouts thought he would be coming out of college. He basically has done nothing so far as a pro except collect a check, but this could be a low risk, high reward move. If he doesnt pan out, I belive he is still on his rookie deal, and can be let go after this season.

    3. Trade a future second round pick to Cleveland for JJ Hickson

    Hickson is blocked in Cleveland, and basically will have no chance to play as they gear up with veterans for another championship run. Being that the Cavs are going to be over the luxury tax, this move could save them Hickson's salary multipled by 2, which could net them a savings potentially of almost 3,000,000 dollars.

    Would Cleveland actually do this? I doubt it (I certainly wouldn't if I were them....I think Hickson has a chance to be good someday) but with the tax looming over them, and with Hickson having no chance to play significant minutes there it seems, it is definitely worth inquiring about.

    4. Trade a conditional second round pick to Houston for Brent Barry

    Houston looks like they are going to be over the luxury tax after they sign Trevor Ariza. With Ming and McGrady being injured and crippling their short term championship aspirations, I see no reason why they would want to play the dollar for dollar luxury tax.

    Barry is old obviously, and doesnt fit our future, but for now he might be a cheap band aid on our wing positions as a bridge to Dunleavy's return from injury.

    Would I trade for Barry personally? No.

    Should it at least be considered? Probably, just as a veteran role player guy. Barry's skills at least somewhat fit our system, if he has anything left in the tank at all.

    5. Trade a future second round pick to Denver for Renaldo Balkman

    Balkman is an athletic wing who can be a very good defender when given an opportunity. He plays with high energy and has a very good motor. He is an extremely active rebounder, and in fact Isiah Thomas considered him to be the next Dennis Rodman when he drafted him for the Knicks a few years ago.

    Now, it turned out of course that he isn't anywhere near as good as Rodman, but he also doesnt dye his hair green and wear women's clothing either, so that may still be ok.

    What he would bring would be a guy with some above average leaping ability and athleticism to our team, and also someone who doesn't need the ball to be effective. In fact, he is such a bad offensive player that you don't want him to get the ball in almost any circumstances.

    Still, he would fit a defensive need for us, and wouldnt be a bad fit. He is a low risk player, who is young and always could end up being a late bloomer....although I doubt it.

    With Denver needing to try and resign Kleiza, Anderson, and Dahntay Jones, saving a couple million on a player who never plays for them anyway might make some sense to them. I'd say Balkman could definitely be had by someone.


    There were many players on the above full list that I would love to get, but don't consider realistic from their current teams perspective. For instance, I'd love to have Rudy Fernandez or Nicolas Batum from Portland, but neither of them are going anywhere in a give away type of deal (no matter how much Fernandez may be complaining). Likewise, I'd for Donnie Walsh just to hand us Wilson Chandler for a song, cap space, and old time's sake, but I don't see that happening. I could see Walsh throwing in Chandler as a sweetener to get a team to take Jeffries off their hands however....but that isn't going to be us probably, and that isn't the point of this thread anyway.

    The point of this particular thread was to try and identify a player we could realistic obtain, and that would help us the most, by using our 2,000,000 trade exception. I have identified who that player would/should/could be, at least if I were in a decision making capacity, so here is the deal I want us to make and why:

    Pacers trade a conditional future second round pick to Detroit for Aaron Afflalo.

    The reasons why Afflalo should be obtainable realistically are obvious. He is blocked by superior players signed to long term contracts. He is a wing on a team with Ben Gordon, Rip Hamilton, and Teyshaun Prince all signed long term.

    With the Pistons wanting to save all the cap room they can get prior to officially inking Villanueva and Gordon, even the paltry 1,000,000 bucks and change Afflalo costs them could be a factor in how they structure the 2 veteran free agents deals. Granted, the Pistons are in good financial shape and don't need to dump a cheap player for money reasons, but they might like the additional tweaking dumping Afflalo gives them at this exact moment in time. They also of course might like the idea of spending that extra 1,000,000 bucks or so in some other way, perhaps to obtain a cheap big somewhere.

    For the Pacers, Afflalo would be a steal in my opinion. In college at UCLA, when he came out of college I felt he was by far the best defensive wing player in his draft class. He is a high character guy who has major defensive wing ability, both in contesting shots and containing the dribble. I think he walks right in and becomes our best wing defender (at least on smaller wings who can't just overwhelm him with size). Afflalo is 6'5, so he can't be a guy who can guard giant wings, but he can be a great defender on shooting guards like Ray Allen or Joe Johnson. In fact, I thought in college Afflalo was one of the best defenders of avoiding or running thru screens that I have seen in a long time.

    With Indiana looking to possibly sign free agent Dahntay Jones, it would make much more sense in my opinion to purchase Afflalo instead, who would be 2-3 times cheaper, slightly younger, and in my opinion just all around a better player. Afflalo hasn't had real consistent playing time in Detroit, and he won't be getting it anytime soon it appears, but I still think highly of him and think he could be an excellent long term NBA wing.

    I also think his shooting form has improved somewhat as an NBA player. I have very little film of him playing for the Pistons (all I have is when they play us) but his form looks good to me now, where it was a bit shaky back at UCLA I thought. Afflalo isnt a great ballhandler, and isnt going to be a driver/scorer/creator of offense for you I don't think, but he doesn look like a guy who can develop a spot up jump shot that can be very effective on kick outs or in transition. Afflalo is a good foul shooter as well, so he can play for you at the end of games if you need him to.

    I think Afflalo can develop into a "Bruce Bowen" level player if he hits his marks and reaches his potential. I think we need a guy like that both short term and long term, so I badly want to see us obtain him this summer to see if I am right. Because of how things are shaking down, I think we've got a chance to do just that.

    The first part of this series got a lot of good discussion (despite going off track a little bit in the middle) so I hope this one does as well.

    I particular want to hear some opinions from KStat and others about Afflalo, to see if my impressions are valid or whether I am vastly overrating him, and on the Detroit perspective on what I am proposing here.

    Any of you who remember Afflalo well from UCLA can chime in as well.

    Finally, I hope to hear some of your ideas from the partial list of players I listed above, and who you might prefer we acquire in this way.


    As always, the above is just my opinion.

    Tbird

  • #2
    Re: Player acquisition idea, part #2: Further study of using our trade exception

    I like the Balkman deal, all others, Meh....

    Thing is, we may have a TE, but we can not just take on salery unless you are OK w/ Jack leaving, signing another very cheap PG, giving the keys to TJ - who has a PO for n/y.
    Last edited by PacerGuy; 07-04-2009, 11:50 PM.
    "Larry Bird: You are Officially On the Clock! (3/24/08)"
    (Watching You Like A Hawk!)

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Player acquisition idea, part #2: Further study of using our trade exception

      Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
      As I explained in the first thread in this series, the Pacers have an approximately 2,000,000 trade exception to be used in a trade with another team for an existing contract (a non free agent player). I have searched to try and find out the EXACT amount of this trade exception, but have failed to find an exact number... Tbird
      Espn trade machine reports it as $2,699,140. We also have the Ike Diogu exception of, $910,200.

      http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Player acquisition idea, part #2: Further study of using our trade exception

        The Pacers have two trade exceptions: one from the JO trade, and one from the Portland trade.

        1. The exception from the JO trade is for about $2,699,000. (The difference between JO's salary, and the combined salaries of Ford, Nesterovic, and Baston...we acquired Hibbert's rights, so there was no salary).

        2. The exception from the Portland trade is about $910,000. (The difference between Jack's salary and Ike's.)

        These cannot be combined, either with each other or with anything else, but they can be broken up. (Example, you could use the JO exception to get one $1.0mm player and one $1.6mm player.)

        They can only be used in trades.

        As to the trades suggested, I don't think Afflalo is going to be available, nor Hickson, and I'm doubtful on Boone. The other guys, I have no interest.

        Finally, these trade exceptions expire this coming Thursday (July 9), so I find it highly unlikely that we'll use them.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Player acquisition idea, part #2: Further study of using our trade exception

          I'd throw out a few more names.

          From GS, Anthony Morrow and Marco Belinelli would be intriguing to me. Morrow really had a fantastic finish to the season, and shot lights out. Belinelli is a great shooter too, though I doubt he's good on D at all (haven't really seen him, just remember how explosive he can be offensively).

          I'm sure LAC wouldn't trade him, but it's possible...DeAndre Jordan. Mike Taylor showed some flashes too but I'm not sold on him.

          Minnesota has PG Bobby Brown, who I think is supposed to be a pretty good defender.

          I wonder if CDR will have a reduced role in NJ behind Williams and Lee now. He's shown flashes of being a good bench player.

          PHX is always looking to shed salary, perhaps Alando Tucker?

          SAC has Donte Green who is a guy that has a lot of potential. He's stuck behind a number of wings, but he'd clearly be a project/bench player. But to take a flyer on him, he could be very good. I don't think SAC would give him away for free though.

          Koufos or Maynor in Utah...they surely wouldn't just hand them over, but it's possible if they want to resign Millsap enough without going too far over the tax. I'd still love to get Maynor, but it's probably wishful thinking.

          I would definitely be asking Washington about Nick Young and Javaris Crittenton. McGuire would be ok, and McGee could develop. I don't think they'd give up Young but maybe Crittenton would be available given all of the guards they have now. Either would be a steal IMO.

          That's all I got.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Player acquisition idea, part #2: Further study of using our trade exception

            Originally posted by PacerGuy View Post
            I like the Balkman deal, all others, Meh....

            Thing is, we may have a TE, but we can not just take on salery unless you are OK w/ Jack leaving, signing another very cheap PG, giving the keys to TL - who has a PO for n/y.
            The way I think to look at our roster situation is this:

            1. We have approximately 8,000,000 of available funds to spend on this years roster to stay under the luxury tax, which we clearly will not exceed.

            2. We will, in my view, attempt to only carry Dunleavy, Tinsley and 12 others. If we somehow get rid of Tinsley's roster spot, we will simply fill it with someone making the minimum salary...The cost of Tinsley is unlikely to be mitigated much if at all buy a buyout or some other resolution in arbitration.

            3. We have Murphy, Dunleavy, Granger, Ford, Foster, Rush, Deiner and Hibbert under contract, for an approximate total of 50.6 million. Add 7.2 million for Tinsley and that makes approximately 57.8 in committed salary next season for 9 players total (2 of which won't be playing due to being injured or banned from the team). That means we have at least 5 players/warm bodies to sign just to have a full roster, which means on average we can spend less than 2 million per player (and less than that if you want to max out our roster at 15 players under contract).

            4. Assuming you sign McRoberts and Graham for an approximate total of 2.5 to 3 million in first year salary combined, that leaves you with 5 million approximately to spend on 3 (or maybe 4) players. Factor all that in, and I think it would be pretty clear that it is likely that Jarrett Jack won't be returning unless we can purge some salary in another deal somehow with someone.

            5. Even if the Pacers do re-sign Jack, they are going to need to fill the roster with uber cheap players, and using our trade exception is one of the best ways to expand the pool of players to choose from.

            No trade exception deal is going to lead us to the title next year or anything, so these aren't going to be super exciting deals to talk about I know. The hope is to find a needle in the haystack type player, and I think I've found one possibly in Afflalo.

            Thanks for reading the thread and responding Pacerguy!

            Tbird

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Player acquisition idea, part #2: Further study of using our trade exception

              Looking over the Wiz roster, the guard rotation would leave Young as a 3rd string SG behind Miller and Foye, while Crittenton would be a 3rd or 4th or 5th string PG behind Arenas, James or Foye, and possibly Marbury as it has been rumored they'll sign him. So it's conceivable to me that Crittenton would be available for the TE.

              He would certainly fit the need of a big PG, and could likely play some 2 though he has a lot of work to do on his shot. He's 6'5" though, and he's only 22. The Wiz are paying a LOT of salary and really don't need and won't use him. He has 2 years left on his rookie deal.

              His last 10 games of the season he averaged 30 mpg, 10 ppg, 4 rpg, 3.6 apg, .7 spg, and 50% shooting from the field. He's only 25% from 3s in the last 10 and 14% on the year. Obviously a lot of work to be done. But with his size and athleticism, he may be worth taking a flyer on for a couple of seasons. We can afford to develop him and get him consistent minutes when JJ leaves. He'd be a major contrast to TJ Ford due to his size. But then neither of our PGs would be great shooters.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Player acquisition idea, part #2: Further study of using our trade exception

                Originally posted by count55 View Post


                Finally, these trade exceptions expire this coming Thursday (July 9), so I find it highly unlikely that we'll use them.

                You beat me on the date these TE's expire, so unless the Pacers get something done quickly they are worthless. I also feel there is little chance they are used due to the fact the Pacers are slow in getting things done. I could be wrong, and Bird/Morway may have been burning up the phone lines. My feeling is nothing will happen with these TE's. Most TE's never get used, and just expire.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Player acquisition idea, part #2: Further study of using our trade exception

                  Keep in mind also that while a TE can be packaged with a future draft pick, as you suggest, it can also be packaged with a player for which we already have the draft rights, such as:

                  Andrew Betts
                  Erazem Lorbek
                  Stanko Barac
                  "I'll always be a part of Donnie Walsh."
                  -Ron Artest, Denver Post, 12.28.05

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Player acquisition idea, part #2: Further study of using our trade exception

                    I'm looking forward to your idea about trading for Anthony Johnson. Besides the fact that I've always liked him I want to watch the implosion when everyone else says how much they hate him.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Player acquisition idea, part #2: Further study of using our trade exception

                      Of all the names listed, put me in the camp of Crittenton. Bird has said he prefers a big PG. With Javaris size of 6'5", he can play 3 positions if necessary. Filling in with the second unit on occasion at the SF spot in very short stretches. DG or Rush shouldn't be giving up too many minutes at their respective positions, so while a stretch, I think this also plays into a versatility benefit much as JJ did this year.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Player acquisition idea, part #2: Further study of using our trade exception

                        1. I don't think Josh Boone is a guy who is being "blocked" by Yi. I don't think Yi has done anything to warrant a guaranteed long term future in NJ and he's a totally different type of player from Boone anyways. Sean Williams has some off the court issues and he's hardly a reliable guy. I don't think Boone is a guy they're looking to give away. The Nets are in the middle ground salary wise. Dumping Boone for nothing doesn't create salary space to sign anyone, and at the same time they're nowhere near the luxury tax.

                        2. Patrick O'bryant isn't worth a 2nd round pick. In fact, if you want him, you can just sign him as a FA. He's not under contract. He's a guy who is playing basketball because he's tall and somebody told him he could make some money playing the game. He doesn't play the game because he enjoys it. You can see it in his body language.

                        3. JJ Hickson has enough value around the league that he could probably just fetch a future 1st round pick if they needed to clear off his salary. There are teams with enough salary space or trade exceptions that could offer them a future 1st. He simply has more value than a 2nd round pick at this point.

                        4. Brent Barry could probably be had. Not sure if you really want him.

                        5. Balkman could certainly be had. He'd be a somewhat useful guy. Wouldn't hurt to call Denver about him.
                        With the Pistons wanting to save all the cap room they can get prior to officially inking Villanueva and Gordon, even the paltry 1,000,000 bucks and change Afflalo costs them could be a factor in how they structure the 2 veteran free agents deals. Granted, the Pistons are in good financial shape and don't need to dump a cheap player for money reasons, but they might like the additional tweaking dumping Afflalo gives them at this exact moment in time. They also of course might like the idea of spending that extra 1,000,000 bucks or so in some other way, perhaps to obtain a cheap big somewhere.
                        Pistons don't need to save anymore money for signing Gordon/CV. Those are done deals and they fit well within their salary space. They have enough space to frontload those contracts if they wanted to (not sure if they did). Afflalo and his $1M won't affect that. Maybe they want to dump him if they want the extra room to entice another FA, but that's about it.

                        They can just sign a veteran big to a $1M deal w/o affecting anything. Also, if they trade Hamilton, all of a sudden Afflalo becomes that much more useful. I just don't think his $1M salary stands in the way of anything they're trying to accomplish.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Player acquisition idea, part #2: Further study of using our trade exception

                          Balkman sounds like the best idea I've heard. Barring something I don't know, I think he's got the kind of game and personality to do well here.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Player acquisition idea, part #2: Further study of using our trade exception

                            Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                            Balkman sounds like the best idea I've heard. Barring something I don't know, I think he's got the kind of game and personality to do well here.
                            Forgot to mention.

                            Balkman can be had without giving up anything. His rookie contract is done and I don't believe he was extended a qualifying offer from Denver (someone correct me if I'm wrong).

                            He is an UFA and can be had by anyone in the league.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Player acquisition idea, part #2: Further study of using our trade exception

                              Not according to this:

                              http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/s...eeagents-09-10

                              or this

                              http://hoopshype.com/salaries/denver.htm

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X