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

Ted Leonsis praises NHL-style cap(Wizards owner)

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

  • #16
    Re: Ted Leonsis praises NHL-style cap(Wizards owner)

    Originally posted by Cactus Jax View Post
    Must be easy when you got a top superstar in the NHL. The cap may work but the TV contract and other things are total garbage amongst the NHL.
    And the Crapitals have won how many Cups?
    http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-tr...nce-stephenson
    "But, first, let us now praise famous moments, because something happened Tuesday night in Indianapolis that you can watch a lifetime’s worth of professional basketball and never see again. There was a brief, and very decisive, and altogether unprecedented, outburst of genuine officiating, and it was directed at the best player in the world, and that, my dear young person, simply is not done."

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Ted Leonsis praises NHL-style cap(Wizards owner)

      I think the LeWadeBosh situation demonstrates that cap is not the only issue any more. If the CBA only deals with salaries and not other parity-affecting issues then team fandom will finally become obsolete.
      BillS

      A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
      Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Ted Leonsis praises NHL-style cap(Wizards owner)

        Originally posted by BillS View Post
        I think the LeWadeBosh situation demonstrates that cap is not the only issue any more. If the CBA only deals with salaries and not other parity-affecting issues then team fandom will finally become obsolete.
        What exactly are you going to do about the LeWadeBosh situation? It was done fair and square. Historically, there have been a number of teams that have banked heavily on slashing their salary cap to the bare minimum in order to entice more than one MAX free agent.

        I mean, what are you going to do about that stuff? That was 3 guys deciding to sign with the same team. They just happened to be 3 all-stars, with two of them being superstars.

        "OK, new rule. You guys aren't allowed to talk to eachother over the summer". "And we're limiting teams to adding one all-star per summer."

        That just doesn't sound viable to implement.

        As far as fandom becoming completely obsolete, keep in mind the league was arguably at it's peak in the 80s when the Lakers and Celtics won 8 out of 10 championships between them. Then Jordan/Pippen dominated for 6 out of 8 years and it was a spectacle people took in, particularly when they weren't sure when Jordan's final season would be. The NBA as a business and a pop culture have done quite well during dynasty runs.
        Last edited by d_c; 09-30-2010, 10:10 AM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Ted Leonsis praises NHL-style cap(Wizards owner)

          Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
          A hard cap would be interesting to start. It would mean that you'd have to give teams a few years window to get under the cap, while putting restrictions on those teams to keep them from adding salary.

          I haven't looked, but what if a team had a star player coming up soon as a FA, but were unable to sign them because of the restrictions placed on them until they get under the cap?

          I think this whole CBA fight is going to be interesting to see how it turns out. Hopefully we don't lose an entire season though.
          That's really the first things that popped into my head as well.

          Parity is a great thing; but how long will it take to truly get there? And, when a cap is decided, will it be so large that it would not benefit the Pacers? I don't know the exact amounts, but as an example, under current rules, let's say the current cap is 58M but luxury tax does not have to be paid until teams go over 69M. So, what if the hard cap under a new rule were established to be about 68-70M? That would serve the purpose of setting a hard cap, thus making all teams equal (at least financially) in competing for players. But, we all know that the Pacers will remain in the red at 70M in salaries.

          The best thing for the Pacers would not only be a hard cap, but decreased salaries and a significantly lower hard cap. Maybe something like 50M. It seems like that is the only way for teams like the Pacers to make money, and for the cost to the average attending fan to eventually decrease and become more affordable.

          To keep a star player, it seems as though some sort of "franchise tag" will be necessary that will enable you to go over the cap to keep that one player.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Ted Leonsis praises NHL-style cap(Wizards owner)

            Guaranteed contracts are more a concern for me, in length, but also that there aren't any way out of them. A mixture of what the NFL has with upfront money being the only guaranteed money sounds more important to me. Hard cap is fine, but only if it has enough built in room for small markets to compete for talent, which I think thats not really that related.

            In other words, I want them to address guys who sign big long term contracts and then aren't in shape/stop working, looking at you Eddie Curry. This protects the owners, teammates, and fans from the Jamaal Tinsley's, Derrick Colemans of the world that can weigh your franchise down for years and years. Literally weigh in some cases.

            A hard cap helps small market owners control costs, if done right, but for me the way it's structured now isn't too far off of a hard cap anyway. What I'm saying is, Carmelo or Lebron weren't coming to Indy or Milwaukee with a hard cap or the cap they have now, that won't change. You might get a second tier NBA stud all things being equal, but probably still never a top 10 player as a free agent, unless it's just a situation where only your team has the money available.

            I mean I get it, why limit your earning potential with outside basketball revenue by going to Cleveland or Utah. Put it this way in Indy you get Kinetico and Andy Mohr commercials, in NY you probably get Tag Hauer and Gucci worldwide ad campaign endorsement deals. So I get it from a top 10 player standpoint. My point is hard, soft, inbetween caps won't likely change the small markets chance to lure a top 10 player.

            But you can protect the league, as a whole, from being held hostage by players who won't work, by limiting the guaranteed contract.

            Listen, I'm on the side of any person trying to make as much money as the market bears, but I'm against workers not earning that money in an ongoing basis.

            I think the guaranteed contract issue is WAY more important to me, imho.
            Last edited by Speed; 09-30-2010, 10:40 AM.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Ted Leonsis praises NHL-style cap(Wizards owner)

              Originally posted by d_c View Post
              What exactly are you going to do about the LeWadeBosh situation? It was done fair and square. Historically, there have been a number of teams that have banked heavily on slashing their salary cap to the bare minimum in order to entice more than one MAX free agent.
              Franchise player status? Some other creative option to let a team keep a player they've invested a lot of money and PR into?

              What I mean is that money is no longer the be-all and end-all motivation, which is to be expected when the numbers get so high you couldn't spend it all in a dozen lifetimes. There needs to be another way to keep a team from being torn to pieces without being able to do anything about it. It should be as fair as possible to the players, but it needs to be designed to keep some parity in the league.

              Originally posted by d_c View Post
              As far as fandom becoming completely obsolete, keep in mind the league was arguably at it's peak in the 80s when the Lakers and Celtics won 8 out of 10 championships between them. Then Jordan/Pippen dominated for 6 out of 8 years and it was a spectacle people took in, particularly when they weren't sure when Jordan's final season would be. The NBA as a business and a pop culture have done quite well during dynasty runs.
              This argument keeps getting used, but it doesn't speak to whether that was the best the NBA could possibly hope for or even if it is something that will keep Professional Basketball a sport rather than a show. Who knows if the NBA during years when they DIDN'T have a Bird/Magic or a Jordan could have made just as large a profits if effort was made in getting fans loyal to their local teams buying local team gear and selling out local arenas on nights when the Big Hype Superstar ISN'T in town. How much would that ADD in years where a Hype Player exists?

              Unfortunately, the Superstar Income Model has pretty much been the only thing Stern and the NBA have looked at. How much of a stretch is it to decide that the model of having 30+ teams of which half of them will be bad on any given night isn't bringing in enough $$$ - just put together a team of the best players, put together another team of players who will lose to them, tour them around the country charging $150 per nosebleed seat, and show them on pay-per-view. Huge money, huge jersey sales, huge hype. Not a sports league, though. More like WWE.
              BillS

              A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
              Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Ted Leonsis praises NHL-style cap(Wizards owner)

                Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                Except that the NBA teams with the biggest payrolls haven't been that competitive over the last decade.
                ya but they have been selling tickets. A team doesnt necessarily have to win to sell tickets. (I know this is a different league) But look at the Toronto Maple Leafs for example, they have been at the bottom of the league for many many many years now but they have had one of the best attendance records in the NHL
                "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Ted Leonsis praises NHL-style cap(Wizards owner)

                  Originally posted by BillS View Post
                  Franchise player status? Some other creative option to let a team keep a player they've invested a lot of money and PR into?

                  What I mean is that money is no longer the be-all and end-all motivation, which is to be expected when the numbers get so high you couldn't spend it all in a dozen lifetimes. There needs to be another way to keep a team from being torn to pieces without being able to do anything about it. It should be as fair as possible to the players, but it needs to be designed to keep some parity in the league.


                  This argument keeps getting used, but it doesn't speak to whether that was the best the NBA could possibly hope for or even if it is something that will keep Professional Basketball a sport rather than a show. Who knows if the NBA during years when they DIDN'T have a Bird/Magic or a Jordan could have made just as large a profits if effort was made in getting fans loyal to their local teams buying local team gear and selling out local arenas on nights when the Big Hype Superstar ISN'T in town. How much would that ADD in years where a Hype Player exists?

                  Unfortunately, the Superstar Income Model has pretty much been the only thing Stern and the NBA have looked at. How much of a stretch is it to decide that the model of having 30+ teams of which half of them will be bad on any given night isn't bringing in enough $$$ - just put together a team of the best players, put together another team of players who will lose to them, tour them around the country charging $150 per nosebleed seat, and show them on pay-per-view. Huge money, huge jersey sales, huge hype. Not a sports league, though. More like WWE.
                  I think a franchise status tag is something that will be discussed, but I don't think it's going to be implemented the same way it is in the NFL. The NFL does have a franchise tag, but it's impact isn't nearly as great as a similarly implemented tag in the NBA.

                  Anybody can argue that Stern and the league COULD have had a different type of marketing/promotional approach in the 80s. Sure, we'll never know how different it could have been, but bottom line is Stern has been VERY successful as is.

                  Before Magic, Bird and Stern, the NBA was struggling in the 70s. They weren't nearly as big as they are today. They had low attendance and tape delayed playoff games. It was the rise of two dynasties in big markets that really put the NBA back on the map. I'm pretty sure the league is happy with the way the 1980s turned.

                  The reality is that people (the general public and casual sports fans) like superstars. They like dynasties. They like heroes. They like to see juggernaut teams and then whether or not someone can take down that juggernaut. People want entertainment, and that's what entertains them. Sure, a bunch of hardcore fans like us on boards such as these would be fine with seeing a less supestar-centric league. But take away that element and the big interest from the casual fan will wane.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Ted Leonsis praises NHL-style cap(Wizards owner)

                    Originally posted by d_c View Post
                    Sure, a bunch of hardcore fans like us on boards such as these would be fine with seeing a less supestar-centric league. But take away that element and the big interest from the casual fan will wane.
                    So all the small market teams (San Antonio not withstanding) have to watch as the superstars all congregate in 4 cities? Bull****! EVERY team, and the fans that make the NBA possible, deserves a chance to draft and keep a superstar for their fanbase to cherish.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Ted Leonsis praises NHL-style cap(Wizards owner)

                      Originally posted by travmil View Post
                      So all the small market teams (San Antonio not withstanding) have to watch as the superstars all congregate in 4 cities? Bull****! EVERY team, and the fans that make the NBA possible, deserves a chance to draft and keep a superstar for their fanbase to cherish.
                      And when did I say that?

                      I didn't say what was fair or not. Or what was right or wrong, or what should or shouldn't happen. All I said is that, traditionally, the league's popularity in mainstream media is going to be higher when the "marquee" franchises are doing well.

                      The Lakers/Celts dynasties of the 80s illustrates that. I don't know what else says it better. The NBA trudged through the 70's as an afterthought stepsister to the MLB/NFL. Nobody cared about the league. It was completely revitalized with two dominant dynasties. Whether you like that or not, the NBA as a viable business is in a far, far better situation today because of the Magic/Bird era of dominance.

                      FTR, Utah was able to keep two HOF superstars for pretty much their entire careers not only in a small market, but in a city/state that is probably at the very bottom of the list that young pro athletes want to play in.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Ted Leonsis praises NHL-style cap(Wizards owner)

                        Hard Cap Could Mean Reduction Of Existing Contracts

                        Read more: http://realgm.com/src_wiretap_archiv...#ixzz114nfq3jL

                        wow this would of helped when mike D and Troy had 3yrs left lol but this will never happen players would not agree to this

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Ted Leonsis praises NHL-style cap(Wizards owner)

                          Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
                          Hard Cap Could Mean Reduction Of Existing Contracts

                          Read more: http://realgm.com/src_wiretap_archiv...#ixzz114nfq3jL

                          wow this would of helped when mike D and Troy had 3yrs left lol but this will never happen players would not agree to this
                          I don't think they would just cut teams off cold turkey. They would have to do some sort of staggering or allow all current contracts to expire and only allow contracts compliant with the new rule going forward. The bottom line is if this thing does go to a hard cap, Joe Johnson is the luckiest baller in history.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Ted Leonsis praises NHL-style cap(Wizards owner)

                            Originally posted by travmil View Post
                            I don't think they would just cut teams off cold turkey. They would have to do some sort of staggering or allow all current contracts to expire and only allow contracts compliant with the new rule going forward. The bottom line is if this thing does go to a hard cap, Joe Johnson is the luckiest baller in history.
                            Yep. I have a hard time seeing the owners being able to proactively alter contracts that have ALREADY been signed in writing under and are in compliance with the current CBA. The players could take them to court on that one and I envision they would win that one.

                            Remember guys who signed the pre-1996 rookie scale contracts. Guys like Shaq and KG were able to sign extensions larger than guys from 96' and on due to their larger initial base salaries. They were grandfathered in. That's how come KG's initial MAX deal was so much bigger than everyone else's that followed.

                            Players would just point to that kind of precedence (if they would even have to) and they'd probably win.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Ted Leonsis praises NHL-style cap(Wizards owner)

                              But I wouldn't be surprised to see some sort of grandfathered cap exception for teams with old contracts. It would help big franchises who spend a lot of money this year and thoroughly screw the Pacers. Just what the league loves to see.
                              BillS

                              A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                              Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Ted Leonsis praises NHL-style cap(Wizards owner)

                                Wouldn't it go something like this: You sum the roster's total salary starting with the contracts signed 2011 or later, then the grandfathered contracts count up to the top of the hard cap, but at that point they don't penalize you for exceeding the cap.

                                Say it's 2014, the hard cap is $55m, and aside from the old $15m contract on the roster for a player whose contract began prior to 2011, the rest of the team's salaries are new(er) and add up to $44m. Let the old $15m bring them up to the $55m limit, but not penalize them for exceeding it by the other $4m on the old contract.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X