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

Salary Cap for the 2009-10 announced...

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

  • Salary Cap for the 2009-10 announced...

    realgm.com

    http://www.realgm.com/src_wiretap_ar...09_10_season/#

    we knew it would decrease, now the exact figures are in.

    it did not hyperlink so here is the article from realgm.com

    The National Basketball Association today announced that the Salary Cap for the 2009-10 season will be $57.7 million. The tax level for the 2009-10 season has been set at $69.92 million. Any team whose team salary exceeds that figure will pay a $1 tax for each $1 by which it exceeds $69.92 million.

    The 2008-09 Salary Cap was $58.68 million and the tax level was $71.15 million. Although league-wide revenue increased 2.5% this past season, the decrease in the Salary Cap and tax level for the 2009-10 season is the result of the formula used to set the Cap and tax under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement.

    The new Salary Cap and tax level go into effect at 12:01 a.m. ET on Wednesday, July 8, when the league’s “moratorium period” ends and teams can begin signing free agents and making trades.

    The mid-level exception is $5.854 million for the 2009-10 season and the minimum team salary, which is set at 75% of the Salary Cap, is $43.275 million.
    Last edited by focused444; 07-07-2009, 11:01 PM. Reason: quoted article

  • #2
    Re: Salary Cap for the 2009-10 announced...

    That would actually be about $0.5mm higher (tax threshold) than had been previously projected...(and that I'd used in the 2009 Cap Resource thread.)

    It's actually a little more breathing space than had been previously discussed, but I doubt that they're going to want to sidle up to the threshold.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Salary Cap for the 2009-10 announced...

      Kind of what I figured . I think this gives us about 9 mil under the cap?
      Because the streets is a short stop
      Either youre slingin crack rock or you got a wicked jumpshot

      Notorious BIG - Brooklyn's Finest A.K.A. G.O.A.T.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Salary Cap for the 2009-10 announced...

        Alright, count55. The LT is $69.92m. Where does this leave us with (not cap space, but) tax space:

        - Before signing Tyler or AJ
        - After signing Tyler and AJ

        Is it about 9 million after Tyler and AJ sign?

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Salary Cap for the 2009-10 announced...

          Originally posted by PugdOut View Post
          Kind of what I figured . I think this gives us about 9 mil under the cap?
          You mean under the luxury tax threshold?

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Salary Cap for the 2009-10 announced...

            If the 9 million is about right, that means we could sign Jack to a deal starting at about 4 million and still have MOST of our MLE?

            Of course, Josh is a factor, too.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Salary Cap for the 2009-10 announced...

              Stupid computer ate my comment.

              Short version: After we sign Tyler, Jack, and McRoberts, we'll probably have around 2mil left over to sign everybody we need, including Quis and AJ Price.

              We're pretty tight on cash.
              This space for rent.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Salary Cap for the 2009-10 announced...

                Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                Alright, count55. The LT is $69.92m. Where does this leave us with (not cap space, but) tax space:

                - Before signing Tyler or AJ
                - After signing Tyler and AJ

                Is it about 9 million after Tyler and AJ sign?
                Roughing it out by stealing this from the Cap Resource thread:




                The "Remaining Money" cell for 2009-2010 shows about $5.9mm, but that includes signing Jack, so add $3.5 for Jack and $0.6 for the increased tax threshold (I figured $69.4 earlier), and that puts you at $10.0mm...roughly, assuming $1.8 for Tyler and $0.5 for Price.

                However, it's unlikely that they'll use all of that...figure they'll give themselves at least at $1.0mm cushion, and that leaves $9.0-(ish).

                As discussed in other threads, while this year is problematic, next year is the real problem...(This is also why I would seriously question the sensibility of offering Daniels a contract beyond one year.)

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Salary Cap for the 2009-10 announced...

                  EDIT: Count hadn't posted yet when I started on this. His is more accurate, but mine is easier, I think.

                  Let's try again. We're spending almost exactly $31mil on Danny, Mike, Jeff, Brandon, Diener, and Roy (aka our core).

                  We're spending 26.75mil on Troy/TJ/Tinsley (aka the guys I'd trade for peanuts). That puts us at 57.8 for everybody together, which leaves about 11mil under the cap.

                  With that 11mil, we have to sign Tyler and extend McBob and Jack. Tyler should be 2-ish, McBob 3.0-ish, and Jack 3.5-ish. That's 8.5, which means we have about 2.5 mil to spend on free agents and AJ Price.

                  2.5 mil is not very much. Quis is probably looking for that much on his own. On the other hand, a good swingman and we're good to go... we really don't need help at any other position. I don't feel like we need to sign 15 players unless we're getting a great deal on somebody.

                  Also, it's probably very wise to stay as far away as the tax line as possible, so we have some maneuverability in terms of trades... if we could take back 2mil more than we send out, we'd have a lot more trading partners.
                  This space for rent.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Salary Cap for the 2009-10 announced...

                    Originally posted by Anthem View Post
                    Let's try again. We're spending almost exactly $31mil on Danny, Mike, Jeff, Brandon, Diener, and Roy (aka our core).

                    We're spending 26.75mil on Troy/TJ/Tinsley (aka the guys I'd trade for peanuts). That puts us at 57.8 for everybody together, which leaves about 11mil under the cap.

                    With that 11mil, we have to sign Tyler and extend McBob and Jack. Tyler should be 2-ish, McBob 3.0-ish, and Jack 3.5-ish. That's 8.5, which means we have about 2.5 mil to spend on free agents and AJ Price.

                    2.5 mil is not very much. Quis is probably looking for that much on his own. On the other hand, a good swingman and we're good to go... we really don't need help at any other position. I don't feel like we need to sign 15 players unless we're getting a great deal on somebody.

                    Also, it's probably very wise to stay as far away as the tax line as possible, so we have some maneuverability in terms of trades... if we could take back 2mil more than we send out, we'd have a lot more trading partners.
                    There is simply no way on the face of God's green earth that McBob is going to get 3.0. He made $0.8 this year, and he'll probably be at or around $1.0 to start.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Salary Cap for the 2009-10 announced...

                      We'll know soon enough, but I'm standing my ground that y'all are low-balling Jack at ~$3.5 mil.

                      That said, if we don't make a significant trade this summer, I'm becoming more desirous of Jack playing for his $2.9 mil option this year, thus giving us time to trade one of Murph/Foster/Ford mid-season for an expiring. Then again, maybe some arbitration-driven fiscal relief from The Tinsley Chronicles will prove the sweetest form of resolution.


                      "He’s no shrinking violet when it comes to that kind of stuff."

                      - Rick Carlisle on how Kevin Pritchard responds to needed roster changes.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Salary Cap for the 2009-10 announced...

                        Originally posted by count55 View Post
                        There is simply no way on the face of God's green earth that McBob is going to get 3.0. He made $0.8 this year, and he'll probably be at or around $1.0 to start.
                        BTW, what planet does Gortat live on?


                        "He’s no shrinking violet when it comes to that kind of stuff."

                        - Rick Carlisle on how Kevin Pritchard responds to needed roster changes.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Salary Cap for the 2009-10 announced...

                          Originally posted by DrFife View Post
                          We'll know soon enough, but I'm standing my ground that y'all are low-balling Jack at ~$3.5 mil.
                          Bibby only got around 6 (18 over 3 years)... and from one of the few teams that would've been interested in Jack... really, where is the market for him?
                          "George's athleticism is bananas!" - Marc J. Spears

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Salary Cap for the 2009-10 announced...

                            McBob 3.0-ish
                            I think thats a bit much for McBob. In fact I would give Roberts a 1 year offer and evaluate him after next year. Truth is no one I think would move in and snatch up McBob, they haven't even looked at Jack.

                            We need to to get that 1 other "star" to play with Danny. Iam all for building a team but we need to free up some money. Tinsley Murphy and even Dunleavy are killing us financially. I still think their is someway to trade Murph, he is expensive eys but still can produce. Can you imagine Murph playing with Shaq and Lebron in Cleveland?
                            You think they wouldnt rather have Murph then Ilgasakus(sp) ?
                            Because the streets is a short stop
                            Either youre slingin crack rock or you got a wicked jumpshot

                            Notorious BIG - Brooklyn's Finest A.K.A. G.O.A.T.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Salary Cap for the 2009-10 announced...

                              Here's dire news on the cap and tax for 2010.

                              http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4312837

                              Updated: July 8, 2009, 2:34 AM ET
                              2010 cap may limit signings

                              By Marc Stein
                              ESPN.com

                              The NBA's ballyhooed free-agent summer of 2010 might have quietly taken another hit late Tuesday night.

                              In a memo announcing next season's salary cap and luxury-tax threshold, sent out shortly before the league's annual July moratorium on signings and trades was lifted at 12:01 a.m. Wednesday, NBA teams also received tentative projections from the league warning that the cap is estimated to drop to somewhere between $50.4 million and $53.6 million for the 2010-11 season.

                              The official league memorandum, obtained by ESPN.com, forecasts a dip in basketball-related income in the 2009-10 season of 2.5 percent to 5 percent, which threatens to take the 2010-11 cap down some $5 million to $8 million from last season's $58.7 million salary cap.

                              NBA Rumor Central

                              A significant drop for the luxury-tax threshold is also projected going into the summer of 2010. If basketball-related income drops by 2.5 percent in 2009-10, league officials are projecting a 2010-11 salary cap of $53.6 million and a luxury-tax line of $65 million. If BRI, as it is referred to in the NBA, decreases by five percent, teams would be looking at a $50.4 million salary cap and a luxury-tax line of $61.2 million in 2010-11.

                              "Teams should be aware of this projected BRI decrease," reads the memo, "and plan accordingly."
                              The new figures for 2009-10 just announced by the league have set the salary cap at $57.7 million per team -- down $1 million from $58.7 from 2008-09 -- and the luxury-tax threshold at $69.9 million.

                              Commissioner David Stern actually warned during the NBA Finals of a BRI shortfall of "maybe as much as 10 percent" from last season to next season, but Tuesday's projections were sufficiently dire for teams such as the New York Knicks that have been planning for months to make a significant free-agent splash next summer.

                              When Knicks president Donnie Walsh took the job in April 2008 -- before the global economic downturn that, as with most businesses, has hit the NBA so hard -- some teams around the league were projecting a 2010-11 cap ceiling in the $63 million range per team.

                              So in the best-case scenario outlined by the league office Tuesday night, New York would have roughly $10 million less in spending money next summer than it originally planned for, although the memo did include a disclaimer stressing that these were "early" projections that could "change based on economic conditions and as more information on leaguewide business performance becomes available."

                              In June, when asked by Stern to give a group of reporters some perspective on what a 10-percent drop (or thereabouts) in leaguewide revenues might do to free-agent spending in the 2010 offseason, NBA president Joel Litvin said he'd anticipate a "significant impact" in terms of slicing into the amount of spending money many teams once expected to have.

                              The Knicks, for example, increasingly look as though they will be restricted to signing one maximum-salaried player that summer if the latest projections hold, which theoretically would only enhance the Cleveland Cavaliers' chances of retaining LeBron James, given the other holes in the Knicks' roster. New York's original plan to lure James was founded upon trying to sign James and a second marquee free agent in 2010.

                              Teams have been bracing for reductions in the cap and luxury tax, but seeing such numbers circulate was still jarring for many team officials.

                              "Real scary," said one Western Conference executive.
                              Said another from the West: "The figures for [2009-10] are better than I expected. It is [the summer of 2010] that will be scary."

                              So it also remains to be seen whether James, Miami's Dwyane Wade and Toronto's Chris Bosh -- all of whom are widely expected to pass on signing the contract extension each is eligible for this summer to ensure they'll have the opportunity to test free agency in 2010 -- will reconsider that stance on extensions because of the potential declines in cap space for external bidders, more teams straying into luxury-tax territory and the possibility that maximum salaries would be lower entering the 2010-11 season then than they are now.

                              Tuesday's memo also listed the seven teams that must make luxury-tax payments to the league office by July 22 based on last season's payrolls. The dollar-for-dollax tax, assessed to any team with a payroll above the $71.15 million threshold that was in place in 2008-09, will result in the following invoices to be delivered to the respective teams before Friday's deadline:

                              New York ($23,736,207), Dallas ($23,611,661), Cleveland ($13,707,010), Boston ($8,294,664), Los Angeles Lakers ($7,185,631), Portland ($5,899,356) and Phoenix ($4,918,136).

                              The 23 teams that stayed below last season's tax threshold, meanwhile, will each receive just over $2.9 million, which is taken from the combined tax pool paid by the seven aforementioned teams. The memo notes that the remaining $20.4 million of undistributed cap funds is headed for the NBA's Revenue Assistance Plan, which distributes money to low-revenue teams.

                              The $1 million drop in the cap from 2008-09 to next season marks just the second time since the NBA instituted a salary cap starting with the 1983-84 season that the figure has fallen. The fact that the luxury-tax line also appears to be moving steadily downward could prove to be no less damaging to free-agent spending in this and subsequent summers, thanks to the dollar-for-dollar penalty which so many teams are determined to avoid.

                              Marc Stein is the senior NBA writer for ESPN.com.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X