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

Bruno's latest blog entry

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

  • #16
    Re: Bruno's latest blog entry

    Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
    It could possibly mean "I've got an offer that I don't mind taking, but I'm trying to see if I can scare up something a little better before I go through with it."
    Yeah, I've mentioned and thought in the past that maybe Larry has a "deal in his pocket" if he can't get something better then what he has in hand. By the way they've been talking, it's hard to fathom mngmt. not having something ready to roll when they wanted to.
    ...Still "flying casual"
    @roaminggnome74

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Bruno's latest blog entry

      Originally posted by CableKC View Post
      To me......I do not doubt that Tinsley will be gone....one way or another......I'm just questioning how they will move him without buying him out ( which they say they will not do ).

      The matter of how it's going to be done is what leaves me dumbfounded.......I am not as confident in how they will move Tinsley as they are.
      When Tinsley is traded, it would not surprise me to see "...and cash considerations from the Pacers." included in the trade announcement. In other words, the Pacers would sent an amount of cash to the other team as incentive.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Bruno's latest blog entry

        Originally posted by HCPacerIN View Post
        Myself, as well as nuffsaid, already addressed this issue.
        Sorry...I'm still confused here.....which could be a result of how I am interpreting what is being stated.

        I understand that as a RFA next offseason...that we can resign Granger to any contract...even if we are over the Salarycap AT THE TIME of the signing. What I don't understand is IF we give him an extension now....whether his 2009-2010 Salary would count towards the Salarycap once the 2009 FA period starts.

        I thought ( like you ) that giving Granger an extension ( much like signing him as a RFA ) would not affect whether our ability to sign a FA or not....but based off of Bruno's statement....it seems to contradict that.

        When I read Bruno's statement:

        Originally posted by Bruno
        The Pacers will also be in a much more favorable payroll situation next year – they could actually be under the cap -- and would like to keep it that way. In that scenario, they could use up their cap space to sign an outside free agent, and then go over the cap to extend Granger. If they extend Granger first, whatever cap space they might've had would vanish.
        like this:

        If we extend Granger now, his 2009-2010 contract immediately counts towards the 2009 Salarycap ( as Bruno puts it...."our cap space would vanish" ) when the FA period starts.....likely pushing us over the Salarycap threshold.....thus defining whether we will be below or above the Salarycap limit at the start of the 2009 FA period and therefore affect whether we can sign a FA or not.
        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Bruno's latest blog entry

          OK...Here's how I understand the Pacers cap situation for next summer (sources are Shamsports and Larry Coon's CBA FAQ).

          Guaranteed Salaries: $41,778

          Includes guaranteed contracts of Murphy, Dunleavy, Ford, Tinsley (or his replacement), Rush, and Hibbert, as well as Player Option for Travis Diener

          Cap Holds: $39,255

          Rasho $12,600 (150% of this year's salary)
          Foster $8,250 (150%)
          Baston $3,409 (150%)
          Granger $6,989 (300%)
          Jack $6,008 (300%)
          Graham $1,074 (130%)
          McBob $925 (130%)

          Cap holds count against the cap for FA signing purposes, but don't count against the tax or anything else. Therefore, the Pacers "Cap Number" entering next summer's FA period would be $81,033.

          Here's Coon's explanation of why:

          31. Why do free agents continue to count against a team's cap?

          It closes another loophole. Teams otherwise would be able to sign other teams' free agents using their cap room, and then turn their attention to their own free agents using the Bird exceptions. This rule restricts their ability to do that. It doesn't close this loophole completely -- for example, in 2005 Michael Redd's free agent amount was $6 million, even though the Bucks intended to re-sign him for the maximum salary. By waiting to sign Redd last, the Bucks were able to take advantage of the difference by signing Bobby Simmons. Had they signed Redd first, they would have had no cap room to sign Simmons.
          However, they can (and we expect that they will) reduce that cap number by renouncing the rights to some of these players. (If they renounce the rights to the players, they could only re-sign them (a) if they had cap room or (b) to a minimum contract. They could "sign-and-trade" the player using the Bird rights, but they could not use the Bird rights any longer to just sign him.)

          It seems obvious that they'd almost certainly renounce Rasho, Baston, Graham, and McBob, reducing their cap hold by $18,008. However, that still leaves $21,247 in cap holds related to Jeff Foster, Danny Granger, and Jarrett Jack.

          Therefore, assuming that, they'd have a "cap number" of $63,025 with 7 players under contract, and retaining the rights to the three I mentioned. The cap (at 5% growth) would probably be somewhere around $61-62 mm. (These numbers, BTW, completely ignore the holds for our 1st rounder, which would probably be about $2mm, and our MLE, which would be about $6mm).

          So, how do they maximize their capspace for next summer, and what would that figure be?

          By my calculations, the lowest "Cap Number" the Pacers could have would be about $50,000, leaving them $11 to $12mm below the cap. However, to do that, they'd have to renounce the rights to everyone except Danny.

          If they were to renounce everyone except Danny and JJ, they'd be at around $56mm, but then the MLE cap hold would kick in and probably put their "cap number" over the cap.

          They could re-sign JJ sooner (extension this summer or new contract early next summer) and probably save $1-2mm, which would likely negate the MLE caphold and leave them at $7-8mm under the cap. Let's say they did that...after signing Danny and a $7mm FA, they'd probably look like this:

          Guaranteed: $41,778 (7 Players)
          Danny: $ 9,000 (Conservatively 6/68, 1 player)
          FA: $ 7,000 (1 player)
          JJ: $ 4,500 (Conservatively, 1 player)
          1st Rounder: $ 1,600 (1 player)

          Total $63,878 on 11 players, roughly $11mm left under the tax to sign the last four. I guess it's do-able, but who are we going to get for $7-$8mm? If we let everybody go, who's the $11mm prize that's gonna sign with the Pacers? What if somebody offers Danny a higher contract?

          It seems like an awful big crap shoot to me.

          I have the suspicion that the Pacers are actually just being "cautious". I kinda think they wanna see one more year before they pony up for Danny. The idea of "maximizing cap space" is kind of convoluted, and not as productive as some might believe. Honestly, unless we want to completely gut our team next summer (which we might), we aren't going to have any real cap space.

          I guess that's an OK strategy, but I'm not overly comfortable with it.
          Last edited by count55; 09-10-2008, 05:04 PM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Bruno's latest blog entry

            Originally posted by CableKC View Post
            Sorry...I'm still confused here.....which could be a result of how I am interpreting what is being stated.

            I understand that as a RFA next offseason...that we can resign Granger to any contract...even if we are over the Salarycap AT THE TIME of the signing. What I don't understand is IF we give him an extension now....whether his 2009-2010 Salary would count towards the Salarycap once the 2009 FA period starts.

            I thought ( like you ) that giving Granger an extension ( much like signing him as a RFA ) would not affect whether our ability to sign a FA or not....but based off of Bruno's statement....it seems to contradict that.

            When I read Bruno's statement:



            like this:

            If we extend Granger now, his 2009-2010 contract immediately counts towards the 2009 Salarycap ( as Bruno puts it...."our cap space would vanish" ) when the FA period starts.....likely pushing us over the Salarycap threshold.....thus defining whether we will be below or above the Salarycap limit at the start of the 2009 FA period and therefore affect whether we can sign a FA or not.
            Cable, as of today, Danny counts for $7.0mm against the 2009 FA "Cap Space". This is the amount of his cap hold as a Free Agent.

            Regardless of what we do, he counts for about $2.4mm against the 2008-2009 salary cap. This is the amount of his rookie contract for this year.

            If we were to sign Danny to an extension this summer, then his 2009 FA "Cap Hit" would be the amount of the first year of his extension, his 2009-2010 salary. Let's say we gave him 5 year extension, starting at $9mm and growing at 10.5% (max raise). He would be on our cap at $9mm for 2009.

            The mistake I think Bruno (and others) are making is the belief that Danny will count as $0 against the cap for 2009 until we re-sign him. However, to close the loophole that would allow teams to sign a whole bunch of FA's, then go way over the cap signing their own players, the league CBA puts cap holds for a team's FA's, as explained in my post below. For a guy coming off his rookie contract (4th year), it's 300% of his last year's salary.

            The only way Danny would count as $0 against our cap would be if we were to renounce his Bird rights. I don't think anyone...well, anyone with any intelligence...would believe that to be a prudent or desirable course of action.

            A note on Shamsports: The amount in Red in the 2009 column for Danny and JJ is the "qualifying offer". This IS NOT a cap hold. It is the one-year amount that would have to be offered to those players in order for the Pacers to retain right to match. If the Pacers did not offer at least that, they'd effectively renounce their rights making the players UNrestricted Free Agents.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Bruno's latest blog entry

              Count, is your real name David Morway?
              "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Bruno's latest blog entry

                Originally posted by count55 View Post
                Cable, as of today, Danny counts for $7.0mm against the 2009 FA "Cap Space". This is the amount of his cap hold as a Free Agent.

                Regardless of what we do, he counts for about $2.4mm against the 2008-2009 salary cap. This is the amount of his rookie contract for this year.

                If we were to sign Danny to an extension this summer, then his 2009 FA "Cap Hit" would be the amount of the first year of his extension, his 2009-2010 salary. Let's say we gave him 5 year extension, starting at $9mm and growing at 10.5% (max raise). He would be on our cap at $9mm for 2009.

                The mistake I think Bruno (and others) are making is the belief that Danny will count as $0 against the cap for 2009 until we re-sign him. However, to close the loophole that would allow teams to sign a whole bunch of FA's, then go way over the cap signing their own players, the league CBA puts cap holds for a team's FA's, as explained in my post below. For a guy coming off his rookie contract (4th year), it's 300% of his last year's salary.

                The only way Danny would count as $0 against our cap would be if we were to renounce his Bird rights. I don't think anyone...well, anyone with any intelligence...would believe that to be a prudent or desirable course of action.

                A note on Shamsports: The amount in Red in the 2009 column for Danny and JJ is the "qualifying offer". This IS NOT a cap hold. It is the one-year amount that would have to be offered to those players in order for the Pacers to retain right to match. If the Pacers did not offer at least that, they'd effectively renounce their rights making the players UNrestricted Free Agents.
                Thanks for the clarification. That's what I have been trying to figure out.

                IF we extend him now and he ( for example ) will count as $9 mil in 2009-2010...does that mean that at the start of the 2009 FA period...our Salarycap will be set at $50 mil instead of $41 mil ( assuming that we renounce Granger and let him become a RFA )?

                If that is the case.....that makes a huge difference. I know that in the end....regardless of whether we extend Granger or resign him as a RFA....that there will be so much $$$ that TPTB are going to want to spend....it's just a matter of how we spend the $$$ and how we acquire the players that we have.

                I know that for RFAs like Granger and Jack that we have the right to match any offer they get.....but what about our UFAs like Foster, Rasho, Baston and McRoberts?

                I know that in the end...that it's entirely up to the UFA to choose where he goes....but I wasn't sure if the CBA gives the team that currently owns his contract any advantages to resign that player over other teams.
                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Bruno's latest blog entry

                  I saw this on the mobile today but it's too much of a pain in the butt for a long response like this would take.

                  And I knew Count would be all over it.

                  Not only do you keep potential resignings on the cap till you pass on them or sign them, you also keep your MLE, MinE and TE(s) on the books as holds till you officially renounce them (or Bird rights - go beyond what other teams can offer).

                  So for most teams in the park of the cap already there is more financial leverage available by just staying over the cap.

                  If you aren't WAY under the cap then just don't bother discussing it. This idea that the Pacers are almost in the FA market is 100% wrong. They aren't.

                  What they are is broken into enough moderately reasonable deals and expirings to be back in the dealing market over the next few years. Nothing they have done so far has really targeted getting into the FA market, and that's just as well because nearly all the worst contracts in the NBA stem from the overpriced FA market.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Bruno's latest blog entry

                    The only thing I know about the upcoming season is that Count is far-and-away the favorite for the PD Forum MVP award.

                    Thank you for the explanation.
                    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                    And life itself, rushing over me
                    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Bruno's latest blog entry

                      Originally posted by pacergod2 View Post
                      Count, is your real name David Morway?
                      I wish.

                      Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                      Thanks for the clarification. That's what I have been trying to figure out.

                      IF we extend him now and he ( for example ) will count as $9 mil in 2009-2010...does that mean that at the start of the 2009 FA period...our Salarycap will be set at $50 mil instead of $41 mil ( assuming that we renounce Granger and let him become a RFA )?

                      If that is the case.....that makes a huge difference. I know that in the end....regardless of whether we extend Granger or resign him as a RFA....that there will be so much $$$ that TPTB are going to want to spend....it's just a matter of how we spend the $$$ and how we acquire the players that we have.
                      Yes, if we extend him now, we'll be at $50mm. However, even if we don't, but we retain his rights, we'll still be at $48mm with his cap hold.

                      Originally posted by CableKC
                      I know that for RFAs like Granger and Jack that we have the right to match any offer they get.....but what about our UFAs like Foster, Rasho, Baston and McRoberts?

                      I know that in the end...that it's entirely up to the UFA to choose where he goes....but I wasn't sure if the CBA gives the team that currently owns his contract any advantages to resign that player over other teams.
                      The advantage that we have on those guys on other teams is that we can offer a 6-year contract, while other teams can offer only a 5-year deal, max.

                      The key advantage over most teams, though, is the Bird rights...the ability to go over the cap to sign them. We lose that advantage, however, if we renounce their rights.
                      Last edited by count55; 09-10-2008, 06:24 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Bruno's latest blog entry

                        Originally posted by count55 View Post
                        The advantage that we have on those guys on other teams is that we can offer a 6-year contract, while other teams can offer only a 5-year deal, max.

                        The key advantage over most teams, though, is the Bird rights...the ability to go over the cap to sign them. We lose that advantage, however, if we renounce their rights.
                        Is both these statements true for UFAs?

                        Even for UFAs.....if we do not renounce the rights to Foster....then even if we are over the Salary cap.....then we can still offer him a contract over the Salarycap....with the key difference in that Foster can choose where he goes as a UFA?
                        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Bruno's latest blog entry

                          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
                          So for most teams in the park of the cap already there is more financial leverage available by just staying over the cap.

                          If you aren't WAY under the cap then just don't bother discussing it. This idea that the Pacers are almost in the FA market is 100% wrong. They aren't.

                          What they are is broken into enough moderately reasonable deals and expirings to be back in the dealing market over the next few years. Nothing they have done so far has really targeted getting into the FA market, and that's just as well because nearly all the worst contracts in the NBA stem from the overpriced FA market.
                          Agree completely. I actually view the tax threshold as the more important number for the Pacers. It (sorta) acts as a "hard" cap. The Pacers are more effective using trades to pick up players. However, next year's payroll does put them in a position to use the MLE for the first time.

                          I think that's good to have as an option, but I struggle to think of a player that got signed to the MLE that was later considered to have been a good signing.

                          Can anyone think of one?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Bruno's latest blog entry

                            Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                            Is both these statements true for UFAs?

                            Even for UFAs.....if we do not renounce the rights to Foster....then even if we are over the Salary cap.....then we can still offer him a contract over the Salarycap....with the key difference in that Foster can choose where he goes as a UFA?
                            Yes, those statements are true specifically for UFA's. If we did not renounce our rights to Foster, we would be free to sign him to any amount up to the max, regardless of our cap/tax position. (Assuming we're willing to accept the consequences, including tax.)

                            Foster, however, is completely free to sign with anyone. He could accept a minimum contract with SA or Boston, if he so chose, over a max contract from us. We have negotiating advantages, but no guaranteed edge, like you have with RFA's.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Bruno's latest blog entry

                              Originally posted by count55 View Post
                              Can anyone think of one?
                              chauncey billups comes to mind. i can't remember, was mcdyess MLE? if so he'd be a good one. i know nazr was but that's not a success story.

                              outside of detroit, i think hedo turkoglu was MLE too. but that's about all i can think of.
                              This is the darkest timeline.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Bruno's latest blog entry

                                Originally posted by count55 View Post
                                Agree completely. I actually view the tax threshold as the more important number for the Pacers. It (sorta) acts as a "hard" cap. The Pacers are more effective using trades to pick up players. However, next year's payroll does put them in a position to use the MLE for the first time.

                                I think that's good to have as an option, but I struggle to think of a player that got signed to the MLE that was later considered to have been a good signing.

                                Can anyone think of one?
                                Mr. Cap-ologist......I think you already know the answer to this one.......you just wanted us to answer it on our own . The answer is that there are "few and far between" many FAs that have been signed with the Full MLE that hasn't been deemed overpaid. This doesn't mean that there aren't that any.....there just isn't that many that could be considered worth it.
                                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X