Tweet
12 million a year aka not enough for a quality starting point guard.
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.
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
-
-
I'd assume that if Bojan, Thad and Wes could be had for $1 mil less per Player, we are talking about $15 mil. I think that someone like Brogdon could be had for that much.Originally posted by PacersHomer View Post
I think that we are in the ball park to get a quality PG that is an upgrade over CoJo or DC.Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.Comment
-
After looking, Matthews is going to have a cap hold of only a couple million so realistically you free up about 9 million just by signing him last in that scenario. So you could get a starter like that.
After posting this I guess we probably wouldn't have Bird rights for him. But I think Matthews could be had for about 8 million a year rather than 11. Thad is probably the one out of those that will be the toughest to project.Comment
-
Wes can not be signed with Bird Rights though. They are only worth of 120 % of minimum salary. So leaving him last doesn't help much. Also you seem to forget the additional 2 million in payroll (abouts) which incurs from 1st-round pick. Frankly, Non-taxpayer Mid-Level Exception (will be close to 9 million) is the money available for Wes. Hopefully it is enough - especially if we give him 3-4 years. Otherwise he should go elsewhere.
Bojan's eventual salary doesn't mean much. We should just keep him sitting on his 13,65 million cap hold until the rest of the moves are done. We can then give him bigger contract (starting at maximum of
18,375,000 + 8 % annual raises) above the salary cap. That difference between eventual contract and cap hold value is not money off any other deal.
So with Wes & Bojan taken care with exceptions above the cap - Bojan's cap hold + Thad's new contract (let's assume 12 million) will put us at about 86 million for free agency time. No room for maximum contract (and that means that keeping Thad WILL take us out of Kemba-sweepstakes f ex), but enough to upgrade the point guard spot. Ricky Rubio?
Btw, to be able to give that above-mentioned Full MLE for Wes (or anyone else for that matter), we NEED to get above salary cap. That means that we would need to get close enough to the cap beforehand so that Bogie's new contract will put us over. We need to be at about 107-108 million BEFORE re-newing Bogie and preferably do it for maximum allowed by Early Bird Exception.
Comment
-
Signing Bojan last gives us an additional 5 million, enough to sign Brogdon, I like it. Let’s submit the proposal to the front office.Originally posted by PacersHomer View PostComment
-
Signing Brogdon seems unrealistic. I don’t see anyway the Bucks don’t retain him, even if that means becoming a tax paying team.Comment
-
The way I see it, if you want to upgrade this roster you have two options.
The first option is trying to sign a game changer in free agency. This really only allows for us to retain a single FA unless we can convince them to take less than they can get on the open market.
The second option is to retain multiple players, then aim for finding a player who is prime to have a breakout year in a situation where they might get more opportunity (a la Oladipo). I think Brogdon is a good option.
Still, I think Pritchard is less interested in keeping this team together next year than most people on here are.Comment
-
I think the second option is the route to go as well. I think that if the Pacers makes a high enough offer to Brogdon, I think that they can make the Bucks "blink". He's the type of Player that I think that KP is looking to build upon. He fits into the young core that the Pacers appear to be building upon. The question is, what is his Market Price and do we have enough to even get there?Originally posted by Eleazar View PostAsh from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.Comment
-
The Bucks are over the cap with just players under contract and Middleton’s cap hold. They have to sign Middleton, then make decisions on Brooke Lopez, Nikola Mirotic, and Malcom Brogdon. If they sign all four, they are going to be looking at 160 million plus, they are going to have to think long and hard about that. Not saying not will happen, but it is possible.Originally posted by CJ Jones View PostComment
-
All that I hope for is that KP and others sit down and look at the team at the end of the season (however it ends) with a non passionate eye towards the future. In other words don't make panic moves because we ended the season badly because Victor & Domas are down. However equally I don't want them to view the team with inflated enthusiasm because for two years in a row we have over shot our expectations.
If they really believe that this is a finals ready team then act accordingly, but if they don't think this group can make it to the finals then also act accordingly.
Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13Comment
-
Interesting to hear this from you knowing your thoughts about how this last offseason unfolded, How would you feel if the result of the offseason was mostly resigning our own players with a single addition which is a third tier free agent? Or are you going to reserve judgment until the Pacers run has concluded?Originally posted by Peck View PostComment
-
The Bucks will probably throw near $20mil at him I don't think we should do that.Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
Emmanuel Mudiay is having a really good season & much like Victor before Indiana hasn't been in a stable sort of environment. He is putting up 14.8ppg, 3.1rpg & 3.8apg is only 22yrs old & is 6'5 with really nice defensive skill set that has yet to be tapped into. Now his upside isn't as high as some people thought or people on here would probably like it to be, but if he put up numbers like he is in NY while playing in our defensive system then sign me up. Thing is he is surplus in NY as they have Smith Jr & will want to keep cap space for free agents. We could get him for $8-10mil quite easily I feel.Comment
-
We won't have the Non-taxpayer Mid-Level exception if we drop below the salary cap to sign a free agent. We'll either have to renounce it or we'll lose it if we fall far enough under the cap that the cap hold on the Mid-Level Exception becomes irrelevant. The exception we'll have is the Room Exception which probably won't be enough for Wesley. I bolded two parts of the answer quoted below but the whole thing is worth reading.Originally posted by PetPaima View Post
http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q2626. How do exceptions count against the cap? Does being under the cap always mean that a team has room to sign free agents? Do teams ever lose their exceptions?
If a team is below the cap, then its Disabled Player, Bi-Annual, Mid-Level (either the Taxpayer or Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level, whichever applies to the team) and/or trade exceptions are added to their team salary, and the league treats the team as though they are over the cap1. This is to prevent a loophole, in a manner similar to free agent amounts (see question number 37). A team can't act like it's under the cap and sign free agents using cap room, and then use its Disabled Player, Bi-Annual, Mid-Level and/or trade exceptions. Consequently, the exceptions are added to the team salary (putting the team over the cap) if the team is under the cap and adding the exceptions puts them over the cap. If a team is already over the cap, then the exceptions are not added to their team salary. There would be no point in doing so, since there is no cap room for signing free agents.
So being under the cap does not necessarily mean a team has room to sign free agents. For example, assume the cap is $100 million, and a team has $90 million committed to salaries. It also has a Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level exception for $9 million and a trade exception for $6 million. Even though its salaries put it $10 million under the cap, its exceptions also count toward team salary, increasing the total to $105 million, or $5 million over the cap. So the team actually has no cap room to sign free agents, and instead must use its exceptions to sign players.
A team has the option to renounce its exceptions in order to reclaim its cap room. So in the example above, if the team renounced its Traded Player and Mid-Level exceptions, then the $15 million is taken off its team salary, which then totals $90 million, leaving the team with $10 million of cap room which then can be used to sign free agent(s).
Starting January 10 of each season, the Mid-Level (Non-Taxpayer, Taxpayer and Room), Bird (Larry Bird, Early Bird and Non-Bird) and Bi-Annual exceptions begin to pro-rate2 (reduce in value). For example, if there are 177 days in the season, then these exceptions reduce in value each day by 1/177 of the amount remaining on January 10. So if a team had a $9 million Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level exception and spent $2 million before the start of the season, then on January 10, and each day thereafter, the exception would reduce in value by 1/177 of $7 million, or $39,548. Even if the team signs another player after January 10, the daily pro-ration would continue to be 1/177 of $7 million.
A team's exceptions may be lost entirely, or the team may never receive them to begin with. This happens when their team salary is so low that when the exceptions are added to the team salary, the sum is still below the salary cap. If this happens when the exceptions arise on July 1, then the team doesn't get their exceptions at all. If the team salary ever drops below this level during the year, then the unused portions of any remaining exceptions are lost (and do not return if the team salary later increases).
For example, assume there is a $100 million salary cap, and during the offseason a team has $80 million committed to salaries, along with a Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level exception for $9 million, a trade exception for $5 million, and an unrenounced free agent whose free agent amount is $10 million. The team's salaries and exceptions total $104 million, or $4 million over the cap. What if the free agent signs with another team? The $10 million free agent amount comes off the team's cap, leaving its team salary (including their remaining exceptions) at $94 million. This total is below the cap so the team loses its Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level and trade exceptions.
There is logic behind this. The whole idea behind an "exception" is that it is an exception to the rule which says a team cannot go over the salary cap. In other words, an exception is a mechanism which allows a team to function above the cap. If a team isn't over the cap, then the concept of an exception is moot. Therefore, if a team's team salary ever drops this far, its exceptions go away. A rule of thumb is that a team may have either exceptions or cap room, but it can't have both at the same time. However, a team in this situation does qualify to use the Room Mid-Level exception (see question number 25).1 This is just for determining a team's ability to sign free agents and use salary cap exceptions. It has no effect on such things as the luxury tax. 2 The Traded Player and Disabled Player exceptions do not pro-rate in this manner. The Minimum Player Salary exception also pro-rates, beginning on the first day of the regular season. Comment
-
.Good find.Originally posted by Strummer View Post
Doesn't make that much difference to a situation with Wes though (only as far as timing goes...)
We obviously enter the free agency WAY above the cap. The cap holds of our key free agents are
Thad : 20,6 million
CoJo : 15,1 million
Tyreke : 14,9 million
Bogie : 13,65 million
DC : 13 million
KOQ : 5,33 million
When you add those to actual salaries, Monta's stretch cost and the 1st-round pick, you end up with some 142 million dollars in books.
We would then need to 1st maneuveur far enough below the luxury tax level (renouncing Tyreke seems enuff for me although exact tax line and tax apron are not yet announced) and could then have the biggest MLE in our use. That is the Non-taxpayer MLE which is larger than either Taxpayer MLE or Room MLE. We could also open room to use our bi-annual exception at that point, but that one is hardly worth of much salary juggling...
If I read cbafaq correctly,- Once when you have legally used your MLE, it doesn't matter if you go below the salary cap afterwards...
Nevertheless - having now added about 9 million to salary totals and including Bogie's cap hold - the best amount we could then AFTERWARDS still maneuveur open cap room would be about 25 million. That would require us renouncing everybody but Bogie. Any new contract given to Thad/CoJo/DC/Kyle would be reducing that number.
Bogie should still be signed last and doing so would enable go over the salary cap at the end of the play.
To me it doesn't look like we are players for maximum contract guys, but we could make a single play for likes of Brogdon / Ricky Rubio / Julius Randle etc.Comment
-
Comment