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

Q&A with Herb Simon

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by BillS View Post

    How does going into the LT with players who can't contend give you MORE resource flexibility? Being under the cap means you can absorb a big contract just as easily as having a big contract to trade for another big contract does.

    Are you defining being over the LT as having resources other teams want? That also isn't necessarily the case - bloated contracts are not always equivalent to good players.

    Going over the LT for players you don't think will make you a contender means you are stocked with high-contract players who likely won't make anyone ELSE a contender, either - meaning you aren't likely to be able to trade for those layers who WILL make you a contender.

    Being over the LT doesn't get you a better draft position (in fact, you probably get a better draft position by having a team right at the salary floor). It means you can no longer get a FA as anything but vet minimum or taxpayer exception. It means you can only trade for a huge contract or a combination that adds up to a huge contract or to a team under the cap, which limits your options.

    Why is being over the LT in and of itself an asset to a team?
    You're being deliberately obtuse. How is this flexibility you describe benefitting us whatsoever?

    Why dont you ask every single NBA champion why they are so dumb that they go into the tax? So why do they do it?

    Because it's easier to field a championship team with a 150 million dollar payroll than it is to field one with 100 million dollar payroll. It's purely about resources available, not purely being a tax payer.

    You have to create this argument where we are in the tax, saddled with bad contracts and zero flexibility........because that's the only way not being in the tax is good.

    Then 5 minutes later, you wanna act like the Pacers FO is good at what they do.....which means more money at their disposal would clearly be a good thing.

    Make up your mind. Are they incompetent or not? Because only incompetence deserves less resources.

    Why dont you tell me how paying less payroll makes you a better basketball team, you know I can be obtuse as well.....btw we dont have any cap space, we have a bunch of cap holds.....and we are choosing between losing a guy like Bogdanovich and failing to replace him by renouncing him, or standing pat. This cap space myth must end. We are in a position to make quasi trades by renouncing Thad Young and using the money to replace him, instead of actually building on what we have, or virtual wheel spinning as I like to call it.
    Last edited by Taterhead; 05-10-2019, 11:57 AM.
    "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Taterhead View Post

      You're being deliberately obtuse.

      Why dont you ask every single NBA champion why they are so dumb that they go into the tax? So why do they do it?

      Because it's easier to field a championship team with a 150 million dollar payroll than it is to field one with 100 million dollar payroll.

      You have to create this argument where we are in the tax, saddled with bad contracts and zero flexibility........because that's the only way not being in the tax is good.

      Then 5 minutes later, you wanna act like the Pacers FO is good at what they do.....which means more money at their disposal would clearly be a good thing.

      Make up your mind. Are they incompetent or not? Because only incompetence deserves less resources.
      Being in the luxury tax does not equal more money at your disposal. It isn't like you get to spend whatever you want on whoever you want until you are paying the tax. You hit restrictions once you go over the cap and even more restrictions once you are over the LT. It is extremely difficult to go over the tax unless you are giving raises to guys already on your team. You can't get a Free Agent and go over the tax, because you can't pay enough in a single salary while under the cap to take you over the tax.

      You are also trying to make tax-paying and championships equivalent in both directions. It is not. Championship teams are almost always taxpaying teams, yes. But taxpaying teams are not always championship teams. The reason is that paying the tax FOR A CONTENDING TEAM is a no-brainer. Paying the tax for a non-contending team is actually MUCH more common.

      Of the 5 teams currently over the LT, one is Golden State who are there because they got KD during a fluke year and then paid up. That's the definition of paying the LT to keep a contender together and we both would agree this is good. Two teams are still alive (Portland and Toronto), they could be considered contenders but only one traded into it with Kawhi. The other 2 are OKC (lost in 1st round), Boston (lost in 2nd round), who may be contenders on paper but aren't showing it on the floor.

      In general, though, you BUILD YOUR TEAM FIRST and then go into the LT TO KEEP IT TOGETHER (or trade one salary for a salary). You don't make your goal to go into the LT and THEN look around for players who can make you a contender.


      ETA: And the Bucks and Houston are not in the LT and no one would call them pretenders.
      BillS

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

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by graphic-er View Post

        Did anyone notice that Herb's 3 philosophies about never tanking, and build through the draft, and no luxury tax unless you absolutely have to are somewhat diametrically opposed?

        The front office is literally running this team with one hand tied behind their back. The year PG broke his leg and missed all but the final week of the season was the year to tank. No that doesn't mean tank for the #1 pick like knicks and Philly did for over a half a decade. But that does mean you should have probably traded West and Hibbert and Scola at the trade deadline if possible, and collected some assets and let the younger players on the team play out the rest of the season. Now we got Turner in that draft, and if you look at the board, only Towns and Russel have been better or on par with Turner in this draft class. Porzingis has been hurt every season so I wouldn't take him anyways. But who knows maybe you end up with a top 5 pick and you end up trading it for a superstar to team with PG at the time.

        Same thing this year, and you play out the rest of the season with some young guys and collect some assets and you end up in the lottery.


        There is a huge difference in what Philly, Phoenix, Minnesota, and the Knicks have done for a decade... compared to taking advantage of the occasional bad hand you are dealt due to season ending injuries. Pacers need to make the most of the opportunities if the owner has these types of rules set in place.
        Exactly. He says he would go into the tax under the right circumstances.....but its crystal clear decisions are made knowing they cant go into the tax. They let Lance walk after the ECF trip, and like Lance or not he was a key starter on that team, to replace him with a cheaper player and it blew up in their face. It led to a domino effect and they made 3 lackluster additions (Ellis, Miles and Stuckey) and werent nearly as good of a team after the fact. Why? Because they werent building on what they had and were instead retooling within Simon's financial confines. They took a step back when they were on the doorstep and should've instead focused on upgrading a starter to take the next step.

        They repeatedly trade draft picks for washed up vets in an attempt to "solidify the bench" because they cant upgrade the starters adequately due to financial constraints....sacrificing the future and pushing themselves into a position they are typically in where they dont have any trade assets. Then they get into the playoffs against an elite team and realize the bench isn't nearly as important to their opponent because they just play their elite players more minutes and take advantage of your good bench.

        it's a dumb philosophy that just lowers our ceiling to mediocrity.
        "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

        Comment


        • #49
          Bills nobody is talking about getting over the LT at any cost and with any team everybody knows that

          This LT argument is just a way to get us in some nonsense argument that nobody is having, we all know the rules and regulations about how to get to the Luxury Tax.
          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by BillS View Post

            How does going into the LT with players who can't contend give you MORE resource flexibility? Being under the cap means you can absorb a big contract just as easily as having a big contract to trade for another big contract does.

            Are you defining being over the LT as having resources other teams want? That also isn't necessarily the case - bloated contracts are not always equivalent to good players.

            Going over the LT for players you don't think will make you a contender means you are stocked with high-contract players who likely won't make anyone ELSE a contender, either - meaning you aren't likely to be able to trade for those layers who WILL make you a contender.

            Being over the LT doesn't get you a better draft position (in fact, you probably get a better draft position by having a team right at the salary floor). It means you can no longer get a FA as anything but vet minimum or taxpayer exception. It means you can only trade for a huge contract or a combination that adds up to a huge contract or to a team under the cap, which limits your options.

            Why is being over the LT in and of itself an asset to a team?
            I'll give you a real world example, the OKC Thunder, who are in a very similar position to us ATM as far as level of success. They are also likely stuck in pretender status with their current roster. But they have a completely different approach. Both have lost high level players in recent memory. The Thunder got nothing for their best player and have lost 2 MVP caliber guys in recent years. We actually got a good deal for Paul George.

            Let's look at the amount of roster flexibility each team has.

            The Thunder have a lot of trade assets. They have desirable players other teams want and they can afford to lose. They have 2 true superstars that can fetch a haul at any moment. They also have a similar pick in the draft.

            The Pacers have 3 tradable pieces on the entire roster. Only 1 that could fetch another great player, and he will not be traded under any circumstances. The other two play the same position and aren't players we really want to trade either. Regardless, neither guy will fetch an All Star in a trade without draft picks being included. They havent developed any young players at all. Tj Leaf has no trade value. Aaron Holiday doesnt really either.

            Becoming clearer now? How are we in a better spot than the Thunder, who fit your characterization of what the Pacers dont want to be?
            "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by BillS View Post

              Being in the luxury tax does not equal more money at your disposal. It isn't like you get to spend whatever you want on whoever you want until you are paying the tax. You hit restrictions once you go over the cap and even more restrictions once you are over the LT. It is extremely difficult to go over the tax unless you are giving raises to guys already on your team. You can't get a Free Agent and go over the tax, because you can't pay enough in a single salary while under the cap to take you over the tax.

              You are also trying to make tax-paying and championships equivalent in both directions. It is not. Championship teams are almost always taxpaying teams, yes. But taxpaying teams are not always championship teams. The reason is that paying the tax FOR A CONTENDING TEAM is a no-brainer. Paying the tax for a non-contending team is actually MUCH more common.

              Of the 5 teams currently over the LT, one is Golden State who are there because they got KD during a fluke year and then paid up. That's the definition of paying the LT to keep a contender together and we both would agree this is good. Two teams are still alive (Portland and Toronto), they could be considered contenders but only one traded into it with Kawhi. The other 2 are OKC (lost in 1st round), Boston (lost in 2nd round), who may be contenders on paper but aren't showing it on the floor.

              In general, though, you BUILD YOUR TEAM FIRST and then go into the LT TO KEEP IT TOGETHER (or trade one salary for a salary). You don't make your goal to go into the LT and THEN look around for players who can make you a contender.


              ETA: And the Bucks and Houston are not in the LT and no one would call them pretenders.
              Would you trade our roster for the Boston Celtics or the OKC Thunder? I would. Both were considered legit contenders going into the season. We werent.

              Did you notice that all 5 luxury tax teams also made the playoffs? None of them missed the playoffs, not one?

              You're answering your own question.

              If we were the Bucks.....we dont resign either Malcom Brogdon or Khris Middleton to avoid the tax. Hopefully for Milwaukee fans their owner continues to build, resigns them and still finds a way to upgrade their talent.

              Houston will go into the tax if necessary and it's not really a question with that franchise. They are a willing tax payer who happens to not be in the tax this year.

              We on the other hand are not a willing tax payer and have recently broken up our best team to stay under the tax.

              I cant be any clearer than this.
              Last edited by Taterhead; 05-10-2019, 12:36 PM.
              "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Taterhead View Post

                I'll give you a real world example, the OKC Thunder, who are in a very similar position to us ATM as far as level of success. They are also likely stuck in pretender status with their current roster. But they have a completely different approach. Both have lost high level players in recent memory. The Thunder got nothing for their best player and have lost 2 MVP caliber guys in recent years. We actually got a good deal for Paul George.

                Let's look at the amount of roster flexibility each team has.

                The Thunder have a lot of trade assets. They have desirable players other teams want and they can afford to lose. They have 2 true superstars that can fetch a haul at any moment. They also have a similar pick in the draft.

                The Pacers have 3 tradable pieces on the entire roster. Only 1 that could fetch another great player, and he will not be traded under any circumstances. The other two play the same position and aren't players we really want to trade either. Regardless, neither guy will fetch an All Star in a trade without draft picks being included. They havent developed any young players at all. Tj Leaf has no trade value. Aaron Holiday doesnt really either.

                Becoming clearer now? How are we in a better spot than the Thunder, who fit your characterization of what the Pacers dont want to be?
                OKC payroll is bloated. They are stuck with the team they have without doing trades. They can't sign anyway except their own players and draft picks. No flexibility whats so ever. Yet even then, the Pacers split the series with them without Vic. Yet you'd be happier with them?

                I don't think you have a clue how the lux tax works. You can only use it to sign your current players. So only way really how the Pacers could do this would be like what happened with KD and GSW. So say Kemba took a 2yr discounted contract so the Pacers could keep Thad and BB under the assumption that in 2 years he'll get a big contract. What really are the chances a star would do that for the Pacers?

                This year is where the Pacers try to set-up for the future when Sabo and Vic need to sign. That is when you start looking to going into the tax

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Taterhead View Post

                  Would you trade our roster for the Boston Celtics or the OKC Thunder? I would. Both were considered legit contenders going into the season. We werent.

                  Did you notice that all 5 luxury tax teams also made the playoffs? None of them missed the playoffs, not one?

                  You're answering your own question.

                  If we were the Bucks.....we dont resign either Malcom Brogdon or Khris Middleton to avoid the tax. Hopefully for Milwaukee fans their owner continues to build, resigns them and still finds a way to upgrade their talent.

                  Houston will go into the tax if necessary and it's not really a question with that franchise. They are a willing tax payer who happens to not be in the tax this year.

                  We on the other hand are not a willing tax payer and have recently broken up our best team to stay under the tax.

                  I cant be any clearer than this.
                  I wouldn't trade for OKC when factoring in the payroll, Boston I would only if all their picks come with and the only main player they lose is Kyrie.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by jrwannabe View Post

                    OKC payroll is bloated. They are stuck with the team they have without doing trades. They can't sign anyway except their own players and draft picks. No flexibility whats so ever. Yet even then, the Pacers split the series with them without Vic. Yet you'd be happier with them?

                    I don't think you have a clue how the lux tax works. You can only use it to sign your current players. So only way really how the Pacers could do this would be like what happened with KD and GSW. So say Kemba took a 2yr discounted contract so the Pacers could keep Thad and BB under the assumption that in 2 years he'll get a big contract. What really are the chances a star would do that for the Pacers?

                    This year is where the Pacers try to set-up for the future when Sabo and Vic need to sign. That is when you start looking to going into the tax
                    They have tradeable assets and we dont. Yes I would gladly swap them rosters.

                    Payroll isn't a factor, because this is an argument about which strategy builds a better roster. Yes I know how the tax works. And I know our owner will never go into it unless we win the title without being in it, first. Which will never happen.
                    Last edited by Taterhead; 05-10-2019, 12:45 PM.
                    "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by jrwannabe View Post

                      I wouldn't trade for OKC when factoring in the payroll, Boston I would only if all their picks come with and the only main player they lose is Kyrie.
                      So you wouldn't trade rosters with the team that just swept us? Makes zero sense.

                      It's also not true that the only way to get into the tax is to sign a big name player on a discount. We just had an opportunity to go into the tax 4-5 years ago and chose to break up the starting 5 instead.
                      Last edited by Taterhead; 05-10-2019, 12:47 PM.
                      "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        I would also take the OKC team over Pacers hell yes.

                        Worse case scenario they can get a bunch of young players and picks for Westbrook/PG/Adams and sure they are over the LT (OMG ahhh) but who cares if the owner is actually willing to spending that money? are we really going to pretend that a billionaire spending an extra 20 mil per year (another boat for them) is going to kill their team? you have to be na´ve to believe all that bs.


                        Here is a prediction, OKC is going to get more things done without cap space compared to Pacers, book it.
                        Last edited by vnzla81; 05-10-2019, 12:46 PM.
                        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                          I would also take the OKC team over Pacers hell yes.

                          Worse case scenario they can get a bunch of young players and picks for Westbrook/PG/Adams and sure they are over the LT (OMG ahhh) but who cares if the owner is actually willing to spending that money? are we really going to pretend that a billionaire spending an extra 20 mil per year (another boat for them) is going to kill their team? you have to be na´ve to believe all that bs.


                          Here is a prediction, OKC is going to get more things done without cap space compared to Pacers, book it.
                          And their fanbase is filling the arena every night because they are excited and feel they are in the game, despite losing 2 great players in recent years.

                          When the Pacers lost George they used it to temper expectations and encourage patience with their fanbase......."its gonna be tough for awhile but well be back in three years".......the Thunder took a year and they were flipping assets for another all NBA player.

                          It's not just about the cap, it's about the Pacers approach because of the cap. We have no assets because of our approach. We are forced to trade draft picks and overpay for mediocrity, repeatedly.
                          "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Taterhead View Post

                            I'll give you a real world example, the OKC Thunder, who are in a very similar position to us ATM as far as level of success. They are also likely stuck in pretender status with their current roster. But they have a completely different approach. Both have lost high level players in recent memory. The Thunder got nothing for their best player and have lost 2 MVP caliber guys in recent years. We actually got a good deal for Paul George.

                            Let's look at the amount of roster flexibility each team has.

                            The Thunder have a lot of trade assets. They have desirable players other teams want and they can afford to lose. They have 2 true superstars that can fetch a haul at any moment. They also have a similar pick in the draft.

                            The Pacers have 3 tradable pieces on the entire roster. Only 1 that could fetch another great player, and he will not be traded under any circumstances. The other two play the same position and aren't players we really want to trade either. Regardless, neither guy will fetch an All Star in a trade without draft picks being included. They havent developed any young players at all. Tj Leaf has no trade value. Aaron Holiday doesnt really either.

                            Becoming clearer now? How are we in a better spot than the Thunder, who fit your characterization of what the Pacers dont want to be?
                            I'm going to get back to my quibbles with this interview later, but I wanted to address this. No, the Thunder do not have a lot of trade assets! Westbrook is considered by many to have one of the worst 5 contracts in the league. Adams is who people think the Thunder need to trade, but nobody knows who is actually going to want him at that salary. Schroder's last team literally paid 25 million dollars for a lottery protected first for him to go away. Roberson has been out all year and may never recover. Patterson has been awful.

                            So you have Paul George who would have course get a haul, Grant who is a decent player making decent money, and maybe Terrance Ferguson who has been fine as a young player, but not even an average player yet. Oh, and they are out two future first round picks right now.

                            The Pacers don't have a lot of trade assets either, but half their team are free agents right now. They had more trade assets than OKC last trade deadline and will hopefully have more trade assets than OKC by next deadline.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Taterhead View Post

                              So you wouldn't trade rosters with the team that just swept us? Makes zero sense.

                              It's also not true that the only way to get into the tax is to sign a big name player on a discount. We just had an opportunity to go into the tax 4-5 years ago and chose to break up the starting 5 instead.
                              For a team like Boston that has ALL this Talent and for sure has a better coach struggled in all four games against the Pacer who were without their star player and was being lead by friggin Tyreke Evans. Then you can say they dropped an egg agianst the Bucks. So yeah, something is wrong there which is why I say I'd only take them if their future assets come with.

                              And what good would've going into the tax done for signing Lance? And I was talking present day Pacers, the only way to go into the tax. Read man,read

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post

                                I'm going to get back to my quibbles with this interview later, but I wanted to address this. No, the Thunder do not have a lot of trade assets! Westbrook is considered by many to have one of the worst 5 contracts in the league. Adams is who people think the Thunder need to trade, but nobody knows who is actually going to want him at that salary. Schroder's last team literally paid 25 million dollars for a lottery protected first for him to go away. Roberson has been out all year and may never recover. Patterson has been awful.

                                So you have Paul George who would have course get a haul, Grant who is a decent player making decent money, and maybe Terrance Ferguson who has been fine as a young player, but not even an average player yet. Oh, and they are out two future first round picks right now.

                                The Pacers don't have a lot of trade assets either, but half their team are free agents right now. They had more trade assets than OKC last trade deadline and will hopefully have more trade assets than OKC by next deadline.
                                Westbrook would fetch a giant haul. What the hell are you talking about? The guy has averaged a triple double for three consecutive seasons lol and you admitted to 3 very nice trade pieces in addition to Westbrook.

                                They can make a move for anyone who comes available.
                                Last edited by Taterhead; 05-10-2019, 01:01 PM.
                                "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X