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

Pacers Begin Talks With Granger

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

  • #16
    Re: Pacers Begin Talks With Granger

    Originally posted by Speed View Post
    Exactly my thoughts. What if he's still on the roster, what if Jack or TJ have a semi serious injury, does he play?

    Plus if JT is still here, someone has to be cut. JT makes 16. Maybe McBob isn't a player in the league, but it would be a shame to have him cut before getting much of a chance to find out, especially because of Tinsley still being here.
    I got from the Wells article that the chances are extremely slim that Tinsley is going to be bought out, so your thought about Tinsley being on the roster and ever playing again is extremely scarey. I just can't see how ownership can afford to have Tinsley on this team in any form or fashion let alone allowed to ever play again for the Pacers. I just can't see how ownership can allow Tinsley to be associated with this team for the good of the franchise. JMOAA

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Pacers Begin Talks With Granger

      Did you all catch the part where Wells said they took Tinsley's name plate off of his locker? He is not suiting up, folks.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Pacers Begin Talks With Granger

        Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
        I got from the Wells article that the chances are extremely slim that Tinsley is going to be bought out, so your thought about Tinsley being on the roster and ever playing again is extremely scarey. I just can't see how ownership can afford to have Tinsley on this team in any form or fashion let alone allowed to ever play again for the Pacers. I just can't see how ownership can allow Tinsley to be associated with this team for the good of the franchise. JMOAA
        Agreed, it would be a PR nightmare and a weight for the team and coaches to bear.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Pacers Begin Talks With Granger

          My dad said that his ticket agent went to a Pacers party where Bird said (a lot of here say I know) that Tinsley will not be a Pacer again. Whatever that means. i just don't see Tinsley suiting up in the Blue and Gold again.
          Last edited by Major Cold; 09-04-2008, 12:22 PM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Pacers Begin Talks With Granger

            Originally posted by Hicks View Post
            Did you all catch the part where Wells said they took Tinsley's name plate off of his locker? He is not suiting up, folks.
            I looked at this article this morning and either I missed it or it has been updated. I don't think the line about "Don't be surprised if Granger doesn't get an extension before the end of October." was there either????

            Good catch though, I would guess that is a pretty good indicator he's not going to be here.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Pacers Begin Talks With Granger

              Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
              Just like the Hawks did Josh Childress! They thought they were in the drivers seat and fiddled around not signing him waiting until an offer came. Guess what? The offer came and it was more than they could or would pay from a source they hadn't counted on. They lost him after Sund stated numerous times Childress and Smith would be re-signed. Sund stated their signings were top priorities. The Hawks lost a key player who will be missed this season by playing around waiting on a team to make Childress an offer. Can the Pacers truly afford to do the same?

              What IF Ben Gordon doesn't get the contract he expects from the Bulls, and he opts to go to Europe for the money? What's to keep Granger from doing the same next year? Not saying Granger would, but it makes negotiating next year more difficult for the Pacers. My feeling is you sign him now if at all possible to a contract that is liveable with both sides so as not to have to do it next year. If Granger has a stellar season this year, it's going to cost the Pacers even more money. So why not sign he now?

              B/c of their losing Childress the Hawks couldn't afford to lose Smith and probably paid more than they truly wanted. Not to mention upsetting Smith with the way they progressed with the negotiations.

              I agree negotiations are tricky with both sides having wants, but not doing any negotiating with October next month is just asininely silly. I'm not suggesting to give the farm away to Granger, but why not at least make him a fair offer. It then is in his court, and TPTB don't look like they don't care or are doing nothing. We are dealing with human feelings, and they can be hurt easily. Not to mention if Granger goes to RFA and another team offers more than the Pacers are willing to pay, the Pacers lose Granger and get nothing in return. It won't be like the NO and Peja situation again falling into a 7.5 mil TE. Zippo. Who's team is it going to be then if Granger leaves? The average Joe reconizes Granger's name and face. Can the Pacers afford to start over in this regards?

              I just think it's silly that there has been little negotiations by the Pacers. JMOAA
              11.6 a year for Josh Smith is not that bad. Two teams were willing to pay him that. No teams in Europe would pay Danny that. 5 years 58 million is what this team should shoot for with Danny.

              2009 RFA:
              Andrew Bynum
              David Lee
              Marvin Williams
              Danny Granger
              Raymond Felton
              Charlie Villanueva
              Hakim Warrick
              Jason Maxiell
              Nate Robinson

              Kobe could opt out (LA sours maybe Italy sounds better)
              Carlos Boozer is on the market
              Lamar Odom
              Allen Iverson
              Steve Nash
              Shawn Marion

              The market this year was different than what it will be next year. It is a favorable market for teams IMO. Chances are teams are not going to throw 13 million on Danny if they can get Shawn Marion or Lamar Odom for less time and maybe less money.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Pacers Begin Talks With Granger

                Originally posted by intridcold View Post
                11.6 a year for Josh Smith is not that bad. Two teams were willing to pay him that. No teams in Europe would pay Danny that. 5 years 58 million is what this team should shoot for with Danny.

                2009 RFA:
                Andrew Bynum
                David Lee
                Marvin Williams
                Danny Granger
                Raymond Felton
                Charlie Villanueva
                Hakim Warrick
                Jason Maxiell
                Nate Robinson

                Kobe could opt out (LA sours maybe Italy sounds better)
                Carlos Boozer is on the market
                Lamar Odom
                Allen Iverson
                Steve Nash
                Shawn Marion

                The market this year was different than what it will be next year. It is a favorable market for teams IMO. Chances are teams are not going to throw 13 million on Danny if they can get Shawn Marion or Lamar Odom for less time and maybe less money.

                Knowing that the Blazers will likely be looking for a new Starting SF ( I doubt that Outlaw or Webster fit the bill ) next offseason, Marion is the only Player on that list ( that could be considered a SF ) that I would even is better ( right now ) then Granger. But knowing that KP and the Blazers are looking for a younger Starting Quality SF with some updside to build a huge core around....then I would think that Granger is their PRIME Target.

                I really hope that the most that Granger and his Agent ask for is $12 mil for 6 years....but if it's anything close to what Deng/Iggy got ( up to $13 mil for 6 years )...then I will live with it. I really think that the Blazers are going to go over the top since they know that the Pacers will match anything that is within reason.

                And if you don't think that the Blazers won't overspend....you can only look to the Blazers deep pockets to see how much they will likely spend to get their future Starting SF.
                Last edited by CableKC; 09-04-2008, 01:06 PM.
                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Pacers Begin Talks With Granger

                  Please do not give Granger more than 11 million.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Pacers Begin Talks With Granger

                    Originally posted by JGray View Post
                    Please do not give Granger more than 11 million.
                    I don't want to....but I don't think we have any choice. The Market Value for Granger has pretty much been set with the likes of Josh Smith / Luol Deng / Iggy.
                    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Pacers Begin Talks With Granger

                      Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                      Maybe they're waiting to see what their finances look like after Tinsley and whomever else is traded? Perhaps waiting until after September 9th.
                      Don't talk reasonable. Jump off the roof like everyone else.

                      Who seriously thinks that David Morway is going into this totally clueless and stupid? He's just sitting there with no idea what the market for Danny is or could become, just playing some big gamble for a franchise that knows it can't gamble and needs every good story/person it can't get.

                      And on top of that who says the agent is a good guy or being reasonable? I don't get the assumptions that Oliver Twist Granger is pathetically sitting there saying "please sir, may I have a crumb of money" and Scrooge Bird/Morway is pushing him off into the gutter on his way to sleep on a pile of cash.


                      There will be plenty of time to be PO'd if they blow a deal with Danny and he goes somewhere else next year. Till then maybe assume they at least don't have their fingers in their nose. Heck, I'm not even a Bird believer and I don't think he and Morway are lost in the woods on this one.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Pacers Begin Talks With Granger

                        but why not at least make him a fair offer. It then is in his court, and TPTB don't look like they don't care or are doing nothing.
                        And where did you get the facts that this is what hasn't happened yet? Did I miss that in the article, the part where TPTB have refused to give Danny a fair offer? Did anyone even define what a "fair" offer is at this point?

                        Seems like "fair" is pretty freaking subjective in this matter, and not just between the two sides but among fans and PD posters too.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Pacers Begin Talks With Granger

                          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post

                          There will be plenty of time to be PO'd if they blow a deal with Danny and he goes somewhere else next year.
                          If they do their job by October 31, then no one will have to be PO'd, now will they?

                          That gives the Bird and Morway enough time to see what the finances look like. They will know the situation with Tinsley, and any trades made b4 then... if there are any. Hopefully Tinsley.

                          Doing nothing b4 Oct 31 with hope that things will be just hunkydorie when Granger becomes a RFA is silly. Ask Atlanta how they fared by waiting on the market for Childress after he became a FA? I don't think ownership can afford Pacers fans to get PO'd if they lose Granger? JMOAA


                          I'm going to throwout an off the wall scenario. What if, and I repeat what if, the Pacers have a deal in place to move Rasho with Tinsley. I know this has been brought up b4, but once the deal is completed then the Pacers can then turn their full attention on giving Granger an extension. Doesn't Rasho become tradeable sometime next week? Maybe I'm just pulling out of the air, but some things lately seem strange. Maybe nothing is in the works and my imagination has gotten carried away. It kinda feels like the Pacers FO of the past with something coming out from the blue. Maybe it's the lull of nothing happening, or Bird saying things would pick up after Labor Day, or no Rasho, or Granger not signed, or the FO feeling so confident Tinsley will be traded. Anyone else have that feeling?
                          Last edited by Roaming Gnome; 09-05-2008, 02:08 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Pacers Begin Talks With Granger

                            Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                            If they do their job by October 31, then no one will have to be PO'd, now will they?

                            That gives the Bird and Morway enough time to see what the finances look like. They will know the situation with Tinsley, and any trades made b4 then... if there are any. Hopefully Tinsley.

                            Doing nothing b4 Oct 31 with hope that things will be just hunkydorie when Granger becomes a RFA is silly. Ask Atlanta how they fared by waiting on the market for Childress after he became a FA? I don't think ownership can afford Pacers fans to get PO'd if they lose Granger? JMOAA


                            I'm going to throwout an off the wall scenario. What if, and I repeat what if, the Pacers have a deal in place to move Rasho with Tinsley. I know this has been brought up b4, but once the deal is completed then the Pacers can then turn their full attention on giving Granger an extension. Doesn't Rasho become tradeable sometime next week? Maybe I'm just pulling out of the air, but some things lately seem strange. Maybe nothing is in the works and my imagination has gotten carried away. It kinda feels like the Pacers FO of the past with something coming out from the blue. Maybe it's the lull of nothing happening, or Bird saying things would pick up after Labor Day, or no Rasho, or Granger not signed, or the FO feeling so confident Tinsley will be traded. Anyone else have that feeling?
                            Your scenario begs the question, who needs a point guard and a center? And what would we get for them?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Pacers Begin Talks With Granger

                              Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
                              Your scenario begs the question, who needs a point guard and a center? And what would we get for them?
                              Well, Rasho + Tinsley for Marion works, you could even throw Shawne in to sweeten the pot and it would still work.

                              I really don't think there's much to worry about with Granger's negotiations. If the rhetoric is true and Danny really does like being in Indy and the Pacers really do want him, something will get done. When you look at all the negotiations being referenced, there's usually one side that's not crazy about the other. The Bulls don't really want to sign Ben Gordon. If they did, they wouldn't have drafted Sefolosha, traded for Hughes, drafted Rose, and not traded Hinrich. The Hawks wanted Josh Childress, but didn't want to pay for him. He probably wasn't too excited about staying with them. The Josh Smith deal worked out great for the Hawks as they wind up getting him at a pretty fair price. If he ever develops a consistent jump shot and clears up his attitude problems, he'll be considered a bargain. Deng and Iguodala both signed fairly reasonable deals that didn't cripple their teams. I can understand being worried about letting Granger head into next year without a contract, because I'd love to know that he was going to be a Pacer for the next 6 years, but none of the teams who let guys get to RFA status have really been screwed other than the Childress deal.

                              What does worry me a little bit is the list of FA's and RFA's. Danny is clearly one of the top 2 players on that list, and he's been more productive than Bynum though Bynum has a higher ceiling. The only players who you can compare him to on the list are Odom and Marion. They'll both want more than Danny will probably get, so he might become a cheap fall back at $12 million a year.

                              I really do think that Danny will wind up staying in Indy. There are rarely situations where a guy says that he wants to stay with a team that wants to keep him and then winds up somewhere else.
                              "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

                              - Salman Rushdie

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Pacers Begin Talks With Granger

                                [QUOTE=mellifluous;778391]

                                Well, Rasho + Tinsley for Marion works, you could even throw Shawne in to sweeten the pot and it would still work.

                                The Bulls don't really want to sign Ben Gordon. QUOTE]

                                Marion deal is a dream, a nice one though. Miami just signed Maglorie(SP?) at center. My feeling they want the expiring contract of Marion's to try and get Boozer. But even for one year that deal would be reeeeeeal nice for the Pacers, and it would give the Pacers an extra 9 mil over Rasho's 8 mil expiring contract. There would be plenty money to sign Granger and others to contracts.

                                I agree that I don't believe the Bulls really want to sign Gordon unless they can do it on their terms. Personally, I'd like to see him accept their 6 mil qualifying offer and be a FA next year leaving them high and dry with nothing. I'm sadistic.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X