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

Star: Tinsley to Nuggets? Possibly Monday

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

  • Re: Star: Tinsley to Nuggets? Possibly Monday

    Originally posted by Speed View Post
    IMHO

    To me, keeping Austin really complicates things because you are paying him, plus whoever you cut to keep him. If I was TPTB I guess you ask Obie if Austin will be a rotation player or not dress on most nights and that will have alot to do with what you decide. Also, you have to think is having Austin for one year worth giving up on a McBob?
    Yes...at this point, the only thing McBob has in his favor is that he hasn't absolutely proven he sucks, yet. It's the 15th roster spot. Unless I actually think the guy will be a good player some day (which I don't), I'd rather have the veteran.

    I think if the deal goes through, (and you can't dump other guys in trades) McBob and Graham are cut out of hand. Croshere is most rationally the last cut, but it would come down between him, Baston, and possibly Atkins.


    One answer is to give Denver the 3 million and have them take Grahm (trade still works as someone has already pointed out). Then you're only looking at 2 guys to cut.

    It's going to be interesting.
    It's difficult to say whether Denver would want any additional players. They are over the tax, but they only have 12 players under contract (11 if this deal goes through.) I guess guys like Graham or McBob would be as cheap as anybody they'd pick up to fill out their roster, but they'll be paying 2x for those guys.

    I'm surprised they haven't tried to expand the deal to include a KMart for Murphy swap...we'd have to add another filler, but a deal could be worked out that would knock a couple mill off their payroll number. It would also neutralize the long term salary situation, even put it in their favor. (However, it would put us at or over the tax.)

    Originally posted by CableKC View Post
    Honestly, given today's Financial conscious GM/Owners......it's not a good idea to play chicken with a Team that are in cost-cutting mode while asking them to take on $10+ mil in additional guaranteed $$$ that could benefit from an upgrade of their PG situation but doesn't necessarily need to.
    Perhaps "playing chicken" may not be the right term. However, it does appear that the Simons may be willing to walk away from this deal, for whatever reason. I don't agree, but they probably have a different calculus than I do.

    Comment


    • Re: Star: Tinsley to Nuggets? Possibly Monday

      Originally posted by Anthem View Post
      That's a big chunk of cash to go throwing around. Sure, the Simons have plenty of assets in real estate, but you've got to wonder if the Pacers have that kind of liquid cash laying around.
      As far as I am concerned........we're gonna walk away from a Tinsley deal with the following options:

      A ) Break even....where the Simons somehow pay...one way or another...the $21 mil to Tinsley ( literally by doing nothing ) or whoever else we can get for him with an equal contract.
      B ) Pay more....where we acquire Player(s) that have more guaranteed $$$ owed to them.
      C ) Pay less.....where we acquire Player(s) that have less guaranteed $$$ owed to them.

      In the end.....the obvios best option is C.....which ( as far as we know ) is what we have now.

      The only reasoning that I can think of why the Simons wouldn't do this is IF they think that taking the Nuggets deal comes out to be the same amount of $$$ that they would have likely bought out Tinsley with. Loosely putting it.......if it costs "X" amount to buy out Tinsley ( which the Simons were refusing to do ) and the bottomline cost in taking on Atkins+Hunter+$3mil in Cash+"whatever cost it is to likey waive the additional players on the roster" is pretty much the same as buying Tinsley out.....then why do it at all?

      But I can then counter that the main difference is the Salary Cap hit in the 2010-2011 season. In the end...we essentially pay the same for a buyout of Tinsley....but we have the benefit of clearing Tinsley's contract from the 2010-2011 Salarycap.

      Either way......there must be something else to this that Vescey does not know about. I'm guessing that the Nuggets are asking for a pick. Asking for $3mil to cover costs...given Tinsley's baggage/history/additional guaranteed $$....is IMHO reasonable...or at the very least not a deal breaker. As someone else said.......if the Nuggets are asking for a 1st rounder on top of the $3mil, then they are getting greedy.
      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

      Comment


      • Re: Star: Tinsley to Nuggets? Possibly Monday

        Originally posted by count55 View Post
        Perhaps "playing chicken" may not be the right term. However, it does appear that the Simons may be willing to walk away from this deal, for whatever reason. I don't agree, but they probably have a different calculus than I do.
        Wait a sec.....is calculus taught differently in Indy then it is in the rest of the US?

        If so....then that may explain why the Simons don't want to do it...their calculations are off
        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

        Comment


        • Re: Star: Tinsley to Nuggets? Possibly Monday

          Originally posted by count55 View Post
          I'm surprised they haven't tried to expand the deal to include a KMart for Murphy swap...we'd have to add another filler, but a deal could be worked out that would knock a couple mill off their payroll number. It would also neutralize the long term salary situation, even put it in their favor. (However, it would put us at or over the tax.)
          If it were a straight up KMart for Murphy+Tinsley trade.......although the trade could work from a 2008-2009 Salary POV.......but financially, the Nuggets would have to take on more guaranteed $$$ in the end ( about $6 mil more ) over the 3 year period....which I doubt that they would want.

          The only trade that I can figure would work out where both teams end up coming out ( pretty much ) even from a Financial and Salary POV is a trade that expanded to include everyone mentioned:

          Tinsley+Murphy+Graham+McRoberts+Baston
          2008-2009 Salary : $20.38mil
          Total Guaranteed $$ Sent out : $58.1 mil



          for

          KMart+Atkins+Hunter
          2008-2009 Salary : $21.05 mil
          Total Guaranteed $$ Sent out : $56.66 mil to 60.14 mil ( depending on how Atkin's 2009-2010 Partially Ungauranteed contract is handled )


          Financially, this trade suggestion would not put either team ahead or behind financially where both parties would pretty much "break even".

          I could be wrong...but I think that this would leave us at 15 Players including Croshere. The only problem is that I have no clue how this would affect us from a 2009-2010 Salary POV. My initial guess is that it would allow us to still resign Granger and Jack while acquiring the Low-Post tough-nosed PF in KMart and keep a "poor man's" version of Murphy by allowing us to retain Croshere.

          I'm guessnig that this is too convoluted....but IF there was a trade that were to be expanded to include KMart...this is the only one that would make sense for both teams.
          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

          Comment


          • Re: Star: Tinsley to Nuggets? Possibly Monday

            Originally posted by CableKC View Post
            I could be wrong...but I think that this would leave us at 15 Players including Croshere. The only problem is that I have no clue how this would affect us from a 2009-2010 Salary POV. My initial guess is that it would allow us to still resign Granger and Jack while acquiring the Low-Post tough-nosed PF in KMart and keep a "poor man's" version of Murphy by allowing us to retain Croshere.

            I'm guessnig that this is too convoluted....but IF there was a trade that were to be expanded to include KMart...this is the only one that would make sense for both teams.
            For Pacers:

            2009-2010 salary would be $1.8mm higher
            2010-2011 salary would be $3.1mm lower.

            I know the principles of this deal (K-Mart/Atkins for Murph/Tins) have been floated several times over the summer on the RealGM trade board, and been generally accepted by fans of both teams. That doesn't really mean anything, and it's always hard to tell how the FO's would view such a swap.

            Effectively, this would leave us gambling on a healthy K-Mart as our FA pick up next year. It probably helps us in terms of absorbing Danny's new contract, long-term.

            EDIT: However, I don't think Denver would find a Murph/K-Mart swap pallatable unless it took a bite out of this year's luxury tax. I don't think they'd want all of that filler (Graham, McBob, Baston). Probably just one (preferrably, for them, McBob).
            Last edited by count55; 10-07-2008, 01:56 PM.

            Comment


            • Re: Star: Tinsley to Nuggets? Possibly Monday

              While I'm as excited about getting rid of Tinsley as anyone could be, I really don't like the idea of a Murphy for KMart swap. Murphy is a much better player right now than KMart is.
              "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

              - Salman Rushdie

              Comment


              • Re: Star: Tinsley to Nuggets? Possibly Monday

                Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
                Murphy is a much better player right now than KMart is.
                Really? I suppose you could make the case that Murphy is as good when you consider KMart's history of injuries and considering KMart's often troublesome attitude. (not that his attitude is really bad, but for this Pacers franchise anything approaching a bad attitude needs to be avoided). Having said that though, I think Martin is the better player - his defense is so far superior it trumps everything else anyone could mention.

                But KMart probably isn't the right player for the Pacers right now. So I probably don't want to trade Murph or Martin either

                Comment


                • Re: Star: Tinsley to Nuggets? Possibly Monday

                  Originally posted by mellifluous View Post
                  While I'm as excited about getting rid of Tinsley as anyone could be, I really don't like the idea of a Murphy for KMart swap. Murphy is a much better player right now than KMart is.
                  I agree, right now. Pre Denver Kmart was physical hungry and athletic, Denver Kmart is average at alot of things. I think it probably has to do with getting a crazy big contract and probably moreso microfracture surgury, I believe.

                  To me, Kmart doesn't seem like a real coachable guy or at best a little headstrong, maybe I'm wrong.

                  His contract is poison.

                  His production is average, alarmingly so.

                  http://www.nba.com/playerfile/kenyon...eer_stats.html

                  He seems like a guy in year 3 you would be paying 16.5 million dollars to for 40 games of average numbers at 34 years old. We've been down that road, no thanks.

                  I could be wrong, but those are my impressions.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Star: Tinsley to Nuggets? Possibly Monday

                    How much longer can they possibly draw this out? I am getting tired of it already. Are the Simons seriously fretting over 3 million vs getting rid of Tinsley and winning back some more fans? Seriously if its that big of a deal, someone set up a paypal thing. Perhaps we can get enough donations going to cover some of the 3 million.
                    "The greatest thing you know Comes not from above but below" Danzig

                    Comment


                    • Re: Star: Tinsley to Nuggets? Possibly Monday

                      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                      Really? I suppose you could make the case that Murphy is as good when you consider KMart's history of injuries and considering KMart's often troublesome attitude. (not that his attitude is really bad, but for this Pacers franchise anything approaching a bad attitude needs to be avoided). Having said that though, I think Martin is the better player - his defense is so far superior it trumps everything else anyone could mention.

                      But KMart probably isn't the right player for the Pacers right now. So I probably don't want to trade Murph or Martin either
                      I agree with you KMart is the better player. Correct me if I'm wrong though, didn't Kmart usually check his attitude once he stepped off of the court? As long as he kept it clean off the court, I don't think he would have a problem here.
                      "The greatest thing you know Comes not from above but below" Danzig

                      Comment


                      • Re: Star: Tinsley to Nuggets? Possibly Monday

                        Originally posted by HCPacerIN View Post
                        How much longer can they possibly draw this out? I am getting tired of it already. Are the Simons seriously fretting over 3 million vs getting rid of Tinsley and winning back some more fans? Seriously if its that big of a deal, someone set up a paypal thing. Perhaps we can get enough donations going to cover some of the 3 million.
                        I' think that something else other then what Vescey has outlined is the hold up. My money is on the Nuggets asking for $3mil in Cash and some future 1st round pick for Tinsley as sweetner.

                        If that is the case.....we're in the same boat as Walsh was when the Grizzlies ( supposedly ) asked the Knicks for a future 1st along with some Cash to cover ZBo's contract.
                        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Star: Tinsley to Nuggets? Possibly Monday

                          Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                          I' think that something else other then what Vescey has outlined is the hold up. My money is on the Nuggets asking for $3mil in Cash and some future 1st round pick for Tinsley as sweetner.

                          If that is the case.....we're in the same boat as Walsh was when the Grizzlies ( supposedly ) asked the Knicks for a future 1st along with some Cash to cover ZBo's contract.
                          You are right, it almost has to be. I wouldn't give up a 1st rounder at all in this deal, not unless they are giving something of value back. Seems like an example of what happens when you don't have leverage.
                          "The greatest thing you know Comes not from above but below" Danzig

                          Comment


                          • Re: Star: Tinsley to Nuggets? Possibly Monday

                            Originally posted by HCPacerIN View Post
                            How much longer can they possibly draw this out? I am getting tired of it already. Are the Simons seriously fretting over 3 million vs getting rid of Tinsley and winning back some more fans? Seriously if its that big of a deal, someone set up a paypal thing. Perhaps we can get enough donations going to cover some of the 3 million.

                            I'm not so sure I can agree with giving them 3 mil to do this trade.

                            While I would like to see this get done like just about everyone else, Tins
                            for Adkins and Hunter, talent-wise, is already clearly tilted in Denver's
                            favor, and they are getting the better end of the deal to start with. A
                            starting caliber PG for 2 end of the bench guys who might get cut
                            anyway? C'mon...

                            I do share your anxiety about this deal dragging out, but anything above
                            and beyond trading Tins for these guys and we would be getting outright
                            fleeced - big time. I would rather see Tins sit at home until someone who
                            really does need a good starting caliber PG (which it seems Denver does
                            not) come along than get totally ripped-off altogether.

                            The Pacers could come up with 3 Mil if they had to, but I think it is coming
                            down to the principle of it - it being Denver is trying to get unrealistically
                            greedy.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Star: Tinsley to Nuggets? Possibly Monday

                              Originally posted by RamBo_Lamar View Post
                              I'm not so sure I can agree with giving them 3 mil to do this trade.

                              While I would like to see this get done like just about everyone else, Tins
                              for Adkins and Hunter, talent-wise, is already clearly tilted in Denver's
                              favor, and they are getting the better end of the deal to start with. A
                              starting caliber PG for 2 end of the bench guys who might get cut
                              anyway? C'mon...

                              I do share your anxiety about this deal dragging out, but anything above
                              and beyond trading Tins for these guys and we would be getting outright
                              fleeced - big time. I would rather see Tins sit at home until someone who
                              really does need a good starting caliber PG (which it seems Denver does
                              not) come along than get totally ripped-off altogether.

                              The Pacers could come up with 3 Mil if they had to, but I think it is coming
                              down to the principle of it - it being Denver is trying to get unrealistically
                              greedy.
                              Sorry, I'll have to disagree. IMHO........I don't think that it is too unrealistic when you take all of Tinsley's Negative into consideration. Asking for $3mil in Cash AND a 1st rounder is IMHO greedy....but asking for $3mil in Cash for a player with a history of injuries that is owed way more $$$ then what is being sent out....isn't entirely unrealistic.
                              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Star: Tinsley to Nuggets? Possibly Monday

                                My opinion on this situation is this. We are all aware that this is a two for one. I bet there will be some cash considerations sent to Denver. There is a two month period before we could trade Hunter or Atkins. I am SURE we probably came to an agreement with Denver (last Thursday) and the caveat with giving them the money is based on Denver letting us go find a third team to take on three players' deals for an expiring some where else. That way we have the roster flexibility to keep McRoberts and Croshere. Croshere had met with Bird before coming into camp and Bird HAD to have told him there is a deal in place to move Tinsley along with a few others, so he wouldn't be wasting his time to just get cut. (I don't believe his contract is guaranteed unless he makes the team.)

                                I could see something like having Graham, Maceo, and Atkins sent to NYK who were considering buying out Malik Rose anyway. We would take on the extra ~800K, which would save them 1.6M this year due to the luxury tax for dealing with the extra bodies. I know we would be taking on more money than we should be for the Simon's, but in reality they will still be ahead. We will gain the roster and cap flexibility and get rid of Tinsley for an expiring.
                                "Your course, your path, is not going to be like mine," West says. "Everybody is not called to be a multimillionaire. Everybody's not called to be the president. Whatever your best work is, you do it. Do it well. … You cease your own greatness when you aspire to be someone else."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X