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

Why is Kirk Hinrich not getting more mention as a Pacers target?

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

  • PacersPride
    replied
    Re: Why is Kirk Hinrich not getting more mention as a Pacers target?

    Originally posted by Anthem View Post
    The thing is, we're almost certainly not going to trade more than one of our expiring contracts. If we move Ford, we probably keep Murph and vice versa.

    If we moved Murphy for Hinrich, though, we could negotiate a buy-out with Ford. I don't know how many games they'd win (probably not a ton), but I'd happily watch this team all year:

    Hibbert / Foster / Solo
    McRoberts / Tyler / Rolle
    Granger / Dunleavy / D.Jones
    Rush / Paul
    Hinrich / Price / Stephenson

    I'm serious. I'd buy league pass again (which I didn't do last year and never regretted it). I'd drive to Indy for games again (this past season is the first in ages where I haven't seen a live Pacer game).

    Come on, Birdie. Make something happen.

    i hear ya, but this point may be moot anyways. i dont think a player can be traded again until 2 months into the season. some sort of stipulation i read somewhere but i cannot be absolutely certain that is accurate.

    it would open a sizable hole at the power forward position, IF Hansbrough is not healthy this upcoming season. McBob going from 12th man to starter is a considerable jump, but i did like the production McBob gave the team when the opportunity presented itself.

    if the wizards were to take ford/2nd rounder for hinrich i could see us making a move with murphy. i think his value is overrated by pacers front office, but underrated by the league. he is a good player he just makes more than he is worth, probably twice what he is worth, but for a competing franchise i could see alot of interest. even if it were to a team under the cap or in exchange for another expiring and DRAFT PICKS.

    hinrich for murphy i would not rule out.. but im teetering on the fence with that one, primarily b/c i think we could keep murph and gain additional assets. unless the wizards think they can move arenas sometime in the next 2 seasons... which i highly doubt, hinrich is not going to get alot of playing time, and the wizards are not even close to competing.. seems like cap space in additon to a pg who could backup wall would be of some interest to them.

    if a trade is possible at all per the nba policy of trading players and no time constraints on a player already traded, then i would offer ford from the start and negotiate further from there.

    dont get me wrong here, im all for trading murph, but trying to think of the best possible scenarios for the pacers to maximize return. its likely murphy is the only asset we have that could acquire hinrich, but ford should be offered first.

    i cannot think of any better options at this time for the pg position than hinrich. perhaps with a new gm in NO's a trade of collison is revived, but im no so sure this isnt a better deal in the long run anyways. we wouldnt have to take on a bad contract like okafor, simply give up an expiring, and continue to address/solidify the pg position for several seasons with the selection of pg in a draft class next offseason loaded with talent.

    from there PF could be our next priority, and there are more available options in FA next season with PF than PG... such as Landry.

    i like the hinrich idea considerably, but would prefer ford be sent out rather than murph. at a minimum murph should net us some draft picks in return.

    Leave a comment:


  • NapTonius Monk
    replied
    Re: Why is Kirk Hinrich not getting more mention as a Pacers target?

    Originally posted by Putnam View Post
    No NBA player is worth $30 million "just because of the butts he puts in the seats."

    Let's do the math! Figure 41 games times 17,000 seats times an average of $40 per ticket. It works out to $27.9 million gross ticket sales -- if you assume 41 sell-outs.

    The NBA may well be a plaything for billionaires, but not even a billionaire will pay a single employee 107% of total sales.
    Michael Jordan signed a one year deal with the Bulls for that once. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...2/ai_19783684/

    Leave a comment:


  • danman
    replied
    Re: Why is Kirk Hinrich not getting more mention as a Pacers target?

    Originally posted by Gamble1 View Post
    Ya if you assume that seats are the main source of revenue. Come one Putnam. You know better than this.

    I am not saying any player is worth that much but look at the Cavs. See how much their net worth grew with Lebron.
    "Former NBA Executives" in one story suggested the value of the Cavaliers would drop by $250 million because LeBron left. His jersey sales alone.... Not to mention the TV contract. Anyone care to guess the increase in price on the Heat's TV contract? The rate increases on the luxury suites?

    Maybe he was joking. Lebron would easily pull in $50 mil per year if no cap existed.

    The team’s (Cavs) value before his arrival was $258 million, according to Forbes.

    In the seven seasons James has been with the team, the Cavs’ annual revenue -- which includes money ranging from ticket, luxury box and jersey sales to sponsorships -- has risen to almost $160 million from about $72 million.

    Cleveland has had two straight 60-win seasons and finished second in the NBA in attendance with an average of 20,562 fans a game last season. It’s fifth in the league with a value of $476 million.


    Average value for an NBA franchise is 367M. On what basis would anyone suppose that the Cavaliers aren't sinking like a stone towards that mark?
    Last edited by danman; 07-16-2010, 08:36 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gamble1
    replied
    Re: Why is Kirk Hinrich not getting more mention as a Pacers target?

    Originally posted by Putnam View Post
    No NBA player is worth $30 million "just because of the butts he puts in the seats."

    Let's do the math! Figure 41 games times 17,000 seats times an average of $40 per ticket. It works out to $27.9 million gross ticket sales -- if you assume 41 sell-outs.

    The NBA may well be a plaything for billionaires, but not even a billionaire will pay a single employee 107% of total sales.
    Ya if you assume that seats are the main source of revenue. Come one Putnam. You know better than this.

    I am not saying any player is worth that much but look at the Cavs. See how much their net worth grew with Lebron.

    Leave a comment:


  • Anthem
    replied
    Re: Why is Kirk Hinrich not getting more mention as a Pacers target?

    Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
    if hinrich is even available, the question for me is who do we send them. i dont want to trade murph cause i think his value will increase at the trade deadline. im okay with sending Dunleavy, but would rather keep him for the same reason, would like to see how he bounces back, if not well we let him walk. Foster, i would deal foster and solo, but not gonna lie, would hate to see Foster go.

    so if Washington wants a pg for one season to backup wall, and the contract expires next year, they can have ford.

    otherwise, not ready to trade murphy.
    The thing is, we're almost certainly not going to trade more than one of our expiring contracts. If we move Ford, we probably keep Murph and vice versa.

    If we moved Murphy for Hinrich, though, we could negotiate a buy-out with Ford. I don't know how many games they'd win (probably not a ton), but I'd happily watch this team all year:

    Hibbert / Foster / Solo
    McRoberts / Tyler / Rolle
    Granger / Dunleavy / D.Jones
    Rush / Paul
    Hinrich / Price / Stephenson

    I'm serious. I'd buy league pass again (which I didn't do last year and never regretted it). I'd drive to Indy for games again (this past season is the first in ages where I haven't seen a live Pacer game).

    Come on, Birdie. Make something happen.

    Leave a comment:


  • beast23
    replied
    Re: Why is Kirk Hinrich not getting more mention as a Pacers target?

    Originally posted by Putnam View Post
    No NBA player is worth $30 million "just because of the butts he puts in the seats."

    Let's do the math! Figure 41 games times 17,000 seats times an average of $40 per ticket. It works out to $27.9 million gross ticket sales -- if you assume 41 sell-outs.

    The NBA may well be a plaything for billionaires, but not even a billionaire will pay a single employee 107% of total sales.
    For sure.

    And, I'd add another note for a clarification of a prior post. Most owners would not pay a player the max because the player "is worth it". They offer a ridiculous salary to a free agent or their own player because that is what they think will be required to obtain them or to retain them. They worry that if they are not willing to offer high enough, someone else will.

    Despite whatever is agreed upon in the new CBA, that is the one thing that will always play into the hands of the players. Owners rarely pay just enough to get a player, they pay enough to make certain that they get the player. Without some form of hard cap, I suspect that is the way it will always be.

    Leave a comment:


  • TooBigNdaPaint
    replied
    Re: Why is Kirk Hinrich not getting more mention as a Pacers target?

    Originally posted by Putnam View Post
    No NBA player is worth $30 million "just because of the butts he puts in the seats."

    Let's do the math! Figure 41 games times 17,000 seats times an average of $40 per ticket. It works out to $27.9 million gross ticket sales -- if you assume 41 sell-outs.

    The NBA may well be a plaything for billionaires, but not even a billionaire will pay a single employee 107% of total sales.
    We, the fans, need to boycott this insanity. Ain't nobody worth what they're getting paid today.....Lebron, Kobe, Paul, none of them. It's one big cash cow that at one time made owners some money but the players association made sure they got 57% of all income. If the marketeers just paid LESS money for their stupid commericals, the payroll would go down to legit levels. This insanity cannot go on much longer. I've already stopped going to NBA games because I refuse to be 'gouged' at every point in the process.......game tickets, drinks, food, jerseys, etc. etc. It's very hard to identify with millionaires when the average fan is NOT a millionaire. The average NBA player would play this game at European or D-League salaries or less. But, the media hype machine and player agents and stupid marketeers have screwed us.......the fan......royally.

    Leave a comment:


  • Putnam
    replied
    Re: Why is Kirk Hinrich not getting more mention as a Pacers target?

    Originally posted by danman
    If there were no cap, LeBron would earn 30M a year-- hell make it 50M or more-- or more just because of the butts he puts in the seats.



    No NBA player is worth $30 million "just because of the butts he puts in the seats."

    Let's do the math! Figure 41 games times 17,000 seats times an average of $40 per ticket. It works out to $27.9 million gross ticket sales -- if you assume 41 sell-outs.

    The NBA may well be a plaything for billionaires, but not even a billionaire will pay a single employee 107% of total sales.

    Leave a comment:


  • vnzla81
    replied
    Re: Why is Kirk Hinrich not getting more mention as a Pacers target?

    Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
    I know for sure that Derron Williams is on my short list. Will he cost an arm and a leg to acquire? Yes. If George develops into a good SF I'd be thrilled to trade Granger for him.

    There are several young PGs that I'd like to watch for another season before comitting to which on I think would be the best choice... some of the names that were tossed around before the draft for the #10 pick. I'm not opposed to eventually pursuing Lawson, Maynor, Teague or Collison, but I have no idea which of them I'd move to the top of my list yet. My hunch is Lawson, because I know Bird has liked him for a while. I don't think Bird's a bad judge of talent when it comes to the draft.

    I wouldn't object to Tony Parker if we knew he would re-sign.

    Devin Harris is on the list, but I wouldn't give up Granger for him, even if Geroge develops into a good SF. That's more than Harris is worth.

    I'd take a chance on Rubio if we could get his rights for a reasonable trade.

    I'd much rather have patience and eventually get a top-5 PG than rush into a 10-20 PG. We already have Ford.
    so you are telling us that Hinrich is not good enough but you want us to dream about getting D Will and T Parker(will never happen) and if that does not work out we should go after second year players and a guy that has never play a game in the NBA?

    Leave a comment:


  • PacersPride
    replied
    Re: Why is Kirk Hinrich not getting more mention as a Pacers target?

    Originally posted by danman View Post
    Nothing directed at you in particular, but I've heard this refrain from a lot of fans and it drives me nuts.

    LeBron, Kobe, and Wade are probably the 3 best players in the league, yes. They're even "a level above" anyone else.

    But to claim that no one else can be paid the max because they aren't as good ignores a fundamental truth -- a cap by nature levels the top of the pay scale. If there were no cap, LeBron would earn 30M a year or more just because of the butts he puts in the seats.

    Or put another way, a cap ensures that far more than 3 players will earn the max. Could be 10, could be 15, whatever. A lot of players will be very close to the max.

    Just because Derrick Rose or someone young and terrific gets a max deal, doesn't mean the GM thinks he's as good as LeBron. It means that in the artificial economy of the NBA, he's worth the max.
    i would add rose to the list b/c he has that type of potential. along with Paul, Williams, and other players at that type of level.

    i understand what your saying but my post is being misinterpreted here. i think there are tier 1 players like LeBron, Kobe, Rose.. or who have the potential to be tier 1 players.

    tier 2 players such as gasol, amare stoudemire, bosh, pierce, and maybe you even place Granger in that group.

    unless the player can carry a team on his back all the way, i dont think he is a max player. Hoford is a tier two type of player.

    the pacers have already been down this road and i dont wanna see the same mistake made again with what happened with JO. thats what hurts a team significantly b/c the player becomes untradeable.

    i would be all for signing hoford, even if it takes the max to do it, but from the pacers perspective im not sure its a good move. it sets a precedent, and next Granger is going to want his deal redone.

    i cant speak for the other nba teams, but for the pacers they have to be very wise with their financial investements.
    Last edited by PacersPride; 07-16-2010, 06:30 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Peck
    replied
    Re: Why is Kirk Hinrich not getting more mention as a Pacers target?

    Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
    I know for sure that Derron Williams is on my short list. Will he cost an arm and a leg to acquire? Yes. If George develops into a good SF I'd be thrilled to trade Granger for him.

    There are several young PGs that I'd like to watch for another season before comitting to which on I think would be the best choice... some of the names that were tossed around before the draft for the #10 pick. I'm not opposed to eventually pursuing Lawson, Maynor, Teague or Collison, but I have no idea which of them I'd move to the top of my list yet. My hunch is Lawson, because I know Bird has liked him for a while. I don't think Bird's a bad judge of talent when it comes to the draft.

    I wouldn't object to Tony Parker if we knew he would re-sign.

    Devin Harris is on the list, but I wouldn't give up Granger for him, even if Geroge develops into a good SF. That's more than Harris is worth.

    I'd take a chance on Rubio if we could get his rights for a reasonable trade.

    I'd much rather have patience and eventually get a top-5 PG than rush into a 10-20 PG. We already have Ford.
    While your dreaming why don't you conjure up Shaq from the dead in his prime as well.

    Leave a comment:


  • danman
    replied
    Re: Why is Kirk Hinrich not getting more mention as a Pacers target?

    Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
    against giving max contracts, one its gonna upset granger if you give hoford a max. TP is not worth the max either. Hoford is close but not a max. only the LeBron's, Kobe's, and Wade's are max players IMO.
    Nothing directed at you in particular, but I've heard this refrain from a lot of fans and it drives me nuts.

    LeBron, Kobe, and Wade are probably the 3 best players in the league, yes. They're even "a level above" anyone else.

    But to claim that no one else can be paid the max because they aren't as good ignores a fundamental truth -- a cap by nature levels the top of the pay scale. If there were no cap, LeBron would earn 30M a year-- hell make it 50M or more-- or more just because of the butts he puts in the seats.

    Or put another way, a cap ensures that far more than 3 players will earn the max. Could be 10, could be 15, whatever. A lot of players will be very close to the max.

    Just because Derrick Rose or someone young and terrific gets a max deal, doesn't mean the GM thinks he's as good as LeBron. It means that in the artificial economy of the NBA, he's worth the max.
    Last edited by danman; 07-16-2010, 06:25 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • PacersPride
    replied
    Re: Why is Kirk Hinrich not getting more mention as a Pacers target?

    Originally posted by Anthem View Post
    He'll be the best PF on the market next year, with Tony Parker as the best PG. We're talking about giving out two max contracts, right? Who would we be giving them to?
    against giving max contracts, one its gonna upset granger if you give hoford a max. TP is not worth the max either. Hoford is close but not a max. only the LeBron's, Kobe's, and Wade's are max players IMO.

    Leave a comment:


  • PacersPride
    replied
    Re: Why is Kirk Hinrich not getting more mention as a Pacers target?

    Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
    I think he has many of those as well. I'm worried about his lack of footspeed. I don't think he's as good at the court vision/ running a team/ finding the open man things as a player like Mark Jackson, and I think he's slower than Jackson.

    He's the ideal backup PG, IMO. I'd love him as a combo guard for the MLE. I'm not opposed to adding him to the Pacers. But we would be "settling" for a PG, IMO (just as we "settled" with Ford). In a season or less, we'd be wishing we could still upgrade at that position.

    I'm not anti-Hinrich. I'm anti-Hinrich-is-the-solution-we're-looking-for-so-pay-him-the-big-bucks.
    your correct, i would still want the position upgraded, but its gonna happen via the draft not free agency and not likely trade, so if hinrich is there its an upgrade at pg now, and allows a rookie a season or two to develop, all the while hinrich then becomes a very servaciable backup pg/combo guard.
    Last edited by PacersPride; 07-16-2010, 06:11 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • PacersPride
    replied
    Re: Why is Kirk Hinrich not getting more mention as a Pacers target?

    if the wizards called us up and said they'd trade us hinrich for ford, anyone who turned that down on this forum would be a fool. Bird said himself he wants 30 mill in cap room, we would still have right around that.

    if hinrich is even available, the question for me is who do we send them. i dont want to trade murph cause i think his value will increase at the trade deadline. im okay with sending Dunleavy, but would rather keep him for the same reason, would like to see how he bounces back, if not well we let him walk. Foster, i would deal foster and solo, but not gonna lie, would hate to see Foster go.

    so if Washington wants a pg for one season to backup wall, and the contract expires next year, they can have ford.

    otherwise, not ready to trade murphy. hinrich is a really good pg and i think would be a perfect fit for this team by providing leadership.

    you draft a pg next year as well and let that rookie develop for a few seasons, and in 2-3 years hinrich is an excellent backup, and he can also play the combo guard role.

    the question i have is, who would we need to send to the wizards in order to attain hinrich, if its Ford its a no-brainer. also, you would think hinrich would be a little peeved about the fact his playing time is going to be signicantly less than what it was in chicago. Wall and Arenas are both gonna get 35 minutes a game.

    it kinda makes sense for the wizards to move hinrich, but they can probably get a better deal than ford, unless expirings interest them.

    * if im not mistaken there is a clause on players who were traded, in that they cannot be traded again i believe until 2 months into the season. maybe someone else knows if that is accurate or not, but if it is, theres not gonna be a deal anytime soon.
    Last edited by PacersPride; 07-16-2010, 06:11 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X