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

Lockout News and Discussions thread

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Lockout news

    Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post

    If I remember correctly, he came to the Pacers no because he had the best chance to compete for a championship but because they offered him more money.

    Not to mention that Denver wasn't interested in re-signing him.

    Comment


    • Re: Lockout news

      Originally posted by Speed View Post

      How could you even structure a set of deals/contracts to ONLY be over the luxury tax threshold 2 of every 5 rolling years? Deals for high priced players run at least 3 years under the new deal.

      Wouldn't teams just heavily front load contracts for the 1st 2 years?

      Comment


      • Re: Lockout news

        Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
        And I think it's safe to say that neither of us are genetic determinists. Believing that genes play an important part in personality and psychology does not a determinist make.
        Then I think we are back to agreeing. You and righteous have made your arguments and educated me on a topic and I appreciate that. It just didn't change my final conclusion. Someone said that genetics has as much to do with a regular joe becoming a millionaire as it does with an NBA player becoming a millionaire and I disagreed. If my genetics makes me 6'10", then I have a pretty good chance to become a valuable basketball player and therefore possibly an NBA player. If genetics makes me a charismatic individual, then I am going to be just like half of the people in any room I walk into. Someone said that genetics caused Steve Jobs to be a millionaire and I disagreed. I don't think I ever disagreed with with genetics having an effect on personality and psychology. But apparently because of this my understanding of genetics is "elementary" and I cannot possibly fathom the complexities of it all.

        And to righteous' point about me finding a "wording" issue. I repeated what they said and pointed out that, though certainly interesting and relevant to the conversation, it didn't support the claims outlined above. You guys may take it another way, but it was not enough make me believe what was stated on this forum.

        This conversation is continuing to hijack this thread, so I'll stop now. Sorry everyone.

        Comment


        • Re: Lockout news

          Originally posted by able View Post
          as far as BRI goes: there is something as an escrow build in which can bring down salary cost considerably already (% of players salary is held in escrow and will only be paid(or in part) if total player salary does not exceed 57% of BRI)
          2011 was the 1st time in many years all of the escrow money was paid out, and still some left for the owners.

          Pacergod, dreamworld, "The Boston Celtics and Comcast SportsNet New England extended their TV rights deal for the next 20 years. The new agreement gives the Celtics an equity stake in the network up to 20% and a significant increase in rights fees. The Celtics currently receive $15-20 million annually for its TV rights."

          That 20% stakes replaces what they would have been paid in hard cash, which you want to split.
          And it brings down the turnover so losses are more likely.
          And the Knicks are owned by the same person as their MSG Network, which is a lot of why they are valued so highly. Just because the teams have a stake in the company doesn't mean that part of their compensation doesn't occur every year. Being a stakeholder, they would share their portion of income with the other shareholders and this amount could be included into BRI. It would be difficult to police the expenses paid out by the company for other things, but I am sure the accounting breakdown is not that difficult to decipher.

          There doesn't need to be hard cash to solidify this arrangement for revenue sharing. The team would have to make the contribution to the NBA pool, and then list it as a long-term receivable from the company as part of their ownership stake. They have to claim their earnings as income for tax purposes at some point over the duration of the agreement.
          "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


          • Re: Lockout news

            Originally posted by MnvrChvy View Post
            Then I think we are back to agreeing. You and righteous have made your arguments and educated me on a topic and I appreciate that. It just didn't change my final conclusion. Someone said that genetics has as much to do with a regular joe becoming a millionaire as it does with an NBA player becoming a millionaire and I disagreed. If my genetics makes me 6'10", then I have a pretty good chance to become a valuable basketball player and therefore possibly an NBA player. If genetics makes me a charismatic individual, then I am going to be just like half of the people in any room I walk into. Someone said that genetics caused Steve Jobs to be a millionaire and I disagreed. I don't think I ever disagreed with with genetics having an effect on personality and psychology. But apparently because of this my understanding of genetics is "elementary" and I cannot possibly fathom the complexities of it all.

            And to righteous' point about me finding a "wording" issue. I repeated what they said and pointed out that, though certainly interesting and relevant to the conversation, it didn't support the claims outlined above. You guys may take it another way, but it was not enough make me believe what was stated on this forum.

            This conversation is continuing to hijack this thread, so I'll stop now. Sorry everyone.
            I didn't mean it in a rude way, it's a new part of genetics that isn't even being taught in most genetics classes.

            regardless, I'm with you. As a genetics nerd I'd love to argue about it all day, but I'm sure I'm the only one so I'll leave this argument where it is and stop hijacking this thread.

            Comment


            • Re: Lockout news

              Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
              I was just making the point that due to inflation the raw costs to run an NBA franchise, buying food, drink, etc., employing vendors has gone up a decent chunk since 1998. At the same time those costs have been rising, it appears, at least the way the owners portray it, that profits have only been maintaining or maybe even decreasing.
              I absolutely agreed with you. My first sentence was a bit of a contrarian acceptance of what you were saying. I was saying that costs were definitely going up, and to structure your business where you've made salaries a fixed cost, squeezes the margins you would have between a variable cost structure and a fixed cost structure.

              For example:

              Let's say your revenue stream goes up by $100 in year two based on revenues in year one of $1,000. With 57% of your costs for players salary, you were paying 570 for players salaries in year 1, while in year two you will be paying $627. So in this scenario, year one would allow you 430 for expenses. In year two, your expense allowance would go up to $473. When your expenses come in at 350 in year one, it gives you an $80 margin. In year two, say your expenses go up by 20% instead of the 10% revenue stream change. This would mean costs would be 420, leaving you with a $53 margin. The NBA's gross margin from year one would be 8%, whereas in year two it becomes roughly 4%.

              This example shows that a change to a smaller portion of the revenue stream effects the bottom line just as much as the larger portion of the revenue stream. The inflationary rate applied to expenses does not change players' salaries. They remain a constant to the revenue stream, which amplifies all changes to the other 43% of the business. To have a constant rate tied to salaries adversely effects the ability of teams to cover their expenses, especially the poorest teams. The poorest teams cannot overcome significant increases to their cost structure, which is directly tied to their lack of local TV revenue streams. I don't know if that makes a lick of sense to anyone, because it may not be that fluent of an argument, but long story short, this business model sucks, but might be the only way to negotiate with this strong of a union.

              The NBA can't sustain the cost structure they have with so many fixed costs for their business. Many of these holding companies that own franchises have less control over the variable costs of running a franchise, when the power company increases their rates by 15% and the county/city increases the rate for water usage by 5%, PS&E gets exponentially squeezed when they have no control over other areas of the business. Typically when these type of expenses occur, it effects the entire poulation of their marketable base and sales decrease, too because they are incurring more costs as well. Salaries is the largest expense, obviously and is the one area for reprieve over the adverse cost conditions we have seen in this country recently. There needs to be a safety net developed intrinsically in the system that allows for struggling franchises to maintain their solvency. Giving players a flat rate for salaries while having inflated costs really hurts solvency without having revenue sharing mirroring or directly off-setting potential losses to the entire system due to inflationary pressure. Typically TV contracts are a revenue stream that is directly related to the economy.

              Sorry if this is long-winded, but it just is a bad business model overall, IMO. I am leaning towards the owners' side because that is where the necessary change needs to come from, but I don't know that Stern is pushing the solvency platform enough and thus, competitive business balance between franchises as a secondary prioritization is hurt as well.
              "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


              • Re: Lockout news

                Originally posted by Speed View Post
                How could you even structure a set of deals/contracts to ONLY be over the luxury tax threshold 2 of every 5 rolling years? Deals for high priced players run at least 3 years under the new deal.
                I think he's trying to introduce a new mindset.

                You can sign someone that takes you over the luxury cap but you need to consider the rest of your roster when you do it. Do you have other contracts that expire in under two years? If so, you may have to let those players walk in order to meet the 2 of 5 years rule.

                And if you let those players walk, you will be penalized if you immediately sign another free agent that takes you right back over the luxury tax.

                And remember 2 of 5 is the proposal. I'm sure they expect to negotiate it to 3 of 5 or something else more beneficial to the players.

                Comment


                • Re: Lockout news

                  Here is a nice article by CBS sports

                  http://www.cbssports.com/nba/story/1...serve-suppport




                  *
                  *
                  The first two weeks of the NBA season are gone, and it's starting to look like all those doomsday scenarios from months ago were accurate after all, and for this I'm supposed to be angry at NBA commissioner David Stern. I'm supposed to be angry at the NBA owners. Which is fine. I am angry at Stern. I am angry at his owners. The cancellation of regular-season games should never have been a real option, so yes, I'm really angry at Stern and his rich cronies.

                  But that anger toward Stern and the owners only goes so far. It forms my opinion on this whole thing only so much. Where does it not go? What does it not form?

                  Support for the players.

                  It doesn't do that. Not for me. And that puts me in the minority among the media, from what I can tell. I don't pay attention to everybody in the NBA media -- who has the time? -- but the ones I respect the most, Ken Berger of CBSSports.com and Adrian Wojnarowski of Yahoo, say the same thing that other media members seem to be saying:

                  This is Stern's fault. This is the owner's fault. The players are being treated unfairly.

                  I can go along with the first sentence. And the second. But the third, about the players being treated unfairly? I can't go along with that sentence.

                  More on NBA lockout
                  Analysis
                  Ken Berger
                  David Stern's 'no games on Christmas Day' proclamation is simply another negotiating ploy by the owners. Read More >>
                  Mike Freeman
                  The NBA is no NFL. If the league continues with this course, fans will leave and they might not come back. Read More >>
                  Related links
                  Union's Hunter says deal could get done in 'hours'
                  Berger: NBA labor talks going to federal mediator
                  Eye on Basketball: Latest lockout news
                  Video
                  Brando: CBS News legal analyst Jack Ford
                  Brando: When will the NBA lockout end?
                  Not after going through the NFL lockout.

                  I know, I know. Apples and oranges. Comparing one sport to the other is unfair, inaccurate. I get it. I understand. But here's the thing about that NFL lockout, and what I learned from it:

                  With a handful of obvious exceptions, mainly the franchise quarterbacks who have become filthy rich, NFL players have been mistreated over the years. They've had to sign contracts not worth the paper they're printed on in the event that a professional athlete in the most violent team sport in the world has the nerve to get injured. When an NFL player gets hurt badly enough, his contract is terminated. His insurance goes away. Unless he has played long enough to build up the nest egg needed to cover his bills for the next 50 years -- living bills, medical bills, all bills -- he's screwed. The only bright side? Most former NFL players don't retire and then live 50 more years! So take that, owners!

                  Anyway, that was my takeaway from the NFL lockout: The players must win this thing, because lots of them have been, or will be, physically ruined before their career is over. And we're sitting there, at the stadium or in a sports bar or on our couch, and we're watching it happen. Terrible. Please win, NFL players. That was my thought during the NFL lockout: Please win, players.

                  It's not my thought during the NBA lockout, and again, I say that without a shred of sympathy for an abominable man like Donald Sterling, owner of the Clippers. My heart doesn't go out to the technology geniuses who own teams in Portland and Dallas and are rich beyond comprehension. Even if Stern and the NBA owners are telling the truth, and their teams combined to lose hundreds of millions last season alone, my heart doesn't break for those poor little rich kids. This isn't some 99-percenter rant, because I'm not in that camp, either. But anyone rich enough to buy an NBA team isn't going to get my sympathy for just about any reason that relates to business.

                  But NBA players ... how can I root for them to "win" this labor war? The average NBA salary is in the neighborhood of $5.1 million, which means it's equal to the average salary in the NFL and Major League Baseball combined. True, fewer roster spots in the NBA than those two leagues. So what? Overpaid is overpaid.

                  And in the NBA, unlike the NFL, that money is guaranteed.

                  I'm not advocating for the NFL system of disposable injured players. But how about making these guys earn their pay? Rashard Lewis gets every penny of his $118 million contract -- well, every penny except the ones he sacrificed when he was suspended for using performance-enhancing drugs -- whether he sucks or not. Antawn Jamison's game is fading like a basketball left in the sun, but he'll keep getting his $15 million per year. Gilbert Arenas earned $19 million last season to average 10.7 ppg, and if this were the NFL he would be cut so he couldn't steal $19 million from Orlando next season. But it's not, it's the NBA, so Arenas will get that money even if he's released by Orlando and not picked up by anyone else because, frankly, he's a pain in the *** and not worth it.

                  And don't let me get away with cherry-picking the most absurd contracts in the NBA and leaving it at that, as if that proves my point. It doesn't prove it, just underscores the (too) wonderful position that NBA players have enjoyed over the years. Other than a handful of stars -- LeBron, Kobe, Dwight Howard, D-Wade, Derrick Rose, Kevin Durant, maybe Nowitzki, maybe Chris Paul, maybe Blake Griffin -- everyone in the NBA is overpaid. All of them.

                  The guys mentioned earlier, from LeBron to Rose to Griffin, earn their money by virtue of their talent, their production, their personality, their popularity, their sheer magnetism. They bring fans to the building, to the TV sets, to the merchandise stores. Fans go to Boston games to watch the Celtics, not Paul Pierce. Fans in other cities go to see Rose, to see LeBron (and Wade), to see Dwight Howard. Everyone else on those teams is superfluous, which means everyone else is overpaid.

                  And maybe it's true what Wade hinted at earlier in the lockout, that the very best players in the NBA are underpaid. I can listen to that argument.

                  What I can't hear is that everyone else on an NBA roster, interchangeable parts like Luke Walton (scheduled to earn $6.1 million this season), Mike Miller ($6.2 million), Richard Jefferson ($10.1 million) and Luol Deng ($13.3 million), are worth whatever they've been making. They aren't.

                  Over the years, players have had enough. They've had more than enough.

                  And so, finally, have I.
                  @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                  Comment


                  • Re: Lockout news

                    Originally posted by owl View Post
                    Is there a point where the two sides can separate from each other and start new. Would it take another league starting? If the players start another league does that free up the current NBA to set its own rules? I hear players talking about no season even next year.
                    2 things -

                    1 ) If there is no NBA for 2 seasons...this would kill the interest of the casual fan and relegate the NBA to the same level of popularity / interest as NHL hockey is to Non-European and Canadian Sports fans.

                    2 ) If a Player League resembles in ANY WAY the games that we have seen in any of these games where these Superstars get together to play where both teams play ZERO defense while each scoring 130+ points, count me out....I have no interest in watching that type of basketball.
                    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Lockout news

                      A lot of interesting stuff in here. so maybe Garnett is to blame and Pierce


                      http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/70...sked-questions

                      Lockout FAQ: Is season in jeopardy?

                      Breaking down frequently asked questions heading into crucial period of labor talks







                      Q: How real is David Stern's suggestion that the entire 2011-12 season is in jeopardy if significant progress isn't made in next week's session?


                      It's not the first time this fall that Stern has tried to sell the notion that the owners and players are already in real danger of letting the entire schedule slip away. Yet it's safe to say that persuasive as Stern was Thursday with a lot of his case-making on a multistop media tour, folks are tuning out the rhetoric when Stern launches into his 82-game doomsday routine.

                      Halloween is still a couple weeks away. Memories of the 1998-99 season are still fresh. Only a handful of players who went through the NBA's first true lockout are still active, but every union member by now has been schooled to know that a deal that winter didn't materialize until Jan. 6, 1999, with the regular season starting exactly one month later.

                      So no matter how many "I'm turning this car around right now!" threats Stern issues, union officials will always believe that the only true deadline in this saga doesn't arrive until the calendar flips to 2012. The union's only discernible strategy to this point, in fact, is the highly optimistic notion that NBA owners will start turning on each other if the players can just hang tough and #StandUnited through the rest of 2011.

                      The real worry there, of course, is the more believable threat of neither side harboring any intention to introduce its best offer to proceedings until around Jan. 1. Injecting urgency in these talks has been a constant problem since the lockout started July 1.

                      And that's where you can understand why Stern has been making these claims. Widely broadcasting an unfiltered message to try to influence the rank and file to put pressure on Hunter is part of it, but Stern is likewise clearly in no mood to play out the exact same script that unfolded in Lockout '98-99. This is a commish, remember, who absolutely revels in his rep for innovation. No surprise, then, that he quickly diverted from the lockout script of 13 years ago to announce that to "have a season or not have a season" was at risk as early as Sept. 28.

                      As reassurance for those of you who, like us, will be reduced to unspeakable misery (and probably worse) if there isn't an NBA game until after the 2012 Olympics in London, be advised that strong rumblings continue to be conveyed to ESPN.com about the league preparing a secret schedule that starts Dec. 1 and still manages to pump out 82 games. The New York Post has likewise reported that NBA schedule-maker Matt Winick has quietly drafted a variety of contingency plans spanning anywhere from 50 to 74 games.

                      It's thus probably not an accident that Stern, upon telling WFAN Radio in New York on Thursday that "my gut is that we won't be playing on Christmas Day" without a major breakthrough at Tuesday's mediation session, threw in the following disclaimer: "This is not in my official capacity of canceling games."







                      Q: Can a federal mediator's involvement make a significant difference?


                      History says no.

                      The same George Cohen of the FMCS (Federation Mediation and Conciliation Services) who has been drafted in to resuscitate the NBA's labor talks -- known in his business as a legit "heavy hitter" -- was also summoned to work on the NHL's season-consuming labor dispute in 2005 and the NFL's lockout this past summer.

                      To say he had a modest impact on either of those impasses would be grossly overstating matters.

                      However ...

                      There's a chance, maybe even a decent chance, that Cohen can be a legit difference-maker when it comes to the NBA lockout. And here's why:

                      1. If both sides truly want to make a deal and show a willingness to compromise, then a neutral third party can facilitate movement.

                      2. Although he'll have no binding authority when he joins the negotiations, sources say Cohen has a solid working history with the union, which translates to a trust factor with union chief Hunter. Cohen was also appointed to his post by a certain hoops-loving president named Barack Obama, who has already let the country know that he's "a little heartbroken" by the NBA lockout and eager to see a resolution.

                      One scenario, as laid out to me this week, is that Stern quite conceivably consented so quickly to allow a third party into the negotiations -- despite the fact that third party has no legal authority to impose his will -- because Cohen could operate as a potential face-saver for Hunter.

                      The union, as you've undoubtedly heard all summer, is struggling to manufacture any semblance of leverage in this fight and is widely perceived to be losing leverage with each passing day. Yet if Cohen advises the parties next week that an agreement should be made now based on many of the elements that the NBA has proposed over the past two weeks, Hunter can go to the players and present Cohen's recommendations as the justification for accepting a deal closer to the league's terms, based on the premise that an impartial and trusted observer has made those suggestions.

                      If that's indeed how things play out, Cohen's introduction potentially sets the union up for an honorable surrender after all its hard-line talk ... if the union is ready to capitalize on this "out." Such advice from the mediator theoretically deflects responsibility from Hunter and would presumably be accepted by a number of players because A) it's believed that dozens of rank-and-filers recognize the union's lack of leverage and would rather get back to work as soon as possible rather than try to fight on without leverage, and B) it's a strategy presented by a respected, Obama-sanctioned voice.

                      Perhaps all that's expecting way too much impact from someone, even with Cohen's reputation, whose only hint of jurisdiction as a mediator is the license to try to persuade the parties he's meeting with. If both sides have drawn lines in the sand and prove to be intransigent, Cohen's present won't achieve anything. Yet you'll note that it was Stern -- not us -- who on Thursday labeled Cohen's involvement as "a really big deal."

                      At worst? Even if he doesn't make such pointed recommendations to the union -- or even if he surprises everyone and ends up focusing on Stern and telling the owners things they don't want to hear -- Cohen can keep prodding both sides should the first round of mediation go nowhere. That is a bigger deal than you might think. Sometimes the hardest step in negotiations is getting one of the two parties to pick up the phone and ring the other side. Cohen will be ready to dial next week and beyond.









                      Q: How strong is Billy Hunter's voice these days within his own union?


                      After hearing for ages how it couldn't muster anything close to the togetherness and might of baseball's union, this is a new day in many respects for the NBA Players Association. You could legitimately argue that pro basketball's union, with Hunter still at the controls after some 15 years, has never been this unified.

                      Hunter's supporters would thus tell you that he has done a pretty solid job this summer for a union chief with precious little leverage. Even while inspiring virtually no confidence among the game's most influential agents, many of whom have maintained since the start of the lockout that the NBPA should have decertified immediately as their NFL counterparts did, Hunter has largely kept some 400 players -- despite their varying pay grades -- reasonably close to the same page.

                      Hunter's critics, however, are growing in number and rising in volume after the union's abrupt departure from the negotiating table Oct. 4, shortly after Stern unexpectedly resuscitated an earlier union idea of a 50-50 split of Basketball Related Income based on the same calculations used in the league's previous labor agreement. Hunter left the distinct impression that day that famously intense Boston Celtics forward Kevin Garnett was suddenly in charge after participating in zero meetings to that point, thanks to a string of reports in the wake of the dissolved talks that union officials ended negotiations at the urging of Garnett's passionate/furious insistence that the NBPA accept nothing less than 53 percent of old BRI. The union hasn't backed off the 53 percent figure since.

                      That sequence of events spawned the follow-up perception that Hunter was determining policy based on the wishes of his most vocal and/or most decorated constituents as opposed to establishing the course of action as the union's lead voice. And that feeds right into the question that has been privately posed for months by various agents as well as a handful of players: Is Hunter willfully avoiding tough stands and simply sticking to his "stay strong" and "prepare for the worst" preaching mantras in hopes that the players themselves force a resolution while he retains a job that pays him a reported $2 million annually?

                      ESPN.com's Henry Abbott, quoting a source close to negotiations, reported earlier this week that Hunter "has his hands full" dealing with players like Garnett and Dwyane Wade who are taking a harder line than he has. During a wide-ranging round of TV and radio interviews Thursday, Stern only amplified those concerns by insisting that Hunter wasn't even in the room on Oct. 4 when Stern and deputy commissioner Adam Silver were summoned behind closed doors to hear that the NBPA had decided that it couldn't attempt to sell a 50-50 revenue split to its members and that, according to sources, there was nothing left to discuss.

                      Hunter returns to the spotlight Friday, when he hosts a regional players meeting in Los Angeles before meeting Monday with federal mediator Cohen in advance of Tuesday's bargaining session with the league that will be overseen by Cohen. Yet it was at one of those regional meetings earlier in the summer that sources say another Celtics player -- Paul Pierce -- loudly challenged Hunter to enlighten the assembled audience on the details of "our plan" to withstand the owners' push for a far more restrictive financial system that enhances competitive balance.

                      No one ever said Hunter's job was easy, given the heavy odds in the owners' favor of getting many of the changes they want, but a lot of players out there are still waiting to finally hear some specifics from that plan.


                      Last edited by Unclebuck; 10-14-2011, 02:26 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Lockout news

                        sam_amick Sam Amick
                        More McGee: "There's definitely some guys in there saying that they're ready to fold, but the majority are willing to stand strong."
                        53 seconds ago Favorite Retweet Reply


                        sam_amick Sam Amick
                        Wizards' JaVale McGee had another meeting 2 go 2. On way out out, says "Everybody knows we've got 2 get more people 2 come to the meetings."
                        3 minutes ago

                        latmedina Mark Medina
                        by HPbasketball
                        McGee said about 25-30 players attended
                        2 minutes ago
                        Mark Medina
                        latmedina Mark Medina
                        by HPbasketball
                        Meeting isn't over, but Wizards' JaVale McGee left for unspecified obligations. "Very disappointed" he said about low turnout


                        HPbasketball Hardwood Paroxysm
                        What the hell have they been talking about this long?
                        57 seconds ago

                        sam_amick Sam Amick
                        No improvement RT @TonyBiasotti @sam_amick baron wardrobe report?
                        1 minute ago
                        Sam Amick
                        sam_amick Sam Amick
                        Player name-dropping, off top of my head as we wait: Baron Davis, Danny Granger, Tyson Chandler, David Lee, Jeremy Tyler, Louis Amundson...
                        7 minutes ago
                        Sam Amick
                        sam_amick Sam Amick
                        Car show at the hotel guarantees players cars aren't nicest here. Sheer PR genius. That's my Rav4 rental in the back. img.ly/9pGk
                        1 hour ago
                        Sam Amick
                        sam_amick Sam Amick
                        One rank and file player, when asked about urgency to play: "We'll see today. I want to hear more for myself rather than media."
                        1 hour ago
                        Sam Amick
                        sam_amick Sam Amick
                        At Beverly Hilton for @TheNBPA meeting. Players rolling through. Jeremy Tyler said I look nice. #daycomplete
                        1 hour ago
                        Last edited by Sandman21; 10-14-2011, 06:01 PM.
                        "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

                        "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

                        Comment


                        • Re: Lockout news

                          Shane Battier has something here:
                          http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.c...medium=twitter

                          Shane Battier is very much the black sheep of the NBPA. He was one of the first to challenge Billy Hunter on the issue of his salary in the lockout, and has consistently played contrarian to the NBPA’s homogeneous stream of rhetoric. On Friday, he took it a step further. With every NBA player out there saying 53 percent and no lower is their battle cry on BRI (that was an unfortunate rhyme), Battier said he’d be willing to budge if the money didn’t go to the owners, but to the fans.



                          Methinks I would forgo a few points on the BRI, if we could guarantee that NBA games would be more affordable for fans, especially familiesFri Oct 14 17:03:09 via TweetlogixShane Battier
                          ShaneBattier

                          Battier said that he himself wouldn’t have been able to go see games with how expensive tickets (and beer, for his dad) are, crediting his father for the sacrifice (not the beer, presumably).

                          It’s brave for Battier, another example of him breaking ranks in the pursuit of reason. Battier’s not in-line with the rest of the groupthink, and speaks what’s on his mind. We could use a few more out-of-the-box thinkers like Battier in the negotiating room, and fewer dogmatic ramblers.
                          "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

                          "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

                          Comment


                          • Re: Lockout news

                            JaValeMcGee34 Pierre McGee
                            I never said anyone is ready to fold! Media always wanna turn it!
                            9 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply

                            And then we also have this:

                            Pierre McGee
                            JaValeMcGee34 Pierre McGee
                            Good thing about NBPA meetings is the layout of food! Scrumptious!-P
                            1 hour ago

                            "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

                            "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

                            Comment


                            • Re: Lockout news

                              Officially not sure what was more absurd: Monday's meeting complete with cameraman fight, random Greg Popovich sighting, media getting kicked out of the hotel and threatened with arrest or Javale McGee denying something he said in front of 20 guys with voice recorders.

                              @franblinebury Fran Blinebury
                              McGee tweets denial that he said "some players ready to fold." That's news to about a dozen reporters who have voice recordings.
                              46 minutes ago via Twitter for iPhone Favorite Retweet Reply
                              Retweeted by AschNBA

                              UNINTENTIONAL COMEDY IMMINENT:
                              johnschuhmann John Schuhmann
                              NBA TV will be showing the NBPA press conference live whenever that meeting breaks.
                              5 minutes ago
                              Last edited by Sandman21; 10-14-2011, 07:26 PM.
                              "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

                              "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

                              Comment


                              • Re: Lockout news

                                Here we go:

                                Fish: 30 players, very engaging meeting.

                                PG and DG right behind Fisher.

                                Same messages have come out : WE WANT TO PLAY

                                All our guys are with us.

                                From 57% to 53% in BRI = 1.1 Bill over 6 years

                                HPbasketball Hardwood Paroxysm
                                Danny Granger looks like he's praying.
                                1 minute ago Favorite Undo Retweet Reply

                                If Commish is truly ready to make a deal, then they are ready to make one.

                                Now PG looks like he's praying.

                                Billy Hunter:"If the NBA wants to point a gun at us, we'll point it right back...We'll all lose."

                                Fishers: Lives are at stake.
                                Last edited by Sandman21; 10-14-2011, 07:45 PM.
                                "Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

                                "And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X