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

Falk says Roy, Pacers have "had very friendly discussions," but don't expect a deal until summer

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

  • #31
    Re: Falk says Roy, Pacers have "had very friendly discussions," but don't expect a deal until summer

    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
    True. All that really matters is this: Look at our roster at the end of 07-08 and look at it now. That tells me all I need to know about Bird's strength as a GM.
    Bird should run for office, he doesn't even need the fourth year. He can turn it around with the "three year plan."

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Falk says Roy, Pacers have "had very friendly discussions," but don't expect a deal until summer

      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
      Well some of what I said is fact that cannot be disagreed with. You said that he let the contracts expire and didn't trade them when in fact he traded the biggest one (Murphy) for a player who is currently our starting PG.

      The first draft Bird was around for was 2004.

      2004: Drafted Harrison with the last pick in the first round. Yeah, Harrison didn't work out, but it was the last pick in the first round. Most of the players picked in the second round behind him are out of the NBA.

      2005: Granger. I don't need to say anything about how well this has worked out.

      2006: Shawne Williams. It was a clearly a bad pick that didn't work out for us and it would be nice if we chose Rondo instead. But lots of teams whiffed on Rondo and wish they could have that one back. This is comparable to Donnie Walsh picking George McLeod when Tim Hardaway, Kemp, Barros, and Blaylock were still on the board.

      2007: No pick

      2008: Drafted Rush and Hibbert. Hibbert's success speaks for itself. Rush was decent in his three year career though he ultimately didn't work out.

      2009: Hansbrough. He has been a decent bench player here. I understand that many would have rather had Lawson or Collison, but that doesn't make Hansbrough a "bad" pick. He has produced here.

      2010: Paul George. Obviously a fan favorite on this forum with tons of potential.

      2011: Traded the 15th pick in a weak draft for George Hill. Leonard looks like he will be decent, but we needed a proven player as we already have a bunch of young projects on the team. Plus George is still young himself. That move has worked out very well.


      I want to know where you are getting that he had "far more bad drafts than good ones". 2006 was bad, no question about it. 04 you can't say was bad because we had the last pick in the first round. 05 and 08 were huge successes. 2010 is viewed as a huge success on this forum as most here are big PG fans. Trading the pick in 2011 for Hill has worked out well. I get that someone wishes we had someone other than Hansbrough, but it's not like Hansbrough is a scrub who can't get on the court. He has contributed here.

      I see one draft (06) where everyone can say: "yeah, that was a bad draft pick." But I see several where you can say "yeah, Bird made a good choice there"

      What players should he have drafted? What years aside from 06 were bad? I don't see how you can say he has had more bad drafts than good ones.
      That Al trade still urks me would of been nice to have the #11 pick in the 07 draft and Thad Young would be the guy off the bench right now that could be the piece we need. Also then we likely don't draft Tyler and we get Jrue Holiday those are my two main complaints. I really wanted Jrue Holiday and trading the 07 pick was just stupid Al wasnt the same player before the injury. I loved Rondo in college but I didn't think he would be a star a solid starter yes but he has really developed nicely from where he was at UK.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Falk says Roy, Pacers have "had very friendly discussions," but don't expect a deal until summer

        Originally posted by pacer4ever View Post
        That Al trade still urks me would of been nice to have the #11 pick in the 07 draft and Thad Young would be the guy off the bench right now that could be the piece we need. Also then we likely don't draft Tyler and we get Jrue Holiday those are my two main complaints. I really wanted Jrue Holiday and trading the 07 pick was just stupid Al wasnt the same player before the injury. I loved Rondo in college but I didn't think he would be a star a solid starter yes but he has really developed nicely from where he was at UK.
        I'm probably a little biased, but I put that Harrington trade on Walsh. Walsh drafted him and he loved him. Nobody in their right mind trades a good 1st round pick when you obviously need to re-build. There was no point in making that trade, which is why I believe that was 100% Walsh. I also don't think Larry Bird would draft Shawne Williams and James White in the same draft, but that's just me.

        Back to the post... Hibbert will be in a Pacers uniform next year. How much will he be making is what we should worry about. With the contracts Jordan, Nene, and Chandler got, Hibbert could get offered anywhere from $10-16 million depending on the team. That's just the way it is nowadays.

        Thank Larry we didn't sign Nene. No way in hell we'd have the 2nd seed in the East right now.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Falk says Roy, Pacers have "had very friendly discussions," but don't expect a deal until summer

          Originally posted by Hicks View Post
          It is 99.9999999999999999999% that Roy will be a Pacer for the next 4+ years. I can't believe anyone is worried about this. They're waiting because neither side knows how much Roy is worth yet because the season is still fresh and we know from the past that Roy can go hot/cold, and if that weren't enough we are slightly more flexible with roster moves if we wait, so an extension ain't (and was never) happening.
          Agreed. The Pacers are just now starting to hit their tough stretch. Why not let this season play out and see if Roy can sustain it.

          You also want to keep Roy motivated and focused on basketball. Players usually dig a little deeper when they know their earning potential is going to be impacted at the end of the season.

          At any rate, most teams are afraid to throw a big offer at a RFA of another team because they know that the other team can just match and then hold a grudge against them for it. Herb Simon won't offer deals to other team's RFAs and I'm sure he's not the only owner that thinks like that.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Falk says Roy, Pacers have "had very friendly discussions," but don't expect a deal until summer

            I think Larry's biggest blunder so far is taking Hansbrough over Dru Holiday. Especially when we needed a point guard!
            You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Falk says Roy, Pacers have "had very friendly discussions," but don't expect a deal until summer

              Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
              I think Larry's biggest blunder so far is taking Hansbrough over Dru Holiday. Especially when we needed a point guard!
              The Shawne Williams pick was clearly his biggest blunder. The Hansbrough pick was certainly a bad one but it was far from the worst decision in his tenure.
              "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

              -Lance Stephenson

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Falk says Roy, Pacers have "had very friendly discussions," but don't expect a deal until summer

                Originally posted by BRushWithDeath View Post
                The Shawne Williams pick was clearly his biggest blunder. The Hansbrough pick was certainly a bad one but it was far from the worst decision in his tenure.
                +1

                The Shawne-Williams-instead-of Rajon-Rondo-even-though-we-needed-a-new-PG-at-the-time pick, just to clarify.


                "He’s no shrinking violet when it comes to that kind of stuff."

                - Rick Carlisle on how Kevin Pritchard responds to needed roster changes.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Falk says Roy, Pacers have "had very friendly discussions," but don't expect a deal until summer

                  We'll retain Hibbert, i'm quite certain.

                  Roy himself loves it here, particularly he loves Vogel, and knows first hand what effect a bad coach/ one he isn't familiar with can have on him.

                  Also Roy's slide last year is still surely on managements mind, so the opportunity to save money if he falls off is surely a consideration, plus it appears that it is on the advice of his agent that he waits, so no ill feelings by Roy towards the franchise. I'd love to lock Roy up now, but waiting until RFA is the best thing, worst case we have to Pay him the max if someone throws it at him, which many of us are willing to do anyhow, and which management will surely be into if Roy continues to produce. Best case he doesn't get a max offer, we extend him for a better deal, since Roy himself apparently doesn't fancy himself a Max player anyhow.

                  Also flexibility has been mentioned, if our team makes a serious run it's possible that Simon would be willing to go into the tax to sign another key contributor with our capspace, and then go into/ slightly over to resign Roy to his deal as well, which we wouldn't have the option of if we spent the rest of our space on an extension to Roy before the deadline.

                  I wouldn't be worried, it's nearly unprecedented for an RFA of the caliber that Roy has been playing at to not be matched/ resigned, because currently Roy deserves a contract at least the size of Marc Gasol's. Roy will get another contract with the Pacers, Larry isn't an idiot, he can see the enormous positive effect Roy has both on and off the court.


                  As for the side conversation on Bird, yeah the Shawne Williams pick was certainly his biggest blunder given our desperate need for a point guard and Lowry, Rondo, Williams (Sean he busted but at the time we needed a pg and couldn't have known) being on the board. This team with Rondo or Lowry would likely be contenders, and both are better now and in the future than Holiday imo.

                  He's more than made up for it with his other picks in the late lotto, even discounting Granger due to the two headed monster-

                  Hibbert at 17 looks like he is developing into a perrenial all-star kind of guy at the hardest position to fill in the NBA.

                  Hansbrough- Other than the wealth of PG's (one of whom we acquired in a bird trade anyhow) I wouldn't really say that there were other players significantly more valuable.

                  Paul George at 10 looks like he will be one of the top 5 players from his draft class and has clear star potential.

                  As for the argument that he simply "let contracts expire". Well yes, and this took lots of discipline, many other GMS would merely shuffle bad contracts for other bad contracts and keep us in purgatory even longer. We've benefited from sticking it out with the crap we had instead of trading it for crap that was signed for longer. I'd say Larry has been quite excellent in drafting, as well as in the trades he's made as president of the team.

                  Murphy for DC was undeniably a gigantic win for us, Murphy is useless at this point, and DC is a starting level, still improving improving point guard.

                  The Jury is out on Leonard vs. Hill, but at this point its a win for us imo. Leonard wouldn't have got too much playing time behind Granger, West, Hans and PG. He'd be a nice backup SF, but Hill has been invaluable so far, and fits in agewise with the rest of our core anyhow. Leonard may be better in the future, but between granger for the forseeable future, and PG possibly taking over SF after that this just wasn't a good place for him.

                  The West signing was a steal.

                  I don't see how anyone can classify the job Larry has done rebuilding this team based on what he was presented with at the beginning as anything other than excellent. Few other presidents/ GM's can boast finding the talent he's found in the draft in the range he's drafted, consistently won trades and made solid signings without overpay. He gets an A from me for sure.

                  Guys were honking the tank horn, perhaps with merit during our purgatory years, but with Hibbert and George we obtained arguably top 5 pick talents without inculcating ourselves with a losing culture, which I think is paying huge dividends right now in our teams mindset, which is underrated or not considered oftentimes when people advocate tanking.
                  Last edited by daschysta; 01-24-2012, 03:00 PM.
                  Goodbye Captain, My Captain. I wish you had the chance to sink or swim with your ship on its quest for the "ship".

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Falk says Roy, Pacers have "had very friendly discussions," but don't expect a deal until summer

                    I don't think it's fair to Bird to judge him while Walsh was here. For one thing, Walsh was clearly the boss and above Bird on the totem pole. Unless Walsh was just paid to sit in his office and play solitaire and collect checks from PS&E then he has to share in the blame and credit during that time period. He had to sign off on Bird's picks if Bird was making picks in the draft.... and in all likelihood Bird would've had to consider picks he believed Donnie would sign off on. That makes it very hard for me to believe Bird could've had complete control and the freedom of mind to act 100% on his own preferences. At the very least it had to be in the back of his mind to filter the picks thru the prism of what Walsh would find acceptable (or what he believed Walsh would find acceptable).

                    As for the current situation with Roy... It sounds like Roy is comfortable and his agent is comfortable... AND that the Pacers/Bird have let it be known they like Roy and are interested in re-signing him. The agent has made it clear they prefer to wait until summer to talk contract. That could be a negotiating ploy... but still... nobody is really hurt by waiting. The Pacers have to know Roy isn't going to be cheap no matter when he's signed. And he's in a position of strength now... and if his play keeps up he'll be in a position of strength in the summer. I don't get the angst.

                    I'd understand it IF his agent was saying they're trying to get a deal done before the deadline but that isn't the case.

                    As I said the other day, if Donnie Walsh can refuse to extend Reggie Miller and Mark Jackson with them WANTING extensions then Bird can certainly negotiate until the deadline with Roy's agent who says he prefers to wait until summer to do a deal.
                    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                    ------

                    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                    -John Wooden

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Falk says Roy, Pacers have "had very friendly discussions," but don't expect a deal until summer

                      Originally posted by dgranger17 View Post
                      I'm probably a little biased, but I put that Harrington trade on Walsh. Walsh drafted him and he loved him. Nobody in their right mind trades a good 1st round pick when you obviously need to re-build. There was no point in making that trade, which is why I believe that was 100% Walsh. I also don't think Larry Bird would draft Shawne Williams and James White in the same draft, but that's just me..
                      It is called learning from your mistakes.

                      As far as I am concerned both Bird and Walsh are 100% to blame for what happened, neither one can be used as the scapegoat for the other.

                      What Bird has shown is the ability to learn from past mistakes, and that is a good thing.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Falk says Roy, Pacers have "had very friendly discussions," but don't expect a deal until summer

                        Originally posted by Bball View Post
                        I don't think it's fair to Bird to judge him while Walsh was here. For one thing, Walsh was clearly the boss and above Bird on the totem pole. Unless Walsh was just paid to sit in his office and play solitaire and collect checks from PS&E then he has to share in the blame and credit during that time period. He had to sign off on Bird's picks if Bird was making picks in the draft.... and in all likelihood Bird would've had to consider picks he believed Donnie would sign off on. That makes it very hard for me to believe Bird could've had complete control and the freedom of mind to act 100% on his own preferences. At the very least it had to be in the back of his mind to filter the picks thru the prism of what Walsh would find acceptable (or what he believed Walsh would find acceptable).
                        Is my memory of this incorrect or is Bird not on the record as having Shawne Williams being his pick?
                        "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                        -Lance Stephenson

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Falk says Roy, Pacers have "had very friendly discussions," but don't expect a deal until summer

                          I hate how people judge draft picks by who they didn't draft. By that measure nobody has ever drafted very well. You could play the what if game with any GM in any sport and make them look like a failure.

                          Just judge on whether the pick worked out or not.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Falk says Roy, Pacers have "had very friendly discussions," but don't expect a deal until summer

                            Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
                            I hate how people judge draft picks by who they didn't draft. By that measure nobody has ever drafted very well. You could play the what if game with any GM in any sport and make them look like a failure.

                            Just judge on whether the pick worked out or not.
                            I don't think it is unfair when there is a position of clear need and a player who fits both the need and draft slot available that is passed up on for a worse player at a less needed spot.

                            Shawne Williams was selected as a wing to a team who already had Danny Granger, Stephen Jackson, Marquis Daniels, and Al Harrington at the spot. The point guard situation consisted of Jamaal Tinsley, Darrell Armstrong, and Sarunas Jasikevicious. We clearly needed a point guard in the 2006 draft. Rajon Rondo was thought to be the best available PG at the time our pick came up. It's obvious in hindsight but it was still the thought at the time. If Bird had decided that Marcus Williams was the better player over Rondo, that would still be better than picking Shawne. At least Marcus fit a need. Sure he flaked out, thought not quite as spectacularly as Shawne, but it'd have been better just because it was an attempt to fill a need.

                            Tyler Hansbrough was selected to be career backup power forward when the team both already had a player more than capable of playing that role and major need at another position. The fact that the best available player at the time of his selection was Jrue Holiday and fit a major need should have made it a no brainer. I don't know why Holiday slid further than expected in the draft but just as we pounced on Jerryd Bayless when he slid, we clearly both at the time and in hindsight should have done the same with Holiday.
                            "I had to take her down like Chris Brown."

                            -Lance Stephenson

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Falk says Roy, Pacers have "had very friendly discussions," but don't expect a deal until summer

                              Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
                              We have a very astute front office. I believe the fact we haven't signed Roy to an extension is by design. If we sign Hilbert now, our cap space for next summer disappears all together, or there is very little left to sign a free agent next summer. However, if we sign a free agent first next summer, then we can still sign Hibbert and Hill to whatever next summer.

                              Without looking the figures up, say we are $13 million under the cap for next summer. Say Hibbert and Hill wind up costing us $15 million. If we sign them first, we are then $2m over the salary cap, and can't sign any big time free agents outright.

                              However, say next summer we first sign a free agent to all our salary cap of $13 million, since Hibbert and Hill are our players we can still sign them to the same $15 million they would get now.

                              By waiting we have money to sign free agents and keep our options open.

                              If it was some other player other than Hibbert, someone that wanted extended the second he could be extended or he would get really unhappy, then we could have a problem. As is I don't believe Hibbert is going anywhere.

                              Hibbert likes it here, and he can get paid the most money here, plus we are a young team on the rise with good chemistry. He also no doubt knows the Pacers take care of their players. Hibbert is a smart man, if the Pacers want him to wait, he will wait.
                              I believe there are cap holds which prevent teams from doing that.

                              https://webfiles.uci.edu/lcoon/cbafaq/salarycap.htm#Q31
                              31. How much do free agents count against their team's salary cap?

                              The free agent amount depends on the player's previous salary and what kind of free agent he is:
                              Kind of free agentPrevious salaryFree agent amount
                              AnyMinimum salaryPortion of minimum salary not reimbursed by the league (see question number 11)
                              Larry Bird, except when coming off rookie scale contractAt least the average salary150% of his previous salary*
                              Larry Bird, except when coming off rookie scale contractBelow the average salary200% of his previous salary*
                              Larry Bird, following the fourth season of his rookie scale contractAt least the average salary250% of his previous salary*
                              Larry Bird, following the fourth season of his rookie scale contractBelow the average salary300% of his previous salary*
                              Larry Bird, following the third season of his rookie scale contractAnyThe maximum salary the team can pay the player using the Bird exception
                              Early Bird, following the second season of his rookie scale contractAnyThe maximum salary the team can pay the player using the Early Bird exception
                              Early Bird (all others)Any130% of his previous salary*
                              Non-BirdAny120% of his previous salary*
                              * Not to exceed the player's maximum salary, based on years of service (see question number 11). If the difference in salary between the last two seasons of the player's contract exceeded $4 million, then the percentage is based on the average salary in the last two seasons of the contract.
                              A restricted free agent counts against his team's salary cap by the greatest of:
                              • His free agent amount (as defined in the table above)
                              • The amount of his qualifying offer (see question number 37)
                              • The first year salary from any offer sheet the player signs with another team (see question number 37)
                              Here's an example of how to use this chart: Let's say a player who made $5 million during the previous season becomes an Early-Bird free agent, and is not coming off the second season of his rookie scale contract. According to this chart, the player's free agent amount is 130% of his previous salary. So $6.5 million is included in his team's team salary while he is a free agent.
                              See question number 42 for more information on rookie "scale" contracts, question number 34 for information on renouncing players, and question number 37 for information on restricted free agency.

                              32. Why do free agents continue to count against a team's cap?

                              It closes another loophole. Teams otherwise would be able to sign other teams' free agents using their cap room, and then turn their attention to their own free agents using the Bird exceptions. This rule restricts their ability to do that. It doesn't close this loophole completely -- for example, in 2005 Michael Redd's free agent amount was $6 million, even though the Bucks intended to re-sign him for the maximum salary. By waiting to sign Redd last, the Bucks were able to take advantage of the difference by signing Bobby Simmons. Had they signed Redd first, they would have had no cap room to sign Simmons.
                              Last edited by Team Indy; 01-24-2012, 04:09 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Falk says Roy, Pacers have "had very friendly discussions," but don't expect a deal until summer

                                Originally posted by Team Indy View Post
                                It doesn't close this loophole completely -- for example, in 2005 Michael Redd's free agent amount was $6 million, even though the Bucks intended to re-sign him for the maximum salary. By waiting to sign Redd last, the Bucks were able to take advantage of the difference by signing Bobby Simmons. Had they signed Redd first, they would have had no cap room to sign Simmons.
                                This applies.
                                BillS

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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X