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

Off season Rumors and Speculation

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

  • Re: Off season Rumors and Speculation

    Originally posted by shags View Post
    Keep in mind Chris Bosh played one half of that series. Heat probably win in 5 with him.
    No one can say either way. I'm not interested in discussing anything that I can't watch tape on.
    "Danny Granger is one of the top players in the league. To move Danny, you better get a lot back." - Larry Bird

    Comment


    • Re: Off season Rumors and Speculation

      Originally posted by ballism View Post
      we can go back to Mayo, you mean!
      how about Mayo S&T + Speights S&T + Gay
      for
      Granger + West + PG!
      I don't think the board software could take the resulting implosion very well.
      "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


      • Brendan Haywood's bidding won by the Bobcats per ESPN.


        Sent from #PacerNation using Tapatalk
        Senior at the University of Louisville.
        Greenfield ---> The Ville

        Comment


        • Re: Off season Rumors and Speculation

          Originally posted by Steagles View Post
          Also, I am glad the Hornets matched EJ so we can quiet the trade BS for at least 3-4 years.
          fixed
          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

          Comment


          • Re: Off season Rumors and Speculation

            The only thing NO matching did was squash the ignorant notion that we could sign him outright. We'll keep hearing about it from dumb IU homers until the day the dude retires at 28 after having his legs fall off.

            Comment


            • Re: Off season Rumors and Speculation

              I really like Kyrie Irving. Great player, destroys team USA in practice, mouths off (playfully) to Kobe.

              So yeah, Irving's shaping up to be the next Dwight.

              Comment


              • Re: Off season Rumors and Speculation

                Originally posted by ballism View Post
                it's kind of flawed. but on the other hand, there's no good way to change it either.

                make it 5-5-15 for everyone, and the Rockets get hurt. There's no reason to punish teams under cap for signing guys like Lin.
                Lin probably gets hurt as well, as teams would be hesitant to give him the same deal.

                make it count as 8 mil for everyone, then the Knicks get an unfair advantage of freely going over the cap on a player they didn't really develop.
                This whole situation only applies to 2-year rookies and waived rookies, so it's only fair that the team is at some disadvantage compared to typical cases.

                The Knicks are welcome to drop under cap and sign him without using his Early Bird rights, then it will count as 8-8-8 for them as well.
                I disagree with the bolded part. IMO Knicks should have an advantage in keeping Lin. They gave Lin his opportunity to play - that should count for something. Or how about Asik in Chicago - the Bulls definitely invested time in developing him. I think it's only fair that there's an Arenas provision to try and help teams keep their young players.

                That loophole in the Arenas provision is pretty bad though. The thinking behind it is that 2nd rounders or undrafted guys aren't ever going to receive offers that are more than the MLE. That assumption's blown up now with TWO Arenas provision players getting greater than MLE offers. And really, it seems to be punishing teams for their good scouting - basically says to teams that you get to keep your 2nd round/undrafted guy if he's not very good, but if he turns into an unexpected success, then it might cost you more to keep him than other teams. Doesn't seem right.

                So IMO, the best way to make fair for everyone is to make it count 5-5-15 for all teams. Lin (and Asik) gets screwed a little because it lessens the likelihood of them receiving 5-5-15 offers, but that just puts them on an even footing with first round picks, who are salary controlled for their first 4 seasons. If Lin and Asik continue to play well in years 3 and 4, then they will be eligible for max contracts at year 5, just like first round picks are.

                Comment


                • Re: Off season Rumors and Speculation

                  You don't even have to actually alter the payout, just make it count the same for everyone towards the cap. Yes,, that opens up a sort of under the table loophole where you can trade a guy at a significantly higer/lower cap number compared to his actual pay, but who cares? 2 guys isn't something I'd worry about, not until the next CBA and Adam Silver and new NBPA Prez Emaka Okafor sit down over a bagel and say "oh, that loophole? yeah that's stupid. next."

                  I'm not about to pretend I'm a CPA or anything, but I do feel like I know the NBA salary cap and CBA somewhat well, but holy hell is the thing so unnecessarily complicated. It's honestly ridiculous. It's like it came straight out of the movie Brazil.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Off season Rumors and Speculation

                    http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap...l_With_Blazers

                    The Knicks have acquired Raymond Felton and Kurt Thomas from the Blazers in exchange for Jared Jeffries and Dan Gadzuric.
                    Felton's contract will be worth $10 million over three seasons, according to a Marc J. Spears.
                    Both Felton and Thomas previously played for New York.
                    Felton and Jeffries will be dealt via sign-and-trade as both players are free agents.
                    It is unclear how the acquisition of Felton will impact the Knicks' decision on whether to match Jeremy Lin's offer sheet with the Rockets.

                    Via Frank Isola/New York Daily News (via Twitter


                    Read more: http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap...#ixzz20frbWKbP

                    Comment


                    • Re: Off season Rumors and Speculation

                      http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/knick...k85407zzt3ynxK

                      Knicks were pissed Houston changed the terms from the 5-5-9-9 deal originally talked about and that Lin went back and told them we'd match and then they changed the deal.

                      "The Post reported on its back page Saturday the Knicks were furious the Rockets changed the offer sheet for Lin and upgraded it to a $25 million guarantee over three years, according to a source. The Knicks were bitter because they told Lin immediately the club would match the original offer and Lin apparently shared the information with the Rockets. Lin and Houston then plotted to redo it.

                      Lin secretly flew into Las Vegas without informing the Knicks to renegotiate the contract and sign it.

                      The Knicks had been set to match Lin’s original offer sheet of four years, $28.9 million that had a $19 million guarantee before the Rockets threw a financial curveball that called for a $15 million third year that would have doomed owner James Dolan’s luxury-tax predicament."
                      The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                      Comment


                      • Re: Off season Rumors and Speculation

                        Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                        So IMO, the best way to make fair for everyone is to make it count 5-5-15 for all teams. Lin (and Asik) gets screwed a little because it lessens the likelihood of them receiving 5-5-15 offers, but that just puts them on an even footing with first round picks, who are salary controlled for their first 4 seasons. If Lin and Asik continue to play well in years 3 and 4, then they will be eligible for max contracts at year 5, just like first round picks are.
                        i agree, in general.

                        However, the "15" part is year 5 (well, except the extremely unlikely case where 'the next Lin' is someone on a 1 year contract with no team option; pretty much would have to be one of those NBDL "10 days" undrafted guys).

                        so if we are lessening the likelihood of them getting the "15", we aren't putting them on "even footing", we are putting them in a bad spot.
                        So I don't agree with making it count as 5-5-15 for all the teams.

                        the only way i see to achieve that "even footing" is to limit their extension to 2 years (5-5) instead of 4 years.
                        And then make an exception for these contracts so they can be extended before year 2. Then it would be similar to 1st round rookies.

                        Which to me seems fair. Of course, it hurts the player, so the NBPA would oppose that solution.

                        Also, the CBA in general does not aim to put the 2nd rounders/undrafted guys on completely even footing with the 1st rounders.
                        The teams wouldn't want that, in general. The CBA gives them very little guarantees. However, in return it gives them extra freedom and opportunities. That seems fair as well.
                        They can get any salary if their team is under the cap.
                        Guys under a 1 year contract can later get "15" in their 4th year (even from a team over the cap, while the 1st rounders have to wait).
                        Guys under a 3 year contract can get a full max deal from a team over the cap.
                        Guys under a 4 year contract become unrestricted free agents, unlike the 1st rounders.

                        So, would it be fair to limit 2nd year guys to a two year "5-5" deal and give them none of that "extra freedom"? Not really.
                        So my solution isn't that good either.

                        Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                        I disagree with the bolded part. IMO Knicks should have an advantage in keeping Lin. They gave Lin his opportunity to play - that should count for something. Or how about Asik in Chicago - the Bulls definitely invested time in developing him. I think it's only fair that there's an Arenas provision to try and help teams keep their young players.

                        That loophole in the Arenas provision is pretty bad though. The thinking behind it is that 2nd rounders or undrafted guys aren't ever going to receive offers that are more than the MLE. That assumption's blown up now with TWO Arenas provision players getting greater than MLE offers. And really, it seems to be punishing teams for their good scouting - basically says to teams that you get to keep your 2nd round/undrafted guy if he's not very good, but if he turns into an unexpected success, then it might cost you more to keep him than other teams. Doesn't seem right.
                        Maybe "develop" is badly put on my part.

                        But the Bulls are free to make it a 3 year deal next time and avoid this problem altogether. They will get full Bird rights.
                        Even a 4 year deal, like the Spurs have done with Blair.
                        But if they don't believe in their own rookies enough and they decide not to get full Bird rights, well, there's a chance it backfires.

                        We signed Augustin for 1 year. We are giving him an opportunity too.
                        But we won't get full Bird rights, we won't even get Early Bird rights or restricted free agency.
                        If he overperforms, the Bobcats will offer him more money than we can, and he's gone. We won't even have a right to match it.

                        Shame on us, not shame on the CBA.

                        Maybe it's a little different with the Knicks. They never had the chance to offer Lin a 3 year rookie deal.
                        But then again, what if we trade for some guy on a 2 year deal? We may love him. We might love to have him on a 3 year deal. We may give him a huge opportunity too.
                        But if he breaks out, we won't have the full Bird rights. And he'll be gone.

                        Does it mean that the Bird rights system is broken, and a team should always be able to keep their guys? I don't think so.

                        In the end, every team is free to get under the cap and the issue is gone.

                        The Knicks could be under the cap and offer Lin a 4 year, 58 mil deal. Or a 3 year, 8 mil per, or whatever deal they like.
                        It's not the Rockets' or Lin's problem that they aren't.

                        PS. I'm not against Arenas rights btw, you seem to think I am.
                        I'm just against treating the Knicks as if they were under the cap, when they are over it.
                        Last edited by ballism; 07-15-2012, 07:37 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Off season Rumors and Speculation

                          Originally posted by Sandman21 View Post
                          I don't think the board software could take the resulting implosion very well.
                          ok then.
                          Step 1. PD software + a 2nd rounder for some of Marc Cuban's software from Dallas. (If they add Marc Cuban to the deal, I add a 1st)
                          Step 2. Lets get Eric Gordon, and Courtney Lee, and Greg Oden and every other player you local Indiana guys saw play in high school! And Mayo too, and Monta.
                          Step 3. ????
                          Step 4. Profit! (or not)

                          Comment


                          • Re: Off season Rumors and Speculation

                            Good post, but there are some specific points I don't agree with it, which is probably why my conclusion is different from yours.

                            Originally posted by ballism View Post
                            i agree, in general.

                            However, the "15" part is year 5 (well, except the extremely unlikely case where 'the next Lin' is someone on a 1 year contract with no team option; pretty much would have to be one of those NBDL "10 days" undrafted guys).

                            so if you are lessening the likelihood of them getting the "15", you aren't putting them on even footing with the 1st round picks, you are putting them in a bad spot.
                            So I don't agree with making it count as 5-5-15 for everyone.
                            The issue to me is that Lin and Asik are being offered the chance to make $15m in their 3rd year, when first rounders won't have that opportunity until their 5th year. And yes, I know that the $15m doesn't kick in until Lin and Asik's 5th year too, but it gets promised to them early. Another way to look at this is that Lin and Asik are being given the chance to make an average of $8m per year ($25m over 3 years) in their 3rd year, which even the first overall pick won't be able to do. So I think it's a little unfair and I don't mind provisions that make it more difficult to achieve this.

                            To make them exactly the same as first rounders, as you say, would require limiting their next contract to 5-5. I don't think that it has to go this far though. A simple tweak is to allow 5-5-15, but to make it count the same for all teams (not just the home team). This makes it more unlikely that a player gets a 5-5-15 offer, but it is still theoretically possible for a really exceptional player.

                            Originally posted by ballism View Post
                            But the Bulls are free to make it a 3 year deal next time and avoid this problem altogether. They will get full Bird rights.
                            Even a 4 year deal, like the Spurs have done with Blair.
                            But if they don't believe in their own rookies enough and they decide not to get full Bird rights, well, there's a chance it backfires.
                            True enough, I suppose. We also gave Lance a 4 year contract with 2 option years, which is very similar to a first rounder's contract. This would indeed avoid the problem.

                            Originally posted by ballism View Post
                            The Knicks could be under the cap and offer Lin a 4 year, 61 mil deal. It's not the Rockets' or Lin's problem that they aren't.
                            Also correct, though I'll point out that the Arenas provision limits Lin's max to roughly 5-5-15-15. Though I would argue that being able to retain your successful second rounder despite being over the cap is the main intent of the Arenas provision. If teams need to be perpetually under the cap to ensure they don't lose their second rounders, then they might as well do away with the Arenas provision.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Off season Rumors and Speculation

                              Originally posted by wintermute View Post

                              The issue to me is that Lin and Asik are being offered the chance to make $15m in their 3rd year, when first rounders won't have that opportunity until their 5th year.
                              They have been in the league for two years now. Lin was cut twice in the meantime, but that first year still counts for the purpose of Arenas.
                              They'd get 5-5 in the next two years. Then 15 in their 5th year in the league.

                              In theory, it is possible for an Arenas guy to get "15" during his 4th year.
                              But in reality, it's extremely unlikely. Teams always offer rookies at least a 1-and-1 deal with a team option. So it's 2 years. In these cases, the max year is always the 5th year.

                              This makes it more unlikely that a player gets a 5-5-15 offer, but it is still theoretically possible for a really exceptional player.
                              Which to me is the problem. I don't see why Lin should be punished in order to reward the Knicks.
                              The Knicks already get the right to match the offer, and the Rockets are already restricted in what they can offer.
                              But the Knicks not having full Bird rights is not Lin's fault. He shouldn't be penalized because of it.

                              Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                              Also correct, though I'll point out that the Arenas provision limits Lin's max to roughly 5-5-15-15.
                              The Arenas provision only applies to *the other* team. In this case the Rockets.

                              The Knicks themselves could've only offered Lin a 4 year / 23 mil deal.
                              (which is why I find the whole story about Lin being offended because the Knicks didn't offer him a deal a bit ridiculous. Lin would've refused it anyway)

                              But if the Knicks were under the cap, they could've offered him up to the "Hibbert" max, i.e. 4/58.
                              (the 4/61 was bad math on my part, i added the wrong annual increase)
                              Last edited by ballism; 07-15-2012, 08:25 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Off season Rumors and Speculation

                                Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                                The only thing NO matching did was squash the ignorant notion that we could sign him outright. We'll keep hearing about it from dumb IU homers until the day the dude retires at 28 after having his legs fall off.
                                Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                                I really like Kyrie Irving. Great player, destroys team USA in practice, mouths off (playfully) to Kobe.

                                So yeah, Irving's shaping up to be the next Dwight.
                                Kind of ironic that you posted these two thoughts in succession, seeing as how Irving appears to potentially be as injury-prone as Gordon.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X