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

Pacers looking to keep West next season? (Update: new story from Kravitz in post #52)

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

  • #61
    Re: Pacers looking to keep West next season? (Update: new story from Kravitz in post #51)

    I have always been a huge David West fan I wanted us to get him(didn't think it was realistic quite frankly, a guy as good as West signing with us) and was ecstatic he choose us over Boston. He like Zbo and many others who are elitly skilled players who rely on actual basketball skill over athleticism tend to age really well. I would be pissed if we let him walk he is a must resign. I could see him playing really good until his late 30s.

    I would be fine with a 3 year deal and even give him a 4th if he would take a slight discount on the per year number.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Pacers looking to keep West next season? (Update: new story from Kravitz in post #51)

      I believe we will see some improved tightening of the belts league-wide when FA time rolls around on 7/1/13...

      You will prolly still see a couple if-y max's thrown out but role players and some starter types will definitely feel a pinch on their offers next summer... I won't be surprised if guys on Hickson's level won't have to accept a mid-level exception... (I say this not knowing all the available FAs this summer)

      I think teams are going to start being a little more thrifty going forward due to luxury tax implications... (and maybe a bit of credit will go to the Lakers for showing off what going deep into the LT can sometimes get you
      Nothing in life worth having comes easy.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Pacers looking to keep West next season? (Update: new story from Kravitz in post #51)

        Originally posted by MAStamper View Post
        He's our MVP. If there was one Pacer we could all tolerate being overpaid, it's him.
        Plus as I've said on this very topic many times in the last year - THESE ARE THE FIVE YOU WERE REBUILDING TO GET.

        They traded for Hill, they signed West, then they put more money down to keep Hill and Hibbert with Danny having a year to go and Paul with a couple. That was the front office saying "these are the horses we want to run with".

        People keep trying to fix the bench, while also posting in threads about how the NBA is all about STARS (ie, STARTERS). No team wins simply by being deep. Being deep helps, but then in the playoffs your starters go 38-42 minutes and there is no point in the game where you have more than 3 starters on the bench.

        So then you wonder why in the F you worried and fretted over having an extra $4m to get that 8th man off the bench when it means you lost a $10m starter.


        I like having a deep bench, but in more recent years I've liked it less as I watched it not pan out. Let's face it, look at the minutes logged for the 2000 Finals team or the 2003 ECF team. This wasn't Reggie, Dale, Rik, JO, Ron getting 30 minutes in the playoffs while watching guys like Fred Jones save the day. For the 2000 team you had Best, AC and Perkins off the bench.


        2000 bench - 15 mpg (Rose went 42 mpg, Miller 40)
        Best
        Croshere
        Perkins
        McKey (barely)

        And this was in big part because Smits was limited in PT to 21 mpg, and missed one of the games and didn't start another. If Smits goes just 30 mpg then you have basically a 3 man bench yet again. We all know that Croshere wasn't that much but then got a huge favorable matchup vs Horry in the Finals. Best was the scoring punch PG, Perkins was a 3pt gimmick specialist and Croshere rebounded and hit some 3s.

        Best only played 5 more seasons, only 1.5 more for the Pacers and played with a different team each of those final 4 seasons. Croshere got a fat contract off his Finals play and locked the Pacers into cap hell along with Bender's deal, and 99-2000 was the most reg season minutes he ever played. Perkins was flipping 38, came back one more year and then retired.

        These guys weren't the stuff of legendary bench stars.


        2003 bench - 15 mpg
        Anthony Johnson
        Jeff Foster
        Fred Jones
        *Croshere - didn't have 240 minutes (16 games * 15 min per) since he only played in 13 of the games.
        ** Bender was only other player over 10 mpg in the playoffs

        You had a PG who couldn't get assists (but didn't have TOs either), a PF/C who only rebounded, and a decent scoring punch with Fred. This wasn't cream of the crop stuff here. Just "good enough", and not even as good as the iffy 2000 bench.


        So if this team goes to the playoffs this year and the next 2-3 with guys like Lance (obvious 6th man), Mahinmi (big), Green and/or OJ (shooter) and whatever you replace Tyler and DJ with, it's not really that silly. This year if Young hadn't been injured he'd be your ace defensive bench guy. All you need is a 3pt ace on the bench and you are fine.



        In other words PAY BIG for a great starting five, fill in the bench as needed. Maybe you pay a bit for that 6th man, but the rest must be rookie deals or filler. You are going to win or lose with the starters, period.
        Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 01-21-2013, 08:24 PM.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Pacers looking to keep West next season? (Update: new story from Kravitz in post #51)

          I already respected West and I respect him even more after reading those quotes. I said it's rare for a player to give a discount to a team but West might just be that rare player. I don't expect the team to insult him with a real low ball offer. Start at 3/30 or 4/36 and go from their. I don't think they'll have to offer some insane 15 mil per year contract either.
          Don't the new bigger LT penalties kick in next year? I don't think you're going to see teams going crazy with offers next summer.
          Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Pacers looking to keep West next season? (Update: new story from Kravitz in post #51)

            If you have five high-quality starters, which we do, you basically can spend your salary cap on paying them when their times come. That's loosely $58,000,000 divided among five guys. Averages out to $11,600,000 per player.

            1. Roy = ~$58,000,000 divided by 4 years = $14,500,000 per year

            2. West's new deal might = ~$11,000,000 per year

            3. Granger's deal = ~$60,000,000 divided by 5 years = $12,000,000 per year

            4. Hill's deal = $40,000,000 divided by 5 years = $8,000,000 per year

            5. In this scenario, that would leave at least about ($58,000,000 - $45,500,000) = $12,500,000 for Paul George, and that's assuming we re-sign Danny at a rate of $12m per year, which is pretty unlikely at this point (it will probably be at least $2m less than that on average).

            So you go up to the salary cap to keep the main five guys, then you have the hard ceiling of the luxury tax at about $70,000,000. This means you have about $12,000,000 or so left to pay for your bench. So basically you might have to hope to pay the starting five a little bit less in total (via what we sign West, Granger, and extend George to at a later date) if you need a bit more room, and you probably sign your bottom 3-4 rotation guys for peanuts (Sam Young type guys).

            That's all loose numbers in various ways, and there's definite speculation, but you get the point. It can work.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Pacers looking to keep West next season? (Update: new story from Kravitz in post #51)

              Originally posted by MAStamper View Post
              If you have five high-quality starters, which we do, you basically can spend your salary cap on paying them when their times come. That's loosely $58,000,000 divided among five guys. Averages out to $11,600,000 per player.

              1. Roy = ~$58,000,000 divided by 4 years = $14,500,000 per year

              2. West's new deal might = ~$11,000,000 per year

              3. Granger's deal = ~$60,000,000 divided by 5 years = $12,000,000 per year

              4. Hill's deal = $40,000,000 divided by 5 years = $8,000,000 per year

              5. In this scenario, that would leave at least about ($58,000,000 - $45,500,000) = $12,500,000 for Paul George, and that's assuming we re-sign Danny at a rate of $12m per year, which is pretty unlikely at this point (it will probably be at least $2m less than that on average).

              So you go up to the salary cap to keep the main five guys, then you have the hard ceiling of the luxury tax at about $70,000,000. This means you have about $12,000,000 or so left to pay for your bench. So basically you might have to hope to pay the starting five a little bit less in total (via what we sign West, Granger, and extend George to at a later date) if you need a bit more room, and you probably sign your bottom 3-4 rotation guys for peanuts (Sam Young type guys).
              That's all loose numbers in various ways, and there's definite speculation, but you get the point. It can work.
              I agree with everything you're saying but I think the LT is projected to be about 74.5 mil next year and I'd think it might go up a little from that over the course of PG's next contract. I don't think Danny will quite get 12 mil either so it's tough but very possible to keep our core together long term and still have a couple of decent bench players with min. salary players to fill out the rest of the roster.
              Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Pacers looking to keep West next season?

                West may not be our best player but he is a very important one.
                We were weak before he came and that is not a coincident.
                I said a couple years ago that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link and if we got either West or Nene we would host a series.
                I think we will resign him.
                If not...
                We will suck again.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: Pacers looking to keep West next season?

                  Originally posted by ChicagoJ View Post
                  Do you mean Danny was #15 on the team in clutch points, or #15 in the league?
                  League.

                  Originally posted by ChicagoJ
                  Maybe I don't give Reggie as much credit since he's not much of a creator. Sure, he hits some catch-and-shoots and I'd love to see him in position to benefit from being the strong side wing on a Smits/Jax pick and roll at crunch time. . . But I think a "clutch" stat that gives credit to the guy who was just standing there waiting on the ball is misleading, because its still Rik Smits and Mark Jackson that even make that play possible. But I think Reggie could make a heyday benefitting alongside it.
                  So... have you been watching the Pacers for long?
                  Last edited by Anthem; 01-21-2013, 09:29 PM.
                  This space for rent.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: Pacers looking to keep West next season? (Update: new story from Kravitz in post #51)

                    Originally posted by MAStamper View Post
                    If you have five high-quality starters, which we do, you basically can spend your salary cap on paying them when their times come. That's loosely $58,000,000 divided among five guys. Averages out to $11,600,000 per player.

                    1. Roy = ~$58,000,000 divided by 4 years = $14,500,000 per year

                    2. West's new deal might = ~$11,000,000 per year

                    3. Granger's deal = ~$60,000,000 divided by 5 years = $12,000,000 per year

                    4. Hill's deal = $40,000,000 divided by 5 years = $8,000,000 per year

                    5. In this scenario, that would leave at least about ($58,000,000 - $45,500,000) = $12,500,000 for Paul George, and that's assuming we re-sign Danny at a rate of $12m per year, which is pretty unlikely at this point (it will probably be at least $2m less than that on average).

                    So you go up to the salary cap to keep the main five guys, then you have the hard ceiling of the luxury tax at about $70,000,000. This means you have about $12,000,000 or so left to pay for your bench. So basically you might have to hope to pay the starting five a little bit less in total (via what we sign West, Granger, and extend George to at a later date) if you need a bit more room, and you probably sign your bottom 3-4 rotation guys for peanuts (Sam Young type guys).

                    That's all loose numbers in various ways, and there's definite speculation, but you get the point. It can work.
                    Thanks for doing the math, I still don't buy that this starting unit(with Danny) can win a championship, let's say that you spend all the money on your starters and you don't win it? how are you going to fix it when you have your money stuck in long term contracts that can't win it all? not only that but you are talking about a left over for bench players of about 12mil, 12mil sounds good but the problem is that you already have 7.5 stuck in two players(not counting Plumlee 1mil and OJ 800K plus the rookies) for the next 3/4 years leaving only about 3mil to do anything.

                    edit: Now that I think about it, I think Danny is gone next year, not enough money.
                    Last edited by vnzla81; 01-21-2013, 09:27 PM.
                    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: Pacers looking to keep West next season? (Update: new story from Kravitz in post #51)

                      I'd go 3 years 30 million, and I think he would take it. Moreover, I'd offer him 4 years/40 million with year 4 being team option.


                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: Pacers looking to keep West next season? (Update: new story from Kravitz in post #51)

                        Originally posted by MAStamper View Post
                        He's our MVP. If there was one Pacer we could all tolerate being overpaid, it's him.
                        Paul George is our MVP and our current all star, as Reggie said "Paul George is the new face of the Pacers".
                        @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: Pacers looking to keep West next season?

                          Paul is fantastic. May end up being the best Pacer ever!
                          That said - without Hibbert and West...with out interior length, and strength, and mass... we suck.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: Pacers looking to keep West next season? (Update: new story from Kravitz in post #51)

                            Originally posted by MAStamper View Post
                            If you have five high-quality starters, which we do, you basically can spend your salary cap on paying them when their times come. That's loosely $58,000,000 divided among five guys. Averages out to $11,600,000 per player.

                            1. Roy = ~$58,000,000 divided by 4 years = $14,500,000 per year

                            2. West's new deal might = ~$11,000,000 per year

                            3. Granger's deal = ~$60,000,000 divided by 5 years = $12,000,000 per year

                            4. Hill's deal = $40,000,000 divided by 5 years = $8,000,000 per year

                            5. In this scenario, that would leave at least about ($58,000,000 - $45,500,000) = $12,500,000 for Paul George, and that's assuming we re-sign Danny at a rate of $12m per year, which is pretty unlikely at this point (it will probably be at least $2m less than that on average).

                            So you go up to the salary cap to keep the main five guys, then you have the hard ceiling of the luxury tax at about $70,000,000. This means you have about $12,000,000 or so left to pay for your bench. So basically you might have to hope to pay the starting five a little bit less in total (via what we sign West, Granger, and extend George to at a later date) if you need a bit more room, and you probably sign your bottom 3-4 rotation guys for peanuts (Sam Young type guys).

                            That's all loose numbers in various ways, and there's definite speculation, but you get the point. It can work.
                            I calculated around 60 million for the starters by the 2015/2016 season. I'm using Roy's actual figure of 15.5, Hill's 8, and then estimating West for 11, Danny for 11, and George for 14.3 (second year max if the cap doesn't go up, and the Pacers only match a deal like they did with Roy instead of giving him the higher raises).

                            That leaves 10 million for 9 players (with one open roster spot). Let's say the Pacers keep 3 minimum salary rookies. That's 525,000 each. Then the 3 first round picks between now and then. That's around 3.4 million combined.

                            So for the 3 other bench spots, the Pacers would have around 5 million combined. So they very likely would have no Lance, Mahinmi would be have to be traded for relief, etc. They can essentially pay 1 bench player 3 million and all the rest have to be rookie contracts with some of them needing to be actual rookies.

                            That's a pretty paper thin team unless the Pacers hit well on their draft picks at the bottom of the first round. If the luxury tax went up, that would help, although Paul's max would likely go up under that scenario as well which would cut into that. Also, if Paul signs the 5 year max like Harden did, that would also cause his estimate to go up.

                            That's pretty much the dividing line though. If Granger/West make over 22 million combined in their next contract, it pretty much can't be done unless the luxury tax suddenly jolts up. If they make less (say 20 million combined), then the Pacers would have enough money to go with a bench of Mahinimi/Plumlee/2013 first round pick/2014 first round pick/2015 first round pick/vet min player/2nd round rookie/rookie free agent/rookie free agent. That might be enough if the Pacers draft reasonably well.

                            So basically it can be done, but it would be quite a tightrope. Hopefully West/Granger can somehow come in way lower than expected. Because IMO, keeping a starting 5 together is worth sacrificing any quality from your 8th and 9th players. If you have to start sacrificing your 6th and 7th players though, that's a little too risky. Especially when one of your starting 5 (Hibbert) doesn't look like he's ever going to play a large amount of minutes.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: Pacers looking to keep West next season?

                              Originally posted by solid View Post
                              Paul is fantastic. May end up being the best Pacer ever!
                              That said - without Hibbert and West...with out interior length, and strength, and mass... we suck.
                              Without Paul George our defense and rebounding overall would suck, without his ability to shut down the other teams best player we suck, without his ability to pass the ball we suck, at this moment Paul George is hands down the Pacers best player and MVP.

                              And also just today Paul George showed ChicagoJ that he can also hit clutch shots, anybody remember that clutch shot to put the Pacers up with just one minute left?
                              @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: Pacers looking to keep West next season? (Update: new story from Kravitz in post #51)

                                Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                                Thanks for doing the math, I still don't buy that this starting unit(with Danny) can win a championship
                                Depends on how good Paul George gets.

                                I like these guys. I'd be willing to watch this team play together for the next 3 or 4 years to find out.
                                This space for rent.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X