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

[Article] Pacers' Current Salary Situation (Less than we thought for Lance)

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

  • [Article] Pacers' Current Salary Situation (Less than we thought for Lance)

    So it looks like it could be worse than we thought. The article acts like if we sign Lance we have nothing but loose change and pocket lint left, and that's if we sign him for around 8 mil.

    http://8points9seconds.com/2014/06/0...alary-current/

    by Tim Donahue

    The Indiana Pacers have 10 players under contract for next season. The league requires a team to have 13 players and the maximum roster size is 15. According to Larry Bird, the Pacers want one of those guys to be Lance Stephenson, so it is presumed that re-signing him will be the top priority of the summer. He is the Aerosmith tickets, if you will.

    As previously discussed, Paul George making third team All-NBA will make it a bit tougher for Indiana to keep Stephenson. George got a salary bump of about $1.2 million, and that means Indiana is $1.2 million closer to the luxury tax threshold that the team will presumably not exceed.

    But Indiana does have a few ways to clear some extra room, one of which involved waiving Luis Scola, whose contract is only partially guaranteed for next season.

    Here’s the backstory of Scola’s deal: Originally, the salary ($4.9 million) for the final year on his deal (2014-15) was completely non-guaranteed. However, the deal said that the season could become partially or completely guaranteed if he met certain criteria over the first four years of the deal. It would have become fully guaranteed, had he been voted as a starter to the All-Star game. Other than that, he could get $500,000 guaranteed each year that he played 85% of his teams games and made the playoffs, and another $500,000 each year he either played in all 82 of his team games or played in 85% of his team’s games and the team went at least .500.

    By the time he was amnestied by Houston in the summer of 2012, he had twice met those criteria (thus guaranteeing himself $1.0 million), but the Rockets are on the hook for part of that ($559,000). Then Scola earned another $500,000 with Phoenix by playing all 82 games, and he got another $1.0mm by (a) playing 85% of the games this year with Indiana and making playoffs, and (b) playing 82 games (also playing 85% on a .500 team).

    That all adds up to $2.5 million guaranteed next year, though Indy is only on the hook for $1.9 million of it. Thus, if the Pacers waive Scola this summer, they will free up about $2.9 million.

    Here’s the actual dollar situation:


    Assuming the luxury tax threshold stays at the current projection ($77 million), the Pacers would have $9.7 million of space that could expand to $12.6 million if they released Scola.

    However, the team would only have 10 players under contract with that $9.7 million number and just nine (after releasing Scola) if they got the full $12.6 million. Since they would have to employ at least 13 players (and they would probably want to carry 14), the table above assumes adding enough minimum-level-salary players to get to a roster of 14. (I’ve assumed the third-year minimum salaries here. They could conceivably save about $400,000 per head by only signing guys on rookie-minimum deals, but you let me know how comfortable you feel about Donald Sloan as your 10th best player. Side note on Sloan: his deal is unguaranteed, too, but he’s making the minimum, so there would be no savings in cutting him and if you’re going to employ minimum-level players there is probably some benefit in having one of them be a guy who already knows the playbook.)

    You got it?

    Even if not, here is the takeaway: The Pacers technically have $6.95 million of “available for Lance” money if they keep Scola, but they could increase that sum to $8.96 million by cutting the Argentine. Though those numbers are likely too high.

    Why? Because we should assume that the Pacers want to have a bit of leeway under the tax. That is to say, if the luxury tax threshold is $77 million (as it is projected and assumed in this financials), then the Pacers will probably target to be at least $500k below it — if not more.

    This is mostly to make sure that some minor accounting adjustment doesn’t put the Pacers over the tax, at which point Herb Simon shoots everyone. But it is also because, from a basketball perspective, not having any space at all to make moves during the season isn’t a desirable position to be in. Not only can you not sign anyone, but you can’t even take on small salary increases in trade.

    That’s why the realistic “available for Lance” money in year one is $6.5 million (with Scola) and $8.5 million (without). Truth be told, those are probably still high. Honestly, I think the Pacers will be targeting to be between $75 million and 76 million in total payroll next year (if not less). If that’s is the case, shave another $1 million to $1.5 million off of those starting salary numbers for Lance.

    Tangentially, I think it’s far from certain that the Pacers will release Scola. I think they like him well enough, but mostly it would depend on whether they viewed it as avoiding $2.9 (less his replacement) or paying someone $1.9 million to play for someone else.

    There is one other way in which Indiana could save some: the “stretch provision.” This means that you (a) waive a player, and (b) pay them their full salary, but (c) the team, for salary cap purposes, is able to “stretch” the remaining dollars for twice the remaining left of the contract plus one year.

    The obvious candidate for Indiana is Chris Copeland, whose remaining $3.14 million could be “stretched” over the next three years, counting just $1.05 million against the cap for the next three season.

    I think there is absolutely no chance at all that Simon would ever approve of “stretching” a player, however. It’s one thing to release Scola to save money, but there’s no way that I see the Pacers stretching Copeland (or Ian Mahinimi, who would count against the cap at $1.6 million for the next five years) just to create space to sign someone else (or re-sign Lance). It’s just bad business. Plus, Bird likes Cope, and if they cut Scola, then the backup power forward spot is probably Cope’s job.

    The most likely other avenues for creating space are either unloading George Hill or Roy Hibbert’s deal. The latter is probably more likely, but that would make it the “slim” in the “slim to no chance” category. That doesn’t mean I don’t think the Pacers would try to move Hill; it’s just that I don’t think they would do it as simply a salary dump.

    What does all this arcane financial information mean?

    Expect the Pacers to try to stand pat this summer, just re-signing Lance — if they can (I think it’s a 50/50 proposition at best). They don’t really have the space to fend off big offers, but more than anything else, I think it will be the years that could cost the Pacers. I have a hard time believing Simon would be willing to guarantee more than two, perhaps three years. There are just too many bad memories for this franchise, and to be brutally honest, I don’t know how you guarantee five years to Lance.
    Last edited by BillS; 06-06-2014, 10:31 AM. Reason: Added author credit

  • #2
    Re: [Article] Pacers' Current Salary Situation (Less than we thought for Lance)

    I think it is unlikely Lance returns unless Roy is moved. I just do not see Lance taking anything less than 8 million a year.
    {o,o}
    |)__)
    -"-"-

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: [Article] Pacers' Current Salary Situation (Less than we thought for Lance)

      I think someone will offer him more than $8 million

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: [Article] Pacers' Current Salary Situation (Less than we thought for Lance)

        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
        I think someone will offer him more than $8 million
        I feel that several teams will offer over $8 million.

        Unless Lance takes around 7 million - our best bet is to somehow try and complete a sign and trade, or to trade one of our other veterans. We don't really have many other options at this point.

        P.S it'd be silly of Lance to take less money IMO

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: [Article] Pacers' Current Salary Situation (Less than we thought for Lance)

          Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post

          P.S it'd be silly of Lance to take less money IMO
          Yeah unless it's a tiny trivial amount, he's not taking less money. He's been making absolute pennies by NBA standards for four years now, while being surrounded by four teammates who have received massive paydays as Pacers (Hibbs, West, PG, Hill). Lance has probably had to watch his money a bit, while he's seen those other four go out and buy whatever lavish item they want. Lance has made what, about $3.4 mil over the last four seasons? That's absolute chump change for an athlete. He's now Born Ready To Get Paid.

          I'm sure he'd like to stay here with Bird and a winning team, but you can be happy anywhere if you're getting paid millions to play basketball.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: [Article] Pacers' Current Salary Situation (Less than we thought for Lance)

            I can't see Lance taking anything under $9 million. If that's the case we are going to be in a really tough spot. Might have to trade someone for cap relief.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: [Article] Pacers' Current Salary Situation (Less than we thought for Lance)

              Originally posted by The Sleeze View Post
              I can't see Lance taking anything under $9 million. If that's the case we are going to be in a really tough spot. Might have to trade someone for cap relief.
              Yeah, George Hill. CJ Watson (when healthy) Is fully capable of filling the role of 5th scoring option in our starting line up.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: [Article] Pacers' Current Salary Situation (Less than we thought for Lance)

                The NBA needs to institute a drafted player exception to the LT, Any player who has only played for your team in the NBA only count 50% or 75% or 89% whatever towards the LT that way teams like the Thunder and Pacers don't have to let players that they drafted walk to stay under it. This would really help teams who's top player is someone they drafted, it would not help the Knicks all that much.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: [Article] Pacers' Current Salary Situation (Less than we thought for Lance)

                  I can't believe we could be screwed because we chose not to rest Scola.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: [Article] Pacers' Current Salary Situation (Less than we thought for Lance)

                    We could go over the luxury tax first and then focus on trading someone. Hopefully Roy will be disappointing another fan base and this won't be a problem.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: [Article] Pacers' Current Salary Situation (Less than we thought for Lance)

                      Originally posted by PacersHomer View Post
                      We could go over the luxury tax first and then focus on trading someone. Hopefully Roy will be disappointing another fan base and this won't be a problem.
                      Although we didn't hear about it within the post season press conference - Bird has explained countless times that Herb does not want to go into the luxury tax. I can't really say I blame him lol - that's a steep penalty to pay

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: [Article] Pacers' Current Salary Situation (Less than we thought for Lance)

                        In retrospect, Scola is a bad trade.
                        Larry Bird screws up sometimes.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: [Article] Pacers' Current Salary Situation (Less than we thought for Lance)

                          Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                          Although we didn't hear about it within the post season press conference - Bird has explained countless times that Herb does not want to go into the luxury tax. I can't really say I blame him lol - that's a steep penalty to pay
                          Exactly. I found this part of the article funny.

                          ...we should assume that the Pacers want to have a bit of leeway under the tax. That is to say, if the luxury tax threshold is $77 million (as it is projected and assumed in this financials), then the Pacers will probably target to be at least $500k below it — if not more.

                          This is mostly to make sure that some minor accounting adjustment doesn’t put the Pacers over the tax, at which point Herb Simon shoots everyone.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: [Article] Pacers' Current Salary Situation (Less than we thought for Lance)

                            Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                            Although we didn't hear about it within the post season press conference - Bird has explained countless times that Herb does not want to go into the luxury tax. I can't really say I blame him lol - that's a steep penalty to pay
                            as long as we're under the threshold by the end of the year we're good. never wanna put your back against the wall like that, but it's possible.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: [Article] Pacers' Current Salary Situation (Less than we thought for Lance)

                              Originally posted by Sherlock View Post
                              In retrospect, Scola is a bad trade.
                              Larry Bird screws up sometimes.
                              Not fully true. Green and Plumlee were going to be counting against our cap as well, so its not like we added salary. Maybe should have played Scola a little less lol.

                              In retrospect, maybe we should have kept Green and Plum. Maybe they could have thrived within an uptempo second unit led by Lance with Cope as a stretch 4. Who knows. But we do have the option of cutting Scola and saving a small bit of cash against the cap and luxury tax threshold

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X