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

  • #46
    Re: [Article] Pacers' Current Salary Situation (Less than we thought for Lance)

    Originally posted by Tim Donahue View Post
    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.
    The author is considering only 2 possibilities for dealing with Scola.

    1) keep him and lose $4.8 million against the cap.
    2) release him and lose $1.9 million against the cap in dead money plus sign a replacement player at the minimum.

    But there's a 3rd option.

    3) trade him for a player or players making a total of $1.9 million (of course this assumes the receiving team is under the cap or has an exception).

    Why would a team take Scola in trade? If they have a good passing center than they might think Scola could thrive in their offense. Or they might be interested in packaging Scola later in a bigger deal to a third team looking to cut salary. That third team could release Scola and cut $2.9 million of salary. Or the 3rd team could keep Scola as a $4.9 million expiring contract.

    So with a Scola trade we could potentially turn $1.9 million of dead money into 2 of the bench players we need to fill the roster. That frees up another $1.9 million for Lance.
    Last edited by Strummer; 06-06-2014, 03:50 PM. Reason: clarified where the quoted bit came from. then clarified it some more.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: [Article] Pacers' Current Salary Situation (Less than we thought for Lance)

      Originally posted by The Sleeze View Post
      Basically if we let Scola go that puts the Pacers $12.6 mil under the tax. If we sign Lance for $9 mil, then we only have $3.6 mil left to fill out 4 roster spots. Minimum salary is $890,000 for non-rookies. So we are in a really tight spot.
      We'd have $64.38 mil owed to 9 Players and still need 4 more Players added to the roster.

      For 2 of those Players.....fill them with the 2 "End of the Bench" Minimum Contract Players averaging $950k each...which should easily be the 2nd round pick that the Pacers draft and 2 other Players at Vet minimum contracts ( or IMHO one of them should be Ron Howard to fill the 3rd Backup PG spot from the Mad Ants ). This would add roughly $1.9 mil to the Books.

      This would bring us up to $66.28 mil for 11 Players and leave $10.72 mil leftover for Lance and 1 more Player.

      My guess is that Bird's # is closer to the $8 mil price range ( give or take $500k ).

      But Lance could be offered some contract starting at $9 mil and leaving about $1.72 mil for the 13th Player.

      At worst....if it came to it and Bird was desperate to sign him.....the Pacers can offer him some contract starting at $9.75 mil and then leave $950k to sign the last Player on the roster.

      IMHO...unless some Team offer Lance some contract that starts at $9.75 mil or more....then it's possible to re-sign him. But...as you said....the only problem is just that it's not optimal to sign him at that starting price tag since that would leave the Pacers to fill the roster and the remaining 4 roster spots with Minimum Contract type Players.

      I don't see a huge problem as long as some Team ( or Bird ) doesn't offer him more than $9.75 mil....which I am going to guess that Bird won't do.
      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: [Article] Pacers' Current Salary Situation (Less than we thought for Lance)

        Originally posted by dal9 View Post
        i could be talking out my ***, but isn't there some kind of thing that vet min salaries don't count against the cap?

        edit: i'm not! for vet min players with more than 2 years in the league, only the 2-year minimum counts for the tax. So the OP needs to cut about 400K/minimum salary player from the calculations above.

        see questions 16 and 21
        http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm
        I think the original author was allowing for that when he assumed third year salaries. Here's his quote.

        (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.
        So they could add 10 year vets at whatever the 3rd year minimum salary is. Or they could add younger players and save a little more.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: [Article] Pacers' Current Salary Situation (Less than we thought for Lance)

          Strummer -

          In your post where it looks like you are quoting me, when you are actually quoting the article, just EDIT your post and in between the QUOTE brackets just change my name to the authors name...Tim Donahue
          I know "Sleeze" is spelled incorrectly. I spell it this way because it's based on a name.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: [Article] Pacers' Current Salary Situation (Less than we thought for Lance)

            Originally posted by Strummer View Post
            ***note that this quote is from the article posted by Sleaze, not from Sleaze himself***

            The author is considering only 2 possibilities for dealing with Scola.

            1) keep him and lose $4.8 million against the cap.
            2) release him and lose $1.9 million against the cap in dead money plus sign a replacement player at the minimum.

            But there's a 3rd option.

            3) trade him for a player or players making a total of $1.9 million (of course this assumes the receiving team is under the cap or has an exception).

            Why would a team take Scola in trade? If they have a good passing center than they might think Scola could thrive in their offense. Or they might be interested in packaging Scola later in a bigger deal to a third team looking to cut salary. That third team could release Scola and cut $2.9 million of salary. Or the 3rd team could keep Scola as a $4.9 million expiring contract.

            So with a Scola trade we could potentially turn $1.9 million of dead money into 2 of the bench players we need to fill the roster. That frees up another $1.9 million for Lance.
            I will lose faith in the FO ability to properly manage the roster and SalaryCap if they keep Scola.

            The only valid arguments to keep Scola is if he was "heads and shoulders" better than Copeland as the proverbial Backup PF. But the question as to who is better is debatable AT BEST. Yes, both offers different skill sets.......but IMHO both can adequately fill the role of Backup PF. The only thing that Copeland can't do is play some backup Center minutes ( which Vogel did with a West/Scola Frontcourt and I hated ). But IMHO.....I'd live with Mahinmi, West or whoever else we sign at the Vet minimum ( or draft ) filling that role if needed.

            It's stupid to keep Scola on the roster while adding $2.9 mil back to the Salary Cap. ALL THE WHILE having Copeland ( another Backup PF and IMHO a suitable replacement ) and his $3+ mil contract sitting on the bench doing nothing.

            I can tolerate this season where the Pacers sat Copeland and his $3+ mil Salary on the bench because we were hoping that Scola was going to take our Bench to the promised land. But after finding out that Scola is inconsistent and IMHO not that much better than what Copeland can offer....I'm not inclined to do the same thing again.

            To me, that is simply an inefficient and ineffective use of CapSpace....especially when the Pacers need this CapSpace to possibly re-sign Lance.
            Last edited by CableKC; 06-06-2014, 03:48 PM.
            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: [Article] Pacers' Current Salary Situation (Less than we thought for Lance)

              We are not the Spurs. WE don't have players willing to take less to keep the core together.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: [Article] Pacers' Current Salary Situation (Less than we thought for Lance)

                Originally posted by dal9 View Post
                i could be talking out my ***, but isn't there some kind of thing that vet min salaries don't count against the cap?

                edit: i'm not! for vet min players with more than 2 years in the league, only the 2-year minimum counts for the tax. So the OP needs to cut about 400K/minimum salary player from the calculations above.

                see questions 16 and 21
                http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm
                edit2: looking at it again, the cap figure for any free agent on a one-year minimum deal is $915,243. The only way to sign a player for a smaller tax figure is through the draft, which is where a second round pick would come in.

                Quoting cbafaq, question 16:
                For players who signed as free agents (i.e., not draft picks) under the current CBA, and make less than the two-year minimum salary, the minimum salary for a two-year veteran is used in place of their actual salary.2
                For minimum salary players whose salary is partially paid by the league (see question number 16) only the amount paid by the team (the two-year minimum salary) is taxed.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: [Article] Pacers' Current Salary Situation (Less than we thought for Lance)

                  The Pacers could trade Scola for less expensive assets per se 2nd round picks and bench players. It's not a forgone conclusion that he will get cut and that he could stay if another player gets traded. Another option is lets say Lance accepts a deal where his salary starts at 8 million for 3 years then increases in 2 years when Hibbert's contract expires.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: [Article] Pacers' Current Salary Situation (Less than we thought for Lance)

                    Also keep in mind we have a 4.2 mil trade exception from dealing Granger, and a 1.1 mil for dealing Plumlee. I am not sure how we might use these, but it does allow us to trade for someone with a lot less salary than we are sending out I believe. Bird and Pritchard might get a little creative.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: [Article] Pacers' Current Salary Situation (Less than we thought for Lance)

                      Originally posted by sopgy View Post
                      Also keep in mind we have a 4.2 mil trade exception from dealing Granger, and a 1.1 mil for dealing Plumlee. I am not sure how we might use these, but it does allow us to trade for someone with a lot less salary than we are sending out I believe. Bird and Pritchard might get a little creative.
                      Trade exceptions work the opposite way. You create one for yourself when you send out more salary then you take back. You can then use them in a trade when you want to bring in more salary than you're sending out.

                      The trade exceptions we have could be useful if Lance signs with someone else and we're trying to replace him.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: [Article] Pacers' Current Salary Situation (Less than we thought for Lance)

                        Originally posted by sopgy View Post
                        Also keep in mind we have a 4.2 mil trade exception from dealing Granger, and a 1.1 mil for dealing Plumlee. I am not sure how we might use these, but it does allow us to trade for someone with a lot less salary than we are sending out I believe. Bird and Pritchard might get a little creative.
                        other way around. The TPE allow the Pacers to take another $4m player without sending out any salary. Not what the Pacers need right now.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: [Article] Pacers' Current Salary Situation (Less than we thought for Lance)

                          Originally posted by xIndyFan View Post
                          other way around. The TPE allow the Pacers to take another $4m player without sending out any salary. Not what the Pacers need right now.
                          We can take back a little more than 5 million back. It'll help if we aren't able to re sign Lance to a decent deal

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: [Article] Pacers' Current Salary Situation (Less than we thought for Lance)

                            IMO count55 (Tim Donahue) is being too conservative. This:

                            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.
                            Is a "nice to have", but not an essential. IMO keeping Lance is an essential, or at least is a far higher priority than our 9th/10th men.

                            Bottomline is, by count55's numbers, just by waiving Scola, we can offer Lance 5 years/$50m - which IMO should be competitive in this supposed soft market for Lance. I think we can afford to keep him if we want to.

                            Now, how bad is it to have no additional spending room? Just ask the Chicago Bulls. If you follow Sham (Mark Deeks of Shamsports), he recently chronicled how the Bulls nickel-and-dimed their way using 10 day contracts to shave a few hundred k here and there. It basically meant screwing the end of bench guys, but it was all worthwhile in the end since the Bulls managed to avoid the tax despite Noah unexpectedly getting named 1st team all-NBA. So no, I don't think the Pacers should be scared of getting pared to the bone spending wise, as the Bulls have recently shown a blueprint in how to get around that.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              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.
                              Bird doesn't have a crystal ball. Anyone in Bird's shoes would have made that trade
                              "So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.


                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: [Article] Pacers' Current Salary Situation (Less than we thought for Lance)

                                Originally posted by MillerTime View Post
                                Bird doesn't have a crystal ball. Anyone in Bird's shoes would have made that trade
                                Yeah, there is a reason that this board was in 100% jubilation when that trade was made.

                                - We knew the pick was going to be a very late first rounder.
                                - Plumlee barely touched the court for us last year. Despite his awesome season in Phoenix this year, I still find it very hard to believe that he would have been given that chance here.
                                - Phoenix's run and gun system is just perfect for Green. He would have never played like that here.

                                When you look at how Plumlee and Green played, and combine it with the fact that Scola declined, then it's easy to say that Bird screwed up after the fact. But hindsight is 20/20. At the time that trade seemed like an absolute steal for a Pacer team that was gunning for a championship. No one was complaining about it in the first two months of the season when Scola was playing like one of the better bench players in the league.

                                Scola aged and became a one dimensional jump shooter. I do wish that we would have posted him up more after watching him succeed in the post against Miami. Part of it was because he was playing against some smaller players like Lewis, but I seem to remember him taking it to Bosh too. Keep in mind that Lewis actually defended David West pretty well. Overall, I think we would have had decent success in putting Scola on the post against other team's benches. I just hate how he became a one dimensional jump shooter. He was never that limited before coming to the Pacers. Again, I understand that age played a factor here, but I don't think that it is completely to blame.

                                Plumlee is the only thing I regret about that trade, but like I said, I don't think he would have been given that chance here this year.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X