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

  • #61
    Re: [Article] Pacers' Current Salary Situation (Less than we thought for Lance)

    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
    - 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.
    I think Plums would have gotten a few chances. We went long stretches with both Hibbert and Ian sucking to the extreme.

    Whether he would have capitalized on it, I don't know. Even if he did, Vogel may still have benched him again (see Lavoy's one great game, Cope's flashes of success and back to the bench, etc.).
    "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: [Article] Pacers' Current Salary Situation (Less than we thought for Lance)

      Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
      I think Plums would have gotten a few chances. We went long stretches with both Hibbert and Ian sucking to the extreme.

      Whether he would have capitalized on it, I don't know. Even if he did, Vogel may still have benched him again (see Lavoy's one great game, Cope's flashes of success and back to the bench, etc.).
      The fact that Lavoy and Cope never got consistent chances leads me to think that Plums would have never gotten a good chance here.

      Vogel's style has worked good for the starters over the last three years, but finding out how to max out his bench talent just isn't his strength.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: [Article] Pacers' Current Salary Situation (Less than we thought for Lance)

        Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
        I think Plums would have gotten a few chances. We went long stretches with both Hibbert and Ian sucking to the extreme.

        Whether he would have capitalized on it, I don't know. Even if he did, Vogel may still have benched him again (see Lavoy's one great game, Cope's flashes of success and back to the bench, etc.).
        The fact that Lavoy and Cope never got consistent chances leads me to think that Plums would have never gotten a good chance here.

        Vogel's style has worked good for the starters over the last three years, but finding out how to max out his bench talent just isn't his strength.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: [Article] Pacers' Current Salary Situation (Less than we thought for Lance)

          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
          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.
          Scola was not close to the same player we all watched in Houston over the years. Didn't he play a fair amount of international b-ball last summer? Maybe that coupled with him being another year older was just too much.

          The fact that the staff basically forced him to play in the same spots on the floor that West occupies just reinforces my belief that they lack creativity on the offensive side of the ball and are stubborn when it comes to making adjustments. Throw in that they continued to do the same thing during the 2-month stretch when Scola couldn't buy a jump shot and it is almost criminal. Scola's post game was pretty decent all year and there are plenty of back-up 4's in the league where his match-up in the painted area was damn favorable. The staff just chose not to take advantage.

          The trade had to be made. Hibbert was looking like a legit 15 & 10 guy after the second half of last season and the playoffs. Plumlee was unproven, offensively challenged and the bench needed a veteran anchor. It was a great bet that just didn't pay off. My only concern during all this was the inclusion of this years 1st rounder. After seeing this thread on our cap situation it is pretty easy to see that the salary that goes with the pick would be very difficult to incorporate into a scenario that involves re-signing Lance.
          Last edited by Downtown Bang!; 06-07-2014, 11:56 AM.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: [Article] Pacers' Current Salary Situation (Less than we thought for Lance)

            Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post

            Even if he did, Vogel may still have benched him again (see Lavoy's one great game, Cope's flashes of success and back to the bench, etc.).

            Even with the article I posted yesterday on how much Vogel likes and feels Solomon will be able to help, I won't be one bit surprised at all if he can't crack Vogel's rotation.

            I don't have a clue what next years bench will look like, but I know Vogel has to develop and use the bench more than he has in the past. The success of the team next year depends on not over using the starters and wearing them out. Not to mention having a bench that can come in under any circumstances and be able to hold the fort or give good production while the starters are resting.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: [Article] Pacers' Current Salary Situation (Less than we thought for Lance)

              Originally posted by Downtown Bang! View Post
              Scola was not close to the same player we all watched in Houston over the years. Didn't he play a fair amount of international b-ball last summer? Maybe that coupled with him being another year older was just too much.

              The fact that the staff basically forced him to play in the same spots on the floor that West occupies just reinforces my belief that they lack creativity on the offensive side of the ball and are stubborn when it comes to making adjustments. Throw in that they continued to do the same thing during the 2-month stretch when Scola couldn't buy a jump shot and it is almost criminal. Scola's post game was pretty decent all year and there are plenty of back-up 4's in the league where his match-up in the painted area was damn favorable. The staff just chose not to take advantage.

              The trade had to be made. Hibbert was looking like a legit 15 & 10 guy after the second half of last season and the playoffs. Plumlee was unproven, offensively challenged and the bench needed a veteran anchor. It was a great bet that just didn't pay off. My only concern during all this was the inclusion of this years 1st rounder. After seeing this thread on our cap situation it is pretty easy to see that the salary that goes with the pick would be very difficult to incorporate into a scenario that involves re-signing Lance.

              The 1st was given to unload Green. It was discussed many times last year it was going to be costly in order to unload Green.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: [Article] Pacers' Current Salary Situation (Less than we thought for Lance)

                Regarding the bench: Look, I get that Evan Turner was not a good defender and consistently made mistakes. He deserves a huge chunk of the blame for his tenure here not working out. That being said, I just don't believe for a second that the Heat or Spurs would be giving him DNP-CD's. They would have found a way to utilize the talents that he has. If the Heat can get production out of Rashard Lewis's corpse, then yes I think they could have found a way to utilize Turner.

                Evan Turner averaged 17 PPG as a Sixer, was traded to the Pacers at the trade deadline, and by the end of the playoffs was getting DNP-CD'd. That has to be unprecedented, doesn't it? In the course of NBA history, has there ever been another player who averaged in the ballpark of 17 PPG, got traded, and then was getting DNP-CD'd at the end of the postseason?

                Gerald Green, DJ Augistin, Evan Turner, Luis Scola........four guys who have been pretty decent and even very good in other places, yet had disappointing tenures as Pacers. That just has to be a giant red flag about our system.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: [Article] Pacers' Current Salary Situation (Less than we thought for Lance)

                  Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                  Regarding the bench: Look, I get that Evan Turner was not a good defender and consistently made mistakes. He deserves a huge chunk of the blame for his tenure here not working out. That being said, I just don't believe for a second that the Heat or Spurs would be giving him DNP-CD's. They would have found a way to utilize the talents that he has. If the Heat can get production out of Rashard Lewis's corpse, then yes I think they could have found a way to utilize Turner.

                  Evan Turner averaged 17 PPG as a Sixer, was traded to the Pacers at the trade deadline, and by the end of the playoffs was getting DNP-CD'd. That has to be unprecedented, doesn't it? In the course of NBA history, has there ever been another player who averaged in the ballpark of 17 PPG, got traded, and then was getting DNP-CD'd at the end of the postseason?

                  Gerald Green, DJ Augistin, Evan Turner, Luis Scola........four guys who have been pretty decent and even very good in other places, yet had disappointing tenures as Pacers. That just has to be a giant red flag about our system.
                  The difference in getting production out of a bench or role player on the Heat vs. the Pacers is that the Heat have Lebron James and Dwyane Wade. It makes it a lot easier for role players on that team to get good looks at shots and opportunities to score when defenses put so much focus and attention on their two superstars.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: [Article] Pacers' Current Salary Situation (Less than we thought for Lance)

                    Originally posted by BenR1990 View Post
                    The difference in getting production out of a bench or role player on the Heat vs. the Pacers is that the Heat have Lebron James and Dwyane Wade. It makes it a lot easier for role players on that team to get good looks at shots and opportunities to score when defenses put so much focus and attention on their two superstars.
                    True, but I bet Turner would have been productive even on a team like Dallas or Chicago. I just think that most playoff teams would have found a way to use him. If he goes to a contender next year, then I guarantee that he produces.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: [Article] Pacers' Current Salary Situation (Less than we thought for Lance)

                      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                      Regarding the bench: Look, I get that Evan Turner was not a good defender and consistently made mistakes. He deserves a huge chunk of the blame for his tenure here not working out. That being said, I just don't believe for a second that the Heat or Spurs would be giving him DNP-CD's. They would have found a way to utilize the talents that he has. If the Heat can get production out of Rashard Lewis's corpse, then yes I think they could have found a way to utilize Turner.

                      Evan Turner averaged 17 PPG as a Sixer, was traded to the Pacers at the trade deadline, and by the end of the playoffs was getting DNP-CD'd. That has to be unprecedented, doesn't it? In the course of NBA history, has there ever been another player who averaged in the ballpark of 17 PPG, got traded, and then was getting DNP-CD'd at the end of the postseason?

                      Gerald Green, DJ Augistin, Evan Turner, Luis Scola........four guys who have been pretty decent and even very good in other places, yet had disappointing tenures as Pacers. That just has to be a giant red flag about our system.
                      This is where I want to see Frank grow as a coach this next year... I want him to cater more to his bench talent, be able to utilize strengths of the players that he has on the floor... I personally found it to be a crime how little we utilized Scola in the post this year... The reason all of these bench players come in and stink up BLF is that he does not play to the strengths of these guys...
                      Abba Zaba, your my only friend.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: [Article] Pacers' Current Salary Situation (Less than we thought for Lance)

                        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                        True, but I bet Turner would have been productive even on a team like Dallas or Chicago. I just think that most playoff teams would have found a way to use him. If he goes to a contender next year, then I guarantee that he produces.
                        I can agree with that. From what I saw in his time with us, Turner is one of those players who needs to have the ball and get into a rhythm in order to be successful on the court. I felt Turner's biggest issue on our team was playing with Lance Stephenson, who is also that same type of ball-dominant player on the offensive end. If we had a spot up shooter type of player at the 2 or 3 spot, that would have allowed for Turner to have more opportunities to create and have the ball in his hands.

                        The Turner thing I think could also be part of a bigger issue in attempting to make our bench unit emulate our starting unit, regardless of what each player's strength is. One example is we forced Scola into a role where it was exclusively a pick and pop player in an attempt to make him a David West clone on the second unit. Instead of using his post-up abilities that we saw late in the ECF, we just forced him into a role that didn't play to his strengths. Last year we had the same issues with attempting to make DJ Augustin a George Hill clone when that clearly wasn't his style.

                        I'm torn on whether the player personnel or system is more responsible for the issues. With the Turner situation though, I think its more personnel based and that he would have been successful if we had someone like a JJ Reddick starting at the 2. In the case of someone like Scola, there's really no excuse for how poorly he was misused and I blame that on the system. With Turner, I'm not sure what we could have done to give him and Stephenson a decent amount of minutes each and having them both be productive.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: [Article] Pacers' Current Salary Situation (Less than we thought for Lance)

                          Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                          IMO count55 (Tim Donahue) is being too conservative. This:



                          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.
                          I've been saying this for the longest time and hope that someone in the Pacers FO reads the count55 article. The Scola experiment was worth gambling on ( despite giving up Plumlee....who I wanted to keep so that it made Mahinmi expendable in a trade...if needed ). But after seeing how inconsistent he is, while having a comparable Player and his $3+ mil in capspace sitting on the bench ( for another season ) and the limited CapSpace that the Pacers have to spend to make the "tweaks" that Bird wants to make.....letting Scola go is a no-brainer.

                          Thanks Scola for coming through in the clutch for some games and making a huge difference from time to time....but he simply wasn't consistent enough to justify not losing the $2.9 mil in Salary Cap Space that he adds to the SalaryCap that the Pacers desperately needs in order to improve the Team in the upcoming offseason.
                          Last edited by CableKC; 06-07-2014, 02:14 PM.
                          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: [Article] Pacers' Current Salary Situation (Less than we thought for Lance)

                            If Scola is brought back, I'm breaking my Larry Bird bobblehead.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: [Article] Pacers' Current Salary Situation (Less than we thought for Lance)

                              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                              Regarding the bench: Look, I get that Evan Turner was not a good defender and consistently made mistakes. He deserves a huge chunk of the blame for his tenure here not working out. That being said, I just don't believe for a second that the Heat or Spurs would be giving him DNP-CD's. They would have found a way to utilize the talents that he has. If the Heat can get production out of Rashard Lewis's corpse, then yes I think they could have found a way to utilize Turner.

                              Evan Turner averaged 17 PPG as a Sixer, was traded to the Pacers at the trade deadline, and by the end of the playoffs was getting DNP-CD'd. That has to be unprecedented, doesn't it? In the course of NBA history, has there ever been another player who averaged in the ballpark of 17 PPG, got traded, and then was getting DNP-CD'd at the end of the postseason?

                              Gerald Green, DJ Augistin, Evan Turner, Luis Scola........four guys who have been pretty decent and even very good in other places, yet had disappointing tenures as Pacers. That just has to be a giant red flag about our system.
                              another way to look at Turner is that he is a slightly worse Michael Beasley (who of course had his *** planted firmly on the Heat bench.)

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: [Article] Pacers' Current Salary Situation (Less than we thought for Lance)

                                Originally posted by presto123 View Post
                                If Scola is brought back, I'm breaking my Larry Bird bobblehead.
                                You wont do it!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X