My point about the all-star voting is that maybe your opinion isn't in line with what the majority believe. The hype he is getting from the people on this board might not be in line with how people outside of this forum view him, including coaches. He has a lot more going against him being selected, than he has going for him.
BS is not straight talk, what you just said makes no sense. Either he means what he says or he doesn't.
Bird also realizes Simon doesn't have infinite pockets. Every GM would love to have 10 players good enough to make $10 million+, but not doing so does not mean Simon isn't serious about winning a championship. To Simon it isn't just $12 million he is paying Lance, it is $18ish million (depending on how much the tax would be) that he would in essence be paying for Lance.
I hate when guys get over or under valued, it makes anything I say to the contrary seem like I don't absolutely love the guy. I'll just let it play out. To me, alot of what Lance does is ingrained in the structure of his environment. He could easily go the way of obnoxiously good player on a bad team or he could be a loved part of a legend we'll all tell our grandkids about. If I'm Lance its an easy decision, but I have no idea how this will end. I'm happy for him for now. Hopefully this one works out for everyone, but I recognize the potential for that not to happen now.
If he goes to the wrong environment, he could easily turn into Javale McGee like joke who's an And 1 tape that has no substance. If he stays with a group of guys who give him the support and tough love that allow him to put up triple doubles and be a part of a greater 'team' he'll get true respect and tangible accomplishments. My biggest fear is he'll want to be 'the man' and lose sight of what matters in the process. It's another more dangerous fork in the road for Lance this next year, imo. We'll see.
Also, the hard truth is . . . The team that makes the biggest offer is the team, of those able to bid, that wants your services the most.
Anyway, the discussion is related to Lance considering the thread. I love George Hill but here's something to keep in mind:
1) Hill makes 8M/yr
2) Rebounds: Lance >> Hill
3) Assists Lance >> Hill
4) Points Lance > Hill
With that said, they score about the same per attempt because Hill shoots the three and free throws better. Hill is a bit better on turnovers per assist too. They are both good defenders.
So, both are really good players but objectively speaking Lance is more valuable than Hill.
Edit: BTW, this is not even factoring in , among other things, the pressure Lance puts on a defense.
IMO, Lance will probably get an offer that we will not be able to match. ESPN and NBA TV hype can make people see more than the substance of a player's performance. Lance is a crowd pleaser and a fun player to watch. Here with the Pacers, Lance can be all these things and maybe even more. At a different team, in a different city(LA/NYC) the temptations may be too much for him to handle. I hope we can make an offer he will take and he stays with us for at least another 4/5 years, but it will surprise me.
Many are constantly providing what they believe to be the appropriate action for the Pacers to take this summer in regards to Lance. So many of us are turning the appropriate action to take into a Lance vs. GHill debate. Earlier it was a Lance vs. Granger debate.
That implies that the question being asked is "Should we keep Lance or should we keep GHill?" or "Should we keep Lance or should we keep Granger?" And you appear to have answered that question according to your wishes.
But, that is not the question that should be asked. The appropriate question(s) should really be "What players do we require next season to result in the strongest possible starting lineup?". Or maybe even "What players do we need to result in the strongest possible roster?".
Now, I'm not saying that answering those questions will not then lead to additional questions. But it seems that many have totally glossed over the importance of "team" and have whittled down the question to the importance of the "individual".
I originally never thought that Lance would have the importance on this team that he has achieved. Heck, early on I even thought that Lance was a mistake that Bird signed for 4 years at a greater than necessary contract level. It turns out that I was wrong on both matters. But that doesn't diminish what GHill has provided for the Pacers. And more importantly, consideration should be given for what the pairing of GHill and Lance provide for the Pacers. Above all else, it is the first time in Pacers history that we have had a pair of very, very good defenders spearheading the defense in the back court.
There are a lot of reasons that Roy Hibbert no longer experiences the foul trouble he did in his first 2-3 years in the league. Obviously experience, verticality and respect from the officials has something to do with it. We can also thank Vogel and his defensive schemes. But just as important as any of these, we can thank GHill and Lance for helping to eat a lot of clock before our opponent is really able to get anything started offensively that begins to go in Roy's direction. Everyone would agree that there is a great degree of synergy in the defensive efforts of the five guys that we choose to start. But breaking that down even further, there is also a great synergy in the combinations of Lance/GHill, GHill/PGeorge and Lance/PGeorge. Risking the possibility of losing any of this synergy would be a huge mistake if there are other viable solutions.
What I'm getting at is that each one of our starters is vitally important to the success of our starting unit. Even though our bench performs much better than last season, my presumption is that our starters contribute far more to our victories than does our bench, based on their 3rd quarter production alone, even if for no other reason. Therefore, I believe our first order of business is to find a way to not lose ANY of our starters this summer.
This means that to maintain overall "team" strength, more importance should probably be placed in keeping our starters together than our bench players. But that is really what TPTB should be striving to achieve. If Lance's value/price continues to rise, obviously there will be additional very difficult questions to answer. But I think the questions then become whether Herb will allow the luxury tax threshold to be minimally succeeded or can the bench be altered in such a way to still be competitive while reducing its salary.
Eventually, if we go through all of these questions and conclude that we can only stay competitive with the upper echelon teams if we retain even a high-priced Lance and maintain our present bench strength, only then should we look to trading another starter for relief to accomplish our goals.
Graphic-er said: Its more likely that they will sign Lance and trade George Hill to avoid the luxury tax. You reply with this: I think it's absolutely amazing how much George Hill is undervalued by Pacers fans.
So, really, I find it pretty amazing that you respond to my post as-if you're not right in the middle of debating individual players and favoring one over another.
If you look at Tyreke Evans' contract (who most would agree is overpaid at 11mil / year), but who is possible the most similar player to Lance in the NBA, I really hope someone doesn't throw a crazy deal at him. Tyreke had a crazy rookie season and has steadily falled off since, but his career numbers are roughly 17/5/5. When you compare that to Lance's numbers this year, he isn't the same scorer as Evans yet (but improving rapidly), but he is a better shooter, passer, rebounder and defender. I think if we got him for 9mil per year it would be a steal.
For 6-8m i'll keep lance, if he wants 10m i rather go after gordon hayward. I mean hayward and pg know eachother from playing in las vegas together, trying to get into the national team. So i dont think chemistry will suffer a lot. Plus hayward has a bigger ceiling than lance. For instance, more athletic, better shooter, about the same as far as bball iq, longer arms (can disrupt what offense is trying to do, take the player hes guarding to mt roy) etc. the only problem i see is, hayward is restricted in free agency. The other option imho is signing marshon brooks, alfaroq aminu and still have money to give to scola. Why u may ask. Long athletic players that fits our defense and can develop into good players in our system. Brooks to me is a good scorer with big wing span. with all the attention on george, brooks could score in bunches. I like aminu a lot, one of the best defense i seen being played at pg came from this guy. And last but not least, we can probably have the 4m to pay scola.
1st option resign lance. 2nd option try for hayward. 3rt sign brooks, alfaroq, and keep scola.
Gh, brooks, pg, dw, roy.
Cj, S Hill, Aminu, scola, ian.
P.s sorry for my grammar
Gordon has nowhere near the ceiling that Lance has... And that is no slight to Gordon, but Lance can potentially be THAT good...
They both hold each other below their season averages. Chalmers has a very slight advantage (mainly because he is shooting better due to Miami's superior spacing) but it's pretty far from "owning" him.
Trading Hill should be a last resort, only if trading Copeland wouldn't get rid of the cap space.
If we win a championship, Lance will not be the biggest reason why. That's crazy. We have the Defensive Player of the Year and an MVP candidate. PG and Hibbert would be the biggest reasons, because superstars win championships. If you say Lance is the reason why we would win a championship, then you are saying Lance is this team's MVP. I love Lance, but he's the fourth most important player on the team behind Hibbert, PG, and West.