Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 159

Thread: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

  1. #76
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Dillon, Co
    Posts
    4,013

    Default Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicks View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I thought we could give Lance around 7-8 per as is, and if we dumped Copeland's deal that would then be closer to 9-11?

    65.8 mil next year without Lance or Danny nor the options on Sloan and Johnson which are min. players. With those 2 options that puts us at 67.6 mil and still only 11 players. I'm guessing but add at least 2 mil if PG makes and all nba team which is likely and that leaves us at 69.6 mil with only 11 players. Pencil in our 2cd round pick to get to 13 players and that leaves 4.5 mil to pay Lance. Get rid of Copeland and we have about 7.5 mil to spend on Lance or someone to stay under the L.T. I'm getting this from Hoopshype but they've been dependable to date.

  2. #77

    Default Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

    So sounds like to me we have to find a taker for 2 of Scola/Mahinmi/Copeland. Obviously preferably Mahinmi/Copeland. Other option would be to trade Hill, but I am one who thinks that would be an awful mistake.

  3. #78
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Dillon, Co
    Posts
    4,013

    Default Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

    Quote Originally Posted by brownjake43 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    So sounds like to me we have to find a taker for 2 of Scola/Mahinmi/Copeland. Obviously preferably Mahinmi/Copeland. Other option would be to trade Hill, but I am one who thinks that would be an awful mistake.
    I think that would be too much to lose to keep Lance. It would leave us with a big hole to fill and no money to do it with. We also need to keep in mind that we'll need Scola's expiring contract to come off the books the following year anyway just to be able to pay Hibbert. It's impossible to keep everyone together and hard just to keep the core.

  4. #79

    Default Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

    Quote Originally Posted by CableKC View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Can someone work out how a $40 mil / 5 Year and $44 mil / 5 Year Contract Offer would look like when broken down by Season ( assuming raises )?
    $40M/5 yr @ 7.5%

    $6.96M
    $7.48M
    $8M
    $8.52
    $9.04

    $44M/5yr would be about $800K more each year.

    $40M/5yr @ 4.5%

    $7.33M
    $7.67M
    $8
    $8.33M
    $8.67M

    Again, $44m/5yr would be about $800K more each year.

  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to xIndyFan For This Useful Post:


  6. #80
    Oh What Could Have Been! fwpacerfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Fort Wayne
    Age
    44
    Posts
    1,097

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

    Reggie mentioned the Pacers being the right environment for Lance last night and Bird said this: "Obviously I think this is the best situation for Lance. I worry about if Lance leaves here. This environment is absolutely perfect for him. Players know his little games. Lance is always energetic. He's always at another level. He likes to mess around in practice. Guys understand that here. It's not a bad thing, he's just energetic."

    I hope Lance and his agent take this into account. Without the positive influence of this team and this organization that he could go somewhere else and have major issues.
    "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
    - Benjamin Franklin

  7. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to fwpacerfan For This Useful Post:


  8. #81

    Default Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pacerized View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    65.8 mil next year without Lance or Danny nor the options on Sloan and Johnson which are min. players. With those 2 options that puts us at 67.6 mil and still only 11 players. I'm guessing but add at least 2 mil if PG makes and all nba team which is likely and that leaves us at 69.6 mil with only 11 players. Pencil in our 2cd round pick to get to 13 players and that leaves 4.5 mil to pay Lance. Get rid of Copeland and we have about 7.5 mil to spend on Lance or someone to stay under the L.T. I'm getting this from Hoopshype but they've been dependable to date.
    Hoopshype is already projecting some Rose rule salary onto Paul George. For example, take a look at Wall's contract who signed for a regular max. They have Wall starting at 13.7 while Paul's starts at 15.8. Also, Paul took 27 percent so he won't get the full bump from the Rose rule.

    That makes it around 67.6 for 11 players. Peyton Siva is the best example I can quickly find for a late 2nd round pick from this year. He makes just under 500,00 so round up and that makes it 68.1 for 12. Projected luxury tax was 75.7, so that leaves 7.6 before trading anybody. Of course those are estimates, as changes in the salary cap/luxury tax will both change George's contract and also change the line to shoot for.

    I'd consider lots of ideas in order to keep Lance around. My off the wall idea if enough salary couldn't be freed up other ways is to trade David West. I wouldn't want to trade West, but I'd consider him over Hill for the following reasons
    1) West can probably fetch more in trade from a team who wants him to bring that leadership and toughness to another locker room
    2) West makes quite a bit more than Hill, which would allow the Pacers to get some salary back in the trade, hopefully in the form of a young power forward with some potential.
    3) The Pacers have two power forwards on the bench who are being underutilized to different extents in Scola and Copeland, and so they'll be able to make up a part of what West does just with more minutes
    4) He's not quite as needed as he used to be. The Pacers are transitioning from a post based offense to a more balanced one. West is spending more and more time in the high post, which he's good at but it's not quite as hard to find a replacement for that as it is for a dual inside/outside threat. Also, the leadership and coach on the floor parts are wonderful qualities, but especially after another playoff run the Pacers have other players who can step up and be leaders at this point. They will have all been through the battles.
    5) Obviously his age factors in. I think the Pacers can be contenders with the George/Hibbert/Lance/Hill core for several years, and getting assets for West now would help keep that going.

    Does that mean I want to get rid of West? No, he's still a great player. But I think it would be a bigger mistake to get rid of Lance. It's not easy to acquire talent when you're cash strapped like the Pacers will be. To lose Lance for money reasons only to then essentially lose West for age reasons in the span of a couple of years would be extremely problematic for the Pacers staying contenders. Hopefully they can fit in Lance's salary and keep the entire starting lineup together though.

  9. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Cubs231721 For This Useful Post:


  10. #82
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Dillon, Co
    Posts
    4,013

    Default Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cubs231721 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Hoopshype is already projecting some Rose rule salary onto Paul George. For example, take a look at Wall's contract who signed for a regular max. They have Wall starting at 13.7 while Paul's starts at 15.8. Also, Paul took 27 percent so he won't get the full bump from the Rose rule.

    That makes it around 67.6 for 11 players. Peyton Siva is the best example I can quickly find for a late 2nd round pick from this year. He makes just under 500,00 so round up and that makes it 68.1 for 12. Projected luxury tax was 75.7, so that leaves 7.6 before trading anybody. Of course those are estimates, as changes in the salary cap/luxury tax will both change George's contract and also change the line to shoot for.

    I'd consider lots of ideas in order to keep Lance around. My off the wall idea if enough salary couldn't be freed up other ways is to trade David West. I wouldn't want to trade West, but I'd consider him over Hill for the following reasons
    1) West can probably fetch more in trade from a team who wants him to bring that leadership and toughness to another locker room
    2) West makes quite a bit more than Hill, which would allow the Pacers to get some salary back in the trade, hopefully in the form of a young power forward with some potential.
    3) The Pacers have two power forwards on the bench who are being underutilized to different extents in Scola and Copeland, and so they'll be able to make up a part of what West does just with more minutes
    4) He's not quite as needed as he used to be. The Pacers are transitioning from a post based offense to a more balanced one. West is spending more and more time in the high post, which he's good at but it's not quite as hard to find a replacement for that as it is for a dual inside/outside threat. Also, the leadership and coach on the floor parts are wonderful qualities, but especially after another playoff run the Pacers have other players who can step up and be leaders at this point. They will have all been through the battles.
    5) Obviously his age factors in. I think the Pacers can be contenders with the George/Hibbert/Lance/Hill core for several years, and getting assets for West now would help keep that going.

    Does that mean I want to get rid of West? No, he's still a great player. But I think it would be a bigger mistake to get rid of Lance. It's not easy to acquire talent when you're cash strapped like the Pacers will be. To lose Lance for money reasons only to then essentially lose West for age reasons in the span of a couple of years would be extremely problematic for the Pacers staying contenders. Hopefully they can fit in Lance's salary and keep the entire starting lineup together though.

    I don't think they have PG at the higher max. They have him at 15.8 to start. The lower 25% max would be in line with that on the estimated 62.5 mil cap with a 75 mil LT for next year. The higher 30% max would be 18.75 mil so I guessed at 17.8 mil knowing he wasn't getting the full 30%. None of that is etched in stone but it should be close I think. If Wall only got 13.7 mil that wouldn't even be 25% of this years cap. We may be able to get our 2cd. round pick for the 500k instead of 800k though, but I still don't think we have more then 7.5-8 mil to offer Lance even after moving Copeland for nothing which may not be that easy to do without giving up an asset.

    I want to keep Lance but I'd never entertain moving West to or multiple rotation players to do it. Moving Copeland is a no brainer though.

  11. #83

    Default Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

    One thing that hasn't been mentioned is a players trade expection. I know a couple of teams have one so maybe that comes into play.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pacerized View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I don't think they have PG at the higher max. They have him at 15.8 to start. The lower 25% max would be in line with that on the estimated 62.5 mil cap with a 75 mil LT for next year. The higher 30% max would be 18.75 mil so I guessed at 17.8 mil knowing he wasn't getting the full 30%. None of that is etched in stone but it should be close I think. If Wall only got 13.7 mil that wouldn't even be 25% of this years cap. We may be able to get our 2cd. round pick for the 500k instead of 800k though, but I still don't think we have more then 7.5-8 mil to offer Lance even after moving Copeland for nothing which may not be that easy to do without giving up an asset.

    I want to keep Lance but I'd never entertain moving West to or multiple rotation players to do it. Moving Copeland is a no brainer though.
    The numbers are confirmed with 8 pnts 9 seconds blog. Hoopsworld has it right.

  12. #84
    Member Speed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Brownsburg
    Posts
    8,558

    Default Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

    I David is older, but you can't trade him, he's the driving force behind this team. He means so much more than his numbers indicate. He is an enormous part of that environment that Reggie talked about last night that allows the other players to maximize their abilities. I can't stress how much I think DWest means to what's going on right now. In fact, I'd not want Lance on the team w/o David West or that type, at this point, I think thats a recipe for disaster.

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Speed For This Useful Post:


  14. #85
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Carmel, IN
    Posts
    154

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

    Plain and simple Lance owes his career, not just his emergence as an legit threat, but his entire NBA career to Larry working with him and believing in him. If anything Lance should resign to show his loyalty to the man that very possibly kept him off the streets. Yes that's probably a large exaggeration, but really, where would Lance be without the guidance of Bird and the teammates Bird gave him? Surely not in a position to be an NBA All-Star
    Forever struggling to convince myself "In Larry we trust"
    Writer at NoseBleedSectionSports.com

  15. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to mitchbr For This Useful Post:


  16. #86

    Default Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pacerized View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I don't think they have PG at the higher max. They have him at 15.8 to start. The lower 25% max would be in line with that on the estimated 62.5 mil cap with a 75 mil LT for next year. The higher 30% max would be 18.75 mil so I guessed at 17.8 mil knowing he wasn't getting the full 30%. None of that is etched in stone but it should be close I think. If Wall only got 13.7 mil that wouldn't even be 25% of this years cap. We may be able to get our 2cd. round pick for the 500k instead of 800k though, but I still don't think we have more then 7.5-8 mil to offer Lance even after moving Copeland for nothing which may not be that easy to do without giving up an asset.

    I want to keep Lance but I'd never entertain moving West to or multiple rotation players to do it. Moving Copeland is a no brainer though.
    The 13.7 million for Wall is a placeholder. It is the 25% max number for this year. They take 25% of a different number than the actual cap now which is why the discrepancy exists.

    For further info, the 30% number was 16.441 this year. That would make the 27% number this year to be about 14.8. That will almost certainly go up next year with the increased cap, but no one is exactly sure how much.

    Those figures and the excellent explanation can be found at Larry Coon's salary cap FAQ, question #16:

    http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q16

  17. #87

    Default Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

    We can give Lance $11.7m with 7.5% raises without hitting the luxury tax without even having to trade Copeland. We have $65.7m in salary next year and the luxury tax will be 75.7. With the raises, 5 years, 58.5 million would be just a bit under $10m.

  18. #88
    Running with the Big Boys BillS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Danberry
    Age
    55
    Posts
    11,827

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

    Quote Originally Posted by PacersHomer View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    We can give Lance $11.7m with 7.5% raises without hitting the luxury tax without even having to trade Copeland. We have $65.7m in salary next year and the luxury tax will be 75.7. With the raises, 5 years, 58.5 million would be just a bit under $10m.
    That's for fewer than 13 players. You have to add in the remaining player salaries, even if they are vet minimum, to have no fewer than 13 players on the roster.
    BillS

    "Every time I pitched it was like throwing gasoline on a fire. Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw!"
    - Ebby Calvin "Nuke" LaLoosh

  19. #89

    Default Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

    We would only have 12 guys so strike off about $500K for the 2nd round pick who can warm the bench.

  20. #90
    Member CableKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA ( 1123, 6536, 5321 )
    Age
    41
    Posts
    24,808

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

    Quote Originally Posted by xIndyFan View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    $40M/5 yr @ 7.5%

    $6.96M
    $7.48M
    $8M
    $8.52
    $9.04

    $44M/5yr would be about $800K more each year.

    $40M/5yr @ 4.5%

    $7.33M
    $7.67M
    $8
    $8.33M
    $8.67M

    Again, $44m/5yr would be about $800K more each year.
    Ok.....so if we are looking at a $44 mil / 5 year @7.5 % raises, it would look like:

    $44M/5 yr @ 7.5%

    $7.76M in 2014-2015
    $8.18M in 2015-2016
    $8.98M in 2016-2017
    $9.32M in 2017-2018
    $9.84M in 2018-2019

    Someone would have to correct me if I am wrong...but a Team Frontloading a contract won't make any difference since Lance is a UFA and we cannot match any Contract offer anyway.

    I am hoping that a 5 Year / $44 mil Contract / 4th Year Player option would do the trick. I think that a $44 mil contract / 4 Year contract is the most that a Team with Capspace would offer.....Lance will have the option to choose where he goes....but the Pacers can make a comprable offer.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    This is David West, he is the Honey Badger, West just doesn't give a *****....he's pretty bad *ss cuz he has no regard for any other Player or Team whatsoever.

  21. #91

    Default Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pacerized View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I think that would be too much to lose to keep Lance. It would leave us with a big hole to fill and no money to do it with. We also need to keep in mind that we'll need Scola's expiring contract to come off the books the following year anyway just to be able to pay Hibbert. It's impossible to keep everyone together and hard just to keep the core.
    Copeland and Scola is too much to keep Lance? Interesting take. I would lose anyone minus PG and Roy to keep Lance around honestly. Also, don't West and Roy come off the books at the same time? I really don't see Roy getting much of a raise when he comes off the books.

  22. #92
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Dillon, Co
    Posts
    4,013

    Default Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cubs231721 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The 13.7 million for Wall is a placeholder. It is the 25% max number for this year. They take 25% of a different number than the actual cap now which is why the discrepancy exists.

    For further info, the 30% number was 16.441 this year. That would make the 27% number this year to be about 14.8. That will almost certainly go up next year with the increased cap, but no one is exactly sure how much.

    Those figures and the excellent explanation can be found at Larry Coon's salary cap FAQ, question #16:

    http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q16

    Isn't the cap this year 58 mil? 25% would be 14.5 mil which is about where Roy started his last contract.
    30% this year would then be 17.4 mil
    30% of the projected 62.5 mil cap next year would be 18.75 mil.
    I think Hoopshype has it right but they only project the 25% max of next years cap since Paul hasn't earned the higher contract yet by getting named to an all nba team. I don't think we have that 2 mil to spend next year.

  23. #93
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Dillon, Co
    Posts
    4,013

    Default Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

    Quote Originally Posted by brownjake43 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Copeland and Scola is too much to keep Lance? Interesting take. I would lose anyone minus PG and Roy to keep Lance around honestly. Also, don't West and Roy come off the books at the same time? I really don't see Roy getting much of a raise when he comes off the books.
    Roy will opt out next year and he will get a max 30% contract. He'll have mutliple teams ready to offer him this if we don't.

  24. #94

    Default Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pacerized View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Isn't the cap this year 58 mil? 25% would be 14.5 mil which is about where Roy started his last contract.
    30% this year would then be 17.4 mil
    30% of the projected 62.5 mil cap next year would be 18.75 mil.
    I think Hoopshype has it right but they only project the 25% max of next years cap since Paul hasn't earned the higher contract yet by getting named to an all nba team. I don't think we have that 2 mil to spend next year.
    The max is not based on 25% of the salary cap anymore. That's the nomenclature that is still used and it's still somewhat close to it, but it's misleading. For example, Roy's contract started at 13.668 million with a salary cap of 58.044 million which doesn't correspond to 25%. The 25% is now calculated using a different number that is not the salary cap. The link explains why this is along with showing exactly what the 25% and 30% numbers are this year. Using the cap number as the starting point will get you somewhat close, but it will still put you higher than what the numbers will actually end up being.

  25. #95

    Default Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pacerized View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Roy will opt out next year and he will get a max 30% contract. He'll have mutliple teams ready to offer him this if we don't.
    Hmm. How many guys in the NBA have the 30% max and who is considered the worst player with the max?

  26. #96

    Default Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

    By the way, can someone link me the Bird interview where he talks about possibly not re-signing Lance? Or was it some game time video interview? I see a lot of people mention it.

  27. #97

    Default Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

    Quote Originally Posted by brownjake43 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Hmm. How many guys in the NBA have the 30% max and who is considered the worst player with the max?
    Too many. The "max contract" is an abomination that prevents the league approaching anything close to competitive balance, it's trickle down economics and we know how that's gone. Hard cap at the lux tax limit and no max salary. Done, I fixed it, that easy.

  28. The Following User Says Thank You to Heisenberg For This Useful Post:


  29. #98
    Intuition over Integers McKeyFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Free Lance!
    Posts
    8,101

    Default Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

    By the way, nice thread title.
    .

    .

    .

    .


    “People talk about how quiet he [McKey] is, but he’s really been helpful. He gives a lot of insight to players in how to guard certain teams and what their weaknesses are. The whole team listens to him, and it makes my job a lot easier. Having players like him is what pro basketball is all about for me.” —Larry Brown

  30. The Following User Says Thank You to McKeyFan For This Useful Post:


  31. #99
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Dillon, Co
    Posts
    4,013

    Default Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

    Quote Originally Posted by hackashaq View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    By the way, can someone link me the Bird interview where he talks about possibly not re-signing Lance? Or was it some game time video interview? I see a lot of people mention it.
    It was posted on page 3 of the thread. The full interview is worth reading.
    http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/q-and-larry-bird-2013

  32. The Following User Says Thank You to Pacerized For This Useful Post:


  33. #100
    Artificial Intelligence wintermute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,296

    Default Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cubs231721 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'd consider lots of ideas in order to keep Lance around. My off the wall idea if enough salary couldn't be freed up other ways is to trade David West.


    It's the unthinkable move that I think that the Pacers should in fact consider, for all the reasons you stated.

    All indications though are that the Pacers greatly value West, whether or not his contributions are visible to us fans. But as you say, it's unlikely that West will be around during Paul George's prime years, while younger guys like Lance and George Hill probably still will. So if we HAVE to sacrifice a starter, West seems to be the logical one.

    Still, I think there is still a solid chance that we can retain Lance without breaking up the starters. Bench will take a hit for sure though.

  34. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to wintermute For This Useful Post:


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •