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

Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

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

  • Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

    Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
    It's very possible that over paying Lance could keep us from signing Roy the following summer when he opts out and will demand a big raise. It would be foolish to not keep that in mind when deciding how much to offer Lance. Keeping Roy is a far higher priority IMO then keeping Lance. I want to keep Lance but we're better off in keeping Danny at 6 and keeping Roy at 18 then in keeping Lance at 12 then losing Roy next year.
    Lance is only 23 years old, and may have more potential than anyone in the NBA with his physical abilities. We have to pay this guy. Besides that, Roy might even opt into his player option then get his pay day when West comes off the books for the better of the team. Roy seems like a guy who would do that, especially after the Pacers took a chance and matched Portland's offer.

    Was it ever official that PG agreed to a 27% deal (15.8M in 1st year) rather than 30% deal (17.5M in 1st year)?

    http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.co...than-expected/
    Last edited by brownjake43; 01-21-2014, 07:03 PM.

    Comment


    • Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

      Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
      It's very possible that over paying Lance could keep us from signing Roy the following summer when he opts out and will demand a big raise. It would be foolish to not keep that in mind when deciding how much to offer Lance. Keeping Roy is a far higher priority IMO then keeping Lance. I want to keep Lance but we're better off in keeping Danny at 6 and keeping Roy at 18 then in keeping Lance at 12 then losing Roy next year.
      I agree that the Pacers should take re-signing Hibbert into considerations when trying to re-sign Lance. However, when it comes to re-signing Lance at the cost of considering Hibbert's eventual Free Agency.....I think that it's better to re-sign Lance for his Market Value ( as in, offer him a comprable contract offer to whatever other Teams offer him....even if it is up to $11.5+ mil a year / $46 mil Contract offer ) and then figure out what to do to re-sign Hibbert in the Summer of 2015.

      In 2015-2016.....the Pacers will have more options when it comes to having enough Capspace to try to make any offer to Hibbert ( compared to the options that they have now when it comes to re-signing Lance this offseason ). Keep in mind....Scola, Copeland, and CJ come off the books at the same time Hibbert is up for his Player Option.

      Now...if some Team is foolish enough to offer him a $52 mil / 4 Year Contract offer ( basically a $13 mil a year ), then that would make me think twice....but I think that his market value will settle down to something between $10+ mil a year while topping off at $12 mil a year ( if some Team REALLY wants to overpay him ).
      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

      Comment


      • Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

        Originally posted by CableKC View Post
        I agree that the Pacers should take re-signing Hibbert into considerations when trying to re-sign Lance. However, when it comes to re-signing Lance at the cost of considering Hibbert's eventual Free Agency.....I think that it's better to re-sign Lance for his Market Value ( as in, offer him a comprable contract offer to whatever other Teams offer him....even if it is up to $11.5+ mil a year / $46 mil Contract offer ) and then figure out what to do to re-sign Hibbert in the Summer of 2015.
        Correct me if I'm wrong, but by the time Hibbert comes off the books, won't West's contract have expired by then, maybe even Hill's?

        Comment


        • Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

          Originally posted by brownjake43 View Post
          Lance is only 23 years old, and may have more potential than anyone in the NBA with his physical abilities. We have to pay this guy. Besides that, Roy might even opt into his player option then get his pay day when West comes off the books for the better of the team. Roy seems like a guy who would do that, especially after the Pacers took a chance and matched Portland's offer.

          Was it ever official that PG agreed to a 27% deal (15.8M in 1st year) rather than 30% deal (17.5M in 1st year)?
          http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.co...than-expected/
          That fact that Roy and his agent wouldn't give us a discount on and extension and were prepared to bolt for Portland over the money leads me to believe that he'll absolutly opt out as soon as possible in order to get the higher max contract. This time he won't be restricted though so we'd better be prepared to just offer him the max the second he opts out and move on or he'll have a line of suiters ready to give it to him. I want to keep Lance but Larry would be foolish to just pay him whatever it takes while knowing what that mistake could cost him. Larry has been up front with us though and said that he'll give Lance a fair offer and be prepared to go with someone else if he has to.
          Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

          Comment


          • Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

            Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
            Correct me if I'm wrong, but by the time Hibbert comes off the books, won't West's contract have expired by then, maybe even Hill's?
            Hibbert and West both have player options for 15/16. Hibbert can get a bigger deal by opting out but West will probably take the option, meaning we have to negotiate a deal with Hibbert while West is still on the books. Hill's contract ends the next year.

            Comment


            • Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

              Originally posted by Dr. Awesome View Post
              Correct me if I'm wrong, but by the time Hibbert comes off the books, won't West's contract have expired by then, maybe even Hill's?
              According to Shamsports:

              http://data.shamsports.com/content/p...ies/pacers.jsp

              Hibbert has a Player Option in the 2015-2016 season for $15.54 mil.
              West has a Player Option in the 2015-2016 season for $12.6 mil.
              GH has guaranteed Salary until the 2016-2017 season for $8 mil a year.

              I can see Hibbert opting out in the 2015-2016 season....whereas West probably won't ( given his age ).

              Assuming that the Player and Team Options are picked up by West and Solo....the Pacers will have 5 Players owed $40.7 mil ( not including Lance ). I have no idea how much PG24's 2015-2016 Salary will be with the MAX Raises that he can get cuz of making the ASG...so maybe round that up to about $44 mil ( on the very high end, just to be conservative ).

              I think that even with Lance.....the Pacers can afford to pay Hibbert another NEAR MAX contract since the Pacers can go over the LT to re-sign their own Players. It would mean that the Pacers would have to fill their roster with CJ type signings and we'd still be good....but re-signing Hibbert and Lance is a possibility.
              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

              Comment


              • Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

                Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                According to Shamsports:

                http://data.shamsports.com/content/p...ies/pacers.jsp
                1
                Hibbert has a Player Option in the 2015-2016 season for $15.54 mil.
                West has a Player Option in the 2015-2016 season for $12.6 mil.
                GH has guaranteed Salary until the 2016-2017 season for $8 mil a year.

                I can see Hibbert opting out in the 2015-2016 season....whereas West probably won't ( given his age ).

                Assuming that the Player and Team Options are picked up by West and Solo....the Pacers will have 5 Players owed $40.7 mil ( not including Lance ). I have no idea how much PG24's 2015-2016 Salary will be with the MAX Raises that he can get cuz of making the ASG...so maybe round that up to about $44 mil ( on the very high end, just to be conservative ).

                I think that even with Lance.....the Pacers can afford to pay Hibbert another NEAR MAX contract since the Pacers can go over the LT to re-sign their own Players. It would mean that the Pacers would have to fill their roster with CJ type signings and we'd still be good....but re-signing Hibbert and Lance is a possibility.
                This is one reason I think the Pacers should try as hard as possible to avoid going into the luxury tax now, even if we win a title. Simon might be willing to pay the tax for a year or two, but he definitely doesn't want to pay the repeater tax. We need to avoid the LT as much as possible now just in case it's unavoidable in the future.

                If West is still playing well in a couple years, I wonder if we could convince him to drop that last year at $12 million and give him two years at $8 instead, which would help us avoid the tax with Hibbert's new contract.

                Comment


                • Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

                  One last thing, it's funny that the rallying cry for the new CBA was that we have to stop these big market franchises from making super teams, and yet the two teams that are most hurt by the new CBA are Indiana and OKC.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

                    Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                    One last thing, it's funny that the rallying cry for the new CBA was that we have to stop these big market franchises from making super teams, and yet the two teams that are most hurt by the new CBA are Indiana and OKC.
                    The big markets are hurt by it, they just don't particularly care. Only teams not wanting to go into the tax are making arrangements. However, it is hitting Miami et al in the pocketbooks big time once the repeater kicks in.
                    BillS

                    A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                    Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                    Comment


                    • Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

                      We don't have to worry about Lance going anywhere. What team wants to sign a flopper ??

                      Comment


                      • Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

                        Good read, nice seeing two sides of the coin from folks.

                        I wonder if a team like that Nets who have an unlimited pool of money would throw the bank at him.

                        At this point, I think he's a great as a wild card on a team that is tied together. As a near max, lead guy he's a disaster, imo, which I think if he leaves and is in that situation you'd find that out really quick. You do have to draw the line somewhere based on the reward.

                        I also disagree that he isn't replaceable, even though he's perfect for how the team is currently set up. I think there are a number of very good more reasonably price 2 guards who can bring things to the table, not the exact same stuff. I think the infrastructure on this team is such that it would be sucessful either way. I really want him back because he fits, but I do not in any way see it as a choice of competing for a ring or not. I think he fits because of the surroundings, not because he's a fitter inner, that wouldn't change if he leaves.

                        The other thing if he did leave and it didn't work for the Pacers, you could look at more of a play making Point Guard and have a more pure traditional 2 guard. None of this is in a bubble, I guess is what I'm saying.
                        Last edited by Speed; 01-22-2014, 06:55 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

                          Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                          One last thing, it's funny that the rallying cry for the new CBA was that we have to stop these big market franchises from making super teams, and yet the two teams that are most hurt by the new CBA are Indiana and OKC.
                          I agree that's ironic, but it's still early and other markets have changed as well in smaller ways because of it. For example,

                          Dallas didn't re-sign Chandler partly because of wanting to stay out of the luxury tax.
                          NY didn't match Lin partly because of the luxury tax payment in year three.
                          Miami amnestied Mike Miller to save money, and now has traded Joel Anthony for the same reason.
                          Chicago traded Deng for lower than his value to get out of the tax.

                          It looks like there are only five luxury tax teams left, and only two are over 10 million above the luxury tax line (Brooklyn and New York). That isn't completely unusual for luxury tax teams, but it is one of the better years and from all the whispers around the league it seems like it's going to stay this way.

                          And then of course the hidden effects. For example, a couple years ago the Pacers were very public in that they couldn't even afford to spend up to the luxury tax line. The TV deals the large market teams are signing increase the cap, but they don't help the small market teams increase revenue which makes it harder and harder to keep up. The increased revenue sharing and luxury tax payments distributed around the league have certainly helped those small market teams, and have helped the Pacers spend up to the line again (the attendance increases of course have helped as well).

                          Also if you look at it, I'm not sure the Pacers luxury tax stance is just because of the new system. I'm not sure they could have gone past it again under the old system. Just getting up to the tax line next year is over 10 million more in salary than the last time the Pacers were over the line, and I'm not sure the Pacers revenues have increased by that much since then (absent the extra money they get from the league with the new LT system). I'm not sure what the television deal was like the mid 2000's, but even now the Pacers are only getting between 5 and 8 million per year for the TV rights.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

                            Originally posted by Speed View Post
                            I wonder if a team like that Nets who have an unlimited pool of money would throw the bank at him.
                            Nets can't, because they only have the mini MLE to offer FAs. They can get Lance through S&T, but I don't see why we'd cooperate.

                            I think there are sufficient other teams though who will have cap space and may be willing to throw big money at a player who they might see as the next breakout star.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

                              Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                              One last thing, it's funny that the rallying cry for the new CBA was that we have to stop these big market franchises from making super teams, and yet the two teams that are most hurt by the new CBA are Indiana and OKC.
                              When they said they were leveling the playing field, they meant between the teams who are good at drafting/developing versus the ones who aren't.

                              That's always been my problem with the hard cap. A good team that was painstakingly assembled will inevitably have to be broken up because the players become too expensive. The current system is even worse than a hard cap though, because teams like us and OKC are operating as if we're under a hard cap, while the Lakers and NY teams aren't.

                              Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post
                              And then of course the hidden effects. For example, a couple years ago the Pacers were very public in that they couldn't even afford to spend up to the luxury tax line. The TV deals the large market teams are signing increase the cap, but they don't help the small market teams increase revenue which makes it harder and harder to keep up. The increased revenue sharing and luxury tax payments distributed around the league have certainly helped those small market teams, and have helped the Pacers spend up to the line again (the attendance increases of course have helped as well).

                              Also if you look at it, I'm not sure the Pacers luxury tax stance is just because of the new system. I'm not sure they could have gone past it again under the old system. Just getting up to the tax line next year is over 10 million more in salary than the last time the Pacers were over the line, and I'm not sure the Pacers revenues have increased by that much since then (absent the extra money they get from the league with the new LT system). I'm not sure what the television deal was like the mid 2000's, but even now the Pacers are only getting between 5 and 8 million per year for the TV rights.
                              Very good points. I remember a Larry Bird interview from I think 2 years back where he said the target payroll was between $60-65m, which is well under the current luxury tax. I still think the LT is a line we won't cross, but if we take Bird's word then at face value then the team is already operating above budget.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

                                Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                                According to Shamsports:

                                http://data.shamsports.com/content/p...ies/pacers.jsp

                                Hibbert has a Player Option in the 2015-2016 season for $15.54 mil.
                                West has a Player Option in the 2015-2016 season for $12.6 mil.
                                GH has guaranteed Salary until the 2016-2017 season for $8 mil a year.

                                I can see Hibbert opting out in the 2015-2016 season....whereas West probably won't ( given his age ).

                                Assuming that the Player and Team Options are picked up by West and Solo....the Pacers will have 5 Players owed $40.7 mil ( not including Lance ). I have no idea how much PG24's 2015-2016 Salary will be with the MAX Raises that he can get cuz of making the ASG...so maybe round that up to about $44 mil ( on the very high end, just to be conservative ).

                                I think that even with Lance.....the Pacers can afford to pay Hibbert another NEAR MAX contract since the Pacers can go over the LT to re-sign their own Players. It would mean that the Pacers would have to fill their roster with CJ type signings and we'd still be good....but re-signing Hibbert and Lance is a possibility.

                                Hibbert will demand every dollar of the max and we won't even be able to try to get him for less, he'll have too many options to get it elsewhere. If we were to pay Lance 12 mil that year and Hibbert his max we'd be at 72 mil on 6 players. We'd still have to sign 7 more players with 3 million dollars to stay under the LT. If we kept Solo and Johnson that would take 2.5 mil of it. I don't think it's possible to pull it off. CJ makes 2 mil so we couldn't do with players like him and we'd have to let Scola walk. Larry really needs to plan this out to be able to keep Hibbert. The difference between paying Lance or Danny 7 mil and paying them 12 would be likely be the difference in keeping Hibbert.
                                HoopsHype Indiana Pacers

                                by HoopsHype - Indiana Pacers Rumors - Indiana Pacers Twitters

                                Key: Player Option / Team Option / Qualifying Offer / Amnestied

                                Player 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19
                                Roy Hibbert $14,283,844 $14,898,938 $15,514,031 $0 $0 $0
                                Danny Granger $14,021,788 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
                                David West $12,000,000 $12,000,000 $12,600,000 $0 $0 $0
                                George Hill $8,000,000 $8,000,000 $8,000,000 $8,000,000 $0 $0
                                Luis Scola $4,500,000 $4,500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
                                Ian Mahinmi $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $0 $0 $0
                                Paul George $3,282,003 $15,800,000 $16,900,000 $18,100,000 $19,300,000 $20,500,000
                                Chris Copeland $3,000,000 $3,130,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
                                CJ Watson $2,016,000 $2,077,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
                                Rasual Butler $1,399,507 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
                                Solomon Hill $1,246,680 $1,302,840 $1,358,880 $2,306,019 $3,355,258 $0
                                Lance Stephenson $981,349 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
                                Donald Sloan $884,293 $948,163 $0 $0 $0 $0
                                Orlando Johnson $788,872 $915,243 $1,181,348 $0 $0 $0
                                TOTALS: $70,404,336 $65,708,778 $57,014,031
                                Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X