View Poll Results: Comfortable w Pacers offering Lance the following contract?

Voters
134. You may not vote on this poll
  • 6-8 M

    8 5.97%
  • 8-10 M

    57 42.54%
  • 10-12 M

    50 37.31%
  • 12-14 M

    14 10.45%
  • 14+ M

    5 3.73%
  • Do not re sign and look elsewhere

    0 0%
Page 8 of 16 FirstFirst ... 456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 176 to 200 of 399

Thread: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

  1. #176
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    418

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

    Lance will get about 11 mil. and we'll pay it. He'll sign a slightly club-friendly contract, after his agent gets to sniff around a minute.

    Ian and or Cope will be gone - unless Scola retires after we pick up the bling.

    Wouldn't surprise me to see us drop some fodder and have DG come back for a stack less, just to finish out here with his buds.
    Like all of our thirty-somethings our chances of losing him go up after we win and will go up dramatically again every year thereafter.

    All those who want to save our depth at the cost of a young all-star need to calculate that into their plan.

    Those guys have one to three years (diminishing) left.
    Lance has a decade more than likely and is getting better and better as we speak.

  2. #177
    Whale Shepherd cdash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    The Sprawl
    Age
    29
    Posts
    17,090

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pacerized View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Fair enough, and in going back to your earlier post you did make it clear that you think Bird does have a hard figure in mind.
    I'm not sure where you are getting that from. This is what I said:

    Don't get me wrong, I get the sense that he does have a figure in mind that is "ideal" but smart decision makers weigh all their options at the time of the decision. To think that Bird has a specific number in his head and he won't go one cent over that, at this point in the game, is a little far fetched.
    I don't think he has a hard figure in mind, at least not one that is fixed. I do think he has a number in mind, and I think that number has changed and Lance has increased his market value. My point is basically this: It's way too early for Bird to have a number he flat out won't go over. Too many variables in the decision making process have to play out still.

  3. #178
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Indy
    Posts
    8,017

    Default Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    There's also the possibility that you brought up of bringing back Danny, but he hasn't shown to be anything but to be a spot up shooter/defender at this point.
    I disagree on this point. The back-up offense most of the time is focused around Lance or a pick and pop with Scola. This often relegates Danny to just being a spot up shooter. He has been a bit inconsistent so far, not all that unexpected, but there have been times where he has shown he is still capable of being more than just a spot-up shooter if asked.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Eleazar For This Useful Post:


  5. #179
    bleed Blue & Gold PacersPride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,245

    Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

    [QUOTE=solid;1777192]All those who want to save our depth at the cost of a young all-star need to calculate that into their plan.

    QUOTE]

    But Lance is not an all star on another team. Players earn all star berths for team performance as much as individual accolades. Players that are better than Lance but on losing teams do not make the all star game.

    Lance is benefitting because he is on a good team and therefore will make the all star team and get paid more due to it. Its the same with Paul and Roy to some degree as well. Maybe not so much Paul, but so Roy makes all nba 2nd team which will kick in whatever the clause is and ramp up salary 30%.

    Its very confusing in the way in which the nba has set this up. Its almost as if it weakens the better teams because chances are more likely their players make all nba and all star teams.

    If Lance were drafted by the knicks he would not even be considered at above anything over 8 million. I don't even think he would be considered for the ASG if he is on 25 of the other teams in this league. We have to basically overpay all our players because of our team success.

    I at one time predicted this team would win 50 games for the next 5 years when Obrien was fired. In fact, I felt it more likely it would be a decade of 50 wins on average. but danny going down elevated paul and lances importance to this team. Paul, Roy, and now Lance are all cashing in on great seasons prior to expiring contracts.

    instead of roy at 10 M he is at 14+
    instead of paul at 12 M he may well venture into 17M territory
    now lance will get 12M instead of 8M.

    over a 4 year contract that's about 12 M per year less to work with. as much as the danny injury may have I guess been a blessing.. its costing this Franchise dearly for the long haul. in fact, its already costing us because we most likely now cannot even afford lance without losing depth which we will need in order to win a championship.

    lose lance,, lose big piece to a title contending team
    lose bench, and this team will have to be carred by our starters 82 games + postseason.

    my honest opinion:

    roy is slightly overpaid due to offensive limitations but he is a center and they are at a preimium. prob still overpaid by 2-3 M.
    Hill is overpaid by a million or two.
    West is prob even overpaid by 2 million.

    other than Paul George we are overpaying just to keep players here and we will likely have to do the same with lance.

    I don't know how we can expect to compete in the NBA as a small market franchise when exceeding the LT is forbidden.


    I guess all im saying is it sucks we lost Granger for several reasons:

    increased paul and now lances value just prior to a contract year. with danny last season we very well would have been champions. and if given the opportunity we may have been able to deal granger prior to his contract expiring for draft picks or pieces in advance in order to keep lance.

    the new cba and so forth is going to hinder teams shelling out excessive contracts. hell the bulls offered deng 3/30 if im not mistaken and given between deng and lance I feel deng is the better all around player and I don't think deng is going to get over 12M but maybe he will.


    bottom line:


    lance is prob worth around 8-9 which means we have to pay him 11-12 to keep him. I dont mind the contract to roy or pay or dwest ghill overpaying a couple million because they are professionals. even paul at 23 acts and conducts himself as a mature nba professional player.


    CAN WE TRUST LANCE AT 11 OR 12 MILLION DOLLARS. I trust his play but can we trust his character? I dont want a tinsley, jackhole, or ron artest situation all over again.

    I worry less about lance on the court than I do off the court. he has made huge strides, but money changes people. we go and give lance 12 million dollars I hope he will have the same hunger and determination next season as he has this season.

    were not only investing 10-12 million potentially in lance the player, but also in lance the person. pacers get this wrong and it could cost us dearly for the next few seasons.


    * anyone remember the play where cj Watson got a deflected pass vs Denver the other nite, went to the hole and missed the layup due to two defenders contesting the shot. well lance was at midcourt and decided not to run half the court for the potential rebound. watch the play it was when we were down 6 (early 4th I believe). those two defenders went out of bounds and the ball landed on the court for a sec or two before it was retrieved.

    point is lance didn't follow up for the rebound. Vogel laid into his a** and it very well cost us that game because he would have got the board and we would have cut it to 4. these are all facts.

    lance did not hustle on that play and it cost us the game. that's lack of effort my friends nothing else and no excuse for it. lance knew it too cause he padded his chest when Vogel chastised him. you all watch that play as lance stood at mid court knowing full well cj had two defenders to beat.


    that's the maturity issues with this kid I cannot overlook quite yet.. and I wonder if that improves with a ten million dollar contract.



    there is no guarantee that lance is ever going to become a consistent shooter, we can all assume it but it is not a fact. lances defense is suspect at times, his decision making is dr jekyl mr hyde, and his jumper has improved but still far from reliable. if his jumper never improves were gonna regret that contract.


    there are two aspects to lances game that have been outstanding... open court fast break and rebounding. he is not a shut down defender, he is not a great shooter, and albeit his passes have flash they are not always the correct pass to make.. unless yall think behind the bank to mahinmi in traffic is a high % pass.

    you all cant tell me its a certainty lances jumper improves,,, im sure boston thought the same of rondo as well and we see the strides made there. who in this league comes in as a suspect shooter and becomes reliable... I will say very few.


    Lance is not an all star on 25 other teams in this lg and he is not paid 10M+ either.


    I give up with this thread and on what Lance is going to make this offseason. My final comment is this..

    I believe the Pacers will be better off without Lance than Lance will be without the Pacers.

    his shooting is suspect, as is his defense at times, and if he did not have 3 all stars around him he would prob end up dribbling out the shot clock more often than not on a bad team.

    on a bad team lances value would be at about 6M and on a good team its at 12. somewhere in the middle is his market value so I am gonna stick to my guns at 9M per year as to what I am comfortable seeing the Pacer pay Lance.

  6. #180
    The Last Great Pacer BlueNGold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    15,163

    Default Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

    But Lance is not an all star on another team. Players earn all star berths for team performance as much as individual accolades. Players that are better than Lance but on losing teams do not make the all star game.[/QUOTE]

    That could be true. But players who produce on great teams usually see their numbers rise on bad teams. That would get him some consideration. That happens because their name is called more often. Their numbers drop on better teams. Like Bosh used to score like a maniac in Toronto and has taken a step back. Then you have Thornton going off because Gay and Cousins were out. That's how the league operates. Touches. Just ask JO and Ron.

  7. #181
    Member Ace E.Anderson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    5,204

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueNGold View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    But Lance is not an all star on another team. Players earn all star berths for team performance as much as individual accolades. Players that are better than Lance but on losing teams do not make the all star game.
    That could be true. But players who produce on great teams usually see their numbers rise on bad teams. That would get him some consideration. That happens because their name is called more often. Their numbers drop on better teams. Like Bosh used to score like a maniac in Toronto and has taken a step back. Then you have Thornton going off because Gay and Cousins were out. That's how the league operates. Touches. Just ask JO and Ron.[/QUOTE]

    He would put up better numbers, but that doesn't equate to an all star berth. Guys like Derozan, and Afflalo are having better individual season and are putting up better numbers this year, but neither are likely to make the AS team over Lance due to the performance of their respective teams.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Ace E.Anderson For This Useful Post:


  9. #182
    Member Ace E.Anderson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    5,204

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

    Quote Originally Posted by Eleazar View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I disagree on this point. The back-up offense most of the time is focused around Lance or a pick and pop with Scola. This often relegates Danny to just being a spot up shooter. He has been a bit inconsistent so far, not all that unexpected, but there have been times where he has shown he is still capable of being more than just a spot-up shooter if asked.
    I'm not sure if he is trying TOO hard to "fit in" but Danny is not offensively aggressive at all right now. I agree the offense within the second unit has pushed Danny to the weak side, while running a Lance/Scola pick and pop (as you said) but Danny needs to take it upon himself to get his shots up--much like he was doing during a stretch of double figure scoring games for him.

    Until we see him doing so consistently, he's basically a "3D" player right now.

  10. #183
    Droppin' knowledge, yo. Mackey_Rose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    The Dragon's Lair
    Posts
    4,090

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

    I picked $10-12 million because I think that's the absolute minimum it will take in order to even have a chance to keep him. It's going to be really hard for this team to pay more than $12 million a year.

    I think you keep Paul, Roy, and Lance and figure out the rest of the roster after that. If it means you lose any combination of Hill, Scola, Granger, and Copeland, so be it. You worry about that after you've kept the guys that are more important to the now, and the also more important to the the future.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Mackey_Rose For This Useful Post:


  12. #184

    Default Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

    So is there a team option on Scola's 4.5M next year or not? I have seen people say there was, but on Hoopshype there is no mention of a team option.

  13. #185
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Dillon, Co
    Posts
    3,918

    Default Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'm not sure if he is trying TOO hard to "fit in" but Danny is not offensively aggressive at all right now. I agree the offense within the second unit has pushed Danny to the weak side, while running a Lance/Scola pick and pop (as you said) but Danny needs to take it upon himself to get his shots up--much like he was doing during a stretch of double figure scoring games for him.

    Until we see him doing so consistently, he's basically a "3D" player right now.
    I think you're right, it's a little of both with Danny right now. I think it's more of Danny trying to do what it takes to help the team and doing what's asked of him by the coach but I agree that Danny needs to just demand the ball more when we need scoring from him. He's shown every ability to shoot, drive, pass and defend. When he drives he still gets to the line and he's our best or one of our best free throw shooters. With what he's shown us he's earned more minutes and a bigger piece of the offense but so far Frank isn't giving it to him. With the garbage defense Paul and Lance gave us for the past 2 games and the way they looked gassed in Denver it's ridiculous for Vogel to only give Danny 18 minutes in that game. I still think Danny is going to continue to improve as the season progresses just as West did in coming back from his surgery, but it took time. I'd like to see Danny given the chance to play 32 minutes with much of that as the focal point of the offense in the second unit. Right now Lance is that focal point because he's usually on the floor with Danny. For that to happen Vogel needs to call a few plays for Danny and tell Lance to try to be a play maker with the second unit or change the rotation. I think Danny is ready to give us more if and I think we'd see overall better results if we let him. Even with what we're getting from Danny in limited minutes our bench scoring has still jumped 6 ppg since Danny's return.

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Pacerized For This Useful Post:


  15. #186
    Grumpy Old Man (PD host) able's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    8,699

    Default Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

    You don't throw lots of money at Lance because his net total is not of the same value, his style, his "i'm the man" attitude wont be reigned in forever, it shows in games already, he got more freedom and boy do we know it, "dribble dribble imma gonna break your ankles, dribble dribble, oh **** schotclock, here David, you fix it" is something we see a little to much and the cover your man untl the ball is on the other side then hawk for a rebvound, oh how come that geezer gets the ball back...... toooo late.
    Anything over 6 is madness, though heck since we always overpay i can "live" with 8, any penny more he is great on another ballclub.

    We have our superstar and good guy in Paul, we have our eccentric C in Roy and we need a good bench, losing them is not worth it.
    (and yes signing Lance to 12 mio or some such idiotic amount means you WILL lose Hibbert and you WILL lose Hill and you WILL lose more.)
    So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

    If you've done 6 impossible things today?
    Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!


  16. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to able For This Useful Post:


  17. #187
    Grumpy Old Man (PD host) able's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    8,699

    Default Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

    yes there is an option on Scola, not picking it up is not an option, no chance you get someone of his caliber in for that kind of money.
    and no, Copeland is not even close, why do you think he only plays garbage time, because he's so good he's outplaying the old Argentinian fox?
    So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

    If you've done 6 impossible things today?
    Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!


  18. The Following User Says Thank You to able For This Useful Post:


  19. #188
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Indy
    Posts
    8,017

    Default Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

    Quote Originally Posted by able View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    yes there is an option on Scola, not picking it up is not an option, no chance you get someone of his caliber in for that kind of money.
    and no, Copeland is not even close, why do you think he only plays garbage time, because he's so good he's outplaying the old Argentinian fox?
    Agreed, Scola is here to stay. You don't give up Plumlee and a 1st for a one year rental, when your plan was obviously to go with Copeland before Scola became an option.

  20. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Eleazar For This Useful Post:


  21. #189

    Default Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

    Quote Originally Posted by Eleazar View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I disagree on this point. The back-up offense most of the time is focused around Lance or a pick and pop with Scola. This often relegates Danny to just being a spot up shooter. He has been a bit inconsistent so far, not all that unexpected, but there have been times where he has shown he is still capable of being more than just a spot-up shooter if asked.


    And that's another problem. Our back up offense shouldn't be focused around a starter. We need a backup for Lance who can come off the bench and run the offense while he gets a quarter off. In those b2b games, having a guy like Stuckey who can come off and run the offense or a guy like Nick Young, who can drop 17 in a hurry....means PG and or Lance get to rest up for a 4th quarter run to try and win the game. Lance plays too many minutes already. Because our back up 2 guard spot is empty.

  22. #190
    Grumpy Old Man (PD host) able's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    8,699

    Default Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

    we have Watson runnning point for the second unit and Lance has the freedom to do "his thing" with that unit, which imo is counterproductive but I am not the coach.
    it is also a reason Watson and Granger rarely see the ball, it either LS solo or a P&P with scola and the occasioanl backdoor cut from someone else.
    So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

    If you've done 6 impossible things today?
    Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!


  23. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to able For This Useful Post:


  24. #191
    Grumpy Old Man (PD host) able's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    8,699

    Default Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

    perhaps i should have posted this here, instead of elsewhere but so many threads with the same outcome ....

    for those who want to throiw the kitchensink at Lance (i.e. pay more than 8 mio) realise this:

    going into the LT doesn't only mean that you pay X for Y in a progressive scale, but it also means you get less of the shared income and NONE of the poenalty income, which by careful estimates is about 7 mio for the P's this year so going over means dropping that income as well, see, 10 mio now not only costs you the 10 mio in salary and perhaps 3 mio in tax but it also costs you the other income say 7 mio so it ends up costing you 10 mio more aka 20 mio, and trust me, Lance is not worth that kind of money, not even near.

    So be darned sure we are not going into LT and we wont lock up anything we cant correct if we need to nex year.
    And take it as a given that George falls under the Rose rule he already fullfilled the needed "all-star starter" criteria
    So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

    If you've done 6 impossible things today?
    Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!


  25. #192
    Running with the Big Boys BillS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Danberry
    Age
    55
    Posts
    11,549

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

    Quote Originally Posted by able View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    And take it as a given that George falls under the Rose rule he already fullfilled the needed "all-star starter" criteria
    A correction here - no, he has not. He would have needed to be a STARTER twice, not just on the team twice.

    Now, it is likely he will be named to an All-NBA team again this year, so the outcome is the same, but it hasn't happened yet.
    BillS

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

  26. The Following User Says Thank You to BillS For This Useful Post:


  27. #193
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Dillon, Co
    Posts
    3,918

    Default Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

    Quote Originally Posted by able View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    we have Watson runnning point for the second unit and Lance has the freedom to do "his thing" with that unit, which imo is counterproductive but I am not the coach.
    it is also a reason Watson and Granger rarely see the ball, it either LS solo or a P&P with scola and the occasioanl backdoor cut from someone else.
    I agree, I don't like what Lance does with the second unit as much as I do with the first unit. Both Lance and Paul would benefit from playing a few more minutes but if we pulled 5 minutes from Lance it needs to be the time he spends with the second unit. It all comes down to how much Vogel chooses to coach him though.

  28. #194
    Grumpy Old Man (PD host) able's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    8,699

    Default Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

    Quote Originally Posted by BillS View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    A correction here - no, he has not. He would have needed to be a STARTER twice, not just on the team twice.

    Now, it is likely he will be named to an All-NBA team again this year, so the outcome is the same, but it hasn't happened yet.
    you are correct i thought he started AS last year as well, but lets face it, how big is the chance him NOT making all nba?
    So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

    If you've done 6 impossible things today?
    Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!


  29. #195
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Dillon, Co
    Posts
    3,918

    Default Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

    Quote Originally Posted by BillS View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    A correction here - no, he has not. He would have needed to be a STARTER twice, not just on the team twice.

    Now, it is likely he will be named to an All-NBA team again this year, so the outcome is the same, but it hasn't happened yet.

    Yes, but you still might as well take it as a given that he'll be getting paid that money. Just like we need to take it as a given that Hibbert will opt out and demand 18 mil the summer after this. This is why I fall into the group that we shouldn't pay Lance 12 mil., that I don't think he'll be worth it.

  30. #196
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Dillon, Co
    Posts
    3,918

    Default Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimp View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    And that's another problem. Our back up offense shouldn't be focused around a starter. We need a backup for Lance who can come off the bench and run the offense while he gets a quarter off. In those b2b games, having a guy like Stuckey who can come off and run the offense or a guy like Nick Young, who can drop 17 in a hurry....means PG and or Lance get to rest up for a 4th quarter run to try and win the game. Lance plays too many minutes already. Because our back up 2 guard spot is empty.
    You keep bringing up that we have this need of a trade. We do not need a trade period. We have those players now but we're not using them. Anyone you've ever brought up still wouldn't see the court or get the shot opportunities to make an impact so why trade? Vogel would be even less likely to use a new player then the players we have now. If we want a distributor we have it, if we want bench scoring we have. Granger, Watson and Scola are far better options then anyone we'd ever trade for, if Vogel wanted more from our bench he'd be getting it now.

  31. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Pacerized For This Useful Post:


  32. #197
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Indy
    Posts
    8,017

    Default Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pacerized View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I agree, I don't like what Lance does with the second unit as much as I do with the first unit. Both Lance and Paul would benefit from playing a few more minutes but if we pulled 5 minutes from Lance it needs to be the time he spends with the second unit. It all comes down to how much Vogel chooses to coach him though.
    Lance + Granger has been very effect combination so far. So I am not so sure that it should come from his bench time. I just think Vogel needs to not give him so much freedom with the second unit. There is a sweet spot in the balance between freedom and structure for Lance, and with the bench it can often go too far into freedom. This is a big reason why Granger needs to be more assertive with the bench, forcing the bench to run through Granger more and creating a more structured offense for Lance to play within.

  33. The Following User Says Thank You to Eleazar For This Useful Post:

    J7F

  34. #198
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Indy
    Posts
    8,017

    Default Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

    Quote Originally Posted by able View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    you are correct i thought he started AS last year as well, but lets face it, how big is the chance him NOT making all nba?
    The only way it doesn't happen is if Melo suddenly starts averaging 30ppg and the Knicks finish with 50+ wins.

  35. #199
    Grumpy Old Man (PD host) able's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    8,699

    Default Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

    Quote Originally Posted by Eleazar View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The only way it doesn't happen is if Melo suddenly starts averaging 30ppg and the Knicks finish with 50+ wins.
    You think in that case he would not make any of the 3??
    So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

    If you've done 6 impossible things today?
    Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!


  36. #200
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Indy
    Posts
    8,017

    Default Re: What are you willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance?

    Quote Originally Posted by able View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You think in that case he would not make any of the 3??
    At that point you would have Paul competing with LeBron, Durant, and Melo for the SF spot. I'm wouldn't say he wouldn't get in, but it would be much more difficult.

Posting Permissions

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