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 12 of 16 FirstFirst ... 28910111213141516 LastLast
Results 276 to 300 of 399

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

  1. #276
    Member Sollozzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    16,765

    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 BillS View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    LARGELY been built?

    You were fine up to this point, but you act as if the taxpayers basically paid most of the original cost of the team, the cost of BLF, and money spent on the team that wasn't covered by ticket income.

    The taxpayers paid half the cost of the building and cover $10M per year of operating expenses. That's not anywhere near a majority of the amount of money spent to build this franchise.

    I didn't mean to imply "majority of the cost", though I can see why you read it that way. I was just making the point that the community has given substantial amounts of money to the team over the years.

  2. #277
    Member Ace E.Anderson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    5,267

    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 Sollozzo View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    That's true, but as far as next season is concerned, you're basically trading Granger's contract for PG's. Granger makes $14 mil this season and PG will make $15.8 next year. So those come fairly close to cancelling each other out.
    THOSE two cancel eachother out. But then when you add 12 mil to what's already on the books, it starts to become tough as the years go by and the $$ amounts increase.

  3. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ace E.Anderson For This Useful Post:


  4. #278

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Shade View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'd offer Lance 10 out of the gate with a willingness to negotiate as high as 12.5.
    I'd probably offer him something like 4/38, match just about anything bigger than that, and just hope the 4 years 38 will be enough. I really can't see any team dropping more than $12 million though. First of all, those teams would need more than $12m in cap space which is a lot, and secondly they would want to wrap up most of their open cap in Lance. Teams don't drop huge contracts like that too often. I just can't imagine seeing a team being like, "4 years, 48 million dollars for Andre Iguodala? Too much. 5 years, 60 million for Lance Stephenson, now there's something I can get behind!"

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to PacersHomer For This Useful Post:


  6. #279

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

    I'm a fan of Scola, but if it is true that his contract is not guaranteed, I have to think he will be out the door in order to have enough money for Lance if we really refuse to go over the LT limit. I know most this bored loves Luis, but he is not 1/2 as important as Lance is to this team, not to mention Scola has 2-3 years left in him, Lance is 23 years old.

  7. #280
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    3,656
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Justin Tyme View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'll bet OKC fans said the same thing about re-signing Harden. OKC FO didn't pay him, and IIRC OKC presently has the 3rd best record in the NBA.
    They'd probably have the best record if Harden was still on board. More importantly, they went from the NBA Finals in Harden's final season, to a second-round manhandling by the flash-in-the-pan Grizzlies in their first season without him.

    Besides, Harden, as talented as he is, was OKC's third wheel. They kept their top two (Durant and Westbrook) and their defensive anchor (Ibaka) tied up. Those of us in favor of keeping Lance are saying he has the talent to be the Westbrook to George's Durant, and that keeping those two, along with Roy (our Ibaka), is the key to keeping this team a championship contender for a very long time. Once the big three are tied up, we can worry about shuffling the minor parts.

  8. #281
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Dillon, Co
    Posts
    3,953

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

    Quote Originally Posted by brownjake43 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'm a fan of Scola, but if it is true that his contract is not guaranteed, I have to think he will be out the door in order to have enough money for Lance if we really refuse to go over the LT limit. I know most this bored loves Luis, but he is not 1/2 as important as Lance is to this team, not to mention Scola has 2-3 years left in him, Lance is 23 years old.
    You almost need to consider Scola's contract off limits this summer. His contract expires the following year and we'll need that money just to keep Hibbert. Our best bet in being able to offer Lance more would be in moving Copeland for cap space.

  9. #282
    Whale Shepherd cdash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    The Sprawl
    Age
    29
    Posts
    17,414

    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 GrangeRusHibbert View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    They'd probably have the best record if Harden was still on board. More importantly, they went from the NBA Finals in Harden's final season, to a second-round manhandling by the flash-in-the-pan Grizzlies in their first season without him.
    You left out a key part of the story: Westbrook was not available for that manhandling in the second round. And the Grizzlies weren't exactly a flash in the pan. They battled in the playoffs the previous year or two as well.

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to cdash For This Useful Post:


  11. #283
    Member Sollozzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    16,765

    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 cdash View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You left out a key part of the story: Westbrook was not available for that manhandling in the second round. And the Grizzlies weren't exactly a flash in the pan. They battled in the playoffs the previous year or two as well.

    With Harden, I bet they could have won that series. It sure has hell wouldn't have been a 4-1 whooping.

  12. #284
    Artificial Intelligence wintermute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,266

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

    Going by the poll, there doesn't seem to be much debate. About 79+% of PD wants to re-sign Lance at between $8-12m per year - not really a huge range when you realize that the difference is basically Chris Copeland and Solo Hill. About 5% think that Lance is worth less than that. So if there's an anti-Lance "camp", it's a tiny (albeit vocal) minority.

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


  14. #285

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

    Quote Originally Posted by wintermute View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Going by the poll, there doesn't seem to be much debate. About 79+% of PD wants to re-sign Lance at between $8-12m per year - not really a huge range when you realize that the difference is basically Chris Copeland and Solo Hill. About 5% think that Lance is worth less than that. So if there's an anti-Lance "camp", it's a tiny (albeit vocal) minority.
    I haven't and can't vote until I see how the Silnas deal shakes out and the new TV deal. I could throw precedent and statements out the window and say hey it ain't my money, go for the gold Herbie, which he ABSOLUTELY SHOULD, but it's against most everything we've ever done.

    Herb's an old guy, obviously. Maybe he's done it before but I just didn't pay attention/don't remember, but I don't remember him sitting near courtside for almost every home game in years past. Since Mel passed he seems to have taken a bigger interest, maybe that's just him getting older and phasing himself out of the Simon Group so he's got more time to play with his toy, I don't know. But he seems more engaged now. I feel like a massive turd for even bringing this up, but obviously Mel passed, the Fever just won a title, Herb got to hoist a trophy. Maybe, MAYBE, Herb's ready to go balls out.

    That's based on nothing but him being more involved than I can ever remember. Maybe I'm just too young to remember his and Mel's involvement when we were legitimately contenders, please correct me if I'm wrong.

    Anyway, that stuff said, I really, really, REALLY want to see Herb, and Miss Venezuela or whoever she is, hoist the O'Brien.

  15. #286
    Member ilive4sports's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    6,861

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

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

    I haven't voted yet either. Financially for the team, I'm in the 8-10 range. But at the end of the day, if we pay Lance 12 mil, I'm not going to be upset about it. I think $10 mil will be the magic number. Which will make things interesting.

  16. #287
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Indy
    Posts
    8,047

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

    Quote Originally Posted by wintermute View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Going by the poll, there doesn't seem to be much debate. About 79+% of PD wants to re-sign Lance at between $8-12m per year - not really a huge range when you realize that the difference is basically Chris Copeland and Solo Hill. About 5% think that Lance is worth less than that. So if there's an anti-Lance "camp", it's a tiny (albeit vocal) minority.
    It is more of a let's not pay Lance so much that we struggle to field a complete team versus keep him at any cost camps. Not anti-Lance, pro-Lance camps. A lot of the vocal people you are talking about reside in that 8-10 per year which falls into the 79%.

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


  18. #288
    Member Sollozzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    16,765

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

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

    So what is the plan for those who are comfortable with letting Lance go? If we lose Lance, we still aren't going to have any cap space. He has been making pennies, so it's not like losing him will give us all of this extra money. Acting like we will have 12 (or whatever) extra mil to toy with isn't true because that 12 mil will only exist if we keep Lance since he is our player. But not keeping him certainly won't give us extra cap space. What type of player can we bring in for pennies? As pogi mentioned, Augistin and Green have been decent players this year, but they struggled in our system last year. Our system is not for everyone. You still need players who can fit the system, which Lance does perfectly.

    Is Granger the back up plan? He's fine as a cherry on the top bench player, but he is an inferior player to Lance at this point. There are things that Lance does which an old Granger will never be able to do. Plus I sure don't want to count on a Granger in his 30's being healthy and able to play 30 + MPG every night. Maybe he stays healthy, but I sure don't want to roll the dice as him as a starter.

    Lance is a major reason why this team's winning percentage is significantly higher than last year. The Pacers still won't have any cap space if they lose Lance, so the odds of finding another player anywhere near his level are extremely slim. You keep Lance at whatever cost it takes because it will give you the most deadly wing duo in the league for quite a long time. PG and Lance could play their entire careers together. If the bench has to suffer a bit, then so be it. If we don't have a top of the line starting PF and PG in the future, then so be it. The Bulls started Luc Longley and Ron Harper for Christ's sake. No, I"m not saying that PG and Lance will be Jordan and Pippen, but a trio of Hibbert/PG/Lance virtually guarantees that this team will be extremely good for a while. When you have a couple of elite players, you just have to accept that you won't be able to put a great player in every position. The Lakers started Derek Fisher for how many years?

    We have a rare gold coin in Lance. You don't get rid of a gold coin just so you can free up some room in your pocket for some quarters.......
    Last edited by Sollozzo; 01-29-2014 at 11:26 AM.

  19. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Sollozzo For This Useful Post:


  20. #289
    Member Ace E.Anderson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    5,267

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

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

    CalebKC has posted this a few times but: IF we were to let Lance go, we would have 7.7 Mil before we hit the LT line. We could offer a player the full MLE and then another contract of about 2.2 mil next year.

    I think those that aren't comfortable with giving Lance "however much it takes" aren't looking at next year, as much as we're looking at the coming years when Roy will be getting paid, and PG will be REALLY getting paid. You have to look at the cap situation in 2 years, and think about the ramifications of paying someone an undeserving 12 mil plus. When you have two players that will be taking up so much of your cap, you can't have a third player take up another large portion unless they're a great player and you know for a fact that you can still be elite while surrounding those three players with low cost specialists (and that's a nice way of putting it)

    Teams like the Heat have been able to do this because they have 2 hall of famers, (one of which is a top 5 player EVER) and a guy in Bosh who was a perennial All Star in his own right during his TOR years. That "big 3" is several times more talented than any version of a big 3 that we would field with Paul, Lance and Roy. It's just not the same. Also, they have hit the luxury tax line a few times with their roster, and that is something Herb Simon has stated he will not do.

    It doesn't take $12mil plus to replace what Lance brings to the team. There are plenty of similarly productive players at his position (both more productive, and less productive) that are being paid less than he is, so there's no reason to sign him to a large contract just because we can't sign another guy to a similarly large contract. I do agree, not EVERYBODY can fit in with our system (which is a shame when you see former players blossom so well on other teams), so it would obviously need to be someone that Bird believed was a good fit. But it works both ways, Lance isn't going to fit in with other teams as well as he fits in here. So why overpay when it's probably a mutual "best fit" for both parties?

    It's not a "so be it" situation when it comes to not having a top of the line PF and PG in the future. We have mediocre players playing in those spots around Lance, PG, and Roy--we suddenly become the Joe Johnson Hawk's teams. This team has been built on the idea of fielding a complete team whose depth within the starting lineup has made it possible to compete with the "super teams" of the league. Why would we mess that up now? Why would we try to implement our own version of a "big 3" when it would be an utterly inferior trio than the ones that have been successful in this league? We NEED a D.West type of talent at PF in order to remain elite. We need a G.Hill type of presence at the other starting guard spot in order to remain elite. And I didn't even mention the bench, only the starting 5. We overpay for Lance this summer, and we kiss those luxuries goodbye for the following years to come.
    Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 01-29-2014 at 02:52 PM.

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


  22. #290
    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?

    At the end of the day I just do not believe Lance is worth 12M. We are approaching Paul George territory with that salary. Considering the new CBA has teams more aware of financial longevity any team that offers Lance more than 10 is overpaying.

    Again, Lance simply is not as good as Paul and should not be paid in the same salary tier as him. I agree Lance fits well within our offense. However, as I am eluding to Paul can score in a multitude of ways and can defend with the best in the NBA.

    Lance's defense is not lockdown. His shooting is inconsistent. Why are we willing to pay more than 10 let alone do whatever it takes for a guy that is not a superstar like Paul and Roy.

    At this time there are two areas that Lance excels at, the open court and rebounding. The offensive rebounds that he gathers are terrific, but if we had another shooter on the floor which this team desparately needs because our offense at times is anemic he would not have as many opportunites for rebounds when we make shots.

    Point blank, this team is very prone to offensive dryspells and we need another shooter badly. I am okay with Lance at 8-10 because imho that is the production that he provides us. Maybe I am mistaken but I believe many are caught up in the fancy passes and highlight plays that he makes. Nevertheless the fact remains this team needs someone who can shoot.

    Unless Lance is in the lane I am not confident when he pulls up for jumpshots. the pay Lance whatever camp can presume that born readys shooting will improve but there is no guarantee. Often players are either able to stroke it or not. Lances form is good so I as well believe he will improve but again, I am not ready to overspend until I see that production on the court.

    As far as who can replace Lance if indeed we cannot afford him, I believe there are options and Legend seems to believe that as well per his interview.

    Honestly, I would be very comfortable if we could duplicate Hill and play him at both SG and PG @ 8 per. A similar player to Hill would be just fine at shooting guard.


    Again, point blank this team needs a shooter who can space the floor for our postgame because with Lance currently our offense still sucks otherwise we would not be prone to the dry spells. The offensive glass that Lance excels at would not be necessary if we had another player who can simply knock down jumpers. This is where Hill has got to assert himself and I am fully confident he will. Lance at 8-10 max is fine, but for 12 or more he needs to find a jumper and become a more consistent defender. When that happens we can pay him similar to Paul George but until then I believe it would be foolish to offer him that type of contract. Especially for a small market franchise like the Indiana Pacers.


    I posted this above and will post again. NBA Free Agents 2014

    http://hoopshype.com/free_agency/point_guards_2014.htm


    Not much available per this list. Hence the reason I believe the Pacers should go as high as 10M. Any more than that and were approaching PG territory and I do not believe Lance is on PG's level or even close to at this time. When Lance becomes more consistent shooting the rock we can then discuss the whatever it takes to keep Lance strategy.

    Until then I will not be comfortable paying Lance similar to PG salary. If Lance demands more than 10M then by my understanding we will have around 7-8 Million for Free Agency prior to potentially re-signing Danny, and if we move Copeland then closer to 11M available. I would need to confirm those numbers but if that is accurate this team is going to be fine with or without Lance. Not completely certain I can say the same of Lance and him succeeding without the Pacers.

  23. The Following User Says Thank You to PacersPride For This Useful Post:


  24. #291
    Member Sollozzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    16,765

    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 Ace E.Anderson View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    CalebKC has posted this a few times but: IF we were to let Lance go, we would have 7.7 Mil before we hit the LT line. We could offer a player the full MLE and then another contract of about 2.2 mil next year.

    I think those that aren't comfortable with giving Lance "however much it takes" aren't looking at next year, as much as we're looking at the coming years when Roy will be getting paid, and PG will be REALLY getting paid. You have to look at the cap situation in 2 years, and think about the ramifications of paying someone an undeserving 12 mil plus. When you have two players that will be taking up so much of your cap, you can't have a third player take up another large portion unless they're a great player and you know for a fact that you can still be elite while surrounding those three players with low cost specialists (and that's a nice way of putting it)

    Teams like the Heat have been able to do this because they have 2 hall of famers, (one of which is a top 5 player EVER) and a guy in Bosh who was a perennial All Star in his own right during his TOR years. That "big 3" is several times more talented than any version of a big 3 that we would field with Paul, Lance and Roy. It's just not the same. Also, they have hit the luxury tax line a few times with their roster, and that is something Herb Simon has stated he will not do.

    It doesn't take $12mil plus to replace what Lance brings to the team. There are plenty of similarly productive players at his position (both more productive, and less productive) that are being paid less than he is, so there's no reason to sign him to a large contract just because we can't sign another guy to a similarly large contract. I do agree, not EVERYBODY can fit in with our system (which is a shame when you see former players blossom so well on other teams), so it would obviously need to be someone that Bird believed was a good fit. But it works both ways, Lance isn't going to fit in with other teams as well as he fits in here. So why overpay when it's probably a mutual "best fit" for both parties?

    It's not a "so be it" situation when it comes to not having a top of the line PF and PG in the future. We have mediocre players playing in those spots around Lance, PG, and Roy--we suddenly become the Joe Johnson Hawk's teams. This team has been built on the idea of fielding a complete team whose depth within the starting lineup has made it possible to compete with the "super teams" of the league. Why would we mess that up now? Why would we try to implement our own version of a "big 3" when it would be an utterly inferior trio than the ones that have been successful in this league? We NEED a D.West type of talent at PF in order to remain elite. We need a G.Hill type of presence at the other starting guard spot in order to remain elite. And I didn't even mention the bench, only the starting 5. We overpay for Lance this summer, and we kiss those luxuries goodbye for the following years to come.

    George Hill is under contract to 2017, meaning that we don't have to worry about finding a new starting PG unless we voluntarily ship him off. D. West is under contract until 2016 (the final year being a player option). Those two positions are locked in for the next two seasons unless we voluntarily ship them off. Hibbert has the player option after 2016, but the ball will be in our court with that one.

    It all comes down to how much the billionaire owner wants to pay. This team needs to be in win now mode for the immediate future. We can field the exact same dominant starting lineup for at least the next couple of seasons as long as we're willing to pay for it. Lance being kept at a high price doesn't have anything to do with West or Hill unless we simply don't want to pay. The odds of finding a MLE player who is anywhere near Lance is pretty slim. Since this franchise needs to be gunning for a championship right now, anything that substantially lessons the talent level of the current team is simply unacceptable, IMHO.

    I think that the PG/Lance/Hibbert trio is largely responsible for this season's success. We have a vicious interior defender and maybe the most deadly wing combo in the NBA. Sure West and Hill are solid, but like I said, there is no law that we have to get rid of those guys any time soon. I like having a solid bench like we have this season, but we just saw this current starting lineup take the Heat to 7 with no help from the bench. Now the starting lineup is even better with Lance and PG's development. I don't think that our bench could be any worse than it was last year, so I'm willing to roll the dice. I'd much rather weaken the bench than lose a young stud who helps make up the best wing duo in the NBA. Maybe Lance wouldn't be as great somewhere else, but why does that really matter? We know how great he is here and the value he has to this current team.

  25. #292

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

    You don't get better offensively by trading your most efficient scorer and best passer/creator for a jump shooter.

    And lance does most of his rebounding on the defensive end not offensive. People ***** about Lance's defense at times, and rightfully so, but defensive rebounding is a pretty important defensive attribute which I think sometimes can get overlooked. You can play all the defense but if you don't finish with the rebound it's wasted. Lance and Paul's rebounding is extremely important to this team because our superstar center is weak at rebounding on the defensive end. ( yes Roy Hibbert has weaknesses defensively)
    Last edited by CJ Jones; 01-29-2014 at 04:12 PM.

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


  27. #293
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    21,090

    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 CJ Jones View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You don't get better offensively by trading your most efficient scorer and best passer/creator for a jump shooter.

    And lance does most of his rebounding on the defensive end not offensive. People ***** about Lance's defense at times, and rightfully so, but defensive rebounding is a pretty important defensive attribute which I think sometimes can get overlooked. You can play all the defense but if you don't finish with the rebound it's wasted. Lance and Paul's rebounding is extremely important to this team because our superstar center is weak at rebounding on the defensive end. ( yes Roy Hibbert has weaknesses defensively)

    LOS ANGELES – Sharing in basketball can be more than just teammates passing the ball. The frontcourt players for the Indiana Pacers often find themselves sharing space underneath the glass.

    There's an anomaly on the Indiana roster. Guard Lance Stephenson (7.0 rebounds per game) averages almost as many boards as 7-2 center Roy Hibbert (7.8). Stephenson's numbers have also trumped power forward David West (6.6 rebounds), but Pacers coach Frank Vogel explains this discrepancy.

    "Lance steals them all from Roy anyway," Vogel said. "Roy is ready to get them and Lance comes in from the 3-point line off two feet. We all compete for the glass. We have all five guys on the defensive glass."

    BUCKNER: Pacers close out road trip with win over Lakers
    BOX SCORE: Pacers vs. Lakers

    The Pacers rank just above the middle of pack in rebounding, averaging 53.3 per game compared to their league-best 54.5 average during the 2012-13 season.

    "This is indicative of the sacrifice of this team," Vogel said. "A lot of times, (the bigs), they're sacrificing themselves to wipe out the best rebounders on the other team while the guards come back and get the numbers.
    "It's a sacrifice," Vogel continued, "more than anything."
    http://www.indystar.com/story/sports...ounds/4988905/

    Lance is a stealing rebound machine.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right. ― Ricky Gervais.

    What if someone from a school of business or management school were to ask, How did you do this? How did you get the Pacers turned around? Is there a general approach you've taken that can be summarized?

    Larry Bird: Yeah, patience.

  28. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Since86 For This Useful Post:


  29. #294

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

    Not sure how Lance stealing rebounds changes anything. Roy is great at offensive rebounding and not so great at defensive rebounding and that was the case before Lance and will be same if Lance were to go.

  30. #295
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Since86 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    http://www.indystar.com/story/sports...ounds/4988905/

    Lance is a stealing rebound machine.
    Classic example of why I really don't care about individual stats the way I used to. I'm much more interested in how pieces work together to get team results.

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


  32. #296
    Indiana Pacers Forever Pacer Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    ya
    Posts
    3,824
    Mood

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

    Isn't Roy a weak defensive rebounder cause he plays to defend what's in front of him and not sit back to box out. I know he could do a better job to box out at times, especially when a jumper is in the air, but More times then not Lance and Paul get rebounds on Roy's weak side. Not sure where DWest disappears to, lol.
    .

    Frank Vogel says "Killer instinct, start strong, build a lead and then step on their throats."

  33. #297
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Dillon, Co
    Posts
    3,953

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Sollozzo View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    So what is the plan for those who are comfortable with letting Lance go? If we lose Lance, we still aren't going to have any cap space. He has been making pennies, so it's not like losing him will give us all of this extra money. Acting like we will have 12 (or whatever) extra mil to toy with isn't true because that 12 mil will only exist if we keep Lance since he is our player. But not keeping him certainly won't give us extra cap space. What type of player can we bring in for pennies? As pogi mentioned, Augistin and Green have been decent players this year, but they struggled in our system last year. Our system is not for everyone. You still need players who can fit the system, which Lance does perfectly.s.......
    I look at it this way. No matter what we won't be as good next year as this.
    Plan A: Keep Lance for 9 mil and lose Danny and Copeland. We're still not as good.
    Plan B: Keep Danny at the MLE and have 2 mil to spend on a cheap combo guard.

    The plan being suggested by those who want to pay Lance 12 mil would be to lose Danny and Scola and leave us in a position where we have to make another move in order to pay Hibbert the following summer.
    What would be the plan to replace what Danny and Scola give us next year with the 0 dollars we'd have to spend?

    I think if it comes to that we lose more with Danny and Scola combined then we do in losing Lance and it leaves us room to pay Hibbert the following summer.

  34. #298

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Pacer Fan View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Isn't Roy a weak defensive rebounder cause he plays to defend what's in front of him and not sit back to box out. I know he could do a better job to box out at times, especially when a jumper is in the air, but More times then not Lance and Paul get rebounds on Roy's weak side. Not sure where DWest disappears to, lol.
    Weak hands, not a strong center of gravity, limited athleticism, and yes scheme all play a part. Our wings are essential to our teams rebounding because while our bigs take up a lot of space, they aren't great rebounders.

  35. #299

    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 look at it this way. No matter what we won't be as good next year as this.
    Plan A: Keep Lance for 9 mil and lose Danny and Copeland. We're still not as good.
    Plan B: Keep Danny at the MLE and have 2 mil to spend on a cheap combo guard.

    The plan being suggested by those who want to pay Lance 12 mil would be to lose Danny and Scola and leave us in a position where we have to make another move in order to pay Hibbert the following summer.
    What would be the plan to replace what Danny and Scola give us next year with the 0 dollars we'd have to spend?

    I think if it comes to that we lose more with Danny and Scola combined then we do in losing Lance and it leaves us room to pay Hibbert the following summer.
    Personally, I do not even think this is true in the short term, let alone the long term. Lance is 23 years old. Scola (33) and Danny (30, often injured) will be gone in 2-3 years anyways. This is really a no-brainer. Lance has the potential to be a top 10-15 player in the NBA sometime within the next 5 years IMO. To have that wing duo for years to come along with Roy in the middle, I do not think we'd have a problem getting guys to come off the bench to chase some rings.

  36. #300
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Dillon, Co
    Posts
    3,953

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

    Quote Originally Posted by brownjake43 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Personally, I do not even think this is true in the short term, let alone the long term. Lance is 23 years old. Scola (33) and Danny (30, often injured) will be gone in 2-3 years anyways. This is really a no-brainer. Lance has the potential to be a top 10-15 player in the NBA sometime within the next 5 years IMO. To have that wing duo for years to come along with Roy in the middle, I do not think we'd have a problem getting guys to come off the bench to chase some rings.
    If we pay Lance 12 mil we won't have anything to spend on ring chasers. Even if we did do you honestly think you could replace Danny and Scola with min. contract players and get the same results? We have 2 prior all stars who would start on almost any other team, they're not has beens at 30 and 33. IMO the best plan if we can't afford Lance is to build around 2 stars in Roy and Paul. Then we can afford a supporting cast with that being primarily the cast we currently have.

  37. The Following User Says Thank You to Pacerized 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
  •