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 13 of 16 FirstFirst ... 3910111213141516 LastLast
Results 301 to 325 of 399

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

  1. #301
    Member CableKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA ( 1123, 6536, 5321 )
    Age
    41
    Posts
    24,285

    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
    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.
    To be fair.....it was always going to be to keep one or the other....unless some really drastic move is made and/or Granger comes VERY CHEAP....keeping BOTH Lance and Granger was never in the cards.

    Also....it may suck....but it's much easier to replace Danny ( bump OJ or more than likely Solo into the rotation ) and Scola ( cuz we're looking at replacing a Backup Player ).

    As for having Capspace to re-sign Hibbert to a NEAR MAX level contract.....I think that the Pacers will have more options to re-sign him to such a contract.

    Keep in mind.....without taking Lance into account....the Pacers will have roughly $43 mil owed owed to 5 Players ( West/GH/PG24/Solo/Mahinmi ). Assume that Lance is owed $13.5 mil in the 2nd year of his contract ( hopefully a worst case scenario ) and the Pacers will be at $56.5 mil owed to 6 Players. I don't know what the LT will be in 2015-2016....but it won't be any worse that what it is now at $75.7 mil. That would leave roughly $20+ mil in $$$ to spend to sign 7 Players ( including Hibbert ) before hitting the LT.

    Now, that may mean that the Pacers would have to sign cheap talent to fill out the bench.....but that's what Teams like the Thunder, Heat and the Spurs have to do.....build a strong core and then fill the rest of roster with cheap talent ( AKA Players on rookie contracts ) that are more "system guys".

    That is how you build a long-term championship Team if you are looking at having 2/3 of your SalaryCap go to 3 to 4 Players. Sign cheap Veterans that fit your "system" and draft Players while ACTUALLY give them regular rotational minutes so that you can get regular contributions from cheap talent.

    <<< START RANT >>>

    That is why I have been harping on the notion that the Pacers can't do what the Knicks and Heat have done....mortgage their future ( trade away draft picks and young talent ) just to re-sign Lance and why I am more concerned that the price of getting under the LT exponentially gets higher after the this year's trade deadline.

    I go back to the example of the Thunder and Harden....it costs them 1 season after making it to the NBA Finals...but the Thunder traded Harden in exchange for Draft picks and ( most notably ) Jeremy Lamb. Lamb is now a key Player coming off the bench. They drafted correctly and picked up Reggie Jackson. The Thunder ( if anything ) is a model for where the Pacers should be heading into......build a Starting Lineup with a top tier Talent that is paid accordingly and then fill out the rest of the roster with young but cheap talent. With the exception of Kendrick Perkins....the rest of the bench Players that play regular rotational minutes are on rookie contracts...each paid less then $2.5 mil a year.

    <<< END RANT >>>
    Last edited by CableKC; 01-29-2014 at 09:17 PM.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

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

  2. #302

    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
    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.
    I think we can hope to build a bench through the draft along with adding a few ring chasers. O.Johnson and S.Hill can fight for minutes on the wing for next year. We got CJ Watson at 2M. Mahinmi and West will come off the books in 2 years, and we can look to sign a PF worth closer to 6-8M rather than 12M.

    Really only position we will be weak at is backup PF. But I think Lance is worth being weak at backup PF for 2 years.

    Will our bench suffer a bit next year? Probably. But we need Stephenson here for the long run.

  3. #303

    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
    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.
    Well the classic example is building through the draft to replace your sixth man or 7th man. I still fill that should be the goal and teams like OKC are still doing that with guys like Jeremy lamb and Steven Adams to replace Perkins next year. The Spurs also did that as well to replace Hill.

    edit: brons beat me to it.

  4. #304
    Member Ace E.Anderson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,969

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

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

    I agree. Surrounding a duo of Paul and Roy with 2 good players (aka GH and DW) and another solid player sounds better than surrounding a threesome of Paul, Roy and George with one more decent starter and lesser players throughout the roster.

    The difference between my opinion and posters such as Sollozzo and CJ is that I don't think Lance is as good of a player as a Steph Curry, Tony Parker, and other players that are making $12 mil a yr plus. I think he's in a great position because the opposing teams best defender is guarding Paul, and the opposing interior defenders have to worry about DW and Roy. I don't think he can lead an offense without the security blankets that are within our starting 5.

    I agree that we can't just plug any Joe Schmo in and have the same success, but I do think a ball handling/slashing guard would have success with the other four starters. This is why we've had the best starting 5 in the last 3 years with a different variation of players surrounding Paul, Roy and DW.

    The difference in opinion over how much Lance should be offered/kept at is directly correlated to the difference in opinions of how good Lance is.
    Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 01-29-2014 at 09:47 PM.

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


  6. #305
    Member CableKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA ( 1123, 6536, 5321 )
    Age
    41
    Posts
    24,285

    Sports Logo

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Gamble1 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Well the classic example is building through the draft to replace your sixth man or 7th man. I still fill that should be the goal and teams like OKC are still doing that with guys like Jeremy lamb and Steven Adams to replace Perkins next year. The Spurs also did that as well to replace Hill.

    edit: brons beat me to it.
    Sure, some combination of OJ and Solo may not completely fill the shoes of Granger in 2014-2015....and we may never find a backup PF that has the midrange jumpshot of Scola....but that's what you have to do to field a top notch Team.

    I would be EXTREMELY reluctant to simply let Scola go....but if doing so allowed the Pacers to re-sign Lance...then I reluctantly bite the bullet and go bargain bin shopping for a Backup PF. And the reason I say Scola over GH is because I am of the belief that Teams DO NOT take on $24 mil without some needed incentive ( as in trading assets ). Simply letting Scola go doesn't cost the Pacers the loss of any assets ( which, as I said before...is important to build a Thunder-like roster ).
    Last edited by CableKC; 01-29-2014 at 10:44 PM.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

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

  7. #306
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Dillon, Co
    Posts
    3,873

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CableKC View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    To be fair.....it was always going to be to keep one or the other....unless some really drastic move is made and/or Granger comes VERY CHEAP....keeping BOTH Lance and Granger was never in the cards.
    Keep in mind.....without taking Lance into account....the Pacers will have roughly $43 mil owed owed to 5 Players ( West/GH/PG24/Solo/Mahinmi ). Assume that Lance is owed $13.5 mil in the 2nd year of his contract ( hopefully a worst case scenario ) and the Pacers will be at $56.5 mil owed to 6 Players. I don't know what the LT will be in 2015-2016....but it won't be any worse that what it is now at $75.7 mil. That would leave roughly $20+ mil in $$$ to spend to sign 7 Players ( including Hibbert ) before hitting the LT.
    I understand that keeping both Lance and Danny was never in the equation and with that alone I've already accepted the fact that no matter what we won't be as good next year.
    One of the problems in keeping Lance at such a high salary is in being able to offer Hibbert enough to keep him. 20 mil on 7 players including Hibbert doesn't work when Hibbert starts out year 1 of his contract at 18 mil, then he Paul and Lance would continue to climb from there.
    I in the end if I though Lance was some superstar special talent I might go along with this reasoning but I don't. I think Lance is a good but he's a product of his environment. Take away the support cast, especially West and we'll be sorry if we sign Lance to some huge contract.

  8. #307

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

    I don't think it's unreasonable to believe we could pay Stephenson, PG, and Hibbert a combined $50m a year going forward. It sounds like a lot, and it really is a lot, but keeping together a big 3 like that is going to be expensive. Championships are not going to come cheap. We need to go after the Oklahoma City model. They've got their big 3 wrapped up with Durant, Westbrook, and Ibaka. Next year they are getting paid $48m combined. They are still going to be considerably under the luxury tax even after adding players through the draft and maybe the MLE. They got that by getting good assets through trades and by drafting well in the later parts of the draft. We need to find a Reggie Jackson or Jeremy Lamb or Steven Adams through trades or the draft. We aren't going to be able to have a lot of vets in their primes, but we can have 3 potential stars, which is what championship teams have. Losing Stephenson puts the championship out of reach. Keeping Scola and Granger will not win us a championship. Stephenson can.

  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to PacersHomer For This Useful Post:


  10. #308
    Member Wage's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    405

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

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

    Quote Originally Posted by PacersPride View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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.
    I'm no cap guru, but looking at the numbers I'm pretty sure this is not accurate. The Pacers are over the salary cap no matter what they do next year, so the most we can offer any player not currently on the team is the MLE (around 5.5 million). Even if we let Lance go, Danny go, Scola go, and trade Copleand while taking back no salary, we are still looking at $5.5 million max for a free agent.

    The numbers you are mentioning are in regards to the luxury tax, which is relevant too, but not so much when shopping for free agents in our position. Bottom line, if Lance walks we either need to have his replacement currently on our roster, or that guy needs to be available next year for around $5.5 million.

  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Wage For This Useful Post:


  12. #309
    future dragon trainer Heisenberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    11,925

    Sports Logo

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Wage View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'm no cap guru, but looking at the numbers I'm pretty sure this is not accurate. The Pacers are over the salary cap no matter what they do next year, so the most we can offer any player not currently on the team is the MLE (around 5.5 million). Even if we let Lance go, Danny go, Scola go, and trade Copleand while taking back no salary, we are still looking at $5.5 million max for a free agent.

    The numbers you are mentioning are in regards to the luxury tax, which is relevant too, but not so much when shopping for free agents in our position. Bottom line, if Lance walks we either need to have his replacement currently on our roster, or that guy needs to be available next year for around $5.5 million.
    Yeah, all that. Lance goes elsewhere we have the MLE to spend on non-Danny free agents, that's it, so whatever it winds up being, it's 5.2 million this year and it'll go up a few hundred k. We used our bi-annual exception for CJ last summer.

  13. #310
    Member CableKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA ( 1123, 6536, 5321 )
    Age
    41
    Posts
    24,285

    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
    I understand that keeping both Lance and Danny was never in the equation and with that alone I've already accepted the fact that no matter what we won't be as good next year.

    One of the problems in keeping Lance at such a high salary is in being able to offer Hibbert enough to keep him. 20 mil on 7 players including Hibbert doesn't work when Hibbert starts out year 1 of his contract at 18 mil, then he Paul and Lance would continue to climb from there.

    I in the end if I though Lance was some superstar special talent I might go along with this reasoning but I don't. I think Lance is a good but he's a product of his environment. Take away the support cast, especially West and we'll be sorry if we sign Lance to some huge contract.
    These are legit concerns….but over the span of another season….we have no idea how much more Lance would ( or would not ) mature. West is probably a good Drill Sargent that keeps everyone in line ( as illustrated in some post where Reporters asked Lance about West when he was ejected in the game few games back )….but I think that the rest of the locker room would step up to fill whatever void that West eventually vacates.
    Last edited by CableKC; 01-30-2014 at 02:03 AM.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

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

  14. #311
    Member CableKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA ( 1123, 6536, 5321 )
    Age
    41
    Posts
    24,285

    Sports Logo

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

    Quote Originally Posted by PacersPride View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wage View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'm no cap guru, but looking at the numbers I'm pretty sure this is not accurate. The Pacers are over the salary cap no matter what they do next year, so the most we can offer any player not currently on the team is the MLE (around 5.5 million). Even if we let Lance go, Danny go, Scola go, and trade Copleand while taking back no salary, we are still looking at $5.5 million max for a free agent.

    The numbers you are mentioning are in regards to the luxury tax, which is relevant too, but not so much when shopping for free agents in our position. Bottom line, if Lance walks we either need to have his replacement currently on our roster, or that guy needs to be available next year for around $5.5 million.
    Barring any changes to the roster….as it stands right now…the Pacers will have approximately $68 mil owed to 11 Players ( assuming that Scola, Sloan and OJs contracts are picked up ). That means that they ONLY have about $7.7 mil to spend on Free Agents ( whether it be Granger or Lance or anyone on the free Agent Markets ) and/or signing their two 2nd round picks in the draft. If Lance completely falls through when it comes to losing him to Free Agency….I can see the Pacers signing Granger to the about $5.4 mil a year, sign some Free Agent at about $1.5 mil and then signing one of their 2nd round 2014-2015 draft picks.
    Last edited by CableKC; 01-30-2014 at 02:01 AM.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

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

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to CableKC For This Useful Post:


  16. #312
    Member crunk-juice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Purdue
    Posts
    1,291
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

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

    keep your talent when you have it.

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to crunk-juice For This Useful Post:


  18. #313
    future dragon trainer Heisenberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    11,925

    Sports Logo

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

    Quote Originally Posted by CableKC View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Barring any changes to the roster….as it stands right now…the Pacers will have approximately $68 mil owed to 11 Players ( assuming that Scola, Sloan and OJs contracts are picked up ). That means that they ONLY have about $7.7 mil to spend on Free Agents ( whether it be Granger or Lance or anyone on the free Agent Markets ).
    Right, but we're over the cap, so on true free agents, guys that aren't Danny who we have Bird Rights on, we have the MLE and that's it. It's conceivable we could re-sign Danny for say like 3/15 (Danny's an MLE level player now, if that honestly), then spend ~3 mil of our MLE on whomever else if we wanted. But we don't have anything more than the 5.whatever mil the MLE ends up being to spend on non-Pacer FAs.

    If we're not able to keep Lance there's no reason to make any of the money saving moves that've been talked about, dumping Cope, not picking up Scola, that stuff. None of them would put us under the cap.

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


  20. #314
    Member CableKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA ( 1123, 6536, 5321 )
    Age
    41
    Posts
    24,285

    Sports Logo

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Heisenberg View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Right, but we're over the cap, so on true free agents, guys that aren't Danny who we have Bird Rights on, we have the MLE and that's it. It's conceivable we could re-sign Danny for say like 3/15 (Danny's an MLE level player now, if that honestly), then spend ~3 mil of our MLE on whomever else if we wanted. But we don't have anything more than the 5.whatever mil the MLE ends up being to spend on non-Pacer FAs.

    If we're not able to keep Lance there's no reason to make any of the money saving moves that've been talked about, dumping Cope, not picking up Scola, that stuff. None of them would put us under the cap.
    I totally agree on what you're saying here.

    Plan B if Lance is gone will likely be sign Granger to 3/15, sign one of our 2nd round picks ( IMHO, I think that Bird will trade both the 2nd round picks and move up to an earlier 2nd round pick ) and then use whatever's left to sign a Free Agent ( probably someone at $1.5 mil a year for 2 seasons ).

    I know that this really sucks to some……but reality is reality….if Lance is too expensive to keep….then I have very little doubt that Bird will simply move on.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

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

  21. #315
    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 crunk-juice View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    keep your talent when you have it.
    1. Wait for years to acquire talent.
    2. Acquire talent.
    3. Let talent walk.

    Clearly the path to championships.

  22. #316
    Artificial Intelligence wintermute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,095

    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 don't think Lance is as good of a player as a Steph Curry, Tony Parker, and other players that are making $12 mil a yr plus.
    I'm not sure I agree with this reasoning. The fact is, Steph Curry and Tony Parker are not, and won't be, available to us for $12m a year. These guys were undervalued for various reasons when they signed their current contracts, thus they appear like great value now. If they were magically to become free agents this moment, they would certainly get larger offers. Furthermore we can't even make a competitive offer for these guys because we simply won't have the cap space.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The difference in opinion over how much Lance should be offered/kept at is directly correlated to the difference in opinions of how good Lance is.
    I agree, though I would qualify the statement somewhat. What matters IMO isn't what we fans think, it's what rival GMs think is his value. As long as some other GM (preferably more than one) thinks that Lance is worth $12m, we can happily sign him to a contract that size knowing that we can always trade him in case things don't work out. Thus, "market value". Of course, other FAs in the past have seen their values drop after signing a new contract, but there are some factors that favor Lance: 1) We already know that he is effective on the Pacers, so there's no "new team adjustment" that we have to worry about, and 2) Lance is only 23 and has been on an upward trajectory ever since joining the Pacers. There are absolutely no indications that he's plateauing or coasting or whatever. There are no sure things in life, but Lance seems like a pretty good bet to continue to improve.

    But for the purpose of settling the argument on PD (as if arguments on PD ever get settled, ha) Lance's market value is no doubt colored by opinions on how good he is or will be, so your statement is probably accurate.

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


  24. #317
    Member Ace E.Anderson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,969

    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 wintermute View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'm not sure I agree with this reasoning. The fact is, Steph Curry and Tony Parker are not, and won't be, available to us for $12m a year. These guys were undervalued for various reasons when they signed their current contracts, thus they appear like great value now. If they were magically to become free agents this moment, they would certainly get larger offers. Furthermore we can't even make a competitive offer for these guys because we simply won't have the cap space.
    You're right, those players wouldn't be available to us for $12 mil. But, those players were considered better players prior to signing those contracts. Tony Parker was a 3 time champion, multiple time AS when his contract was signed prior to the 2011-2012 season. But we could use plenty of other players as examples. Al Horford wasn't undervalued when he signed his contract. Andre Iguodala wasn't undervalued when he signed his contract. Jrue Holiday wasn't undervalued either. In one of my previous posts I pointed out the fact that only six 2-guards in the league are making $12mil plus, 3 of those 6 are/were superstar players when they signed, and the other 3 are overpaid. The point I was making is that when you look at other contracts across the league, $12 million is overpaying for the production Lance Stephenson brings.


    I agree, though I would qualify the statement somewhat. What matters IMO isn't what we fans think, it's what rival GMs think is his value. As long as some other GM (preferably more than one) thinks that Lance is worth $12m, we can happily sign him to a contract that size knowing that we can always trade him in case things don't work out. Thus, "market value". Of course, other FAs in the past have seen their values drop after signing a new contract, but there are some factors that favor Lance: 1) We already know that he is effective on the Pacers, so there's no "new team adjustment" that we have to worry about, and 2) Lance is only 23 and has been on an upward trajectory ever since joining the Pacers. There are absolutely no indications that he's plateauing or coasting or whatever. There are no sure things in life, but Lance seems like a pretty good bet to continue to improve.
    You're 100% correct. It's more about what GM's believe Lance is worth.

    At the end of the day my gripe about the contract is that I don't think the Pacers can simply build around Lance, Paul and Roy. Period. That trio isn't as good as the "big 3" that the Heat nor OKC incorporate, but those are the teams that are constantly brought up. We're able to compete with those team because we have a "big 5", not because Paul, Lance and Roy are going toe-to-toe with their trio of stars.

    Interesting stat: in the 5 games against the other elite teams in the NBA this year (MIA,SA,OKC,POR--all with a .700 winning %) Mr. $12 Mil is averaging 10, 5, 3. If you want to add the LAC to the mix (.688 winning %) then he's averaging 11, 6, 4.

    Either way--moving forward, I'd think we would need a little more production than that against the elite teams if we're going to pay someone that kind of dough.

    But I have now honestly posted on this subject wayyyy too much, and feel like I'm approaching Vnz territory. I am simply gonna shut up about it all now.

  25. #318
    Running with the Big Boys BillS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Danberry
    Age
    54
    Posts
    11,340

    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
    1. Wait for years to acquire talent.
    2. Acquire talent.
    3. Let talent walk.

    Clearly the path to championships.
    Look what letting Harden walk did to crush OKC's hopes of ever contending again.
    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. #319
    future dragon trainer Heisenberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    11,925

    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
    Look what letting Harden walk did to crush OKC's hopes of ever contending again.
    Diminished them by like, 15%? Having the 2nd best player on the planet gives you a lot of leeway to take gambles. PG sure as hell isn't on the Durant tier. He's great, GREAT, but we gotta stop acting like we have anyone that is automatic points like him or Lebron. Our offense is still league average. That's the biggest argument to pull out all the stops and keep Lance for better or worse.
    Last edited by Heisenberg; 01-30-2014 at 09:24 AM.

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


  29. #320
    Member PR07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,862

    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
    You're right, those players wouldn't be available to us for $12 mil. But, those players were considered better players prior to signing those contracts. Tony Parker was a 3 time champion, multiple time AS when his contract was signed prior to the 2011-2012 season. But we could use plenty of other players as examples. Al Horford wasn't undervalued when he signed his contract. Andre Iguodala wasn't undervalued when he signed his contract. Jrue Holiday wasn't undervalued either. In one of my previous posts I pointed out the fact that only six 2-guards in the league are making $12mil plus, 3 of those 6 are/were superstar players when they signed, and the other 3 are overpaid. The point I was making is that when you look at other contracts across the league, $12 million is overpaying for the production Lance Stephenson brings.
    Team's aren't going to just pay Lance for the player that he currently is, but at 23, they'll pay him for the type of the player that they think he can become.

  30. The Following User Says Thank You to PR07 For This Useful Post:


  31. #321
    future dragon trainer Heisenberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    11,925

    Sports Logo

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

    Quote Originally Posted by PR07 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Team's aren't going to just pay Lance for the player that he currently is, but at 23, they'll pay him for the type of the player that they think he can become.
    And if some team is stupid and wants to give him like 4/50 to prove it, let em.

  32. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Heisenberg For This Useful Post:


  33. #322

    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
    You're right, those players wouldn't be available to us for $12 mil. But, those players were considered better players prior to signing those contracts. Tony Parker was a 3 time champion, multiple time AS when his contract was signed prior to the 2011-2012 season. But we could use plenty of other players as examples. Al Horford wasn't undervalued when he signed his contract. Andre Iguodala wasn't undervalued when he signed his contract. Jrue Holiday wasn't undervalued either. In one of my previous posts I pointed out the fact that only six 2-guards in the league are making $12mil plus, 3 of those 6 are/were superstar players when they signed, and the other 3 are overpaid. The point I was making is that when you look at other contracts across the league, $12 million is overpaying for the production Lance Stephenson brings.




    You're 100% correct. It's more about what GM's believe Lance is worth.

    At the end of the day my gripe about the contract is that I don't think the Pacers can simply build around Lance, Paul and Roy. Period. That trio isn't as good as the "big 3" that the Heat nor OKC incorporate, but those are the teams that are constantly brought up. We're able to compete with those team because we have a "big 5", not because Paul, Lance and Roy are going toe-to-toe with their trio of stars.

    Interesting stat: in the 5 games against the other elite teams in the NBA this year (MIA,SA,OKC,POR--all with a .700 winning %) Mr. $12 Mil is averaging 10, 5, 3. If you want to add the LAC to the mix (.688 winning %) then he's averaging 11, 6, 4.

    Either way--moving forward, I'd think we would need a little more production than that against the elite teams if we're going to pay someone that kind of dough.

    But I have now honestly posted on this subject wayyyy too much, and feel like I'm approaching Vnz territory. I am simply gonna shut up about it all now.
    Iguodala is an interesting comp for Stephenson as well. Look at their year before free agency numbers:

    Minutes PPG FG% 3P% FT% RPG APG TPG SPG
    Iguodala 34.7 13.0 .451 .317 .574 5.3 5.4 2.6 1.7
    Stephenson 35.6 14.2 .499 .344 .673 7.1 5.3 2.6 0.7

    Iguodala is considered an elite defensive player while Lance's reputation is only as a good one. Iguodala had the proven production on his side, while Lance has the potential for more on his side. Both are jack of all trades type of players who aren't the first or sometimes second option on their offense. Lance's numbers in his free agency year are a little better.

    Also when comparing players, remember that the salary cap and luxury tax are both jumping this year. That's going to inflate the salaries of these type of players, which means that a player signed to a 12 million dollar deal now is naturally not going to be as good as a player signed 2-3 years ago with a lower cap number. If the cap keeps going up, that will of course be the case for the next group of players as well.

    I don't think the Pacers would be restricted to a big 3 just by signing Lance. At worst, it would be a big 4. In worst case scenario, Roy, Paul, and Lance could be making 48 million combined (Roy 18 million, Paul 17, Lance 13). That still leaves room for a George Hill for example at 8 million more, and then you have 20 million more for the rest of the roster (if the tax goes up again in two years, maybe more than that). West instead of Hill does the same effect just leaving a little less for the rest.

    The main question the Pacers have if Lance's price gets up that high is which starter do they value. Is it more important to keep Lance, West, or Hill? Two of the three will likely be able to be kept, but the third will likely have to be jettisoned in the next year and a half or so. I'm of the belief decent trades could be made for West or Hill so I don't think that's a concern, so it really comes down to which one is more valuable. The main advantage in fact of trading West or Hill is that they might actually bring you some sort of cheap bench asset in return, which is what the Pacers will need in the future to fill out their roster around whatever big four they choose.

  34. The Following User Says Thank You to Cubs231721 For This Useful Post:


  35. #323
    Member Sollozzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    16,350

    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
    Look what letting Harden walk did to crush OKC's hopes of ever contending again.
    That was a bad move for the Thunder, but they have the luxury of knowing that they have two of the five best players in the league. Nevertheless, it looks like they sure could have used Harden last year against the Grizzlies. I doubt they get beat 4-1 if Harden is on the roster. Also, they haven't quite won the West yet.

    Besides, Lance isn't the Harden in this example. He is the Westbrook. By know means am I saying that Lance is great of a player as Westbrook, because he obviously isn't. PG is the Durant, Lance is the Westbrook, and Hibbert is the Ibaka. I'm not saying that our trio is as great as their trio, but Lance and PG aren't yet anywhere near their peak and should continue to get better. PG is going to be a top player for like the next 8 or so years, and it's looking like Lance could be making multiple all star games right there with him. It's a once in a lifetime opportunity to have a wing duo like this who are the exact same age and could play their entire careers together. A PG/Lance/Hibbert trio would win this team a lot of games for a while.

    I understand the financial arguments that you and others are making here, but there there is just no way to spin the fact that losing Lance would be a massive loss in talent that would almost surely be reflected in the W/L column. Losing Lance would haunt the Pacers for a long time.

  36. #324
    Member PR07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,862

    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 Heisenberg View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    And if some team is stupid and wants to give him like 4/50 to prove it, let em.
    Min PPG FG% 3P% FT% RPG APG TPG SPG>>
    31.2 15.4 .451 .277 .707 6.3 3.3 3.3 1.1>>
    35.6 14.2 .449 .344 .673 7.1 5.3 2.6 0.7

    Player 1 is Tracy McGrady his last year with the Raptors at the age of 21 before getting a mega deal with the Magic, Player 2 is Stephenson at 23.

    Not saying Stephenson is T-Mac, but a team can be rewarded for giving a megadeal based on potential.


  37. The Following User Says Thank You to PR07 For This Useful Post:


  38. #325
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    20,795

    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
    The difference between my opinion and posters such as Sollozzo and CJ is that I don't think Lance is as good of a player as a Steph Curry, Tony Parker, and other players that are making $12 mil a yr plus. I think he's in a great position because the opposing teams best defender is guarding Paul, and the opposing interior defenders have to worry about DW and Roy. I don't think he can lead an offense without the security blankets that are within our starting 5.
    Roy wasn't worth his contract when he signed it either.
    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.

  39. The Following User Says Thank You to Since86 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
  •