Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

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

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

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

    Originally posted by CableKC View Post


    Can the Pacers sign a Free Agent AT the FULL MLE ( thus pushing the Pacers to $73.38 mil in Owed Salary ) AND THEN execute a Sign & Trade for Lance while getting back a Player or Players that only had no more than $2.32 mil ( most likely a rookie Prospect along with Picks )?
    Technically I think this is possible, but executing a S&T for Lance while getting back only $2.32m seems unlikely. The other team would have to be under the cap (in which case they can sign Lance outright) or else have mostly unguaranteed salary filler.

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
      Players that I believe to be of equal production/talent that make less than $12mi, a yr?

      Wes Matthews- 5yr/$34 mil
      Aaron Afflalo- 5yr/$43 mil
      Demar Derozan- 4yr/$40 mil
      Monta Ellis- 3yr/$30 mil
      Tyreke Evans - 4yr/$44 mil

      Vet players that are just a shade below Lance's talent level but still produce
      Jamal Crawford- 4yr/$25 mil
      Rodney Stuckey- 3yr/$25 mil
      OJ Mayo (having a rough yr this yr on a terribly coached MIL team) 3yr/$24 mil.
      If you go on a neutral forum, I think most people will pick Lance over these guys (with the exception of maybe Afflalo) by a landslide. Note too that Lance is the youngest with only DD and Tyreke being close in age. Potential factors in to the high valuation of Lance, whether you think it's warranted or not.

      Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
      As far as me exaggerating what we would lose, you must not have seen what we have on the books in the next few seasons, PG is going to be paid, Roy is going to be paid (esp when he opts out) if you think we can pay Lance $12 mil AND be able to keep talented players like GH and D.West within our starting lineup, I'd like to hear how you'd plan to do so while having enough money to fill out the rest of the roster with anything more than minimum salaried players.
      Oh I agree that we'll be in tough financial spot. Assuming PG and RH are the 2 guys we want to keep at all costs, the next question is who is most expendable among West, Hill, and Lance. In an ideal world, we get to keep all 3, but if you have to sacrifice one, who would it be? In your case I'm pretty sure it's Lance, but other people have different opinions.

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
        Also I'm not sold on the idea that Hibbert will get 18 million. He does not average enough points or rebounds to justify that kind of contract. You gotta be a double double type big man to get that kind of contract.
        Um Ben Wallace? You definitely can get a big money contract when you're DPOY and widely regarded as the best defensive big man in the game. Exhibit B: old and injury prone Tyson Chandler is making $14m this year and $15m next. Tell me some team wouldn't pay Hibbert in his prime more money than that.

        In a way, we've been a victim of our drafting success. Our players are really good - and the high price tag kind of goes with it.

        Comment


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

          Originally posted by wintermute View Post
          In a way, we've been a victim of our drafting success. Our players are really good - and the high price tag kind of goes with it.
          We also have a tendency to overvalue our own, no worries, every fan does for every team, but on this site it is funny how "camps" have grown and reason has left the ballpark ages ago, not sure i like it.

          Lance does a lot of good things, but he's not the next best thing since sliced bread. He's a 4 year vet, not some rookie, depite his age, he has 4 years under his belt, those 4 years have been very hard work for this franchise and in the system we have he fits reasonably well.
          Lately (since he has more "freedom") I see a lot of things I just don't like, me-ball being one of them and yes he has a high assist number but let's face also the fact that those are often hand offs to big men in the paint, plays that more players can make, not only Lance, yes he can go coast to coast and/or drive to the basket like a steamtrain, but his "celebreations" are enough to upset someone badly some day and if there's one thing i learned in life; there's alwasy someone out there that's bigger and stronger.
          His "throw the ball it the 18th row" passes are simply irritating, in the last couple of games we all have seen some plays that potetially lost us the game, or at least momentum, we fail to acknowledge that in many cases because he had some eyewidening pass or layup, but there are days the circus shots wont fall, the dribbling will be punished and the drives are hard to come by.
          Dribbling with the ball for ages may be part of "where he comes from" but it is not part of winning basketball, defence is and how many times do we see him take time off on defense? to much.
          Yes he can defend, but that doesn't mean he does it or does it proper and continuous (unlike PG) no one would ask Lance to defend Griffin.
          Often he sags of his man and they guy he is supposed to defend goes off, we counter by putting PG on him, and switch with Lance, why ?

          all in all I rate him less then some of you and way less then another number here, that consider him the next coming, so that is my opinion, not worth less than yours, i have given you arguments of why he wont get more then at the very most 8 million (and i'd be surprised if we even offered that much) since we have a fsically responsible front office.
          I would not be amazed that we never going to make Lance an offer, since someone will jump on the bandwagon the moment FA starts and LB canonnly shrug and say go Lance, go get that bag of money, and come back when you want to win again.
          Lance can not carry a team, he is no PG no Kobe, no RH no DW, he is Lance, a shooting guard that has (so far) 3 triple doubles this season courtesy of his teammates, and who can be found in highlight reels for the same reason, but he is also a regular in the blooper reels.
          What if there is NO RH or DW to bail him out, no PG to cover his behind? do you still think he's all that some say? I don't that is obvious.
          Would i like to see him go? If we see a lot more me-ball than i couldn't care less, if he stays within the system and helps us win, i will be sad, but I also realise that with PG and RH and the eyes on talent our FO has, we will be in contending territory for a while and players of high calibre will want to join our organisation.
          In short Lance is replacable for less and PG and RH are not, which is exactly what PB said, if his value goes to hig, we get someone else, simple as that.
          You all idolize LB and yet if he says something you choicefully ignore it, to me he is still a green man, but I appreciate what he has done so far and hope he does more good, but I choose to listen to what he says and assume he means it.
          So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

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

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by wintermute View Post
            Um Ben Wallace? You definitely can get a big money contract when you're DPOY and widely regarded as the best defensive big man in the game. Exhibit B: old and injury prone Tyson Chandler is making $14m this year and $15m next. Tell me some team wouldn't pay Hibbert in his prime more money than that.

            In a way, we've been a victim of our drafting success. Our players are really good - and the high price tag kind of goes with it.
            If I'm not mistaken, that Ben Wallace contract turned out to be one of the worst ever. Tyson's probably a better comparison, but he was an Olympian that had just completed a championship season in which he shot over 65%. And it was the Knicks who signed him.

            I'm not saying he won't get max offers, he probably will, but defensive specialists don't normally get paid like superstars. That kind of money is usually reserved for great offensive players who are expected to produce night in and night out.

            Comment


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

              Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
              If I'm not mistaken, that Ben Wallace contract turned out to be one of the worst ever. Tyson's probably a better comparison, but he was an Olympian that had just completed a championship season in which he shot over 65%. And it was the Knicks who signed him.
              Well the Pistons' version of Ben Wallace would easily have been worth that money. But the point is that he did get a very large offer as an undersized defensive center with mediocre stats. So let's say Roy gets a huge offer elsewhere and turns into a bust, does that actually help the Pacers in any way? We'd still be out one very good center. Same argument applies for Lance btw. Even if he becomes a bad contract on another team, the Pacers would still have lost a valuable contributor.

              Which is not to say that we have to keep either player AT ALL COSTS. Past a certain point, a good player making much more than he's worth becomes a detriment to team building. I think (hope) we all understand this. The disagreements arise because the number I put on Lance for example is very different than the one that say, able, does. And the disagreements aren't going away any time soon because of this fundamental difference in valuation.

              Comment


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

                Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                If you go on a neutral forum, I think most people will pick Lance over these guys (with the exception of maybe Afflalo) by a landslide. Note too that Lance is the youngest with only DD and Tyreke being close in age. Potential factors in to the high valuation of Lance, whether you think it's warranted or not.
                I disagree. Lance may be a better all around player, but that doesn't make him BETTER than these other guys. The other players I mentioned have had multiple years of production, whereas this is Lance's first year in his four year career where he's even averaged double figures scoring--and it just so happens to be a contract year. Also it all depends on the type of player you would rather have. Some would rather have a player that can consistently shoot, score at a good rate over someone who does many things well but isn't the type of player that can blow up for 30 plus points. I feel that Matthews, Affalo and Derozan are just as good, just have different strengths. Guys like Tyreke, and Monta are a notch below, but it isn't such a significant drop off that Lance should be considered better by a Landslide. Just a matter of opinion I guess.

                I don't dislike Lance. I've grown to enjoy watching him play, and I think he's a great asset for this team. My gripe is that I just don't think Lance is good enough to be a number two option option on an elite team when he's not flanked by security blankets such as GH and DW within the starting lineup. I would assume that about 70% of NBA players have career years during their contract seasons and I'm not fully convinced this isn't example. Others think differently, and it is what it is. Hopefully I'm wrong but we will see what happens.
                Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 01-28-2014, 08:37 AM.

                Comment


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

                  While I would NEVER question Mr. Bird, I don't understand why we didn't offer Lance an extension for 4 years at about 4-5 million before we resigned PG to his killer contract. I believe LS would have taken $5m at the start of the season and been happy for awhile. That would have still let us sign the Max deal with Paul by using Granger's expiring money to pay him. Depending on the Cap space we would be facing at the end of our Championship run season, we could have still offered DG the MLE and kept the core(6) on the team. Would this work money wise or am I dreaming? I just believe teams wait too long to make offers to their players(like we did with Roy) when they start showing signs of being special. IMHO, extensions for decent money, like we did with Hill and West, is a much desired outcome to the PANIC matching of offers from teams with Cap space and desperation on their side.

                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by Cousy47 View Post
                    While I would NEVER question Mr. Bird, I don't understand why we didn't offer Lance an extension for 4 years at about 4-5 million before we resigned PG to his killer contract. I believe LS would have taken $5m at the start of the season and been happy for awhile. That would have still let us sign the Max deal with Paul by using Granger's expiring money to pay him. Depending on the Cap space we would be facing at the end of our Championship run season, we could have still offered DG the MLE and kept the core(6) on the team. Would this work money wise or am I dreaming? I just believe teams wait too long to make offers to their players(like we did with Roy) when they start showing signs of being special. IMHO, extensions for decent money, like we did with Hill and West, is a much desired outcome to the PANIC matching of offers from teams with Cap space and desperation on their side.
                    Before the season started, would you honestly had signed Lance to 5 mil per year? I dont think I would have, I don't think we saw this coming to this degree.
                    Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                      Um Ben Wallace? You definitely can get a big money contract when you're DPOY and widely regarded as the best defensive big man in the game. Exhibit B: old and injury prone Tyson Chandler is making $14m this year and $15m next. Tell me some team wouldn't pay Hibbert in his prime more money than that.

                      In a way, we've been a victim of our drafting success. Our players are really good - and the high price tag kind of goes with it.
                      Tyson Chandler signed that contract after being the defense anchor on a championship team, and then of course won DPOY the next year in NYC. Not mention has averaged pretty much near a double double since being in NYC. In terms of a defensive specialist, he is the perfect example of what you want from a defense focused center. The reality is that Roy Hibbert isn't going to average a double double anytime in his career. He is infact, just like Lance....a product of a successful system that has really good defenders all around him. If you put Swap
                      Hibbert and Chandler, the Pacers would still have the best record in the NBA. The Knicks would still be terrible.

                      Roy will not get 18 million, a smart GM would never offer him that because he knows that the Pacers have a unique starting 5 that can guard their own man, thus eliminating the constant help defense or rotation that gets guys out of position. So you have to have the right kind of roster, if Hibbert had to constant rotate over the help he would be in foul trouble every game in the 1st qtr. Its easy to stay on the court when all you have to do is patrol the paint.
                      You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by Pacer Fan View Post
                        Before the season started, would you honestly had signed Lance to 5 mil per year? I dont think I would have, I don't think we saw this coming to this degree.
                        5 million a year for Lance would have been a no brainer. The team got to the ECF inspite of Lance's crazy turnovers and terrible shot selection, if he improves like he has this year, you have a bargain. If stayed mediorce and had the up and down games, then 5 million for starting SG is an easy trade asset.
                        You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by Cousy47 View Post
                          While I would NEVER question Mr. Bird, I don't understand why we didn't offer Lance an extension for 4 years at about 4-5 million before we resigned PG to his killer contract. I believe LS would have taken $5m at the start of the season and been happy for awhile. That would have still let us sign the Max deal with Paul by using Granger's expiring money to pay him. Depending on the Cap space we would be facing at the end of our Championship run season, we could have still offered DG the MLE and kept the core(6) on the team. Would this work money wise or am I dreaming? I just believe teams wait too long to make offers to their players(like we did with Roy) when they start showing signs of being special. IMHO, extensions for decent money, like we did with Hill and West, is a much desired outcome to the PANIC matching of offers from teams with Cap space and desperation on their side.
                          There are rules that govern when teams can offer extensions and how much they can offer to players. Because Lance was making so little and was a second round pick, the most the Pacers could offer him in an extension was between 1 and 2 million per year.

                          That's also why you see so few extensions in the NBA. The rookie scale is one common exception to that which is how Paul George signed an extension. Hill and West were both free agents (Hill restricted, West unrestricted) and signed new deals. Neither one of them signed extensions.

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by able View Post
                            "camps" have grown and reason has left the ballpark ages ago, not sure i like it.
                            I agree. That "Lance is overvalued" camp has become very unreasonable.
                            "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                              Tyson Chandler signed that contract after being the defense anchor on a championship team, and then of course won DPOY the next year in NYC. Not mention has averaged pretty much near a double double since being in NYC. In terms of a defensive specialist, he is the perfect example of what you want from a defense focused center. The reality is that Roy Hibbert isn't going to average a double double anytime in his career. He is infact, just like Lance....a product of a successful system that has really good defenders all around him. If you put Swap
                              Hibbert and Chandler, the Pacers would still have the best record in the NBA. The Knicks would still be terrible.

                              Roy will not get 18 million, a smart GM would never offer him that because he knows that the Pacers have a unique starting 5 that can guard their own man, thus eliminating the constant help defense or rotation that gets guys out of position. So you have to have the right kind of roster, if Hibbert had to constant rotate over the help he would be in foul trouble every game in the 1st qtr. Its easy to stay on the court when all you have to do is patrol the paint.
                              Roy received a max 25% offer from Portland as a restricted free agent before he really proved anything other then a single all star appearance and you're saying he won't get a 30% max offer as an unrestricted free agent with multiple all star appearances and DPOY. He'll have teams planning their cap space to make a run at him as NY has already brought him up as a target. Roy is a unique franchise defender, far better then Chandler was. Stats are one thing but listen to any analyst talk about Roy and you'll hear them talk about his non blocks that alter the game. Players are afraid of going into the paint when Roy is in the game. There isn't another player in the game that alters the opponents game with defense the way Roy does and that wins games and GM"s know this and Larry Bird isn't going to let himself get put a position where he can't offer Roy the money that he has to. Paying Roy in 2015 trumps paying Lance in 2014.
                              Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post
                                There are rules that govern when teams can offer extensions and how much they can offer to players. Because Lance was making so little and was a second round pick, the most the Pacers could offer him in an extension was between 1 and 2 million per year.

                                That's also why you see so few extensions in the NBA. The rookie scale is one common exception to that which is how Paul George signed an extension. Hill and West were both free agents (Hill restricted, West unrestricted) and signed new deals. Neither one of them signed extensions.
                                Thanks for this clarification.

                                It seems, however, that if both parties of a contract agree to end that contract, they could do so. I don't think this happens, but common sense seems to say that a player and a team could agree to end their contract and declare immediate free agency. No?
                                "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X