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 Jon Theodore View Post
    Anyone who would rather have Scola than Lance needs their head checked.
    Anyone that wants to pay Lance a contract that's equal to, or worth more than Steph Curry and Tony Parker needs their head examined.

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
      The bottom line is that Lance is becoming a star. You don't let budding stars get away. Having a wing duo of PG and Lance is a once in a lifetime opportunity for a franchise.
      This Lance situation reminds me a bit of the Jalen Rose situation. A player that had been a fringe player earlier in his career, turned into a valuable role player for a winning team, and then all of a sudden replaced an injured starter and became a good player during his contract year. His skills perfectly complimented the rest of the starters while giving them something they lacked.

      A lot like Rose did with that pacer team, I think Lance's skills make him much more effective here than he would elsewhere. Not to say he wouldn't put up numbers elsewhere (again comparing him to Jalen who put up nice stats on losing teams in Chi and TOR) just that he wouldn't be a part of a winning team if he were the #1 or #2 option on a team night in and night out. When you're talking about paying a guy 12mil plus a yr, you're talking about a #1 or #2 option night in and night out. Lance isn't that right now.
      Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 01-25-2014, 11:15 AM.

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
        Anyone that wants to pay Lance a contract that's equal to, or worth more than Steph Curry and Tony Parker needs their head examined.
        The alternative to not re-signing Lance is re-sign Granger and whatever Free Agent that we can afford before going over the LT.

        EDIT - Apologies....my calculations were totally off. I have revised my post below.

        The Pacers 2014-2015 Salary Cap will be $68 mil owed to 11 Players with $7.7 mil to spend before hitting the LT..

        I have no idea how much Granger is going to go for.....but I'm beginning to think that the best that we can hope for is to re-sign at $5 to 6 mil and then sign some FA at $1 to 2 mil while signing our 2nd round draft pick.

        Seriously.....unless some miracle happens where Copeland is traded in the next 3 weeks...there is a very strong possibility that Granger + cheap FA is going to be the best that we can do.
        Last edited by CableKC; 01-25-2014, 06:50 AM.
        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

        Comment


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

          Originally posted by Alabama-Redneck View Post
          What am I willing to see the Pacers pay to keep Lance.... what ever Larry feels is right for the team.
          Agreed. I believe Legend has made clear his expectations. Lets quickly revisit.

          The question that gets asked the most by fans now is, how do you keep Lance? Are you confident you can re-sign Lance? That you'll have the money to do it?

          I never worry about that. If Lance isn't here, we'll plug somebody else in. Obviously I think this is the best situation for Lance. I worry about if Lance leaves here. This environment is absolutely perfect for him. Players know his little games. Lance is always energetic. He's always at another level. He likes to mess around in practice. Guys understand that here. It's not a bad thing, he's just energetic. He wants to go 100 miles an hour every time. Lance falls on the court and acts like he's been shot. Guys will walk by and tell him to get up. So this is the best environment for Lance.

          http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/q-and-larry-bird-2013

          I am okay with losing Lance if it means we can keep Scola Danny and add one more player to replace Lance. My hunch / hope is Danny will not get paid more than an MLE (5M). How many GM's are going to trust his knees for a long term contract. Even a contract say like DWEST signed at 2 years is very questionable considering its a degenerative condition if I remember correctly. Additionally, I believe Danny wants to be here. He realizes he has limited years left and I believe he wants to win above all else. He has rec'd his contract. Scola and Danny could be right around 9-10 M if Lance is not re-signed that allows us to bring another player in as well. For example, a Jamal Crawford or Kyle Korver type.

          We kinda already got the ring chasers except these guys still have spring left when you are comparing them to say a Ray Allen type player. I would be very content with Scola and DWEST as the PF combo for an additional 2-3 seasons. and if Danny has that remaining in his knees at around 4 M per for a player wanting to win above all else, I think it gives us a better chance to win a championship.

          Would Lance lead the league in trip dubbs if the bench were still DJ, Hansbrough, OJ, and Solo Hill?


          Bird said it best. This is the perfect situation for Lance. However, if he wants to get paid over winning then more power to him. I am very confident a Danny Granger @ around 80% of what he once was can replace Lance, not in the same way but overall. Keep Luis and as Bird stated bring someone else in.

          Comment


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

            I'm not trying to be a buzzkill or a dick or anything but I'm just kinda over "HOW WE GONNA PAY LANCE?!" I'm just gonna enjoy what we have right now and worry about it when the time comes, it's a pretty nice problem to have.

            Comment


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

              I'm not sure Cable how you can think it would cost the Pacers assets to move Hill. He's hardly some albatross. But the fact of the matter for us is that currently he's the 7th banana making 8 mil a year for a small market, just not an efficient use of cap.

              Moving him would give us a great shot at bringing back Danny AND Lance who combine to do Hill's two primary jobs much better than he does.

              Comment


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

                Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
                Agreed. I believe Legend has made clear his expectations. Lets quickly revisit.
                I am okay with losing Lance if it means we can keep Scola Danny and add one more player to replace Lance. My hunch / hope is Danny will not get paid more than an MLE (5M). How many GM's are going to trust his knees for a long term contract. Even a contract say like DWEST signed at 2 years is very questionable considering its a degenerative condition if I remember correctly. Additionally, I believe Danny wants to be here. He realizes he has limited years left and I believe he wants to win above all else. He has rec'd his contract. Scola and Danny could be right around 9-10 M if Lance is not re-signed that allows us to bring another player in as well. For example, a Jamal Crawford or Kyle Korver type.
                We kinda already got the ring chasers except these guys still have spring left when you are comparing them to say a Ray Allen type player. I would be very content with Scola and DWEST as the PF combo for an additional 2-3 seasons. and if Danny has that remaining in his knees at around 4 M per for a player wanting to win above all else, I think it gives us a better chance to win a championship.
                Would Lance lead the league in trip dubbs if the bench were still DJ, Hansbrough, OJ, and Solo Hill?

                Bird said it best. This is the perfect situation for Lance. However, if he wants to get paid over winning then more power to him. I am very confident a Danny Granger @ around 80% of what he once was can replace Lance, not in the same way but overall. Keep Luis and as Bird stated bring someone else in.
                Exactly, I can't believe how many people are completely ignoring what Bird said a few weeks ago. People can say he's going to make 12-14 mil and that we have to do whatever it takes to keep him but none of that matters. Bird has already told us what he's going to do. He'll give him a fair offer and if he's outbid then he feels that the team will be fine in moving on. I'm sure he wasn't thinking 12 mil to max when he said that.
                Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                Comment


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

                  I'm willing to see the Pacers pay whatever the market says is Lance's price.
                  Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                  ------

                  "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                  -John Wooden

                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by Jukeb0xHero View Post
                    I'm not sure Cable how you can think it would cost the Pacers assets to move Hill. He's hardly some albatross.
                    GH is owed $8 mil per year over the next 3 seasons. I can see the argument that a Team would be willing to simply send Draft picks to take on a Quality Starting Combo-Guard at a very reasonable Contract....or a very expensive 6th Man / 1st guard off the bench.

                    However, I will stick to my minority opinion that I think that it is difficult to move Players with long-term contracts under the new CBA without losing some assets.

                    Originally posted by Jukeb0xHero View Post
                    But the fact of the matter for us is that currently he's the 7th banana making 8 mil a year for a small market, just not an efficient use of cap.
                    Can you clarify what you mean by saying that GH is the 7th banana on the Team? Does that mean that he's the 7th scoring option on the Team?

                    As for paying a Starting Quality Combo-Guard $8 mil a year.....find me another Starting Combo-Guard ( or a PG or SG ) at that price.

                    To me, having a Starter like GH at his price is an efficient use of Cap Space.

                    IMHO....$7 to 9 mil is the going rate for a Non-All Star Starting Guard. One may hate that he's on the high end of the scale.....but that is the going rate for such a Player.

                    Find me a Starting Quality Combo-Guard ( that is not on his rookie Contract ) that is paid in that price range ( give or take a mil ). while adding in that this Player has to be able to run the point, play a good majority of his minutes "off-the-ball" and not become completely ineffective when the Player doesn't have the ball in his hand.
                    Originally posted by Jukeb0xHero View Post
                    Moving him would give us a great shot at bringing back Danny AND Lance who combine to do Hill's two primary jobs much better than he does.
                    Based off of my calculations....unless Granger wants to re-sign with the Pacers for less than $2 to 3 mil a year ( depending on how much Lance takes )....letting GH while getting back nothing will only allow them to keep Lance...but not both Granger and Lance.

                    I know that GH has become the Scapegoat for this year and that it's a matter of opinion as to how he contributes to the Team.....so I will just agree to disagree.
                    Last edited by CableKC; 01-25-2014, 06:57 AM.
                    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                      I'm not trying to be a buzzkill or a dick or anything but I'm just kinda over "HOW WE GONNA PAY LANCE?!" I'm just gonna enjoy what we have right now and worry about it when the time comes, it's a pretty nice problem to have.
                      I am beginning to come to the realization that this year will be the only year where we can "enjoy" this ride. This season...it's Championship or Bust.....cuz I think that there is a very good possibility that the roster next season will be dramatically different than this season.
                      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                        Assuming that 2 Veteran Players are signed at $850k each ( which has to be done ), that would mean that the MAX that the Pacers could offer him is a Contract that has a 2014-2015 Salary that STARTS at roughly $10 mil ( NOTE - a 2014-2015 Salary that starts at $10 mil does not immediately translate into a $40 mil contract....the Pacers can offer higher raises per year...so the Total Contract offer would be more than $40 mil TOTAL ).
                        The above assumption is based off of letting Scola go.

                        Can someone calculate what the total contract is for Lance if he gets a 4 or 5 year contract offer starting at $10 mil in 2014-2015 ( assuming that he receives the Pacers higher raise percentages )?

                        Are we looking at some $42 mil total contract offer ( over 4 years ) or some $54 mil total contract ( over 5 years )?
                        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                        Comment


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

                          We can already keep Lance up to a certain price point so I'm not sure what your calculations are. Saving another 6.5-8 mil would be huge.

                          As for finding "another George Hill" we don't need to which is the point. He's already replaced in one aspect or another in house. He's also just flat out less valuable then Lance. Or Scola. Or Danny. That's what is meant by 7th banana. 7th most important. 7th best. He might be the best 7th best man in the league but at 8 mil bumping up against the LT, I think it's pretty obvious who should go. Scola is more important now and next year, so is David, obviously so is Lance.

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by Aw Heck View Post
                            Backup PFs ARE everywhere. Scola is a great one and would be a starter on a bad team. But my goodness, if the Pacers chose to keep two declining players on the wrong side of 30 over a dynamic, improving 23-year-old...I don't know where to start. It wouldn't be keeping Kendrick Perkins over James Harden bad, but it would be in the same category.

                            I LIKE SCOLA. I swear I do. I would keep him and let Lance walk if he commanded more than $12 M. But if the options are keeping a freaking backup PF and a 1-time All Star with surgically repaired knees that's notorious for slow starts over a shooting guard whose presence has helped create one of the best starting lineups in the NBA over the last two years and continues to improve, you keep the shooting guard. You keep the shooting guard if you want to compete now and long-term.

                            The Spurs have been playing fat Boris Diaw and Matt Bonner at backup PF and they seem to be doing OK.


                            You never addressed my questions.



                            I don't care about what the Spurs do as they don't have the name Pacers across the front of their uni. With Bonner and Diaw as b/u PF, you really think the Spurs will win a championship? If you do I have a piece of ocean front property in Brown County to sell you.

                            If you want to go back to years past type of b/u PF's, and just win 50 games then fine. Personally, I've given 40 years of loyalty to the Pacers, and I want a CHAMPIONSHIP!!!!!!!!!

                            I'm not saying Scola is the answer to a championship, but he's an intregal part of making a strong bench which what the Pacers need to win a championship. That's why Bird upon returning strenghtened the bench! He knows a player like Scola is vital to succeed otherwise he'd have just keep Tyler.

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                              The bold times 10. David West, at nearly 34, is being paid 12M/yr. Yes, he's worth that. Lance's value is in that neighborhood.

                              Goodness gracious we paid Troy Murphy about that much to help win 40% of our games.

                              The Pacers NEVER signed Murphy or Dunleavy to those contracts as GS did. They inherited them thru a trade. AND YES THEY WERE OVERPAID thanks to a poor GM in Mullins.

                              Comment


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

                                Last night was another good example of why I don't want to give up a rare gold coin just so we have enough room in our pockets for a few dimes.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X