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 PacersPride View Post
    Correct me if I am wrong but I am under the impression the city of Indianapolis is paying 10 Million a year via the CIB agreement to keep the Pacers here. Technically that is taxpayer money but again I may be mistaken.

    If the above is correct then I do not see the city of Indy paying 10 Million to let the Pacers go over the LT.
    That 10 million is operational costs. Basically nothing to do with the actual basketball team. Is costs to operate the building, upgrade the facilities, etc...
    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 GrangeRusHibbert View Post

      Also, remember, folks: This isn't your money that's being spent. If our owners feel going into the luxury tax is worth it to keep a championship-caliber together, that's their prerogative, not yours. From the way some of you go on about the luxury tax and player salaries (pocket change to billionaires), you'd think it was coming out of your own pockets.
      shut down the thread! Everything is irrelevant now.
      You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

      Comment


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

        Shamsports shows that Scola has an unguaranteed Contract in 2014-2015. It needs to be picked up by a certain date otherwise he's waived and his $4.87 mil salary goes to $941k ( the guaranteed amount that he is owed ).

        Does anyone know what the date is to decide what to do with his unguranteed contract?

        I am hoping that it is after the start of Free Agency...as opposed to before
        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?

          I have a question about how a "Sign and Trade" of Lance would work for a Team that is over the Salary Cap at $68 mil.

          NOTE - PLEASE READ BEFORE you jump off the deep end and declare from the highest mountain that you'd rather dump the entire Team before doing what I am asking below. I know what the opinion is of the forum of what the Pacers should and should not do regarding Lance....I am PURELY asking the questions below and exploring this option as "WORST CASE scenario - Option C" if we end up losing Lance.

          The Pacers have about $7.7 mil to spend before hitting the $75.7 mil LT ceiling. The Full MLE is around $5.38 mil. That would leave about $2.32 mil left over before going over the LT ceiling.

          Since we are over the Salary Cap...we can only AT MOST...sign a Free Agent ( not named Danny Granger ) to the Full MLE and either sign Granger to a contract that starts at $2.32 mil ( unlikely ) or one ( or both ) of the 2014-2015 2nd round draft picks that the Pacers have.

          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 )?

          What I have come to consider is the option that the Pacers do a S&T of Lance ( IF Pacers/Simon/Bird decide that re-signing Lance is not an option cuz he's being priced beyond the Pacers reach ) and getting back SOME assets in a S&T scenario. The way that I look at it is that Lance Trade Value is AT WORST worth a Trade Exception + Rookie Prospect ( or a Draft Pick ) or AT MOST worth a Trade Exception + Rookie Prospect + Draft pick.

          What I don't know is what the Pacers can do in a S&T scenario AFTER signing a Free Agent ( not named Lance or Granger ) to the full MLE. Keep in mind...the Pacers are already OVER the Salary Cap. So I am not sure how being over the Salary cap can affect taking back Players in a S&T.

          The reason I bring this up is that I just realized that the Pacers are in a similar scenario as the Thunder are when it came time to pay Harden. The Thunder decided to get something back in return for their Star Player instead of losing him for nothing in Free Agency. I look at the possibility of losing Lance in the same light....if "push comes to shove" and the Simons/Pacers/Bird decide that they cannot afford to keep Lance cuz the Free Agent Market is making him too costly....I can see them trying to get something in return for losing an asset like Lance ( again, PLEASE just look at this as "Option C" ).

          NOTE - To be clear...I know that Harden being traded to the Thunder wasn't a S&T scenario ( like what I am suggesting above ) nor that it is the SAME EXACT scenario...I'm just saying that I am approaching this from the scenario where both Teams didn't want to lose their Star Player nothing is similar and therefore made moves to ensure that they get something back in return for trading him to another Team.

          Thank you in advance for your response...but please try to keep your response to this particular topic at hand. I don't want this to tangent into another "We should do whatever we can to keep Lance" discussion. I am trying to understand what ALL of our Offseason options are ( like it or not...a S&T scenario is one of our Options )...especially when it comes to ( what I think ) is a very strong possibility that the Pacers can lose Lance to Free Agency.
          Last edited by CableKC; 01-27-2014, 04:05 PM.
          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 able View Post
            perhaps i should have posted this here, instead of elsewhere but so many threads with the same outcome ....

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

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

            So be darned sure we are not going into LT and we wont lock up anything we cant correct if we need to nex year.
            And take it as a given that George falls under the Rose rule he already fullfilled the needed "all-star starter" criteria
            I could be wrong....but I think that there is only a small minority that suggest that the Pacers should go over and pay the LT just to re-sign Lance.

            I think that the majority of the "throw the entire kitchensink at Lance" contingent are heavily leaning towards the "Trade GH" or "Don't pick up Scola's Contract" factions JUST to avoid going over the LT.
            Last edited by CableKC; 01-27-2014, 04:06 PM.
            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 Ace E.Anderson View Post
              For those that think we can just add pieces to Lance, Paul and Roy.....

              If we were to pay Lance 12 mil, and figure that Roy will opt out and receive another Max extension (which is what will happen--esp after he wins DPOY this year) then you're going to be looking at $71.5 mil on the books for the 2015-16 season...with 6 players (not counting S.Hill, or other future rookies right now). Obviously we'd do some trades (good bye G.Hill) in order to make some room on the roster and field 13-14 players. But D.West's contract expires after that season, while Paul is receiving bumps of about 1.2 million every season.

              In order for our team to maintain the identity that's made us successful once D.West is gone, we are going to need another more-than-adequate PF who can score, and rebound at an above average rate. If we do not, then our team isn't nearly as effective, and we lose the traits that have been our equalizer against the "superstar teams"...our size strength, and toughness. But when you pay Lance $12 mil or more, it's going to make it tough to pay ANYBODY else more than a few million a year, because we will already be paying big money to Roy and Paul.

              It's not about looking at next season's financial situation; it's about looking at the books for the two to three seasons after that.
              When it comes to re-signing Lance and EVENTUALLY re-signing Hibbert during the 2015-2016 season....I am willing to "kick the can down the street" when it comes to figuring out how to re-sign Hibbert. This doens't mean that I wouldn't consider the ramifications to re-signing Lance at whatever contract he gets and how it impacts re-signing Hibbert. I suggest this "sign Lance and then figure out what moves to make between now and the summer of 2015 ( when Hibbert becomes a FA )" approach only because I think that the Pacers would have more options to clear the necessary Capspace and/or make smaller FA signings to fill the roster that allows them to keep both Players. Unlike the Lance re-signing where the Pacers hands are tied due to guaranteed contracts....when it comes time to re-sign Hibbert....they have more flexibility to re-sign him.
              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
                I could be wrong....but I think that there is only a small minority that suggest that the Pacers should go over and pay the LT just to re-sign Lance.

                I think that the majority of the "throw the entire kitchensink at Lance" contingent are heavily leaning towards the "Trade GH" or "Don't pick up Scola's Contract" factions JUST to avoid going over the LT.

                If going over the LT is what it takes, then they should do it.

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                  If going over the LT is what it takes, then they should do it.
                  Please clarify your post.

                  Are you taking an "Initially go over the LT to re-sign Lance but then pay whatever costs before the Feb 2015 trade deadline to get under the LT so that the Simons/Pacers don't pay the LT before the end of the Season" stance on this?

                  or

                  Are you taking a "Go over the LT to re-sign Lance and if they can't get under the LT before the Feb 2015 trade deadline....so be it...stay over the LT" approach to re-sign Lance?


                  My guess is that your answer is the former ( re-sign Lance and then pay whatever price it is to get under the LT before Feb 2015 trade deadline )...and not the latter.

                  Please note that there is a difference in the answer to both questions. The first recognizes that we must match whatever offer Lance gets to re-sign while ensuring that the Pacers pay whatever subsequent price to remain under the LT ( such as trade off whatever assets....GH, Solo, draft picks... to get under the LT ) while the other answer considers doing the same to try to get under the LT....but if ( after Feb 2015 Trade deadline ) they can't get under the LT ceiling ( for whatever reason )....then ( so be it ), the Pacers pay the LT.

                  What if the Simon's don't want to "pay whatever price" to re-sign Lance just to stay under the LT?

                  What able ( and many here ) suggest is that it is not an unreasonable position to think that the Simons are willing to go over the LT to re-sign Lance due to the financial impact of taking a "do whatever it takes to re-sign Lance EVEN if it means paying the LT" approach to what we do. Nor is it unreasonable to think that the Simons/Bird/Pacers think that it is worth it to trade away assets just to remain under the LT while re-signing Lance to whatever the Free Agent Market dictates.

                  Will it significantly impact the Pacers chance of repeating or bringing back the same core Players next season ( and affect the Team's ability to compete at a high level )? Yeah....it will....but it is not unreasonable to think that the Simons/Bird/Pacers would consider these ramifications ( the final cost ) when deciding to re-sign Lance due to Financial/SalaryCap/LT reasons.

                  IMHO....the TOTAL COST to ultimately re-signing Lance ISN'T simply the $11-12+ mil a year contract that the Pacers would have to pay Lance.....it will end up including the additional cost of losing whatever assets it will take to re-sign Lance AND remain under the LT. Even if we just do a plain Salary dump of GH or not picking up Scola's 2014-2015 Salary....those are assets to this Team that contribute to the success of the Team and have enough value to impact the Team.
                  Last edited by CableKC; 01-27-2014, 04:59 PM.
                  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?

                    Since this little horsie has been beaten, buried, dug up, beaten, buried, dug up, rinse, repeat, let me first summarize the positions:

                    ...pay him (in my best Dr. Evil voice) one BILLION dollars or
                    ...12 million? I'm a Hoosier and we know the value of a dollar. We will not go over $9,123,001.99 per year.

                    But let me ask a question slightly different from the one posed.

                    How much would YOU, not the Pacers, you pay in order for Lance Stephenson to sign for 12m, plus the LT, plus the loss of revenue from the LT?

                    The little lady and I just started buying season tix over the past 3 years after taking a hiatus following our little Bad Boys era. Didn't believe in rewarding bad behaviour. And, I'd like to add, we bought before the G.O.A.T started his little spree. Danny, Roy, GH and an emerging PG are why we came back. Now its only a mini package even though I tried to get her to go half this year. At this point, I think I am solid on a half next year. But...

                    What if the Mr. Simon decides, "OK, since we all seem to agree we need to spend "whatever it takes", then everybody's going to contribute, right?".

                    So if tix go up 10% or 15% to cover the additional dollars, everybody still good? And I really want to know about the folks in the lower bowl who have been there thru thick and thin. You good?

                    Just curious. Cause its always easy spending someone else's money. Some places ..... Washington DC .... have it down to an art form.
                    Last edited by seeker80; 01-27-2014, 05:03 PM. Reason: line up

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
                      There is no SF position on the All-NBA teams. There are 2 forward positions for the 1st team, 2 forward positions for the 2nd team, and 2 forward positions for the 3rd team.

                      The only way that Paul doesn't get one of those spots would be an injury forcing him to miss most or all of the rest of the season, and nobody wants to see that happen. When he made the 3rd team last year, it basically sealed him getting the Rose Rule bump.
                      From reports I've read if Paul makes the all nba which he should it will not take his max to 30% but to 27% not the full supermax deal, in turn he got an opt out after the 4th year on his deal

                      Comment


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

                        I just hope money doesnt go to his head and he gets greedy
                        Smothered Chicken!

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
                          As has been pointed out before, we wont have $12M to replace Lance. We'll have pocket change. Barring a major lucky break, our team will be downgraded significantly all over a disagreement of $2-3M -- the same amount of money our end-of-the-bench towel-waver is making.

                          Does that seem smart to you? It doesn't to me.
                          I think the idea is that it wouldn't take a player making 12 mil (or anything really close) to replace (most) of what Lance brings to the team. Actually, that's totally the idea.



                          If money is going to lead to the breakup of our current team, I'd make keeping PG, Roy, and Lance -- our young core -- top priority and work out the rest as we go. You don't break up a trio of young, talented All-Stars to keep an aging PF on your bench.
                          It's not the aging PF on the bench we are worried about losing, it's the eventual loss (and downgrade) of our starting PG, PF...the backup PF is 3'rd or 4th on the worry list.

                          Also, remember, folks: This isn't your money that's being spent. If our owners feel going into the luxury tax is worth it to keep a championship-caliber together, that's their prerogative, not yours. From the way some of you go on about the luxury tax and player salaries (pocket change to billionaires), you'd think it was coming out of your own pockets.
                          I believe the fact that the owner has said numerous times that he will not go into the luxury tax for any reason, is why individuals are so adamant about not overpaying.
                          Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 01-27-2014, 09:02 PM.

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by seeker80 View Post
                            Since this little horsie has been beaten, buried, dug up, beaten, buried, dug up, rinse, repeat, let me first summarize the positions:

                            ...pay him (in my best Dr. Evil voice) one BILLION dollars or
                            ...12 million? I'm a Hoosier and we know the value of a dollar. We will not go over $9,123,001.99 per year.

                            But let me ask a question slightly different from the one posed.

                            How much would YOU, not the Pacers, you pay in order for Lance Stephenson to sign for 12m, plus the LT, plus the loss of revenue from the LT?

                            The little lady and I just started buying season tix over the past 3 years after taking a hiatus following our little Bad Boys era. Didn't believe in rewarding bad behaviour. And, I'd like to add, we bought before the G.O.A.T started his little spree. Danny, Roy, GH and an emerging PG are why we came back. Now its only a mini package even though I tried to get her to go half this year. At this point, I think I am solid on a half next year. But...

                            What if the Mr. Simon decides, "OK, since we all seem to agree we need to spend "whatever it takes", then everybody's going to contribute, right?".

                            So if tix go up 10% or 15% to cover the additional dollars, everybody still good? And I really want to know about the folks in the lower bowl who have been there thru thick and thin. You good?

                            Just curious. Cause its always easy spending someone else's money. Some places ..... Washington DC .... have it down to an art form.
                            This is more of a "put your $$$ where you mouth is" type of question. Would you be okay with paying Lance whatever it takes to retain him in the form of "passed along" costs to the Fan by the Business?

                            From personal experience.....I can tell you the same exact thing happened in Oakland and the GSW. After the new Ownership and top $$$ signings ( Iggy, Lee and Bogut ) over the last 2 to 3 seasons.....the price of the tickets have gone up dramatically. Luckily, I am a fan of the Pacers....a Team that more and more people are becoming aware of...but isn't considered a top draw for fans. That means that I am still able to get seats in the lower bowl section at whatever price I paid before ( under $100 a ticket ) but I am further back than where I used to sit ( good luck getting sideline seats with that ). I used to go to a lot more games in previous seasons to see the Ws play against any random Team....but due to the higher costs from year to year ( such as parking costs rise $5 every year over the last 3 seasons ), I have no problem limiting visiting Oracle Arena to 2 to 3 games his season...compared to up to 6 to 7 games last season and the year before.

                            But the broader question relates to the general fanbase and whether they would pay more to see a winning Team that is fielded with some combination of Lance/PG24/Hibbert.

                            My guess is that winning will convince most fans to come back and pay "extra" just to see the Pacers make it to the 2nd round of the Playoffs and beyond....but I suspect that it would also be a deterrant as well.

                            In the end...my opinion is that I can see the conseqeunce of raising ticket prices won't deter most of the die hard fans ( like us ) and that there would be a segment of the general Fanbase that will be willing to pay more to see the Pacers win. Unfortunately, I can also see the price point of going to a game as a motivating factor to deter the General Fanbase ( that may not have the disposable income to spend a little more to go see the game ) from going to games simply based off of the cost to see the game. More fans wll come out to games even if the cost is higher....but I suspect that the # won't be as high when it comes to going to see multiple games throughout the year.
                            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 Coopdog23 View Post
                              I just hope money doesnt go to his head and he gets greedy
                              Why?

                              The dude has been working hard for all his life to get to the NBA...he paid his dues since he came to the Pacers, he worked his butt off to get to this point and has been paid of a pittance of what he is worth now.

                              I have ZERO problem with Lance taking more $$$ to go to a lottery bound Team.

                              True...he may not end up on an Elite Team like the Pacers.....but the guy is young enough where he will have more opportunities later in his career. One can't blame him for going where the $$$ is offered. I want him to be a Pacer for life...and he may end up on a Team without the same type of FO support system that he has now....but I also realize that the dude has to take care of his family.
                              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
                                This is more of a "put your $$$ where you mouth is" type of question. Would you be okay with paying Lance whatever it takes to retain him in the form of "passed along" costs to the Fan by the Business?

                                From personal experience.....I can tell you the same exact thing happened in Oakland and the GSW. After the new Ownership and top $$$ signings ( Iggy, Lee and Bogut ) over the last 2 to 3 seasons.....the price of the tickets have gone up dramatically. Luckily, I am a fan of the Pacers....a Team that more and more people are becoming aware of...but isn't considered a top draw for fans. That means that I am still able to get seats in the lower bowl section at whatever price I paid before ( under $100 a ticket ) but I am further back than where I used to sit ( good luck getting sideline seats with that ). I used to go to a lot more games in previous seasons to see the Ws play against any random Team....but due to the higher costs from year to year ( such as parking costs rise $5 every year over the last 3 seasons ), I have no problem limiting visiting Oracle Arena to 2 to 3 games his season...compared to up to 6 to 7 games last season and the year before.

                                But the broader question relates to the general fanbase and whether they would pay more to see a winning Team that is fielded with some combination of Lance/PG24/Hibbert.

                                My guess is that winning will convince most fans to come back and pay "extra" just to see the Pacers make it to the 2nd round of the Playoffs and beyond....but I suspect that it would also be a deterrant as well.

                                In the end...my opinion is that I can see the conseqeunce of raising ticket prices won't deter most of the die hard fans ( like us ) and that there would be a segment of the general Fanbase that will be willing to pay more to see the Pacers win. Unfortunately, I can also see the price point of going to a game as a motivating factor to deter the General Fanbase ( that may not have the disposable income to spend a little more to go see the game ) from going to games simply based off of the cost to see the game. More fans wll come out to games even if the cost is higher....but I suspect that the # won't be as high when it comes to going to see multiple games throughout the year.
                                based upon relatively simple calculations of added cost to going over the LT and the amount of going over the LT and the missed incoe from going over the LT totalling 40 million, it would mean that you need an additionalt income of about 600K per homegame assuming you would make the other 40% back in added sales on merchandise and increased income share from away games. (a tall order)
                                19k seats dividing 600K income remains close to $ 30 per seat, which in general averages means a 75% increase on tickets.
                                So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X