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

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

    I think if it comes to that we lose more with Danny and Scola combined then we do in losing Lance and it leaves us room to pay Hibbert the following summer.
    To be fair.....it was always going to be to keep one or the other....unless some really drastic move is made and/or Granger comes VERY CHEAP....keeping BOTH Lance and Granger was never in the cards.

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

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

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

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

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

    <<< START RANT >>>

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

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

    <<< END RANT >>>
    Last edited by CableKC; 01-29-2014, 10:17 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 Pacerized View Post
      If we pay Lance 12 mil we won't have anything to spend on ring chasers. Even if we did do you honestly think you could replace Danny and Scola with min. contract players and get the same results? We have 2 prior all stars who would start on almost any other team, they're not has beens at 30 and 33. IMO the best plan if we can't afford Lance is to build around 2 stars in Roy and Paul. Then we can afford a supporting cast with that being primarily the cast we currently have.
      I think we can hope to build a bench through the draft along with adding a few ring chasers. O.Johnson and S.Hill can fight for minutes on the wing for next year. We got CJ Watson at 2M. Mahinmi and West will come off the books in 2 years, and we can look to sign a PF worth closer to 6-8M rather than 12M.

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

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

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
        If we pay Lance 12 mil we won't have anything to spend on ring chasers. Even if we did do you honestly think you could replace Danny and Scola with min. contract players and get the same results? We have 2 prior all stars who would start on almost any other team, they're not has beens at 30 and 33. IMO the best plan if we can't afford Lance is to build around 2 stars in Roy and Paul. Then we can afford a supporting cast with that being primarily the cast we currently have.
        Well the classic example is building through the draft to replace your sixth man or 7th man. I still fill that should be the goal and teams like OKC are still doing that with guys like Jeremy lamb and Steven Adams to replace Perkins next year. The Spurs also did that as well to replace Hill.

        edit: brons beat me to it.

        Comment


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

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

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

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

          The difference in opinion over how much Lance should be offered/kept at is directly correlated to the difference in opinions of how good Lance is.
          Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 01-29-2014, 10:47 PM.

          Comment


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

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

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

            I would be EXTREMELY reluctant to simply let Scola go....but if doing so allowed the Pacers to re-sign Lance...then I reluctantly bite the bullet and go bargain bin shopping for a Backup PF. And the reason I say Scola over GH is because I am of the belief that Teams DO NOT take on $24 mil without some needed incentive ( as in trading assets ). Simply letting Scola go doesn't cost the Pacers the loss of any assets ( which, as I said before...is important to build a Thunder-like roster ).
            Last edited by CableKC; 01-29-2014, 11:44 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 CableKC View Post
              To be fair.....it was always going to be to keep one or the other....unless some really drastic move is made and/or Granger comes VERY CHEAP....keeping BOTH Lance and Granger was never in the cards.
              Keep in mind.....without taking Lance into account....the Pacers will have roughly $43 mil owed owed to 5 Players ( West/GH/PG24/Solo/Mahinmi ). Assume that Lance is owed $13.5 mil in the 2nd year of his contract ( hopefully a worst case scenario ) and the Pacers will be at $56.5 mil owed to 6 Players. I don't know what the LT will be in 2015-2016....but it won't be any worse that what it is now at $75.7 mil. That would leave roughly $20+ mil in $$$ to spend to sign 7 Players ( including Hibbert ) before hitting the LT.
              I understand that keeping both Lance and Danny was never in the equation and with that alone I've already accepted the fact that no matter what we won't be as good next year.
              One of the problems in keeping Lance at such a high salary is in being able to offer Hibbert enough to keep him. 20 mil on 7 players including Hibbert doesn't work when Hibbert starts out year 1 of his contract at 18 mil, then he Paul and Lance would continue to climb from there.
              I in the end if I though Lance was some superstar special talent I might go along with this reasoning but I don't. I think Lance is a good but he's a product of his environment. Take away the support cast, especially West and we'll be sorry if we sign Lance to some huge contract.
              Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

              Comment


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

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

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
                  If Lance demands more than 10M then by my understanding we will have around 7-8 Million for Free Agency prior to potentially re-signing Danny, and if we move Copeland then closer to 11M available. I would need to confirm those numbers but if that is accurate this team is going to be fine with or without Lance. Not completely certain I can say the same of Lance and him succeeding without the Pacers.
                  I'm no cap guru, but looking at the numbers I'm pretty sure this is not accurate. The Pacers are over the salary cap no matter what they do next year, so the most we can offer any player not currently on the team is the MLE (around 5.5 million). Even if we let Lance go, Danny go, Scola go, and trade Copleand while taking back no salary, we are still looking at $5.5 million max for a free agent.

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

                  Comment


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

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

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

                    Comment


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

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

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

                      I in the end if I though Lance was some superstar special talent I might go along with this reasoning but I don't. I think Lance is a good but he's a product of his environment. Take away the support cast, especially West and we'll be sorry if we sign Lance to some huge contract.
                      These are legit concerns….but over the span of another season….we have no idea how much more Lance would ( or would not ) mature. West is probably a good Drill Sargent that keeps everyone in line ( as illustrated in some post where Reporters asked Lance about West when he was ejected in the game few games back )….but I think that the rest of the locker room would step up to fill whatever void that West eventually vacates.
                      Last edited by CableKC; 01-30-2014, 03:03 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 PacersPride View Post
                        Until then I will not be comfortable paying Lance similar to PG salary. If Lance demands more than 10M then by my understanding we will have around 7-8 Million for Free Agency prior to potentially re-signing Danny, and if we move Copeland then closer to 11M available. I would need to confirm those numbers but if that is accurate this team is going to be fine with or without Lance. Not completely certain I can say the same of Lance and him succeeding without the Pacers.
                        Originally posted by Wage View Post
                        I'm no cap guru, but looking at the numbers I'm pretty sure this is not accurate. The Pacers are over the salary cap no matter what they do next year, so the most we can offer any player not currently on the team is the MLE (around 5.5 million). Even if we let Lance go, Danny go, Scola go, and trade Copleand while taking back no salary, we are still looking at $5.5 million max for a free agent.

                        The numbers you are mentioning are in regards to the luxury tax, which is relevant too, but not so much when shopping for free agents in our position. Bottom line, if Lance walks we either need to have his replacement currently on our roster, or that guy needs to be available next year for around $5.5 million.
                        Barring any changes to the roster….as it stands right now…the Pacers will have approximately $68 mil owed to 11 Players ( assuming that Scola, Sloan and OJs contracts are picked up ). That means that they ONLY have about $7.7 mil to spend on Free Agents ( whether it be Granger or Lance or anyone on the free Agent Markets ) and/or signing their two 2nd round picks in the draft. If Lance completely falls through when it comes to losing him to Free Agency….I can see the Pacers signing Granger to the about $5.4 mil a year, sign some Free Agent at about $1.5 mil and then signing one of their 2nd round 2014-2015 draft picks.
                        Last edited by CableKC; 01-30-2014, 03:01 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?

                          keep your talent when you have it.

                          Comment


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

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

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

                            Comment


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

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

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

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

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

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by crunk-juice View Post
                                keep your talent when you have it.
                                1. Wait for years to acquire talent.
                                2. Acquire talent.
                                3. Let talent walk.

                                Clearly the path to championships.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X