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?

    While I agree Lance benefits greatly from his environment, I have little doubt in two or three years he could put up numbers that would put him in the all-star discussion year in and year out regardless of what team he's playing for. If he puts up 20/7/6 efficiently he'll always be in the discussion, and if he does it with us he'll be a perennial all-star. That kind of production is well worth 12m IMO. It'll probably be a steal in years 3-5.

    edit: isn't Roy benefiting from being on this team, in this scheme also? Most seem to think teams will be willing to fork over 18m annually for a guy who would struggle mightily offensively if he was asked to be anything other than a 3rd or 4th option. Are there any other players getting paid in the 18m range that aren't great offensively? Without a large jump in offensive production, and if he played for a sub .500 team, would he even be considered for all-star teams? I'm not so sure. I'd say he's benefitted as much as anyone from being in this winning environment.

    Comment


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

      Hang onto Lance, PG and Roy and we'll be an attractive destination for guys willing to forgo maximizing their pay to win championships. Even if that doesn't happen, we will have many years where Bird will make deals to improve the supporting cast. We have the talent to win it all with those three. Why not lock him up and enjoy the ride?

      I really think it's an easy decision. If Lance gets any better, 12M/yr is a no-brainer.

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by cdash View Post
        I keep seeing people mention how Bird has made it clear he will not overpay Lance. I must have missed where he painted this crystal clear image. Don't get me wrong, I get the sense that he does have a figure in mind that is "ideal" but smart decision makers weigh all their options at the time of the decision. To think that Bird has a specific number in his head and he won't go one cent over that, at this point in the game, is a little far fetched. I think Bird will weigh everything in the end. I think Lance will get a bigger offer than Bird really wants to spend, but ultimately, I think we will retain Lance and work around the tax in other ways.
        Pacerized has pasted the comments in several threads. I'm sure he will do so again

        Comment


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

          Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
          Pacerized has pasted the comments in several threads. I'm sure he will do so again
          Yes I've seen those. Nothing in them made me think that Bird is drawing a hard line in the sand. Like Sollozzo said, it sounds like GM speak. I know Bird is very candid and doesn't mince words, but he's also not dumb enough to show his hand 6 months away from free agency.

          Comment


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

            I didn't know where to put this, so I picked this thread.

            This trip West has shown a possible defensive hole in Lance's game. He really has trouble getting through a pick. Good pick, bad pick, ok pick, Lance gets stuck on it. Then he is playing follow the leader with his guy until the guy stops or takes his shot. If the way to attack Lance is just that simple, it will make a big difference in his playing time and his value down the line.

            So far this season, I think Lance's defense has been pretty good. But the last couple of games, not so much. Marcus Thornton was something like 9-11 when Lance was guarding him and 7-16 vs everybody else. Denver ran some of the same kind of thing last night, with success. If these games are just a couple of bad defensive games in the middle of the season, then no worries. But if this is the start of a new trend, Pacers and Lance are going to have issues.

            There are lots of teams that will pay good money for a two way player. But not so many for a guy that can score, but not defend.

            Comment


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

              Originally posted by xIndyFan View Post
              I didn't know where to put this, so I picked this thread.

              This trip West has shown a possible defensive hole in Lance's game. He really has trouble getting through a pick. Good pick, bad pick, ok pick, Lance gets stuck on it. Then he is playing follow the leader with his guy until the guy stops or takes his shot. If the way to attack Lance is just that simple, it will make a big difference in his playing time and his value down the line.

              So far this season, I think Lance's defense has been pretty good. But the last couple of games, not so much. Marcus Thornton was something like 9-11 when Lance was guarding him and 7-16 vs everybody else. Denver ran some of the same kind of thing last night, with success. If these games are just a couple of bad defensive games in the middle of the season, then no worries. But if this is the start of a new trend, Pacers and Lance are going to have issues.

              There are lots of teams that will pay good money for a two way player. But not so many for a guy that can score, but not defend.
              It's true Lance is probably the weakest defender among the group, sometimes he gambles, and I rarely see him put a hand in a face to contest a shot. It's something Vogel will have to address.

              Comment


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

                Originally posted by cdash View Post
                I keep seeing people mention how Bird has made it clear he will not overpay Lance. I must have missed where he painted this crystal clear image. Don't get me wrong, I get the sense that he does have a figure in mind that is "ideal" but smart decision makers weigh all their options at the time of the decision. To think that Bird has a specific number in his head and he won't go one cent over that, at this point in the game, is a little far fetched. I think Bird will weigh everything in the end. I think Lance will get a bigger offer than Bird really wants to spend, but ultimately, I think we will retain Lance and work around the tax in other ways.
                More to the point, we don't know what Bird's number is for a "fair" offer for Lance. It might be $12m for all we know.

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by cdash View Post
                  Yes I've seen those. Nothing in them made me think that Bird is drawing a hard line in the sand. Like Sollozzo said, it sounds like GM speak. I know Bird is very candid and doesn't mince words, but he's also not dumb enough to show his hand 6 months away from free agency.

                  If you've read the interview and take from that Larry will spend whatever it takes, I don't know what to say. He doesn't give a hard number but makes it very clear that he'll offer Lance a fair offer but has not problem in plugging in someone else and tells us that he thinks this would be just fine in doing that. Just what is a fair offer in Larry's mind? I'm pretty sure it's not 12 mil to a max contract. That part is up for interpretation.
                  If we've learned anything from Larry it's that he doesn't candy coat things and doesn't participate in "GM speak" You can take him for his word. He didn't say he would be willing to plug in someone else if he didn't mean it.
                  Larry has a hard dollar figure in mind that he's willing to pay Lance that he won't go over and he has back up plans if he needs to go that way.
                  Last edited by Pacerized; 01-26-2014, 09:57 PM.
                  Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
                    If you've read the interview and take from that Larry will spend whatever it takes, I don't know what to say. He doesn't give a hard number but makes it very clear that he'll offer Lance a fair offer but has not problem in plugging in someone else and tells us that he thinks this would be just fine in do that. Just what is a fair offer in Larry's mind? I'm pretty sure it's not 12 mil to a max contract. That part is up for interpretation.
                    If we've learned anything from Larry it's that he doesn't candy coat things and doesn't participate in "GM speak" You can take him for his word. He didn't say he would be willing to plug in someone else if he didn't mean it.
                    Larry has a hard dollar figure in mind that he's willing to pay Lance that he won't go over and he has back up plans if he needs to go that way.
                    I never said Larry would do whatever it takes to keep Lance. I never said that's what I took from the interview.

                    As for the rest, well, we disagree.

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by cdash View Post
                      I never said Larry would do whatever it takes to keep Lance. I never said that's what I took from the interview.

                      As for the rest, well, we disagree.
                      Fair enough, and in going back to your earlier post you did make it clear that you think Bird does have a hard figure in mind.
                      Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                      Comment


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

                        Lance will get about 11 mil. and we'll pay it. He'll sign a slightly club-friendly contract, after his agent gets to sniff around a minute.

                        Ian and or Cope will be gone - unless Scola retires after we pick up the bling.

                        Wouldn't surprise me to see us drop some fodder and have DG come back for a stack less, just to finish out here with his buds.
                        Like all of our thirty-somethings our chances of losing him go up after we win and will go up dramatically again every year thereafter.

                        All those who want to save our depth at the cost of a young all-star need to calculate that into their plan.

                        Those guys have one to three years (diminishing) left.
                        Lance has a decade more than likely and is getting better and better as we speak.

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
                          Fair enough, and in going back to your earlier post you did make it clear that you think Bird does have a hard figure in mind.
                          I'm not sure where you are getting that from. This is what I said:

                          Don't get me wrong, I get the sense that he does have a figure in mind that is "ideal" but smart decision makers weigh all their options at the time of the decision. To think that Bird has a specific number in his head and he won't go one cent over that, at this point in the game, is a little far fetched.
                          I don't think he has a hard figure in mind, at least not one that is fixed. I do think he has a number in mind, and I think that number has changed and Lance has increased his market value. My point is basically this: It's way too early for Bird to have a number he flat out won't go over. Too many variables in the decision making process have to play out still.

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                            There's also the possibility that you brought up of bringing back Danny, but he hasn't shown to be anything but to be a spot up shooter/defender at this point.
                            I disagree on this point. The back-up offense most of the time is focused around Lance or a pick and pop with Scola. This often relegates Danny to just being a spot up shooter. He has been a bit inconsistent so far, not all that unexpected, but there have been times where he has shown he is still capable of being more than just a spot-up shooter if asked.

                            Comment


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

                              [QUOTE=solid;1777192]All those who want to save our depth at the cost of a young all-star need to calculate that into their plan.

                              QUOTE]

                              But Lance is not an all star on another team. Players earn all star berths for team performance as much as individual accolades. Players that are better than Lance but on losing teams do not make the all star game.

                              Lance is benefitting because he is on a good team and therefore will make the all star team and get paid more due to it. Its the same with Paul and Roy to some degree as well. Maybe not so much Paul, but so Roy makes all nba 2nd team which will kick in whatever the clause is and ramp up salary 30%.

                              Its very confusing in the way in which the nba has set this up. Its almost as if it weakens the better teams because chances are more likely their players make all nba and all star teams.

                              If Lance were drafted by the knicks he would not even be considered at above anything over 8 million. I don't even think he would be considered for the ASG if he is on 25 of the other teams in this league. We have to basically overpay all our players because of our team success.

                              I at one time predicted this team would win 50 games for the next 5 years when Obrien was fired. In fact, I felt it more likely it would be a decade of 50 wins on average. but danny going down elevated paul and lances importance to this team. Paul, Roy, and now Lance are all cashing in on great seasons prior to expiring contracts.

                              instead of roy at 10 M he is at 14+
                              instead of paul at 12 M he may well venture into 17M territory
                              now lance will get 12M instead of 8M.

                              over a 4 year contract that's about 12 M per year less to work with. as much as the danny injury may have I guess been a blessing.. its costing this Franchise dearly for the long haul. in fact, its already costing us because we most likely now cannot even afford lance without losing depth which we will need in order to win a championship.

                              lose lance,, lose big piece to a title contending team
                              lose bench, and this team will have to be carred by our starters 82 games + postseason.

                              my honest opinion:

                              roy is slightly overpaid due to offensive limitations but he is a center and they are at a preimium. prob still overpaid by 2-3 M.
                              Hill is overpaid by a million or two.
                              West is prob even overpaid by 2 million.

                              other than Paul George we are overpaying just to keep players here and we will likely have to do the same with lance.

                              I don't know how we can expect to compete in the NBA as a small market franchise when exceeding the LT is forbidden.


                              I guess all im saying is it sucks we lost Granger for several reasons:

                              increased paul and now lances value just prior to a contract year. with danny last season we very well would have been champions. and if given the opportunity we may have been able to deal granger prior to his contract expiring for draft picks or pieces in advance in order to keep lance.

                              the new cba and so forth is going to hinder teams shelling out excessive contracts. hell the bulls offered deng 3/30 if im not mistaken and given between deng and lance I feel deng is the better all around player and I don't think deng is going to get over 12M but maybe he will.


                              bottom line:


                              lance is prob worth around 8-9 which means we have to pay him 11-12 to keep him. I dont mind the contract to roy or pay or dwest ghill overpaying a couple million because they are professionals. even paul at 23 acts and conducts himself as a mature nba professional player.


                              CAN WE TRUST LANCE AT 11 OR 12 MILLION DOLLARS. I trust his play but can we trust his character? I dont want a tinsley, jackhole, or ron artest situation all over again.

                              I worry less about lance on the court than I do off the court. he has made huge strides, but money changes people. we go and give lance 12 million dollars I hope he will have the same hunger and determination next season as he has this season.

                              were not only investing 10-12 million potentially in lance the player, but also in lance the person. pacers get this wrong and it could cost us dearly for the next few seasons.


                              * anyone remember the play where cj Watson got a deflected pass vs Denver the other nite, went to the hole and missed the layup due to two defenders contesting the shot. well lance was at midcourt and decided not to run half the court for the potential rebound. watch the play it was when we were down 6 (early 4th I believe). those two defenders went out of bounds and the ball landed on the court for a sec or two before it was retrieved.

                              point is lance didn't follow up for the rebound. Vogel laid into his a** and it very well cost us that game because he would have got the board and we would have cut it to 4. these are all facts.

                              lance did not hustle on that play and it cost us the game. that's lack of effort my friends nothing else and no excuse for it. lance knew it too cause he padded his chest when Vogel chastised him. you all watch that play as lance stood at mid court knowing full well cj had two defenders to beat.


                              that's the maturity issues with this kid I cannot overlook quite yet.. and I wonder if that improves with a ten million dollar contract.



                              there is no guarantee that lance is ever going to become a consistent shooter, we can all assume it but it is not a fact. lances defense is suspect at times, his decision making is dr jekyl mr hyde, and his jumper has improved but still far from reliable. if his jumper never improves were gonna regret that contract.


                              there are two aspects to lances game that have been outstanding... open court fast break and rebounding. he is not a shut down defender, he is not a great shooter, and albeit his passes have flash they are not always the correct pass to make.. unless yall think behind the bank to mahinmi in traffic is a high % pass.

                              you all cant tell me its a certainty lances jumper improves,,, im sure boston thought the same of rondo as well and we see the strides made there. who in this league comes in as a suspect shooter and becomes reliable... I will say very few.


                              Lance is not an all star on 25 other teams in this lg and he is not paid 10M+ either.


                              I give up with this thread and on what Lance is going to make this offseason. My final comment is this..

                              I believe the Pacers will be better off without Lance than Lance will be without the Pacers.

                              his shooting is suspect, as is his defense at times, and if he did not have 3 all stars around him he would prob end up dribbling out the shot clock more often than not on a bad team.

                              on a bad team lances value would be at about 6M and on a good team its at 12. somewhere in the middle is his market value so I am gonna stick to my guns at 9M per year as to what I am comfortable seeing the Pacer pay Lance.

                              Comment


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

                                But Lance is not an all star on another team. Players earn all star berths for team performance as much as individual accolades. Players that are better than Lance but on losing teams do not make the all star game.[/QUOTE]

                                That could be true. But players who produce on great teams usually see their numbers rise on bad teams. That would get him some consideration. That happens because their name is called more often. Their numbers drop on better teams. Like Bosh used to score like a maniac in Toronto and has taken a step back. Then you have Thornton going off because Gay and Cousins were out. That's how the league operates. Touches. Just ask JO and Ron.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X