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 cinotimz View Post
    same as george hill....no more...
    Then George Hill better start playing a lot better.

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by able View Post
      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.
      I have no idea how you calculated this.....but I am impressed by how you figured this out.
      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 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.


        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 )?
        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 have no idea how you calculated this.....but I am impressed by how you figured this out.
          it is actually closer to 95% as the avg ticket price is $ 31.62 for this season apparently, i was using old data (2008) that said $ 41 dollar

          19k seats x 31.62 = not enough

          by comparison the knicks avg = $129
          So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

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

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
            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.
            That may have been "totally the idea" of other posts in this thread, but that wasn't "totally the idea" of the post I was responding to.

            If you think we can find a player with Lance's overall game for anywhere near the money we'll have available, then I wish you good luck, because you're going to need it. Lance is probably one of the three or so most complete shooting guards in the league, and he has the makings of a superb scorer, too, as he's shown lately, all at the ripe old age of 23.

            Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
            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.
            Again, the post I was responding to clearly made it a keeping Lance vs. keeping Scola dilemma.

            As for your points, you're exaggerating. Keeping Lance isn't going to cost us two starters and a quality bench. It may cost us one of the three, I'll grant you that, but I'd easily choose Lance over any of the other three. I'd take the young SG on the brink of greatness over the aging, declining PF, the dime-a-dozen combo-guard, or a good bench.

            If sacrifices must be made, I don't think Lance should be one of them.


            Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
            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.
            Only time will tell if that's true, but, as I just said, if sacrifices must be made, I don't think Lance should be one of them.


            For those curious, here's Lance's current production vs. Paul George's production last year, his breakout season:



            Similar across the board, with Paul being more of a scorer and Lance being more of a passer. Paul walked away with MIP, and Lance is one of the frontrunners this season.

            My hunch is, Pacers management realize they've found yet another player on the brink of being special, and will make sure he's locked up long-term this offseason.
            Last edited by Lance George; 01-27-2014, 09:55 PM.

            Comment


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

              ^ Good stats, and 2013 PG was only more of a scorer than 2014 Lance because he took 3 and a half more shots a game.

              Comment


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

                The difference in our opinion lies in the fact that you believe that Lance is on the brink of greatness (your words) and i think he's a good player who's on a team where his talents are maximized, weaknesses are minimized, and he's playing great during the first half of his contract year.

                As far as replacing his all around game, yes that would be difficult since Lance is a jack of all trades player. But it's not as if he doesn't have weaknesses, and it's not as if he's great at any one thing (with the exception of rebounding in which he is other world for a guard) so while replacing his exact strengths would be hard, replacing him with a similarly talented/productive player isn't out of the question.

                Players that I believe to be of equal production/talent that make less than $12mi, a yr?

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

                Vet players that are just a shade below Lance's talent level but still produce
                Jamal Crawford- 4yr/$25 mil
                Rodney Stuckey- 3yr/$25 mil
                OJ Mayo (having a rough yr this yr on a terribly coached MIL team) 3yr/$24 mil.

                Obviously NONE of these guys are FA's, but their contracts should set the bar for Lance. He hasn't done anything to demonstrate that he deserves to be paid so much more than any of these guys.

                Edit: there are currently only six 2guards that make $12mil a yr or more. one of them is Ben Gordon, so really there are only 5. Joe Johnson and Eric Gordon are obviously extremely overpaid, so there are three shooting guards right now that make $12mil or more and aren't considered to be overpaid: Kobe, Harden, and Wade. So you're willing to give him the 5th highest contract (with 2 of those contracts being grossly overpaid) at his position in the entire league?

                There are other 2guards in this league who produce just as much as Lance, just in a different way. With the rest of our team being so balanced, you could plug any of these guys into our lineup in place of Lance and we are still an elite team.

                As far as me exaggerating what we would lose, you must not have seen what we have on the books in the next few seasons, PG is going to be paid, Roy is going to be paid (esp when he opts out) if you think we can pay Lance $12 mil AND be able to keep talented players like GH and D.West within our starting lineup, I'd like to hear how you'd plan to do so while having enough money to fill out the rest of the roster with anything more than minimum salaried players.

                The Heat can do this because they have the best player in the world, a very consistent Chris Bosh and another hall of fame talent (when healthy) in D.Wade. If We have a 3man core of Lance, Roy, and Paul we would need at least a 4th starter who's very good (and we'd honestly need an at least more than adequate 5th starter as well) if we wanted to truly continue to contend.
                Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 01-27-2014, 11:46 PM.

                Comment


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

                  What am I comfortable with? Not my $$ so I would pick 14+.

                  In all seriousness if we lost him it would make the team a lot less fun to watch. He also helps us our difference maker in being the best team (or in the conversation) and just a contender who competes for the east. So I hope a miracle happens and we can keep him.
                  Last edited by pacer4ever; 01-27-2014, 11:43 PM.

                  Comment


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

                    I think if Lance is allowed to Bolt in FA then it will send a ripple throughout the Locker room that the organization is not committed to winning the title, and then we probably lose Hibbert anyway. Pacers have to show they are willing to flirt with the LT even if its for one year if they want to show the current group of players that the team is 100% committed to the winning.

                    BUt then again I think the choice will be very easy for Bird this off season. If the Pacer win the Championship then Simon will give Bird the green light to do whatever is needed to get another one. If the Pacers some how fail miserably, and the Heat smash them in the ECF then you'll a major restructuring on draft night.

                    Also I'm not sold on the idea that Hibbert will get 18 million. He does not average enough points or rebounds to justify that kind of contract. You gotta be a double double type big man to get that kind of contract.
                    Last edited by graphic-er; 01-27-2014, 11:41 PM.
                    You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                    Comment


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

                      essentially it sounds as if Lance is gone after this season no matter what. I don't see us going into LT territory and if we do as others have stated it will not be for Lance *unfortunately.* If Lance was a more consistent shooter he would be worth 12 M but his jumper is not there yet. Kid has talent no one on here will deny that.


                      Bird knows whats up and he will do what is best for the Franchise. He has given us the core we just cannot afford it as a small market in the nba. At what point will Paul George become unreasonable to sign? Not fully aware of how the contracts escalate but if PG gets into the 20+ range seems impossible to field a competitive roster.


                      Like others have suggested, this is a special season so lets enjoy the ride while it lasts.


                      Go Pacers

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by PacersPride View Post
                        essentially it sounds as if Lance is gone after this season no matter what. I don't see us going into LT territory and if we do as others have stated it will not be for Lance *unfortunately.* If Lance was a more consistent shooter he would be worth 12 M but his jumper is not there yet. Kid has talent no one on here will deny that.


                        Bird knows whats up and he will do what is best for the Franchise. He has given us the core we just cannot afford it as a small market in the nba. At what point will Paul George become unreasonable to sign? Not fully aware of how the contracts escalate but if PG gets into the 20+ range seems impossible to field a competitive roster.


                        Like others have suggested, this is a special season so lets enjoy the ride while it lasts.


                        Go Pacers
                        i suppose u can wish. But Bird will resign Lance. Book it.
                        "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                          The difference in our opinion lies in the fact that you believe that Lance is on the brink of greatness (your words) and i think he's a good player who's on a team where his talents are maximized, weaknesses are minimized....
                          I could say the same about Hibbert. Roy would be good along a LaMarcus in Portland, or Duncan, or Dirk...but put him in Orlando, Philly, or even Denver and I guarantee he gets exposed. Maybe even to the point that many fans would call him a bust.

                          As far as replacing his all around game, yes that would be difficult since Lance is a jack of all trades player. But it's not as if he doesn't have weaknesses, and it's not as if he's great at any one thing (with the exception if rebounding in which he is other world for a guard) so while replacing his exact strengths would be hard, replacing him with a similarly talented/productive player isn't out of the question.

                          Players that I believe to be of equal production/talent that make less than $12mi, a yr?

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

                          Vet players that are just a shade below Lance's talent level but still produce
                          Jamal Crawford- 4yr/$25 mil
                          Rodney Stuckey- 3yr/$25 mil
                          OJ Mayo (having a rough yr this yr on a terribly coached MIL team) 3yr/$24 mil.
                          You (and maybe many others) may disagree with me here, but I feel that Lance, overall, is better than these guys. For example: Matthews, Afflalo, Ellis, and Crawford may score more, but Lance has more rebounds, assists, and plays better defense than these guys. Derozan can be inconsistent for being a #1 or #2 option, and I think he's just better than Evans, Stuckey, or Mayo.

                          There are other 2guards in this league who produce just as much as Lance, just in a different way. With the rest of our team being so balanced, you could plug any of these guys into our lineup in place of Lance and we are still an elite team.
                          I disagree. If that was the case, guys like Green, Augustine, and Barbosa wouldn't look so horrible when they were here. I'm not sure exactly why, and why they are doing ok with their current teams, but I don't think you can just plug ANY player in this spot and not expect a dropoff.

                          As far as me exaggerating what we would lose, you must not have seen what we have on the books in the next few seasons, PG is going to be paid, Roy is going to be paid (esp when he opts out) if you think we can pay Lance $12 mil AND be able to keep talented players like GH and D.West within our starting lineup, I'd like to hear how you'd plan to do so while having enough money to fill out the rest of the roster with anything more than minimum salaried players.
                          I completely understand. I'm all for trying to keep Lance, even if it's for a lot of money. Now if someone offers something crazy like 13k or 14k a year...I'll be first to say bye-bye Lance. But as I posted prior to this thread or another (I can't remember and I'm too lazy to check), I'm willing to sacrifice the bench or his kind of talent.

                          I remember the Pacer squad through the 90's and early 00's had a deep bench, but we ended up only going to the finals once. So just having a deep bench is somewhat overrated. I mean you need a bench, but you need players that compliment each other, and Lance does that here.

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
                            i suppose u can wish. But Bird will resign Lance. Book it.
                            Bird has made it clear we will not go into the LT. with approximately 7.7 I don't see how its possible. Especially once this team goes to the NBA Finals.


                            This poll has proved at least one fact so far, no one wants to see Lance leave the BnG.

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by graphic-er View Post
                              I think if Lance is allowed to Bolt in FA then it will send a ripple throughout the Locker room that the organization is not committed to winning the title, and then we probably lose Hibbert anyway. Pacers have to show they are willing to flirt with the LT even if its for one year if they want to show the current group of players that the team is 100% committed to the winning.

                              BUt then again I think the choice will be very easy for Bird this off season. If the Pacer win the Championship then Simon will give Bird the green light to do whatever is needed to get another one. If the Pacers some how fail miserably, and the Heat smash them in the ECF then you'll a major restructuring on draft night.

                              Also I'm not sold on the idea that Hibbert will get 18 million. He does not average enough points or rebounds to justify that kind of contract. You gotta be a double double type big man to get that kind of contract.
                              Roy could score less then he is now and he'd still have multiple teams ready to hand him a max contract starting at around 18 mil. Roy is a franchise player because of his elite defense not just because of his stats but because he alone changes everything the opposing team does on offense. Lance will never have that kind of impact, he's a good jack of all trades but he doesn't do anything on that elite level. Teams are already planning on targeting Roy when he becomes a free agent in 2015, we can't even afford to toy with low balling him.
                              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 PacersPride View Post
                                Bird has made it clear we will not go into the LT. with approximately 7.7 I don't see how its possible. Especially once this team goes to the NBA Finals.


                                This poll has proved at least one fact so far, no one wants to see Lance leave the BnG.
                                I don't want to see him leave but I agree with you that I think the odds are against us now. If he makes the all star team I think it almost becomes a given that we lose him unless Lance gave us a discount that would be unprecedented for a young player in his position.
                                Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X