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

Are Indiana Pacers Operating on 1-Year Championship Window?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Are Indiana Pacers Operating on 1-Year Championship Window?

    http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...ionship-window

    Appreciate the Indiana Pacers of today, because they could be gone tomorrow.
    Young, disciplined, selfless and dripping with championship potential, it seems inconceivable that Indiana's run could draw to a close anytime soon.
    Roy Hibbert is only 27. Paul George and Lance Stephenson are only 23. Only three players are over 30 on the entire roster. Danny Granger is healthy and playing. These Pacers are perched atop the Eastern Conference—and entire NBA for that matter—playing historically good lockdown defense.
    See, they're set for years to come. This won't end. It can't end.
    Can it?

    The Free-Agency Problem
    Darron Cummings/Associated Press




    This summer is going to be huge for the Pacers.
    Both Stephenson and Granger will hit unrestricted free agency after this. Granger, who is earning a cool $14 million this season, is in line for a substantial pay cut. Stephenson, meanwhile, is bringing home just over $1 million this year, and he figures to command much, much more.
    How much more?
    More than the Pacers may be able to afford.


    Under the current collective bargaining agreement, Stephenson can earn up to $13.7 million in the first year of his new deal. Asked previously if I could imagine Sir Lancelot netting that much, I answered "no." Now, after watching Stephenson continue to tear up the league and consistently be Indiana's second-best player, I retract that "no" and offer a more mysterious "maybe."


    Punitive taxes and a thrifty trade market make it so teams aren't inclined to wager expensive risks. Well, most teams. The New York Knicks and Brooklyn Nets have never been ones to shy away from a bad contract.


    Most organizations aren't willing to put themselves in that position. There is still risk involved with Stephenson, who has undoubtedly matured but is still a wild card when taken out of Indiana's effective structure.



    And yet, Stephenson is putting up numbers that dwarf any and all personality flaws or risks. He joins LeBron James, Russell Westbrook, Michael Carter-Williams and Kevin Durant as the only five players averaging at least 13 points, five rebounds and five assists per game.
    Remove Carter-Williams, who, like Stephenson, is still on his rookie contract, from that list and the other three are all slated to earn well over $15 million next season. What's more, of anyone on that list—including Carter-Williams—Stephenson is the only one with a defensive rating below 100.
    This is a strong, effective two-way talent we're talking about. Though he may not snag a max deal, he's certainly due to exceed what Sports Illustrated's Chris Mannix projected he would get:


    Between $7 and $9 million would be a bargain for Stephenson. A steal. A coup. Given the potential All-Star campaign he's having, it's a bargain unlikely to be brokered.


    "I'm staying with the Pacers," he told Pacers.com's Mark Montieth in November, suggesting he would be willing to accept a pay cut. But that was one leap into stardom ago.


    Accepting less is not out of the question. Indiana gave Stephenson his shot and helped transform him into the colorfully dangerous two-way talent he is today. He could be prepared to reward that, increasing Indy's chances of retaining him—just not by much.
    Here's a look at Indiana's salary outlook for 2014-15:


    Player 2014-15 Salary
    Roy Hibbert $14,898,938
    David West $12,000,000
    George Hill $8,000,000
    Luis Scola $4,868,499*
    Ian Mahinmi $4,000,000
    Paul George $13,701,250
    Chris Copeland $3,135,000
    C.J. Watson $2,077,000
    Solomon Hill $1,302,840
    Lance Stephenson N/A
    Donald Sloan $948,163*
    Orlando Johnson $915,243*
    Total salaries $65,846,933
    Via ShamSports (* denotes non-guaranteed deal).

    As I wrote previously, this puts the Pacers in a difficult position:
    Assuming the Pacers retain Luis Scola, Orlando Johnson and Donald Sloan, they have more more than $65.8 million committed to 11 players next year. As Bleacher Report's D.J. Foster reminds us, the projected luxury-tax line for 2014-15 is $75.7 million. This theoretically allows the Pacers to offer Stephenson under $10 million to start, right in the $7-9 million range.
    But that number is bound to decline.


    Foster also notes that George is eligible for a $3 million salary bump if named to this year's All-NBA team, which let's face it, is going to happen. This puts Indy's ledger at roughly $68.8 million, suggesting it can only afford to pay Stephenson around $6.9 million in 2014-15.
    Try telling yourself Stephenson couldn't easily negotiate a contract worth more than $6.9 million in its first year. You'll fail. Because it's going to happen. Stephenson, at worst, is going to be priced near $10 million annually, well outside Indy's present financial means.
    Team president Larry Bird has made it perfectly clear the Pacers aren't willing to cross that $75.7 million luxury-tax threshold next year, intimating they'll have to explore alternative options.


    Embarking on a series of salary dumps is a possibility, as is holding onto the fading hope of Stephenson accepting a low-ball offer. Or, you know, there's always Granger.


    Stephenson is more costly than Granger at this point. Indiana's former No. 1 scoring option has battled injuries since last season, and is now bolstering the team's bench attack. While his play has picked up, and he figures to be cheaper, he could still land outside Indiana's price range.
    Even if he doesn't, Bird and friends don't seem prepared to offer him a multiyear deal. Remember, it was Bird who criticized his work ethic back in December.
    Said Bird to the Indianapolis Star's Bob Kravitz:
    He doesn't work hard enough (in the offseason). He's not a guy who'll push himself to the brink like a lot of our guys do. He works hard but he doesn't push himself. That's why he starts slow every year and he just works his way back. Now this year, he's been hurt, so it's a different deal.
    That doesn't sound like a man leaning toward investing any more time or money in his fallen All-Star. It's not out of the question, but it's not likely, either.
    Realistically, then, the Pacers could lose both Granger and Stephenson. What happens then?

    The Bench Problem
    Kevin C. Cox/Getty Images




    Indiana's bench is already thin. Worse, it's pieced together with potentially temporary assets.
    Luis Scola and C.J. Watson are locked up through next season while Ian Mahinmi and Chris Copeland could remain in Indy through 2015-16. Let me ask you: Do you see any combination of players there, or elsewhere on the roster, capable of stepping up in Stephenson's and/or Granger's absence?
    Never mind any of them could become victims of cost-cutting moves aimed at retaining either Stephenson or Granger; there's no one on the bench with that much potential.


    There's also no free agents the Pacers could afford who replace what they stand to lose, either. Not unless they make some financially driven adjustments.

    One and Done?
    Christian Petersen/Getty Images

    Look, the Pacers are a good team. A really good team. The best team in the NBA, actually.
    But not necessarily for much longer.


    George and Hibbert aren't going anywhere, and they give the Pacers two legitimate superstars to build around. Moving forward with them is going to be difficult, though, as unwanted change sets in.


    At least one of Granger and Stephenson is gone this summer. It would take an epic series of salary dumps for the Pacers to have enough cash for both.
    Losing Granger won't be the end of the world since Indy was already so good without him. Being forced to part ways with Stephenson would be.
    It's not as simple as creating wiggle room. The Pacers will obviously do what they can, but there are 29 other teams, many of which have cap space and bottomless wallets, who could pursue Stephenson. Even if the Pacers create enough room to keep Stephenson, there's no guarantee they want to pay him what others could be offering.


    Hibbert and George are already being paid handsomely, limiting the Pacers' ability to offer long-term contracts even with cap space. Having that much money committed to three players for a small-market team like them is dangerous and generally taboo (see the Oklahoma City Thunder and James Harden).

    Aside from Stephenson's future, there's the already skeletal bench to consider. Who in the second unit will step up? David West's age is an issue, too. He will turn 34 this August and is already showing dips in production.
    Rocky Widner/Getty Images
    Stephenson is Indiana's biggest question mark moving forward.



    Trouncing all other concerns is Stephenson. That's whom we keep coming back to.
    Barring any significant, cost-cutting moves, or his decision to accept well below his market value (and then some), he's gone. Face it. The Pacers cannot afford him as is. And if he goes, so do these Pacers.


    Coach Frank Vogel will still guide them to incredible defensive heights, and Bird has shown he can plug holes on the cheap. Plus, George and Hibbert. They will still be good. In a shoddy Eastern Conference, even great.
    But these Pacers, the league-best Pacers, are on the clock.


    "You think about what we're doing, us being No. 1 in the East," George said of Stephenson's All-Star candidacy, per USA Today's Jeff Zillgitt. "Him being the leader in triple-doubles in the league. It goes to show how big of a part he is to our team."
    Too big to afford; too expensive to keep. Too vital to replace, disallowing the Pacers from extending their fairytale dominance beyond this season

  • #2
    Re: Are Indiana Pacers Operating on 1-Year Championship Window?

    Good article, I'd say he's dead on but our future isn't that dark. I don't think there is any way that we're as good next year but I trust in Bird that we'll still be a contender for years to come. We'll be a contender with our without Lance.
    Last edited by Pacerized; 01-25-2014, 08:45 PM.
    Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Are Indiana Pacers Operating on 1-Year Championship Window?

      I'm not terribly worried about losing Danny because I have faith in Orlando and/or Solomon to step up as they improve, but it's the idea of going back to a lame backup PF that worries me.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Are Indiana Pacers Operating on 1-Year Championship Window?

        I think Orlando Johnson can be a key bench piece for us next season. Solomon Hill may even get some burn next season as well. I think we can compete for a title for many more years, especially if we re-sign Lance

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Are Indiana Pacers Operating on 1-Year Championship Window?

          An article like this could have been written about the Thunder a few years back too when they had to lose Harden for not much return at all. Is it possible we lose Stephenson this off-season? Sure, but I think we will do everything in our power to not lose him and if we do retain him a core of next year Hibbert (28) and Paul George/Lance (24) is a core that will compete for a pretty large window. Will next years team in all likely hood be worse than this years team? Yes probably but that doesn't mean we just fall from basketball relevancy. I mean hell we could be a LOT worse next year and still be huge favorites to at least be a top 2 team in the East again, an accomplishment that doesn't seem too tough these days. Also it is not like our bench is setting fire to the world right now anyways, sure Scola has been a big upgrade to Tyler and Watson is a big upgrade to DJ and Granger playing healthy is nice but our bench is still not amazing by any stretch so even if we do downgrade the bench next year out of necessity our bench production probably won't falter too much. We also have a guy named Larry Bird running the show so am I a little worried that our team next year won't be as good as this year's team......yeah sure but am I worried we have a tiny 1 year window like this suggests definitely not.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Are Indiana Pacers Operating on 1-Year Championship Window?

            If the Heat break up our starters will get us to the finals next year. Hardly a 1 year window.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Are Indiana Pacers Operating on 1-Year Championship Window?

              Originally posted by VideoVandal View Post
              An article like this could have been written about the Thunder a few years back too when they had to lose Harden for not much return at all. Is it possible we lose Stephenson this off-season? Sure, but I think we will do everything in our power to not lose him and if we do retain him a core of next year Hibbert (28) and Paul George/Lance (24) is a core that will compete for a pretty large window. Will next years team in all likely hood be worse than this years team? Yes probably but that doesn't mean we just fall from basketball relevancy. I mean hell we could be a LOT worse next year and still be huge favorites to at least be a top 2 team in the East again, an accomplishment that doesn't seem too tough these days. Also it is not like our bench is setting fire to the world right now anyways, sure Scola has been a big upgrade to Tyler and Watson is a big upgrade to DJ and Granger playing healthy is nice but our bench is still not amazing by any stretch so even if we do downgrade the bench next year out of necessity our bench production probably won't falter too much. We also have a guy named Larry Bird running the show so am I a little worried that our team next year won't be as good as this year's team......yeah sure but am I worried we have a tiny 1 year window like this suggests definitely not.
              Right on. If we lose Lance, maybe we're worse next year, but I'm failing to see how a team with Paul George and Roy Hibbert locked in long term have a 1 year championship window.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Are Indiana Pacers Operating on 1-Year Championship Window?

                If we release Scola, we can get another player to fit that role. It is simpler to adjust the bench than to replace starters that have chemistry and are skilled in the role they have.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Are Indiana Pacers Operating on 1-Year Championship Window?

                  I'd rather trade Hill than lose Lance.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Are Indiana Pacers Operating on 1-Year Championship Window?

                    Unless some minor ( trade Copeland for an Expiring ) to major ( trade Scola or GH ) trade is made between now and when Lance hits the Free Agent Market....I am heavily leaning towards the realization that there is a strong possibility that the Pacers will lose one or both of Lance or Granger .

                    I will say that the Pacers championship window WAS a 2-Year window starting in the 2012-2013 season.....but shrunk to a 1 year window ( this season ) the second that Granger was out of the lineup last season . Even with Hansbrough in the lineup ( eventually being replaced by Scola ), I think that a lineup that included Granger last season COULD have made it to the NBA Finals.
                    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Are Indiana Pacers Operating on 1-Year Championship Window?

                      Originally posted by Major Cold View Post
                      If we release Scola, we can get another player to fit that role. It is simpler to adjust the bench than to replace starters that have chemistry and are skilled in the role they have.
                      Originally posted by Magic P View Post
                      I'd rather trade Hill than lose Lance.
                      I will say that there are valid arguments that choosing Scola over GH ( or vice versa ) is going to impact the Team in a major way. The question is which will be the less bitter pill to swallow and which move would have the LEAST amount of impact to the lineup.
                      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Are Indiana Pacers Operating on 1-Year Championship Window?

                        Originally posted by Mad-Mad-Mario View Post
                        If the Heat break up our starters will get us to the finals next year. Hardly a 1 year window.
                        The question of how big this window of opportunity is depends on what happens in the offseason and whether the Pacers are able to retain either Lance or Granger.
                        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Are Indiana Pacers Operating on 1-Year Championship Window?

                          Originally posted by BlueCollarColts View Post
                          I think Orlando Johnson can be a key bench piece for us next season. Solomon Hill may even get some burn next season as well. I think we can compete for a title for many more years, especially if we re-sign Lance
                          I have little doubt that OJ or Solo will become a major rotational Player next season. The reality is that the Pacers Salary Cap situation...regardless of what we do...will not allow the FO to make a major FA signing to get a solid rotational Player.
                          Last edited by CableKC; 01-25-2014, 05:05 PM.
                          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Are Indiana Pacers Operating on 1-Year Championship Window?

                            1 year window? No.

                            That being said, this is our best shot at it. If we can't get it done this year, I'm not sure I like our odds at it happening in the future.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Are Indiana Pacers Operating on 1-Year Championship Window?

                              Originally posted by Hicks View Post
                              I'm not terribly worried about losing Danny because I have faith in Orlando and/or Solomon to step up as they improve, but it's the idea of going back to a lame backup PF that worries me.
                              Given the comments that Vogel ( I think ) and Bird have made about Copeland...my concern is that the backup PF position will be filled by Copeland if the plan is to let Scola go.

                              As to the expected question of how one may feel about having Copeland as the Backup PF to West......I will give a response that I cannot form any type of "reasonable and well-informed" opinion of having Copeland filling that role since we haven't seen him do it on a regular basis. Copeland ( for now ) has only been a very expensive "break out the cigar" or "wave the white flag of surrender" type of Player......only getting garbage minutes. To be fair, no one should really say that Copeland can ( or cannot ) fill that role without seeing him actually play as the Backup PF on a regular basis alongside the rest of the 2nd unit.

                              But based off of my initial "gut" feeling...I'm not going to lie...I'm not comfortable with Copeland filling the backup PF role. I don't think that it will be as bad as Hansbrough being the backup PF....I just pray that Copeland REALLY works on his mid-range jumpshot this season.
                              Last edited by CableKC; 01-25-2014, 05:07 PM.
                              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X