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

Larry Bird stunned Lance left

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

  • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

    Originally posted by Bball View Post
    New coach.... better offense.... Less reliance on Hibbert.
    This idea that Charlotte is a better offense is just laughable to me.

    Anyone up for a signature bet? I bet the Pacers will have a higher ranked offense next year than Charlotte. Easily.
    "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

    - ilive4sports

    Comment


    • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

      Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
      I'm talking about Bird's quote from the article. Here's what Bird said:

      "I really feel bad about losing him,'' "I hope it doesn't interfere with our relationship. But I did what I could possibly do to keep him here. Even if he didn't have any other offers, I was committed to giving him that $44 million because I believe in the kid. If you look at our roster, we have five or six guys in the last year of their deals, plus David (West) and Roy (Hibbert) can opt out, so don't you think I wanted to keep Lance and Paul (George) locked into long-term deals?''

      That leads me to believe that if Lance told Bird that he wanted us to offer the same contract that Charlotte did then Bird would do in a heartbeat.
      I took that to mean that Bird's hands were tied by upper management, namely Simon. I agree that Bird would do whatever it took to keep Lance, but Bird doesn't write the checks. That "firm" offer that we heard so much about, my guess is that came from Simon in a "this is what we can spend" understanding. That's where Bird's disappointment comes from, I think. He wanted to do more to keep Lance. He simply couldn't due to our aversion to paying the luxury tax and our previous contracts already on the books. That's why we saw the team move quickly to spend their MLE. They had decided they wouldn't risk running a thin roster at the expense of keeping one player, so they went with the "by committee" approach.

      Actually, trading another starter for a cheaper player wouldn't be necessary.

      Take a look at this thread by T-bird -> http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthre...ance-after-all

      Look at option 3. We could release Scola, trade Mahinmi to Cleveland in a S&T for CJ Miles and we would be at $74,937,884 after signing Lance to our 5 year offer with our $7.6M starting salary.

      If we offered Lance the same deal that Charlotte did we would need to move up Lance's starting year salary at $9M which would still leave us under the luxury tax. $74,937,884+$1,400,000 = $76,537,884.

      The estimated salary cap was at $77,000,000 so we would still barely under it without having to trade another starter.
      Why would Cleveland help us to unload Mahinmi, though? It seems that they've been focused on Love and filling out the rest of the roster with cheaper deals like Mike Miller and potentially Ray Allen. And for whatever reason, per Candace, the Pacers have been determined to keep Scola for next season. Maybe it's part of a win-now mentality while we still have West and Roy on the books, or maybe it's to save face considering the assets we gave up for him. Regardless, Scola's spot on the roster seems secure (barring a trade for a point guard).

      Plus, if you match Lance's $9 million starting salary and push the total team salary to $76.5M, you only have $500k to fill the rest of the roster. You'd have only 13 players (considering the above scenario of releasing Scola and trading Ian happened) pushing the luxury tax. And that's with tbird's option 3. Without it, we'd have to get very creative to wiggle under the $77M while keeping a full roster.

      I think that the report is that Jordan pressured Lance and his agent to take the offer at that very moment or leave it. I don't really think that Lance had a choice here and that's why I don't believe that the report is disingenuous.
      I agree that Lance didn't have a choice. But it wasn't because of MJ, it was because of the Pacers inability to offer that specific contract structure. If they wouldn't budge on their five year contract starting at $7.6M, they helped to make Lance's decision for him, especially once Dallas fell through.

      Did the Mavs ever actually submit that offer? I remember hearing that they had interest in Lance but I never heard that they actually offered him a contract.

      It depends on whether the Mavs offer was actually submitted or not. There is no reason to raise your offer if no one else actually submits a better offer than you did.
      From ESPN after Lance signed:
      http://espn.go.com/dallas/nba/story/...7-million-deal
      The Dallas Mavericks had a two-year, $20 million offer on the table to Stephenson, contingent on the Houston Rockets matching their offer for forward Chandler Parsons. If Houston had matched, Stephenson would have signed with Dallas, sources said.
      Once Chandler went to Dallas, Lance's options were to stay in Indiana and take $3 million less for the term of the contract he wanted or sign with Charlotte and cash-in in three years when more lucrative contracts are handed out. That team option he gave Charlotte, to me, seems like a "give and take" of negotiations. Charlotte said, we can give you a shorter contract than Indiana, but you give us one option year, otherwise no deal. Unless Lance wanted to sign in Indy for five years, he didn't have a choice but to take on that team option in order to get the shorter contract he wanted.
      2015, 2016, 2019 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champions - DC Dreamers

      Comment


      • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

        Nuntius and other interested parties, here's the Mavs reported bid for Lance.

        http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/11...7-million-deal

        The Dallas Mavericks had a two-year, $20 million offer on the table to Stephenson, contingent on the Houston Rockets matching their offer for forward Chandler Parsons. If Houston had matched, Stephenson would have signed with Dallas, sources said.
        It's by Broussard, but his source is clearly Lance's agent, so take that for what you will.

        Also, Mark Cuban at that time was openly talking about Lance, which suggests strong interest at least:

        http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports...nson/12586265/

        EDIT: ninja'd by Kuq

        Comment


        • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

          Originally posted by Peck View Post
          I hope your right but at the end of the day I am not happy with depending on Roy Hibbert.

          Not only do I think we have taken a step back though I think several teams in the East have made improvements. But again, it's only July, there is a lot to be said and done between now and the start of the season.
          I don't think his teammates are all that happy depending on Roy either. At best the solution in the near future is to have a committee play the 5 with Roy as the senior committee member. There are just some bad match ups for Roy.

          Comment


          • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

            Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
            I don't think his teammates are all that happy depending on Roy either. At best the solution in the near future is to have a committee play the 5 with Roy as the senior committee member. There are just some bad match ups for Roy.
            Can Roy become who he was lets say 2 seasons ago? I am not sure. Can we make his life easier? Yes. Four shooters around him ='s less double teams. True point guard ='s better passes. When Roy gets it going offensively because of those 2 factors? His confidence will increase, and any problems he has will be a distant memory.

            Comment


            • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

              Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
              I don't believe that was ever reported, just speculated on by a person or two here on PD.
              I think that it was a tweeted by a beat writer (either Candance or a national writer) but I'm not entirely sure about it so you could be right.

              Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
              I do believe that was reported, that they planned to offer the contract. They never did, because they couldn't when Parsons was made available.
              I see. Thanks for the info. If the Mavs never submitted the contract offer then it wouldn't make sense to increase our offer.
              Originally posted by IrishPacer
              Empty vessels make the most noise.

              Comment


              • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

                Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                I'm not disagreeing (I think you and I have shared enough in person to interactions to know I am not slave to stats), but posts like "I just watch the games" or something of that ilk adds nothing to the conversation. Clearly everyone here watches the games or at least tries to catch as many as possible otherwise we wouldn't be on this message board. Stats are just a tool just as our ability to watch the games is also a tool. I just think it's very frustrating to inject stats into a conversation and be countered with something like "I just watch the games", ok, great? So does everyone here, but what else do you see when you watch? There is a balance to both. But being hard line on one side or the other just kills the conversation, it doesn't advance it at all.
                I get that.

                I also think people were not understanding Mckey fans nuanced humor there.

                But I will say that while I agree with you that stats have their place, you have to admit there are some people who are slaves to them.

                They are the numbers are a religion crowd and you meet them in all walks of life. I'll just go ahead and admit to being to stupid to understand half of it and the other half that I do understand I don't care about half of them so that leaves me with about a quarter that I understand and care about. See how I broke that down into basic stats for everyone.

                Having someone regurgitate TSP, EFP, PER, per36, etc., etc. is equally as irritating as someone saying I just watch the game.

                At the end of it all it doesn't really matter as I always just say two words and win.

                Dale Davis.

                Yes, that's right I don't care what the argument is or is about whoever utters the words Dale Davis first wins. Even if you try and make some crappy joke at the expense of Dale Davis by saying "what player sucks the most in the world" just by uttering the words Dale Davis you have utterly and totally destroyed any negative connotations that were to be laid at the feet of Dale Davis and whosoever tried to have fun at the expense of Dale Davis will ultimately suffer the stench of eternal damnation by being forced to smoke a turd in hell.

                Dale Davis FTW



                Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

                Comment


                • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

                  Originally posted by Kuq_e_Zi91 View Post
                  I took that to mean that Bird's hands were tied by upper management, namely Simon. I agree that Bird would do whatever it took to keep Lance, but Bird doesn't write the checks. That "firm" offer that we heard so much about, my guess is that came from Simon in a "this is what we can spend" understanding. That's where Bird's disappointment comes from, I think. He wanted to do more to keep Lance. He simply couldn't due to our aversion to paying the luxury tax and our previous contracts already on the books. That's why we saw the team move quickly to spend their MLE. They had decided they wouldn't risk running a thin roster at the expense of keeping one player, so they went with the "by committee" approach.
                  I took that to mean as "if we were told to offer a shorter contract we would absolutely do it". We will probably never learn which of the two interpretations is correct unless Bird comes out and clarifies his statement more.

                  Originally posted by Kuq_e_Zi91 View Post
                  Why would Cleveland help us to unload Mahinmi, though? It seems that they've been focused on Love and filling out the rest of the roster with cheaper deals like Mike Miller and potentially Ray Allen. And for whatever reason, per Candace, the Pacers have been determined to keep Scola for next season. Maybe it's part of a win-now mentality while we still have West and Roy on the books, or maybe it's to save face considering the assets we gave up for him. Regardless, Scola's spot on the roster seems secure (barring a trade for a point guard).
                  Cleveland could always use some big man depth. Varejao is injury prone and Brendan Haywood cannot play 30+ MPG anymore on a team that wants to win the East.

                  Originally posted by Kuq_e_Zi91 View Post
                  Plus, if you match Lance's $9 million starting salary and push the total team salary to $76.5M, you only have $500k to fill the rest of the roster. You'd have only 13 players (considering the above scenario of releasing Scola and trading Ian happened) pushing the luxury tax. And that's with tbird's option 3. Without it, we'd have to get very creative to wiggle under the $77M while keeping a full roster.
                  Are we required to have a full roster? I thought that NBA teams were only required to have a minimum of 13 players (12 active players 1 inactive).

                  Originally posted by Kuq_e_Zi91 View Post
                  I agree that Lance didn't have a choice. But it wasn't because of MJ, it was because of the Pacers inability to offer that specific contract structure. If they wouldn't budge on their five year contract starting at $7.6M, they helped to make Lance's decision for him, especially once Dallas fell through.
                  There is nothing that indicates that the Pacers weren't willing to offer Lance the contract that Charlotte offered him.


                  Originally posted by Kuq_e_Zi91 View Post
                  From ESPN after Lance signed:
                  http://espn.go.com/dallas/nba/story/...7-million-deal


                  Once Chandler went to Dallas, Lance's options were to stay in Indiana and take $3 million less for the term of the contract he wanted or sign with Charlotte and cash-in in three years when more lucrative contracts are handed out. That team option he gave Charlotte, to me, seems like a "give and take" of negotiations. Charlotte said, we can give you a shorter contract than Indiana, but you give us one option year, otherwise no deal. Unless Lance wanted to sign in Indy for five years, he didn't have a choice but to take on that team option in order to get the shorter contract he wanted.
                  I see. Thanks a lot for the link. It confirms that the Mavs planned to offer Lance a 2/20 contract but they didn't do it in the end because Houston didn't match their offer sheet for Chandler Parsons.

                  I absolutely understand why Lance wanted a shorter contract. It does make a lot of sense from his perspective. However, I believe that if Lance told us to offer him the exact same contract we would have done so.

                  In any case, I don't think that Lance chose to go to Charlotte because he didn't like our contract offer. This was about having the opportunity to be the #1 option and lead a team. Lance wants to be the star of a team because he wants to ensure that he is going to get the max when he becomes a FA again. That's why it makes a lot of sense from his perspective to go to Charlotte.
                  Originally posted by IrishPacer
                  Empty vessels make the most noise.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

                    Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                    Nuntius and other interested parties, here's the Mavs reported bid for Lance.

                    http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/11...7-million-deal



                    It's by Broussard, but his source is clearly Lance's agent, so take that for what you will.

                    Also, Mark Cuban at that time was openly talking about Lance, which suggests strong interest at least:

                    http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports...nson/12586265/

                    EDIT: ninja'd by Kuq
                    I never doubted that interest, my friend. I remember reading about it. I just didn't know if the Mavs actually submitted their offer or not. That's all. It appears that the Mavs never actually submitted that offer because Houston didn't match Chandler's offer sheet and thus they didn't have enough cap space anymore.

                    In any case, thanks a lot for the info and the links
                    Originally posted by IrishPacer
                    Empty vessels make the most noise.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

                      So I guess the night of July 1st, Larry should have shown the movie and then had Dale Davis bring out the contract and pen. Dale looks at Lance and says "Sign it". Lance's agent says "We can't sign until the 10 days are up". Dale says again to Lance "Sign it". Lance says "Ok" :signs contract:

                      Comment


                      • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

                        Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                        Fine it wasn't you, someone did, it's been stated numerous times in this thread, and it's not correct. Regardless, it doesn't make the one time you stated it any less incorrect. Midway does not equal year 3. The essence of the article is fine.

                        Except as was further explained, there is no definition of midway that makes this article correct. There cannot be a player option in any year except the final year of a contract. Unless you have some convoluted way to make midway and final synonymous, you're simply wrong. There's no semantics here.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

                          Originally posted by Nuntius View Post



                          There is nothing that indicates that the Pacers weren't willing to offer Lance the contract that Charlotte offered him.
                          Well, sure, the CBA does. Can't expect Lance to wait--to tell Charlotte to wait--while you try to convince someone to take Mahimi in a S & T. (And do you take the risk of dumping the backup center, given how shaky Roy looks?) And I can't believe this, but it looks that Bird means to keep Scola around. (Somebody email him about the sunk cost fallacy.)

                          Also, again, note how weasely (sp?) the Kravitz article is on this. "Except that according to Bird, the Pacers were willing to offer a shorter-term contract that would have given Stephenson the chance to cash in should his game continue to grow the way both he and Bird believe it will." If that shorter contract was for the same $/year, why not say so? Because it wasn't, and putting it this way gives the impression that it was for people who don't read carefully. (And look at the IndyStar comments: casual fans are eating this up...)

                          Comment


                          • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

                            Originally posted by Believe_in_blue View Post
                            So I guess the night of July 1st, Larry should have shown the movie and then had Dale Davis bring out the contract and pen. Dale looks at Lance and says "Sign it". Lance's agent says "We can't sign until the 10 days are up". Dale says again to Lance "Sign it". Lance says "Ok" :signs contract:
                            is Suge out of jail yet?

                            Comment


                            • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

                              Originally posted by dal9 View Post
                              Well, sure, the CBA does. Can't expect Lance to wait--to tell Charlotte to wait--while you try to convince someone to take Mahimi in a S & T. (And do you take the risk of dumping the backup center, given how shaky Roy looks?) And I can't believe this, but it looks that Bird means to keep Scola around. (Somebody email him about the sunk cost fallacy.)
                              Wait, can't you sign your own FAs even if that takes you over the salary cap? If that's the case then Lance really wouldn't have to wait about anything. We could sign Lance and work the S&T for Ian later.

                              Originally posted by dal9 View Post
                              Also, again, note how weasely (sp?) the Kravitz article is on this. "Except that according to Bird, the Pacers were willing to offer a shorter-term contract that would have given Stephenson the chance to cash in should his game continue to grow the way both he and Bird believe it will." If that shorter contract was for the same $/year, why not say so? Because it wasn't, and putting it this way gives the impression that it was for people who don't read carefully. (And look at the IndyStar comments: casual fans are eating this up...)
                              I really, really don't give a crap about Kravitz. I only care about what Bird said.
                              Originally posted by IrishPacer
                              Empty vessels make the most noise.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

                                Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                                I guess if you boil all my thoughts on Lance and the Pacers down to two sentences it would be this. Lance is an extremely talented player who would be hard to replace on a 1 to 1 basis, but I believe the Pacers can and have attempted to replace him by committee. The loss of Lance, while a big question mark from a cosmetic perspective, in reality has very little impact on the 2014-2015 Pacers being better or worse than the 2013-2014 Pacers IMO, whether or not Lance had returned, whether this team improves or declines will be determined by 4 people in particular George Hill, Paul George, Roy Hibbert, and Frank Vogel.
                                Now that I've had time to read through the whole thread, I just want to say this sums up my perspective as well.
                                "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

                                - ilive4sports

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X