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

  • #91
    Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

    Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
    Did anyone offer Lance more than $44 mil? No. Did anyone offer him an 8 figure salary per year? No.
    Reportedly Dallas 2 year, $20m. Got pulled because Parsons wasn't matched.

    EDIT: Re total money argument. I believe this is where Bird somehow totally misunderstood Lance. In the Pacers' view, more guaranteed money than anyone else should win the deal. That's why Bird was so surprised. Lance though, preferred a short contract, trusting his ability to get a richer deal down the road.

    The real questions to ask Larry Bird are 1) Were we willing to offer Lance the same 3 year $27m with TO that Charlotte did; and 2) If not why. I'll bet 2) would be more about the contracts we already have on the team as opposed to Lance's market value.
    Last edited by wintermute; 07-21-2014, 04:58 AM.

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

      Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
      Not that I'm terribly torn up over it... but the entire scenario smacks of stupidity on the part of Lance's party. The contract he signed is just asinine. He turned town a better offer, value, and then when he was presented with a group of contract scenarios, he didn't choose the right one.
      1. We don't know that Bird & Co. had allready offered their own 3-year deal and that player option when Charlotte started knocking on the door, do we? OR did we only THINK about offering it when it was clear Charlotte was going to offer that and think: "oh, we can offer something like that aswell, we will let him know and then he will come back (crawling) to us"?

      Except, and I happily continue speculating here, Lance maybe was done with the whole process and maybe was offended by our offers and negotiating and wanted to get the Charlotte offer signed ASAP, leaving the Pacers no room to get back into it or maybe he and his agent were convinced what was offered from the Pacers side was really it, helped by Birds own rhetoric about this beying our offer and "if its not enough (for Lance) then its not enough and we have to move on" which is EXACTLY what the Pacers seemed to be doing by quickly signing two bench guys (yes, I like Miles, but he should be a guy coming off the bench) consequently. I mean lets not act like those signings weren't a signal either, especially with Miles contract beying significant in amount, length of the contract AND the position he plays.

      2. Lance, IMHO understandably, didn't think our offer was better. He thought it was rather on the low end and when he realized he was not going to get anything better this summer from anyone he wanted a shorter contract, so he would have a new chance to increase his value on a relatively short term, instead of having to play 5 years on a contract which he thought underpaid him (his first 3 years from our offer was substantially less then what Charlotte offered him).

      Either way, it's all done with now, I just don't like to see people suddenly blaming Lance for ALL problems with our team this past season, downplaying his importance and qualities for our team and blowing up his issues and his perceived issues, now we didn't get him back. Comes across as a bit of opportunistic and revanchist to me, aswell as maybe letting Bird (whom I like btw) off the hook a little too easy for what transpired. Offcourse, some people never liked him in the first place.
      Last edited by Mourning; 07-21-2014, 05:51 AM.
      2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

      2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

      2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

        Originally posted by Mourning View Post
        1. We don't know that Bird & Co. had allready offered their own 3-year deal and that player option when Charlotte started knocking on the door, do we? OR did we only THINK about offering it when it was clear Charlotte was going to offer that and think: "oh, we can offer something like that aswell, we will let him know and then he will come back (crawling) to us"?

        Except, and I happily continue speculating here, Lance maybe was done with the whole process and maybe was offended by our offers and negotiating and wanted to get the Charlotte offer signed ASAP, leaving the Pacers no room to get back into it or maybe he and his agent were convinced what was offered from the Pacers side was really it, helped by Birds own rhetoric about this beying our offer and "if its not enough (for Lance) then its not enough and we have to move on" which is EXACTLY what the Pacers seemed to be doing by quickly signing two bench guys (yes, I like Miles, but he should be a guy coming off the bench) consequently. I mean lets not act like those signings weren't a signal either, especially with Miles contract beying significant in amount, length of the contract AND the position he plays.

        2. Lance, IMHO understandably, didn't think our offer was better. He thought it was rather on the low end and when he realized he was not going to get anything better this summer from anyone he wanted a shorter contract, so he would have a new chance to increase his value on a relatively short term, instead of having to play 5 years on a contract which he thought underpaid him (his first 3 years from our offer was substantially less then what Charlotte offered him).

        Either way, it's all done with now, I just don't like to see people suddenly blaming Lance for ALL problems with our team this past season, downplaying his importance and qualities for our team and blowing up his issues and his perceived issues, now we didn't get him back. Comes across as a bit of opportunistic and revanchist to me, aswell as maybe letting Bird (whom I like btw) off the hook a little too easy for what transpired. Offcourse, some people never liked him in the first place.
        Good post. The narrative changed from "OMG LARRY KEEP LANCE" to "THANK GOD LANCE THE BALLHOG AND LOCKEROOM KILLER IS GONE!!!" quickly

        The truth is of Lance's loss is somewhere in between these two extremes.

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

          Originally posted by wintermute View Post
          Reportedly Dallas 2 year, $20m. Got pulled because Parsons wasn't matched.
          I remember Dallas having an interest in Lance but I never saw if they actually submitted an offer or not. I was under the impression that they never actually offered him a contract. So, thanks for the info

          Originally posted by wintermute View Post
          EDIT: Re total money argument. I believe this is where Bird somehow totally misunderstood Lance. In the Pacers' view, more guaranteed money than anyone else should win the deal. That's why Bird was so surprised. Lance though, preferred a short contract, trusting his ability to get a richer deal down the road.

          The real questions to ask Larry Bird are 1) Were we willing to offer Lance the same 3 year $27m with TO that Charlotte did; and 2) If not why. I'll bet 2) would be more about the contracts we already have on the team as opposed to Lance's market value.
          Doesn't the article posted in the OP mention that Larry would absolutely offer Lance that same deal but the Pacers never got a chance to do so?

          Personally, I'm absolutely sure that Bird would have offered him that same deal if we were given the chance to match.
          Originally posted by IrishPacer
          Empty vessels make the most noise.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

            Originally posted by joew8302 View Post
            Good post. The narrative changed from "OMG LARRY KEEP LANCE" to "THANK GOD LANCE THE BALLHOG AND LOCKEROOM KILLER IS GONE!!!" quickly

            The truth is of Lance's loss is somewhere in between these two extremes.
            I don't think that the "OMG LARRY KEEP LANCE" crowd and the "THANK GOD LANCE THE BALLHOG AND LOCKEROOM KILLER IS GONE!!!" crowd consist of the same people.
            Originally posted by IrishPacer
            Empty vessels make the most noise.

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

              Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
              Doesn't the article posted in the OP mention that Larry would absolutely offer Lance that same deal but the Pacers never got a chance to do so?

              Personally, I'm absolutely sure that Bird would have offered him that same deal if we were given the chance to match.
              My guess is that the hardball negotiations from the very beginning convinced Lance he may get a match from Bird, but nothing more. At that point, because of basketball reasons—and/or the ability to be more of a central offensive character—he decided he'd rather be in Charlotte even if Bird matched.

              I've said in previous posts he made the decision for basketball reasons rather than money. I'll augment that: money is always a huge factor. But the tipping point for his decision imo was the type of basketball he would be playing.

              That actually makes it a little less personal with Bird. The type of team and defensive emphasis and players with offensive challenges and locked up contracts are something Larry built over a long time—and Roy's killer contract and Mahinmi's small one weren't even Bird's doing. Lance and Bird found themselves at an impasse that perhaps couldn't be solved.
              "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

                Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                I don't think that the "OMG LARRY KEEP LANCE" crowd and the "THANK GOD LANCE THE BALLHOG AND LOCKEROOM KILLER IS GONE!!!" crowd consist of the same people.
                I've noticed a handful of people who fit both categories.
                "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

                  Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                  I don't think that the "OMG LARRY KEEP LANCE" crowd and the "THANK GOD LANCE THE BALLHOG AND LOCKEROOM KILLER IS GONE!!!" crowd consist of the same people.
                  Sure, a lot of us have been much more pro or anti Lance, but how you can not see some shift in general with the people with opinions in between (before it was clear he was gone) is pretty much beyond me. Sorry .
                  2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                  2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                  2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

                    I find it hard to believe that what happened with Lance surprised the Pacers managment. You have Bird,Pritchard and Walsh there.
                    They knew very well that he might move on. Not to consider they might lose him would be absurd. We know none of the details on what goes on with team chemistry. They do.
                    {o,o}
                    |)__)
                    -"-"-

                    Comment


                    • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

                      I finally got to read the full article.

                      Odd quotes from Larry, kinda un Larry like. I hope we can still be friends sorta thing. Doesn't sound like Larry to me. I'm not sure what went on honestly. It may just have been as simple as a young man wanting to make his own mark on the world. I get that, if that's the case.

                      No hard feelings Lance, just like most ex Pacers, good luck except against us.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

                        Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                        Doesn't the article posted in the OP mention that Larry would absolutely offer Lance that same deal but the Pacers never got a chance to do so?

                        Personally, I'm absolutely sure that Bird would have offered him that same deal if we were given the chance to match.
                        Kravitz is showing a rather severe lack of understanding of the CBA in that article, so I dunno that I'd take his word for it.

                        It was already pretty tough to fit our actual $7.6m offer in without going over the tax. A starting salary of $9m like what Lance received may have forced trading another starter for a cheaper player, which perhaps we weren't willing to do.

                        As to the report that Lance or his agent didn't give the Pacers a chance to match, I think it's a bit disingenuous. It must have been known to the Pacers that Lance was all set to sign the Dallas offer a week earlier. (I'm assuming the Pacers were aware, since apparently there was communication between Lance and the Pacers after the Mavs deal fell through.) If the Pacers at this point were still not willing to offer a higher starting salary, wouldn't it be reasonable for Lance to assume that the Charlotte offer wasn't getting matched either? More than anything, it just seemed like the 2 parties were communicating on different wavelengths. One was thinking in terms of total money, the other in terms of annual salary.

                        I dunno, personally I've moved on for the most part, but the atrocious spin in this article brought me back to argue some more.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

                          Originally posted by Mourning View Post
                          1. We don't know that Bird & Co. had allready offered their own 3-year deal and that player option when Charlotte started knocking on the door, do we? OR did we only THINK about offering it when it was clear Charlotte was going to offer that and think: "oh, we can offer something like that aswell, we will let him know and then he will come back (crawling) to us"?

                          Except, and I happily continue speculating here, Lance maybe was done with the whole process and maybe was offended by our offers and negotiating and wanted to get the Charlotte offer signed ASAP, leaving the Pacers no room to get back into it or maybe he and his agent were convinced what was offered from the Pacers side was really it, helped by Birds own rhetoric about this beying our offer and "if its not enough (for Lance) then its not enough and we have to move on" which is EXACTLY what the Pacers seemed to be doing by quickly signing two bench guys (yes, I like Miles, but he should be a guy coming off the bench) consequently. I mean lets not act like those signings weren't a signal either, especially with Miles contract beying significant in amount, length of the contract AND the position he plays.

                          2. Lance, IMHO understandably, didn't think our offer was better. He thought it was rather on the low end and when he realized he was not going to get anything better this summer from anyone he wanted a shorter contract, so he would have a new chance to increase his value on a relatively short term, instead of having to play 5 years on a contract which he thought underpaid him (his first 3 years from our offer was substantially less then what Charlotte offered him).

                          Either way, it's all done with now, I just don't like to see people suddenly blaming Lance for ALL problems with our team this past season, downplaying his importance and qualities for our team and blowing up his issues and his perceived issues, now we didn't get him back. Comes across as a bit of opportunistic and revanchist to me, aswell as maybe letting Bird (whom I like btw) off the hook a little too easy for what transpired. Offcourse, some people never liked him in the first place.
                          Think you got me all wrong with most of this response. Also, you read (invented) way more into the negotiation than you could possibly know.

                          I wanted Lance here. I generally like him. But this negotiation was botched terribly by Lance's group. Bird doesn't lie, nor does he open up about these things.

                          There's nothing wrong with being able to recognize and admit when someone does something stupid, you don't have to defend it.

                          I like Lance, think he's got potential, but he made a bad decision.
                          Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 07-21-2014, 08:13 AM.
                          There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

                            I think people are forgetting what Bird said several weeks ago that he had a number in mind and he wasn't going over it. If Lance accepted it fine, if not the Pacers would move on without Lance. Guess what....that is what he meant. Bird is usually pretty straight forward.

                            I think Lance got his feelings hurt and his ego would not let him backtrack plus his desire to be the "man". So goodbye, Lance.
                            I would rather be the hammer than the nail

                            Comment


                            • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

                              My thoughts on this.

                              There is a difference between willing to give and have given. If Bird was willing to give Lance a shorter deal that they wanted, then why didn't he? He came out with multiple options to begin with but all were 5 years. All that is moot really cause I think Lance was "sold" on the **** steaming pile that Jordan was selling.

                              2 things that probably sold it for Lance.

                              1. You are the man. Not second or third or fourth. #1.

                              2. A better offense. This has been my largest complaint about Vogel and there are quite a few. But 3 years in and the Pacers have no semblance of an offense. It's like a pick up game out there or 5 guys playing at the Y. It's downright painful to watch and I think Lance gave the Pacers offense the best chance to succeed. He has his faults with over dribbling, but he gets into the Lance better than PG/Hill and can actually pass out or go for the score better than those 2. Lance's high TO% is more due to a ****** offensive structure than actual play. A real pg would certainly help, but with 4 other guys just standing around, it's a wonder most plays didn't end in TOs.

                              But because of the offense, how often did we see shot clock violations and last second rushed shots to avoid those violations. Way too many to count and probably the most in the league by a mile.

                              This team is still gonna struggle on offense again next season unless Vogel hires someone for the offense, and I haven't heard anything yet. Some of you may like drinking the coolaid for this team, but I don't. This team is no longer a title contender and is likely a first round exit playoff team for the discernible future. The Hill and Hibbert contracts are just terrible contracts, and even West. Yes, I love West, but $12M is just too much for an aging player. And neither Hibbert nor West are opting out cause they won't get near that much on an open market. So this team is hamstrung for the next 2 years. Late round picks that aren't likely to help this team in the least.

                              Pacers are back to mediocrity.
                              First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Larry Bird stunned Lance left

                                Originally posted by Sparhawk View Post
                                It's like a pick up game out there or 5 guys playing at the Y. It's downright painful to watch
                                Lance was probably the biggest reason for this. That was Lance's half court game.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X