Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

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

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

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

    Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
    I don't think Lance is as good of a player as a Steph Curry, Tony Parker, and other players that are making $12 mil a yr plus.
    I'm not sure I agree with this reasoning. The fact is, Steph Curry and Tony Parker are not, and won't be, available to us for $12m a year. These guys were undervalued for various reasons when they signed their current contracts, thus they appear like great value now. If they were magically to become free agents this moment, they would certainly get larger offers. Furthermore we can't even make a competitive offer for these guys because we simply won't have the cap space.

    Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
    The difference in opinion over how much Lance should be offered/kept at is directly correlated to the difference in opinions of how good Lance is.
    I agree, though I would qualify the statement somewhat. What matters IMO isn't what we fans think, it's what rival GMs think is his value. As long as some other GM (preferably more than one) thinks that Lance is worth $12m, we can happily sign him to a contract that size knowing that we can always trade him in case things don't work out. Thus, "market value". Of course, other FAs in the past have seen their values drop after signing a new contract, but there are some factors that favor Lance: 1) We already know that he is effective on the Pacers, so there's no "new team adjustment" that we have to worry about, and 2) Lance is only 23 and has been on an upward trajectory ever since joining the Pacers. There are absolutely no indications that he's plateauing or coasting or whatever. There are no sure things in life, but Lance seems like a pretty good bet to continue to improve.

    But for the purpose of settling the argument on PD (as if arguments on PD ever get settled, ha) Lance's market value is no doubt colored by opinions on how good he is or will be, so your statement is probably accurate.

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by wintermute View Post
      I'm not sure I agree with this reasoning. The fact is, Steph Curry and Tony Parker are not, and won't be, available to us for $12m a year. These guys were undervalued for various reasons when they signed their current contracts, thus they appear like great value now. If they were magically to become free agents this moment, they would certainly get larger offers. Furthermore we can't even make a competitive offer for these guys because we simply won't have the cap space.
      You're right, those players wouldn't be available to us for $12 mil. But, those players were considered better players prior to signing those contracts. Tony Parker was a 3 time champion, multiple time AS when his contract was signed prior to the 2011-2012 season. But we could use plenty of other players as examples. Al Horford wasn't undervalued when he signed his contract. Andre Iguodala wasn't undervalued when he signed his contract. Jrue Holiday wasn't undervalued either. In one of my previous posts I pointed out the fact that only six 2-guards in the league are making $12mil plus, 3 of those 6 are/were superstar players when they signed, and the other 3 are overpaid. The point I was making is that when you look at other contracts across the league, $12 million is overpaying for the production Lance Stephenson brings.


      I agree, though I would qualify the statement somewhat. What matters IMO isn't what we fans think, it's what rival GMs think is his value. As long as some other GM (preferably more than one) thinks that Lance is worth $12m, we can happily sign him to a contract that size knowing that we can always trade him in case things don't work out. Thus, "market value". Of course, other FAs in the past have seen their values drop after signing a new contract, but there are some factors that favor Lance: 1) We already know that he is effective on the Pacers, so there's no "new team adjustment" that we have to worry about, and 2) Lance is only 23 and has been on an upward trajectory ever since joining the Pacers. There are absolutely no indications that he's plateauing or coasting or whatever. There are no sure things in life, but Lance seems like a pretty good bet to continue to improve.
      You're 100% correct. It's more about what GM's believe Lance is worth.

      At the end of the day my gripe about the contract is that I don't think the Pacers can simply build around Lance, Paul and Roy. Period. That trio isn't as good as the "big 3" that the Heat nor OKC incorporate, but those are the teams that are constantly brought up. We're able to compete with those team because we have a "big 5", not because Paul, Lance and Roy are going toe-to-toe with their trio of stars.

      Interesting stat: in the 5 games against the other elite teams in the NBA this year (MIA,SA,OKC,POR--all with a .700 winning %) Mr. $12 Mil is averaging 10, 5, 3. If you want to add the LAC to the mix (.688 winning %) then he's averaging 11, 6, 4.

      Either way--moving forward, I'd think we would need a little more production than that against the elite teams if we're going to pay someone that kind of dough.

      But I have now honestly posted on this subject wayyyy too much, and feel like I'm approaching Vnz territory. I am simply gonna shut up about it all now.

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by GrangeRusHibbert View Post
        1. Wait for years to acquire talent.
        2. Acquire talent.
        3. Let talent walk.

        Clearly the path to championships.
        Look what letting Harden walk did to crush OKC's hopes of ever contending again.
        BillS

        A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
        Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

        Comment


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

          Originally posted by BillS View Post
          Look what letting Harden walk did to crush OKC's hopes of ever contending again.
          Diminished them by like, 15%? Having the 2nd best player on the planet gives you a lot of leeway to take gambles. PG sure as hell isn't on the Durant tier. He's great, GREAT, but we gotta stop acting like we have anyone that is automatic points like him or Lebron. Our offense is still league average. That's the biggest argument to pull out all the stops and keep Lance for better or worse.
          Last edited by Heisenberg; 01-30-2014, 09:24 AM.

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
            You're right, those players wouldn't be available to us for $12 mil. But, those players were considered better players prior to signing those contracts. Tony Parker was a 3 time champion, multiple time AS when his contract was signed prior to the 2011-2012 season. But we could use plenty of other players as examples. Al Horford wasn't undervalued when he signed his contract. Andre Iguodala wasn't undervalued when he signed his contract. Jrue Holiday wasn't undervalued either. In one of my previous posts I pointed out the fact that only six 2-guards in the league are making $12mil plus, 3 of those 6 are/were superstar players when they signed, and the other 3 are overpaid. The point I was making is that when you look at other contracts across the league, $12 million is overpaying for the production Lance Stephenson brings.
            Team's aren't going to just pay Lance for the player that he currently is, but at 23, they'll pay him for the type of the player that they think he can become.

            Comment


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

              Originally posted by PR07 View Post
              Team's aren't going to just pay Lance for the player that he currently is, but at 23, they'll pay him for the type of the player that they think he can become.
              And if some team is stupid and wants to give him like 4/50 to prove it, let em.

              Comment


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

                Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                You're right, those players wouldn't be available to us for $12 mil. But, those players were considered better players prior to signing those contracts. Tony Parker was a 3 time champion, multiple time AS when his contract was signed prior to the 2011-2012 season. But we could use plenty of other players as examples. Al Horford wasn't undervalued when he signed his contract. Andre Iguodala wasn't undervalued when he signed his contract. Jrue Holiday wasn't undervalued either. In one of my previous posts I pointed out the fact that only six 2-guards in the league are making $12mil plus, 3 of those 6 are/were superstar players when they signed, and the other 3 are overpaid. The point I was making is that when you look at other contracts across the league, $12 million is overpaying for the production Lance Stephenson brings.




                You're 100% correct. It's more about what GM's believe Lance is worth.

                At the end of the day my gripe about the contract is that I don't think the Pacers can simply build around Lance, Paul and Roy. Period. That trio isn't as good as the "big 3" that the Heat nor OKC incorporate, but those are the teams that are constantly brought up. We're able to compete with those team because we have a "big 5", not because Paul, Lance and Roy are going toe-to-toe with their trio of stars.

                Interesting stat: in the 5 games against the other elite teams in the NBA this year (MIA,SA,OKC,POR--all with a .700 winning %) Mr. $12 Mil is averaging 10, 5, 3. If you want to add the LAC to the mix (.688 winning %) then he's averaging 11, 6, 4.

                Either way--moving forward, I'd think we would need a little more production than that against the elite teams if we're going to pay someone that kind of dough.

                But I have now honestly posted on this subject wayyyy too much, and feel like I'm approaching Vnz territory. I am simply gonna shut up about it all now.
                Iguodala is an interesting comp for Stephenson as well. Look at their year before free agency numbers:

                Minutes PPG FG% 3P% FT% RPG APG TPG SPG
                Iguodala 34.7 13.0 .451 .317 .574 5.3 5.4 2.6 1.7
                Stephenson 35.6 14.2 .499 .344 .673 7.1 5.3 2.6 0.7
                Iguodala is considered an elite defensive player while Lance's reputation is only as a good one. Iguodala had the proven production on his side, while Lance has the potential for more on his side. Both are jack of all trades type of players who aren't the first or sometimes second option on their offense. Lance's numbers in his free agency year are a little better.

                Also when comparing players, remember that the salary cap and luxury tax are both jumping this year. That's going to inflate the salaries of these type of players, which means that a player signed to a 12 million dollar deal now is naturally not going to be as good as a player signed 2-3 years ago with a lower cap number. If the cap keeps going up, that will of course be the case for the next group of players as well.

                I don't think the Pacers would be restricted to a big 3 just by signing Lance. At worst, it would be a big 4. In worst case scenario, Roy, Paul, and Lance could be making 48 million combined (Roy 18 million, Paul 17, Lance 13). That still leaves room for a George Hill for example at 8 million more, and then you have 20 million more for the rest of the roster (if the tax goes up again in two years, maybe more than that). West instead of Hill does the same effect just leaving a little less for the rest.

                The main question the Pacers have if Lance's price gets up that high is which starter do they value. Is it more important to keep Lance, West, or Hill? Two of the three will likely be able to be kept, but the third will likely have to be jettisoned in the next year and a half or so. I'm of the belief decent trades could be made for West or Hill so I don't think that's a concern, so it really comes down to which one is more valuable. The main advantage in fact of trading West or Hill is that they might actually bring you some sort of cheap bench asset in return, which is what the Pacers will need in the future to fill out their roster around whatever big four they choose.

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by BillS View Post
                  Look what letting Harden walk did to crush OKC's hopes of ever contending again.
                  That was a bad move for the Thunder, but they have the luxury of knowing that they have two of the five best players in the league. Nevertheless, it looks like they sure could have used Harden last year against the Grizzlies. I doubt they get beat 4-1 if Harden is on the roster. Also, they haven't quite won the West yet.

                  Besides, Lance isn't the Harden in this example. He is the Westbrook. By know means am I saying that Lance is great of a player as Westbrook, because he obviously isn't. PG is the Durant, Lance is the Westbrook, and Hibbert is the Ibaka. I'm not saying that our trio is as great as their trio, but Lance and PG aren't yet anywhere near their peak and should continue to get better. PG is going to be a top player for like the next 8 or so years, and it's looking like Lance could be making multiple all star games right there with him. It's a once in a lifetime opportunity to have a wing duo like this who are the exact same age and could play their entire careers together. A PG/Lance/Hibbert trio would win this team a lot of games for a while.

                  I understand the financial arguments that you and others are making here, but there there is just no way to spin the fact that losing Lance would be a massive loss in talent that would almost surely be reflected in the W/L column. Losing Lance would haunt the Pacers for a long time.

                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                    And if some team is stupid and wants to give him like 4/50 to prove it, let em.
                    Min PPG FG% 3P% FT% RPG APG TPG SPG>>
                    31.2 15.4 .451 .277 .707 6.3 3.3 3.3 1.1>>
                    35.6 14.2 .449 .344 .673 7.1 5.3 2.6 0.7

                    Player 1 is Tracy McGrady his last year with the Raptors at the age of 21 before getting a mega deal with the Magic, Player 2 is Stephenson at 23.

                    Not saying Stephenson is T-Mac, but a team can be rewarded for giving a megadeal based on potential.

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                      The difference between my opinion and posters such as Sollozzo and CJ is that I don't think Lance is as good of a player as a Steph Curry, Tony Parker, and other players that are making $12 mil a yr plus. I think he's in a great position because the opposing teams best defender is guarding Paul, and the opposing interior defenders have to worry about DW and Roy. I don't think he can lead an offense without the security blankets that are within our starting 5.
                      Roy wasn't worth his contract when he signed it either.
                      Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by PR07 View Post
                        Min PPG FG% 3P% FT% RPG APG TPG SPG>>
                        31.2 15.4 .451 .277 .707 6.3 3.3 3.3 1.1>>
                        35.6 14.2 .449 .344 .673 7.1 5.3 2.6 0.7

                        Player 1 is Tracy McGrady his last year with the Raptors at the age of 21 before getting a mega deal with the Magic, Player 2 is Stephenson at 23.

                        Not saying Stephenson is T-Mac, but a team can be rewarded for giving a megadeal based on potential.
                        I mean, not to be that guy, but how did that deal work out for the Magic?

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          Roy wasn't worth his contract when he signed it either.
                          True, but you must admit..bigs ALWAYS get paid. They always have.

                          Comment


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

                            I haven't read the entire thread but would like to add my thoughts, briefly.

                            I'd like to see Lance as our starting point beginning next season.

                            Find a dead eye shooter to start at the 2.

                            Use George Hill as a backup for both spots.

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by TinManJoshua View Post
                              I mean, not to be that guy, but how did that deal work out for the Magic?
                              I'd say that deal worked out pretty well to be honest. He made two all NBA first teams, 4 all-star games, and two All-NBA second teams during his four year tenure there. You can say the team didn't do that well, but was it his fault that the team paid a max contract to Grant Hill, who never played? His second best player was a young Mike Miller. For a team that always gets clowned for letting Shaq go, he gave them another superstar and made them relevant.

                              http://grantland.com/features/the-un...te-tale-t-mac/
                              Last edited by PR07; 01-30-2014, 10:13 AM.

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson

                                T-mac's contract was 6yr 67.5 mil. Still not 12 mil per lol
                                Were NBA revenues at an all-time high?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X