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?

    I haven't voted yet either. Financially for the team, I'm in the 8-10 range. But at the end of the day, if we pay Lance 12 mil, I'm not going to be upset about it. I think $10 mil will be the magic number. Which will make things interesting.

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by wintermute View Post
      Going by the poll, there doesn't seem to be much debate. About 79+% of PD wants to re-sign Lance at between $8-12m per year - not really a huge range when you realize that the difference is basically Chris Copeland and Solo Hill. About 5% think that Lance is worth less than that. So if there's an anti-Lance "camp", it's a tiny (albeit vocal) minority.
      It is more of a let's not pay Lance so much that we struggle to field a complete team versus keep him at any cost camps. Not anti-Lance, pro-Lance camps. A lot of the vocal people you are talking about reside in that 8-10 per year which falls into the 79%.

      Comment


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

        So what is the plan for those who are comfortable with letting Lance go? If we lose Lance, we still aren't going to have any cap space. He has been making pennies, so it's not like losing him will give us all of this extra money. Acting like we will have 12 (or whatever) extra mil to toy with isn't true because that 12 mil will only exist if we keep Lance since he is our player. But not keeping him certainly won't give us extra cap space. What type of player can we bring in for pennies? As pogi mentioned, Augistin and Green have been decent players this year, but they struggled in our system last year. Our system is not for everyone. You still need players who can fit the system, which Lance does perfectly.

        Is Granger the back up plan? He's fine as a cherry on the top bench player, but he is an inferior player to Lance at this point. There are things that Lance does which an old Granger will never be able to do. Plus I sure don't want to count on a Granger in his 30's being healthy and able to play 30 + MPG every night. Maybe he stays healthy, but I sure don't want to roll the dice as him as a starter.

        Lance is a major reason why this team's winning percentage is significantly higher than last year. The Pacers still won't have any cap space if they lose Lance, so the odds of finding another player anywhere near his level are extremely slim. You keep Lance at whatever cost it takes because it will give you the most deadly wing duo in the league for quite a long time. PG and Lance could play their entire careers together. If the bench has to suffer a bit, then so be it. If we don't have a top of the line starting PF and PG in the future, then so be it. The Bulls started Luc Longley and Ron Harper for Christ's sake. No, I"m not saying that PG and Lance will be Jordan and Pippen, but a trio of Hibbert/PG/Lance virtually guarantees that this team will be extremely good for a while. When you have a couple of elite players, you just have to accept that you won't be able to put a great player in every position. The Lakers started Derek Fisher for how many years?

        We have a rare gold coin in Lance. You don't get rid of a gold coin just so you can free up some room in your pocket for some quarters.......
        Last edited by Sollozzo; 01-29-2014, 12:26 PM.

        Comment


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

          CalebKC has posted this a few times but: IF we were to let Lance go, we would have 7.7 Mil before we hit the LT line. We could offer a player the full MLE and then another contract of about 2.2 mil next year.

          I think those that aren't comfortable with giving Lance "however much it takes" aren't looking at next year, as much as we're looking at the coming years when Roy will be getting paid, and PG will be REALLY getting paid. You have to look at the cap situation in 2 years, and think about the ramifications of paying someone an undeserving 12 mil plus. When you have two players that will be taking up so much of your cap, you can't have a third player take up another large portion unless they're a great player and you know for a fact that you can still be elite while surrounding those three players with low cost specialists (and that's a nice way of putting it)

          Teams like the Heat have been able to do this because they have 2 hall of famers, (one of which is a top 5 player EVER) and a guy in Bosh who was a perennial All Star in his own right during his TOR years. That "big 3" is several times more talented than any version of a big 3 that we would field with Paul, Lance and Roy. It's just not the same. Also, they have hit the luxury tax line a few times with their roster, and that is something Herb Simon has stated he will not do.

          It doesn't take $12mil plus to replace what Lance brings to the team. There are plenty of similarly productive players at his position (both more productive, and less productive) that are being paid less than he is, so there's no reason to sign him to a large contract just because we can't sign another guy to a similarly large contract. I do agree, not EVERYBODY can fit in with our system (which is a shame when you see former players blossom so well on other teams), so it would obviously need to be someone that Bird believed was a good fit. But it works both ways, Lance isn't going to fit in with other teams as well as he fits in here. So why overpay when it's probably a mutual "best fit" for both parties?

          It's not a "so be it" situation when it comes to not having a top of the line PF and PG in the future. We have mediocre players playing in those spots around Lance, PG, and Roy--we suddenly become the Joe Johnson Hawk's teams. This team has been built on the idea of fielding a complete team whose depth within the starting lineup has made it possible to compete with the "super teams" of the league. Why would we mess that up now? Why would we try to implement our own version of a "big 3" when it would be an utterly inferior trio than the ones that have been successful in this league? We NEED a D.West type of talent at PF in order to remain elite. We need a G.Hill type of presence at the other starting guard spot in order to remain elite. And I didn't even mention the bench, only the starting 5. We overpay for Lance this summer, and we kiss those luxuries goodbye for the following years to come.
          Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 01-29-2014, 03:52 PM.

          Comment


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

            At the end of the day I just do not believe Lance is worth 12M. We are approaching Paul George territory with that salary. Considering the new CBA has teams more aware of financial longevity any team that offers Lance more than 10 is overpaying.

            Again, Lance simply is not as good as Paul and should not be paid in the same salary tier as him. I agree Lance fits well within our offense. However, as I am eluding to Paul can score in a multitude of ways and can defend with the best in the NBA.

            Lance's defense is not lockdown. His shooting is inconsistent. Why are we willing to pay more than 10 let alone do whatever it takes for a guy that is not a superstar like Paul and Roy.

            At this time there are two areas that Lance excels at, the open court and rebounding. The offensive rebounds that he gathers are terrific, but if we had another shooter on the floor which this team desparately needs because our offense at times is anemic he would not have as many opportunites for rebounds when we make shots.

            Point blank, this team is very prone to offensive dryspells and we need another shooter badly. I am okay with Lance at 8-10 because imho that is the production that he provides us. Maybe I am mistaken but I believe many are caught up in the fancy passes and highlight plays that he makes. Nevertheless the fact remains this team needs someone who can shoot.

            Unless Lance is in the lane I am not confident when he pulls up for jumpshots. the pay Lance whatever camp can presume that born readys shooting will improve but there is no guarantee. Often players are either able to stroke it or not. Lances form is good so I as well believe he will improve but again, I am not ready to overspend until I see that production on the court.

            As far as who can replace Lance if indeed we cannot afford him, I believe there are options and Legend seems to believe that as well per his interview.

            Honestly, I would be very comfortable if we could duplicate Hill and play him at both SG and PG @ 8 per. A similar player to Hill would be just fine at shooting guard.


            Again, point blank this team needs a shooter who can space the floor for our postgame because with Lance currently our offense still sucks otherwise we would not be prone to the dry spells. The offensive glass that Lance excels at would not be necessary if we had another player who can simply knock down jumpers. This is where Hill has got to assert himself and I am fully confident he will. Lance at 8-10 max is fine, but for 12 or more he needs to find a jumper and become a more consistent defender. When that happens we can pay him similar to Paul George but until then I believe it would be foolish to offer him that type of contract. Especially for a small market franchise like the Indiana Pacers.


            I posted this above and will post again. NBA Free Agents 2014

            http://hoopshype.com/free_agency/point_guards_2014.htm


            Not much available per this list. Hence the reason I believe the Pacers should go as high as 10M. Any more than that and were approaching PG territory and I do not believe Lance is on PG's level or even close to at this time. When Lance becomes more consistent shooting the rock we can then discuss the whatever it takes to keep Lance strategy.

            Until then I will not be comfortable paying Lance similar to PG salary. If Lance demands more than 10M then by my understanding we will have around 7-8 Million for Free Agency prior to potentially re-signing Danny, and if we move Copeland then closer to 11M available. I would need to confirm those numbers but if that is accurate this team is going to be fine with or without Lance. Not completely certain I can say the same of Lance and him succeeding without the Pacers.

            Comment


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

              Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
              CalebKC has posted this a few times but: IF we were to let Lance go, we would have 7.7 Mil before we hit the LT line. We could offer a player the full MLE and then another contract of about 2.2 mil next year.

              I think those that aren't comfortable with giving Lance "however much it takes" aren't looking at next year, as much as we're looking at the coming years when Roy will be getting paid, and PG will be REALLY getting paid. You have to look at the cap situation in 2 years, and think about the ramifications of paying someone an undeserving 12 mil plus. When you have two players that will be taking up so much of your cap, you can't have a third player take up another large portion unless they're a great player and you know for a fact that you can still be elite while surrounding those three players with low cost specialists (and that's a nice way of putting it)

              Teams like the Heat have been able to do this because they have 2 hall of famers, (one of which is a top 5 player EVER) and a guy in Bosh who was a perennial All Star in his own right during his TOR years. That "big 3" is several times more talented than any version of a big 3 that we would field with Paul, Lance and Roy. It's just not the same. Also, they have hit the luxury tax line a few times with their roster, and that is something Herb Simon has stated he will not do.

              It doesn't take $12mil plus to replace what Lance brings to the team. There are plenty of similarly productive players at his position (both more productive, and less productive) that are being paid less than he is, so there's no reason to sign him to a large contract just because we can't sign another guy to a similarly large contract. I do agree, not EVERYBODY can fit in with our system (which is a shame when you see former players blossom so well on other teams), so it would obviously need to be someone that Bird believed was a good fit. But it works both ways, Lance isn't going to fit in with other teams as well as he fits in here. So why overpay when it's probably a mutual "best fit" for both parties?

              It's not a "so be it" situation when it comes to not having a top of the line PF and PG in the future. We have mediocre players playing in those spots around Lance, PG, and Roy--we suddenly become the Joe Johnson Hawk's teams. This team has been built on the idea of fielding a complete team whose depth within the starting lineup has made it possible to compete with the "super teams" of the league. Why would we mess that up now? Why would we try to implement our own version of a "big 3" when it would be an utterly inferior trio than the ones that have been successful in this league? We NEED a D.West type of talent at PF in order to remain elite. We need a G.Hill type of presence at the other starting guard spot in order to remain elite. And I didn't even mention the bench, only the starting 5. We overpay for Lance this summer, and we kiss those luxuries goodbye for the following years to come.

              George Hill is under contract to 2017, meaning that we don't have to worry about finding a new starting PG unless we voluntarily ship him off. D. West is under contract until 2016 (the final year being a player option). Those two positions are locked in for the next two seasons unless we voluntarily ship them off. Hibbert has the player option after 2016, but the ball will be in our court with that one.

              It all comes down to how much the billionaire owner wants to pay. This team needs to be in win now mode for the immediate future. We can field the exact same dominant starting lineup for at least the next couple of seasons as long as we're willing to pay for it. Lance being kept at a high price doesn't have anything to do with West or Hill unless we simply don't want to pay. The odds of finding a MLE player who is anywhere near Lance is pretty slim. Since this franchise needs to be gunning for a championship right now, anything that substantially lessons the talent level of the current team is simply unacceptable, IMHO.

              I think that the PG/Lance/Hibbert trio is largely responsible for this season's success. We have a vicious interior defender and maybe the most deadly wing combo in the NBA. Sure West and Hill are solid, but like I said, there is no law that we have to get rid of those guys any time soon. I like having a solid bench like we have this season, but we just saw this current starting lineup take the Heat to 7 with no help from the bench. Now the starting lineup is even better with Lance and PG's development. I don't think that our bench could be any worse than it was last year, so I'm willing to roll the dice. I'd much rather weaken the bench than lose a young stud who helps make up the best wing duo in the NBA. Maybe Lance wouldn't be as great somewhere else, but why does that really matter? We know how great he is here and the value he has to this current team.

              Comment


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

                You don't get better offensively by trading your most efficient scorer and best passer/creator for a jump shooter.

                And lance does most of his rebounding on the defensive end not offensive. People ***** about Lance's defense at times, and rightfully so, but defensive rebounding is a pretty important defensive attribute which I think sometimes can get overlooked. You can play all the defense but if you don't finish with the rebound it's wasted. Lance and Paul's rebounding is extremely important to this team because our superstar center is weak at rebounding on the defensive end. ( yes Roy Hibbert has weaknesses defensively)
                Last edited by CJ Jones; 01-29-2014, 05:12 PM.

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by CJ Jones View Post
                  You don't get better offensively by trading your most efficient scorer and best passer/creator for a jump shooter.

                  And lance does most of his rebounding on the defensive end not offensive. People ***** about Lance's defense at times, and rightfully so, but defensive rebounding is a pretty important defensive attribute which I think sometimes can get overlooked. You can play all the defense but if you don't finish with the rebound it's wasted. Lance and Paul's rebounding is extremely important to this team because our superstar center is weak at rebounding on the defensive end. ( yes Roy Hibbert has weaknesses defensively)

                  LOS ANGELES – Sharing in basketball can be more than just teammates passing the ball. The frontcourt players for the Indiana Pacers often find themselves sharing space underneath the glass.

                  There's an anomaly on the Indiana roster. Guard Lance Stephenson (7.0 rebounds per game) averages almost as many boards as 7-2 center Roy Hibbert (7.8). Stephenson's numbers have also trumped power forward David West (6.6 rebounds), but Pacers coach Frank Vogel explains this discrepancy.

                  "Lance steals them all from Roy anyway," Vogel said. "Roy is ready to get them and Lance comes in from the 3-point line off two feet. We all compete for the glass. We have all five guys on the defensive glass."

                  BUCKNER: Pacers close out road trip with win over Lakers
                  BOX SCORE: Pacers vs. Lakers

                  The Pacers rank just above the middle of pack in rebounding, averaging 53.3 per game compared to their league-best 54.5 average during the 2012-13 season.

                  "This is indicative of the sacrifice of this team," Vogel said. "A lot of times, (the bigs), they're sacrificing themselves to wipe out the best rebounders on the other team while the guards come back and get the numbers.
                  "It's a sacrifice," Vogel continued, "more than anything."
                  http://www.indystar.com/story/sports...ounds/4988905/

                  Lance is a stealing rebound machine.
                  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?

                    Not sure how Lance stealing rebounds changes anything. Roy is great at offensive rebounding and not so great at defensive rebounding and that was the case before Lance and will be same if Lance were to go.

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      http://www.indystar.com/story/sports...ounds/4988905/

                      Lance is a stealing rebound machine.
                      Classic example of why I really don't care about individual stats the way I used to. I'm much more interested in how pieces work together to get team results.

                      Comment


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

                        Isn't Roy a weak defensive rebounder cause he plays to defend what's in front of him and not sit back to box out. I know he could do a better job to box out at times, especially when a jumper is in the air, but More times then not Lance and Paul get rebounds on Roy's weak side. Not sure where DWest disappears to, lol.
                        Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                          So what is the plan for those who are comfortable with letting Lance go? If we lose Lance, we still aren't going to have any cap space. He has been making pennies, so it's not like losing him will give us all of this extra money. Acting like we will have 12 (or whatever) extra mil to toy with isn't true because that 12 mil will only exist if we keep Lance since he is our player. But not keeping him certainly won't give us extra cap space. What type of player can we bring in for pennies? As pogi mentioned, Augistin and Green have been decent players this year, but they struggled in our system last year. Our system is not for everyone. You still need players who can fit the system, which Lance does perfectly.s.......
                          I look at it this way. No matter what we won't be as good next year as this.
                          Plan A: Keep Lance for 9 mil and lose Danny and Copeland. We're still not as good.
                          Plan B: Keep Danny at the MLE and have 2 mil to spend on a cheap combo guard.

                          The plan being suggested by those who want to pay Lance 12 mil would be to lose Danny and Scola and leave us in a position where we have to make another move in order to pay Hibbert the following summer.
                          What would be the plan to replace what Danny and Scola give us next year with the 0 dollars we'd have to spend?

                          I think if it comes to that we lose more with Danny and Scola combined then we do in losing Lance and it leaves us room to pay Hibbert the following summer.
                          Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by Pacer Fan View Post
                            Isn't Roy a weak defensive rebounder cause he plays to defend what's in front of him and not sit back to box out. I know he could do a better job to box out at times, especially when a jumper is in the air, but More times then not Lance and Paul get rebounds on Roy's weak side. Not sure where DWest disappears to, lol.
                            Weak hands, not a strong center of gravity, limited athleticism, and yes scheme all play a part. Our wings are essential to our teams rebounding because while our bigs take up a lot of space, they aren't great rebounders.

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
                              I look at it this way. No matter what we won't be as good next year as this.
                              Plan A: Keep Lance for 9 mil and lose Danny and Copeland. We're still not as good.
                              Plan B: Keep Danny at the MLE and have 2 mil to spend on a cheap combo guard.

                              The plan being suggested by those who want to pay Lance 12 mil would be to lose Danny and Scola and leave us in a position where we have to make another move in order to pay Hibbert the following summer.
                              What would be the plan to replace what Danny and Scola give us next year with the 0 dollars we'd have to spend?

                              I think if it comes to that we lose more with Danny and Scola combined then we do in losing Lance and it leaves us room to pay Hibbert the following summer.
                              Personally, I do not even think this is true in the short term, let alone the long term. Lance is 23 years old. Scola (33) and Danny (30, often injured) will be gone in 2-3 years anyways. This is really a no-brainer. Lance has the potential to be a top 10-15 player in the NBA sometime within the next 5 years IMO. To have that wing duo for years to come along with Roy in the middle, I do not think we'd have a problem getting guys to come off the bench to chase some rings.

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by brownjake43 View Post
                                Personally, I do not even think this is true in the short term, let alone the long term. Lance is 23 years old. Scola (33) and Danny (30, often injured) will be gone in 2-3 years anyways. This is really a no-brainer. Lance has the potential to be a top 10-15 player in the NBA sometime within the next 5 years IMO. To have that wing duo for years to come along with Roy in the middle, I do not think we'd have a problem getting guys to come off the bench to chase some rings.
                                If we pay Lance 12 mil we won't have anything to spend on ring chasers. Even if we did do you honestly think you could replace Danny and Scola with min. contract players and get the same results? We have 2 prior all stars who would start on almost any other team, they're not has beens at 30 and 33. IMO the best plan if we can't afford Lance is to build around 2 stars in Roy and Paul. Then we can afford a supporting cast with that being primarily the cast we currently have.
                                Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X