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

Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

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

  • Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

    Originally posted by Aw Heck View Post
    To try to get a better idea of what kind of money Lance could command this offseason, I decided to look for players with statistically similar seasons. For just this season, I couldn't find another player that was nearly as statistically similar as Nicolas Batum:

    In addition, while Lance currently leads the league in triple doubles with 3, Batum is tied for second (with Steph Curry) with 2. According to ShamSports, Batum's salary this season is $11,295,250. Give or take a million or so, that's about what I'd expect Lance to get offered this summer. Especially if he makes the all-star team.
    Really nice find. Thanks for sharing.

    Comment


    • Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

      Originally posted by Aw Heck View Post
      In addition, while Lance currently leads the league in triple doubles with 3, Batum is tied for second (with Steph Curry) with 2. According to ShamSports, Batum's salary this season is $11,295,250. Give or take a million or so, that's about what I'd expect Lance to get offered this summer. Especially if he makes the all-star team.
      This sounds about right....in terms of what we are expecting that Lance would get on the high end....something starting at $11+ mil a year.

      I just hope that he's willing to take an offer of $44 mil Total / 5 year / 4th Year Player Option ( what I think the Pacers can offer ) over an offer of $44 mil / 4 year / 4th Year Player Option ( what I suspect that Teams would offer him on the high-end ).
      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

      Comment


      • Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

        Originally posted by PacersHomer View Post
        The 7.5-8 million dollar figure is just imaginary. It's about $10m, give or take $500k for signing an end of the bench scrub.
        We don't have 10 mil to spend even after moving Copeland if we're able to and we still have to keep in mind that Roy will opt out and need a huge raise the following year.
        Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

        Comment


        • Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

          The question is probably going to come down to. Is this team better off long term with Lance at $11+ million per year or Granger at $7 million?

          Comment


          • Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

            Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
            The question is probably going to come down to. Is this team better off long term with Lance at $11+ million per year or Granger at $7 million?
            Well that's a pretty easy question

            Comment


            • Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

              Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
              The question is probably going to come down to. Is this team better off long term with Lance at $11+ million per year or Granger at $7 million?
              You may be right on that but it's still a complicated question. What if that extra 4 mil puts us into the LT or worse yet what if that extra 4 mil cost us Hibbert next year when he opts out because we then won't be able to keep Hibbert without going into the LT. I'd rather save the money for Hibbert if that's the case.
              I really want to keep Lance but I think Larry needs to be hard nosed about it and keep Danny as a viable option if Lance breaks the bank. If by some chance Lance makes the all star team I think his salary will go beyond 11 mil and it becomes almost impossible to see him here next year.
              Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

              Comment


              • Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

                Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                The question is probably going to come down to. Is this team better off long term with Lance at $11+ million per year or Granger at $7 million?
                Or put another way, do you want to bet long term money on the 23 year old soon-to-be All Star (either this year or next) or the 30 year old former All Star?

                Btw, I've come to realize that I'm more optimistic on Lance than the great majority of the board, but that doesn't mean I hate Danny. I'm (still) a big fan of Danny (heck, look at my avatar), but the reality is that Lance is better for this team. In fact I would venture to say that replacing Paul with Danny would work out better than replacing Lance with Danny, but hopefully we'll never go down that road.

                Also, $7m for Danny seems to be underselling him a bit - I think his range is between $8m-$10m. If you guys haven't noticed, there's a lot of demand for big SF's who can shoot and defend. But there's even more demand for dynamic play creators like Lance, so at this point penciling him at $10m+ seems not out of the question. With Lance, there's still the question of his consistency and maturity which might scare away other teams; hopefully that would bring his price down for us.

                Comment


                • Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

                  offered IMHO after lurking for some time on the 20 Lance threads.

                  I get that the Stephenson thing is the juice for this forum/and the league at the moment. I understand that in the NBA/entertainment shiney objects attract the most attention. Rodman was especially shiney for awhile.

                  But I wish some Pacer folks would take a deep breath.

                  To start with, it doesn't help make a convincing argument with comparisons of "Little Lebron" and Magic. It's hyperbole and smacks of athletic supporter sniffing. But I'm old enough to realize this happens every year with selected FAs (i.e. Linsanity/Howard), so I guess it's to be expected. But we also see around the league the refuse of FAs who were supposed to be the Second Coming, but their fans are now stuck trying to figure out a way to unload their fat contracts.

                  Maybe a little more analysis and a little less vapor on the front end, instead of thrashing on the backend is in order.

                  First, look at this guy's history from switching HSs, the National youth team, choosing a college, bouncing baby mama (charges dropped) and how he acted here the first 2 years. Lebron and Magic, on the other hand, were leading NBA teams at 18 and 19. At 23, we are still talking about how Lance is "maturing" and how this is the "best situation" for him like he needs a controlling force to keep him in the box. Never remember that those descriptors entering into a conversation about Magic or Lebron.

                  I also remember someone trying to rationalize his behavior by comparing it to Reggie's antics. Don't see and at this point, Lance has a long way to go to have the same level of respect by others around the league that Reggie had. I never got the sense (except for Spike and the Garden) that for Reggie it was all about him. The Davis boys and others on those old Pacer teams would lay people out for Reggie. He and Jax were best friends. Don't get the same vibe for Lance.

                  The thing with Curry last night was irksome. Giving Curry a shot after Curry tried to flop a charge was fine, but it wasn't enough for Lance. Grab his foot to try and give him a little spin, stand over him and pose for a second. In different game circumstances, I can see Bogut delivering to Lance a Geiger or a Pittman II. And don't worry, its coming. I guess I would be ok with it all if it were more of a controlled/theatrical act but I still think Lance's needle moves more towards the Ron World Peace end of the acting out scale.

                  But even with the risk, there are a lot of folks who want to do what ever it takes. And that means living with the risk for years with no place to turn if it doesn't work out. We could talk about how long Bird plans to hang around to "mentor", how Lance coexists with PG after West is done, how it affects arguably the makeup of the best bench in the NBA, how it affects Roy's next contract. But most are focused on the shiney object.

                  Me?

                  Take advantage of the luck his current contract offers, win a title, let Lance play his way into a typical NBA FA mondo contract, offer him a contract North of GH's but not too far North and if NY, Chi or Cleve want to make it rain while trying to control him, good luck. We go back to doing it the hard way but with the knowledge we have PG, Roy (with more room for his next contract) and Hill. Get Danny to finish his career here and still have a solid bench.

                  I would feel good about our chances to repeat.

                  Think Luck/Manning. Are the Colts being "haunted forever" because Manning is in the Super Bowl this year? Didn't think so. And somehow the Pacers would survive too.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

                    Originally posted by seeker80 View Post
                    offered IMHO after lurking for some time on the 20 Lance threads.

                    I get that the Stephenson thing is the juice for this forum/and the league at the moment. I understand that in the NBA/entertainment shiney objects attract the most attention. Rodman was especially shiney for awhile.

                    But I wish some Pacer folks would take a deep breath.

                    To start with, it doesn't help make a convincing argument with comparisons of "Little Lebron" and Magic. It's hyperbole and smacks of athletic supporter sniffing. But I'm old enough to realize this happens every year with selected FAs (i.e. Linsanity/Howard), so I guess it's to be expected. But we also see around the league the refuse of FAs who were supposed to be the Second Coming, but their fans are now stuck trying to figure out a way to unload their fat contracts.

                    Maybe a little more analysis and a little less vapor on the front end, instead of thrashing on the backend is in order.

                    First, look at this guy's history from switching HSs, the National youth team, choosing a college, bouncing baby mama (charges dropped) and how he acted here the first 2 years. Lebron and Magic, on the other hand, were leading NBA teams at 18 and 19. At 23, we are still talking about how Lance is "maturing" and how this is the "best situation" for him like he needs a controlling force to keep him in the box. Never remember that those descriptors entering into a conversation about Magic or Lebron.

                    I also remember someone trying to rationalize his behavior by comparing it to Reggie's antics. Don't see and at this point, Lance has a long way to go to have the same level of respect by others around the league that Reggie had. I never got the sense (except for Spike and the Garden) that for Reggie it was all about him. The Davis boys and others on those old Pacer teams would lay people out for Reggie. He and Jax were best friends. Don't get the same vibe for Lance.

                    The thing with Curry last night was irksome. Giving Curry a shot after Curry tried to flop a charge was fine, but it wasn't enough for Lance. Grab his foot to try and give him a little spin, stand over him and pose for a second. In different game circumstances, I can see Bogut delivering to Lance a Geiger or a Pittman II. And don't worry, its coming. I guess I would be ok with it all if it were more of a controlled/theatrical act but I still think Lance's needle moves more towards the Ron World Peace end of the acting out scale.

                    But even with the risk, there are a lot of folks who want to do what ever it takes. And that means living with the risk for years with no place to turn if it doesn't work out. We could talk about how long Bird plans to hang around to "mentor", how Lance coexists with PG after West is done, how it affects arguably the makeup of the best bench in the NBA, how it affects Roy's next contract. But most are focused on the shiney object.

                    Me?

                    Take advantage of the luck his current contract offers, win a title, let Lance play his way into a typical NBA FA mondo contract, offer him a contract North of GH's but not too far North and if NY, Chi or Cleve want to make it rain while trying to control him, good luck. We go back to doing it the hard way but with the knowledge we have PG, Roy (with more room for his next contract) and Hill. Get Danny to finish his career here and still have a solid bench.

                    I would feel good about our chances to repeat.

                    Think Luck/Manning. Are the Colts being "haunted forever" because Manning is in the Super Bowl this year? Didn't think so. And somehow the Pacers would survive too.

                    So he's not "Little Lebron" or Magic, but he is Little Manning?

                    I sure hope he doesn't take the Nuggets to the Finals next year.
                    Report: 82% Of Wiseguys Think They're Real Funny

                    Comment


                    • Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

                      No, he's not a little anything. Except a little amazing at times and a little annoying at times.


                      But I agree using hyperbole to fight hyperbole is fraught with danger.

                      My goal was to try and use an analogy where pro/cons were weighed and a prudent decision made instead of "at all costs", "whatever it takes" aren't the starting point.


                      And the Nuggets winning anything in the next 20 years seems...a stretch

                      Comment


                      • Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

                        Originally posted by seeker80 View Post
                        Maybe a little more analysis and a little less vapor on the front end, instead of thrashing on the backend is in order.

                        First, look at this guy's history from switching HSs, the National youth team, choosing a college, bouncing baby mama (charges dropped) and how he acted here the first 2 years. Lebron and Magic, on the other hand, were leading NBA teams at 18 and 19. At 23, we are still talking about how Lance is "maturing" and how this is the "best situation" for him like he needs a controlling force to keep him in the box. Never remember that those descriptors entering into a conversation about Magic or Lebron.[
                        How does off court issues invalidate a comparison between how players stylistically play basketball? The comparisons to LeBron/Magic are only about how each player plays the game, not their personalities on and off the court.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

                          Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                          How does off court issues invalidate a comparison between how players stylistically play basketball? The comparisons to LeBron/Magic are only about how each player plays the game, not their personalities on and off the court.
                          I'd venture to say that in this case there is some validity to bringing it to the conversation - mainly because the big question mark is how Lance would fit on a team where he was either "the man" or without the support system the Pacers have in place (or both). You might not agree with the conclusions based on Lance's history, but I think the history is valid information to apply to that extrapolation.
                          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: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

                            I still don't see how his history has anything to do with how he actually plays the game. The LeBron comparison is strictly about how he can get a rebound and then start/finish a fastbreak by himself. Nothing more. It's not comparing all of LeBron's game with Lance's. Same with the Magic comparison, about how he sees passing lanes that most players don't and players like Magic do.

                            If you keep the comparison narrow, as it's intended, the rest of it just falls away.
                            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

                              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                              I still don't see how his history has anything to do with how he actually plays the game. The LeBron comparison is strictly about how he can get a rebound and then start/finish a fastbreak by himself. Nothing more. It's not comparing all of LeBron's game with Lance's. Same with the Magic comparison, about how he sees passing lanes that most players don't and players like Magic do.

                              If you keep the comparison narrow, as it's intended, the rest of it just falls away.
                              If the Pacers do not keep Lance who takes his spot? Paul? Danny then at sf?
                              Who can somewhat replace what he does? Is signing Lance going to keep Roy from being signed?
                              If that is the case then I would rather have Roy.
                              {o,o}
                              |)__)
                              -"-"-

                              Comment


                              • Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

                                Originally posted by owl View Post
                                If the Pacers do not keep Lance who takes his spot? Paul? Danny then at sf?
                                Who can somewhat replace what he does? Is signing Lance going to keep Roy from being signed?
                                If that is the case then I would rather have Roy.
                                It's very possible that over paying Lance could keep us from signing Roy the following summer when he opts out and will demand a big raise. It would be foolish to not keep that in mind when deciding how much to offer Lance. Keeping Roy is a far higher priority IMO then keeping Lance. I want to keep Lance but we're better off in keeping Danny at 6 and keeping Roy at 18 then in keeping Lance at 12 then losing Roy next year.
                                Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X