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

  • #76
    Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

    Originally posted by Hicks View Post
    I thought we could give Lance around 7-8 per as is, and if we dumped Copeland's deal that would then be closer to 9-11?

    65.8 mil next year without Lance or Danny nor the options on Sloan and Johnson which are min. players. With those 2 options that puts us at 67.6 mil and still only 11 players. I'm guessing but add at least 2 mil if PG makes and all nba team which is likely and that leaves us at 69.6 mil with only 11 players. Pencil in our 2cd round pick to get to 13 players and that leaves 4.5 mil to pay Lance. Get rid of Copeland and we have about 7.5 mil to spend on Lance or someone to stay under the L.T. I'm getting this from Hoopshype but they've been dependable to date.
    Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

      So sounds like to me we have to find a taker for 2 of Scola/Mahinmi/Copeland. Obviously preferably Mahinmi/Copeland. Other option would be to trade Hill, but I am one who thinks that would be an awful mistake.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

        Originally posted by brownjake43 View Post
        So sounds like to me we have to find a taker for 2 of Scola/Mahinmi/Copeland. Obviously preferably Mahinmi/Copeland. Other option would be to trade Hill, but I am one who thinks that would be an awful mistake.
        I think that would be too much to lose to keep Lance. It would leave us with a big hole to fill and no money to do it with. We also need to keep in mind that we'll need Scola's expiring contract to come off the books the following year anyway just to be able to pay Hibbert. It's impossible to keep everyone together and hard just to keep the core.
        Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

          Originally posted by CableKC View Post
          Can someone work out how a $40 mil / 5 Year and $44 mil / 5 Year Contract Offer would look like when broken down by Season ( assuming raises )?
          $40M/5 yr @ 7.5%

          $6.96M
          $7.48M
          $8M
          $8.52
          $9.04

          $44M/5yr would be about $800K more each year.

          $40M/5yr @ 4.5%

          $7.33M
          $7.67M
          $8
          $8.33M
          $8.67M

          Again, $44m/5yr would be about $800K more each year.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

            Reggie mentioned the Pacers being the right environment for Lance last night and Bird said this: "Obviously I think this is the best situation for Lance. I worry about if Lance leaves here. This environment is absolutely perfect for him. Players know his little games. Lance is always energetic. He's always at another level. He likes to mess around in practice. Guys understand that here. It's not a bad thing, he's just energetic."

            I hope Lance and his agent take this into account. Without the positive influence of this team and this organization that he could go somewhere else and have major issues.
            "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
            - Benjamin Franklin

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

              Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
              65.8 mil next year without Lance or Danny nor the options on Sloan and Johnson which are min. players. With those 2 options that puts us at 67.6 mil and still only 11 players. I'm guessing but add at least 2 mil if PG makes and all nba team which is likely and that leaves us at 69.6 mil with only 11 players. Pencil in our 2cd round pick to get to 13 players and that leaves 4.5 mil to pay Lance. Get rid of Copeland and we have about 7.5 mil to spend on Lance or someone to stay under the L.T. I'm getting this from Hoopshype but they've been dependable to date.
              Hoopshype is already projecting some Rose rule salary onto Paul George. For example, take a look at Wall's contract who signed for a regular max. They have Wall starting at 13.7 while Paul's starts at 15.8. Also, Paul took 27 percent so he won't get the full bump from the Rose rule.

              That makes it around 67.6 for 11 players. Peyton Siva is the best example I can quickly find for a late 2nd round pick from this year. He makes just under 500,00 so round up and that makes it 68.1 for 12. Projected luxury tax was 75.7, so that leaves 7.6 before trading anybody. Of course those are estimates, as changes in the salary cap/luxury tax will both change George's contract and also change the line to shoot for.

              I'd consider lots of ideas in order to keep Lance around. My off the wall idea if enough salary couldn't be freed up other ways is to trade David West. I wouldn't want to trade West, but I'd consider him over Hill for the following reasons
              1) West can probably fetch more in trade from a team who wants him to bring that leadership and toughness to another locker room
              2) West makes quite a bit more than Hill, which would allow the Pacers to get some salary back in the trade, hopefully in the form of a young power forward with some potential.
              3) The Pacers have two power forwards on the bench who are being underutilized to different extents in Scola and Copeland, and so they'll be able to make up a part of what West does just with more minutes
              4) He's not quite as needed as he used to be. The Pacers are transitioning from a post based offense to a more balanced one. West is spending more and more time in the high post, which he's good at but it's not quite as hard to find a replacement for that as it is for a dual inside/outside threat. Also, the leadership and coach on the floor parts are wonderful qualities, but especially after another playoff run the Pacers have other players who can step up and be leaders at this point. They will have all been through the battles.
              5) Obviously his age factors in. I think the Pacers can be contenders with the George/Hibbert/Lance/Hill core for several years, and getting assets for West now would help keep that going.

              Does that mean I want to get rid of West? No, he's still a great player. But I think it would be a bigger mistake to get rid of Lance. It's not easy to acquire talent when you're cash strapped like the Pacers will be. To lose Lance for money reasons only to then essentially lose West for age reasons in the span of a couple of years would be extremely problematic for the Pacers staying contenders. Hopefully they can fit in Lance's salary and keep the entire starting lineup together though.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

                Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post
                Hoopshype is already projecting some Rose rule salary onto Paul George. For example, take a look at Wall's contract who signed for a regular max. They have Wall starting at 13.7 while Paul's starts at 15.8. Also, Paul took 27 percent so he won't get the full bump from the Rose rule.

                That makes it around 67.6 for 11 players. Peyton Siva is the best example I can quickly find for a late 2nd round pick from this year. He makes just under 500,00 so round up and that makes it 68.1 for 12. Projected luxury tax was 75.7, so that leaves 7.6 before trading anybody. Of course those are estimates, as changes in the salary cap/luxury tax will both change George's contract and also change the line to shoot for.

                I'd consider lots of ideas in order to keep Lance around. My off the wall idea if enough salary couldn't be freed up other ways is to trade David West. I wouldn't want to trade West, but I'd consider him over Hill for the following reasons
                1) West can probably fetch more in trade from a team who wants him to bring that leadership and toughness to another locker room
                2) West makes quite a bit more than Hill, which would allow the Pacers to get some salary back in the trade, hopefully in the form of a young power forward with some potential.
                3) The Pacers have two power forwards on the bench who are being underutilized to different extents in Scola and Copeland, and so they'll be able to make up a part of what West does just with more minutes
                4) He's not quite as needed as he used to be. The Pacers are transitioning from a post based offense to a more balanced one. West is spending more and more time in the high post, which he's good at but it's not quite as hard to find a replacement for that as it is for a dual inside/outside threat. Also, the leadership and coach on the floor parts are wonderful qualities, but especially after another playoff run the Pacers have other players who can step up and be leaders at this point. They will have all been through the battles.
                5) Obviously his age factors in. I think the Pacers can be contenders with the George/Hibbert/Lance/Hill core for several years, and getting assets for West now would help keep that going.

                Does that mean I want to get rid of West? No, he's still a great player. But I think it would be a bigger mistake to get rid of Lance. It's not easy to acquire talent when you're cash strapped like the Pacers will be. To lose Lance for money reasons only to then essentially lose West for age reasons in the span of a couple of years would be extremely problematic for the Pacers staying contenders. Hopefully they can fit in Lance's salary and keep the entire starting lineup together though.

                I don't think they have PG at the higher max. They have him at 15.8 to start. The lower 25% max would be in line with that on the estimated 62.5 mil cap with a 75 mil LT for next year. The higher 30% max would be 18.75 mil so I guessed at 17.8 mil knowing he wasn't getting the full 30%. None of that is etched in stone but it should be close I think. If Wall only got 13.7 mil that wouldn't even be 25% of this years cap. We may be able to get our 2cd. round pick for the 500k instead of 800k though, but I still don't think we have more then 7.5-8 mil to offer Lance even after moving Copeland for nothing which may not be that easy to do without giving up an asset.

                I want to keep Lance but I'd never entertain moving West to or multiple rotation players to do it. Moving Copeland is a no brainer though.
                Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

                  One thing that hasn't been mentioned is a players trade expection. I know a couple of teams have one so maybe that comes into play.

                  Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
                  I don't think they have PG at the higher max. They have him at 15.8 to start. The lower 25% max would be in line with that on the estimated 62.5 mil cap with a 75 mil LT for next year. The higher 30% max would be 18.75 mil so I guessed at 17.8 mil knowing he wasn't getting the full 30%. None of that is etched in stone but it should be close I think. If Wall only got 13.7 mil that wouldn't even be 25% of this years cap. We may be able to get our 2cd. round pick for the 500k instead of 800k though, but I still don't think we have more then 7.5-8 mil to offer Lance even after moving Copeland for nothing which may not be that easy to do without giving up an asset.

                  I want to keep Lance but I'd never entertain moving West to or multiple rotation players to do it. Moving Copeland is a no brainer though.
                  The numbers are confirmed with 8 pnts 9 seconds blog. Hoopsworld has it right.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

                    I David is older, but you can't trade him, he's the driving force behind this team. He means so much more than his numbers indicate. He is an enormous part of that environment that Reggie talked about last night that allows the other players to maximize their abilities. I can't stress how much I think DWest means to what's going on right now. In fact, I'd not want Lance on the team w/o David West or that type, at this point, I think thats a recipe for disaster.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

                      Plain and simple Lance owes his career, not just his emergence as an legit threat, but his entire NBA career to Larry working with him and believing in him. If anything Lance should resign to show his loyalty to the man that very possibly kept him off the streets. Yes that's probably a large exaggeration, but really, where would Lance be without the guidance of Bird and the teammates Bird gave him? Surely not in a position to be an NBA All-Star
                      Forever struggling to convince myself "In Larry we trust"
                      Writer at NoseBleedSectionSports.com

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

                        Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
                        I don't think they have PG at the higher max. They have him at 15.8 to start. The lower 25% max would be in line with that on the estimated 62.5 mil cap with a 75 mil LT for next year. The higher 30% max would be 18.75 mil so I guessed at 17.8 mil knowing he wasn't getting the full 30%. None of that is etched in stone but it should be close I think. If Wall only got 13.7 mil that wouldn't even be 25% of this years cap. We may be able to get our 2cd. round pick for the 500k instead of 800k though, but I still don't think we have more then 7.5-8 mil to offer Lance even after moving Copeland for nothing which may not be that easy to do without giving up an asset.

                        I want to keep Lance but I'd never entertain moving West to or multiple rotation players to do it. Moving Copeland is a no brainer though.
                        The 13.7 million for Wall is a placeholder. It is the 25% max number for this year. They take 25% of a different number than the actual cap now which is why the discrepancy exists.

                        For further info, the 30% number was 16.441 this year. That would make the 27% number this year to be about 14.8. That will almost certainly go up next year with the increased cap, but no one is exactly sure how much.

                        Those figures and the excellent explanation can be found at Larry Coon's salary cap FAQ, question #16:

                        http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q16

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

                          We can give Lance $11.7m with 7.5% raises without hitting the luxury tax without even having to trade Copeland. We have $65.7m in salary next year and the luxury tax will be 75.7. With the raises, 5 years, 58.5 million would be just a bit under $10m.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

                            Originally posted by PacersHomer View Post
                            We can give Lance $11.7m with 7.5% raises without hitting the luxury tax without even having to trade Copeland. We have $65.7m in salary next year and the luxury tax will be 75.7. With the raises, 5 years, 58.5 million would be just a bit under $10m.
                            That's for fewer than 13 players. You have to add in the remaining player salaries, even if they are vet minimum, to have no fewer than 13 players on the roster.
                            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


                            • #89
                              Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

                              We would only have 12 guys so strike off about $500K for the 2nd round pick who can warm the bench.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

                                Originally posted by xIndyFan View Post
                                $40M/5 yr @ 7.5%

                                $6.96M
                                $7.48M
                                $8M
                                $8.52
                                $9.04

                                $44M/5yr would be about $800K more each year.

                                $40M/5yr @ 4.5%

                                $7.33M
                                $7.67M
                                $8
                                $8.33M
                                $8.67M

                                Again, $44m/5yr would be about $800K more each year.
                                Ok.....so if we are looking at a $44 mil / 5 year @7.5 % raises, it would look like:

                                $44M/5 yr @ 7.5%

                                $7.76M in 2014-2015
                                $8.18M in 2015-2016
                                $8.98M in 2016-2017
                                $9.32M in 2017-2018
                                $9.84M in 2018-2019

                                Someone would have to correct me if I am wrong...but a Team Frontloading a contract won't make any difference since Lance is a UFA and we cannot match any Contract offer anyway.

                                I am hoping that a 5 Year / $44 mil Contract / 4th Year Player option would do the trick. I think that a $44 mil contract / 4 Year contract is the most that a Team with Capspace would offer.....Lance will have the option to choose where he goes....but the Pacers can make a comprable offer.
                                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X