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

All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Lance Stephenson on Pacers: 'I wanted to be there'

    Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
    I actually have the opposite point of view (go figure right)

    We put a timeline on Lance's deal because we wanted to go after other players as well. Though we signed CJ Miles, Damjan Rudez and Rodney Stuckey, we were rumored to be interested in other individuals as well this off-season (Xavier Henry, Jordan Hamilton, Shawn Marion, Jordan Crawford, Marshon Brooks, Goran Dragic, Greg Monroe, etc) but it's hard to talk moves with FA's/other teams when you don't know where your at salary wise. We made a deadline so that we could keep things moving along, as opposed to waiting. Had we waited things out till when Lance eventually signed, we would have been stuck.

    Though Lance wasn't restricted, you wonder whether or not Bird/Walsh were trying to avoid what happened with Roy Hibbert's contract situation. Roy ended up being overpaid because he could garner a large offer from another team. Maybe the FO didn't want to go through a bidding war (that wouldn't have happened anyways because nobody else was looking to pay more money than the Pacers), hence the "if it ain't enough, it ain't enough quote. Obviously this is totally an opinion of course.
    Believe it or not, I think your POV is compatible with mine. The Pacers probably did want to get the agreement wrapped up so they could go after other players. But not for a second would I believe they thought he would bolt like that without allowing them to match.

    So, while the Pacers were out there planning to make more deals, Lance and his side didn't feel good about the offer and how it was handled. Perhaps they did think the Pacers had reduced their room for negotiation and therefore didn't value Lance as much as Lance thought he should be valued. So the pettiness was on Lance's side possibly...and actually how I think it actually transpired. None of this means that the Pacers wouldn't have matched. There is no proof they would not have matched.

    Comment


    • Re: Lance Stephenson on Pacers: 'I wanted to be there'

      Here is Scola's contract details: Luis Scola signed a 3 year / $13.53 million contract with the Indiana Pacers, including $9,597,960 guaranteed, and an annual average salary of $4,508,504.

      My question is...at the time Lance signed could have the Pacers executed their option to use some of Scola's money to pay Lance? With Lavoy Allen tearing it up, that obviously would have been the right decision.

      Ok...More info: Scola’s deal for the upcoming season is for $4,868,499, but is only partially guaranteed for $940,946 according to Sham Sports,

      So....the Pacers could have matched and exceeded the offer from Charlotte yet Lance and his side bolted. Is that true?
      Last edited by BlueNGold; 10-24-2014, 09:45 AM.

      Comment


      • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

        Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
        I see that some arent understanding what UB is trying to say...

        He's saying that throughout the entire summer we heard that Lance's departure had less to do with money, and more to do with the fact that the Pacers were unwilling to give him a shorter contract that would allow him to bet on himself and play for a better contact once the TV deal kicks in.

        We have now found out that the team offered several deals, both short term and long term, but they didn't make sense for Lance--meaning he wanted more money. This makes the idea I stated above as false. There's no twist, there's not really much blame either.

        If Lance wanted to be here he could have but he chose to go elsewhere. No shame in that on either side.

        Thank you. You stated my position better than I.

        I also have a point to make about the deadline Bird imposed. Which if you believe there was a deadline and if you believe the reason for the deadline was to go after other free agents, then I have a real problem with that. But if you believe that then that would appear to me that the pacers gave lance 24 hours to make a counter offer. Otherwise why have a deadline. The offer the pacers made was still on the table even after CJ deal was agreed to. It was still on the table after the deadline had long passed.

        So the deadline either meant nothing at all. Or the pacers put that in place to get Lance and his agent to negotiate a new contract. (not sure I believe that myself, but otherwise why impose a deadline that did not change anything) Unless I suppose you believe the Pacers in some way rescinded their deal - which I don't believe that.

        So maybe the Pacers were giving Lance 24 hours to get a deal done and I think it is reasonable to assume maybe the pacers were willing in those 24 hours before they agreed to to sign anyone else to offer Lance a little more money. Once those 24 hours passed and pacers signed other players they would not and essentially could not increase their offer.

        And that is why the Pacers front office was surprised Lance didn't negotiate and were surprised he signed elsewhere.

        Comment


        • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

          How often do teams give "deadlines" to important players who they want to keep? I didn't see Pat Riley giving a deadline to Lebron James. No, I'm not comparing Lance to Lebron, but you usually don't want to antagonize important players who you really want to keep. "Deadlines" and a feeling of having a gun to your head would know doubt tick some players off since all of these guys have egos. Personally, I just don't care enough about dime-a-dozen CJ Miles to justify rubbing someone the wrong way with a deadline.
          Last edited by Sollozzo; 10-24-2014, 10:23 AM.

          Comment


          • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
            How often do teams give "deadlines" to important players who they want to keep? I didn't see Pat Riley giving a deadline to Lebron James. No, I'm not comparing Lance to Lebron, but you usually don't want to antagonize important players who you really want to keep. "Deadlines" and a feeling of having a gun to your head would know doubt tick some players off since all of these guys have egos. Personally, I just don't care enough about dime a dozen CJ Miles to justify rubbing someone the wrong way with a deadline.

            But think about whether there was a deadline in place. and if there was what sort of deadline. Wasn't the pacers offers still on the table up until Lance signed with the Hornets. So are we supposed to believe once CJ agreed to terms July 2nd that the deadline had passed and the pacers pulled all their offers?

            If you don't believe that, which I don't, then either the deadline was meaningless or it never was given.

            Or perhaps as I presented in my previous post the possibility that the pacers gave lance 24 hours to negotiate, to counter the pacers original offers, but the deadline was this: Lance after 24 hours we are going after other players and once we do that we cannot increase your offers 1 cent. That seems reasonable

            Comment


            • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

              Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
              How often do teams give "deadlines" to important players who they want to keep? I didn't see Pat Riley giving a deadline to Lebron James. No, I'm not comparing Lance to Lebron, but you usually don't want to antagonize important players who you really want to keep. "Deadlines" and a feeling of having a gun to your head would know doubt tick some players off since all of these guys have egos. Personally, I just don't care enough about dime a dozen CJ Miles to justify rubbing someone the wrong way with a deadline.

              While VERY true, as UB said - the offer was still on the table long after CJ and other FA's signed. We honestly don't know what the deadline meant. But I do agree, it is not typical practice.

              I wonder if the terms of the deadline were : "We will give you until this date before we sign any other players, but once this date has passed we will look to fill out the rest of our roster, and the terms of your contract will change ever so slightly accordingly"

              This entire situation has been kind of weird to be honest. Given the comments by both Bird and Lance during the season, the playoffs, and prior to FA - I always thought Lance was here to stay.
              Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 10-24-2014, 10:26 AM.

              Comment


              • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                He's saying that throughout the entire summer we heard that Lance's departure had less to do with money, and more to do with the fact that the Pacers were unwilling to give him a shorter contract that would allow him to bet on himself and play for a better contact once the TV deal kicks in.
                Yes, I keep seeing those too, but I got tired of correcting those posts. It was about money. See here for example: http://8points9seconds.com/2014/07/1...eal-charlotte/

                The starting year salary we could offer Lance was limited to about $7m+ (and that is with Scola waived), so the max 3 year deal we could offer was 3 year ~$24m. That is assuming Scola is waived, and if Lance was to be believed, the Pacers weren't even entertaining that thought.

                Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                If Lance wanted to be here he could have but he chose to go elsewhere. No shame in that on either side.
                If it was about all money though which is now what everyone agrees then it would help our cause if we could offer more money, no?

                Comment


                • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                  Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                  But think about whether there was a deadline in place. and if there was what sort of deadline. Wasn't the pacers offers still on the table up until Lance signed with the Hornets. So are we supposed to believe once CJ agreed to terms July 2nd that the deadline had passed and the pacers pulled all their offers?

                  If you don't believe that, which I don't, then either the deadline was meaningless or it never was given.

                  Or perhaps as I presented in my previous post the possibility that the pacers gave lance 24 hours to negotiate, to counter the pacers original offers, but the deadline was this: Lance after 24 hours we are going after other players and once we do that we cannot increase your offers 1 cent. That seems reasonable
                  Let me put it this way. Once CJ Miles was signed, the Pacers would have been very hard put to honor their original offer, without going over the tax. So was the Pacers' original offer not rescinded, or is it just a matter of semantics? I mean, Lance's agent probably can do simple arithmetic too, and figured that the Pacers have run out of space. I don't know what assurances the Pacers offered to Lance's camp (from recent interviews, it would appear to be none), but I think it would be very tough for Lance to hang around hoping the Pacers could clear enough money.

                  Comment


                  • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                    Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                    The starting year salary we could offer Lance was limited to about $7m+ (and that is with Scola waived), so the max 3 year deal we could offer was 3 year ~$24m. That is assuming Scola is waived, and if Lance was to be believed, the Pacers weren't even entertaining that thought.
                    With roster spaces left to fill, right? So the Pacers would have been in the LT regardless of it went down, in order to re-sign Lance.
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      With roster spaces left to fill, right? So the Pacers would have been in the LT regardless of it went down, in order to re-sign Lance.
                      I really don't want to revisit the math - thinking about that time really makes my head hurt - but here's a snapshot of our salary situation at that time when we've made our moves but Lance hasn't signed yet.

                      http://8points9seconds.com/2014/07/1...ce-stephenson/

                      We were already at 15 players at that point (thanks to Lavoy, Shayne, and Damo) so making minimum roster spots wasn't the issue, we only needed to get below the tax.

                      According to Tim's numbers, we were at $74,270,296 at that point, with unguaranteed deals like Scola's included. The tax level is at $76,829,000. It was well nigh impossible without a salary dumping move. Waiving Scola wouldn't have been enough.

                      Comment


                      • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                        I know some in this forum would wish we just drop this topic, Lance is gone, it is time to move on. I understand that, and really up until a week ago or so I didn't have much interest. But when some are being highly critical of the Pacers FO, I tend to want to find out exactly what happened. Or when others are highly critical of lance, I become more interested.

                        so I do think it is important to know what happened, because whether it was a good move or a bad move losing Lance will impact the pacers for years to come.

                        Comment


                        • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                          The minimum roster is 13 players. We could have cut Sloan and or Scola and not worried about minimum replacements.

                          The Luxuy Tax line means nothing until the end of the season. We would have had 11 months to shave some salary.

                          If the Pacers really wanted to offer Lance more, they could have. Their backs were not put against the wall because of CJ. CJ is not the reason Lance is not on this team anymore. It was a disagreement between TPTB and Lance's party. That is it. No third party at fault.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Lance Stephenson on Pacers: 'I wanted to be there'.. Pacers did offer a 3 year contract

                            Originally posted by cdash View Post
                            WHO ****ING CARES ITS OVER IM SORRY TO YOU OP NOT COMIN ATCHU BUT THIS **** HAS GOT TO STOP MOVE ON PEOPLE JUST MOVE ON PLEASE
                            Lol, dude is your mouse broke? How hard is it to not click on a thread if you want to move on?

                            Comment


                            • Re: Lance Stephenson on Pacers: 'I wanted to be there'.. Pacers did offer a 3 year contract

                              Originally posted by imawhat View Post
                              Lol, dude is your mouse broke? How hard is it to not click on a thread if you want to move on?
                              You've got to admit, these conversations regarding Lance are within most every thread within PD. And they have been for quite some time.

                              Comment


                              • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                                Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                                Thank you. You stated my position better than I.

                                I also have a point to make about the deadline Bird imposed. Which if you believe there was a deadline and if you believe the reason for the deadline was to go after other free agents, then I have a real problem with that. But if you believe that then that would appear to me that the pacers gave lance 24 hours to make a counter offer. Otherwise why have a deadline. The offer the pacers made was still on the table even after CJ deal was agreed to. It was still on the table after the deadline had long passed.

                                So the deadline either meant nothing at all. Or the pacers put that in place to get Lance and his agent to negotiate a new contract. (not sure I believe that myself, but otherwise why impose a deadline that did not change anything) Unless I suppose you believe the Pacers in some way rescinded their deal - which I don't believe that.

                                So maybe the Pacers were giving Lance 24 hours to get a deal done and I think it is reasonable to assume maybe the pacers were willing in those 24 hours before they agreed to to sign anyone else to offer Lance a little more money. Once those 24 hours passed and pacers signed other players they would not and essentially could not increase their offer.

                                And that is why the Pacers front office was surprised Lance didn't negotiate and were surprised he signed elsewhere.
                                Nice assumption and that is all it is an assumption. They said no to the original offer that means it was the FO"s time to counter which they did not. Then they sign Miles that put the handwriting on the wall that they could not pay Lance what he was offered without moving some contracts. They did not bother or even make an attempt to do that. So there was not even any point in offering a 3 year deal then because as Lance himself says it was nonsense. And his mind was already made up. The front office were the ones that were petty not Lance's side. They were just trying to get the best deal they could for Lance. That is what they are supposed to do. They know there will be plenty of opportunities down the road. Lance was not going to be overpaid at all he was worth every penny. Now it will cost the Pacers big time to try to replace him.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X