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

    Originally posted by JimmyJames View Post
    I don't want Lance. But I will not be shocked if Bird makes a deal for him. If bird can move West (and whatever) to bring Lance and another piece he might just do it. Last night my wife said " I bet Larry bring Lance and another player to the Pacers". I have to admit I could see that happening.
    Lance isn't coming back unless a pick is coming with him. That was the sticking point before. Larry and the gang wanted 2 1sts. They might be willing to just take Charlotte's 2015 pick at this stage. But no way Lane comes here without a pick. Might see a scenario where Indy acquires one of Boston's picks, sends that to Charlotte, and Charlotte sends Lance and their 1st to Indy. But that depends on if Charlotte sees someone they want later in the first round. Which means like 5 slots up from where they are now.

    Comment


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

      Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
      That was with a healthy and younger David West, as well as with George Hill in a much more limited role. Our team dynamic is quite different now.

      For starters, West is no longer the player he once was. I think the absence of a guy like West, reduces Lance's effectiveness because Lance himself is not a very strong scoring option. Also, Hill has probably been our best player this year, and has shown what he can do when he has the ball in his hands more. It doesn't make much sense to limit Hill in an effort to bring back Lance.

      Lastly, it's not totally fair to grade CJ Miles from a career perspective, but only grade Lance from his lone season as a major contributor. CJ didn't have the luxury of playing with a healthy PG, or a better version of D.West. Once he was able to play with a more steady G.Hill after the AS break, he was a much stronger player than when he was playing with guys in and out of the lineup.

      As inefficient as CJ has been throughout his career, he's produced better than Lance has for most of his, with the exception of one year. If you're going to look at the totality of a guys career, it should go for Lance as well. If we are comparing the last two season (CJ this year, and Lance last year) that's fine, but it's not totally the same given the different circumstances. Me personally, I'd rather have the more efficient G.Hill scoring and facilitating, and a guard that is a shooter from deep, than a wild card in Lance, with G.Hill being used as a spot up shooter.
      I think that's fair, it's fair to question Lance's ability after he had such an abysmal season, but if you're looking at fit and circumstances for one guy (Miles), you can do that for anyone, including Lance. His situation in Charlotte was horrible; that's a much worse team from top to bottom than we were lead to believe (based on their solid showing last year). And Lance w/ the Pacers was a better player than Miles has been, and the Pacers were better with him than with Miles. Were there other contributing factors? Absolutely. Were the circumstances the same? No. All we can go on is speculation to determine who would fit better moving forward.

      I don't think Miles would have been the catalyst that Lance was if he was here last season instead. That's my perspective, and I think he's got a long enough track record that we can say "he is who he is." Lance has been a question mark, a solid bench player, a borderline All Star and then a terrible player in his brief career. He hasn't really settled into his groove yet, and I think his ceiling is higher than Miles. I take that back, I know it's much higher. The thing is, Miles is not gonna be better (or significantly worse) than he was, because this is who he's been his entire career.

      So if you're playing it safe, then yes, I guess you'd go with Miles, although IMO that's some low standards for playing it safe. If the reward is barely scratching .400 from the field, I'm more apt to take the risk on the younger, more versatile guy who was at 46% and 49% in the 2 seasons prior to his trainwreck.

      Agreed on the points about West and Hill. I don't think Lance would be starting or playing much w/ Hill if he returned (although they were very efficient together; Hill passed a lot of shots on his own, regardless of people assuming that Vogel or Lance asked him to defer).

      Comment


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

        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
        Don't you think that losing Paul and Lance had a lot to do with West's game falling off a cliff? Couldn't it be those big wings helped him out...on the boards....you know....the leading rebound and assist man and FG% left the team....hmmm?
        I think being 34 going on 35 years old had a lot to do with it. We had a lack of consistency from David West this season, but he clearly had spurts where he looked really good.

        From the beginning of January to the All-Star break (21 games played):

        13.8 PPG, 48.5 FG%, 7.7 RPG, 3.8 AST and shot 84.7% from the FT line


        After the All-Star break, he fell off a cliff. By him putting up the numbers above for the 20 games leading up to the ASB, it seems his inconsistent play has more to do with age and fatigue. Stephenson, on the other hand, never came close to putting together a 20 game stretch or more like that this season. What we have is a comparison of an inconsistent player who is aging vs. a consistent player who played poorly pretty much the entire year.
        Last edited by BenR1990; 04-16-2015, 07:02 PM.

        Comment


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

          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
          So West was a superstar who made up for all of Lance's shortcomings which is why the Pacers had the best record in the EC. Without Lance last year we would have been the only undefeated team in the history of the NBA, right?

          Now this year, West fell so very far that even though Lance was a huge detriment that we got rid of...and replaced him with the great CJ Miles, Rodney Stuckey and Solomon Hill...and Hill was unleashed and nobody was stealing Roy's rebounds....West going down was just too much. That's why we went from best record to out of the playoffs? Yeh...

          Don't you think that losing Paul and Lance had a lot to do with West's game falling off a cliff? Couldn't it be those big wings helped him out...on the boards....you know....the leading rebound and assist man and FG% left the team....hmmm?
          Not what I said AT ALL. West was a legit number two offensive option, which allowed Lance to be a facilitator more than try to be a scorer. Lance did the majority of his offensive scoring damage while leading the second unit. Our starters lacked a guard that could stretch the floor consistently. Asking Hill or Lance to be in that role is limiting both players.

          I dont think the loss of Lance nor Paul was a HUGE determining factor in West's decline. Age is the number one culprit there. West played well when he first came back, but got worse as the season progressed.

          As far as why we missed the playoffs; it was because we had injuries to key players (3 starters) at the beginning of the year, while trying to incorporate new players into key spots. Then once the injured came back, the new players had to try and settle into new roles again. That takes time. Our record after the AS break, and really our record with G.Hill shows that this team could've easily been a playoff team had we been healthy from the start.

          Comment


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

            Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
            Hill is a good player, but he's expendable. Build around Paul should be the focus.
            That's true, but Hill has shown to be a guy that fits in well with Paul, and with the culture of this team. Even if you dont want to give him credit with how well he's played this year, he's cemented himself as a key piece for this team moving forward.

            Just because he isn't the star doesn't mean he shouldn't be a part of the core that we build around.

            Comment


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

              Originally posted by 3rdStrike View Post
              I think that's fair, it's fair to question Lance's ability after he had such an abysmal season, but if you're looking at fit and circumstances for one guy (Miles), you can do that for anyone, including Lance. His situation in Charlotte was horrible; that's a much worse team from top to bottom than we were lead to believe (based on their solid showing last year). And Lance w/ the Pacers was a better player than Miles has been, and the Pacers were better with him than with Miles. Were there other contributing factors? Absolutely. Were the circumstances the same? No. All we can go on is speculation to determine who would fit better moving forward.

              I don't think Miles would have been the catalyst that Lance was if he was here last season instead. That's my perspective, and I think he's got a long enough track record that we can say "he is who he is." Lance has been a question mark, a solid bench player, a borderline All Star and then a terrible player in his brief career. He hasn't really settled into his groove yet, and I think his ceiling is higher than Miles. I take that back, I know it's much higher. The thing is, Miles is not gonna be better (or significantly worse) than he was, because this is who he's been his entire career.

              So if you're playing it safe, then yes, I guess you'd go with Miles, although IMO that's some low standards for playing it safe. If the reward is barely scratching .400 from the field, I'm more apt to take the risk on the younger, more versatile guy who was at 46% and 49% in the 2 seasons prior to his trainwreck.

              Agreed on the points about West and Hill. I don't think Lance would be starting or playing much w/ Hill if he returned (although they were very efficient together; Hill passed a lot of shots on his own, regardless of people assuming that Vogel or Lance asked him to defer).
              I had a good and thoughtful response that got deleted by my son on accident lol. But the basis of what I was gonna say was that I agree with a lot of what you're saying. If Miles were on the team last year, he should have started in place of Hill or Lance, while the other came off the bench. He wouldn't have been the catalyst that Lance was, but he would have been a great weapon as a shooter.

              Miles is only 3 years older than Lance, so while he may not be able to improve his skills, I dont think it'd be crazy to see him improve his efficiency with better shot selection and knowing where to get shots in our offense.

              I totally agree that we have no idea what Lance is in this league yet. His status as a player has dramatically changed each of the last 3 yes. For him, he's been on a downward trend since February of last season. The quicker he turns it around and figures out what he is in this league, the better.

              Comment


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

                Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
                That's true, but Hill has shown to be a guy that fits in well with Paul, and with the culture of this team. Even if you dont want to give him credit with how well he's played this year, he's cemented himself as a key piece for this team moving forward.

                Just because he isn't the star doesn't mean he shouldn't be a part of the core that we build around.
                Granted he is a player who could be "a piece" on a title team. I consider that high praise. Don't you?

                What I am saying is that the right trade combination could reasonably happen where you move George Hill. Let me be clear. It is rare where you would move a Paul George or LeBron James and win that trade. It is more common where you move a lesser player and it comes out well. But I will say this for George. I don't think the league gives him enough credit. He is indeed a very good combo guard. He's no Jeff Teague but he's easily an average starting PG. That's not bad for a guy who was fighting for the role over Derrick freaking Collison. Look Ace...I am soooo happy Collison isn't our PG now which should tell you what I think of Hill. I'm good with Hill. I think you overrate him...but that doesn't mean I don't like him. I just see him like I would see Derrick Mckey or maybe Antonio Davis. Very solid players but they are not Reggie Miller, Mark Jackson or Rik Smits. Certainly not Dale Davis.

                Comment


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

                  Say Lance Stephenson did come back to the Pacers and he had a season much like he just had in Charlotte. What would the pro-Lance guys say then? What would be the new rhetoric?

                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by cdash View Post
                    Say Lance Stephenson did come back to the Pacers and he had a season much like he just had in Charlotte. What would the pro-Lance guys say then? What would be the new rhetoric?
                    If he can't make it here, he probably can't make it anywhere else. This was his comfort zone. I don't know why that would be a rhetoric?

                    Comment


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

                      Originally posted by xIndyFan View Post
                      Except he is not a low buy [or more accurately a low cost] opportunity. He is due to make $9M next season. Only a one year guaranteed deal, but still a big chunk of cap space to use on a guy you think might play better here. If the B&G can get him for half that, then maybe. But not with his current contract.

                      edit: The main thing that determines the Pacer's interest in Lance is still unknown to us fans. What role did Lance have in the collapse of the team last season. If, as I believe, Lance is the main culprit, then he won't be coming back. No matter what salary he is willing to take. If, as BNG suggests, that Roy is the problem, then things might be different.

                      One thing I am certain, if the Pacers want Lance, they can get him for cheap. It is evident that Charlotte sees him as a mistake to sign and probably willing to sell him cheap, as you said.
                      Well, I'm kind of expecting CHA to cut him at some point. The alternative would be to send a pick out with him, which I think CHA won't do.

                      As for the "wanting him back" part, people like to forget that the Pacers did try to bring him back, on a 5 year contract at that, and that was after whatever his alleged role in the collapse.
                      Last edited by wintermute; 04-16-2015, 08:38 PM.

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                        Granted he is a player who could be "a piece" on a title team. I consider that high praise. Don't you?

                        What I am saying is that the right trade combination could reasonably happen where you move George Hill. Let me be clear. It is rare where you would move a Paul George or LeBron James and win that trade. It is more common where you move a lesser player and it comes out well. But I will say this for George. I don't think the league gives him enough credit. He is indeed a very good combo guard. He's no Jeff Teague but he's easily an average starting PG. That's not bad for a guy who was fighting for the role over Derrick freaking Collison. Look Ace...I am soooo happy Collison isn't our PG now which should tell you what I think of Hill. I'm good with Hill. I think you overrate him...but that doesn't mean I don't like him. I just see him like I would see Derrick Mckey or maybe Antonio Davis. Very solid players but they are not Reggie Miller, Mark Jackson or Rik Smits. Certainly not Dale Davis.
                        I think you and others partially overrate my opionion of George a bit. And that's fine. This is a message board after all.

                        In a similar way I believe you overrate Lance. I'm comfortable using stats and other information to prove my ideas about George, just like you are about Lance.

                        I will say this past season has given me quite a bit more ammunition to prove my idea of what George Hill is to this team and his league.
                        Last edited by Ace E.Anderson; 04-16-2015, 08:47 PM.

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
                          Or one could say that a team that tried to use Lance Stephenson early in the season fell so far out of contention because he completely messed up the mentality of said team didn't make the playoffs and their only glimmer of hope of salvaging the season came when he was receiving DNP-CDs.

                          Or something like that.
                          Originally posted by cdash View Post
                          Say Lance Stephenson did come back to the Pacers and he had a season much like he just had in Charlotte. What would the pro-Lance guys say then? What would be the new rhetoric?
                          Way to be a hypothetical hater of fans. So freaking dumb.

                          Comment


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

                            George Hiil worked hard all summer to be a more aggressive player. This would not have been necessary if it was all Lances fault. Is it that far fetched to think George Hill got better?

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by JimmyJames View Post
                              If bird can move West (and whatever) to bring Lance and another piece he might just do it.
                              West is originally from North Carolina.

                              "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                              Comment


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

                                Originally posted by wintermute View Post
                                . . . As for the "wanting him back" part, people like to forget that the Pacers did try to bring him back, on a 5 year contract at that, and that was after whatever his alleged role in the collapse.
                                I have a theory about that, but only one of those 'one guy's opinion' type theories.

                                This summer should give us more insight into the Pacer's interest in Lance. It will never be easier to get him back than it is now. If the Pacers really want him, they should be able to get him. If they don't, then it would appear that Lance is more cause than effect.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X