Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

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

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

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

    Originally posted by Mackey_Rose View Post
    Your $8M player is George Hill. So you're basically saying you think that Paul, Roy, Hill, and a $6M player is better than Paul, Roy, and Lance.

    I can't think of any $6M players that make that accurate.
    Jamal Crawford?

    Comment


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

      Since we are talking about possible replacement of Lance via Free Agency, let's look at the entire list first:

      http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/99...ents-2014-2015

      Atlanta
      RESTRICTED

      Gustavo Ayon
      Shelvin Mack
      Mike Scott

      UNRESTRICTED
      Elton Brand
      Jared Cunningham
      Cartier Martin

      Boston
      RESTRICTED

      Avery Bradley

      UNRESTRICTED
      MarShon Brooks
      Kris Humphries

      Brooklyn
      RESTRICTED

      Tornike Shengelia
      Tyshawn Taylor

      UNRESTRICTED
      Alan Anderson (P)
      Andray Blatche (P)
      Andrei Kirilenko (P)
      Shaun Livingston
      Paul Pierce

      Charlotte
      RESTRICTED

      James Southerland

      UNRESTRICTED
      Jeff Adrien
      Ben Gordon
      Josh McRoberts (P)
      Jannero Pargo
      Ramon Sessions
      Anthony Tolliver

      Chicago
      RESTRICTED

      UNRESTRICTED
      Luol Deng
      Kirk Hinrich
      Mike James
      Nazr Mohammed

      Cleveland
      RESTRICTED
      None

      UNRESTRICTED
      C.J. Miles

      Dallas
      RESTRICTED
      Bernard James

      UNRESTRICTED
      DeJuan Blair
      Vince Carter
      Devin Harris
      Shawn Marion
      Dirk Nowitzki

      Denver
      RESTRICTED
      None

      UNRESTRICTED
      Darrell Arthur (P)
      Jordan Hamilton
      Nate Robinson (P)

      Detroit
      RESTRICTED
      Greg Monroe

      UNRESTRICTED
      Chauncey Billups (T)
      Jonas Jerebko (P)
      Rodney Stuckey
      Charlie Villanueva

      Golden State
      RESTRICTED
      Kent Bazemore
      Jordan Crawford

      UNRESTRICTED
      Jermaine O'Neal

      Houston
      RESTRICTED
      Chandler Parsons (T)
      Greg Smith

      UNRESTRICTED
      Aaron Brooks
      Francisco Garcia (P)

      Indiana
      RESTRICTED
      Lance Stephenson

      UNRESTRICTED
      Rasual Butler
      Danny Granger

      L.A. Clippers
      RESTRICTED
      Maalik Wayns

      UNRESTRICTED
      Darren Collison (P)
      Ryan Hollins
      Stephen Jackson
      Antawn Jamison
      Byron Mullens (P)

      L.A. Lakers
      RESTRICTED
      Ryan Kelly

      UNRESTRICTED
      Steve Blake
      Jordan Farmar
      Pau Gasol
      Xavier Henry
      Jordan Hill
      Wesley Johnson
      Chris Kaman
      Jodie Meeks
      Shawne Williams
      Nick Young (P)

      Memphis
      RESTRICTED
      Ed Davis

      UNRESTRICTED
      Jerryd Bayless
      Mike Miller
      Zach Randolph (P)

      Miami
      RESTRICTED
      None

      UNRESTRICTED
      Ray Allen
      Chris Andersen (P)
      Joel Anthony (P)
      Shane Battier
      Michael Beasley
      Chris Bosh (ETO)
      Mario Chalmers
      Udonis Haslem (P)
      LeBron James (ETO)
      James Jones
      Rashard Lewis
      Roger Mason Jr.
      Greg Oden
      Dwyane Wade (ETO)
      Toney Douglas

      Milwaukee
      RESTRICTED
      Ekpe Udoh

      UNRESTRICTED
      Caron Butler
      Luke Ridnour

      Minnesota
      RESTRICTED
      Robbie Hummel

      UNRESTRICTED
      Dante Cunningham
      A.J. Price

      New Orleans
      RESTRICTED
      Darius Miller
      Brian Roberts

      UNRESTRICTED
      Al-Farouq Aminu
      Lou Amundson
      Josh Childress
      Anthony Morrow (P)
      Jason Smith
      Greg Stiemsma

      New York
      RESTRICTED
      Toure' Murry

      UNRESTRICTED
      Cole Aldrich
      Carmelo Anthony (ETO)
      Andrea Bargnani (ETO)
      Kenyon Martin
      Amar'e Stoudemire (ETO)
      Metta World Peace (P)
      Beno Udrih

      Oklahoma City
      RESTRICTED
      None

      UNRESTRICTED
      Derek Fisher
      Ryan Gomes
      Thabo Sefolosha

      Orlando
      RESTRICTED
      E'Twaun Moore

      UNRESTRICTED
      Solomon Jones
      Hedo Turkoglu

      Philadelphia
      RESTRICTED
      Lavoy Allen
      Evan Turner

      UNRESTRICTED
      Spencer Hawes
      Jason Richardson (P)

      Phoenix
      RESTRICTED
      Eric Bledsoe
      Viacheslav Kravtsov
      P.J. Tucker

      UNRESTRICTED
      Channing Frye (P)
      Emeka Okafor

      Portland
      RESTRICTED
      None

      UNRESTRICTED
      Earl Watson
      Mo Williams (P)

      Sacramento
      RESTRICTED
      Hamady Ndiaye
      Isaiah Thomas

      UNRESTRICTED
      Jimmer Fredette
      Rudy Gay (P)
      Aaron Gray

      San Antonio
      RESTRICTED
      Aron Baynes
      Nando de Colo

      UNRESTRICTED
      Matt Bonner
      Boris Diaw
      Tim Duncan (P)
      Patrick Mills

      Toronto
      RESTRICTED
      Patrick Patterson
      Greivis Vasquez

      UNRESTRICTED
      Kyle Lowry

      Utah
      RESTRICTED
      Gordon Hayward

      UNRESTRICTED
      Andris Biedrins
      Mike Harris
      Richard Jefferson
      Brandon Rush
      Marvin Williams

      Washington
      RESTRICTED
      Trevor Booker
      Kevin Seraphin

      UNRESTRICTED
      Trevor Ariza
      Marcin Gortat
      Al Harrington
      Eric Maynor (P)
      Chris Singleton
      Garrett Temple
      Jan Vesely
      Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

      Comment


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

        Sites gotta stop listing Lance as restricted

        Comment


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

          Just looking at the unrestricted list, I don't see anybody on there that I would want over Lance as a starting 2 guard....maybe Nick Young? He is knuckle head though....

          I'm going to assume we can't even afford any one of quality on the restricted list.
          Pay the man!

          If we are losing Lance. I'd rather sign Lowry and move Hill to the 2 spot.
          You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

          Comment


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

            To further expand on the 2 options that many here have been discussing about what can be done to retain Lance while fleshing out the actual #s.....here are the scenarios that I can come up with where we are.

            Assumption:

            Bird can convince Lance to take a $11 mil per season / 4 year Contract / Player Option in Year 4 Contract Offer ( which is comprable to what Tyreke got and I assume is just 1 mil under the most that any Team that is ABSOLUTELY DESPERATE to sign him that offers him something starting at $12 mil a year ).

            NOTE - IMHO...I DO NOT THINK that Bird would WANT to offer him this much...I'm just thinking that this is the "Worst Case Scenario" and the most that the Pacers would offer him.

            Option 1 ) Trade GH and do nothing else

            - Trade GH and get back AT MOST a huge TPE of $8 mil in 2014-2015
            - Clears up $16.15 mil in Cap Space in order to sign 3 Players
            - Sign Lance at a contract starting at $11 mil
            - Leaves $5.15 mil in Cap Space to sign 2 Players. To replace GH in the Starting lineup....this should allow the Pacers to sign the Best Player that they can get at $4.25 mil ( which should be a "pretty solid 6th Man" or "somewhat decent Starter" ) and then about $900k to sign some quality Veteran Minimum Player.
            - Move OJ/Copeland/Solo ( my guess is Solo ) into the regular rotation to become the first Wing off the bench to replace Granger.

            NOTE - IMHO....I do not think that it will be easy to trade GH ( who is owed $24 mil ) for LITERALLY nothing ( which is what you want in order to MAX out the amount of CapSpace that you want ) in return but Draft Picks ( unlikely ) and a huge TPE. If he is considered to be overpaid ( which I think is a matter of opinion ) with a guaranteed $24 mil total Contract, then I think that Teams will either be asking for assets in return ( Solo or Draft Picks...which I am reluctant to part with )...or ( more than likely ) sending back Players with unwanted long-term contracts that would impact how much $$$ is left to spend on the 3 Free Agents that the Pacers have to sign. However, as long as that Player coming back does not earn more than $4.25 mil in 2014-2015....that should leave us with $11.9 mil to spend between Lance ( at $11 mil ) and some veteran ( or the 2nd round 2014-2015 Draft pick ) at $900k. Anything more than $4.25 mil owed in 2014-2015 would impact the Pacers ability to sign Lance at $11 mil and the 13th Player on the roster.


            Option 2 ) Simply let Scola go and do nothing else

            - Don't pick up Scola's unguaranteed 2014-2015 Salary of $4,868,499 but still pay the guaranteed $941K that is owed to him.
            - Clears $12.62 mil in Cap Space in order to sign 3 Players ( which counts the $941k that is owed to Scola )
            - Sign Lance at a contract starting at $11 mil
            - Leaves $1.62 mil in Cap Space to sign 2 Players. My guess is that we'd be looking at either 2 Veteran Minimum Players at $800k each...or 1 Veteran Minimum Player and One of the Two 2014 2nd Round Draft Picks.
            - To replace Scola, the Pacers can either try to sign a Backup PF with the Veteran Minimum or move Copeland into the regular rotation to become Scola's replacement as Backup PF.
            - Move OJ/Solo ( my guess is Solo ) into the regular rotation to become the first Wing off the bench to replace Granger.

            NOTE - I know that MANY of you would be loathe to recognize this.....but like it or not....I think that we already have our backup PF on the roster ( assuming no changes are made ) with Copeland. Vogel recognizes Copeland as a Backup PF even if many of us don't. Simply based off of what we have seen...he does not look like a Backup PF...much less a PF. But to be fair....we have not seen Vogel use Copeland as the regular Backup PF playing regular minutes behind West on a consistent basis. So, IMHO...I cannot say that such a move WOULD NOT work...for all we know...it could...but I admit that I am not very confident based off of what little we have seen of Copeland.

            The main thing to take from this is that with the possible loss of Granger and/or Scola...it is possible to replace them with EXISTING Players on the roster. Yes, we may lose some quality in depth...but no moves would have to be made in order to accomplish this because there are possible replacement Players that already are on the roster. As for losing GH.....the Pacers would have enough $$$ to replace him at a more modest cost that many here would not consider "overpaid".

            Any additional comments or thoughts on this?
            Last edited by CableKC; 01-31-2014, 06:42 PM.
            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

            Comment


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

              Originally posted by CableKC View Post
              . . . Any additional comments or thoughts on this?
              I have to think the Pacers gamed this out when they traded for Luis. I do not think they traded Green, 1st and Plumlee for a one year rental. I just don't see them cutting Luis after one year unless he just can't play anymore.

              Nor do I see them trading Hill for a bag of balls unless Lance is going to be the starting PG next season. JMO, but Hill is more important to what the Pacers do than most of us realize.

              Comment


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

                Originally posted by xIndyFan View Post
                I have to think the Pacers gamed this out when they traded for Luis. I do not think they traded Green, 1st and Plumlee for a one year rental. I just don't see them cutting Luis after one year unless he just can't play anymore.

                Nor do I see them trading Hill for a bag of balls unless Lance is going to be the starting PG next season. JMO, but Hill is more important to what the Pacers do than most of us realize.
                Things change. We didn't know Lance would be this valuable at the time we acquired Scola. IOW, all bets are off.

                I think we like all of these players and we just need to choose which to keep. Hill is indeed an important player. I would definitely hang onto him unless it meant sacrificing Lance. I feel that way because Hill has guts. He's a tough minded guard.

                Losing Scola would be a loss but we have West who is the same age and is easily better. We have Copeland who may have to do just to ensure Lance is a Pacer. Granger may also be available for a bargain price. Danny can definitely play some PF minutes and nowadays that may be his best position. Also, he really should be a bargain the way he's been stinking it up. Goose egg last night in 21 minutes.

                Comment


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

                  Originally posted by xIndyFan View Post
                  I have to think the Pacers gamed this out when they traded for Luis. I do not think they traded Green, 1st and Plumlee for a one year rental. I just don't see them cutting Luis after one year unless he just can't play anymore.

                  Nor do I see them trading Hill for a bag of balls unless Lance is going to be the starting PG next season. JMO, but Hill is more important to what the Pacers do than most of us realize.
                  I will say that I think that GH contributes more than many here on the board......but I look at Option 2 as the least damaging between the two Options.

                  Unless Lance gets some contract that starts at $7+ mil ( which is HIGHLY unlikely ) some move would have to be made to clear at least $4.8 mil from the Salary Cap. Unless some miracle happens like trading Copeland or....less likely Mahinmi....for nothing ( which I think is HIGHLY unlikely without any significant cost that I DO NOT want to pay....think of the trade that we made to dump Green and get Scola ) the only other way to clear such CapSpace is to trade Scola, GH or West.

                  Between the 3.....the easiest and least damaging ( like it or not ) is to dump Scola because it costs NO assets to lose him. It would suck....but the reality is that we have his replacement on the books already....Copeland. I do not believe that GH can easily be traded without losing additional draft picks, taking back contracts that we do not want and/or losing Solo in the process.

                  Again....It's gonna be Lose-Lose.....no matter what. The question to every one here is....which is the least bitter pill that you would want to take to clear at least $4.8+ mil in 2014-2015 Salary Cap to likely re-sign Lance to some $11 mil contract?
                  Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                    I will say that I think that GH contributes more than many here on the board......but I look at Option 2 as the least damaging between the two Options.

                    Unless Lance gets some contract that starts at $7+ mil ( which is HIGHLY unlikely ) some move would have to be made to clear at least $4.8 mil from the Salary Cap. Unless some miracle happens like trading Copeland or....less likely Mahinmi....for nothing ( which I think is HIGHLY unlikely without any significant cost that I DO NOT want to pay....think of the trade that we made to dump Green and get Scola ) the only other way to clear such CapSpace is to trade Scola, GH or West.

                    Between the 3.....the easiest and least damaging ( like it or not ) is to dump Scola because it costs NO assets to lose him. It would suck....but the reality is that we have his replacement on the books already....Copeland. I do not believe that GH can easily be traded without losing additional draft picks, taking back contracts that we do not want and/or losing Solo in the process.

                    Again....It's gonna be Lose-Lose.....no matter what. The question to every one here is....which is the least bitter pill that you would want to take to clear at least $4.8+ mil in 2014-2015 Salary Cap to likely re-sign Lance to some $11 mil contract?
                    Very nice post. Option #2 is easily better than #1. Hill is our best PG. Scola is our second best PF. Nobody wants to lose any of these guys, but Scola is getting older and Hill has many more good years left...and would be harder to move anyway. Also, Granger (if he's here) and Copeland can hold the fort somewhat.

                    Is it possible to trade Scola and get a young PF prospect in return? Scola seems like a guy who might have real value on the market.

                    Comment


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

                      It is a bad idea to trade any of the starters just to keep Lance. Lance isn't that good.

                      You can't trade Mahinmi to keep Lance unless you want a bench that can't play defense. He obviously isn't Hibbert on defense, but he has a similar affect on our bench defense. I know this isn't popular opinion, but losing Mahinmi without being able to replace him would do more harm to this team than losing Lance and replacing him with Granger or an MLE level player.

                      You can get rid of Scola, but then you just gave up 2 first round picks for a one year rental who wasn't worth 2 1st round picks. Simply put you don't make that trade if you plan on dropping Scola after the first year.

                      The only real option is to try and trade Copeland for an expiring contract, or 2nd round picks.

                      Comment


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

                        Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                        It is a bad idea to trade any of the starters just to keep Lance. Lance isn't that good.

                        You can't trade Mahinmi to keep Lance unless you want a bench that can't play defense. He obviously isn't Hibbert on defense, but he has a similar affect on our bench defense. I know this isn't popular opinion, but losing Mahinmi without being able to replace him would do more harm to this team than losing Lance and replacing him with Granger or an MLE level player.

                        You can get rid of Scola, but then you just gave up 2 first round picks for a one year rental who wasn't worth 2 1st round picks. Simply put you don't make that trade if you plan on dropping Scola after the first year.

                        The only real option is to try and trade Copeland for an expiring contract, or 2nd round picks.

                        If we can trade Copeland for an expiring contract, it would be a miracle.

                        Ian is an important backup, but are you saying that a player we pay 4M/yr is more important than Lance? If so, we have a heckuva deal going on with Mr. Butterfingers. I realize he's an important backup but he's not stopping LeBron any more than Josh McRoberts. Also, for 4M we could pickup another body. Solomon Jones would be a decent replacement and he's not in the league.

                        BTW, Lance will get paid more than our starting PG. Lance is better than Hill and the entire known world knows it or should.

                        Comment


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

                          Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                          If we can trade Copeland for an expiring contract, it would be a miracle.

                          Ian is an important backup, but are you saying that a player we pay 4M/yr is more important than Lance? If so, we have a heckuva deal going on with Mr. Butterfingers. I realize he's an important backup but he's not stopping LeBron any more than Josh McRoberts. Also, for 4M we could pickup another body. Solomon Jones would be a decent replacement and he's not in the league.

                          BTW, Lance will get paid more than our starting PG. Lance is better than Hill and the entire known world knows it or should.
                          You aren't understanding what I am saying. If we have to trade Mahinmi to keep Lance, we have no way to replace him. Our back-up to Hibbert is either Copeland or Scola. That is why it would do more harm than losing Lance, because if you let Lance walk you still have money available to replace him with either Granger or an MLE level player. It isn't a matter of who is more important, it is a matter of who is more easily replaceable within each scenario, not who is more easily replaceable within a vacuum.

                          Comment


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

                            Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                            You aren't understanding what I am saying. If we have to trade Mahinmi to keep Lance, we have no way to replace him. Our back-up to Hibbert is either Copeland or Scola. That is why it would do more harm than losing Lance, because if you let Lance walk you still have money available to replace him with either Granger or an MLE level player. It isn't a matter of who is more important, it is a matter of who is more easily replaceable within each scenario, not who is more easily replaceable within a vacuum.
                            So, you'd find it easier to replace a starter...and borderline all-star...than a backup? Really? Do you think it's impossible to find a Solomon Jones out there?

                            More to the point, why lower the talent level on this team? Yes we could get a cheaper wing. But to win against the best Roy and Paul will not be enough and neither will be a cheap replacement for Lance.

                            Comment


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

                              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                              Very nice post. Option #2 is easily better than #1. Hill is our best PG. Scola is our second best PF. Nobody wants to lose any of these guys, but Scola is getting older and Hill has many more good years left...and would be harder to move anyway. Also, Granger (if he's here) and Copeland can hold the fort somewhat.

                              Is it possible to trade Scola and get a young PF prospect in return? Scola seems like a guy who might have real value on the market.
                              Granger won't be here...not enough Capspace to re-sign him...unless he wants to sign for $700k.

                              As for trading Scola.....that's not a real option unless we trade him to a Team that has CapSpace and only sends back a Player making ONLY $900k. Remember...the objective is to clear AS MUCH Salary without taking any back so that the Saved Cap Space can go to re-signing Lance.
                              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                              Comment


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

                                For those keeping score, Lance left big old DWest in the dust on the boards. Yes, our SG > PF on the boards. He's creeping up on Roy now...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X