Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

teeray

Extreme butthurt brought to you by Pacers beat writer

38 posts in this topic

isn't this one of the 5 stages of grief?

Reasoning will be his next article when they still clinch a playoff spot without him.

Problem is they may not even get out of the first round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they were "willing to do this" and "willing to do that"They should have put it on the table.

Their stubbornness is our gain. Fug them.

If he was "your best player" pay him accordingly or give him a short contract so you can pay him when other contracts go off the books.

Don't be disappointed with Lance, be disappointed that you didn't close the deal.

They just wanted a potential star on the cheap for 5 years

I honestly think Bird though he could get a cheap rental out of Lance due to his past behavior and not court performance. He actually might be a better fit for the Hornets then Gor Don. Lance has potential to be a game changer for the Charlotte area. When is the last time Hornets and Panthers got this much attention, we are getting spoiled.

Sent from my HTC6525LVW using CarolinaHuddle mobile app

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why peop,e keep harping on the turning down 44 million. The offer from Charlotte was considerably better. Lance is making a hell of a lot more in the 3 season here then in Indy. The story they should be writing is the Pacers tried to screw Lance on the contract if you actually look at the structure of it. When you look at the x's and o's it's very obvious why he left.

Do they not teach math in that backward ass town up north?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually agree with that article.

The problem is his reasoning for why Lance rejected the Pacers is wrong. The writer makes it sound like Lance did everything in his power to leave Indiana and that's simply not true. His agent wanted a shorter deal so Lance could capitalize after the new salary cap on a max deal if he performed well. Bird was trying to lock him in below his market rate for his prime thinking no one would challenge the Pacers for Lance.

You can't max out Hibbert and give George Hill the same 8 million dollars and then try to lowball Lance. Instead of blaming Stephenson, the writer should point the finger at management that capped out the Pacers and stuck them with players that couldn't show up in the playoffs.

Once again, because of his visibility, Lance is the convenient scapegoat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it was something more than money that brought lance stephenson to charlotte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I saw was "extreme butthurt" and thought this was going to be a Cam-gets-insulted-by-the-media thread.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Larry Birds comments in that article got me really excited.

So when Lance was on, he was better than Paul George according to Bird.

That's exciting!!!

I feel like he will be better than Paul George. That means alot coming from Larry bird

Sent from my SM-G900R4 using CarolinaHuddle mobile app

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lance is making a hell of a lot more in the 3 season here then in Indy. 

 

Ummm.... How so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ummm.... How so?

More per year here with the opportunity to get a much larger contract if he pans out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Of course, he's so massive he has his own gravitational pull. 
    • You miss the point. Taylor was here before. We picked him because of what he could do for our wide receivers not because he had some great knowledge no other person had on the staff. Shula and Rivera and Gettleman studied multiple college systems for months before signing Taylor or drafting McCaffrey or Curtis and would have drafted the same whether Taylor was here or not. They liked the way Taylor developed McCaffrey which showed his talent but Stanford's offense wasn't Taylors idea or unique to him. Shula has a connection to Taylor as early as when Shula was at Alabama.  The debate was whether Taylor was chosen to replace Shula because Shula didn't know what to do to run a college offense and if he screwed up Taylor would replace him. And that Taylor was the reason and most influential in getting McCaffrey. I said it wasn't even close to the truth and this plan predated Taylor and was more thorough and we'll thought out. Everything since then just confirms I was right once again like usual.  
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      18,243
    • Most Online
      2,867

    Newest Member
    GSO Goat
    Joined