RealGM

He's an unrestricted free agent next summer. By the time the Pacers are dealing with Lance about 50 million will have been committed to West, Hill, Hibbert and George. Who knows what Stephenson will command by then?

Just like Granger's injury Lance's unrestricted status will work against his value now.

Yet, I'd maintain that despite the discounts to their fair value that would be experienced now at least one of them should be traded this summer. Discounted value today is better than nothing in return next summer.

There are very few players I'd want to trade him for. I'd certainly call the Clippers about Bledsoe but otherwise I'd be more interested in talking about draft picks. I'd talk to Portland and Dallas both of which have talked about trading out of the lottery. I'd talk to Cleveland because while I don't think much will be gained from moving from 23 to 19, I do think we could help ourselves at 31 and/or 33.

But Bleacher says that with Lance we have the best starting five in the Association. Add a healthy Granger and we might have the best top six.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1681568-how-other-nba-contenders-can-dethrone-miami-heat-in-2014/page/10

If Bird has a say, then the answer is no. If Lance can be signed for about 4-5 m per then I'd really love to keep him. The way he gives up his well being is rare, even in situations that do not warrant his energy. No matter the situation Lance goes all in 100% of the time.

In theory if Lance were available in this draft he'd probably be a top 5 pick, based off his performance this season. The potential skillset that many people see in Oladipo is already on display by Lance. They are also very close in age.

Also, Lance has earned invaluable playoff experience. We need to continue building off of that, then as he moves from the 5th option to the 4th, or 3rd option his impact will become greater.

I prefer him over Hill, so if his contract figure became problematic I'd consider moving Hill to create enough space to sign him.

I like George Hill ton but if he can't play a consistently half decent game against teams like Miami, I'd rather the Pacers make Lance that 4th cog.

Boneman2 wrote:If Bird has a say, then the answer is no. If Lance can be signed for about 4-5 m per then I'd really love to keep him. The way he gives up his well being is rare, even in situations that do not warrant his energy. No matter the situation Lance goes all in 100% of the time.

In theory if Lance were available in this draft he'd probably be a top 5 pick, based off his performance this season. The potential skillset that many people see in Oladipo is already on display by Lance. They are also very close in age.

Also, Lance has earned invaluable playoff experience. We need to continue building off of that, then as he moves from the 5th option to the 4th, or 3rd option his impact will become greater.

I prefer him over Hill, so if his contract figure became problematic I'd consider moving Hill to create enough space to sign him.

In a world where the salary cap isn't an issue you aren't thinking of trading a young guy with Lance's resume. But where is Indiana in 2014/2015 if they can't keep either of Granger or Stephenson. Unless Lance shows significant regression this tear there is no way he signs for 4 to 5 million per year.

23artest23 wrote:I like George Hill ton but if he can't play a consistently half decent game against teams like Miami, I'd rather the Pacers make Lance that 4th cog.

Really?

Lance is way, way less consistent than George Hill. You're not fixing any consistency issues by making that swap at all.

I'll take Lance over George Hill all day every day. If it means we get to keep Lance, I trade Hill in a heartbeat. He's really overpaid for what he brings to the table imo, and I still don't like him as our starting PG.

Jake0890 wrote:I'll take Lance over George Hill all day every day. If it means we get to keep Lance, I trade Hill in a heartbeat. He's really overpaid for what he brings to the table imo, and I still don't like him as our starting PG.

Ok. Then what are you trading Hill for? Obviously, a PG as Lance has shown that he cannot produce anything positive if he's attempting to play PG. but who's going to downgrade at PG in the same deal (if we are upgrading Pg in the same deal)?

Scoot McGroot wrote:

Jake0890 wrote:I'll take Lance over George Hill all day every day. If it means we get to keep Lance, I trade Hill in a heartbeat. He's really overpaid for what he brings to the table imo, and I still don't like him as our starting PG.

Ok. Then what are you trading Hill for? Obviously, a PG as Lance has shown that he cannot produce anything positive if he's attempting to play PG. but who's going to downgrade at PG in the same deal (if we are upgrading Pg in the same deal)?

You have a valid point. Obviously, I wouldn't put Lance at PG, so you'd have to:
A) Sign Andre Miller this offseason, sign Calderon, Sessions?
B) Move up in the draft and take a point guard

Jake0890 wrote:

Scoot McGroot wrote:Ok. Then what are you trading Hill for? Obviously, a PG as Lance has shown that he cannot produce anything positive if he's attempting to play PG. but who's going to downgrade at PG in the same deal (if we are upgrading Pg in the same deal)?

You have a valid point. Obviously, I wouldn't put Lance at PG, so you'd have to:
A) Sign Andre Miller this offseason, sign Calderon, Sessions?
B) Move up in the draft and take a point guard

So if you are keeping Lance how are you trading up far enough in the draft to get a starting point?

None of the three veterans you mention can defend. Part of Hibbert's emergence as a defender occurs because our point guard doesn't turn his man loose every time the opponent runs the pick and roll. Any of these three at the point is a return to the days of TJ Ford and Derron Collison.

I think our point guard needs to be able to shoot and neither Miller or Sessions can shoot.

Everything I read tells me Vogel is happy with Hill and expects him to only get better as he plays more exclusively at point. I am very confident that we will not trade Hill but will try to upgrade his backup.

Agree, Hill isn't going anywhere.

I don't think he's going anywhere either, but I was saying if its either Lance or Hill, I'm taking Lance.

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

I know we keep saying we'd lose our pg, but why does it matter if our system doesn't actually utilize one. It's not like Hill is excelling at initiating our offense when he is pressured, at which point he clams up.

Lance dribbles, handles, penetrates, transitions and passes the ball much better so I don't get the PG argument. Remember we had to resort to having Paul and Lance bring the ball up in order to initiate our offense against the Heat. Otherwise, when Hill had to do it, he either ran the shot-clock down or turned it over. He struggled to penetrate inside the 3-point line for most of the series, as he was reduced to a 3 pt specialist and pesky help defender.

About that PG quandary, saw a rumor where we could get Bledsoe. I'd also inquire about others around the league (Lowry, Tyreke.etc.. ). I feel there are plenty of options that either meet or exceed Hill.

In all fairness, I also assume that Lance will have a new legal issue sometime in he next 2 years that will embarrass us again, and we will have to move him for pennies on the dollar.

almost exactly two years ago I went to the pacers draft party (only to see us trade the pick and take no one in either round) and saw Lance talking to Clark Kellogg. Lance just didn't look like the same player I'd seen on the court the prior year. later I walked up to Clark and asked about that and he said the light had gone off a few months previously and Lance was working hard. I'm really not worried about legal issues any more. I think he's grown up and that he showed that in the playoffs.

Wizop wrote:almost exactly two years ago I went to the pacers draft party (only to see us trade the pick and take no one in either round) and saw Lance talking to Clark Kellogg. Lance just didn't look like the same player I'd seen on the court the prior year. later I walked up to Clark and asked about that and he said the light had gone off a few months previously and Lance was working hard. I'm really not worried about legal issues any more. I think he's grown up and that he showed that in the playoffs.

I'm gonna worry about it until the day he retires or is on another team.

You shove your pregnant girlfriend down the stairs and it's always going to be a thought in your mind, though I do think his legal troubles are pretty much gone now.

Jake0890 wrote:You shove your pregnant girlfriend down the stairs and it's always going to be a thought in your mind, though I do think his legal troubles are pretty much gone now.

The whole thing with all of that is we really have no clue what happened. It happened before he even played a game in the NBA and he was a 2nd round pick, so I'd have to assume he didn't get much "preferential treatment." Maybe his girlfriend is just psychotic or maybe he did do it. Either way, he's kept himself out of trouble since then for the most part.

In some ways though I think those incidents and the perception of him around the league could keep him cheap for us. With the new CBA I doubt people will be lining up to commit 10 mil or so to him for several years. Players who would be viewed similarly seem to always take low deals, such as Matt Barnes.

Unless Lance shows more consistent control, I still much prefer Hill. I like Lance moving without the ball, slashing, and getting his shots. He couldn't do that as effectively as a full-time starting PG. With Vogel's system, Hill's presence doesn't show up in the stat sheet. And let's not forget, this is only the first full year in which George Hill was a full-time starting point guard.