PDA

View Full Version : Historically-Your complaint with the Pacers is?



Bball
03-13-2005, 01:33 PM
....or what would you do differently?

#1
I'd have to say my complaint with the Pacers would be they never take an immediate shot at improving the team unless there is no downside ((IE: Dale Davis at or near vet minimum $$ prorated to final 1/3rd of the season). ...Or things had gotten so bad there was no reason not to do something or they downright HAD to do something (Chicago trade)).

IOW, dollars are played close to the vest in that regard. That part could be understandable BUT dollars are not played close to the vest when it comes to overpaying our own for the future to the point that it handcuffs us into having zero flexibility to improve our immediate lot. Therefore, I don't see money as the overriding issue. There's money there, it's just questionable to me how it is allocated.

Some could argue Bender was a 'championship' gamble. IMHO, Bender was another move for the future. He would never help the existing (at the time) team to a championship. He could only hurt them because he offered nothing that they needed while in their immediate window. And he came at a price, not just a blown draft pick.

Our major moves and signings always seem to be for benefits several years down the road, not the immediate future. IMHO, that is why we end up with unbalanced rosters because the future doesn't always work out as planned.

IOW... We're a team that is always built for "next year". Is it any wonder we are always saying "Wait'll next year!"?

-Bball

Sollozzo
03-13-2005, 01:46 PM
I couldn't agree more.

I love this franchise, I think we are one of the best franchises in the NBA, but I am sick of the "wait till next year" mentality. We are always building for the future. But you know what's funny? The future never comes, it's always "the future"

For once I'd like to lay everything on the line, and make a move that would impact a current season, and give us a great shot to win a championship.

I've always thought that the mentality has been to build a team that will always just be competitive.

I want an NBA championship more than anything for this franchise. That's the only thing that matters in the NBA. That's how your judged by other franchises. 61 wins is nice for the Pacers, but in all honesty, no one gave a damn around the NBA that we won 61 games last year. There is nothing more overhyped than regular season victories. What people pay attention to is who won the championship, not who won the most games.

The mentality of Indianapolis professional sports is "wait till next year"

FiestyFosterFanatic
03-13-2005, 02:02 PM
I couldn't agree more.

I love this franchise, I think we are one of the best franchises in the NBA, but I am sick of the "wait till next year" mentality. We are always building for the future. But you know what's funny? The future never comes, it's always "the future"

For once I'd like to lay everything on the line, and make a move that would impact a current season, and give us a great shot to win a championship.

I've always thought that the mentality has been to build a team that will always just be competitive.

I want an NBA championship more than anything for this franchise. That's the only thing that matters in the NBA. That's how your judged by other franchises. 61 wins is nice for the Pacers, but in all honesty, no one gave a damn around the NBA that we won 61 games last year. There is nothing more overhyped than regular season victories. What people pay attention to is who won the championship, not who won the most games.

The mentality of Indianapolis professional sports is "wait till next year"


I totally agree. We always have good teams, but we never have teams that play well in the playoffs when it matters. Indianapolis teams always seem destined for the Eastern Conference Finals/AFC Championship, but never any further.

Unclebuck
03-13-2005, 02:07 PM
but we never have teams that play well in the playoffs when it matters.

I have a real problem with statements like that. But instead of listing all the games in the playoffs that the Pacers did play very well, by that I mean they played very well in games "when it matters". I won't make such a boring list. Just let me say every game in the playoffs "matter".

Seems to me you are suggesting the games "only matter when they lose"

Bball
03-13-2005, 02:12 PM
I totally agree. We always have good teams, but we never have teams that play well in the playoffs when it matters. Indianapolis teams always seem destined for the Eastern Conference Finals/AFC Championship, but never any further.

Not to derail my own thread... but if the Colts are a team of destiny for the AFC Championship somebody better tell 'destiny'. I can count two times making it in the 20 years or so that they've been here :(

And the times they didn't make it, they haven't even been close whether that is not even in the playoffs or getting manhandled the previous round to the championship.

But I digress....

-Bball

Skaut_Ech
03-13-2005, 02:27 PM
I'm being presumptious, but I bet a lot of older fans are going to agree with you guys and the younger fans will be blinded by the ever present "potential" of the team.

I agree with you guys. :amen: Even when we read the posts on here, it's always, "next year this guy won't be injured and we'll win the title" or "next year, Team X will be weaker and we'll be stronger."

I don't mean to seem pessimistic, although I know it'll be taken that way, but management seems big on selling the sizzle, but not producing the fully cooked steak. I'm stating it strongly, but it seems moves are made to get hopes up, but not for immediate results. :sorry2:

(I won't get into the minutae of what's occurred in the past, but it seems we get ourselves in the mix with trade talks, so people can say, hey, they're trying to do something, but ulimately the trigger is never pulled because our players, who the other team wants, have too much "potential". The first time that happened in the modern era that I remember was with Barkley around 96? 97? He openly admired the Pacers for years-something which held over to his broadcasting days- and I kept thinking, this is a deal that could mean something, but we didn't want to give up anything that constituted a risk, to get him. I WILL say, I think we made a ballsy move when we picked up Dampier. That is about the only time I can think we made a "win-now" move.)

I think part of the problem is that you can't build a team assuming a group of players will all mature at the same time, as you guys said, as if the rest of the league will be in stasis. You USED to be able to do that. Back in the dynasty Lakers/Celts days.

I think the models of Miami and Minnesota show the yin (good) and yang (bad) of the current model of getting a dominant player, then surrounding him with complementary guys.

But I'm getting off the subject a bit.

I think this team is always built for the future, too. It's great from a business sense. Always good enough to put fans in the seats, not controversial enough to make people turn away from the team, but as a fan, it gets old. :unhappy:

FiestyFosterFanatic
03-13-2005, 02:36 PM
Not to derail my own thread... but if the Colts are a team of destiny for the AFC Championship somebody better tell 'destiny'. I can count two times making it in the 20 years or so that they've been here :(

And the times they didn't make it, they haven't even been close whether that is not even in the playoffs or getting manhandled the previous round to the championship.

But I digress....

-Bball

True, they have only reached 2 times. I guess I should just say, one win and out.

Yes, every playoff game does matter. But it seems like in the Eastern Conference Finals, something always happens to the Pacers where they lose. Injuries, bad refs, the list can go on. It seems like the team that is really competing with us throughout the season, always makes the big move to put them over the top, while we stay put.

Hicks
03-13-2005, 02:46 PM
I'm being presumptious, but I bet a lot of older fans are going to agree with you guys and the younger fans will be blinded by the ever present "potential" of the team.

I will be 21 this May. I agree with PacerFanAdam, who is actually 2+ years younger than me.

Los Angeles
03-13-2005, 02:57 PM
I'm being presumptious, but I bet a lot of older fans are going to agree with you guys and the younger fans will be blinded by the ever present "potential" of the team.

I agree with you guys. :amen: Even when we read the posts on here, it's always, "next year this guy won't be injured and we'll win the title" or "next year, Team X will be weaker and we'll be stronger."

I don't mean to seem pessimistic, although I know it'll be taken that way, but management seems big on selling the sizzle, but not producing the fully cooked steak. I'm stating it strongly, but it seems moves are made to get hopes up, but not for immediate results. :sorry2:

(I won't get into the minutae of what's occurred in the past, but it seems we get ourselves in the mix with trade talks, so people can say, hey, they're trying to do something, but ulimately the trigger is never pulled because our players, who the other team wants, have too much "potential". The first time that happened in the modern era that I remember was with Barkley around 96? 97? He openly admired the Pacers for years-something which held over to his broadcasting days- and I kept thinking, this is a deal that could mean something, but we didn't want to give up anything that constituted a risk, to get him. I WILL say, I think we made a ballsy move when we picked up Dampier. That is about the only time I can think we made a "win-now" move.)

I think part of the problem is that you can't build a team assuming a group of players will all mature at the same time, as you guys said, as if the rest of the league will be in stasis. You USED to be able to do that. Back in the dynasty Lakers/Celts days.

I think the models of Miami and Minnesota show the yin (good) and yang (bad) of the current model of getting a dominant player, then surrounding him with complementary guys.

But I'm getting off the subject a bit.

I think this team is always built for the future, too. It's great from a business sense. Always good enough to put fans in the seats, not controversial enough to make people turn away from the team, but as a fan, it gets old. :unhappy:
I'm quoting this post because I think it deserves to be quoted.

Nice job, Skaut.

Sollozzo
03-13-2005, 03:09 PM
I have a real problem with statements like that. But instead of listing all the games in the playoffs that the Pacers did play very well, by that I mean they played very well in games "when it matters". I won't make such a boring list. Just let me say every game in the playoffs "matter".

Seems to me you are suggesting the games "only matter when they lose"



Yes, every game in the playoffs "matters", but some games have alot more importance than others.

Winning games early in playoff series' is one thing, winning them when it's do or die is totally another.

Let's just take the 2002 WCF's between the Lakers and the Kings. The Kings were able to take leads in that series, but when it was literally do or die in game 7, it was the Lakers that showed up. Game 7 had far more importance than any of the games the Kings won.

I'll always say that the Pacers should have had 1 NBA championship from 1994-1999. In 2000, the Pacers reached their potential, and were just beat by a better, more powerful team.

That's why I've always had a problem with Reggie being labled as "the greatest clutch performer of all time." I don't think clutch is just hitting a couple of buzzer shots, Clutch is willing your team to victory, putting everything on the line in a do or die game. Jordan, Bird and Johnson, those are the best clutch performers of all time, they willed their teams to championships. I've just always felt that most of Reggie's "big moments" were in early games in playoff series.

I hate to knock Reggie, but him and those Pacers teams always seemed to have their best games early in playoff series from 1994-1999. Again, I'll state that in the year 2000, Reggie and the Pacers did everything they could, but were simply beat by a more powerful team. And of course in 1996, Reggie was injured for the first 4 games against Atlanta, then played his *** off in game 5 against the Hawks, but unfortunately, we fell short. And in 2002, Reggie went above and beyond in game 5 against NJ, but that isn't one of the window years I am referring to.

OK, what are 3 of the biggest Pacers playoff moments in franchise history. I'm not saying THE 3 biggest moments, just 3 of the biggest.

One is the miracle Rik Smits shot against the Magic in game 4 of the 1995 ECF's. Huge win, but did it help the Pacers win the series? No, they were smoked in game 7.

Next is Reggie's 25 fourth quarter points in game 5 of the 1994 ECF's. Huge moment, but it didn't win the series for us. Him and the Pacers had a chance to shut the Knicks out at MSA in game 6, and then lost game 7 in NY. You have to back a performance like that in game 5 with a win to close out the series, and the Pacers didn't

Then there is the shot against Chicago. Again, a great moment, but when everything was on the line in game 7, it was Jordan and the Bulls that willed the victory.

I'll always be bitter that we didnt get one championship out of 1994, 1995, 1998, or 1999. We faded in those years when everything was on the line. The loss to NY in 1999 was embarassing. Thankfully Reggie redeemed himself from an embarassing 8 point performance in game 6 of 1999 with a 34 pt performance in game 6 of 00.

Unclebuck
03-13-2005, 03:22 PM
You know the reason why the Pacers have never won the NBA championship. It is not because they haven't been able to win the games that "matter"

They have not won it all because I don't believe there was an individual season when they were the best team for that given year. Simple as that and we all know the best team wins in the NBA 99% of the time

2004 - Pistons were better.
2000 - Lakers were better
1999 - Spurs were better. The Knicks likely weren't better than the Pacers, but the Spurs were
1998 - Bulls were better, more experienced
1995 - Magic beat the Pacers, but I think the Rockets were better than the Pacers.
1994 - First time the pacers have ever won an NBA playoff series. They weren't quite ready yet

I cannot honestly suggest that in any of these seasons I metnioned that they were better than the team that won the championship. In fact I don't think they were at all.

Sollozzo
03-13-2005, 03:32 PM
You know the reason why the Pacers have never won the NBA championship. It is not because they haven't been able to win the games that "matter"

They have not won it all because I don't believe there was an individual season when they were the best team for that given year. Simple as that and we all know the best team wins in the NBA 99% of the time

2004 - Pistons were better.
2000 - Lakers were better
1999 - Spurs were better. The Knicks likely weren't better than the Pacers, but the Spurs were
1998 - Bulls were better, more experienced
1995 - Magic beat the Pacers, but I think the Rockets were better than the Pacers.
1994 - First time the pacers have ever won an NBA playoff series. They weren't quite ready yet

I cannot honestly suggest that in any of these seasons I metnioned that they were better than the team that won the championship. In fact I don't think they were at all.

You know, outside of 2000, the Pacers had a great chance to win those 5 other series. We could go round and round over who the better team was in each of those series, but the fact is, the Pacers had their chances to win all of those series, but didn't deliver.

When you're up 3-2 on a team, and have 2 chances to put them out, like the Pacers did with the Knicks in 1994, and you don't do it........you blew it, it's that simple. You had your chances to win and didn't do it.

We should have been able to find out if the Rockets were better in 1995. We would have given them a hell of a series. Don't forget we beat the Rockets in Houston in 1993-1994, and 1994-1995. You've made the point of "experience" playing a factor in the Pacers losing in 1994 and 1998. Well who had the experience in 1995, the Pacers or the Magic? Wasn't it the Pacers that had been to an ECF's before? Wasn't it the Pacers who had played in a game 7 before? The Magic had never won a playoff series before 1995.

You bring "experience" up in dealing with the Pacers-Bulls. Experience is overrated. Who had the experience in the NBA finals last year, the Pistons or the Lakers? The Lakers had won 3 NBA championships, that PIstons team had never seen the finals before. Again, the fact remains that the Pacers had their chances to win that series in 1998 and didn't. Anytime teams go to a 7th game, it's hard to say one team is that much better than the other.

Mourning
03-13-2005, 03:47 PM
I'm being presumptious, but I bet a lot of older fans are going to agree with you guys and the younger fans will be blinded by the ever present "potential" of the team.

I agree with you guys. :amen: Even when we read the posts on here, it's always, "next year this guy won't be injured and we'll win the title" or "next year, Team X will be weaker and we'll be stronger."

I don't mean to seem pessimistic, although I know it'll be taken that way, but management seems big on selling the sizzle, but not producing the fully cooked steak. I'm stating it strongly, but it seems moves are made to get hopes up, but not for immediate results. :sorry2:


Than how do you explain the move to get SJax? I know what you are saying and I aggree with a nice part of it, but not completely. I mean the world isn't black and white either.

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

Bball
03-13-2005, 03:50 PM
So far I find myself agreeing with both PacerfanAdam and Uncle Buck in varying degrees in their ongoing debate. I think it is time to make a food run, think about it, and get off the fence. :D

It's an interesting debate tho.

-Bball

Los Angeles
03-13-2005, 03:52 PM
Than how do you explain the move to get SJax? I know what you are saying and I aggree with a nice part of it, but not completely. I mean the world isn't black and white either.

Regards,

Mourning :cool:
If you think back, the SJax deal was still a look to the future. It was a deal for a new 6th man - a guy who could be Reggie's successor "next year or the year after."

It wasn't a bold improvement - it was just one more step in a long line of lateral moves. It wasn't a mistake - DW is guilty of very few of those - but it wasn't a bold move to put us over the top either.

Harmonica
03-13-2005, 04:08 PM
If you think back, the SJax deal was still a look to the future. It was a deal for a new 6th man - a guy who could be Reggie's successor "next year or the year after."

It wasn't a bold improvement - it was just one more step in a long line of lateral moves. It wasn't a mistake - DW is guilty of very few of those - but it wasn't a bold move to put us over the top either.

Well, we'll never know, will we? Mr. Artest made sure of that.

Mourning
03-13-2005, 04:31 PM
I think IT was a direct move to improve the backcourt immediately.
Okay, so he way supposed to be the 6th man, but one with MAJOR minutes and only to give Reggie "legend" starts this season, so I don't really aggree with your assessment here.

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

diamonddave00
03-13-2005, 04:44 PM
In my mind the Harrington for Stephen Jackson was a major move toward a championship this season. In last years series vs the Pistons , Pacer guards were outplayed and out scored by the Piston by a wide margin.

The thought was Bender would man the backup minutes at forward that Harrington had played. During the Piston series the Pacers suffered long scoring droughts. With Piston inside defense Jackson was seen as the scorer off the bench to end those with out side scoring. Plus he was brought in to be a more athletic and stronger defender on Richard Hamilton.

As an "old timer" Pacer fan "potential " is great but often goes undeveloped. As such put me down as a fan who prefers a win now attitude. Teams windows for championships are brief.

You can build a championship team and a freak injury or occurance ( like the brawl) can end that hope quickly.

I trust Donnie Walsh , but am beginning to wonder if he will ever bring us a championship. I appreciate being a contender every year but would like to see an NBA Championship, sometime in the very near future.

SoupIsGood
03-13-2005, 04:46 PM
We were good enough to win last year. We weren't saying "at least we have next year" during the course of the season. We were true contenders, but the pieces just did not fall into place.

Los Angeles
03-13-2005, 04:53 PM
I think IT was a direct move to improve the backcourt immediately.
Okay, so he way supposed to be the 6th man, but one with MAJOR minutes and only to give Reggie "legend" starts this season, so I don't really aggree with your assessment here.

Regards,

Mourning :cool:
All good points.

I definitely can see your side of this. So I'm now about 50/50 on the Jackson topic. My mind isn't 100% changed, but I'm swayed.

Bball
03-13-2005, 04:59 PM
We were good enough to win last year. We weren't saying "at least we have next year" during the course of the season. We were true contenders, but the pieces just did not fall into place.

Actually, I think last year makes my point. Last Dec we were good enough to win a championship but we were standing pat and we had some deficiencies.

Meanwhile, Detroit made a 'win-now' move before the trade deadline. They immediately became the team 'on paper' to beat. They could counter us. After a few games, they became the team 'on the court' to beat. The Pacers were again on the outside looking in.... and were only a playoff series deciding game from saying "Wait'll next year!"

Yes, it was close. Yes, the Prince play in game two was big BUT let's not forget that Reggie layup wasn't to win... that was only to tie. We were trailing that game. I still feel we had a better chance against the 2000 Lakers than we did against the 2004 Pistons. I had hope but I didn't have a good feeling at all about how we'd deal with Detroit.

Last year was the Pacers last 10-15 years in a nutshell. Almost good enough but someone else made a move to improve while we stood pat and in a sense went backwards because of it. In hindsight it just shows that not only can teams leapfrog you in the summer, they can also do it mid-season.

I'm ready for a fresh approach. One that championship teams seem to be using would be a start. :eek:

-Bball

Unclebuck
03-13-2005, 05:08 PM
You know, outside of 2000, the Pacers had a great chance to win those 5 other series. We could go round and round over who the better team was in each of those series, but the fact is, the Pacers had their chances to win all of those series, but didn't deliver.

When you're up 3-2 on a team, and have 2 chances to put them out, like the Pacers did with the Knicks in 1994, and you don't do it........you blew it, it's that simple. You had your chances to win and didn't do it.

We should have been able to find out if the Rockets were better in 1995. We would have given them a hell of a series. Don't forget we beat the Rockets in Houston in 1993-1994, and 1994-1995. You've made the point of "experience" playing a factor in the Pacers losing in 1994 and 1998. Well who had the experience in 1995, the Pacers or the Magic? Wasn't it the Pacers that had been to an ECF's before? Wasn't it the Pacers who had played in a game 7 before? The Magic had never won a playoff series before 1995.

You bring "experience" up in dealing with the Pacers-Bulls. Experience is overrated. Who had the experience in the NBA finals last year, the Pistons or the Lakers? The Lakers had won 3 NBA championships, that PIstons team had never seen the finals before. Again, the fact remains that the Pacers had their chances to win that series in 1998 and didn't. Anytime teams go to a 7th game, it's hard to say one team is that much better than the other.


I never said that the Pacers did not have a great chance.

But please tell me in what series were they favored. My guess is the only series in which they were favored was in 1999.


You talk about blowing it, or not winning the big game. To me that is garbage. THE PACERS SIMPLY WERE NOT AS GOOD AS THE TEAM THAT WON THE CHAMPIONSHIP. Pacers have never been favored to win the whole thing when the playoffs started. Never have been. And to be clear the reason they have not been is not for any other reason than the have never had the best team.

I hate having to say this, it is depressing to admit they have never had the best team.

If the Pacers ever get the best team in the NBA (and I'm not talking regular season record) they will win the championship.

Whether you love or hate the NBA you cannot argue that the best team wins the championship almost 100% of the time.

Of course injuries can change "who the best team is"


let me say this though, from what I saw prior to 11/19, if the Pacers get Artest back, and if, if, if things fall into place they very well have the best team in the NBA. And when they do have the best team they will win.

There is a huge difference between having a chance to win and being favored to win.

NBA is very predictable

One other thing about last year. Pacers might have had the best record, but injuries or no injuries the Pistons were a better team after the Sheed trade. What was their record, 20-4. They were simply a better team than the Pacers.

Now the injuries to J.O and Jamaal took away any real chance for the Pacers to win

Los Angeles
03-13-2005, 05:13 PM
We were good enough to win last year. We weren't saying "at least we have next year" during the course of the season. We were true contenders, but the pieces just did not fall into place.
That's true, I really felt that way as the season unfolded. And I even came to really like our line-up and especially Artest. I think a "don't mess with what isn't broken" and a "just be patient" attitude was the odds-on favorite way to play the cards for a win this year.

But - again, this is hindsight talking - I really regret that the Pacers stood pat on a certain player. I'll never really forgive him for what's turned out to be a real roller-coaster of a season - and it hasn't stopped with him. It's made me question everything about the team, from the top down, and Donnie Walsh and Larry Bird are included here. The "IFs" just keep on coming. In this case, it's "IF dw and lb behaved completely out of character and made a wild bold move, THEN we may have avoided this whole mess."

Oh yeah, I feel obligated to add this:

:zip:

Harmonica
03-13-2005, 05:19 PM
Last year was the Pacers last 10-15 years in a nutshell. Almost good enough but someone else made a move to improve while we stood pat and in a sense went backwards because of it. In hindsight it just shows that not only can teams leapfrog you in the summer, they can also do it mid-season.

Backwards? How is that? From what I saw the night of 11/19, we were man-handling the NBA champions on their homecourt. Seems to me we took a step forward in the off-season, unless you consider not getting rid of Ron going backwards.

Harmonica
03-13-2005, 05:24 PM
But - again, this is hindsight talking - I really regret that the Pacers stood pat on a certain player. I'll never really forgive him for what's turned out to be a real roller-coaster of a season - and it hasn't stopped with him. It's made me question everything about the team, from the top down, and Donnie Walsh and Larry Bird are included here. The "IFs" just keep on coming. In this case, it's "IF dw and lb behaved completely out of character and made a wild bold move, THEN we may have avoided this whole mess."

Well, they did try on three separate occasions to move Ron in the off-season. Where they slipped up, in hindsight, is that they wanted to get equal or near-equal value in return.

SoupIsGood
03-13-2005, 05:27 PM
So what happens if we DO wait until next year, stay relatively healthy, and win the championship? Will you still criticize Donnie for sitting on his hands all these years?


I don't like it, but I've come to accept a few things. One, the only chance we have to contend is with Artest, as we will not get equal value. Two, we just have to pray that Tinsley can stay healthy for an entire season next year, as he is simply too good to trade away (not to mention the untradable contract). A good back-up that can limit Tins' minutes during the season would really help here.

Trading, IMO, only makes sense if you don't want to contend for the next few years. We aren't going to get a "quick fix" trade, most likely, and I don't know about you guys, but I'm not ready to begin rebuilding just yet. We have had one freak season, let's see how the players react to it.

SoupIsGood
03-13-2005, 05:30 PM
Well, they did try on three separate occasions to move Ron in the off-season. Where they slipped up, in hindsight, is that they wanted to get equal or near-equal value in return.

I don't see that as a slip-up. Ron for considerably less than equal talent would put us with Sacramento, Washington, Chicago, and all the other "almost contenders". I'd rather not be stuck there for a while.

Los Angeles
03-13-2005, 05:32 PM
Well, they did try on three separate occasions to move Ron in the off-season. Where they slipped up, in hindsight, is that they wanted to get equal or near-equal value in return.
I know, how DARE they be reasonable, level-headed businessmen!

:devil: ;)


Ultimately, I can't blame them, because they played within the odds and did things by the book.

I never really laid into them until this season, and that's just another example of how disruptive this whole mess has been.

If RA went to another team that went on to win it all, we would have burned the management in effigy. If he went to Milwaukee for Redd and jumped into the stands at a bucks/bulls game, we would have declared management as the greatest geniuses to ever run a team.

Bball
03-13-2005, 05:32 PM
Backwards? How is that? From what I saw the night of 11/19, we were man-handling the NBA champions on their homecourt. Seems to me we took a step forward in the off-season, unless you consider not getting rid of Ron going backwards.

I've never said this aloud...
I think the team was destined to slip backwards the moment Reggie returned from his broken hand and resumed his legacy starts. I felt this way BEFORE the brawl. After the brawl it wasn't exactly the burning issue it could've been. I was even already constructing my "What will Reggie's return do to this team?" post the night the brawl broke out. Needless to say, it never got posted.

The other part of my 'backwards' analogy was from racing... when others start passing you it is said you are going "backwards" and I was thinking of last season when we got passed by the Pistons on the way to their taking the checkered flag.

-Bball

SoupIsGood
03-13-2005, 05:34 PM
I've never said this aloud...
I think the team was destined to slip backwards the moment Reggie returned from his broken hand and resumed his legacy starts. I felt this way BEFORE the brawl. After the brawl it wasn't exactly the burning issue it could've been. I was even already constructing my "What will Reggie's return do to this team?" post the night the brawl broke out. Needless to say, it never got posted.



-Bball

I don't think you were alone in this. I really did not Reg starting when he came back, ahead of Jackson. I really do think if we would have been on a roll when he came back, he would have stepped to the bench.

Bball
03-13-2005, 05:37 PM
If RA went to another team that went on to win it all, we would have burned the management in effigy.

If that had happened that would mean they should be burned in effigy. They should have their finger on the pulse of the team. If what you said would happen it would only mean they totally misjudged Artest... or mishandled him.. or both.
...Unless Artest was a non-factor in that win.
IOW, if someone else could do it, why couldn't we?



If he went to Milwaukee for Redd and jumped into the stands at a bucks/bulls game, we would have declared management as the greatest geniuses to ever run a team.

We would've said "We knew it was coming... Management got lucky to get rid of him when they did"

Well, some of us would've said that ;)

-Bball

Los Angeles
03-13-2005, 05:38 PM
I don't think you were alone in this. I really did not Reg starting when he came back, ahead of Jackson. I really do think if we would have been on a roll when he came back, he would have stepped to the bench.
Agreed. The only issue here was an issue of locker-room chemistry. Would he step aside with grace, or would it screw up trust? That all sounds silly now.

Harmonica
03-13-2005, 05:52 PM
I've never said this aloud...
I think the team was destined to slip backwards the moment Reggie returned from his broken hand and resumed his legacy starts. I felt this way BEFORE the brawl. After the brawl it wasn't exactly the burning issue it could've been. I was even already constructing my "What will Reggie's return do to this team?" post the night the brawl broke out. Needless to say, it never got posted.

All I have to say is, thank God Sassan isn't here to see this. Hater. I don't know how to use smilies, but if I did, a winking smiley would go right here.

ABADays
03-13-2005, 05:54 PM
I would say I'm getting really tired of "next year". Having said that, and as a fan longer than I care to remember, you come to the realization that there are a couple of teams each season that can take it all. Good fortune plays a big role in actually accomplishing it. Those years previously mentioned, we just didn't clear the final hurdle. I absolutely thought this year everything was in place. There was no question in my mind. And as bright as things look for next year . . . it's frustrating to have to wait until next year.

At the same time, if this teams makes the playoffs with the gawd awful things that have happened this year, I'm going to be pretty proud of them.

Los Angeles
03-13-2005, 05:59 PM
At the same time, if this teams makes the playoffs with the gawd awful things that have happened this year, I'm going to be pretty proud of them.
Amidst all the doom-and-gloom, I think this needs to be repeated about 1,000 times. Good for you for saying it. This season, a playoff berth would be a HUGE, HUGE accomplishment, one that all of the players and all of the fans could and should be proud of.

Harmonica
03-13-2005, 06:00 PM
I would say I'm getting really tired of "next year". Having said that, and as a fan longer than I care to remember, you come to the realization that there are a couple of teams each season that can take it all. Good fortune plays a big role in actually accomplishing it. Those years previously mentioned, we just didn't clear the final hurdle. I absolutely thought this year everything was in place. There was no question in my mind. And as bright as things look for next year . . . it's frustrating to have to wait until next year.

At the same time, if this teams makes the playoffs with the gawd awful things that have happened this year, I'm going to be pretty proud of them.

Ever see that ESPN commercial? Without sports, there would be no next year.

Anyway, good post. Especially your last sentiment. I never really gave it much thought, but it would be pretty damn amazing if we make the playoffs this year considering everything that has happened. It just might sustain the team confidence-wise in the off-season. Honestly, I'm just ready for this season to be over.

PacerMan
03-13-2005, 07:22 PM
....or what would you do differently?

#1
I'd have to say my complaint with the Pacers would be they never take an immediate shot at improving the team unless there is no downside ((IE: Dale Davis at or near vet minimum $$ prorated to final 1/3rd of the season). ...Or things had gotten so bad there was no reason not to do something or they downright HAD to do something (Chicago trade)).

IOW, dollars are played close to the vest in that regard. That part could be understandable BUT dollars are not played close to the vest when it comes to overpaying our own for the future to the point that it handcuffs us into having zero flexibility to improve our immediate lot. Therefore, I don't see money as the overriding issue. There's money there, it's just questionable to me how it is allocated.

Some could argue Bender was a 'championship' gamble. IMHO, Bender was another move for the future. He would never help the existing (at the time) team to a championship. He could only hurt them because he offered nothing that they needed while in their immediate window. And he came at a price, not just a blown draft pick.

Our major moves and signings always seem to be for benefits several years down the road, not the immediate future. IMHO, that is why we end up with unbalanced rosters because the future doesn't always work out as planned.

IOW... We're a team that is always built for "next year". Is it any wonder we are always saying "Wait'll next year!"?

-Bball


THey got Bender because Antonio Davis wanted to start, and wasn't going to in front of Dale. Same situation as with Al this year. They requested out, and Donnie's always tried to follow through.
Wasn't a move they wanted.

Skaut_Ech
03-13-2005, 07:36 PM
Than how do you explain the move to get SJax? I know what you are saying and I aggree with a nice part of it, but not completely. I mean the world isn't black and white either.

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

The move for Jax was STILL a "future" type move in my book. Like was said, they needed to get a guy who would be a successor for Reggie and a spark off the bench. This was a guy who was supposed to learn the ropes this year as a sixth man, so he could be a main cog for the future. :crystalba

That's why I brought up Barkley. He wasn't a guy we would have planned on using heavily in the future. He would have been one of the big two players THAT year (Barkley and Reggie). Detroit made a move for guy to start and be a big cog THAT year Rasheed). Houston getting McGrady was a move for NOW. When the Wolves got Spree, it was for a win NOW guy.

For me, although he was definitley being valued as an important 6th man, Jax wasn't a major cog for win now. He wasn't going to be Da Man.

As least not for another year or two. :plot:

That's why I brought up the Damper trade. That's the only time I can think of in recent memory that we gave up a promising young guy for a guy to plug into the starting lineup to win RIGHT NOW. :idea:

And it paid off. We went to the NBA Finals and pushed the Bulls to seven wonderful games in the ECF.

From what I gather, Jackson wasn't brought in to be a starter, unlike Mullin. :champions Mullin was a move for the current team. They need a scorer who could start and give Reggie-like production. So they gave up a promising (There's that word again.) bench player for a starter.

For Jax we gave up a promising bench player......for another promising bench player. :chin: :neutral:

SJax was brought in to be a successor to Reggie and be a future cornerstone. Mullin was brought in to be a cornerstone immediately

SJax was still basically a move for the future.

That's the difference in my mind.

rabid
03-13-2005, 08:02 PM
I look at it this way:

Unless you were a fan of:

Detroit
San Antonio
LA Lakers
Chicago
Houston

Then your team has either NEVER won a championship or hasn't won in at least 18 years (20 if you're not a Celtics fan).

That's 5 out of, what, 30 teams.

The odds on a "win now" trade working out are VERY VERY slim. OCCASIONALLY a trade like that will work out, but for every Sheed-to-Detroit trade there are 10 to 15 Sprewell to Minny, McGrady to Houston, etc. type trades. More often than not those trades don't pan out in the long term.

Walsh's strategy has given us a team that has missed the playoffs only once in what, like 12 years or so. Six or so ECF series and one finals series out of that bunch.

The strategy seems to be, keep your team in the top 3-4 in the league EVERY year, and eventually one year you'll get lucky and the chips will fall into place.

I can see why a lot of us are frustrated with this. I am too occasionally. But it could be MUCH MUCH MUCH worse. We could be Golden State, Washington, New Jersey, Orlando, New Orleans, the Clippers, Philly, Toronto, Charlotte, Portland, Denver, etc. Most of those teams START each season knowing there's probably no way they'll win a championship. At least we have hope :D

Skaut_Ech
03-13-2005, 08:09 PM
My first thought is that using that logic, that means no strategy works out in the long term, though, right? Just a thought.

rabid
03-13-2005, 08:13 PM
My first thought is that using that logic, that means no strategy works out in the long term, though, right? Just a thought.

Yeah, but the difference is that when the "win now" trades don't work out then the team often actually gets WORSE after a while. Esp. if the guy you're trading for is toward the end of his career. With the "build and maintain" strategy you're right there every year. How long do you think it will be before Miny makes the ECF again?

Skaut_Ech
03-13-2005, 10:54 PM
Yeah, but the difference is that when the "win now" trades don't work out then the team often actually gets WORSE after a while. Esp. if the guy you're trading for is toward the end of his career. With the "build and maintain" strategy you're right there every year. How long do you think it will be before Miny makes the ECF again?

I'm not trying to be contradictory, but part of building and maintaining is when the guys you're trying to keep as part of your maintaining don't pan out. I'd rather have a window of increased probability for a title with a known quantity in a trade for a vet, even if it's on a sliding downside of a career, rather than maintaining and hoping with talent that may or may not emerge.

I think most teams gets worse after a while in general and it either comes from waiting on talent to develop, that never does for various reasons-Bender, Qyntel Woods & Tim Thomas come to mind- or making a trade for an effective, but aging vet-Van Exel and Stackhouse come to mind.

It goes both ways.

My problem is that right when we seem on the cusp of breaking through, we wait and see, rather than force the issue a bit. We maintain and cross our fingers, rather than try to make our own luck with a smart/er trade.

Unclebuck
03-13-2005, 11:02 PM
Wasn't picking up Mark Jackson the first time a move to win right now.

But I have another question. The argument many of you are making is that the pacers don't make the trade that will put them over the top. Why do you assume that a certain trade would put the team over the top. Sheed Wallace for trash does not come around but once every 20 years. That was a gift bigger than what Kobe bought his wife a year and a half ago.


Why do you assume making a trade is better than not making a trade. Often times trades don't work out. NBA history is full of teams on the cusp of a championship who make trades and never recover. Chemistry is very elusive and there is such a fine line between winning and losing that teams need to be very careful because one bad trade and a 55 win tream can drop to a 40 win team very easily.

Harmonica
03-13-2005, 11:26 PM
Wasn't picking up Mark Jackson the first time a move to win right now.

But I have another question. The argument many of you are making is that the pacers don't make the trade that will put them over the top. Why do you assume that a certain trade would put the team over the top. Sheed Wallace for trash does not come around but once every 20 years. That was a gift bigger than what Kobe bought his wife a year and a half ago.


Why do you assume making a trade is better than not making a trade. Often times trades don't work out. NBA history is full of teams on the cusp of a championship who make trades and never recover. Chemistry is very elusive and there is such a fine line between winning and losing that teams need to be very careful because one bad trade and a 55 win tream can drop to a 40 win team very easily.

Joyless voice of reason. (winking smiley goes here)

Bball
03-14-2005, 12:25 AM
Why do you assume making a trade is better than not making a trade.

Who said it HAD to be a trade? ...Or at least the player we are after has to arrive via trade?

Hasn't it been established we could've signed Steven Jackson outright if we'd used the MLE differently?

If so, then we'd still have Harrington for bait in another trade. We'd risk losing AJ... I suppose... But then maybe not. Maybe we are just forced into offering him less money and seeing if he'll take it.

Of course if the player desired is an All Star then the salaries are going to have to work... but it has been shown that when a team WANTS to get something done bad enough it can.

-Bball

ChicagoJ
03-14-2005, 12:23 PM
If that had happened that would mean they should be burned in effigy. They should have their finger on the pulse of the team. If what you said would happen it would only mean they totally misjudged Artest... or mishandled him.. or both.
...Unless Artest was a non-factor in that win.
IOW, if someone else could do it, why couldn't we?



We would've said "We knew it was coming... Management got lucky to get rid of him when they did"

Well, some of us would've said that ;)

-Bball


Seems to me they've been saying that in Chicago for a few years now. :zip:

brichard
03-14-2005, 10:45 PM
I look at it this way:

Unless you were a fan of:

Detroit
San Antonio
LA Lakers
Chicago
Houston

Then your team has either NEVER won a championship or hasn't won in at least 18 years (20 if you're not a Celtics fan).

That's 5 out of, what, 30 teams.

The odds on a "win now" trade working out are VERY VERY slim. OCCASIONALLY a trade like that will work out, but for every Sheed-to-Detroit trade there are 10 to 15 Sprewell to Minny, McGrady to Houston, etc. type trades. More often than not those trades don't pan out in the long term.

Walsh's strategy has given us a team that has missed the playoffs only once in what, like 12 years or so. Six or so ECF series and one finals series out of that bunch.

The strategy seems to be, keep your team in the top 3-4 in the league EVERY year, and eventually one year you'll get lucky and the chips will fall into place.

I can see why a lot of us are frustrated with this. I am too occasionally. But it could be MUCH MUCH MUCH worse. We could be Golden State, Washington, New Jersey, Orlando, New Orleans, the Clippers, Philly, Toronto, Charlotte, Portland, Denver, etc. Most of those teams START each season knowing there's probably no way they'll win a championship. At least we have hope :D

This is a great post. We are all frustrated we haven't won a championship, but the reality is that most teams in recent years have not won either. That leaves us to ponder and reason why it is things haven't panned out.

Clearly Walsh is not a crappy GM. Just check out the Clippers and the Knicks for some examples of what a poor GM is. Building an NBA team is a bit like playing poker. You place your bets, draw your cards, and time will tell what you have in the hole.

Now, whether you think Walsh is good or great is another matter. He hasn't won a championship yet, so you can't put him in the elitist category. But, he has managed to get keep us within striking distance for a number of years.

Winning a championship is a bit like getting a Royal Flush. You have to have all of the right cards at the right time. That is an extremely difficult hand to get, and it is elusive to many.

I will disagree with UB on one point, I felt like we were the best team in 1999. We had the best experience and with Jordan gone I thought we were ripe to win it all. I believe that is the year we were completely hosed on the b.s. 4-pt play from L.J., but we just never played to our potential. The sense of urgency and killer instinct just weren't there and we paid the price. Essentially we choked in that series.

One of these days I hope the Pacers doorsteps are graced with one of those special players like a Jordan, Bird, or a Johnson. Some of that is skill, and some of that is luck. You need a good combination of both to win a championship in the NBA.

Personally I've been pleased overall with Walsh. He has gotten us further than any other GM and the players seem to regard him highly. He doesn't seem to make alot of nonsensical trades and contrary to what many think, I do think he has taken significant risks. He has drafted several high school kids, the Davis for O'neal trade was a huge risk, and he has won and lost with those deals. What I find frustrating from the "Anti-Walsh" campaign is that no matter what he does... it was the wrong thing.

If he stays pat... he's not taking risks.
If he takes the risk... he took the wrong kind of risk.

Where does it end? He deserves criticism for the gaffes (Bender) he has made, but I do think it is important to judge him overall for his wins and blunders. Otherwise, if the flow chart is going to point to Walsh being a bad GM no matter what decisions he makes, than it just becomes a personal opinion of not liking the way he does things. I'm not saying we give him a free pass, but he also deserves some credit for what he has been able to achieve. From the perspective of a fan since the 80's, I remember when we sucked out loud and I applaud the moves he has made to make us a perennial contender.

skyfire
03-14-2005, 11:22 PM
I look at it this way:

Unless you were a fan of:

Detroit
San Antonio
LA Lakers
Chicago
Houston

Then your team has either NEVER won a championship or hasn't won in at least 18 years (20 if you're not a Celtics fan).

That's 5 out of, what, 30 teams.

The odds on a "win now" trade working out are VERY VERY slim. OCCASIONALLY a trade like that will work out, but for every Sheed-to-Detroit trade there are 10 to 15 Sprewell to Minny, McGrady to Houston, etc. type trades. More often than not those trades don't pan out in the long term.

Walsh's strategy has given us a team that has missed the playoffs only once in what, like 12 years or so. Six or so ECF series and one finals series out of that bunch.

The strategy seems to be, keep your team in the top 3-4 in the league EVERY year, and eventually one year you'll get lucky and the chips will fall into place.

I can see why a lot of us are frustrated with this. I am too occasionally. But it could be MUCH MUCH MUCH worse. We could be Golden State, Washington, New Jersey, Orlando, New Orleans, the Clippers, Philly, Toronto, Charlotte, Portland, Denver, etc. Most of those teams START each season knowing there's probably no way they'll win a championship. At least we have hope :D


spot on, i'd take consistency over a risky maybe any day.

to find a trade to 'put us over the top' you need to clearly identify a role and have the right player available at the right price. last season the pistons were able to do that to perfection, I dont think the pacers problems are as clear cut as pistons (pre trade) were.

The Pacers absolutely do not need to trade for a 'cornerstone' player. JO, Ron, Tins, Jax as the primary scorers with DD, Foster and Freddie filling the holes is a very solid lineup. A trade for a backup PG who can lessen Tins' load would be good but that is only a tweak, hardly the 'win now' trades some of you guys seem to want.

What the Pacers need is health and maturity. These will come with time.