PDA

View Full Version : More love & rays of sunshine from Montieth towards Walsh....



Peck
02-04-2006, 06:46 AM
Oh this is rich, if he even thinks for a min. that I'm going to buy that Walsh will now become a daredevil risk taker to build the team he has lost his mind.

That is the entire falicy of this article he has written. In a short time span, very short, Joe Dumars took an also ran team to the top & has kept them there for several season.

However it totally contridicts the entire way that the bunny has told us for years & years & years how you build a team. Massive risk taking trades were done by Dumars & it has paid off. Now to be fair risk does not always bring reward.



By Mark Montieth
mark.montieth@indystar.com
The path the Detroit Pistons have taken to NBA supremacy might be depressing for Indiana Pacers fans, who not so long ago viewed their team as an equal force.

But it offers hope, too.
Through insight and fate, Pistons president Joe Dumars has assembled a team that is chasing history. The 39-6 record they take into tonight's game at Conseco Fieldhouse puts them in the same conversation with the 1995-96 Chicago Bulls team that finished an all-time best 72-10.
The Bulls built their dynasty by drafting Michael Jordan and later making a clever draft-day deal for Scottie Pippen.
The Pistons have done it differently. Their starting lineup features one player they drafted and four castoffs, all of whom came to Detroit with something to prove.
"They've picked out the right guys who at that time were not star-quality players," Pacers CEO Donnie Walsh said. "But if you really look back on them, there was a lot of reason to believe they were going to be better than they were at that point. And they all have turned out."
Early last season, it appeared Walsh had assembled a team in a similar manner that could compete with the Pistons. The Pacers, remember, dominated Detroit on that fateful night -- Nov. 19, 2004 -- at the Palace of Auburn Hills, when a historic brawl set off events that still reverberate through the franchise.
But if a championship contender can be built through spare parts and a late first-round draft pick, it can be done again. It's simply a matter of finding the hidden talent, a not-so-simple challenge fraught with peril.
Are future versions of Chauncey Billups, Richard Hamilton and Ben Wallace out there, waiting to be plucked?
"They are," Walsh said. "They definitely are. Right now there are the same kind of players."
Renovation begins with Ben

When Dumars took over as the Pistons president in the summer of 2000, shortly after the Pacers had lost to the Los Angeles Lakers in the NBA Finals, he inherited a team in disarray. Detroit had finished 42-40 and lost in the first round of the playoffs. Worse, it was losing free agent Grant Hill to Orlando.
Hill allowed the Pistons to work a sign-and-trade, however, and Dumars insisted that Ben Wallace be part of the deal.
Wallace, undrafted out of college, had averaged 4.8 points and 8.2 rebounds for the Magic that season. He was the first building block.
Further breakthroughs came in the summer of 2002, after Dumars' first team finished 32-50. He drafted Tayshaun Prince with the 23rd overall pick in June. He signed Billups in July after Minnesota's coach at the time, Flip Saunders -- who now coaches the Pistons -- couldn't guarantee Billups extensive playing time.
"The real question at the time was whether Chauncey could be a true starting point guard," said Carlisle, who took over the Pacers after Dumars fired him to hire Larry Brown in 2003. "We thought he could."
Then in September, Washington Wizards president Michael Jordan called Dumars and offered Richard Hamilton in a deal for Jerry Stackhouse. Carlisle recalls driving home from Stackhouse's charity golf outing on a Monday when Dumars called to tell him about the possible trade. Two days later, those players were the centerpieces of a six-player deal.
Stackhouse, coming off his best season, was clearly better at the time, but Hamilton gave Detroit a younger, more team-oriented shooting guard and carried a smaller financial obligation.
The Pistons found their missing piece in February 2004 when they obtained Rasheed Wallace in a three-team deal. Ironically, it was former Pacers forward and assistant general manager Billy Knight, now in charge of Atlanta's personnel, who helped broker the trade.
Lucky and good

The Pistons are a macho team, full of sharp angles and hard edges. They are the league's most competitive team on a nightly basis, and despite winning a title in 2004 and falling one game short last season, they still play like guys with something to prove.
Above all else, they perform a successful chemistry experiment in every game they play.
"Talent is obvious," Dumars told the Detroit News. "You can see talent a mile away. You've got to get beyond that. You are talking about cohesive basketball and there is no sport that takes more cohesion than basketball."
Oh, and one more thing. Unlike the Pacers, the Pistons seem to never get hurt.
"I'm envious," Walsh said. "These guys haven't had an injury in three years."
Despite his obvious savvy, Dumars doesn't deny the value of good fortune. He once agreed to a multiplayer three-way trade for Philadelphia's Allen Iverson, but the 76ers' backup center, Matt Geiger, nullified the deal by refusing to drop the contract clause that would have raised his salary had he been traded.
Dumars also offered a maximum contract to Chris Webber when the Detroit native was a free agent in 2001.
Had he succeeded in either transaction, the Pistons probably would be just another team -- perhaps like the 76ers, for whom Iverson and Webber now play.
Dumars also invested the No. 2 overall draft pick in Darko Milicic in 2003, passing on Carmelo Anthony, Chris Bosh and Dwyane Wade. While those three are stars, Milicic labors along with a 1.6-point career scoring average.
"For me to sit here and make it sound like everything we did was part of some master plan would be insincere," Dumars told the News. "We got some breaks."
It should be reassuring for the Pacers and other teams in the league to know you don't have to be perfect to build a championship team.
Foresight and a little luck are enough.
Tale of the tape

Pistons president Joe Dumars has built a championship team in Detroit. But is it the best ever?

Ben Wallace is one tough defender, but could he stop Wilt Chamberlain? Could the Pistons' team approach take


NBA's best team built from scrap

Richard Hamilton
Acquired from Washington in September 2002 trade along with Bobby Simmons and Hubert Davis for Jerry Stackhouse, Brian Cardinal and Ratko Varda.

Tayshaun Prince
Lone draftee among starters, chosen with 23rd pick in June 2002. Busts such as Dajuan Wagner and Marcus Haislip went well ahead of him.

Chauncey Billups
He's an MVP candidate now. But he played for four teams in five seasons before signing with the Pistons as a free agent in July 2002.

Rasheed Wallace
Acquired in trade-deadline deal in February 2004 from Atlanta. Pistons also got Mike James for Chucky Atkins, Lindsey Hunter and 2004 draft pick.

Ben Wallace
Not drafted out of college. Then-four-year veteran acquired from Orlando along with Chucky Atkins in August 2000 after free agent Grant Hill bailed on Pistons.

MagicRat
02-04-2006, 07:57 AM
That seems more like a love and rays of sunshine for Joe Dumars piece than one for Donnie Walsh........

Will Galen
02-04-2006, 08:17 AM
[QUOTE=Peck]Oh this is rich, if he even thinks for a min. that I'm going to buy that Walsh will now become a daredevil risk taker to build the team he has lost his mind.

That is the entire falicy of this article he has written. In a short time span, very short, Joe Dumars took an also ran team to the top & has kept them there for several season.

However it totally contridicts the entire way that the bunny has told us for years & years & years how you build a team. Massive risk taking trades were done by Dumars & it has paid off. Now to be fair risk does not always bring reward.

Dang Peck, this article doesn't have to do with Walsh taking risks or the way he builds a team. If anything it points out that Walsh thinks Durmars has been lucky because he hasn't had any injuries. Why would Walsh change the way he does things if he thinks Durmars has been lucky?

Harmonica
02-04-2006, 09:39 AM
Oh this is rich, if he even thinks for a min. that I'm going to buy that Walsh will now become a daredevil risk taker to build the team he has lost his mind.

I don't think Montieth is the one who's lost his mind here.

Unclebuck
02-04-2006, 09:46 AM
Peck, I think you are way way off base here. Dumars has been lucky. Dumars himself says that he wanted Iverson and Webber, and Dumars made a huge blunder in his really high draft pick.

I hardly consider trading for Sheed a gamble, considering who they gave up.

Grant Hill decided to leave, otherwise the Pistons don't acquire Ben Wallace.

Billups was a free agent signing, no gamble there.

Prince was a very good draft pick, but I'd put Walsh's 20 (players taken in the 20's) something draft picks up against Dumars anyday.

Trading Stack for Rip wasn't a huge gamble. Stack was good and talented, but not the best team player. A lot of people thought the Wizards got the better of that deal at the time but I didn't, I remember posting that it was a good deal for the Pistons.

So before Kstat gets on here and rips me a new one, let me say Joe has done a great job, the proof is in the record, but he has been a little lucky, and a little good and smart.

But Peck, I think you are way off base here. I don't see one massive risk taking move by Dumars anywhere.

sixthman
02-04-2006, 10:09 AM
The risk that Dumars took was getting the team below the cap so he had room to manuver.

The Ben Wallace acquisition was FORCED by Hill's desire to sign in Orlando.

Chauncey was a smart free agent signing made easier by Dumars apt manage of the cap. So was the trade for Ben Wallace who would never have been a Piston if Dumars hadn't accumulated all those expiring contracts he had to trade to the Hawks for Sheed.

The Stackhouse trade was a cap trade for the Pistons as much as anything.

If Walsh has anything to learn from Dumars it's financial management in the modern NBA luxury tax world.

Kstat
02-04-2006, 12:21 PM
The Ben Wallace acquisition was FORCED by Hill's desire to sign in Orlando.

He also had the foresight to specifically target Wallce, instead of bigger names like Bo outlaw and Darrel Armstrong....


The Stackhouse trade was a cap trade for the Pistons as much as anything.

That couldn't be further from the truth.

Rip's deal expired the same year as Stackhouse's, and he's making more money right now to boot.

Stack was traded because he was a horrible playoff performer, and Rip was a much better fit, plain and simple.

It came off as a cap trade at the time because Stack was a much higher-profile player, but very few Pistons fans would say the Pistons didnt make a good deal, even at the time.

Slick Pinkham
02-04-2006, 12:36 PM
But Peck, I think you are way off base here. I don't see one massive risk taking move by Dumars anywhere.

I agree with UncleBuck.

I don't see anything particularly risky, such as trading an all-star named Dale for a unknown youngster named Jermaine (big hit) or a solid veteran named Antonio for a guy named Jonathan who had a good high school all-star game (big miss).

Walsh isn't as risk-averse as you claim, and Dumars is not the riverboat gambler.

The thing that they do differ greatly in is their patience with coaches.

Anthem
02-04-2006, 12:47 PM
The thing that they do differ greatly in is their patience with coaches.
Or at least their patience with Carlisle...

There's another big difference, and to me it's the biggest one.

Dumars doesn't try to stockpile talent. He tries to make it fit together.

Peck
02-04-2006, 02:47 PM
Or at least their patience with Carlisle...

There's another big difference, and to me it's the biggest one.

Dumars doesn't try to stockpile talent. He tries to make it fit together.


Thank you. That was the perfect answer.

As to the rest of you, well it's been a good long while since I've drawn the ire of the forum.:)

If nothing else I've drawn Uncle Buck out of his shell.:devil:

Anyway needless to say I disagree with all of you. Call me nuts if you want but I've read the bunny long enough to know that this was another "have faith in Donnie" article.

I notice the Walsh Warriors were the first to come to the rescue on here as well.:-p

rabid
02-04-2006, 03:03 PM
Peck, if you're so adamant about this, pick out some quotes... where in this article does Monteith claim that Walsh is going to be a daredevil risk-taker?

Bball
02-04-2006, 03:09 PM
There's another big difference, and to me it's the biggest one.

Dumars doesn't try to stockpile talent. He tries to make it fit together.

:eek: Anthem has nailed it.... I. totally. agree. with. Anthem. :eek:

You can add that he doesn't let things fester and keeps things fresh. He does minor deals along the way too. And it appears he works the phones, not answers the phone.

-Bball

ChicagoJ
02-04-2006, 04:24 PM
Excellent summary.

When have we been most succesful?

With coaches like Brownie and Rick that knew exactly what they wanted from the team so they took Donnie's various parts and made them click.

Unclebuck
02-04-2006, 04:25 PM
Didn't DW do a good job of transforming the 1993 team into the 1994 team with a number of key trades and aquisitions

Hicks
02-04-2006, 04:29 PM
Peck without more of an explantion I have to agree with the flock on this one. The article is about Joe Dumars, not Donnie Walsh.

Arcadian
02-04-2006, 04:41 PM
I love Montieth and I don't at all see it as a Walsh lovefest.

Peck
02-04-2006, 04:45 PM
Peck without more of an explantion I have to agree with the flock on this one. The article is about Joe Dumars, not Donnie Walsh.


Have you ever known something because of experiance, yet you can't prove it?

It's kind of like ones faith in a higher power. It's hard to prove yet you know it's there.

Well that is the way I feel about this article. I have read the bunny long enough & heard him speak enough times to know that he thinks that Donnie Walsh is the absolutely perfect exec.

Telling us that the team has been lucky because of durable players, to me, throws the meat to the masses of Indiana that if it weren't for really poor circumstances beyond our control we would be where Detroit is.

We were a paper champion. On paper we had a great team, in application we had a poorly designed team.

Anthem nailed it better than anybody has ever nailed anything, IMO.

You know in retrospect between this post & my thoughts on fans of Artest, I probably should have just stayed off of the digest today.

Bball
02-04-2006, 04:55 PM
The path the Detroit Pistons have taken to NBA supremacy might be depressing for Indiana Pacers fans, who not so long ago viewed their team as an equal force.

But it offers hope, too.
Through insight and fate, Pistons president Joe Dumars has assembled a team that is chasing history.

--
Early last season, it appeared Walsh had assembled a team in a similar manner that could compete with the Pistons. The Pacers, remember, dominated Detroit on that fateful night -- Nov. 19, 2004 -- at the Palace of Auburn Hills, when a historic brawl set off events that still reverberate through the franchise.

But if a championship contender can be built through spare parts and a late first-round draft pick, it can be done again.

================================================
The bunny seems to be saying Dumars and Donnie are both building teams the same way. Donnie just ran into a bit of bad luck but Dumars is proving Donnie's method is the way to go.

That is how I read what the bunny is saying.

----

BTW... Someone should tell the bunny that there is nothing similar in the way Dumars and Walsh build teams... Their team goals aren't even the same.

Winning the championship is not Walsh's number 1 goal.


-Bball

Hicks
02-04-2006, 05:07 PM
That makes some sense, Peck & Bball.

rabid
02-04-2006, 06:31 PM
Peck, I see your point, but I still think you're reaching quite a bit. It really seems like the only reason DW and the Pacers are even mentioned in this article is so that Montieth has an excuse to write an article about Joe Dumars.

rabid
02-04-2006, 06:48 PM
Winning the championship is not Walsh's number 1 goal.


Walsh's number 1 goal is to put butts in the seats. Number 2 is winning a championship. He has done the first by (almost) always fielding a team that can compete and has a chance at winning a championship.

The problem with the "risk-taking" philosophy is one that Walsh knows too well: Indianapolis is a small and very fickle market that will get disinterested very easily if the team aon the floor goes more than a season or two without serious playoff/title aspirations. So if we take too many risks, and they backfire, resulting in a long rebuilding process, we don't have the market to sustain it. Fans will quit coming to the games, will quit watching the games, etc. Revenue will go in the toilet.

In other words, the Pacers' margin for error in trades and signings is much smaller than that of many other teams.

Everything Donnie has done up until now has been to avoid our exact current circumstance (looking at entering a rebuilding mode with no championship hopes for at least a couple of years). And, ironically, the reason it finally happened is exactly due to the fact that the team took some major RISKS that did not pay off (examples: trading Dale for J.O. - tho I would argue that it was a good trade, re-signing Bender, holding onto Artest the past two years).

You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't complain about the current state of the team (the result of some risky moves) and then turn around and blame Donnie for not being aggressive enough. The logic simply doesn't work.

I disagree strongly with your apparent assessment that Donnie hasnt taken any risks. I find it very ironic that the same people who have b!tched and moaned about us holding onto Artest, trading Dale for J.O. or signing Bender to an extension are the same people who think we need to make more aggressive trades and signings. We've BEEN taking risks (based on overall talent) with this team the past three years in hopes of winning a championship. We lost that gamble, apparently.

Peck, I ask you this: If holding on to Artest in hopes of a turnaround was NOT a high-stakes gamble in hopes of winning a championship, then what the hell was it? If trading away Dale Davis for Jermaine O'Neal was NOT a high-stakes risk designed to improve the team, then what was it?

I mean, jeez, look at our draft picks the past 10-20 years. Would you call all of those SAFE moves, or risky ones?

EDIT: for the record, I do NOT consider myself a Walsh apologist. He's made his share of mistakes. I just think you're holding him to an impossibly high standard.

Bball
02-04-2006, 07:10 PM
In other words, the Pacers' margin for error in trades and signings is much smaller than that of many other teams.



At least we are asked to believe that, because to think otherwise would force us to look at the last several years in a different light.

Actually, I think the truth is that the fans would accept another path as long as there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Indiana fans aren't that fickle. What Walsh is afraid of is totally blowing it and not being able to climb back out of the hole because to do so would be out of his comfort zone (IMHO).

If you're telling me overall Indiana fans won't follow the team in droves if a team would wallow in lottery land and never do much to rise above it, stand pat, wait, be patient... then I'd be inclined to agree with you. But the counter argument is having management that would take a proactive stance and energize the team and fanbase and move it out of that period and show the fans there's a brighter future ahead...

Walsh is too conservative and patient. That may work in a small market but it is not written in stone that it is the only way that can work. And Indiana is not "Basketball Siberia"

-Bball

Will Galen
02-04-2006, 07:27 PM
Peck, it appears to me that you've come to a completely unwarranted conclusion on this Montieth article.



Oh this is rich, if he even thinks for a min. that I'm going to buy that Walsh will now become a daredevil risk taker to build the team he has lost his mind. That is the entire fallacy of this article he has written.

Most of the forum disagrees that the article was even about Walsh taking risks. In a nutshell the article is pointing out how Dumars has been lucky and Walsh unlucky because of injuries. It does not lead one to think that Walsh is now going to be a daredevil risk taker, as you put it.

As for Walsh taking risks, Pacertom pointed out that Walsh does take risks.


I don't see anything particularly risky, such as trading an all-star named Dale for a unknown youngster named Jermaine (big hit) or a solid veteran named Antonio for a guy named Jonathan who had a good high school all-star game (big miss).Walsh isn't as risk-averse as you claim, and Dumars is not the riverboat gambler.

And if what Pacertom pointed out about Walsh taking risks isn't enough, need I mention the name Ron Artest? If Ron wasn't a big risk, what is? If anything Ron proves Walsh is a daredevil risk taker.

To me even if your conclusion was dead on it wouldn't make sense. Does a leopard change it's spots? Why would Montieth, or anyone, try to make anyone think a successful man such as Walsh was suddenly going to abandon the way he does business? No one would believe such an article, so Montieth wouldn't bother writing it. Still, that was your conclusion.


I also think you are a stubborn man. Most of the forum agrees with you on most of your deductions, as do I. In fact I think you have at time swayed the whole forum to your way of thinking.

However, in the face of mounting opposition I think you grasped at a straw when Anthem said this . . .



Dumars doesn't try to stockpile talent. He tries to make it fit together.

You said . . .


Thank you. That was the perfect answer.

How so?

Anthem is basically saying that Walsh stockpiles talent and Dumars doesn't. That appears to me to be a plus for Walsh and a negative for Dumars.

Then he says that Dumars tries to make talent fit together and Walsh doesn't.

How wrong can an answer get? Yet people are agreeing that he nailed it.

In my estimation Walsh tries to hard to fit talent together. My biggest gripe about Walsh has always been that he hangs on to players too long when it's obvious to everyone else it isn't working. To paraphrase Walsh he wants to see what he has before he trades a player.

And Bird just recently said what Walsh has said at times. After the Peja/Ron trade Bird said that there would probably be no more trades because they wanted to see how Peja does with the team. In other words is Peja the missing piece.

Walsh has always worked this way and now Bird is at least paying it lip service. If making a trade and then waiting to see how the trade works isn't trying to make talent fit together I don't know what is.

BlueNGold
02-04-2006, 08:14 PM
I will give Joe the benefit of the doubt. He has built a blue collar club that is much greater than the sum of its parts. This takes a good understanding of personnel issues along with basketball sense. They have great chemistry and just the right combination of skills to get the job done. Their raw skill level individually is not superstar level quality, but that doesn't seem to matter. The Lakers a few years ago had talent pouring off the court. Obviously more talent than the Pistons, but they got blown away. JO and Artest both bring more to the table than any one Piston player, but that doesn't matter if you don't have a good TEAM. That apparently doesn't matter in the Olympics either.

I love what Donnie Walsh has done for the Pacers. He has been a great GM....but I think Joe already knew a lesson that Donnie has recently learned. Chemistry is as important as skill. You need BOTH to get it done.

Anthem
02-04-2006, 08:27 PM
How so?

Anthem is basically saying that Walsh stockpiles talent and Dumars doesn't. That appears to me to be a plus for Walsh and a negative for Dumars.

Then he says that Dumars tries to make talent fit together and Walsh doesn't.

How wrong can an answer get? Yet people are agreeing that he nailed it.

In my estimation Walsh tries to hard to fit talent together. My biggest gripe about Walsh has always been that he hangs on to players too long when it's obvious to everyone else it isn't working. To paraphrase Walsh he wants to see what he has before he trades a player.
Man, why drag me into this? You don't want none of this. :flirt:

For the record, I disagree with Peck and Bball on most things Donnie. I think he DOES want a championship and IS willing to risk to get it.

That being said, my original statement was (in my ever-humble opinion), both fair and accurate. If you're trying to build a good team, it's fine to stockpile talent. Once you get a contender, though, stockpiling talent is DANGEROUS because it hurts chemistry (by confusing rotations and causing griping over minutes). If the pieces don't fit together, you're still in rebuilding mode. The pieces of this team haven't fit together since 2000. Zeke was no great coach, but the team he was given was an absolute wreck. Carlisle's a good coach who's gotten a raw deal, but he'd still have a better shot to win if he had a roster that makes sense.


And Bird just recently said what Walsh has said at times. After the Peja/Ron trade Bird said that there would probably be no more trades because they wanted to see how Peja does with the team. In other words is Peja the missing piece.
Right. Except that's obviously not true. Everybody in the world can see Peja's not the missing piece. We have too many redundant pieces that don't fit together, and Peja just makes that worse.

Hicks
02-04-2006, 08:28 PM
Peja isn't a redundant piece. We needed a shooter like him very badly.

BlueNGold
02-04-2006, 08:33 PM
Peja isn't a redundant piece. We needed a shooter like him very badly.
We definitely need Peja right now for his experience, shooting and simply for depth....but we are a bit heavy at SF....and moving one of them to SG or PF is not the answer. We will need to deal one of them to fill some other holes in the roster.

Bball
02-04-2006, 08:48 PM
Man, why drag me into this? You don't want none of this. :flirt:

For the record, I disagree with Peck and Bball on most things Donnie. I think he DOES want a championship and IS willing to risk to get it.

That being said, my original statement was (in my ever-humble opinion), both fair and accurate. If you're trying to build a good team, it's fine to stockpile talent. Once you get a contender, though, stockpiling talent is DANGEROUS because it hurts chemistry (by confusing rotations and causing griping over minutes). If the pieces don't fit together, you're still in rebuilding mode. The pieces of this team haven't fit together since 2000. Zeke was no great coach, but the team he was given was an absolute wreck. Carlisle's a good coach who's gotten a raw deal, but he'd still have a better shot to win if he had a roster that makes sense.
.

As to the first part, DW himself has pretty much confirmed what I and Peck have said in that regard so it isn't all that debatable any longer. Of course DW wants a championship, but it isn't the first priority.

As to the second part... You mean you've gotten that all along??? I never would've imagined it! Common ground with Anthem! All these years.... :headshaking:

;)

Not only do I agree with that but it was very well said on your part!

-BBall

Mordecaii
02-04-2006, 08:49 PM
I don't see why people insist we have too many people at SF... We have Peja and DG. Granted, people are going to look at those players and wish both could start, and in fact I think it would be possible for them both to start and not go for a stereotypical lineup... whether or not they'll do that is another question. My point is, having 2 good players who fit "best" as a SF is not having too many SF's...

Anthem
02-04-2006, 10:29 PM
As to the second part... You mean you've gotten that all along??? I never would've imagined it! Common ground with Anthem! All these years.... :headshaking:
Har Dee Har. :D

I've been saying this for longer than you, my friend. We just have different ideas of what pieces are worth keeping.

Anthem
02-04-2006, 10:31 PM
Peja isn't a redundant piece. We needed a shooter like him very badly.
Well, we need a shooter badly. I'm not yet convinced the answer is "a shooter like him."

Hicks
02-04-2006, 10:36 PM
If you don't think Peja is a good shooter, you're going to be looking for one until you die.

Anthem
02-04-2006, 11:31 PM
If you don't think Peja is a good shooter
I didn't say Peja wasn't a good shooter.

I said he's not the player to suddenly make this team work.

Anthem
02-05-2006, 12:03 AM
As to the second part... You mean you've gotten that all along??? I never would've imagined it! Common ground with Anthem! All these years.... :headshaking:
This is what I was looking for.

http://www.pacersdigest.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10455

Had to go all the way to page 116 to find it, though.

brichard
02-05-2006, 12:10 AM
I find it very interesting that in all of these posts, nobody really has looked at this objectively. In fact, I think that instead of trying to hold Joe to the "enemy" standard people have broken their hand patting him on the back.

Is Joe Dumars a great GM? In my opinion he is great. I tend to judge folks overall by their W's and L's and Joe has earned that respect. He was a smart player and he has been equally as shrewd as a GM.

However, he has given very specific examples of where he just got lucky. Look at how average the AI/Webber tandem has been. Look at the misses he has made in the draft. He's a human being and he is fallible just like the next guy.

Chauncey Billups was a road warrior for a reason. He reminds me a bit of the type of risk Walsh took for Stephen Jackson. Then you look at a mentally unstable guy like Rasheed Wallace. Could their be a better comparison to Ron Artest? But Sheed ends up making things happen while Artest goes nuts several times. These are a couple of scenarios where I do think Joe got some breaks.

The Rip for Stackhouse trade was pure genius. And his days with the "Bad Boys" let him know how valuable a guy like Ben Wallace was. And yes this team did get the synnergy they were looking for, but it was anything but a certain fit when he put it together. As with any championship you need to mix some talent with some good fortune.

The Pacers have had some good talent, but I'm just not sure they've ever had much good fortune. This has been a franchise plagued with injuries, and not just in the last year. All teams have their bad breaks, but it would be difficult to find a team with more dreams shot by health:

Stipo
Kellogg
Smits (Played, but often hurt)
Bender
*Every starter for the Pacers the last 3 years :)

And I agree with the sentiment that you can not say Walsh has not taken risks. He has taken risks. If you want to say he only takes bad risks, than at least it is a point you can argue. Saying he never takes risks is simply not true.

The other piece the Pacers have not seemed to get is that one player that just can take you to that level all by himself. I'm sure part of it is careful picking by the GM's, but you have to get a bit of luck when a guy like MJ, Larry, or Magic falls in your lap. How do you know for sure that a guy will go to that level? Answer... you really don't. There are concensus first round picks like Pervis Ellison that just crash and burn. Reggie was the closest we have come, but he is more of a star than a superstar.

Donnie and Bird have obviously assembled a group without chemistry and it needs to be changed. I just hope they keep working until we get the right mix. .... but I also hope we get some breaks. :) Granger may end up being one of the biggest if he keeps playing as is.