PDA

View Full Version : Anybody else against bringing Al back?



pacers31tc
07-25-2006, 02:34 PM
He's going to have a pretty big contract (I'm hearing 6 years for almost 60 mil - seems like we almost always end up trading these), we all know about what happened right before we traded him (talented small forward of the future, JO doesn't want to play center, etc.), we'd have to seem he Sarunas wrestle for #3, etc, etc.

Seriously, tell me I'm not the only one who doesn't want to make this bone-headed move. Tell me somebody out there wants a pure shooter at 2 that will give us a legit second scoring option behind JO. The first scoring option cannot be Jack in any game all season, it just doesn't work, and we can't rely on 2 post players (JO and Al to get us anywhere, especially if we want to try the whole running game thing).

More thoughts please.

One more thing (via edit): Al blew out his knee when he was w/ us before, is he going to be okay for the next 6 years?

Kegboy
07-25-2006, 02:39 PM
I'm not against it. If we do get him for nothing, I guess you have to do that. Worst case you can always trade him again.

But I don't see what he brings to the table we don't already have. Leadership is nice and all, but it doesn't change the fact he doesn't fill a role that JO or Danny couldn't already fill.

I'd rather we'd have spent this season addressing the 1 and the 5, as opposed to getting a lot of forwards.

SoupIsGood
07-25-2006, 02:39 PM
6 years for 57 mil is a fair contract for Al.

At the very worst, Al flops and he's a tradeable asset next year. I'm fine with it.

blanket
07-25-2006, 02:41 PM
If the trade for Al involves the TE and not players to match salaries, as expected, then his deal will have a starting salary of $7.6M, likely at 6years/$57M. I'd say that's not bad at all for a starting PF who can produce like Al can, plus be a good chemistry guy. And those 6 years will be during his prime years of 26-31. That's a deal you can't pass up.

If it means JO becomes redundant, expendable, overpriced, or all three, then you move him for pieces that fill another need. Conversely, if it doesn't work out here with Al, his contract makes him easy to trade. A win-win.

CableKC
07-25-2006, 02:42 PM
Initially I was against such a move to get Harrington until I realized that if the huge JONeal experiment doesn't yield a 2nd round playoff exit next season with a Tinsley/SJax/Marquis/Granger/JONeal/Harrington lineup......that Harrington would simply replace JONeal as the future starting athletic PF and JONeal will be traded for players to rebuild around a core of Granger/Harrington/White/Marquis/Shawne/Harrison.

DisplacedKnick
07-25-2006, 02:42 PM
I don't think you'll gain much.

Right now you're looking at a starting lineup of:

PG - Tinsley
SG - Jackson
SF - Granger
PF - JO
C - Foster

Backups will include Daniels, Saras, Williams, Harrison & maybe Pollard.

In the above lineup, every player but Foster is playing at his best position.

By adding Harrington, either Granger goes to the bench or JO plays C. So then you've taken your best player and put him at a position he's less suited for. Plus with Al and JO both do most of their scoring from 15 feet and neither is really a slasher. They're not completely redundant but they are somewhat. Plus you take your best rebounder off the floor for substantial minutes.

Al will help you, especially when JO misses his 20 games next season, but I don't think he helps you as much as most folks here seem to think he will.

edit: After reading the previous responses, maybe I DO think he'll help you about as much as most posters think he will.

FrenchConnection
07-25-2006, 02:45 PM
He's going to have a pretty big contract (I'm hearing 6 years for almost 60 mil - seems like we almost always end up trading these), we all know about what happened last time he left (talented small forward of the future, JO doesn't want to play center, etc.), we'd have to seem he Sarunas wrestle for #3, etc, etc.

Seriously, tell me I'm not the only one who doesn't want to make this bone-headed move. Tell me somebody out there wants a pure shooter at 2 that will give us a legit second scoring option behind JO. The first scoring option cannot be Jack in any game all season, it just doesn't work, and we can't rely on 2 post players (JO and Al to get us anywhere, especially if we want to try the whole running game thing).

More thoughts please.

I don't agree with you at all. We all got this model for building a basketball team during Reggie's tenure that your primary or secondary scoring option should be a 3-point shooter. I personally would like our offense to be about getting high percentage shots. I am really happy with Marquis because he gets to the basket and gets layups, something we have not had in our backcourt since I have followed this team. We were all screaming about Maggette, but now everyone wants a good shooter.

The two finals teams both lacked "pure shooters." In fact, the past two champions (Miami and San Antonio) did not have great three point shooting in their starting lineups. What they did have were players that could score in the post and players that could break down a defense off of the dribble and get to the line. Now, I do think that a shooter as a bench role player ala Steve Kerr would be a good addition, but I think that relying on the outside shot as a primary offensive weapon is suspect.

rexnom
07-25-2006, 02:48 PM
I don't agree with you at all. We all got this model for building a basketball team during Reggie's tenure that your primary or secondary scoring option should be a 3-point shooter. I personally would like our offense to be about getting high percentage shots. I am really happy with Marquis because he gets to the basket and gets layups, something we have not had in our backcourt since I have followed this team. We were all screaming about Maggette, but now everyone wants a good shooter.

The two finals teams both lacked "pure shooters." In fact, the past two champions (Miami and San Antonio) did not have great three point shooting in their starting lineups. What they did have were players that could score in the post and players that could break down a defense off of the dribble and get to the line. Now, I do think that a shooter as a bench role player ala Steve Kerr would be a good addition, but I think that relying on the outside shot as a primary offensive weapon is suspect.
There you go. Perfect response. Reggie being here for so long caused us to forget that you can build a team without a guy that can nail threes all day long being the #1 or #2 option.

ESutt7
07-25-2006, 02:49 PM
I don't know that I'm against it. I see why it makes sense to get him. But I would much rather pursue a top level shooting guard (I've wanted Michael Redd for years now). There are a number of different people I would rather see us pursue, but I like Al and think that they can make it work.

Jon Theodore
07-25-2006, 02:49 PM
I think we are going to see what this lineup can do, we are getting AL for nothing so we need to do it. The best part is we can trade JO now. So I am all for bringing AL here.

pacers31tc
07-25-2006, 02:49 PM
I'm not necessarily talking about a 3-point shooter, I'm talking about a star at 2: a scorer, a guy who could carry the team and be the 1st scoring option any given night. Jack is not that guy, and the Al trade isn't a win-win b/c we already have a starting PF worth 20+ mil a year, if we don't win with him it could become a major loss situation.

FSU-IU
07-25-2006, 02:49 PM
I agree with DisplacedKnick completely....that is a solid post.

Hicks
07-25-2006, 02:52 PM
We are addressing the 5 by adding another starting 4 and forcing the other one, who can play 5, to do so. He has a center's body. He has the tools to do it. The only issue is his body, which is legit, but I think the nagging injuries will go down with less weight to carry, and the truth is the two injuries that sidelined him for the long haul had nothing to do with him playing center. The shoulder injury was a fluke, and the groin injury was as well, as I recall.

If you can get a starting quality player without giving up anything or little, you DO IT. Especially when you have the luxury of knowing the character of the player you're acquiring as well.

Shade
07-25-2006, 02:53 PM
Considering what's available, we'd be stupid not to bring Al back for basically free. It's a reasonable contract during his prime and makes JO more expendable. What's not to like?

Jimmy
07-25-2006, 02:54 PM
Well Al obviously is a talented player and i have no doubt he will do JUST FINE next year as a pacer. And if you would ask me, trade DANNY GRANGER!!!!!!!:devil: Now trust me i love danny and know he will be a great pro, but if we have harrington for the next 6 years and o'neal for awhile as well then there is not a huge need for him. I'd say one more great year from him backing up and getting 30 minutes a game will prime him for a trade for a good young SHOOTING guard. we have the williams who could take over for granger the year after next. With Al and jermaine down low i would concentrate on a player who could hit the trey to really help complete this team(point guard and center would be nice too). Makes sense to me.;)

pacers31tc
07-25-2006, 02:54 PM
Trading JO just makes me cringe, what could we possibly get in return. If we are in fact bringing in Al just in case we need to get rid of JO, than management is doing a lot worse job than I thought. Great teams don't have a lot of "just in case" fat contracts on their teams.

Horseman872
07-25-2006, 02:55 PM
Here's a scary thought:

We get a SG by trading away Granger + Jackson to some team looking to rebuild. Then that would put Al at 3, JO at 4, someone at 5, the good shooter at 2, and whoever at 1.

I doubt we do it, but its still scary.

vapacersfan
07-25-2006, 02:55 PM
I have already said how I feel about AL in the other thread, but my biggest fear is all those games where he wasnt able to show up in the playoffs.

I think if we can basically get him for free we have to, and I do think he will help us.

How much is the question.

Shade
07-25-2006, 02:56 PM
If the trade for Al involves the TE and not players to match salaries, as expected, then his deal will have a starting salary of $7.6M, likely at 6years/$57M. I'd say that's not bad at all for a starting PF who can produce like Al can, plus be a good chemistry guy. And those 6 years will be during his prime years of 26-31. That's a deal you can't pass up.

If it means JO becomes redundant, expendable, overpriced, or all three, then you move him for pieces that fill another need. Conversely, if it doesn't work out here with Al, his contract makes him easy to trade. A win-win.

Yeah, what he said. ^^^ :nod:

rela
07-25-2006, 02:56 PM
at the moment i`m just confused i love that we got marquis and love to have james white and think that both marshall and powell r intresting players but i can´t see the direction this team is going at the moment.i´d love to see a true rebuild( trading oneal,tins,jackson,foster) instead of the signing of harrington ,or landing a second true superstar besides JO like Ai.

Shade
07-25-2006, 02:57 PM
Here's a scary thought:

We get a SG by trading away Granger + Jackson to some team looking to rebuild. Then that would put Al at 3, JO at 4, someone at 5, the good shooter at 2, and whoever at 1.

I doubt we do it, but its still scary.

I'd do Granger and Jack for Redd. :drool:

pacers31tc
07-25-2006, 02:57 PM
We're not bringing Al back "for free." There is no "free" in this league (unless you make a deal w/ Isiah Thomas). This is going to use the 7.5 million dollar exception we just picked up and future picks. I think it could be used more wisely, on a shoothing guard.

I'm not trying to replace Reggie or what he did for this team, but 2 is our worst position right now if Jack is even as high as the 3rd scoring option (think of San Antonio Jack, except we're paying him way too much money to be that guy).

Kegboy
07-25-2006, 03:05 PM
I don't think we could use the TE to get as good a player. Remember, we can't use it in conjunction with anybody. Is anybody willing to give up a good player for just salary space? Frankly, I'm still shocked ATL is willing, and maybe them dragging their heels is because Billy is wising up.

rexnom
07-25-2006, 03:09 PM
We're not bringing Al back "for free." There is no "free" in this league (unless you make a deal w/ Isiah Thomas). This is going to use the 7.5 million dollar exception we just picked up and future picks. I think it could be used more wisely, on a shoothing guard.

I'm not trying to replace Reggie or what he did for this team, but 2 is our worst position right now if Jack is even as high as the 3rd scoring option (think of San Antonio Jack, except we're paying him way too much money to be that guy).
Ok, like who?

Who can we get at the fantastically reasonable 6/57mil price tag that comes even close to Al's talent level? Not even mentioning Al's popularity with the team and the city or the fact that he is best friends with the franchise player and probably a great locker room guy.

You guys think we could get Redd easily and absorb his contract? We are getting a very reasonable deal. With the TE kind of money we couldn't really get a player much better than Jack or Ricky Davis-caliber SGs. We definitely couldn't get an Al-caliber anything. We are lucky just getting Al.

blanket
07-25-2006, 03:10 PM
I'm not necessarily talking about a 3-point shooter, I'm talking about a star at 2: a scorer, a guy who could carry the team and be the 1st scoring option any given night. Jack is not that guy, and the Al trade isn't a win-win b/c we already have a starting PF worth 20+ mil a year, if we don't win with him it could become a major loss situation.

the flexibility adding Al at a reasonable contact gives us makes it a win-win, for this season and future seasons.

indytoad
07-25-2006, 03:12 PM
I agree with pretty much everything 31tc and DK have said in this thread. Al is awfully expensive as an insurance policy, or whatever he is. And it seems everyone has conveniently forgotten the black hole phenomenon. I think Harrington looks so good only because Jackson looks so bad.

IndyToad
Berries and cream

grace
07-25-2006, 03:33 PM
Well since Tim seems to be MIA I'll tell you what he said at the forum party. He doesn't want Al back if it's going to hinder Granger's development.

The Pacers had a gift dropped in their laps when Danny fell to 17. I don't know that the Pacers should replace him with the player formerly known as The Black Hole.

bulletproof
07-25-2006, 03:41 PM
I don't agree with you at all. We all got this model for building a basketball team during Reggie's tenure that your primary or secondary scoring option should be a 3-point shooter. I personally would like our offense to be about getting high percentage shots. I am really happy with Marquis because he gets to the basket and gets layups, something we have not had in our backcourt since I have followed this team. We were all screaming about Maggette, but now everyone wants a good shooter.

The two finals teams both lacked "pure shooters." In fact, the past two champions (Miami and San Antonio) did not have great three point shooting in their starting lineups. What they did have were players that could score in the post and players that could break down a defense off of the dribble and get to the line. Now, I do think that a shooter as a bench role player ala Steve Kerr would be a good addition, but I think that relying on the outside shot as a primary offensive weapon is suspect.

Good points.

Mourning
07-25-2006, 03:45 PM
I'm not against it. If we do get him for nothing, I guess you have to do that. Worst case you can always trade him again.

But I don't see what he brings to the table we don't already have. Leadership is nice and all, but it doesn't change the fact he doesn't fill a role that JO or Danny couldn't already fill.

I'd rather we'd have spent this season addressing the 1 and the 5, as opposed to getting a lot of forwards.

What he said!

Roy Munson
07-25-2006, 03:52 PM
If there are any math majors or statistical experts participating on this forum, I'd like someone to calculate the astronomical odds of the Pacers having an offensive possession involving more than two passes when Jackson, Al, and JO are in the game at the same time.

DisplacedKnick
07-25-2006, 03:57 PM
If there are any math majors or statistical experts participating on this forum, I'd like someone to calculate the astronomical odds of the Pacers having an offensive possession involving more than two passes when Jackson, Al, and JO are in the game at the same time.

Over the entire season?

I'd say that would be about 50-50. ;) :-p

Do deflections count?

rexnom
07-25-2006, 03:58 PM
If there are any math majors or statistical experts participating on this forum, I'd like someone to calculate the astronomical odds of the Pacers having an offensive possession involving more than two passes when Jackson, Al, and JO are in the game at the same time.
I know it was a while back but remember the good ole days when we had Ron, Al, and JO on the court at the same time for a large chunk of games and we won 61 games and reached the ECF?

How did we work that out? Magic?

DisplacedKnick
07-25-2006, 04:01 PM
Well since Tim seems to be MIA I'll tell you what he said at the forum party. He doesn't want Al back if it's going to hinder Granger's development.

The Pacers had a gift dropped in their laps when Danny fell to 17. I don't know that the Pacers should replace him with the player formerly known as The Black Hole.

That's a big piece of it. You know Al will want the ball - a lot. And I was looking for DG to be a 15 ppg guy this year - maybe a touch better.

He may still be but it's less likely.

rexnom
07-25-2006, 04:03 PM
That's a big piece of it. You know Al will want the ball - a lot. And I was looking for DG to be a 15 ppg guy this year - maybe a touch better.

He may still be but it's less likely.
You don't feel that it's better now that Danny doesn't have as much pressure on him to score? He can function without the ball and, with time, develop into a better scorer with the ball. No need to rush things.

Roy Munson
07-25-2006, 04:19 PM
I know it was a while back but remember the good ole days when we had Ron, Al, and JO on the court at the same time for a large chunk of games and we won 61 games and reached the ECF?

How did we work that out? Magic?

Maybe it WAS magic. Or maybe the effects of Isiah's great coaching hadn't worn off yet.

PacerMan
07-25-2006, 04:27 PM
I have already said how I feel about AL in the other thread, but my biggest fear is all those games where he wasnt able to show up in the playoffs.

I think if we can basically get him for free we have to, and I do think he will help us.

How much is the question.

Al was 22 when he last played here. 22!!!
That's still in college for most folks.

rexnom
07-25-2006, 04:28 PM
Maybe it WAS magic. Or maybe the effects of Isiah's great coaching hadn't worn off yet.
My point is that it's possible. I just think JO will be so relieved to finally have another guy (not to mention two) that can take some pressure off of him and allow him to be effective.

PacerMan
07-25-2006, 04:29 PM
Well since Tim seems to be MIA I'll tell you what he said at the forum party. He doesn't want Al back if it's going to hinder Granger's development.

The Pacers had a gift dropped in their laps when Danny fell to 17. I don't know that the Pacers should replace him with the player formerly known as The Black Hole.

Show me ANYPLACE other than Pacers Digest where ANYONE called AL a Black Hole. Go ahead.

Tim
07-25-2006, 04:51 PM
I agree with pretty much everything 31tc and DK have said in this thread. Al is awfully expensive as an insurance policy, or whatever he is. And it seems everyone has conveniently forgotten the black hole phenomenon. I think Harrington looks so good only because Jackson looks so bad.

IndyToad
Berries and cream


I haven't forgotten the last time the Pacers were consistently good, Al was part of the team.

btowncolt
07-25-2006, 04:52 PM
I haven't forgotten the last time the Pacers were consistently good, Al was part of the team.

So was Jamison Brewer. Bring back my hero!

Tim
07-25-2006, 05:03 PM
Well since Tim seems to be MIA I'll tell you what he said at the forum party. He doesn't want Al back if it's going to hinder Granger's development.

The Pacers had a gift dropped in their laps when Danny fell to 17. I don't know that the Pacers should replace him with the player formerly known as The Black Hole.


Thanks Grace!

I don't want Al, or any other player, getting in Grangers way. I don't have a problem with Al, my concern is with Rick.

As a coach you always want to win. I can't help but think if Al comes in and the team gets into any kind of a groove, it will be an Al love fest and Danny's development will suffer.

ChicagoJ
07-25-2006, 05:09 PM
I don't understand the argument that Al might make JO more expendable (because Al can play PF).

For example, an Al plus Jeff PF/C combination would have to be the smallest in the league.

JO's only expendable if David turns into a monster. And even I, as David's #2 fan (:bowdown: SiG), don't expect that.

Sollozzo
07-25-2006, 05:20 PM
Well, I guess they have to do it because it's basically Al for nothing, but like Indytoad said, he is an awfully expensive insurance policy.

For whatever reason, I'm just not very excited about bringing past Pacers back. I get more excited when we get a player like Daniels, one who is brand new to us.

2 years ago, the majority of the board here said Al had to go. I want to go back and read the threads during the period leading up to his trade.

Unclebuck
07-25-2006, 05:20 PM
I don't understand the argument that Al might make JO more expendable (because Al can play SF).

For example, an Al plus Jeff PF/C combination would have to be the smallest in the league.

JO's only expendable if David turns into a monster. And even I, as David's #2 fan (:bowdown: SiG), don't expect that.


What if we could get an allstar point guard and a center like Magloire

vapacersfan
07-25-2006, 05:22 PM
Al was 22 when he last played here. 22!!!
That's still in college for most folks.

I hate to be the party pooper, but age doesnt fix everything.

I have a few friends who are Hawks fans (I know, they do exist!:laugh:) and they all really like Al, but the complaints they have had are the same ones we have had.

You can say that is a byproduct of his enviroment and he is bound to change when he comes here, but Ill beleive that when I see it.

Unclebuck
07-25-2006, 05:23 PM
2 years ago, the majority of the board here said Al had to go. I want to go back and read the threads during the period leading up to his trade.


A week ago or so a few of those threads were bumped and I don't beleive more than a few thought Al had to go, in fact many were sad to see him go, but understood we needed a shooting guard.

vapacersfan
07-25-2006, 05:23 PM
Show me ANYPLACE other than Pacers Digest where ANYONE called AL a Black Hole. Go ahead.

Does RATS count?:zip:

The Hustler
07-25-2006, 05:26 PM
i agree with Rexnom

As much as ild love a SG - shooter (Redd would be great) i cant see it happening ... and for the TE and not losing much... Al will definitly contribute next season both on the floor and in the lockerroom!

Slick Pinkham
07-25-2006, 05:26 PM
Steve Hall at Fox Sports.net has a blog that rips Al pretty bad:

http://blogs.foxsports.com/SteveHall1979

(scroll down to the bottom article on suggestion for the Hawks):

Let Al Harrington go. He'll definitely want more money than he's worth - he's looking for all-star pay based on "potential," Truth is he's 26, at the beginning of most players' prime, and in this season as one of the two best players on his team, he shot a bad percentage for forwards, took too many threes, turned the ball over at a hideous rate, shoots free throws poorly, led the league in fouls per game, and isn't clutch or a leader. The best part: his shot blocking numbers are the same as Jalen Rose at .18 per game, just ahead of Steve Nash's .15. Not the part of the MVP's game you want to emulate.

ouch...

rexnom
07-25-2006, 06:00 PM
Steve Hall at Fox Sports.net has a blog that rips Al pretty bad:

http://blogs.foxsports.com/SteveHall1979

(scroll down to the bottom article on suggestion for the Hawks):

Let Al Harrington go. He'll definitely want more money than he's worth - he's looking for all-star pay based on "potential," Truth is he's 26, at the beginning of most players' prime, and in this season as one of the two best players on his team, he shot a bad percentage for forwards, took too many threes, turned the ball over at a hideous rate, shoots free throws poorly, led the league in fouls per game, and isn't clutch or a leader. The best part: his shot blocking numbers are the same as Jalen Rose at .18 per game, just ahead of Steve Nash's .15. Not the part of the MVP's game you want to emulate.

ouch...
Somebody's a sore loser.

CableKC
07-25-2006, 06:11 PM
I don't understand the argument that Al might make JO more expendable (because Al can play PF).

For example, an Al plus Jeff PF/C combination would have to be the smallest in the league.

JO's only expendable if David turns into a monster. And even I, as David's #2 fan (:bowdown: SiG), don't expect that.

The only reason why I think that Harrington makes JONeal more expendable is because if we have to rebuild ( and therefore get a replacement starting PF when we trade JONeal in the process), we have someone that is ready to step into replace him.

I really believe that TPTB will try one more season under JONeal's huge contract to see if he is truly worth it to see if he can lead us to ( at least ) the 2nd round of the playoffs. If we don't make it to the 2nd round of the playoffs....then we should strongly consider rebuilding the team. Unfortunately, I don't feel that there is anyway to rebuild without moving JONeal's $60+ million contract.

IMHO....we are way too talented to be losing in the 1st round. If it can't be done under JONeal....that we use him to move all the "questionable" players, get back quality prospects and rebuild around a different core of young players.

As you said....Harrington cannot truly replace JONeal......but we won't have to worry about finding a starting quality PF if we truly rebuild.

indytoad
07-25-2006, 06:20 PM
I haven't forgotten the last time the Pacers were consistently good, Al was part of the team.

So was Ron Artest. Al fit in with that team perfectly as a sixth man. On this team, as a starter, displacing Granger or O'Neal (or both)...he doesn't fit in as well. Or at all.

IndyToad
Here comes the Thnikkaman

pizza guy
07-25-2006, 07:30 PM
Having only read half of this thread, I'll post my opinion which has not changed since the initial rumors of us making a push for Al, and most likely will not change after we do get him.

We don't need Al Harrington.

He's probably best at the 3. The 3 may be our best position. He's still very good at 4. 4 is where our best player is. He cannot play either 1 or 2, our weakest positions. Kravitz wrote his article about making the wrong moves, and for once, I think I actually agree with him.

rexnom
07-25-2006, 07:34 PM
Um...am i the only who thinks Jermaine can be more effective at the 5 than he is at the 4 now that he has two guys that can score inside-out with him?

Again, I think we just solved most of our front court problems. I think we have a very formidable front court. The backcourt is the core of most of our problems now.

granger
07-25-2006, 08:16 PM
I dont want him back here a week ago but now,
If we'r not going to trade our 1st round draft pick.
I'm okey.

SoupIsGood
07-25-2006, 08:19 PM
Um...am i the only who thinks Jermaine can be more effective at the 5 than he is at the 4 now that he has two guys that can score inside-out with him?



No

Robertmto
07-25-2006, 08:20 PM
Simply Put

Granger >> Al

Hicks
07-25-2006, 08:32 PM
For those that think Al is still a 3, he's been a power forward for years. He's slower and bulkier than his SF days, and his ACL injury slowed him down as well. Not to mention the strength of his offense is within 15 feet of the bucket.

Slick Pinkham
07-25-2006, 08:34 PM
Simply Put

Granger >> Al

But the appropriate question is
a.(JO/Al/Danny) vs.
b.(Jeff/JO/Danny) vs.
c.(Jeff/JO/Al)

I say a>b
b=c

grace
07-25-2006, 08:35 PM
I know it was a while back but remember the good ole days when we had Ron, Al, and JO on the court at the same time for a large chunk of games and we won 61 games and reached the ECF?

How did we work that out? Magic?

No Magic had already retired (and he never played for the Pacers). I'm pretty sure it was Reggie.

BlueNGold
07-25-2006, 08:37 PM
I am not against bringing Al back. He will make the team more competitive. We need more offense, we could use his leadership, he could help boost the chemistry, he will bring us more regular season wins and will help us make the playoffs, he will require attention by a good defender thus helping JO out...

...but he does not address any of our major weaknesses.

I am not against the trade...if it is the best we can do, do it.

SoupIsGood
07-25-2006, 08:37 PM
For those that think Al is still a 3, he's been a power forward for years. He's slower and bulkier than his SF days, and his ACL injury slowed him down as well. Not to mention the strength of his offense is within 15 feet of the bucket.

Yup. He spent most his time at PF his last year with us, and 82games says that he spent nearly no time at SF this year, FWIW

Robertmto
07-25-2006, 08:41 PM
But the appropriate question is
a.(JO/Al/Danny) vs.
b.(Jeff/JO/Danny) vs.
c.(Jeff/JO/Al)

A = garbage (anythig with JO at center won;t work long term)

B > C

grace
07-25-2006, 08:48 PM
Show me ANYPLACE other than Pacers Digest where ANYONE called AL a Black Hole. Go ahead.

Well I don't have video proof but I remember another Pacer player calling him that on TV. Of course maybe he read it hear first. :shrug:
----------------------------------------------------------

A = garbage (anythig with JO at center won;t work long term)

Hey, hey, hey. That's really Danny al-Jermaine and he is NOT garbage. :mad:

Slick Pinkham
07-25-2006, 08:51 PM
For those that think Al is still a 3, he's been a power forward for years. He's slower and bulkier than his SF days, and his ACL injury slowed him down as well. Not to mention the strength of his offense is within 15 feet of the bucket.

Assuming ESPN HT/WT stats are good, these guys are the same size or SMALLER than Al in height & weight:

Antonio Davis, Brian Grant, Udonis Haslem, Othella Harrington, Alan Henderson, Bo Outlaw, Kurt Thomas, Aaron Williams.

Al's a PF and by the end of 6 years may be a smallish Elton Brand-sized center (w. 10 lbs of muscle)

rm1369
07-25-2006, 09:02 PM
Um...am i the only who thinks Jermaine can be more effective at the 5 than he is at the 4 now that he has two guys that can score inside-out with him?

Again, I think we just solved most of our front court problems. I think we have a very formidable front court. The backcourt is the core of most of our problems now.

I don't understand why everyone believes JO's a 4 and Foster is a 5? Is Foster any more physical than JO? Is Foster's lack of offence the deciding factor? Or is it because Foster plays the tougher matchup on D?

JO has typically been guarded by the opposing teams best post defender - regardless of their position. That will not change much. JO has typically guarded the opposing teams weakest scoring big. That will not change. The team is opting to go with Als offense in place of Fosters defence and rebounding. Because the 4 and 5 spot are interchangable on most teams, most matchups will stay the same, IMO. Shaq, Yao, and Z are the only centers that concern me with JO guarding them. Mismatches typically go both ways and none of those guys can guard JO either. We have a bench that can be used if necessary for those guys, but I woukd prefer that we make other teams matchup to us.

JO is the 2nd best center in the league. He would be the 4th or 5th best power forward in the league. So IMO, center is JO's best position. The key is finding a 4 that compliments him better. IMO Al fits that bill by taking some of the scoring load off of JO - making it harder to double him with the other big. It gives us another big to relieve JO in the post and / or someone to be a post option if JO is hurt, has an off game, or bad matchup. It should help makes us much less predictable on offence.

Obviously we still have issues I'd like to see addressed in the backcourt, but I believe fixing our froncourt rotation is an importanat issue as well. JO / Al / Granger - backedup by Foster / Harrison looks very good to me.

GO!!!!!
07-25-2006, 09:08 PM
I don't mind him comming back, I'd prefer a STAR SG but we won't get that aslong as jack comes of the bench and we have improved team chemistry and win 62 Games GO AL BABY

Isaac
07-25-2006, 09:14 PM
I'd do Granger and Jack for Redd. :drool:

Huh, never heard that idea before. ;)

I talked about it in the "can we do better then Al?" thread.

Tim
07-25-2006, 10:30 PM
I don't understand the argument that Al might make JO more expendable (because Al can play PF).

For example, an Al plus Jeff PF/C combination would have to be the smallest in the league.

JO's only expendable if David turns into a monster. And even I, as David's #2 fan (:bowdown: SiG), don't expect that.

It doesn't make sense, as does the thoughts of moving JO for any reason other than he asks to leave.

We are very fortunate to have a big man like JO. So what if he isn't perfect, we are still way ahead of most teams in the league in the big men department, injuries and all.

Kegboy
07-25-2006, 10:34 PM
It doesn't make sense, as does the thoughts of moving JO for any reason other than he asks to leave.

We are very fortunate to have a big man like JO. So what if he isn't perfect, we are still way ahead of most teams in the league in the big men department, injuries and all.

I've done this before with Gnome, but can't all the partygoers hear Tim's exasperated voice saying that in your head?

SoupIsGood
07-25-2006, 11:08 PM
I, as David's #2 fan (:bowdown: SiG).


:devil:

v_d_g
07-25-2006, 11:25 PM
Definitely bring AL back!!!

I mean, the team doesn't have enough problems making freethrows---especially clutch freethrows

with AL

you know for certain that when you absolutely, positively NEED 2 at the line

he'll ALWAYS get you ONE


that's the kind of **** that's contageous


then again, I suffered through the Richardson (et al) era at IU

so

what's another 10 years of missed clutch freebies?


bring him on

pay him

but

never count on 2 at crunch time

timid
07-25-2006, 11:29 PM
I don't understand why everyone believes JO's a 4 and Foster is a 5? Is Foster any more physical than JO? Is Foster's lack of offence the deciding factor? Or is it because Foster plays the tougher matchup on D?

JO has typically been guarded by the opposing teams best post defender - regardless of their position. That will not change much. JO has typically guarded the opposing teams weakest scoring big. That will not change. The team is opting to go with Als offense in place of Fosters defence and rebounding. Because the 4 and 5 spot are interchangable on most teams, most matchups will stay the same, IMO. Shaq, Yao, and Z are the only centers that concern me with JO guarding them. Mismatches typically go both ways and none of those guys can guard JO either. We have a bench that can be used if necessary for those guys, but I woukd prefer that we make other teams matchup to us.

JO is the 2nd best center in the league. He would be the 4th or 5th best power forward in the league. So IMO, center is JO's best position. The key is finding a 4 that compliments him better. IMO Al fits that bill by taking some of the scoring load off of JO - making it harder to double him with the other big. It gives us another big to relieve JO in the post and / or someone to be a post option if JO is hurt, has an off game, or bad matchup. It should help makes us much less predictable on offence.

Obviously we still have issues I'd like to see addressed in the backcourt, but I believe fixing our froncourt rotation is an importanat issue as well. JO / Al / Granger - backedup by Foster / Harrison looks very good to me.
Great post......I agree completely......

pacers31tc
07-26-2006, 01:08 AM
I don't understand why everyone believes JO's a 4 and Foster is a 5? Is Foster any more physical than JO? Is Foster's lack of offence the deciding factor? Or is it because Foster plays the tougher matchup on D?

JO has typically been guarded by the opposing teams best post defender - regardless of their position. That will not change much. JO has typically guarded the opposing teams weakest scoring big. That will not change. The team is opting to go with Als offense in place of Fosters defence and rebounding. Because the 4 and 5 spot are interchangable on most teams, most matchups will stay the same, IMO. Shaq, Yao, and Z are the only centers that concern me with JO guarding them. Mismatches typically go both ways and none of those guys can guard JO either. We have a bench that can be used if necessary for those guys, but I woukd prefer that we make other teams matchup to us.

JO is the 2nd best center in the league. He would be the 4th or 5th best power forward in the league. So IMO, center is JO's best position. The key is finding a 4 that compliments him better. IMO Al fits that bill by taking some of the scoring load off of JO - making it harder to double him with the other big. It gives us another big to relieve JO in the post and / or someone to be a post option if JO is hurt, has an off game, or bad matchup. It should help makes us much less predictable on offence.

Obviously we still have issues I'd like to see addressed in the backcourt, but I believe fixing our froncourt rotation is an importanat issue as well. JO / Al / Granger - backedup by Foster / Harrison looks very good to me.

I agree, but the problem is that JO doesn't want to play center. Never has and probably never will. Al's definitely a PF, and Foster is a hustle player and a big man. So who are we going to make unhappy?

Robertmto
07-26-2006, 01:26 AM
Hey, hey, hey. That's really Danny al-Jermaine and he is NOT garbage. :mad:

Technically its Jermaine al-Granger

and he just sounds like a bum

ChicagoJ
07-26-2006, 03:13 PM
A = garbage (anythig with JO at center won;t work long term)

B > C

You're only saying that because you're scared of a quicker JO at center against your team. Even more reason to do it.

:-p

CableKC
07-26-2006, 05:08 PM
But the appropriate question is
a.(JO/Al/Danny) vs.
b.(Jeff/JO/Danny) vs.
c.(Jeff/JO/Al)

Ideally....I think Option A is the best choice becuase I think it shifts Foster...a rebouding Big Man....to be paired up more with JONeal, Harrington and Harrison.

I feel that it would allow JONeal, Harrington and Harrison to focus on what they do bets....score...while allowing Foster to focus on what he does best....rebound.

But I really wouldn't be surprised if it ends up being Option C.....Harrington/JONeal/Foster....cuz that's the way that Carlisle rolls.

Ultimate Frisbee
07-26-2006, 10:06 PM
Eh... I can't say I'm a fan of bringing Al back... but if the price is right, you really can't pass this up.

Coop
07-26-2006, 10:16 PM
Exactly. Now it gives us plenty of flexibility to upgrade our backcourt because we didn't give up much for Al. We still have the MLE also which could prove to be very useful (Eddie House, Kareem Rush, etc.).

Naptown_Seth
07-26-2006, 10:48 PM
I don't understand why everyone believes JO's a 4 and Foster is a 5? Is Foster any more physical than JO? Is Foster's lack of offence the deciding factor? Or is it because Foster plays the tougher matchup on D?
This is what I always say. Foster came out like a Dale Davis clone (minus the shot block), a PF rebounding specialist, and he pulled them down at the same rate or better even. Foster and Pollard, Jeff is a PF. Foster and Perkins, Foster is a PF. Heck, Foster and Dale, Jeff was still the PF.

The Pacers, like many NBA teams, have come up short on 5s and just started shoving 4s at it instead.


Anybody else against bringing Al back (to Indy)?
Apparently BK is. :D

Naptown_Seth
07-26-2006, 10:58 PM
JO's only expendable if David turns into a monster. And even I, as David's #2 fan (:bowdown: SiG), don't expect that.
Big fan of Hulk too, but as I mentioned elsehwere I just rewatched that Sacto win...man, I felt a little bit bad about talking up Dave after that reminder. Of course I've never said he isn't flawed still, but those rough games are pretty ugly.

When he's good he is very good, and when he's bad he's Haskin. :sadbanana

Robertmto
07-26-2006, 11:24 PM
You're only saying that because you're scared of a quicker JO at center against your team. Even more reason to do it.

:-p

According to everyone else here I'm scared of Hulk at center. :confused:

ChicagoJ
07-27-2006, 05:55 PM
That's obviously why you want us to downgrade our frontcourt with Heywood.

Destined4Greatness
07-27-2006, 06:42 PM
He's going to have a pretty big contract (I'm hearing 6 years for almost 60 mil - seems like we almost always end up trading these), we all know about what happened right before we traded him (talented small forward of the future, JO doesn't want to play center, etc.), we'd have to seem he Sarunas wrestle for #3, etc, etc.

Seriously, tell me I'm not the only one who doesn't want to make this bone-headed move. Tell me somebody out there wants a pure shooter at 2 that will give us a legit second scoring option behind JO. The first scoring option cannot be Jack in any game all season, it just doesn't work, and we can't rely on 2 post players (JO and Al to get us anywhere, especially if we want to try the whole running game thing).

More thoughts please.

One more thing (via edit): Al blew out his knee when he was w/ us before, is he going to be okay for the next 6 years?

I think the premise of your post is based around a myth, JO is no longer a post player. He shoots primarily jumpers, and doesn't go in and wrestle for rebounds as much anymore.

Jay Ohh
07-27-2006, 07:31 PM
^ WTF is this kid smoking? There were periods last year when JO would go games without shooting any jumpshots, taking everything inside. And ROFL at him not getting rebounds. Good God that is pathetic. He averages just under ten rebounds but he doesn't mix it up and go in the paint. Whatever you say little fella. Just blind hate like usual. So sad.

Try watching the games, sometime. You might learn something.

Hicks
07-27-2006, 07:53 PM
^ WTF is this kid smoking? There were periods last year when JO would go games without shooting any jumpshots, taking everything inside. And ROFL at him not getting rebounds. Good God that is pathetic. He averages just under ten rebounds but he doesn't mix it up and go in the paint. Whatever you say little fella. Just blind hate like usual. So sad.

Try watching the games, sometime. You might learn something.

Ease off; you can express yourself without coming close to flaming.

Jermaniac
07-27-2006, 07:57 PM
A = garbage (anythig with JO at center won;t work long term)

B > CYour team starts Jamison at the 4 you have no right to talk about anything not working long term for our frontcourt. Fix your face.