PDA

View Full Version : A Realistic Discussion about Al Harrington



Evan_The_Dude
01-13-2007, 12:33 PM
After his lack of production last night as well as his inconsistent performances all season, the first thought that comes to my mind is that we should move him. I still think it's something we should take in to consideration, and I think it's something that has to have crossed the minds of TPTB more than once this season. I played around with the ESPN trade checker a little bit this morning. I was trying to find a realistic deal that made sense for all parties involved.

I pretty much came up with nothing. Other than Golden State, I can't find a team that makes much sense for us to be a trading partner with. Golden State went after Harrington in the off-season, and apparently Harrington wasn't exactly against going there. Right now I keep hearing that J-Rich might be up for grabs. I'd imagine that's probably true with the emergence of Monta Ellis. However J-Rich has been injured pretty often as of late (I believe he's still out now with a broken hand).

The other guy that makes sense for this team [keyword: for this TEAM] is Mike Dunleavy Jr. I'm not a fan of his at all, but I have watched him play a lot. Having a guy with his ball-handling and passing abilities on this team would take a lot of pressure off guys like Tinsley and Sarunas to create shots for the offense. Not to mention Dunleavy is also a decent outside threat as well. Dunleavy would also open up more minutes for Orien Greene to get in the game and play his defensive game without having to worry about running the offense -- Dunleavy can do that [off the bench of course].

On the flip side, Dunleavy's contract sucks. We've spent one too many years over the cap as it is. There's finally relief from that in sight. No need to go out and acquire another 'Croshere' contract. If J-Rich could stay healthy, he'd make perfect sense for us. We could use him extremely bad. But when it comes to injuries, we've been through too much hell to take that risk -- especially on a guy that would be brought in and be expected to be offensive option #2.

That's where I started looking at things differently. Maybe we're just spoiled. As bad as it seems Al has been, I don't think he's been that far off his career numbers. He's even WAY up on his 3-point shooting. However you can't just bring in a player that was option number 1 for a few years somewhere else, and expect them to easily adjust to being option #2.5 ( 2.5 because you can never tell if Harrington is #2 or Jackson is #2). This has got to be the only NBA team I've ever seen aggressively recruit a Free-Agent, bring him in as a predetermined second scoring option, then hardly run a play for him. I think that whole concept is a bit, retarted.

Al Harrington isn't Antawn Jamison. He's not quick off his feet in grabbing rebounds to the point that he can average 20 points just off rebounding (the Golden State Jamison, not Washington's version). Once in a while I see them post up Al, and once in a while I see him make an extremely quick move to the basket for the score before his defender can even get his feet set. That tells me that Harrington can be a strong post man if we utilize him there.

I think in order for Harrington to be more effective, he'd be better suited for the second unit. Granger should start and give us the defense that Harrington lacks. I don't think Harrington is going to become a better player than he is now, but Granger shows a lot of promise to be something special. In addition, we also have Shawne Williams waiting in the wings. If we can get Harrington off the bench, he can play his natural PF position (Center in a smaller lineup), while opening up more minutes for Shawne, and even Rawle Marshall. At that point, we could probably bring in our entire second unit in the game, rest our starters for a while, and probably not miss a beat.

Instead of us looking to trade Harrington, we just need to put him in a role that brings out his strengths, and makes a positive impact on the team. He's averaging 33.5 mpg right now, while Danny is averaging 30 mpg. They could probably average the same numbers they are now, just with different units. I just hope Al can be a team player and accept the role.

That's my proposed solution to the problem....

BlueNGold
01-13-2007, 01:20 PM
I was for the trade to bring back Al, but only because of his leadership and personality. I knew he was not a good fit for the team, but I was still for bringing him back for the other things he would bring. After seeing just how bad of a fit he is, I am not sure bringing him on was a good idea.

Now, I still think he's a good player. However, everyone needs to realize that he came from a team that had a horrible record AND that he was not even the best player. Joe Johnson is the best player on the Hawks. I watched the Hawks pretty closely, and I think even Antoine Walker was better than Al. Considering both sides of the ball, I think Jack might be the better player....at least he fits better in the starting lineup.

If he would be 100% ok with a backup role, that's not a bad option. However, his role should be limited to giving JO a blow. We need JO on the floor at all times with a real C, so I don't want him subbing for Foster. I also don't think he should ever play SF.

All things considered, I think moving Al for a shooter, either PG or SG, is the best plan.

ajbry
01-13-2007, 01:30 PM
Excellent post.

Al has certainly not lived up to expectations. Sure, his stats might say otherwise, but we all are aware of what he can and cannot bring on the floor any given night. His reliance on perimeter shots is disconcerting, his defense has been lackluster to say the least, and his rebounding is awful. However, when he is getting touches, he's pretty much deadly - his shot in the Golden State game (prior to Jack's game winner obviously) was amazing - it was clutch, brilliant, and difficult. And, of course, he is a good-natured guy who is undoubtedly a solid presence in the locker room (except for the complaints to the media about his touches).

I wholeheartedly agree that putting him with the 2nd unit (while still giving him 30+ MPG) would work out very well. Granger is reliable on both sides of the floor for the most part and does not demand the ball nearly as much as Al. Jack would be the bonafide #2 option on the starting unit, as he is used to. JO would most likely receive more touches, ideally in the post.

If Al would accept a modified role to better suit the team, I'm all for him staying. However, if he cannot provide a more consistently valuable effort, we should definitely evaluate our options. Perhaps we could trade him for a PG.

Evan_The_Dude
01-13-2007, 01:32 PM
All things considered, I think moving Al for a shooter, either PG or SG, is the best plan.

I do too, but what team do you see as a realistic trading partner there?

ajbry
01-13-2007, 01:42 PM
I do too, but what team do you see as a realistic trading partner there?

Dre Miller for Harrington works. However, I'm not sure if that would even be a feasible option for Philadelphia, if they are indeed rebuilding.

Roferr
01-13-2007, 01:43 PM
I was against obtaining Al from the very beginning unless it was just to secure him for a future trade. He was a stat man here before leaving and nothing has changed. I've mentioned it before, but the first thing he would do after a game win or lose, was to check his stat line when he hit the locker room. Sort of akin to looking at a group picture and seeing only yourself.

He has been very inconsistent, one night 20 something points the next 2-4. My big question is when he's not contributing why in the heck does RC play him 35-38 minutes? We've got Marshall and Williams sitting on the bench who could benefit from these minutes when he's MIA. I have to put this directly on the coach. If RC plays him to just placate him, then it's time for RC to move on.

Trader Joe
01-13-2007, 01:55 PM
I really think that Al is still a sixth man in this league or the 4th option on a good team. Maybe a starter or first or second option on a team like IDK the Hawks say, but on a team fighting for a playoff position he is a problem being your second offensive option. I feel more comfortable with Jack or Tins having the ball offensively to be honest.

Los Angeles
01-13-2007, 02:06 PM
I don't think Harrington's inconsistency is entirely Harrington's fault. Frankly, he's more consistent than Granger. That should be a signal right there.

Our team continues to have problems with understanding roles and having a team identity in general. This problem is not specific to any one player.

As we are only half way through a re-build, our record and inconsistent play were not only foreseeable, they were completely expected from many of us. Generally, I would consider our team as slightly over-acheiving at this point. (Yeah, I said it. ;) )

I expect Harrington to have a much better season next year, because I expect the team to be a much more stable place to play.

The only thing that worries me is the rumored "opt out" in JO's contract. It scares me when I have more patience than our star player.

v_d_g
01-13-2007, 02:25 PM
Was AGAINST the trade for can't-depend-on-him-when-it-counts AL BIGTIME.

Nothing burns me more than having to give up a 2007 #1 for a plug. Which effectively means this team can't get better anytime soon.

Everyone who wanted him on the team and is now seeing a bit clearer:

enjoy the 2007 draft next June.

Especially when the odds are good that an impact player could've been had in the mid teens.

Walsh needs to step down and Bird needs to transfer fulltime to the European division.

Evan_The_Dude
01-13-2007, 02:34 PM
I wouldn't count us out of the draft just yet.

Shade
01-13-2007, 03:01 PM
Al isn't much different than he was here originally. His offense ha imporved a bit, but his defense has fallen off the map. He's still a black hole at times. What you see is what you get.

I honestly think Al would serve us much better off the bench, but who knows how long it would be before the *****ing sets in.

Hindsight is 20-20, but I have a feeling we're going to be regretting bringing him back. The exemption combined with Cro's contract would have probably netted us AI, and the draft pick we lost could end up being a player better than Al. I was okay with bringing Al back, but I really didn't want to give up that #1 to do it.

Roferr
01-13-2007, 03:09 PM
I don't think Harrington's inconsistency is entirely Harrington's fault. Frankly, he's more consistent than Granger. That should be a signal right there.

Our team continues to have problems with understanding roles and having a team identity in general. This problem is not specific to any one player.

As we are only half way through a re-build, our record and inconsistent play were not only foreseeable, they were completely expected from many of us. Generally, I would consider our team as slightly over-acheiving at this point. (Yeah, I said it. ;) )

I expect Harrington to have a much better season next year, because I expect the team to be a much more stable place to play.

The only thing that worries me is the rumored "opt out" in JO's contract. It scares me when I have more patience than our star player.


Al will never fully accept being a second fiddle to anyone. On a good team like the Spurs or Mavs, he would never work out because he'd want his minimum number of touches. He would probably be coming off the bench for about 15-18 minutes for those teams which would be entirely unacceptable to him.

SoupIsGood
01-13-2007, 03:21 PM
What? I don't think the exemption could have gotten us AI. And I don't think JO can opt out, not after this season anyway. I'm pretty sure I'm right with both of those... maybe not.

Alpolloloco
01-13-2007, 06:18 PM
Excellent post.

Al has certainly not lived up to expectations. Sure, his stats might say otherwise, but we all are aware of what he can and cannot bring on the floor any given night. His reliance on perimeter shots is disconcerting, his defense has been lackluster to say the least, and his rebounding is awful. However, when he is getting touches, he's pretty much deadly - his shot in the Golden State game (prior to Jack's game winner obviously) was amazing - it was clutch, brilliant, and difficult. And, of course, he is a good-natured guy who is undoubtedly a solid presence in the locker room (except for the complaints to the media about his touches).

I wholeheartedly agree that putting him with the 2nd unit (while still giving him 30+ MPG) would work out very well. Granger is reliable on both sides of the floor for the most part and does not demand the ball nearly as much as Al. Jack would be the bonafide #2 option on the starting unit, as he is used to. JO would most likely receive more touches, ideally in the post.

If Al would accept a modified role to better suit the team, I'm all for him staying. However, if he cannot provide a more consistently valuable effort, we should definitely evaluate our options. Perhaps we could trade him for a PG.

This scares me more than Al's inconsistency. Jack should NEVER be the #1 or #2 option in our offense, especially because he's doing fine right now with being the #3 or #4 option.

BlueNGold
01-13-2007, 08:01 PM
This scares me more than Al's inconsistency. Jack should NEVER be the #1 or #2 option in our offense, especially because he's doing fine right now with being the #3 or #4 option.

Jack is a good #2 option on a 7th or 8th seed that goes out in the 1st or second round of the playoffs. Not terrible, but not anywhere near contending for a championship. It depends on what your expectations are, really. I know this team can do that...and I want the team to do better...so if Jack is the #2 option, I agree...nothing better than second round is likely.

PostArtestEra
01-13-2007, 08:29 PM
I'm getting really sick of people on this forum considering good play awful. I.E. "Tinsley is the worst point guard in the league," "Al Harrington is worthless," etc. People need to understand that just because a guy isn't an all star doesn't mean he is awful. I know a lot of people don't like to rely solely on stats, myself included, but here are Harrington's rankings among all NBA small fowards.
PPG-15.8 - 11th
Fg %- .459 - 6th
3pt fg %- .460 - 5th
Rpg- 6.2 - 5th
Aside from only being a 70% free throw shooter and not blocking many shots he has been an above average player.

BlueNGold
01-13-2007, 08:46 PM
I'm getting really sick of people on this forum considering good play awful. I.E. "Tinsley is the worst point guard in the league," "Al Harrington is worthless," etc. People need to understand that just because a guy isn't an all star doesn't mean he is awful. I know a lot of people don't like to rely solely on stats, myself included, but here are Harrington's rankings among all NBA small fowards.
PPG-15.8 - 11th
Fg %- .459 - 6th
3pt fg %- .460 - 5th
Rpg- 6.2 - 5th
Aside from only being a 70% free throw shooter and not blocking many shots he has been an above average player.

Tinsley is not the worst point guard in the league. Al Harrington is not worthless. However, if you want to be a contender for a championship, you have to look at the weak links. Foster, JO and even Jack are not the weakest links on the starting 5.

Also, the expectation is not all-star level. You would probably have to be a top 3 or 4 scorer at SF to be considered for that. Al is not even close, and that's not even the biggest problem. The fact he cannot guard the position is creates major problems for other players attempting to help on D. His and Tinsley's weaknesses on D are a problem that needs to be resolved if you want a better Pacer team. I think that's all we really want here.

PostArtestEra
01-13-2007, 09:07 PM
Tinsley is not the worst point guard in the league. Al Harrington is not worthless. However, if you want to be a contender for a championship, you have to look at the weak links. Foster, JO and even Jack are not the weakest links on the starting 5.

Also, the expectation is not all-star level. You would probably have to be a top 3 or 4 scorer at SF to be considered for that. Al is not even close, and that's not even the biggest problem. The fact he cannot guard the position is creates major problems for other players attempting to help on D. His and Tinsley's weaknesses on D are a problem that needs to be resolved if you want a better Pacer team. I think that's all we really want here.

I don't really think that Harrington is a defensive liability. He surely isn't a great defender and does have some matchup problems, but again he just isn't a great defender.

speakout4
01-13-2007, 09:13 PM
If you add up Al's steals, blocked shots, and assists for his career they add up to less than his PF. His rebounds are not of the hard fought in the paint variety. Regardless of how he is shooting he should pull down 6 rebounds a game minimally.

PostArtestEra
01-13-2007, 09:34 PM
If you add up Al's steals, blocked shots, and assists for his career they add up to less than his PF.

Same thing is true of Jeff Foster, should he be moved too.

BlueNGold
01-13-2007, 09:59 PM
I don't really think that Harrington is a defensive liability. He surely isn't a great defender and does have some matchup problems, but again he just isn't a great defender.

I guess it all depends on what you define to be a defensive liability.
For sure, Al is better at guarding SF's than Tinsley is guarding any position on the floor. However, I do think Al is clearly...and I mean very very clearly...the second worst defender in the starting lineup. Al simply lacks the quickness, length and hops to guard the position....he certainly does not lack the attitude or effort, but he just cannot do it. Now, if Al was playing PF, he would not be as much of a liability on D.

We have an alternative in DG at SF and it's just a matter of time. DG will not be our SG and will not be our PF...he will start at SF for the Pacers for a long time.

Mark it down. Al Harrington will not be our starting SF next year.

Evan_The_Dude
01-13-2007, 10:11 PM
I'm getting really sick of people on this forum considering good play awful. I.E. "Tinsley is the worst point guard in the league," "Al Harrington is worthless," etc. People need to understand that just because a guy isn't an all star doesn't mean he is awful. I know a lot of people don't like to rely solely on stats, myself included, but here are Harrington's rankings among all NBA small fowards.
PPG-15.8 - 11th
Fg %- .459 - 6th
3pt fg %- .460 - 5th
Rpg- 6.2 - 5th
Aside from only being a 70% free throw shooter and not blocking many shots he has been an above average player.

I don't think anybody [at least in this thread] said Al is worthless. He's not worthless, he just doesn't seem to fit in/have a definitive role with this team. If he hadn't developed a three-point shot, then I think things would be much uglier regarding his status with this team. Taking a rule from the "Statless" thread, try looking at Harrington without considering his numbers. You can't tell me he doesn't look completely lost out there.

PostArtestEra
01-13-2007, 10:28 PM
I don't think anybody [at least in this thread] said Al is worthless. He's not worthless, he just doesn't seem to fit in/have a definitive role with this team. If he hadn't developed a three-point shot, then I think things would be much uglier regarding his status with this team. Taking a rule from the "Statless" thread, try looking at Harrington without considering his numbers. You can't tell me he doesn't look completely lost out there.

A couple of people have referred to Harrington as "worthless" in various threads, but thats beyond the point. I honestly don't think that Harrington looks completely lost out there. I truly believe he looks like any decent NBA player. He has had a few real tough games this year, but overall, no, I don't think he looks anywhere near lost.

pacerwaala
01-13-2007, 10:43 PM
I really think that Al is still a sixth man in this league or the 4th option on a good team. Maybe a starter or first or second option on a team like IDK the Hawks say, but on a team fighting for a playoff position he is a problem being your second offensive option. I feel more comfortable with Jack or Tins having the ball offensively to be honest.


Except for the reference to Jack in the last sentence in the above quote, this statement is true for both AL and SJax. From day one, I was not happy when they got Sjackson for AL Harrington and when they brought back AL.


He is a weak *** rebounder (that play in which he did not box out Josh Howard was ridiculous at the end of the Dallas game in Inidana)) and is just a microcosm of what we will be seeing from Al in the years to come.

PostArtestEra
01-13-2007, 10:46 PM
Except for the reference to Jack in the last sentence in the above quote, this statement is true for both AL and SJax. From day one, I was not happy when they got Sjackson for AL Harrington and when they brought back AL.


He is a weak *** rebounder (that play in which he did not box out Josh Howard was ridiculous at the end of the Dallas game in Inidana)) and is just a microcosm of what we will be seeing from Al in the years to come.

No one blocked out on that play. There were three pacers at the basket and no one blocked out. Its a problem with this entire team. Harrington should not take the blame for that.

pacerwaala
01-13-2007, 11:00 PM
No one blocked out on that play. There were three pacers at the basket and no one blocked out. Its a problem with this entire team. Harrington should not take the blame for that.

If I remember correctly, Josh Howard was Al's responsibility. It could be a bigger problem with this team but Al is worhtless in this regard. He is just too slow for a SF, too small for a PF, settles for the jumper too much, cannot elevate much, defensive liability.

Compared to Sjax, I am willing to give him some leeway because he has some positive things like leadership, atitiude, no whining to the refs, etc.

SJax, I will ship him out for a second round pick. I am not even going to start on him (I have stated my position regarding SJax in all my previous posts)

speakout4
01-13-2007, 11:15 PM
Same thing is true of Jeff Foster, should he be moved too.

Poor comparison. There are games that Al is just not there and gives nothing. That can't be said of Foster.

PostArtestEra
01-14-2007, 12:07 AM
Poor comparison. There are games that Al is just not there and gives nothing. That can't be said of Foster.

Thats my point. The fact that his blocks, steals and assists don't equal his personal fouls was a bad statistic. Those just aren't things he does. It would be like saying Shaq has more flagrant fouls in his career than three pointers. Well yeah because he doesn't shoot threes. However, if you want to argue that Al gives no effort, that would be a different discussion.

speakout4
01-14-2007, 12:22 AM
Thats my point. The fact that his blocks, steals and assists don't equal his personal fouls was a bad statistic. Those just aren't things he does. It would be like saying Shaq has more flagrant fouls in his career than three pointers. Well yeah because he doesn't shoot threes. However, if you want to argue that Al gives no effort, that would be a different discussion.

That is what I and everyone else are arguing. That stat was just an addendum.

FireTheCoach
01-14-2007, 04:52 AM
Al Harrington....

What can I say about Al that I didn't say 4-5-6 years ago?

Well, I can say that I dont dislike him nearly as much now as I did back when we were legit contenders for the title. The guys mediocre,... totally replaceable. Always been that way.

Al will have two or three good games in a row then fall off for a week or two then have another couple good games.... inconsistancy is his middle name.

I should have brought the Al-Watch thread out of retirement like I said I would......

I've always said the same thing about Al.... he's an athlete for sure... but that doesn't necessarily make him great basketball player.


and lastly I will add this....

I TOLD YA SO....!

p.s. damn near gaurantee that he has a couple big games now that I've belittled him again..... lol, same ol' predictable Al Harrington.

odeez
01-14-2007, 11:07 AM
Al is good player and has the ability to get us a bunch of points and even a nice amount of rebounds. But he seems to be struggling with consistency, sort of like the Pacers as a team. He seems to need the ball going to him earlier, and if his shot start going in he seems to do well. I would be interested to see our record when he scores twenty plus.

So my question is are we using him correctly?

From what I can see he is getting a ton of playing time. But what I have noticed is he hasn't been taking alot of shots, at least of late. Then you look at his rebounds and there is nothing there. I keep thinking, what is he doing out there then? Is he lost In RC system? He doesn't seem to be able to find his own shot, he** he isn't even taking that many.

The answer is tricky. The first thought any many folks on this board have said move him to the bench. I think that is a great idea, sub him for JO and Granger. The only problem with this is I don't think Al would be into not starting. I think if he did give it a try it might help him and the team.

The other option would be for RC to run some plays early for Al. He needs to start inside and work to the outside. The team needs to try to get him the ball early. Otherwise he seems to drift around playing little or no defense, and that is no good for the team. On the rebounding side of the ball he simply needs to be more aggresive. I remember when he had like a 15 or 18 rebound game and I was like, wow, where did that come from? But since then he hasn't done much in the rebounding dept.

The final solution would be to trade him. It seems a bit early after all the excitement in the summer by Pacers fans with his return. But we are starved for a return to the finals. And when you watch a great team in the MAVS come into our house and beat us in OT with great play. You have to aspire to be like them. That means total team effort. So Al simply can't play the way he did at home in that game or any game. We need him to by that 18 - 20 points, and 6 - 10 rebounds a night guy. He needs to understand that and the team needs to understand that. So if we can't get that happening then moving him somewhere else.

We can't wait anymore! I want us to win a Championship and waiting is not an option.

Evan_The_Dude
01-14-2007, 11:24 AM
People keep saying trading him is the best option, but nobody ever mentions a deal that makes sense for both teams. Who could really use Harrington? Who could we really use in exchange for Harrington? What team can we trade Harrington to that has what we could make use of in return -- while also making a deal that makes financial sense for both teams? This is where I got stuck because I couldn't find anything that seemed to make a lot of sense.

BlueNGold
01-14-2007, 11:47 AM
People keep saying trading him is the best option, but nobody ever mentions a deal that makes sense for both teams. Who could really use Harrington? Who could we really use in exchange for Harrington? What team can we trade Harrington to that has what we could make use of in return -- while also making a deal that makes financial sense for both teams? This is where I got stuck because I couldn't find anything that seemed to make a lot of sense.

I'm not saying it is a great idea. It has problems. But, I think Golden State needs a PF pretty bad and has one too many starting PG's. I think Monta Ellis will supplant Baron Davis as their starter. Baron is still a great player, but is paid a lot of money. We could send them Al and other pieces to match salaries and talent. Obviously, it would take more. But, it would help both teams IMO. GS will need to resign a significant amount of talent, and dumping Davis' contract has to happen. ...or they will lose younger talent like Ellis, Biedrens, Pietrus or Richardson.

brich
01-14-2007, 05:52 PM
I think the challenge for Al is that he and Jermaine like to score in the same areas. I don't have stats to back this up, but it seems like Al plays alot better when he is in and Jermaine is out. That could be simply because he is getting more touchces. I don't think Al compliments Jermaine very well on the offensive end, in fact I think he sort of mimics him. They have tried to push Al out further from the basket, where he can score, but where he is more streaky. I don't think he is playing horrible by any stretch, I just don't think he is able to maximize his potential on the Pacers based on the offense we run, and the players we have.

My big issue with Al, that others have brought up, is that if he isn't scoring, he tends to mentally "check out" from the game. In the games where his shot isn't falling I would like to see him crank up his rebounding, defense, and assists. He tends fade in all categories when is offense isn't there, and for the betterment of the team, this needs to change. RC is going to have to do a better job of coaching in this envrionment also. He will either need to make efforts to get Al some shots, or he needs to pull him if he loses his mojo out there.

I will be interested to see if the Pacers are able to make adjustments that allow Jermaine and Al to co-exist and prosper. The addition of a pure shooter who can knock down the 3-ball and stretch the defense would free up Jermaine and Al both for mid-range shots, or for shots in the post.

Naptown_Seth
01-14-2007, 06:42 PM
Excellent post.

Al has certainly not lived up to expectations. Sure, his stats might say otherwise, but we all are aware of what he can and cannot bring on the floor any given night. His reliance on perimeter shots is disconcerting, his defense has been lackluster to say the least, and his rebounding is awful. However, when he is getting touches, he's pretty much deadly - his shot in the Golden State game (prior to Jack's game winner obviously) was amazing - it was clutch, brilliant, and difficult. And, of course, he is a good-natured guy who is undoubtedly a solid presence in the locker room (except for the complaints to the media about his touches).

I wholeheartedly agree that putting him with the 2nd unit (while still giving him 30+ MPG) would work out very well. Granger is reliable on both sides of the floor for the most part and does not demand the ball nearly as much as Al. Jack would be the bonafide #2 option on the starting unit, as he is used to. JO would most likely receive more touches, ideally in the post.

If Al would accept a modified role to better suit the team, I'm all for him staying. However, if he cannot provide a more consistently valuable effort, we should definitely evaluate our options. Perhaps we could trade him for a PG.
I agree down the line.

Miller for Harrington might work for them since Al is actually younger. But as with Tinsley my favorite solution is just to have him play the game up to his ability and find a way to work within the system. Part of being on a good team means that it's not all going to be about you and often the focus will go pretty far away from you.

I want Al to remember that and find a way, accept whatever role works and keep it positive. If he does the fans won't forget him, that's for sure. People went nuts to see him during his FanJam return. And I've seen them go crazy for Foster, like after his game 2 effort in Detroit during the 2nd round series 2 years ago.

Bench, dirty work, whatever...if you make the most of it you'll have the heart of the Indy fans.

Evan_The_Dude
01-14-2007, 10:20 PM
My big issue with Al, that others have brought up, is that if he isn't scoring, he tends to mentally "check out" from the game. In the games where his shot isn't falling I would like to see him crank up his rebounding, defense, and assists. He tends fade in all categories when is offense isn't there, and for the betterment of the team, this needs to change. RC is going to have to do a better job of coaching in this envrionment also. He will either need to make efforts to get Al some shots, or he needs to pull him if he loses his mojo out there.

Al is just one of those guys that needs his offensive game to be flowing in order for the rest of his game to fall into place. That's not a knock on him, it's just the type of player he is. I think he ever said it himself when he said "I'm a rhythm player." I think he might have been talking about his entire game as a whole when he said that, not just his offensive game.

It's hard for Carlisle to coach someone into becoming more effective without scoring. The only thing I blame Carlisle for is hardly running any plays for Harrington in the post. He's allowed 6'9" 250lb Al Harrington to camp out at the three-point line. It's nice that Al is making those shots, but if he wasn't then things would be really ugly. As a coach you have to be able to put your players in a position that brings out their strengths enough to benefit the team. Having Al camp out at the three-point line isn't making the most of a 6'9" 250lb guy with a nice set of post moves.

Pacerized
01-14-2007, 10:30 PM
Al is giving us about what I expected. Everyone knew he wouldn't rebound, his defense isn't as good as I remember at the 3, but his shooting has improved a great deal. I never thought the front line of J.O., Al, and Danny would work, but there's nothing wrong with having the depth at the 3 now, and a great option as 6th. man. If we didn't sing Al, then I doubt if a better option would have came along for the exception we had before it expired. At least we have a tradable player now. Al has a good attitude, and his salary is a bargain by nba standards for what he brings. I'd be in favor of a trade if it were right for the team, but I wouldn't want to force one just to get a mediocre guard.

brich
01-14-2007, 11:17 PM
Al is just one of those guys that needs his offensive game to be flowing in order for the rest of his game to fall into place. That's not a knock on him, it's just the type of player he is. I think he ever said it himself when he said "I'm a rhythm player." I think he might have been talking about his entire game as a whole when he said that, not just his offensive game.

It's hard for Carlisle to coach someone into becoming more effective without scoring. The only thing I blame Carlisle for is hardly running any plays for Harrington in the post. He's allowed 6'9" 250lb Al Harrington to camp out at the three-point line. It's nice that Al is making those shots, but if he wasn't then things would be really ugly. As a coach you have to be able to put your players in a position that brings out their strengths enough to benefit the team. Having Al camp out at the three-point line isn't making the most of a 6'9" 250lb guy with a nice set of post moves.

You might be right, and I understand rhythm impacting his offense, I just can't get my mind wrapped around the fact that this affects his rebounding and defense. I see defense and rebounding to be more effort based than rhythm based. Ultimately it doesn't matter what I think, Al is just wired the way he is wired whether I get it or not.

I agree with the rest of your post, and indirectly that is part of the critique I was aiming towards Rick. If Al needs to get his O going...then call a couple plays for him in the post, and get him going. If we are calling plays for him and trying to get him involved, and he still isn't feeling it, then maybe you reduce his minutes in those games. It would also be worth trying to keep Al motivated that turning it up on D will generate some more O for him. I realize I am making this very simplistic, but it seems like we should be able to do better than we are doing in this regard.

I agree that we don't need Al on the three point line, but I think part of the reason he is allowed to be out there is that we just don't have alot of good three point shooters. Al winds up taking more of his shots from the outside, and he gets a lower percentage. Just my two cents.

Evan_The_Dude
01-15-2007, 10:49 AM
This article is quite interesting given what we've discussed here...

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007701150360



Last summer, many thought they would immediately become the NBA's next high-scoring duo.





It was assumed Jermaine O'Neal and Al Harrington -- best friends off the court -- would use that connection to help the transition go smoothly.
O'Neal would dominate in the post then step out and knock down mid-range jumpers. Harrington would give the Pacers an inside-outside scoring threat they hadn't had since Ron Artest was an All-Star.

However, what was thought to be an easy transition for the Pacers duo has taken longer than some expected, bringing into question whether players with similar offensive styles can play together.

"Without question we can," O'Neal said. "You look at the Ron situation. I did it with him. It's just a matter of getting used to playing with each other's style. The biggest challenge is how many shots do we take apiece."
O'Neal and Harrington are the Pacers' top scorers, but they've rarely caused havoc together. The two have scored at least 20 points in the same game just three times.

"That's the most baffling thing for me," Harrington said. "Obviously we both have the capability to get 20 a night. I thought it would happen more than it's happened."
As was the case with Artest and O'Neal, the Pacers have two players who know they can dominate offensively. The difference between Artest and Harrington, though, is that the latter doesn't do his own thing by taking bad shots not in the scheme of offense.

"I knew it would take this long because it is difficult when two guys like the ball in the same place," Harrington said. "It's a thing where we have to recognize which one has it going and defer sometimes."
O'Neal has adapted to playing alongside Harrington. O'Neal, who will likely be selected for his sixth All-Star Game, has scored in double figures in 30 of his 32 appearances.
Harrington has been on a roller coaster with his scoring. He has had 10 single-digit scoring games and a number of contests in which he has struggled from the field. Harrington, the Pacers' prized offseason acquisition, has shot below 30 percent from the field 11 times this season.

Harrington said his mentality is that he's a shot away from finding his rhythm again.
"I think the biggest key for Al is that he wants it so bad that he puts too much pressure on himself to do well," O'Neal said. "I always try to tell him to do a couple of other things to get going because we all know he can pretty much score against anybody. Sometimes it can be like taking a charge or getting a couple of rebounds to get you going. He'll be fine."
Harrington's free-flowing style fits in more with an up-tempo offense, but the Pacers have shifted their focus to being a half-court team. That means O'Neal gets the majority of the touches.

"Al's personality is to be aggressive," Pacers coach Rick Carlisle said. "Generally speaking, he's a guy that's going to get looks at the basket. It doesn't matter whether we're running stuff for him or happening out of flow, he's going to get shots. Our goal is to have (O'Neal or Harrington) on the court all the time."

Carlisle said they weren't expecting O'Neal and Harrington to average 20 points each this season. That would require the ball to go exclusively through them, meaning few other players would get touches. The Pacers have five players averaging double-figure points. Carlisle added that O'Neal gets roughly 20 percent of the team's shots and Harrington, who is fifth in the league in 3-point shooting percentage, gets about 18 percent of the shots.
The consensus in the organization is that O'Neal and Harrington will find their rhythm, and when they do, they will be a lethal combination.
"It's a process going on right now," Harrington said. "Some days are good, some days are bad. We're still trying to figure it out. Hopefully by March we'll be clicking."

ChicagoJ
01-16-2007, 06:40 PM
a) Patience.

b) Al is a PF, he's not a good SF at all, at either end of the court. As long as he's playing PF, this team is stuck in neutral. Most importantly, they aren't making any progress toward becoming the on-court team that managment attempted to put together (on-paper, of course).

If Rick has already decided that managment's on-paper team is never going to work, then a lot of trades need to be made soon. Or a coaching change. (I prefer both.)

And that's what I find most surprising - the Pacers aren't really involved in any trade rumors these days, are they? If they're stuck in neutral, why do they have to wait another month to make a move? The east is still wide open, of course I don't know if the Pacers have much in terms of bargaining chips...

ChicagoJ
01-17-2007, 02:34 PM
And that's what I find most surprising - the Pacers aren't really involved in any trade rumors these days, are they? If they're stuck in neutral, why do they have to wait another month to make a move? The east is still wide open, of course I don't know if the Pacers have much in terms of bargaining chips...

:whistle:

Evan_The_Dude
01-17-2007, 03:35 PM
After his lack of production last night as well as his inconsistent performances all season, the first thought that comes to my mind is that we should move him. I still think it's something we should take in to consideration, and I think it's something that has to have crossed the minds of TPTB more than once this season. I played around with the ESPN trade checker a little bit this morning. I was trying to find a realistic deal that made sense for all parties involved.

I pretty much came up with nothing. Other than Golden State, I can't find a team that makes much sense for us to be a trading partner with. Golden State went after Harrington in the off-season, and apparently Harrington wasn't exactly against going there. Right now I keep hearing that J-Rich might be up for grabs. I'd imagine that's probably true with the emergence of Monta Ellis. However J-Rich has been injured pretty often as of late (I believe he's still out now with a broken hand).

The other guy that makes sense for this team [keyword: for this TEAM] is Mike Dunleavy Jr. I'm not a fan of his at all, but I have watched him play a lot. Having a guy with his ball-handling and passing abilities on this team would take a lot of pressure off guys like Tinsley and Sarunas to create shots for the offense. Not to mention Dunleavy is also a decent outside threat as well. Dunleavy would also open up more minutes for Orien Greene to get in the game and play his defensive game without having to worry about running the offense -- Dunleavy can do that [off the bench of course].

On the flip side, Dunleavy's contract sucks. We've spent one too many years over the cap as it is. There's finally relief from that in sight. No need to go out and acquire another 'Croshere' contract. If J-Rich could stay healthy, he'd make perfect sense for us. We could use him extremely bad. But when it comes to injuries, we've been through too much hell to take that risk -- especially on a guy that would be brought in and be expected to be offensive option #2.

That's where I started looking at things differently. Maybe we're just spoiled. As bad as it seems Al has been, I don't think he's been that far off his career numbers. He's even WAY up on his 3-point shooting. However you can't just bring in a player that was option number 1 for a few years somewhere else, and expect them to easily adjust to being option #2.5 ( 2.5 because you can never tell if Harrington is #2 or Jackson is #2). This has got to be the only NBA team I've ever seen aggressively recruit a Free-Agent, bring him in as a predetermined second scoring option, then hardly run a play for him. I think that whole concept is a bit, retarted.

Al Harrington isn't Antawn Jamison. He's not quick off his feet in grabbing rebounds to the point that he can average 20 points just off rebounding (the Golden State Jamison, not Washington's version). Once in a while I see them post up Al, and once in a while I see him make an extremely quick move to the basket for the score before his defender can even get his feet set. That tells me that Harrington can be a strong post man if we utilize him there.

I think in order for Harrington to be more effective, he'd be better suited for the second unit. Granger should start and give us the defense that Harrington lacks. I don't think Harrington is going to become a better player than he is now, but Granger shows a lot of promise to be something special. In addition, we also have Shawne Williams waiting in the wings. If we can get Harrington off the bench, he can play his natural PF position (Center in a smaller lineup), while opening up more minutes for Shawne, and even Rawle Marshall. At that point, we could probably bring in our entire second unit in the game, rest our starters for a while, and probably not miss a beat.

Instead of us looking to trade Harrington, we just need to put him in a role that brings out his strengths, and makes a positive impact on the team. He's averaging 33.5 mpg right now, while Danny is averaging 30 mpg. They could probably average the same numbers they are now, just with different units. I just hope Al can be a team player and accept the role.

That's my proposed solution to the problem....


Well I sorta called that one...

LoneGranger33
01-17-2007, 05:33 PM
Well I sorta called that one...

"Mad props" as the kids say. I'm assuming you like the trade then, or can at least understand it?

Shade
01-17-2007, 06:20 PM
Further proof that TPTB at least listen to the fans. Jack, Quis, and now this...far too coincidental for my tastes. :)