PDA

View Full Version : 1999/2000 Finals



pwee31
06-05-2007, 01:55 PM
They're showing it on ESPN. Kinda sad, but fun as well. Nice to see Conseco rocking. I still get goosebumps watching

pwee31
06-05-2007, 01:58 PM
AH! If Reggie hits that 3 to win it in game 4, I think we win the championship. It was online as well.

Kobe was unreal in that game as well!

OakMoses
06-05-2007, 02:05 PM
It was still Market Square in '99 - '00, wasn't it?

pwee31
06-05-2007, 02:10 PM
It was still Market Square in '99 - '00, wasn't it?

Nope, I thought so as well, but it was at Conseco

pwee31
06-05-2007, 02:18 PM
I always forget that Kobe hurt his ankle, b/c he came up so huge in that Game 4 overtime.

Arcadian
06-05-2007, 02:20 PM
We were closer to beating the eventual champion Pistons in 2004 than we were to beating the Lakers in 2000.

In a lot of ways that team was fool's gold. They lost in seven to the last great team out of the East in 98, collapsed the next year and were a doormat for the Laker dynasty in 2000. I liked those players even Best and Rose. They were fun times but I think we fool ourselves when we talk about how close to a championship that team was. The more the years good by the legend grows of how great that team was.

I might as well say it. Even though the 2000 Pacers were more likeable 04 Pacers > 00 Pacers. 04 was more talanted and closer to being a great team and a championship than any NBA Pacer team up until then.

Hicks
06-05-2007, 02:26 PM
I think the 2000 team would beat the 2004 team in a 7 game series. Talent isn't everything, as we should all know VERY well by now.

Trader Joe
06-05-2007, 02:28 PM
I think the 2000 team would beat the 2004 team in a 7 game series. Talent isn't everything, as we should all know VERY well by now.

Bingo. One team made it to the NBA finals and the other didn't.

Only advantage '04 team has IMO is JO. Ron vs. Rose is probably a wash in the end, maybe Ron by a nose. The backcourt tho is not even a contest. Jackson>Tins, younger, old Reggie>older, old Reggie.

Lord Helmet
06-05-2007, 02:57 PM
I think the 2000 team would beat the 2004 team in a 7 game series. Talent isn't everything, as we should all know VERY well by now.
Easily.

They'd destroy them.

Naptown_Seth
06-05-2007, 03:47 PM
I think the 2000 team would beat the 2004 team in a 7 game series. Talent isn't everything, as we should all know VERY well by now.
I agree and disagree. They would win because talent is key and the 2000 team had SHOOTERS. They could fill it up all over the lineup. Sure 2004 would throw some tough defense at them, but with Rik, Dale and Perkins that 2000 team could play long against the Pacers main low scoring threat in a manner similar to what Wallace and Wallace did. Sheed's length especially bothered JO's turnaround and fade moves, and Ben clogged the inside when he tried his drives.

Reggie 2000 blows the doors off of any scoring option 2004 had. Let's face it, we all know Rip was doing his Reggie impression to lift the Pistons over the Pacers in 2004.

I just don't think Ron's offense would be enough to overcome Rose's modest defense, not enough to make up for all the other trouble spots. Rose would have a terrible series of course, but Croshere and Perkins would still get theirs as would Rik due to his height. And Tinsley would do nothing to slow down Jax, though of course at the other end Jax wouldn't exactly stop Tins either.

Harrington off the bench though...that would be interesting for the 2004 team. That could be the secret weapon I suppose.


As a Pacer fan I can't think of a way I'd rather spend a few hours more than watching this exact matchup in action (players in those years, not some old-timers game). Oh time machine, why aren't you invented yet? :D


BTW, the 2000 Finals Pacers OUTSCORED the Lakes in that series. I attended both games 3 and 5 and I attended all the Pacers-Pistons playoff games (2004 and 2005) and I have to say that they were closer to beating the Lakers than they were the Pistons. People just assumed that the Lakers were the obvious thing due to the regular season wins but the Pacers had MORE scoring options and could really light it up.

Kobe in game 4 saved the day IMO. It was inches away from going Indy's way, and people forget the Pacers had a chance to stop it from even going into OT in the first place.

Naptown_Seth
06-05-2007, 03:49 PM
Bingo. One team made it to the NBA finals and the other didn't.
2004 Pistons >>> 2000 Knicks

Talk about matchups that wouldn't even be close.

idioteque
06-05-2007, 03:56 PM
I was in Germany during that entire series, missed the whole thing except for Game 1. I was way out in the Bavarian countryside and never really knew that was going on until I found out that the Pacers lost in 6. Realistically that's how I thought that the series would have turned out beforehand.

However, after recently going back and analyzing the series, and seeing that had Reggie hit that shot in OT in Game 4 we would have evened the series at 2-2, then things really could have been interesting. I'm not saying 100% that we would have won, but if a team ties a series up 2-2 that introduces an entire different element than if a team is down 3-1. That is why I think that Game 4 is always one of the most important games of any series, if no team is up 3-0 at that time. We were so close in my opinion.

And Kobe was just lights friggin out in that game.

Stuck in between the Bulls and Lakers' dynasties...always the bridesmaid and never the bride :(

Robobtowncolt
06-05-2007, 03:57 PM
I was at Hoosier Boy's State and didn't get to watch a single game.

That's right. I'm a loser.

MagicRat
06-05-2007, 04:01 PM
I didn't see a game of it, either. Still haven't.

pwee31
06-05-2007, 04:07 PM
The 2000 team I honestly felt was better then the 2000 Lakers.

Aside from Game 1, the Pacers could/should've won any of the other 3 that they lost.

The Lakers shouldn't even have beaten Portland in the series before!

And I'm not one of those conspiracy theory type people, but as soon as the Lakers came back to beat the Trailblazers, I figured we would lose, even though I thought we had the better team. It just felt so similiar to the Knick years, and that Game 7 against the Bulls that one year. I knew we could/should win, but something in me knew they wouldn't.

Ragnar
06-05-2007, 04:13 PM
Kobe in game 4 saved the day IMO. It was inches away from going Indy's way, and people forget the Pacers had a chance to stop it from even going into OT in the first place.

This is a huge part of why I hate Rick and Larry. I will never forgive them for letting Travis waste clock and try to shoot over Shaq. They were trying to play it safe rather than going for the win.

I was in the stands screaming my throat raw that they could win if they just called a time out and put Mark back in.

JayRedd
06-05-2007, 04:16 PM
They were fun times but I think we fool ourselves when we talk about how close to a championship that team was. The more the years good by the legend grows of how great that team was.

I agree that we had NO shot against an in-his-prime Shaq along with Kobe.

But we were about three offensive rebounds away from knocking off MJ in that Game 7. And there's no doubt in my mind that we would have rode that high and steamrolled Stockton and Malone.

Arcadian
06-05-2007, 05:28 PM
I lived (and live) in LA and saw a lot of both teams that year. The Lakers were better. As I saw it we won the game with no Kobe and caught the Lakers relaxing in game 5. (The point difference can be accounted by for game 5.) Yeah, the scores were close but they were the team with more poise, better coaching and more will to win. You can argue if this or that shot went in it would be different but of course if Travis hadn't made a three in the first round this conversation would be moot. After all is anyone going to say the Bucks were better?

Shade
06-05-2007, 11:27 PM
The 2000 Pacers aren't even the best NBA Pacer team of all time. The 1998 team was better. Either team would absolutely dominate today's Eastern Conference, and have a good shot at the title as well.

ChicagoJ
06-05-2007, 11:36 PM
I was at Hoosier Boy's State and didn't get to watch a single game.

That's right. I'm a loser.

I drove a moving van to Chicago during Game #4, and still have never seen it (and won't.)

And lost the radio broadcast approaching Chicago on I-65 (right after Sam Perkins' three to send it to OT) only to discover that ESPN Radio in Chicago was broadcasting a WhiteSox game that night instead of the NBA Finals. All that we unpacked that first night was a mattress... I had to figure out where my nearest newstand was to find out the score the next morning.

I did go to Games #3 and #5 (although damn tired from all the packing, unpacking and driving), and will certainly vouch for it being in the Fieldhouse.

But my buddy that is from Cleveland has an equally bad "plans were made in April" story - he and his wife leave for Europe on Thursday morning so he'll miss the entire NBA Finals I think. Now he doesnt' have tickets, so its not "as bad..."

clownskull
06-06-2007, 02:35 AM
The 2000 Pacers aren't even the best NBA Pacer team of all time. The 1998 team was better. Either team would absolutely dominate today's Eastern Conference, and have a good shot at the title as well.

i completely agree. that 98 team was the best. by 2000, smits was running on fumes. he was not a useful player anymore. shaq totally ruled him in 2000. not saying the 98 smits could have stopped him however, he could have minimzed shaq's scoring with more of his own (as compared to the 2000 rik)

I'd love to see the 98 team against today's teams. not gonna happen of course but, one can dream.

beast23
06-07-2007, 06:11 PM
Just saw this thread.

In game 4 of 2000, we had fouled out Shaq and basically played 5 on Kobe during the overtime. In that game, I honestly felt as though we had successfully fouled out Shaq about 2 to 2-1/2 minutes before foul #6 was ever called... and should have won it in regulation. But, all we had to do in the overtime was to stop Kobe... and we didn't.

I believe that we could have taken that series. The Lakers were having a very hard time choosing between rebounding the ball defensively or covering our three-point shooters.

As far as 2004 goes, I believe we did not beat Detroit and go on to win the championship for one reason and one reason only. Detroit acquired Rasheed for peanuts just prior to the trade deadline. Wallace ended up being the perfect piece that the Pistons needed to knock out the Pacers. As I recall, several Pistons stated after winning the title that they had a far more difficult time against the Pacers in the EC finals than they did in the finals.

If the two teams played each other, both being half court teams, I believe the 2000 team would win quite handily. I just don't think the 2004 team could handle the interior men at all. Between Smits, Perkins and Croshere all hitting mid- to long-range jumpers, along with Reggie bombing away as well and MJax able to hit a wide open 3-pointer, the 2004 team would have a hell of time on the defensive boards.

Bball
06-07-2007, 06:42 PM
I would like our chances even better if Bender wasn't a part of the team and we would have still had AD or had traded him for a useful player.

In any case, some of you (including management) severely underestimated what we had and severely over estimated how easily we could get back to that level. We're still trying... and farther away than at any time in the last 15 or so years.

-Bball

beast23
06-07-2007, 06:46 PM
I would like our chances even better if Bender wasn't a part of the team and we would have still had AD or had traded him for a useful player.

In any case, some of you (including management) severely underestimated what we had and severely over estimated how easily we could get back to that level. We're still trying... and farther away than at any time in the last 15 or so years.

-BballAgreed... I had forgotten about AD. I had always been of the opinion that we were missing one more big man to take the series, and that's exactly what we gave up in acquiring Bender.

PR07
06-07-2007, 07:00 PM
I think having Antonio Davis instead of an infant Jonathan Bender would've helped us handle Shaq a lot better. We really had only one competent defender in Dale Davis because veteran center duo of Smits and the Big Smooth just didn't have the athleticism. I still think that the Lakers would've ultimately beat us though.

BlueNGold
06-07-2007, 11:17 PM
The 2000 Pacers were not the best version of that squad...but it would have beat any of the JO era teams. There are several reasons beyond the 2004 team's incredible lack of maturity and chemistry that would have them doomed.

A much younger Dale Davis would keep JO under control. You know how much JO struggles against long, physical players like Kenyon Martin.

Rik Smits would have too much length for the sub-7ft front line of Foster and JO. JO would have to guard Smits (or Perkins) who would take him outside...perimeter D is one of JO's weaknesses of course. Smits' defense or lack thereof would be irrelevant against Foster. Rik could go to sleep on Foster and sacrifice nothing. This would certainly keep Smits fresh and out of foul trouble...something always a problem on that team.

Derrick McKey's length...at least as long as Prince, would have slowed Artest down. Ron has real problems against longer defenders. He gets frustrated and loses his mind.

A younger Miller would have been better too.

Naptown_Seth
06-08-2007, 02:24 AM
I didn't see a game of it, either. Still haven't.Walking home after game 5, cars and crowd going crazy, helicopters in the air, and the euphoria of a total beatdown of the Lakers remains one of my favorite Pacers memories.

BTW, I had the opposite moving situation. I moved to Houston before the 97-98 season so I wasn't in town for that classic series, watched game 7 in a Houston sports bar where all non-Bulls fans were on my side even if they didn't care about the Pacers otherwise. :)

But just in the nick of time I found a job back in Indy in early 2000 and moved back for that entire playoff run, including having the money (thanks bonus) to buy some good seats (box office) and really enjoy it. It sure made up for missing 1998, especially that Knicks series.


Of course this was totally outdone when I pulled the trigger on an AFC CG ticket and that game/post-game walk took over as my greatest Indy sporting moment. :)

I've seen a lot of painful losses, horrible play (21-0 in the 1st qtr vs the Bills, ugh) and stuff that makes you want to give up watching, but those rare moments of magic are like freaking crack. You see Smits hit a miracle jumper and it'll keep you coming back for years just hoping for another fix.

Bball
06-08-2007, 08:42 AM
I also want to mention that some of the same people that proclaimed LA's greatness and Indiana having no chance against that 'dynasty'... ever... also proclaimed Detroit to have no chance against them.

-Bball

Arcadian
06-08-2007, 11:37 AM
I didn't think that the 04 Lakers were unbeatable. There were chemistry issues, Malone was hurt, Payton was in decline and the rest of the team very was mediocre. Also Detriot was better than any NBA Indiana team we have floored.

Honestly, I don't know who was better 2000, 2004, 1998. However we overrate the 2000 team and recently it has been to take a shot at the current Pacers rather than anything else.

BlueNGold
06-08-2007, 07:51 PM
Honestly, I don't know who was better 2000, 2004, 1998. However we overrate the 2000 team and recently it has been to take a shot at the current Pacers rather than anything else.

Honestly, with all due respect, you might want to drop the "we". Some of us actually know which team was better and are capable of rating these clubs with a fair amount of accuracy.

But you are absolutely right that shots are being taken at the 2004 team (most who are not "current Pacers" as you describe, btw). Nevertheless, that group largely deserves it and I'm not ashamed to say that. The 2000 team literally brought years of joy, while the 2004 team has brought mostly misery. For those who did not follow the Pacers from 1993-2000, you have no idea what you missed.

It will be a good day when the last of them (JO and Tinsley) are gone forever. It's time to close the chapter on the JO era....and fortunately TPTB feel the same way.

Arcadian
06-08-2007, 09:30 PM
Honestly, with all due respect, you might want to drop the "we". Some of us actually know which team was better and are capable of rating these clubs with a fair amount of accuracy.

But you are absolutely right that shots are being taken at the 2004 team (most who are not "current Pacers" as you describe, btw). Nevertheless, that group largely deserves it and I'm not ashamed to say that. The 2000 team literally brought years of joy, while the 2004 team has brought mostly misery. For those who did not follow the Pacers from 1993-2000, you have no idea what you missed.

It will be a good day when the last of them (JO and Tinsley) are gone forever. It's time to close the chapter on the JO era....and fortunately TPTB feel the same way.

Sorry to offend you but you have proved my point.

By the way when people who aren't from Portland or Sac start saying that the better team didn't win against a dynasty they are overrating the Pacers regardless of who they think is better 2000 or 2004.

BlueNGold
06-08-2007, 10:05 PM
Sorry to offend you but you have proved my point.

By the way when people who aren't from Portland or Sac start saying that the better team didn't win against a dynasty they are overrating the Pacers regardless of who they think is better 2000 or 2004.

You are not offending....and you are correct. In fact, in my post I said you were absolutely correct. The fact my response proves your "point" is consistent with my view as well of course. Many people pursue every opportunity to take shots at players from the 2004 team. I pursue my share and am not ashamed of it. Those clowns deserve it.

As for the 2000 Lakers, they were the better team. As usual, the better team wins the 7 game series. That does not change the fact that the 2000 Pacers would beat a very talented yet dysfunctional team of thugs.

Ahhh. There's your "point" again.

CableKC
06-10-2007, 01:42 PM
Just an FYI....Game 4 of the Lakers/Pacers 1999/2000 finals is on ESPN Classic at 11am PDT.

CableKC
06-10-2007, 03:16 PM
I'm comparing the Lakers of the 1999/2000 season to the current version of the Lakers...and I am amazed at how the different the Lakers offense looks when it doesn't flow entirely through Kobe...or more specifically...1 player.

I know that the 1999/2000 version of the Lakers had great players like Shaq,Horry and even solid contributors like Ron Harper.....but the offense just appears more efficient.

The same can be said for the Pacers......Reggie was the main guy....but he didn't have the ball in his hands 90% of the time.

This begs the obvious question....do Championship teams of recent years run their offense through a single player ( a la teams with Kobe or Lebron )?

When I think of Championship teams like the Spurs, Lakers or the Pistons.....there were dominant go-to guys like Duncan, Shaq/Kobe, Chauncey....but they had a solid supporting cast that were able to step up.

If JONeal goes.....do we have the type of players that can develop into these type of teams?

Maybe I'm ranting....but when I watch the 1999/2000 NBA finals game...I can't help but think that the Pacers of that year was significantly different...compared to the current/recent versions.

Trader Joe
06-10-2007, 03:52 PM
I forgot how much defensive rebounding killed us in overtime. :(

Anthem
06-10-2007, 03:56 PM
Show of hands... anybody besides BBall think we should have tried to keep the 2000 team together for longer?

That team was done. End of story. If we'd have kept them together, we'd have won more regular season games, but that's it. And we all know that's what Bball lives for.

BlueNGold
06-10-2007, 03:57 PM
I'm comparing the Lakers of the 1999/2000 season to the current version of the Lakers...and I am amazed at how the different the Lakers offense looks when it doesn't flow entirely through Kobe...or more specifically...1 player.

I know that the 1999/2000 version of the Lakers had great players like Shaq,Horry and even solid contributors like Ron Harper.....but the offense just appears more efficient.

The same can be said for the Pacers......Reggie was the main guy....but he didn't have the ball in his hands 90% of the time.

This begs the obvious question....do Championship teams of recent years run their offense through a single player ( a la teams with Kobe or Lebron )?

When I think of Championship teams like the Spurs, Lakers or the Pistons.....there were dominant go-to guys like Duncan, Shaq/Kobe, Chauncey....but they had a solid supporting cast that were able to step up.

If JONeal goes.....do we have the type of players that can develop into these type of teams?

Maybe I'm ranting....but when I watch the 1999/2000 NBA finals game...I can't help but think that the Pacers of that year was significantly different...compared to the current/recent versions.

I think you know the difference.

The Pacers of 2000 used good team work to win games. There was better ball movement ala the current San Antonio Spurs. Sure, Reggie had his spectacular moments, but there was not one player as good as DWade, Lebron, Kobe, Shaq, etc. The pieces were just put together particularly well. They complemented each other extremely well.

The team had an inside-out game with Rik and Reggie. A great distributer and leader with Mark Jackson. An unbelievable shooter with Reggie. An enforcer/rebounder/defender with Dale Davis. A great defensive specialist who also could drain a timely three in Derrick Mckey. A veteran big man who could not only defend the post but was deadly from three in Sam Perkins. A 7'4" true C with a feathery touch in Rik Smits.

OMG, that was a fun team to watch on offense. The selfishness factor was low and the maturity factor was high..ala the current Spurs team. As a result, the ball moved rapidly. Someday we might see a team like that again. I think Bird knows the game should be played that way, but I don't know if he can get us there...

Trader Joe
06-10-2007, 04:00 PM
Show of hands... anybody besides BBall think we should have tried to keep the 2000 team together for longer?

That team was done. End of story. If we'd have kept them together, we'd have won more regular season games, but that's it. And we all know that's what Bball lives for.

I mean its tough to say now. If we had kept that team together do I think we probably would have won the East again next year? Yeah. Do I think we would have gone on to lose to LA again? Again yeah.

Kegboy
06-10-2007, 04:19 PM
Just caught the OT on Classic. Some thoughts:

- Who was the idiot calling color? Sounds like a former player, and he acted like a cross between Mark Jackson and Stephen A. Smith. There was an ESPN graphic, it wasn't NBC's feed for some reason.

- It's a crying shame about Rik's feet. Damn he was on.

- Dick Bavetta can burn in hell. In fact, I wouldn't mind going to hell if I got to see him getting tortured every day.

- People talk about the '01 Lakers team being the best, that's bull. Yeah, they went through everyone like a freight train, but that 2000 team had Horry, Fisher, and Fox coming off the bench. People never give Rice the credit he deserves for that first championship. Without him, I think we beat 'em.

[edit] As for the debate at hand, 2000 team would beat the '04 team easily, and the '98 team would slaughter them. Not even a contest.

Shade
06-10-2007, 04:20 PM
Show of hands... anybody besides BBall think we should have tried to keep the 2000 team together for longer?

That team was done. End of story. If we'd have kept them together, we'd have won more regular season games, but that's it. And we all know that's what Bball lives for.

Peck does, without a doubt.

Shade
06-10-2007, 04:22 PM
Just caught the OT on Classic. Some thoughts:

- Who was the idiot calling color? Sounds like a former player, and he acted like a cross between Mark Jackson and Stephen A. Smith. There was an ESPN graphic, it wasn't NBC's feed for some reason.

- It's a crying shame about Rik's feet. Damn he was on.

- Dick Bavetta can burn in hell. In fact, I wouldn't mind going to hell if I got to see him getting tortured every day.

- People talk about the '01 Lakers team being the best, that's bull. Yeah, they went through everyone like a freight train, but that 2000 team had Horry, Fisher, and Fox coming off the bench. People never give Rice the credit he deserves for that first championship. Without him, I think we beat 'em.

I was a Dick hater well before it became popular.




















Admit it, something else came to mind when you read that the first time. Freakin' pervert. :-p

Kegboy
06-10-2007, 04:28 PM
I was a Dick hater well before it became popular.

I've hated him since the '98 ECF.

If it weren't for Bavetta I might not even be here. My first post on RATS was about how much I hate him.

Shade
06-10-2007, 04:48 PM
I've hated him since the '98 ECF.

If it weren't for Bavetta I might not even be here. My first post on RATS was about how much I hate him.

I've hated him since...1995, I think?

I was ahead of the curve on Dick Bavetta, David Stern, Al Harrington, and George W. Bush. :D

Kegboy
06-10-2007, 05:07 PM
I've hated him since...1995, I think?


I used to buy the party line and think he was a good ref. Then he ref'd 2 games that series, and was so bad I could even tell watching on TV. The next year I got season tickets, and the rest is history.

Bball
06-10-2007, 08:52 PM
Show of hands... anybody besides BBall think we should have tried to keep the 2000 team together for longer?

That team was done. End of story. If we'd have kept them together, we'd have won more regular season games, but that's it. And we all know that's what Bball lives for.

Yes, that team was finished. I could tell the moment they won the ECF's and went on to the NBA Finals that they were thru. Things have been so much better since then because it's SO easy to get back there and build a team with that type of balance and chemistry.

Walsh was obviously correct to pull the plug on the team and start the dismantling in 99 after that thrashing by the Knicks in the ECF. I admit I didn't see it at the time but by the next year, and being a basket away from taking a 3-2 lead back to LA, and then (IIRC) leading in the 4th in what could force a 7th game against the all-mighty Lakers, but that was the writing on the wall.

Nobody on that team could dunk from the FT line or score on a 720 corkscrew dunk.

You are SOOOO right, Anthem. That team was finished and in a severe decline. Thank God we didn't have to suffer thru anymore of those failures and were able to finally get a player who could "throw down". Yes, that team was D.O.N.E.. And all that experience... who needs that when you can have potential?

No arguments from me. How could anyone argue with your facts that clearly show they were finished and far beyond tweaking?

Thankfully, the team now is a world-beater.

-Bball

Shade
06-10-2007, 08:57 PM
Yes, that team was finished. I could tell the moment they won the ECF's and went on to the NBA Finals that they were thru. Things have been so much better since then because it's SO easy to get back there and build a team with that type of balance and chemistry.

Walsh was obviously correct to pull the plug on the team and start the dismantling in 99 after that thrashing by the Knicks in the ECF. I admit I didn't see it at the time but by the next year, and being a basket away from taking a 3-2 lead back to LA, and then (IIRC) leading in the 4th in what could force a 7th game against the all-mighty Lakers, but that was the writing on the wall.

Nobody on that team could dunk from the FT line or score on a 720 corkscrew dunk.

You are SOOOO right, Anthem. That team was finished and in a severe decline. Thank God we didn't have to suffer thru anymore of those failures and were able to finally get a player who could "throw down". Yes, that team was D.O.N.E.. And all that experience... who needs that when you can have potential?

No arguments from me. How could anyone argue with your facts that clearly show they were finished and far beyond tweaking?

Thankfully, the team now is a world-beater.

-Bball

Boy, it sure is a good thing the Lakers (who beat the Pacers in 6 games in 2000) didn't get even better and make it back to the Finals the following season.

Oh, wait...

That team wasn't going to get by the Lakers. All we would have succeeded in doing is becoming the has-been Celtics, but without any of the championships.

In addition, Rick retired, and Jax had a "spiritual awakening" or something.

That team was done.

Arcadian
06-10-2007, 09:25 PM
Rik and Larry retired. Dale demanded to be traded. Derrick wasn't even a regular part of the rotation then. Jackson got way too much money for an aging point guard who was splitting minutes with Travis Best.

I just don't see how Donnie is responsible for breaking up that team.

I could see that team coming out of the East but the East sucked. In reality that Pacer team would have been the behind 4or 5 teams in the West.

BlueNGold
06-10-2007, 09:42 PM
I could see that team coming out of the East but the East sucked. In reality that Pacer team would have been the behind 4or 5 teams in the West.
:bs:

Just because the EC was weaker does not mean the Pacers were weak that year. Indiana's winning pct that year against the WC was better than the EC. (68% v 71%) There were only 2 teams in the NBA with a better regular season record. The Pacers were either #2 or #3 in the NBA that year behind LA and maybe Portland.

Arcadian
06-10-2007, 10:08 PM
I'm talking about how good the team would have been in 2001. A year older without Smits or any lost post scorer. As it was the 2000 team nearly lost to the Bucks and the year before crumbled against the Knicks. They weren't an all time great team.

In 2000/2001 there were 7 teams out West with 50 or more wins. The Spurs, Kings, Lakers were all better. Maybe lub., Dallas and Portland were.

Kegboy
06-10-2007, 10:27 PM
It's been 7 years. Nobody's gonna change their mind on this. If someone wants to believe that we could have won it all by throwing money at Jax, not trading Dale, and not releasing Mully, that's fine. If they want to rewrite history and say that Larry left because of those moves, not before, and they choose to believe that Rik retired from professional basketball out of protest, and not because of his feet, that's okay too.

BlueNGold
06-10-2007, 10:29 PM
I'm talking about how good the team would have been in 2001. A year older without Smits or any lost post scorer. As it was the 2000 team nearly lost to the Bucks and the year before crumbled against the Knicks. They weren't an all time great team.

In 2000/2001 there were 7 teams out West with 50 or more wins. The Spurs, Kings, Lakers were all better. Maybe lub., Dallas and Portland were.

Ah. Sorry. I understand and agree with your assessment. The team was headed down at that point. Actually, it was already headed down by 1999. If they had been able to get by Chicago in 1998, they would have won it all. I actually believe they were the best team in the NBA that year...but MJ got it done.

gilpdawg
06-10-2007, 10:35 PM
AH! If Reggie hits that 3 to win it in game 4, I think we win the championship. It was online as well.

Kobe was unreal in that game as well!

I just watched that game for the first time today. During that finals, I had just started a new job on second shift, so I missed the whole damn series. I never realized we were so close to winning that series.

Kegboy
06-10-2007, 10:49 PM
Is it bad for me to admit that Mully and Perkins were two of my favorite bench players of all time :blush: (for the Pacers, that is)

I used to love hearing "The Big Smooooooooooooooooooooooth" from the PA guy

Oh, Smooth was great. However, that reminds me, add another to the list: "Rik and Dale's presence would have magically kept Sam from falling apart in '01." :(

Kegboy
06-10-2007, 10:53 PM
I wanted Reggie to pump fake that soooooo bad :mad:

I dont think he realized how much time he had left, but whats done is done

I think he said after the fact he should have passed it to Rik, who was open. Seeing how hot Rik was in OT, that may have been a good idea.

Of course, we should remember that, if we'd won that game, LA probably wouldn't have taken game 5 off like they did. It's very difficult to win the middle 3, even for such a great home team like we were. For all we know, Stern might have assigned Bavetta to every remaining game. :uhoh:

Anthem
06-10-2007, 11:06 PM
You are SOOOO right, Anthem. That team was finished and in a severe decline. Thank God we didn't have to suffer thru anymore of those failures and were able to finally get a player who could "throw down". Yes, that team was D.O.N.E.. And all that experience... who needs that when you can have potential?

No arguments from me. How could anyone argue with your facts that clearly show they were finished and far beyond tweaking?
Great gravy, man, get a grip. Smits was done, regardless of anything else that happened. There was no changing that. Jack wanted more than a 4-year contract, even though we offered him more money than Toronto. No changing that either. Mully got absolutely destroyed in the Finals, it was clear he was done. No changing that. Once you lose your center, your point guard, and your wingman, the same team isn't coming back. It's a pipe dream.

You constantly complain that Donnie just wants to win in the regular season, but not in the postseason. Well guess what: if we'd have kept Dale along with Reggie and Rose, we'd have won a decent number of regular season games, but there's no way we get back to the Finals. Trading for Jermaine a shot at grabbing the next great big man. It was a shot at doing more than just winning in the regular season.

We could tweak all we wanted, but that wasn't going to get us back to the Finals. TPTB made a gamble by reloading around Jermaine instead of sticking with Jalen Rose. Donnie rolled the dice, and it didn't come out our way. I'd rather that we try for postseason success and fail than be happy with a mediocre team year after year after year.

Robertmto
06-10-2007, 11:31 PM
I miss Smits :cry:

Hicks
06-11-2007, 12:33 AM
Boy, it sure is a good thing the Lakers (who beat the Pacers in 6 games in 2000) didn't get even better and make it back to the Finals the following season.

Oh, wait...

That team wasn't going to get by the Lakers. All we would have succeeded in doing is becoming the has-been Celtics, but without any of the championships.

In addition, Rick retired, and Jax had a "spiritual awakening" or something.

That team was done.

Cleveland doesn't stand a chance against the Pistons. They play the games for a reason. At least we would have BEEN THERE to find out!

Hicks
06-11-2007, 12:36 AM
It's been 7 years. Nobody's gonna change their mind on this. If someone wants to believe that we could have won it all by throwing money at Jax, not trading Dale, and not releasing Mully, that's fine. If they want to rewrite history and say that Larry left because of those moves, not before, and they choose to believe that Rik retired from professional basketball out of protest, and not because of his feet, that's okay too.

But...but... ISIAH would have been our coach! 2001 Champions, baby! :happydanc

Arcadian
06-11-2007, 12:40 AM
Cleveland doesn't stand a chance against the Pistons. They play the games for a reason. At least we would have BEEN THERE to find out!

Who would have been on that team?

Hicks
06-11-2007, 12:55 AM
Who would have been on that team?

Yeah, I wrote that before reading on to be reminded of the unlikelihood of keeping the team together.

Still, I hate the assumption people make that even if the same team came back, we stood no chance. Bull****.

Arcadian
06-11-2007, 01:15 AM
The 2001 Lakers had one of the most impressive playoff runs ever. The swept Portland, the Kings and the Spurs. I love the Pacers. I loved those 98-00 teams. I love Dick Harter, but I can't say if somehow we could have brought that team back they would have fared better.

NuffSaid
06-11-2007, 11:08 AM
IMO, the 2000 Pacers team would have defeated the 2004 team by virtue of experience alone. The only player who legitimately stopped them was Shaq. I don't think he scored less than 20 pts in any game during that 2000 Finals series. Remove him from the equation and the Pacers win easily.

Rik and D2 tried, but even their combined efforts weren't good enough to stop Shaq.

The 2001 Lakers had one of the most impressive playoff runs ever. The swept Portland, the Kings and the Spurs. I love the Pacers. I loved those 98-00 teams. I love Dick Harter, but I can't say if somehow we could have brought that team back they would have fared better.
I'm confinced that had the 2000 Pacers team returned for 2001 including Bird and his coaching staff, they would have returned to the NBA Finals again that year. No doubt about it.

Shade
06-11-2007, 01:48 PM
Cleveland doesn't stand a chance against the Pistons. They play the games for a reason. At least we would have BEEN THERE to find out!

You're preaching to the wrong choir with that comparison. :-p

Naptown_Seth
06-12-2007, 04:16 PM
Yeah, I wrote that before reading on to be reminded of the unlikelihood of keeping the team together.

Still, I hate the assumption people make that even if the same team came back, we stood no chance. Bull****.
I agree. Honestly I think just keeping Jax might have been enough, along with NOT HIRING ZEKE.

Hate Rick all you want, tell me the players didn't want him, but his first year just a few years later took a more volitile mix of players to the ECF and 61 wins (home court throughout).

Rick returns, someone calms Reggie and whoever else didn't want him, Jax runs point instead of Best, and you've got a real shot at the Finals at least. And regarding Rik, didn't he go on to play a little ball in Europe and toy briefly with a return at one point? I could maybe see him staying another year if Jax and Larry/Rick stayed.

Kegboy
06-12-2007, 10:07 PM
Jax runs point instead of Rose

Fixed. Remember, that was one of his conditions of re-signing. The argument can certainly be made that Jalen would not have come back if Jax and Rick were here. And before somebody asks, I seem to remember that Detroit was willing to pay him max too.

It took us 5 tries to get past the ECF, and the one time we did was after almost losing in the first round. I don't see how anyone can think we would have made it again by default.

pwee31
06-12-2007, 10:33 PM
I just watched that game for the first time today. During that finals, I had just started a new job on second shift, so I missed the whole damn series. I never realized we were so close to winning that series.

That's what I was saying. I saw that series, but a couple games I was side tracked with g/f and hosting issues, so I would stray from time to time trying to keep her happy and make sure friends and family were enjoying themselves.

I knew the Lakers were suppose to and did win that series, but when I sat here and watched that Finals episode on ESPN that went game by game with all the key moments.

When you can just sit back and relive what happened, and you hear some of the commentary, and behind the scenes stuff, it personally hit me like :censored: we could've and I honestly feel should've won that series.

Both teams had there stars, and really good role players, with a good coaching system. It just came down to making shots, and getting stops.



As for the Lakers not showing in Game 5, that's not completely true. That Lakers team was known for starting off games slow (As seen in Game 7 vs. Portland), and the Pacers came out firing to just take the life out of them.

Bball
06-12-2007, 10:40 PM
Fixed. Remember, that was one of his conditions of re-signing. The argument can certainly be made that Jalen would not have come back if Jax and Rick were here. And before somebody asks, I seem to remember that Detroit was willing to pay him max too.

It took us 5 tries to get past the ECF, and the one time we did was after almost losing in the first round. I don't see how anyone can think we would have made it again by default.

Because experience counts for a lot. So does chemistry. The experience of getting past the ECF's and into the Finals, even in a losing cause, would've been invaluable. Of course it wouldn't have been a given that we got back BUT BUT BUT BUT you don't pull the plug when the team is still rising or maintaining their standing.... you wait until you actually see a decline at least.

You can tweak it.... But you don't 'rebuild on the fly' to try and build a contender when you are already a contender. We should've milked that team, and Reggie and MJax, until their tanks were about dry or a banner was hanging in Conseco. The sign of decline should not have been a fluke loss to NYKs in '99 or a first ever finals appearance in 2000.

I would much rather have accepted that and a fade into memory than some of the crap we've dealt with since.

And we never should've traded AD for Bender. :kickcan:
I'm not say that we couldn't trade AD but it should've been for a player we could use while in our championship window and while in a 'win now' mode. Bender was an expensive mistake and a bust. :deadhorse:

-Bball

Kegboy
06-12-2007, 10:54 PM
Because experience counts for a lot. So does chemistry.

Exactly. I know you and others say that we should have kept AD, but we got rid of him because he felt he should have been starting, and from his obvious disinterest in the '99 ECF, it was affecting his play. Dale was ****ed that his agent screwed him. He probably didn't appreciate Cro getting the big contract, and him being a fan favorite after one good series couldn't have helped. Jalen was beginning to cause trouble in the locker room, as Larry alluded to in his book, and if he came back with a sense of entitlement from not only his max contract but a promise to let him run point, you think Jax would have been okay with that? And we all know unhappy Jax=unhappy Reggie.

Donnie felt there were too many obstacles in trying to keep the status quo, so he decided to rebuild around Jalen, Cro, and JO. Did it work? Hell no. But that doesn't mean everything would have worked perfectly if he hadn't, and yes, a lot of dominos would have to fall just right for us to make it back.

Arcadian
06-13-2007, 02:34 AM
I think we milked Jackson for all he was worth. There were debates about whether he or Best should start here. Toronto signed him for however many years then traded him that same season. The Knicks had a horrible year in 2001/02. He then went to Utah when he did cause chemistry problems and then went to Houston.

That's 4 teams in 4 years.

clownskull
06-14-2007, 02:28 PM
i simply don't feel like the 2000 team was as good as the lakers were that year and for me, the finals were all i could really hope for and i was thrilled they finally got there.
rik was in serious decline. 98 was his last healthy year. after that season he had his foot surgery and was never the same. the last 2 seasons, he was significantly slower (and he was never really fast to begin with) but because of his height, he was still able to contribute- just not like he used to. now lets remember that what made those teams ( all those ecf teams and the finals team) so tough was the fact rik gave us a consistent post scorer. with him retired, who is able to fill that void?. reggie can launch the 3's all he wants and jackson can play the point but, without a center who can get you some interior scoring- you are not going to the finals again. if the defense doesn't have to worry about your interior they will simply apply their focus on the middle and perimeter and those guys can't get it done by themselves or even if jalen was still around. he was good but, not a post threat.

we had rik as our inside threat and he was pretty much it. if we kept dale around, he couldn't give the offense needed at the 4 since he was never a scorer and we would need a real center since rik was gone. so, once more- without the inside scoring- that team was not going back to the finals. if you don't have at least one big guy at the 4-5 spots who is at least a decent, reliable scorer, you are not going to do it unless you have a team that had guys like jordan AND pippen on it.

Peck
06-14-2007, 07:36 PM
Show of hands... anybody besides BBall think we should have tried to keep the 2000 team together for longer?

That team was done. End of story. If we'd have kept them together, we'd have won more regular season games, but that's it. And we all know that's what Bball lives for.

Man I must really be slipping to have fallen off of your radar.

You know my thoughts on this so, no not the end of story no matter how many times you want to say it.

That team would have gone right back to the finals the very next year and you'll never convince me otherwise. Just like I will never convince you otherwise.

Anthem
06-14-2007, 08:40 PM
Man I must really be slipping to have fallen off of your radar.

You know my thoughts on this so, no not the end of story no matter how many times you want to say it.

That team would have gone right back to the finals the very next year and you'll never convince me otherwise. Just like I will never convince you otherwise.
What team? Even without the JO-for-DD trade, please tell me the roster that you think would have reached the Finals (or even the ECFs).

Sollozzo
06-14-2007, 10:05 PM
Man I must really be slipping to have fallen off of your radar.

You know my thoughts on this so, no not the end of story no matter how many times you want to say it.

That team would have gone right back to the finals the very next year and you'll never convince me otherwise. Just like I will never convince you otherwise.

If that exact same team was to be together the next season, then yes they would have had a shot at the finals.....but there lies your problem.

It was impossible to keep that team together.

I agree that if that exact team would have been together the next season, that it would have had a great shot to contend with the finals...but I am 99% certain that it would have been impossible to keep the team together after 2000, there was just no way that we could keep that collection of players.

Smits was done. People can knock Smits if they want to, but watch that game 4 OT. He was in the zone. That team needed his presence.

Ever wonder why Toronto signed Jackson to that long deal but then shipped him out that February to New York? Or why New York only kept him one season after that? Or why Utah just kept him for a year? He had nothing left. That was all to obvious in his final season here, as there was the constant Best or Jackson debate.

Of course if Jackson comes back, Rose probably doesn't want to stay. Remember, he wanted to be the PG, as Kegboy stated.

I believe that Rose was the single most important factor into the 2000 finals run. His emergence into a prime offensive threat was something that the Pacers had never had: A guy other than Reggie who could consistantly be counted on for 20 points a game (averaged 20.8 in the 2000 playoffs). Smits' was on fire in 1995, but unfortunately he had to go up against a young Shaq after dominating Patrick Ewing.

I 100% believe that the reason the Pacers were never able to get over the hump prior to 2000 is because there was no one else other than Reggie who could shoulder the scoring load on a consistant basis. Shaq had Kobe, Jordan had Pippen. Who did Reggie have in 1998 or 1999 to shoulder the scoring load? Nobody. I believe that Reggie was always out of gas by the end of the ECF's in prior years to 2000 because he was simply out of gas. Too much of the scoring burden fell on him. If Rose isn't a starter in 2000, that team gets bounced in teh first round. I believe that.

All of the sudden you have Rose as a starter in a 2000 and he is averaging 20 a game in the playoffs. Coincidentally what also happens? Reggie has his best postseason ever. Reggie is able to save his best for last in series, as he goes off for 41 against Milwaukee, and 34 to close out New York. If Rose isn't there to give Reggie scoring relief throughout series, I don't think he has enough gas to close that series out in New York in game 6.

But hey, no one ever gives Rose credit in cyber Pacerland. He is constantly villified. No Rose, No finals. Finally having someone other than Reg who could give us 20 took us from an ECF team to a finals team.

Wasn't there trouble with Dale Davis after 2000? Wasn't he being a P*ick or something about his contract?

Maybe that team could have made the finals again in 2001. But let's not forget that the Bucks, who took them to 5 the year before, were a super team in 2001 and were one game away from the finals.

I don't think it's worth dwelling over. Circumstances made keeping that team together impossible. I am a huge Walsh critic, but I don't think he deserves any blame/credit for blowing that team up. He really didn't have a choice.

clownskull
06-15-2007, 01:34 AM
i gotta agree with you. there was no way to keep that team together. and sadly, there will be those who will refuse to believe it under ANY circumstances.
a shame really but - it is what it is.

Arcadian
06-15-2007, 02:13 AM
I'm beginning to re-examine this whole Darkside/Lightside deal. You have to be pretty optimistic to believe that 2000 team could have stayed together. (And in some cases had a chance to beat the Lakers.) Kegboy's at least remained constistant. Is he the true sith lord?

Peck
06-15-2007, 02:30 AM
Look I've been fighting this battle for 7 years now and it is going nowhere fast.

We will all just agree to disagree.

I am entitled to my opinion as each you are entitled to yours.

I stand by my beief that the 2001 team would have returned to the finals if given the chance.

I will go to my death believing that we had a mixture of youth and experiance to make the next few years as title contenders.

The Jamaal Tinsley trade could have been made just as it was and then Jamaal would have been able to play behind Mark for a year and learn.

Jalen and Travis could still have been traded for Ron and Brad.

However instead of having a complete void of leadership that they walked into after the trade there would still have been Dale, Mark and Reggie.

I'm not saying that Ron would have been any better but I wonder how he would have been on a team that had people who would have stood up to him.

I will always believe these things.

You can call them old or used or whatever. I just know that not 5 months before that same group of players played at the highest level in the NBA and were beaten by a Monster who was on a mission.

But I certainly understand why some people didn't like them.

Mark & Dale were the bass and drum player of the rock band. You take away the rhythm section from any band and replace it with another lead guitarist and you just won't go very far.

Jermaine, Al and Jon all were talented but they didn't mesh and there was a void of leadership.

But hey that's just me.

I look forward to saying that Danny, Ike & Andrew are the best front court in the Pacers history one day.

rexnom
06-15-2007, 06:27 AM
Peck, aren't you severely undervaluing Rik?

Anthem
06-15-2007, 09:38 AM
However instead of having a complete void of leadership that they walked into after the trade there would still have been Dale, Mark and Reggie.
How would we have kept Mark? We offered him a larger salary than he got from the Raptors, but he turned it down because he wanted more years.

Croshere and Rose wouldn't have been back if we'd hired Carlisle.

I believe that if we'd brought the exact same team back, we'd have done well. But once you lose 2 starters and some key backups then it's simply not the same team. It's just not.


I look forward to saying that Danny, Ike & Andrew are the best front court in the Pacers history one day.
Now that I can agree with. :buddies:

Naptown_Seth
06-15-2007, 10:55 AM
I think Rose and AC would come around on Rick, and in fact Croshere did (as the quote from him posted around here a few weeks ago suggests).

You cave and give Jax that extra year. I still make the Dale/JO trade. Peck hates it, but it replaces Rik as a post threat while keeping 10 boards in the game too.

I really don't think they were that far off, which the results of that season proved. Having Jax with Reggie would certainly help in leadership aspects, and from that view I can see a Peck point that a trio of Dale/Jax/Reggie would clearly instill a sense of who's team it was still, even when you deal for Ron/Brad the following year and draft Tinsley.


Instead they basically started over, at least by the end of 01-02. New coach, almost entirely new core. That breaks the continuity of respect and learning. Utah struggled out of the playoffs for a year, but the fact is that AK47 got to play with Karl and Stockton and provide that link to the new guys. And Sloan has that effect ten-fold.


I will always believe these things.

You can call them old or used or whatever.
As long as I get to keep saying the GS trade was a disaster and that Jackson wasn't the devil, just meh, then you can say whatever you want. :D

Bball
06-15-2007, 11:03 AM
How would we have kept Mark? We offered him a larger salary than he got from the Raptors, but he turned it down because he wanted more years.

How 'bout they get extended in 99 (Reggie and Mjax both) like they wanted?

Walsh poisoned the the punchbowl when he decided the team was done in '99 and totally misjudged pretty much everything at that point and allowed some animosity to brew. His handling of the team went from conservative to incompetent. And it's been mostly misjudgements and mistakes ever since.



Croshere and Rose wouldn't have been back if we'd hired Carlisle.

Keep repeating the myth. There's nothing to substantiate it but if enough people say it by repeating each other then it has to be fact.

-Bball

Naptown_Seth
06-15-2007, 11:13 AM
Fixed. Remember, that was one of his conditions of re-signing. The argument can certainly be made that Jalen would not have come back if Jax and Rick were here. And before somebody asks, I seem to remember that Detroit was willing to pay him max too.

It took us 5 tries to get past the ECF, and the one time we did was after almost losing in the first round. I don't see how anyone can think we would have made it again by default.
True to a degree. Rose actually started the season hurt, and even when he returned he didn't move to point till mid-December some 25 games into the season. As it stands Best still played 2400+ minutes and they were all at PG. When Rose was moved to PG Best became the 6th man, moving Rose out of the point when he came into the game. Rose got to START as the PG, but often he didn't finish the game that way.

However while checking on some of this I came across a moment I forgot, Rose dropped 20 dimes on Cleveland at the end of the 00-01 season. TWENTY. That's a lot of assists by any standard.


Also BTW, that 00-01 team had to go freaking 8-1 to finish the season just to get to 41-41. I forgot they ran off that many wins at the end. I knew they saved it, but just not to that degree. Their one loss in that 9 game run? The stinkin Sixers who would then beat them in 4 just a couple of weeks later. However it should be noted that the loss to the Sixers came AFTER the Magic had sealed up the 7th spot just 2 days earlier, making the Sixers game meaningless for Indy.

One other note, Rose's zero effort last second shot in game 4 which showed no heart even if it would have been a miracle is where he lost me. Had that ball gone into Reggie instead you know that just like with the Nets the following year he at least would have made a real attempt. As I recall with Rose he made a non-effort one-handed "we've lost" pitch that didn't hit rim nor backboard. To me that said a lot about character. It was a 3pt game at home, you already had 1 win. At least try for the miracle and make this crowd go nuts.

Just a bit more since we are discussing Best/Rose, from the AP on game 4 (found at CNNSI.com), I'd forgotten the Best part of it

A 3-point basket by Travis Best (http://media.cnnsi.com/basketball/nba/players/3025/) gave Indiana an 85-82 lead with just over two minutes to go, but McKie pulled the 76ers within one. Then Mutombo blocked a shot by Derrick McKey (http://media.cnnsi.com/basketball/nba/players/227/) and scored on a hook shot with 1:09 remaining. After an exchange of possessions with no scoring, Reggie Miller missed a 3-pointer and McKie pulled down the rebound with 5.8 seconds to go. He was immediately fouled and hit both free throws. Jalen Rose (http://media.cnnsi.com/basketball/nba/players/2636/) then missed a 3-pointer for Indiana as the game ended.
and later in the report

Rose said the last play was designed to go to Miller for a tying 3-pointer.
"They defended him, so I put up the shot," Rose said. "It wasn't my best shot. I feel a responsibility. I had a mediocre series when my team needed a phenomenal series. They were the better team, and they played like it."I'll say.

ChicagoJ
06-15-2007, 11:32 AM
Croshere and Rose wouldn't have been back if we'd hired Carlisle.


Bingo. For as bad as Rick was with "people skills" this time around, it was much worse when he was an assistant... when Donnie passed him over and during his exit interview suggested he needed to work on his personality, not his x's and o's.

There was no way in the world Donnie was going to put Rick in charge of that group of players. Only Larry Bird would've done something that dumb.

Naptown_Seth
06-15-2007, 11:59 AM
Bingo. For as bad as Rick was with "people skills" this time around, it was much worse when he was an assistant... when Donnie passed him over and during his exit interview suggested he needed to work on his personality, not his x's and o's.

There was no way in the world Donnie was going to put Rick in charge of that group of players. Only Larry Bird would've done something that dumb.
Forget Rick then. Hire Byron Scott who was also asked to wait while Isiah tried to free himself from the financial scandal and legal repsonsibilities regarding the CBA, which should have in no way been the slightest bit of a warning sign.

Let's see, of the 3 coaches which one was it that went to 2 Finals, including beating both Zeke and Rick straight up in playoff series? And Jim O'Brien as well.

In other words, forget throwing RC under the bus and pretending like Isiah was inevitable or even the 2nd best choice.

Bball
06-15-2007, 12:04 PM
In other words, forget throwing RC under the bus and pretending like Isiah was inevitable or even the 2nd best choice.

:ding:

-Bball

ChicagoJ
06-15-2007, 12:17 PM
Byron Scott was clearly the best choice, but he joined NJ pretty early in the process, forcing DW to choose between Isiah (whom the players and Donnie wanted) and Rick (whom Bird wanted but Bird decided not to stick around.)

ChicagoJ
06-15-2007, 12:19 PM
Byron,

coaching a team of Best, Rose, Miller, McKey, Croshere, JO, Perkins, and Harrington would have still needed a bit more PG help but could have taken that team to the ECFs. I'm not convinced that the 2000 Pacers, without Smits and Jackson, would get back to The Finals. But they could've had a deep playoff run with Byron coaching instead of Zeke.

Peck
06-15-2007, 01:54 PM
How would we have kept Mark? We offered him a larger salary than he got from the Raptors, but he turned it down because he wanted more years.

Croshere and Rose wouldn't have been back if we'd hired Carlisle.

I believe that if we'd brought the exact same team back, we'd have done well. But once you lose 2 starters and some key backups then it's simply not the same team. It's just not.


Now that I can agree with. :buddies:


Simple, you offer him one more year. What differance would it have made in our salary structure? Have we been under or near under the cap even once since then? The answer to that is no.

They didn't offer him that one extra year because they didn't care about keeping him because of Jalen.

I'll ask it now. Would you have rather had paid the one extra year to Jackson who was clearly the leader of that team or the six years we paid to Croshere? And remember I liked Croshere, but between the two there was no choice IMO. Mark was a starter who was one of the leaders of that team.

Austin was a bench player who had potential but a limited game even though he had a very good playoff series.

You don't just let Mark Jackson walk away.

The Dale thing is hard to debate because of the circumstances that surrounded it.

I won't argue the merits because we've all done that before.

So if you wanna say Dale had to be traded because of his actions I won't argue and anybody that was around back then knows I was all for moving him as well. In fact I said send him to Vancouver at the time.

The problem I have is how can you just throw out a team that was only 2 games away from being the Champs when you already had young players up an coming on the roster? It didn't make sense to me then and it doesn't make sense to me now.

Arcadian
06-15-2007, 02:15 PM
I disagree that one year was the reason for Mark's leaving. Just as easily as it is to say the Pacers needed to add one year to keep the leader of a finals team, it can also be said that Mark should have taken one less year and more money to stay with a team that made it to the finals.

I think a big part of Mark's leaving had to do with that there were two people who thought they should be starting at pg. As evidenced by his Utah stint starting was important to him. He ended up going to Toronto where his competition was Alvin Williamson who up to that point wasn't considered starting material.

I think there were other factors there like AD, Vince, higher taxes, colder weather, and God's will but really most of it I will always believe had to do with his wanting to start.

I still think that he was done when he left us anyway or done enough where he wouldn't have made up for the absences of Rik and Dale. Also when we signed Cro it was thought that he was going to be a starter at SF and Rose at point.

Sollozzo
06-15-2007, 04:36 PM
Peck, aren't you severely undervaluing Rik?


Welcome to cyber Pacerland, where Rik and Jalen Rose seem to get 0 credit for any success the Pacers had.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVa6CMssZes

Man, Rik was on there. What a touch, he abused Salley those couple possesions.

Sollozzo
06-15-2007, 04:37 PM
Also BTW, that 00-01 team had to go freaking 8-1 to finish the season just to get to 41-41. I forgot they ran off that many wins at the end. I knew they saved it, but just not to that degree. Their one loss in that 9 game run? The stinkin Sixers who would then beat them in 4 just a couple of weeks later. However it should be noted that the loss to the Sixers came AFTER the Magic had sealed up the 7th spot just 2 days earlier, making the Sixers game meaningless for Indy.



Meaningless? Huh? I thought the Pacers clinched on the last day of the season that year (Maybe I'm wrong). Every game down the stretch was practically a must.