PDA

View Full Version : Why aren't we rebuilding again? :)



docpaul
07-19-2007, 09:48 PM
Maybe I'm missing something, but why are TPTB afraid of labeling the team as a team in "rebuilding"?

What exactly does rebuilding mode mean anyway?

Does that mean that management essentially flushes all their top talent for young, unproven rookies? Who in their right mind would do that?

Let's look at Seattle for example, a team that's been labeled as a rebuilder.

They moved Ray Allen because he's on the downswing of his career (age, stats, etc) (see: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/stats?statsId=3080) and wanted to get something of value from him. I think they were successful in that regard.

They let Rashard Lewis go b/c they didn't think he was worth a max contract and ended up with a whopper trade exception (9mil?).

They had a potential killer new piece to build a franchise around.

Isn't it safe to say that the Pacers would do the same exact thing if provided the opportunity?

JO still has some good years left in him, is most definitely not in the downswing of his career (prime-aged, low poster player who averaged close to a double double this year, outstanding shot blocker), and isn't valued fairly on the market now. All the trade cross chatter somewhat validates this. If you were in the management's position, would you let someone go for less value than they were worth?

Same's the case with Tinsley. The guy is undervalued for the talent he has. Should we get rid of him in a fire sale? :)

We have a growing core of young up and comers (Granger, Williams, Diogu, and Daniels for that matter). Dunleavy fits into that category with the proper environment and coaching.

I honestly don't see how we're any different than a team like Seattle in how we've behaved, yet for some reason, TPTB doesn't want to label the team as a rebuilder.

Shrug, confused. Is it merely to placate JO as they've done with Kobe in LA?

Kegboy
07-19-2007, 10:02 PM
Donnie's terrified of being irrelevant in a soft market, that's why. If we had a great young piece like Durant, TPTB might be willing to tear everything down and admit it, but we don't.

Every day that goes by that we don't make a major move, it becomes more apparent that they're going to spin last year as an anomaly, and it was all Rick's fault anyway. Though some sunshiners here espouse to that theory, I still think that's pretty insulting to even casual fans.

Tom White
07-19-2007, 10:24 PM
Every day that goes by that we don't make a major move, it becomes more apparent that they're going to spin last year as an anomaly, and it was all Rick's fault anyway.

That part has been in effect for a while now. Just re-read some of Montieth's and Well's blogs. Montieth, in particular, has been throwing Carlisle under the bus for at least a month.

Bynum Brigade
07-19-2007, 10:36 PM
Maybe I'm missing something, but why are TPTB afraid of labeling the team as a team in "rebuilding"?

What exactly does rebuilding mode mean anyway?

Does that mean that management essentially flushes all their top talent for young, unproven rookies? Who in their right mind would do that?

Let's look at Seattle for example, a team that's been labeled as a rebuilder.

They moved Ray Allen because he's on the downswing of his career (age, stats, etc) (see: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/stats?statsId=3080) and wanted to get something of value from him. I think they were successful in that regard.

They let Rashard Lewis go b/c they didn't think he was worth a max contract and ended up with a whopper trade exception (9mil?).

They had a potential killer new piece to build a franchise around.

Isn't it safe to say that the Pacers would do the same exact thing if provided the opportunity?

JO still has some good years left in him, is most definitely not in the downswing of his career (prime-aged, low poster player who averaged close to a double double this year, outstanding shot blocker), and isn't valued fairly on the market now. All the trade cross chatter somewhat validates this. If you were in the management's position, would you let someone go for less value than they were worth?

Same's the case with Tinsley. The guy is undervalued for the talent he has. Should we get rid of him in a fire sale? :)

We have a growing core of young up and comers (Granger, Williams, Diogu, and Daniels for that matter). Dunleavy fits into that category with the proper environment and coaching.

I honestly don't see how we're any different than a team like Seattle in how we've behaved, yet for some reason, TPTB doesn't want to label the team as a rebuilder.

Shrug, confused. Is it merely to placate JO as they've done with Kobe in LA?


That would be my belief. You say "rebuild" and JO says "get me out of here now". He may still be in his prime but just like Kobe he can see the end coming.

Trader Joe
07-19-2007, 11:06 PM
That would be my belief. You say "rebuild" and JO says "get me out of here now". He may still be in his prime but just like Kobe he can see the end coming.

And yet JO has kept his mouth shut and out of the media something KoMe has not done.

idioteque
07-19-2007, 11:23 PM
The Pacers will never rebuild because with the small market that we're in, Donnie Walsh doesn't think that it would be good for the franchise. Donnie would rather get knocked out of the second round of the playoffs every year rather than miss the playoffs for four years, keep getting better, and then win a championship a few years after that. It's just not the way the Pacers operate.

This is seen as the best way to run the team from a business standpoint, but it makes it very hard to believe that we'll ever win a championship.

docpaul
07-19-2007, 11:26 PM
The Pacers will never rebuild because with the small market that we're in, Donnie Walsh doesn't think that it would be good for the franchise. Donnie would rather get knocked out of the second round of the playoffs every year rather than miss the playoffs for four years, keep getting better, and then win a championship a few years after that. It's just not the way the Pacers operate.

This is seen as the best way to run the team from a business standpoint, but it makes it very hard to believe that we'll ever win a championship.

See, now this is where I struggle... b/c I don't see how the leadership decisions over the past couple of years are any different than let's say, Seattle or Portland... supposed teams that are "rebuilding".

I think if they could get fair value for JO, they'd make a trade.

idioteque
07-19-2007, 11:32 PM
See, now this is where I struggle... b/c I don't see how the leadership decisions over the past couple of years are any different than let's say, Seattle or Portland... supposed teams that are "rebuilding".

I think if they could get fair value for JO, they'd make a trade.

If you want to know how our leadership has differed from that of Portland or Seattle, here are a couple of tidbits I have for you:

-Portland put themselves in the position to have like 5 draft picks this year, literally. The Pacers traded both of their draft picks this year, giving them no picks in this year's draft. They also don't have a second round pick next year. Rather than trying to make a quick fix of things by trading draft picks for decent players, Portland has taken a chance with the draft. Of course, getting Oden at #1 shows that they've had a lot of luck, too.

-Seattle has made some boneheaded moves (Drafting Saer Sene and Robert Swift) but they still retained their first rounder this year and picked up Durant. They also traded proven talent (Ray Allen) for potential (The Jeff Green pick) which is something that I don't think the Pacers would ever do with JO. If the Pacers ever trade JO, I don't think they'll do it for young talent and picks, I think they'll do it for players that are already established. This has been the way we've ran things recently, we haven't really done a "potential" oriented trade since the Dale Davis-JO move.

docpaul
07-20-2007, 12:02 AM
Bah, some of this is not fair. :rolleyes:


If you want to know how our leadership has differed from that of Portland or Seattle, here are a couple of tidbits I have for you:

-Portland put themselves in the position to have like 5 draft picks this year, literally. The Pacers traded both of their draft picks this year, giving them no picks in this year's draft. They also don't have a second round pick next year. Rather than trying to make a quick fix of things by trading draft picks for decent players, Portland has taken a chance with the draft. Of course, getting Oden at #1 shows that they've had a lot of luck, too.


I'm not really so sure that there's much of a difference between drafting young talent and trading for it. If you look at the actual roster, you'll see that it's pretty young... in fact, it's got to be one of the 10 youngest teams in the NBA. Having 5 draft picks, and finding young talent seem like two ways to accomplish the same thing.


-Seattle has made some boneheaded moves (Drafting Saer Sene and Robert Swift) but they still retained their first rounder this year and picked up Durant. They also traded proven talent (Ray Allen) for potential (The Jeff Green pick) which is something that I don't think the Pacers would ever do with JO. If the Pacers ever trade JO, I don't think they'll do it for young talent and picks, I think they'll do it for players that are already established. This has been the way we've ran things recently, we haven't really done a "potential" oriented trade since the Dale Davis-JO move.So, I totally disagree with that. They'd trade JO away for young talent. But it has to be fair value. JO for Bynum and Odom sounds like most definitely an attempt to trade for young talent.

Is Bynum an established player? Was Ike Diogu an established player? Hell, was Dunleavy an established player even?

You might not agree with the choices, but I think it's hard to argue *for* draft picks and against trading to get young talent. They're both forms of informed gambling, IMO. :)

madison
07-20-2007, 08:44 PM
Prescript. Didn't see the point of starting a new thread to say this so my apologies in advance for usurping the initial question, Docpaul.

I feel the need to vent.

I'm deeply disappointed and frustrated with both the Pacers and the NBA.

Our local NBA affiliate has tanked a 61-win team in three years. It may be true that we will not see any of the new players in front of a squad car's headlights at 2 AM this season, but we also won't see a team wearing Pacers colors that's staffed with even an average amount of talent.

The reason? The Pacer front office thinks the team that played the second half of last season is actually pretty good. Pardon me, if I don't share that opinion.

Sure, MD was missing the last 1/3 of the season, but while his knee will be rested in October, it's still not fixed. He'll miss half of next season, too. I've got to hand it to TPTB. MD's absence from mid-January onwards is going to be a great way to explain a 30 - 35 win season.

The NBA provides a way for a lottery team like the Pacers to improve from one season to the next. They hold a draft where the poor teams get to pick first. These teams also can sign free agents. And when all else fails, they can make trades with the rich teams.

Have the Pacers taken advantage of these opportunities? Not exactly. Essentially, their hands were tied in the draft. On the free agent front, it's added some depth at the guard positions in the past couple of weeks. But, let's face it, the new players are worse than mediocre. The silver lining is they're signed to mutiple year contracts!

Then there's the "when all else fails, make a trade" opportunity. To the front office's credit, it hasn't dumbed down the talent level any further by making a bad trade using JO as bait. Of course, the period for turning vinnegar into urine isn't over yet, so stand by!

The master stroke in the post-season so far is we have a new coach. That counts for something because the one we had didn't have a defensive bone in his body. To the Pacers credit, they've addressed that. However it's at the expense of common sense on the offensive end. Green-lighting 3's doesn't play to the strengths of the Pacer's current talent pool. Moreover, there will be few second chance shots because with a system built around the perimeter game, offensive rebounds will be few and far between.

Lastly, there's the NBA itself. It just held the most uninteresting Finals in many years. Amazingly, it's managed to top even that with the news that they haven't been playing the games straight because a ref has a gambling problem.

Could professional basketball in Indianapolis and the NBA be in any worse condition? Please tell me that I'm in the middle of some bad dream and when I wake up it's actually the summer of 2004.

Jose Slaughter
07-21-2007, 01:18 AM
Nice post Madison.

You should probably hit the snooze alarm a few hundred times & wake up in about 4 years. It ain't gonna be pretty before then.

BlueNGold
07-21-2007, 07:50 AM
Nice post Madison.

You should probably hit the snooze alarm a few hundred times & wake up in about 4 years. It ain't gonna be pretty before then.

Make that a decade or more. You should get lots of rest LB is still pretty young. :devil:

Will Galen
07-21-2007, 10:59 AM
I really think most of the arguments on Pacer's Digest and other forums is because you have posters not understanding one another. A lot of it is reading comprehension, people don't really read, they skim. I know I've been guilty of not understanding a poster before I reply and I'm unusually diligent in doing so. People are also lax and Lazy in what and how they say something.

What's this have to do with rebuilding?

Because I don't think everyone is on the same page in talking about rebuilding. For instance, the posters on here calling for a complete rebuild probably don't think that that would mean Granger and Ike, and Shawnee would be leaving, but that is what they are advocating.

Bird has said he would never rebuild, he will just keep adding to the present roster. However, over a period of time that does amount to a roster being rebuilt.

How many Players are on the team that were here 4 years ago? Three years ago, etc.? How many players do we now have that weren't on the team to open camp last year? In the last year alone Bird's acquired Murphy, Dunleavy, Ike, Rush, Graham, Owens and Diener. That's seven players.

There's more, but they are no longer on the team as of right now. For instant, Keith McLeod.

You guys calling for change obviously don't realize what's going on. Bird's said he was going to change the culture of the team. He's doing so. He said he's going to get shooters. He's doing so.

I've always like Donnie Walsh, because I remember what it was like before we had him. Bird? I've been skeptical of him, because having played in the NBA he doesn't worry about players being slow, because he was slow. He also didn't worry to much about character because he's played with bad character's.

I think he's learned some lessons, and unlike what other's think, I think he has a clear vision of what he wants in a team. He's said he wants a team that can play half court or run. I think he's working on it.

One thing I do know. If he keeps picking up players like Diener, the fans will love the team.

Oneal07
07-21-2007, 11:35 AM
Pacers always have that "He Can Help Us Right Away" Approach every year. Pacers just reload and become scary.. .Well when Reggie was on the team. Even Jermaine uses that talk. Why rebuild in a weak Eastern Conference when anyone can make the playoffs

Mr.ThunderMakeR
07-21-2007, 05:53 PM
Why rebuild in a weak Eastern Conference when anyone can make the playoffsWhats the point of making the playoffs in a weak Eastern conference when youre still gonna be eliminated in the first round?

Naptown_Seth
07-21-2007, 06:37 PM
Whats the point of making the playoffs in a weak Eastern conference when youre still gonna be eliminated in the first round?
Extra money, better relationship with fans, chance for players to feel the fire and mature a bit, as well as spark their appettite to push farther the next year.

Looking back were the Pacers any better off not making the playoffs last season? Nope, it was clearly worse. They weren't good, but hanging on to an 8th seed still would have extended the season and fan interest by at least 2 weeks. For a team with no draft pick that would have helped quite a bit. Plus you get 20-30K more seats sold.

BlueNGold
07-21-2007, 07:10 PM
I really think most of the arguments on Pacer's Digest and other forums is because you have posters not understanding one another. A lot of it is reading comprehension, people don't really read, they skim. I know I've been guilty of not understanding a poster before I reply and I'm unusually diligent in doing so. People are also lax and Lazy in what and how they say something.

What's this have to do with rebuilding?

Because I don't think everyone is on the same page in talking about rebuilding. For instance, the posters on here calling for a complete rebuild probably don't think that that would mean Granger and Ike, and Shawnee would be leaving, but that is what they are advocating.
....


I liked this post. Not for a moment did I think a complete rebuild would include moving Granger...and probably not Shawne or Ike. To me, a rebuild is moving on to a new generation of players...and Granger is part of that generation.

There was the long Reggie generation with Rik, Mark, Dale and Derrick. Then there was the JO generation with B. Miller, Ron, Jack, Tinsley and Foster.

I like teams that grow up together. I think it can help chemistry and as a result builds the fan base. People get used to the team and as long as they are improving and contending and relatively clean off the court, the Indy fan base grows larger. Unfortunately, the JO generation completely let the fans down.

At this point, we need a master architect with a 5 or so year plan to get us back into contention.

D-BONE
07-21-2007, 07:22 PM
I liked this post. Not for a moment did I think a complete rebuild would include moving Granger...and probably not Shawne or Ike. To me, a rebuild is moving on to a new generation of players...and Granger is part of that generation.

There was the long Reggie generation with Rik, Mark, Dale and Derrick. Then there was the JO generation with B. Miller, Ron, Jack, Tinsley and Foster.

I like teams that grow up together. I think it can help chemistry and as a result builds the fan base. People get used to the team and as long as they are improving and contending and relatively clean off the court, the Indy fan base grows larger. Unfortunately, the JO generation completely let the fans down.

At this point, we need a master architect with a 5 or so year plan to get us back into contention.

If we can get some good younger players for the likes of JO and/or Tins and/or Foster, I agree that we have enough talented young players to say we'd be rebuilding. I don't mind MDJ being considered part of the rebuild contingent although Murphy I'm not so keen on. But maybe JOBs system will help him.

I'm admitedly torn on whether I really want to see JO moved this summer. He's a good player and a good guy. Ultimately, though, I think the team as it is currently consumated is no more than a .500 team even in the East. So, assuming a reasonable return on JO, I think I'd welcome the rebuild. I'l go into the season with an open and supportive mind no matter who's on the roster though.

owl
07-21-2007, 08:21 PM
I really think most of the arguments on Pacer's Digest and other forums is because you have posters not understanding one another.
You guys calling for change obviously don't realize what's going on. Bird's said he was going to change the culture of the team. He's doing so. He said he's going to get shooters. He's doing so.

I've always like Donnie Walsh, because I remember what it was like before we had him. Bird? I've been skeptical of him, because having played in the NBA he doesn't worry about players being slow, because he was slow. He also didn't worry to much about character because he's played with bad character's.

I think he's learned some lessons, and unlike what other's think, I think he has a clear vision of what he wants in a team. He's said he wants a team that can play half court or run. I think he's working on it.

One thing I do know. If he keeps picking up players like Diener, the fans will love the team.

Will said..."He also didn't worry to much about character because he's played with bad character's."

I agree with the majority of your sentiments however I was not aware Larry'
played with bad seed like the recent run of bad seeed the Pacers have had. Maybe you know something that I don't but I don't remember much of anything being said about his Boston teamates.

BlueNGold
07-21-2007, 09:46 PM
Will said..."He also didn't worry to much about character because he's played with bad character's."

I agree with the majority of your sentiments however I was not aware Larry'
played with bad seed like the recent run of bad seeed the Pacers have had. Maybe you know something that I don't but I don't remember much of anything being said about his Boston teamates.

I'm not going to get into specifics, but Parrish was a bit like Tinsley. No, it was not bar fights. Another factor is today's media. It is everywhere 24/7/365.

I think most athletes in their 20's and 30's who travel around the country, who have lots of free time and meet babes at every stop are going to have some issues....whether in the 1980's or today. It's inevitable. But the Pacers have had guys with character/judgment issues. They simply find ways to make the wrong decisions. It reminds me how the smart guys never got in trouble in school, but those with poor judgment who basically did the same thing always got nailed.

Infinite MAN_force
07-23-2007, 02:26 AM
There was the long Reggie generation with Rik, Mark, Dale and Derrick. Then there was the JO generation with B. Miller, Ron, Jack, Tinsley and Foster.

I like teams that grow up together. I think it can help chemistry and as a result builds the fan base. People get used to the team and as long as they are improving and contending and relatively clean off the court, the Indy fan base grows larger. Unfortunately, the JO generation completely let the fans down.


Theres a part of me that would really like to see a young Crittendon/Rush/Granger/Diogu/Bynum team develop. Theres a lot of young talent there, and a lot of risk too. But much as I like JO as a person, I think the pacers really need to start fresh. yeah I even included rush, well see what happens with him, but I could see him becoming a dependable starting SG in the NBA. I sorta feel like he never got his fair shake, but hes got one last chance to prove himself.

I also like the coaching direction and have some limited hope that we can see guys like tinsley and murphy turn it around. I dont think you could find a system more suited to murphy than what the obrien/harter team will put forth. At the very least maybe we can improve their trade value a bit.

than again some days I just want to ride it out with jermaine. but much as I think hes a class guy... eating up 20 million a year when our young contracts are coming up scares the crap out of me. We could end up set back EVEN further than we are now. Say, and again im not saying this is even likely, but just speculating... Kareem Rush has a breakout season? averages 15-20 points a game? (from what I understand he did this for a brief stretch in charlotte) We would just lose him to free agency next year anyway. then consider we have to resign danny, shawne, ike, etc... We are like barely two million under the luxury tax right now as it is.

I have no problem with Jermaine Oneal as a player or a person, But I do have a problem with his contract. Im for cashing it all in on young talent and see where it takes us, at least it should be fun to watch. and I think fans will gradually get behind it as things start to improve... I seriously doubt attendence gets any worse than it was at the end of last season.

underwave
07-23-2007, 12:22 PM
Bird? I've been skeptical of him, because having played in the NBA he doesn't worry about players being slow, because he was slow. He also didn't worry to much about character because he's played with bad character's.
I think he's learned some lessons, and unlike what other's think, I think he has a clear vision of what he wants in a team. He's said he wants a team that can play half court or run. I think he's working on it.

problem of that thought is that LB thinks that way and the players playing on court right now doesn't think or feel the same way.

VF21
07-23-2007, 05:23 PM
Maybe I'm missing something, but why are TPTB afraid of labeling the team as a team in "rebuilding"?

What exactly does rebuilding mode mean anyway?

Does that mean that management essentially flushes all their top talent for young, unproven rookies? Who in their right mind would do that?

Let's look at Seattle for example, a team that's been labeled as a rebuilder.

They moved Ray Allen because he's on the downswing of his career (age, stats, etc) (see: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/stats?statsId=3080) and wanted to get something of value from him. I think they were successful in that regard.

They let Rashard Lewis go b/c they didn't think he was worth a max contract and ended up with a whopper trade exception (9mil?).

They had a potential killer new piece to build a franchise around.

Isn't it safe to say that the Pacers would do the same exact thing if provided the opportunity?

JO still has some good years left in him, is most definitely not in the downswing of his career (prime-aged, low poster player who averaged close to a double double this year, outstanding shot blocker), and isn't valued fairly on the market now. All the trade cross chatter somewhat validates this. If you were in the management's position, would you let someone go for less value than they were worth?

Same's the case with Tinsley. The guy is undervalued for the talent he has. Should we get rid of him in a fire sale? :)

We have a growing core of young up and comers (Granger, Williams, Diogu, and Daniels for that matter). Dunleavy fits into that category with the proper environment and coaching.

I honestly don't see how we're any different than a team like Seattle in how we've behaved, yet for some reason, TPTB doesn't want to label the team as a rebuilder.

Shrug, confused. Is it merely to placate JO as they've done with Kobe in LA?

You know, I see the same kind of comments in relationship to the Kings and I'm still trying to figure out exactly what some people expect management to do...(on both teams).

There are a lot of similarities between the Kings and the Pacers. You have O'Neal and Tinsley as the pieces people most often seem to want to kick to the curb because they're "aging veterans"; we have Bibby, Miller and Artest. In your case, at least, JO has more market value than at least two of the three Kings I just named.

The whole concept of rebuilding is fraught with way too much emotion on the part of fans and the unrealistic belief that if they think it, TPTB can do it.

I think the term "rebuilding" itself causes a lot of the problems. TPTB don't use it because it's really not definitive. A good NBA team is always rebuilding to some extent. I loved your example about flushing all the top talent. I believe some fans - possibly raised on too much NBA Video 2000, etc. - are way too quick to assume GMs can simply pick up the phones, negotiate killer deals and pull the trigger in the blink of an eye.

Both the Kings and the Pacers are at the nadir of team suckiness. I wasn't sure about the O'Brien acquisition for you guys at first but the more I think about it, the more I think it might really be a step in the right direction.

Bottom line, I think there's a tendency for people to want and expect quick fixes to problems that have been growing for a number of years. Quick fix doesn't work. I think the Kings and the Pacers both are making steps in the right direction. I just think in some people's minds those steps aren't big enough or fast enough.