PDA

View Full Version : [Star] No names, no problem



Will Galen
07-24-2007, 11:55 AM
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070724/SPORTS04/707240357/1088/SPORTS04

No names, no problem
Pacers feel signings of lesser-known players will pay off in long run.

By Mike Wells
mike.wells@indystar.com

If there's one thing to be said about Larry Bird's first summer with complete control of player personnel moves, it's that that Indiana Pacers president isn't worried about making splashy headlines.

Kareem Rush, Travis Diener, Andre Owens and Stephen Graham aren't exactly names that will send fans flocking back to Conseco Fieldhouse next season.

The Pacers haven't made any trades this summer and there's no certainty any will occur. They have decided to tinker with their roster by making a number of small moves that may have a big impact down the road.

Diener and Rush give the Pacers the outside shooting they sorely missed last season. Graham is an athletic, physical player. Owens is a combination guard.
"We're going to get players, maybe they don't have the biggest names in the league, but they all fit a style coach (Jim) O'Brien wants to play," Bird said during a news conference Monday to announce Diener's signing.

"I think that's what we've done. We feel good that we got the guys that can help us win ball games. We'll see what happens going forward, but I know we've got quality guys, and guys that are going to play hard and do the right job and do the right things in the community."

About a month ago, forward Jermaine O'Neal was the subject of extensive trade rumors Since then, the rumors have died down.

Bird did not say O'Neal would definitely return to the team next season. But he reiterated what he said last month -- Bird hopes the six-time All-Star will be wearing a Pacers uniform next season.

"I've said it all along -- I hope so. I look forward to having him back in the mix. When he gets double-teamed, we're going to have players out there that can hit the shot now," Bird said.

The Pacers raised some eyebrows when they gave Diener, who will back up starter Jamaal Tinsley, a three-year, $4.9 million deal. The third year is Diener's option. He averaged 3.8 points, 1.0 assists and made 40.2 percent of his 3-pointers in 49 games over two seasons with the Orlando Magic.

"We looked into it and we had some other guys we were looking at, but we felt Travis was the type of guy that fit coach O'Brien's style the best," said Bird, who first tried to acquire Diener from Orlando last winter. ". . . We feel after following him for his career, he's the right fit for here. Years really have nothing to do with it."

The Pacers currently have 14 players under contract -- Owens has a partially guaranteed contract -- for next season. Bird didn't rule out the possibility of making more moves.

One player who could be impacted by Diener's signing is veteran Darrell Armstrong. Armstrong does not have a guaranteed contract for next season, and the Pacers currently have three points guards on the roster; Tinsley, Diener and Owens. Marquis Daniels can also play the position.

"Darrell was a very valuable piece to what we were trying to do last year and hopefully in the near future we can make a decision on what we're going to do," Bird said. "Darrell wants to stay here, but if not, he has a couple of places he'd like to go, so we're looking at all of our options."
---------------------------------------------------------

I think keeping Armstrong hinges on the rumored trade of JO to the Laker's.
The rumored trade would have us picking up Crittenton, a point guard, so we wouldn't need Armstrong.

Crittenton was signed on July 3rd, and can't be traded for 30 days. So, I think if JO isn't traded shortly after Aug. 3rd, we'll be keeping JO, and we will resign Armstrong.

sweabs
07-24-2007, 11:59 AM
So, really Larry...you're having difficulty making the actual moves you want to. So this piece of writing will be your back-up plan in case nothing actually falls through on the trade front.

EDIT: Or.......you might actually believe this team is something special as currently constructed. And all we needed was a few minor tweaks. In which case....:rotflmao:

grace
07-24-2007, 12:02 PM
To everyone who keeps saying Larry isn't in charge I give you:


If there's one thing to be said about Larry Bird's first summer with complete control of player personnel moves,

:tongue:

Will Galen
07-24-2007, 12:09 PM
So, really Larry...you're having difficulty making the actual moves you want to. So this piece of writing will be your back-up plan in case nothing actually falls through on the trade front.

EDIT: Or.......you might actually believe this team is something special as currently constructed. And all we needed was a few minor tweaks. In which case....:rotflmao:

If they have to wait until after Aug. 3rd it has nothing to do with Bird having difficulty making a move.

blanket
07-24-2007, 12:11 PM
I found this most interesting:


"We looked into it and we had some other guys we were looking at, but we felt Travis was the type of guy that fit coach O'Brien's style the best," said Bird, who first tried to acquire Diener from Orlando last winter. ". . . We feel after following him for his career, he's the right fit for here. Years really have nothing to do with it."

sweabs
07-24-2007, 12:13 PM
If they have to wait until after Aug. 3rd it has nothing to do with Bird having difficulty making a move.
I agree.

But then again, as grace has pointed out...if it's Larry who is truly in charge...would he be the one chomping at the bit to make the trade with LA for Bynum? I thought Bynum was Donnie's love?

Or maybe that deal would just be for Crittenton (+ Kwame Brown for salary purposes of course).

Bball
07-24-2007, 12:21 PM
If Larry is fully in charge, what is Donnie Walsh doing?


-Bball

Will Galen
07-24-2007, 12:29 PM
If Larry is fully in charge, what is Donnie Walsh doing?


-Bball

If Bird is fully in charge, why did he say this? I quote;

---------------------------------------------------
"Bird did not say O'Neal would definitely return to the team next season. But he reiterated what he said last month -- Bird hopes the six-time All-Star will be wearing a Pacers uniform next season.

"I've said it all along -- I hope so. I look forward to having him back in the mix. When he gets double-teamed, we're going to have players out there that can hit the shot now," Bird said."
-------------------------------

If Bird's the one who makes the decisions, why is he hoping JO will be with the Pacer's next season? I think Donnie wants Bynum, and is still in the mix, but keeping JO depends on what else the Laker's are willing to give up for him.

avoidingtheclowns
07-24-2007, 12:37 PM
I found this most interesting:

ditto

EDIT: also about Larry's "hoping" ... hoping is something you do with a free agent, not someone in trade rumors who is currently on your roster. hope is and has been a really odd choice of word given this situation. you expect your 6-time allstar to be on your team given that he is under contract, you hope the 6-time allstar will re-sign with you. you hope jermaine will be with your team in two seasons, not this fall.

blanket
07-24-2007, 12:49 PM
ditto

EDIT: also about Larry's "hoping" ... hoping is something you do with a free agent, not someone in trade rumors who is currently on your roster. hope is and has been a really odd choice of word given this situation. you expect your 6-time allstar to be on your team given that he is under contract, you hope the 6-time allstar will re-sign with you. you hope jermaine will be with your team in two seasons, not this fall.

Yes, clearly Bird doesn't have the poker face or mastery of semantics and legal double-speak that Donnie does. This just confirms that he's still shopping JO and either waiting for a certain point to make the trade (8/3?) or a better deal to come along.

indyblue47
07-24-2007, 01:05 PM
Well, I for one, am circling next Friday on my calendar.;)

Hicks
07-24-2007, 01:06 PM
August 3rd is a Friday. I'd say we'll know (assuming it hinges around Crit and assuming there's any truth to it at all, which I don't automatically assume) with a week from that. Sometime time from Aug. 7 through Aug. 10.

Pacersin2033
07-24-2007, 01:08 PM
So, really Larry...you're having difficulty making the actual moves you want to. So this piece of writing will be your back-up plan in case nothing actually falls through on the trade front.

EDIT: Or.......you might actually believe this team is something special as currently constructed. And all we needed was a few minor tweaks. In which case....:rotflmao:

Pretty much says it all.

Bball
07-24-2007, 01:13 PM
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070724/SPORTS04/707240357/1088/SPORTS04


"Darrell was a very valuable piece to what we were trying to do last year ..."
---------------------------------------------------------


Trying being the operative word in that sentence.

-Bball

JayRedd
07-24-2007, 01:23 PM
All yall harping on the word "hoping" need to relax a little bit. It's just the Hick From French Lick speaking...this isn't some poem with foreshadowing or allusions in it.

As for my literary analysis, I believe all he means is: "It would be nice to have JO around cause he's the face of the franchise and I like him as a person and all....but if we get a good enough offer, I'll certainly send him packing."

Which is essentially every GMs stance on every player on their roster.

Anthem
07-24-2007, 01:27 PM
If Larry is fully in charge, what is Donnie Walsh doing?
Donnie's running PS&E. Advertising, day-to-day admin, finance, operations, etc. Bird's only in charge of the players.

Kegboy
07-24-2007, 01:34 PM
Donnie's running PS&E. Advertising, day-to-day admin, finance, operations, etc. Bird's only in charge of the players.

And the coaches, and the scouts, and the training staff, the medical staff, etc., anything that has to do with basketball operations. But he's already been ****ing around with them for years, so that's not new.

eldubious
07-24-2007, 02:08 PM
Bird won't say JO will be part of the team, which in every way you look at it means he'll be traded. Your GM won't give you a vote-of-confidence, he really hopes he can get a good trade for you is what he meant. Reading between the lines, it looks like Bynum, Kwame, JC, and future lst for JO. If Odom were involved, this deal would have been done a long time ago.

Anthem
07-24-2007, 02:19 PM
Bird won't say JO will be part of the team, which in every way you look at it means he'll be traded. Your GM won't give you a vote-of-confidence, he really hopes he can get a good trade for you is what he meant. Reading between the lines, it looks like Bynum, Kwame, JC, and future lst for JO. If Odom were involved, this deal would have been done a long time ago.
It's pretty much a given that Bynum's the holdup, not Odom. LA wants to hold onto Bynum.

Will Galen
07-24-2007, 02:43 PM
It's pretty much a given that Bynum's the holdup, not Odom. LA wants to hold onto Bynum.

Disagree! If Bynum wasn't a part of any purposed deal then the Pacer's wouldn't be talking to LA.

avoidingtheclowns
07-24-2007, 02:49 PM
^^ thats kind of the point... the pacers wouldn't be still talking if it wasn't all about bynum most likely. if odom was the hypothetical hold-up it would probably have been done draft night. but we seemingly want bynum who the lakers don't want to give up

Naptown_Seth
07-24-2007, 03:33 PM
Diener, Rush and Owens make this a "shooting team" like Rawle, Baston, Quis and Armstrong made last year's team a "running team".

blanket
07-24-2007, 03:54 PM
^^ thats kind of the point... the pacers wouldn't be still talking if it wasn't all about bynum most likely. if odom was the hypothetical hold-up it would probably have been done draft night. but we seemingly want bynum who the lakers don't want to give up

The holdup has been that we want BOTH Bynum and Odom. If we come off that demand and accept one or the other, then the Lakers may very well OK the deal.

Of couse, I still think that hinges on whether or not LA thinks they have a chance in the KG sweepstakes.

ChicagoJ
07-24-2007, 03:55 PM
Diener, Rush and Owens make this a "shooting team" like Rawle, Baston, Quis and Armstrong made last year's team a "running team".

I don't like it when you are right. But you are.

The arm has been cut off at the shoulder. Quick, Larry, get the "Dora the Explorer" bandaid!!

Oneal07
07-24-2007, 03:58 PM
^^ Yeah, but we don't have Rick as our coach to change things :)

eldubious
07-24-2007, 04:21 PM
Disagree! If Bynum wasn't a part of any purposed deal then the Pacer's wouldn't be talking to LA.

Definitely, if Bynum's name wasn't mentioned, there would be no discussions. The Pacers want both Odom and Bynum, they're willing to wait until training camp, while putting more pressure on LA. I don't know if LA will be that desperate to get JO, when they can go after Gasol or just wait on KG.



The holdup has been that we want BOTH Bynum and Odom. If we come off that demand and accept one or the other, then the Lakers may very well OK the deal.

Of couse, I still think that hinges on whether or not LA thinks they have a chance in the KG sweepstakes.

Exactly, substitute Odom with a future lst and get it over with. Odom already said he doesn't want to play for the Pacers, why bring in an unecessary headache.

jeffg-body
07-24-2007, 04:28 PM
All yall harping on the word "hoping" need to relax a little bit. It's just the Hick From French Lick speaking...this isn't some poem with foreshadowing or allusions in it.

As for my literary analysis, I believe all he means is: "It would be nice to have JO around cause he's the face of the franchise and I like him as a person and all....but if we get a good enough offer, I'll certainly send him packing."

Which is essentially every GMs stance on every player on their roster.

This is said perfectly, no one in the NBA is too valuable to be traded. If the team thinks it is getting fair trade value, then they will do it 100% of the time. :dance:

JB's Breakout Year
07-24-2007, 04:35 PM
Definitely, if Bynum's name wasn't mentioned, there would be no discussions. The Pacers want both Odom and Bynum, they're willing to wait until training camp, while putting more pressure on LA. I don't know if LA will be that desperate to get JO, when they can go after Gasol or just wait on KG.




Exactly, substitute Odom with a future lst and get it over with. Odom already said he doesn't want to play for the Pacers, why bring in an unecessary headache.
Any deal with the Lakers realistically doesn't work without Odom's contract. If you go Bynum, Crittenton (?), Brown and a pick, you're already looking at a 3 for 1 deal, PLUS you're still more than $4M off from the trade even working within the salary rules. If you take Odom, you're right back to the Lakers giving up Odom and Bynum, and around and around we go....

A Nets deal makes more sense salary and basketball wise. RJ becomes an upgrade over Dunleavey or Daniels at the 2/3 and Krstic rotates with Ike as our "center;" and you can package a 3 for 2 deal with the Nets by adding someone like Harrison.

pwee31
07-24-2007, 04:37 PM
As I've posted multiple times in other threads.....

http://www.hoopsworld.com/article_22467.shtml


You gotta hand it to the Lakers; they are working the phones hard this week trying to make a splashy deal. Jerry Buss got on the phone to Glen Taylor and according to sources bluntly asked: What’s it going to take to get Kevin Garnett? That’s what Kobe Bryant wanted to see; unfortunately a deal is unlikely, but at least the dormant Lakers are trying. Sources close to the Lakers say that the team has a standing offer to Indiana for Jermaine O’Neal and it's on the Pacers to take a deal that sends either Lamar Odom or Andrew Bynum and the Lakers will give all the secondary contracts to make a deal, including cash and future draft picks. The Lakers also supposedly made contact with the Hawks, looking at Marvin Williams and the #3 pick. Memphis is rumored to be taking Joakim Noah with the #4 pick, meaning Pau Gasol’s availability may be less than expected; supposedly the Lakers have sniffed at Pau too. While the odds of a draft day deal seem slim, the Lakers will likely make a splash in July when reality sets in for some of the teams with pieces in play as value starts to drop around July 15th, when teams start filling in with free agents.

http://www.hoopsworld.com/article_22429.shtml


Kobe and The Lakers: Speaking of the media – the Lakers are not trading Kobe Bryant. That’s what three league executives are saying off-the-record. I was reminded that all of the hype and fervor over Kobe that we’re hearing now is still from comments made in May. The belief around the league is the Lakers will bring Kobe into camp, ****ed or not, and hope that the changes they can make in the offseason are enough to get back to winning, and that winning and winning convincingly will cool off Kobe’s hot head. The Lakers still want Jermaine O’Neal, but will not budge on Andrew Bynum and Lamar Odom to get him; one or the other, but they don’t want to trade two “core assets” for one, as they have other deals they want to make also. Ron Artest seems to be a Kobe wish (not as much a Laker wish) according to an informed league source, unless they can get him for change. At the end of the day the Lakers are going to use their draft pick at #19, see what fortunes surface through the free agent process and have made it clear they will deal. The problem is very few people want their tradable assets. The Lakers want to make some changes, and they want to do so in a big way, but they are playing things smart with Kobe because they truly hold all the cards and they are prepared, according to sources close to the situation, to play chicken with Mr. Bryant.


And what I posted on draft night!!

http://www.hoopsworld.com/article_22482.shtml


- The Pacers have agreed to send Jermaine O'Neal to the Los Angeles Lakers for Lamar Odom and Andrew Bynum. The Lakers are mulling the deal over, but are currently leaning heavily towards not accepting the deal, as they are uncomfortable with losing Bynum.

blanket
07-24-2007, 04:54 PM
Any deal with the Lakers realistically doesn't work without Odom's contract. If you go Bynum, Crittenton (?), Brown and a pick, you're already looking at a 3 for 1 deal, PLUS you're still more than $4M off from the trade even working within the salary rules. If you take Odom, you're right back to the Lakers giving up Odom and Bynum, and around and around we go....

Bynum/Brown/Crittenton/(McKie S&T then waived +$3M)/future 1st for JO and Harrison works and is realistic.

bellisimo
07-24-2007, 05:04 PM
when will we run out of lipstick? the pig is getting tired of having to put this damn lipstick every summer!

JayRedd
07-24-2007, 05:12 PM
when will we run out of lipstick? the pig is getting tired of having to put this damn lipstick every summer!

I'm BAAAAck


http://www.postalmuseum.si.edu/tt/images/22.jpg

bellisimo
07-24-2007, 05:14 PM
I'm BAAAAck


http://www.postalmuseum.si.edu/tt/images/22.jpg

:onozomg:


:bag:

Tom White
07-24-2007, 05:37 PM
As I've posted multiple times in other threads.....

http://www.hoopsworld.com/article_22467.shtml



http://www.hoopsworld.com/article_22429.shtml




And what I posted on draft night!!

http://www.hoopsworld.com/article_22482.shtml

You need a better source of information than hoopsworld. For that matter, we ALL need a better source of information than that on-line rag.

Kegboy
07-24-2007, 05:48 PM
Quick, Larry, get the "Dora the Explorer" bandaid!!

I hear that's gonna be the giveaway opening night. Too bad you won't get any. :loser2:

diamonddave00
07-24-2007, 05:49 PM
Any trade for Javaris Crittenton can place on Aug. 3rd he can not be traded prior to that date.

IF a trade between the Pacers and Lakers take place , I have to believe Crittenton is part of it . Originally the Pacers wanted the 19th pick which became Crittenden , he had an outstanding summer league . Perhaps a good enough showing for the Pacers to now accept a deal minus Odom ?

A deal bringing the Pacers youth Bynum and Crittenton , plus cap wiggle room after the season Brown , perhaps a #1 and filler to me is an acceptable deal. At worse the team misses the playoffs and adds a lottery pick to an increased youth base.

I still think its at best 50/50 JO is moved .

CableKC
07-24-2007, 05:53 PM
Any trade for Javaris Crittenden can place on Aug. 3rd he can not be traded prior to that date.

IF a trade between the Pacers and Lakers take place , I have to believe Crittenden is part of it . Originally the Pacers wanted the 19th pick which became Crittenden , he had an outstanding summer league . Perhaps a good enough showing for the Pacers to now accept a deal minus Odom ?

A deal bringing the Pacers youth Bynum and Crittenden , plus cap wiggle room after the season Brown , perhaps a #1 and filler to me is an acceptable deal. At worse the team misses the playoffs and adds a lottery pick to an increased youth base.

I still think its at best 50/50 JO is moved .
Logic dictates that what you suggest is valid...that we should tear down and rebuild.....but I really think that TPTB want to "have their cake ( get Odom so that they can compete for the Playoffs ) and eat it ( get Bynum so that they can continue to build their youth )"....both of which I think is not entirely reasonable.

JB's Breakout Year
07-24-2007, 06:18 PM
Bynum/Brown/Crittenton/(McKie S&T then waived +$3M)/future 1st for JO and Harrison works and is realistic.
Can you just add money to a trade to make the salaries match? Or to cover the salary of the player waived?

If so, is there a limit to the amount?

diamonddave00
07-24-2007, 06:23 PM
Javaris Crittenton won't even be 20 till Dec., he is probably 2 years away from consistant nba minutes. He's more a combo guard that a point guard , in my opinion.

Being 2 years away would work well here , with Marquis Daniels having only 2 years of his 3 year contract guaranteed , 3rd year is team option , if Javaris were acquired and developed at rate I imagine , he would be ready to take minutes from Daniels the year the option takes affect. Meaning a possible savings of 7 mil in cap room or trading Daniels with an expiring contract.

If Bynum develops fully in 2 years coincides with Foster's contract expiring. Just seems like an ideal situation , perhaps too ideal.

To answer your question no money can not be added to make salaries match. But a max 3 mil can be added as incentive to a trade perhaps to pay off an unwanted contract.

Hicks
07-24-2007, 06:25 PM
I don't like it when you are right. But you are.

The arm has been cut off at the shoulder. Quick, Larry, get the "Dora the Explorer" bandaid!!

:onozomg:

JB's Breakout Year
07-24-2007, 06:36 PM
Javaris Crittenton won't even be 20 till Dec., he is probably 2 years away from consistant nba minutes. He's more a combo guard that a point guard , in my opinion.

Being 2 years away would work well here , with Marquis Daniels having only 2 years of his 3 year contract guaranteed , 3rd year is team option , if Javaris were acquired and developed at rate I imagine , he would be ready to take minutes from Daniels the year the option takes affect. Meaning a possible savings of 7 mil in cap room or trading Daniels with an expiring contract.

If Bynum develops fully in 2 years coincides with Foster's contract expiring. Just seems like an ideal situation , perhaps too ideal.

To answer your question no money can not be added to make salaries match. But a max 3 mil can be added as incentive to a trade perhaps to pay off an unwanted contract.
Got it. Thanks for the info.

Smashed_Potato
07-24-2007, 07:33 PM
Seriously... this off-season has been a total hog-wash August 3... September 30 it doesn't matter the dates don't mean a thing if you don't got the swing. whats gonna change on August 3? Crittenton will be added? so? that doesn't mean Walsh isn't going to ask for Bynum and Odom. so in essence its gonna be Odom+Bynum no matter who's added unless Kobe is in it.

we have no idea if the Pacers are so high on Javaris that their gonna compromise on a Bynum/J-Critt/Kwame package.

i just don't see it when GM's want what they insist they will either get it or kill the deal.

OnlyPacersLeft
07-24-2007, 07:37 PM
if the pacers give up JO and dont get back Bynum and Lamar it's a waste!@ bynum,odom,crit...for JO
sounds good

Smashed_Potato
07-24-2007, 07:46 PM
I'd do Odom/Kwame/Critt only if Granger is added or maybe Ike.

blanket
07-24-2007, 07:53 PM
I'd do Odom/Kwame/Critt only if Granger is added or maybe Ike.

:rolleyes:

um, pass

sweabs
07-24-2007, 07:56 PM
Diener, Rush and Owens make this a "shooting team" like Rawle, Baston, Quis and Armstrong made last year's team a "running team".
Wow, you summed it up perfectly in one sentence. You need to do this more often :-p.

In all seriousness, you've pinpointed exactly what is happening. We either can't, or won't make the necessary changes to the core of this team, and instead we're left with these bench players who "fit the new style".

The problem is that as long as we have JO as the centerpiece of this team, the style is never going to truly change. One could argue that more blame should be placed on the shoulders of Rick Carlisle rather than JO, but it wasn't Rick who complained about the "new style" last year less than 10 games into the season.

In order for this team to truly change directions, and truly play a new style - JO will have to be moved. The wrong people/pieces of the puzzle are being addressed by TPTB in my opinion.

Will Galen
07-24-2007, 08:10 PM
Can you just add money to a trade to make the salaries match? Or to cover the salary of the player waived?

If so, is there a limit to the amount?

No you can't add money to make salaries match. However, what's being talked about is the Laker's signing McKie to a contract. Then adding him to the trade so that salaries match, then giving the Pacer's the three million his contract calls for. The Pacer's then cut McKie or he retires as rumored.

All it is is a fancy way to make the salaries match. There is a limit of $3 million that can be added as incentive to trades.

Swingman
07-24-2007, 08:11 PM
I'd do Odom/Kwame/Critt only if Granger is added or maybe Ike.

:laugh: Granger and JO for Odom, Kwame and Critt? LMAO I think I'll have what you're drinking :buddies:

That is the funniest trade proposal I have seen to date. That's not even enough for JO, let alone throwing Granger in there.

I would do Granger and JO for Bynum and Kobe :)

Smashed_Potato
07-24-2007, 08:13 PM
um, pass

Of course you would... whats the difference between Odom/Bynum/Farmar & Odom/Bynum/J-Critt?

the first package has 1 all-star talent 1 future star talent and a role-player... and the 2nd package has the same thing but you get another potential star added in J-Critt.

Smashed_Potato
07-24-2007, 08:14 PM
Sorry i meant Odom/Bynum/J-Crit not Odom/Kwame/J-Critt.

JayRedd
07-24-2007, 08:18 PM
Wow, you summed it up perfectly in one sentence. You need to do this more often :-p.

FTW

docpaul
07-24-2007, 09:49 PM
Wow, you summed it up perfectly in one sentence. You need to do this more often :-p.

In all seriousness, you've pinpointed exactly what is happening. We either can't, or won't make the necessary changes to the core of this team, and instead we're left with these bench players who "fit the new style".

The problem is that as long as we have JO as the centerpiece of this team, the style is never going to truly change. One could argue that more blame should be placed on the shoulders of Rick Carlisle rather than JO, but it wasn't Rick who complained about the "new style" last year less than 10 games into the season.

In order for this team to truly change directions, and truly play a new style - JO will have to be moved. The wrong people/pieces of the puzzle are being addressed by TPTB in my opinion.

Bah, unless the Pacers get an essential piece to the long term future success of this franchise, then it makes absolutely *no* sense to trade JO especially given this new focus on shooting. One of the primary tenents to this type of offense is an effective post-presence that draws double teams and opens up clean opportunities for shooters.

Bynum alone doesn't make sense in this context, unless Ike was more developed. However, Bynum + Odom gives you both a reasonable power forward (guess he's really more of a point forward) that gives time for Ike to develop, and a future franchise Center.

Their persistence on this point makes total sense to me, especially given the recent coaching switch. We need a strong post-presence, period.

Anthem
07-24-2007, 10:17 PM
Sorry i meant Odom/Bynum/J-Crit not Odom/Kwame/J-Critt.
:laugh: That makes more sense. We were all looking at you like you were crazy.

Bynum =/ Kwame

Anthem
07-24-2007, 10:18 PM
Bynum/Brown/Crittenton/(McKie S&T then waived +$3M)/future 1st for JO and Harrison works and is realistic.
At this point I'd be ok with that. Not happy, but ok. I still think it makes more sense for both teams to include Foster and Odom.

JO/Foster/Harrison for Odom/Bynum/Brown/Crit

rexnom
07-24-2007, 10:20 PM
At this point I'd be ok with that. Not happy, but ok. I still think it makes more sense for both teams to include Foster and Odom.

JO/Foster/Harrison for Odom/Bynum/Brown/Crit
I don't know what the hold up on that first deal is. This one is Pacer-friendly, I think.

EDIT: To clarify, I can see why the Lakers wouldn't pull the trigger on this one. I can't see why either wouldn't pull the trigger on that first deal.

By the way, if us wanting Bynum and Odom is the hold up (which I doubt), then I am going to call for Larry or Donnie or David or Slick's head (or whoever is running this team) when Bynum is dominating the league in three years.

Swingman
07-24-2007, 10:32 PM
At this point I'd be ok with that. Not happy, but ok. I still think it makes more sense for both teams to include Foster and Odom.

JO/Foster/Harrison for Odom/Bynum/Brown/Crit

I think that would be a fair trade for both teams. Not likely for the Lakers to do it though because they're not exactly willing to do fair.

sweabs
07-24-2007, 10:37 PM
One of the primary tenents to this type of offense is an effective post-presence that draws double teams and opens up clean opportunities for shooters.
Ideally, yes.

But the responsibility is going to be on JO to pass out of those double teams in the first place. It's not like JO hasn't played with good shooters in the past (Reggie & Peja, to name a couple). We didn't have success with Peja. And in Reggie's case, the supporting cast was just a little better than what we have right now (and we still couldn't make it). Not to mention, how much of that was actually Reggie "deferring"?

http://img126.imageshack.us/img126/3227/jo1xd3.jpghttp://img238.imageshack.us/img238/2173/jo2nc6.jpghttp://img238.imageshack.us/img238/2461/jo3dz9.jpg

I don't want to have to watch that stuff anymore. And I'd like to go to a Raptors game and not get blown out this year :happydanc.

Smashed_Potato
07-24-2007, 10:38 PM
I honestly hope come August things change and we hear that talks are really strong. through out the NBA the trade talks are dead every expert expected a lot of big movements this summer so far Ray Allen is the only one and I'm not really sure you call that a big movement.

so far the month of July has been a horror.

Anthem
07-24-2007, 10:42 PM
But the responsibility is going to be on JO to pass out of those double teams in the first place.
JO has shown the ability to pass out of the post. This season we'll finally find out if he wasn't doing it because of gameplan or because of ego. I'm betting on gameplan, personally, but we'll find out.

rexnom
07-24-2007, 10:44 PM
Ideally, yes.

But the responsibility is going to be on JO to pass out of those double teams in the first place. It's not like JO hasn't played with good shooters in the past (Reggie & Peja, to name a couple). We didn't have success with Peja. And in Reggie's case, the supporting cast was just a little better than what we have right now (and we still couldn't make it). Not to mention, how much of that was actually Reggie "deferring"?

http://img126.imageshack.us/img126/3227/jo1xd3.jpghttp://img238.imageshack.us/img238/2173/jo2nc6.jpghttp://img238.imageshack.us/img238/2461/jo3dz9.jpg

I don't want to have to watch that stuff anymore. And I'd like to go to a Raptors game and not get blown out this year :happydanc.
It's really, really helpful when your guys 1.) Can't shoot consistently, 2.) Don't move 3.) Stand right next to each other.

EDIT: The Pacers never lost a playoff game when JO and Peja both played (of course JO was tearing through NJ while Peja was...well...what was Peja doing?)

sweabs
07-24-2007, 10:48 PM
JO has shown the ability to pass out of the post. This season we'll finally find out if he wasn't doing it because of gameplan or because of ego. I'm betting on gameplan, personally, but we'll find out.
Weren't we told at the start of last year that the new "gameplan" would have him playing more of a facilitator role in the offense? I don't recall that lasting so long.

sweabs
07-24-2007, 10:49 PM
It's really, really helpful when your guys 1.) Can't shoot consistently, 2.) Don't move 3.) Stand right next to each other.
I know. I can't wait for Travis Diener and Kareem Rush to change all of that.

docpaul
07-24-2007, 10:51 PM
Ideally, yes.

But the responsibility is going to be on JO to pass out of those double teams in the first place. It's not like JO hasn't played with good shooters in the past (Reggie & Peja, to name a couple). We didn't have success with Peja. And in Reggie's case, the supporting cast was just a little better than what we have right now (and we still couldn't make it). Not to mention, how much of that was actually Reggie "deferring"?

http://img126.imageshack.us/img126/3227/jo1xd3.jpghttp://img238.imageshack.us/img238/2173/jo2nc6.jpghttp://img238.imageshack.us/img238/2461/jo3dz9.jpg

I don't want to have to watch that stuff anymore. And I'd like to go to a Raptors game and not get blown out this year :happydanc.

Fun pictures. :)

I don't think that we're talking the same coach, and the same approach this year. I think there will be strong coaching and real inertia put behind passing out to the 3 point line for the open shot. You've already heard this mantra repeated so far this offseason.

Not sure his shooting approach has much of a chance, if you don't have someone in the paint drawing defenders away.

<shrug>

Anthem
07-24-2007, 10:57 PM
Weren't we told at the start of last year that the new "gameplan" would have him playing more of a facilitator role in the offense? I don't recall that lasting so long.
I never saw that gameplan. I saw him being made into a spot-up shooter 20ft from the basket. JO didn't ask for more shots or more touches (both went down after game 8). He asked to play near the basket.

rexnom
07-24-2007, 11:11 PM
I never saw that gameplan. I saw him being made into a spot-up shooter 20ft from the basket. JO didn't ask for more shots or more touches (both went down after game 8). He asked to play near the basket.
But I thought JO was an oft-injured pansy who never wanted to get physical in the post. I don't understand! Why must you confuse me with logical statements, the truth, and "facts"!

Will Galen
07-24-2007, 11:27 PM
Fun pictures. :)

I don't think that we're talking the same coach, and the same approach this year. I think there will be strong coaching and real inertia put behind passing out to the 3 point line for the open shot. You've already heard this mantra repeated so far this off season.

Not sure his shooting approach has much of a chance, if you don't have someone in the paint drawing defenders away.

<shrug>

Real inertia put behind passing?

Ah . . . inertia means a lack of activity. I even looked it up to see if it had a meaning I'm not familiar with.

in·er·tia (¹-nûr“sh…) n. 1. Physics. The tendency of a body to resist acceleration; the tendency of a body at rest to remain at rest or of a body in motion to stay in motion in a straight line unless acted on by an outside force. 2. Resistance or disinclination to motion, action, or change:

JayRedd
07-24-2007, 11:33 PM
As rexnom points out, the spacing by Dunleavy and Tinsley couldn't possibly be any worse than it is in those photos. They're positioned so that 5'10 TJ Ford is literally in the passing lane to both of them.

I really don't know whether we have any one that can consistently make open threes, but I can guarentee that J'OB will put an offense on the floor that will space the floor well.

Mike D'Antoni he is not....But that is what he does.

sweabs
07-24-2007, 11:33 PM
But I thought JO was an oft-injured pansy who never wanted to get physical in the post. I don't understand! Why must you confuse me with logical statements, the truth, and "facts"!
When did I say that?

Anthem, I agree with what you said. But to me, it seemed as though he didn't give things a fair chance when he made that request. There were some players who were playing relatively well at that point in time...but because of the request, things had to be changed. At the time, I thought it could have been a knee-jerk reaction to a bad game. But I see that he meant it, and went out and played some pretty good basketball games afterwards. I like it better when JO is playing on the low block - and being aggressive. That's when the attention comes, and the wide-open shooters appear from the outside. And I know there were some games from JO last year where his assist numbers were actually quite good. But unfortunately they seem to be far and few between.

Peck
07-25-2007, 01:25 AM
I never saw that gameplan. I saw him being made into a spot-up shooter 20ft from the basket. JO didn't ask for more shots or more touches (both went down after game 8). He asked to play near the basket.

Really??? You know this???? How???

Look feel free to tell me I wasn't in the room so I have no idea what was said & I can't argue against it. However unless you have some form of photo proof you were in there you have no more of an idea what he said than I do.

I'll say this, no matter what he asked or how he asked it. Our entire style of play and our starting lineup changed right after that.

Now I'm sorry, but somebody should have been fired right there and right then.

Either.

A. Jermaine O'Neal should have been benched and publicly derided by TPTB for trying to place himself above the team.

B. Rick Carlisle should have been fired the moment he walked off of the plane at Indy because he wasn't committed to playing the style of offense that TPTB wanted played.

C. Larry Bird should have been fired that same night because his vision was crap and he completley went out and got an entire new bench to play a new style that neither the coach or the players could/would play.

D. Donnie Walsh should have been fired for allowing any or all of the above.

I don't care how anyone is going to spin it, I don't care if O'Neal was right or wrong.

It was not his place to make this demand so early on in the season. In fact it was never really his place to make this demand period, IMO. Others will disagree and that is fine.

However I asked this at the time, I asked it later in the season & I'll ask it again now.

If the team was floundering playing the style that J.O. wanted to play, do you think he would have marched into the office and demanded that they go away from that style of play?

Please.

That was all about Jermaine O'Neal not getting the stat line he wanted. Pure and simple.

We were .500% when that happened. We had just come off of a bad loss however we had handed out a bad loss as well earlier.

8 games, Several new players and a new assistant coaching staff.

Really, truely, was that the time to go in and demand change? Where was he later in the year demanding these changes when the team was sinking?

But again I'll say, I wasn't there.

But then again neither was anyone else.

SoupIsGood
07-25-2007, 02:12 AM
I think it's pretty cruel of you to assume that JO only cares about his stat line, and that it's that "pure and simple." I'm sure JO probably cares a little about his stats, but probably no more than the average athlete. And unless you know JO personally or something, I've got to play the same "Really??? You know this???? How???" you used on Anthem on you. Whatever you think of JO, can you at least not recognize that you're not being very fair to him? Assuming that his #1 priority is getting good stats is more or less unfounded, I think. Especially when you consider all the charges he takes for us, etc.

Listen, I don't really care that you don't like JO, but there's no reason to always be beating him into the ground.

Anthem
07-25-2007, 02:17 AM
Great gravy, Peck, do you really want to do this again? I saw you had the last post in this thread and I knew exactly what it was about.

I'm just sick of it, man. Sick unto death.

We'll see what happens this year. One way or another, the speculation will be over.

Trader Joe
07-25-2007, 02:20 AM
It's really, really helpful when your guys 1.) Can't shoot consistently, 2.) Don't move 3.) Stand right next to each other.

EDIT: The Pacers never lost a playoff game when JO and Peja both played (of course JO was tearing through NJ while Peja was...well...what was Peja doing?)

Making sure he could pass a physical.

Trader Joe
07-25-2007, 02:23 AM
Really??? You know this???? How???

Look feel free to tell me I wasn't in the room so I have no idea what was said & I can't argue against it. However unless you have some form of photo proof you were in there you have no more of an idea what he said than I do.

I'll say this, no matter what he asked or how he asked it. Our entire style of play and our starting lineup changed right after that.

Now I'm sorry, but somebody should have been fired right there and right then.

Either.

A. Jermaine O'Neal should have been benched and publicly derided by TPTB for trying to place himself above the team.

B. Rick Carlisle should have been fired the moment he walked off of the plane at Indy because he wasn't committed to playing the style of offense that TPTB wanted played.

C. Larry Bird should have been fired that same night because his vision was crap and he completley went out and got an entire new bench to play a new style that neither the coach or the players could/would play.

D. Donnie Walsh should have been fired for allowing any or all of the above.

I don't care how anyone is going to spin it, I don't care if O'Neal was right or wrong.

It was not his place to make this demand so early on in the season. In fact it was never really his place to make this demand period, IMO. Others will disagree and that is fine.

However I asked this at the time, I asked it later in the season & I'll ask it again now.

If the team was floundering playing the style that J.O. wanted to play, do you think he would have marched into the office and demanded that they go away from that style of play?

Please.

That was all about Jermaine O'Neal not getting the stat line he wanted. Pure and simple.

We were .500% when that happened. We had just come off of a bad loss however we had handed out a bad loss as well earlier.

8 games, Several new players and a new assistant coaching staff.

Really, truely, was that the time to go in and demand change? Where was he later in the year demanding these changes when the team was sinking?

But again I'll say, I wasn't there.

But then again neither was anyone else.

Nobody knows what was said in that room other than the people present. Not me, you, or Anthem. However I think we can all agree that the particular topic has been rehashed from here to the moon and back and nothing has come of it. Unless JO gets traded which is looking less and less likely he is still our best player and this is probably his last season to sink or swim in my eyes. We have had a relatively quiet offseason with no off the court troubles so distractions and the like can no longer be an excuse.

Peck
07-25-2007, 02:49 AM
I think it's pretty cruel of you to assume that JO only cares about his stat line, and that it's that "pure and simple." I'm sure JO probably cares a little about his stats, but probably no more than the average athlete. And unless you know JO personally or something, I've got to play the same "Really??? You know this???? How???" you used on Anthem on you. Whatever you think of JO, can you at least not recognize that you're not being very fair to him? Assuming that his #1 priority is getting good stats is more or less unfounded, I think. Especially when you consider all the charges he takes for us, etc.

Listen, I don't really care that you don't like JO, but there's no reason to always be beating him into the ground.

In turn I will reply in kind about JO and his careing for his stats. Unless you know JO personally or something I have to ask the same "Really??? You know this???? How???"

Answer my question.

Do you think that if we were playing the style of basketball he wanted and yet it wasn't working would he have marched into Carlisle's office and demanded that we alter our style so that the team would win?

Peck
07-25-2007, 02:52 AM
Great gravy, Peck, do you really want to do this again? I saw you had the last post in this thread and I knew exactly what it was about.

I'm just sick of it, man. Sick unto death.

We'll see what happens this year. One way or another, the speculation will be over.

Hey, I was just responding to your post that you knew he asked to play down low and not get more touches.

Besides it's been a good while since we :box: so I thought it might be fun to go at it again.:D

Here, if you don't want to talk about it then join me in the dance.

:dance:

Mourning
07-25-2007, 04:39 AM
I have to aggree with Peck here. Sorry Anthem and SIG, but when someone uses the "don't assume this while you don't know"-sentence and then makes an assumption himself on such a pretty sensitive topic with two opposite lines of thought then you are going to get it returned. Not more then fair.

Either way, we shouldn't get into a nasty direction with this. I have to aggree most with what rcarey said earlier. While, I do not (completely) share Pecks view regarding JO I do share the implications as to what the team should now be doing regarding JO (i.o. moving him, but for value though Peck ;)).

We need someone who can pass out of the double team and who does it with great regularity.

We also need to get some relief in the salary department to be able to re-sign or players that are coming off their rookiecontracts soon.

We need to trade JO now, while he still commands the trade value that he does

And we definitely need to make changes to the core of this team and it's strategic course, because even the most positive sun-shiner will have to conceit (sp?) that when everything goes according to plan and everything works out on the best possible notes the second round and out is our ceiling.

And that's when we have virtually no injuries, no PR-disasters, no chemistry problems, no coaching or team direction problems, everyone progressing at the optimum, etc. In other words... freaking unlikely.


Might be acceptable for some of us, I know it's not enough for me.

We have been screwing around since (Mo)Ron demanded his trade request making primarily changes to the bench and leaving the core virtually intact. It's time to say: "it didn't work out. We need to change our longterm plans and take another strategic direction".

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

pwee31
07-25-2007, 05:30 AM
You need a better source of information than hoopsworld. For that matter, we ALL need a better source of information than that on-line rag.

I wasn't trying to point out the source! I was trying to point out that the deal has and will continue to be on the table with Bynum being the hold up! it's not Odom that's the problem, it's Bynum. Not even sure if it's the Pacers worrying about getting both anymore... it's the Pacers willingness to give up Bynum!

Mourning
07-25-2007, 08:41 AM
it's the Pacers willingness to give up Bynum!

The Lakers I would dare say ;).

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

rexnom
07-25-2007, 08:46 AM
When did I say that?

Anthem, I agree with what you said. But to me, it seemed as though he didn't give things a fair chance when he made that request. There were some players who were playing relatively well at that point in time...but because of the request, things had to be changed. At the time, I thought it could have been a knee-jerk reaction to a bad game. But I see that he meant it, and went out and played some pretty good basketball games afterwards. I like it better when JO is playing on the low block - and being aggressive. That's when the attention comes, and the wide-open shooters appear from the outside. And I know there were some games from JO last year where his assist numbers were actually quite good. But unfortunately they seem to be far and few between.
It's not you...sorry if you misunderstood. Like Anthem, I'm a little sick of the JO bashing and the mythical post game 8 speech.

ChicagoJ
07-25-2007, 10:51 AM
Hey, I was just responding to your post that you knew he asked to play down low and not get more touches.

Besides it's been a good while since we :box: so I thought it might be fun to go at it again.:D

Here, if you don't want to talk about it then join me in the dance.

:dance:

Its painfully obvious that after game #8, JO was no longer used as a 7'0", 260 pound SG/SF. It doesn't take a math genious to see that his touches/ shots did not increase.

If JO was asking for more touches far away from the basket, then Rick gave him the exact opposite of what he was asking for.

Give the "I hate JO" goggles back to bball. They are clouding your vision.

docpaul
07-25-2007, 11:04 AM
Real inertia put behind passing?

Ah . . . inertia means a lack of activity. I even looked it up to see if it had a meaning I'm not familiar with.

in·er·tia (¹-nûr“sh…) n. 1. Physics. The tendency of a body to resist acceleration; the tendency of a body at rest to remain at rest or of a body in motion to stay in motion in a straight line unless acted on by an outside force. 2. Resistance or disinclination to motion, action, or change:

Whoops, freudian slip. Was working on a paper last night... was thinking about overcoming inertia. Thanks for being a human vocabulary validator, I guess. :)

Will Galen
07-25-2007, 11:33 AM
But again I'll say, I wasn't there.

But then again neither was anyone else.

You keep saying you weren't there, so why do you keep saying JO demanded a change? I'll quote you, "Really? You know this how?"

Then you say somebody should be fired because of what is inferred?

Sure we can infer cause from effect, but to demand someone be fired from what is inferred is . . . well making judgments from incomplete evidence is typical for this site.

ChicagoJ
07-25-2007, 11:54 AM
I would find Peck's/ bball's imaginary story more compelling if they said that the heated meeting was because Rick and Larry said to JO, "This isn't working, and you're going back to the paint" and JO then whined about it.

Their imaginary version of what happened has a lot of holes in it. If I wanted to make something up, the version I made up in the paragraph above would've been harder to discount with observable facts after the fact.

The facts are: there was a meeting after Game #8. It was reported that the meeting was "heated" and that voices could be heard from outside the room. Beginning around Game #9, JO went back to the paint, and got about the same number of shots/ touches.

Its my opinion that using JO as a SF/SG was a dumb idea in the first place. Last summer, when we talked about a new offense we never envisioned Rick would be stupid enough to put JO on the wing. But that's just my opinion.

We still don't have any idea who said what and if anybody involved thought this was even unusual.

We just had a closed door meeting in my office in which voices got a bit excited because we all want to do the right thing and have different viewpoints on how to do it. This was probably a non-event in the first place. (Having said that, I'm not about to throw Mike Wells under the bus for reporting it. Remember the Boston announcers were having a heyday poking fun at our misuse of JO at that point of the season during the game prior to the 'blowup'.)

JayRedd
07-25-2007, 12:16 PM
(...Remember the Boston announcers were having a heyday poking fun at our misuse of JO at that point of the season during the game prior to the 'blowup'.)

I believe we were given a "TOMMY point!!!!!"

Hicks
07-25-2007, 12:26 PM
Don't you feel at least a little silly saying JO was used as a 2/3? I mean unless you want to say that's what Dirk is, I guess...

Will Galen
07-25-2007, 01:15 PM
I would find Peck's/ bball's imaginary story more compelling if they said that the heated meeting was because Rick and Larry said to JO, "This isn't working, and you're going back to the paint" and JO then whined about it.

Their imaginary version of what happened has a lot of holes in it. If I wanted to make something up, the version I made up in the paragraph above would've been harder to discount with observable facts after the fact.

The facts are: there was a meeting after Game #8. It was reported that the meeting was "heated" and that voices could be heard from outside the room. Beginning around Game #9, JO went back to the paint, and got about the same number of shots/ touches.



I agree! The fact is anyone can come up with a plausible scenario of what happened in that room. Here's mine. Not that I really believe it, because I wasn't there. (grin)

Wed. Nov. 15} JO went in to complain that using Harrington at center wasn't working. What he wanted was Harrington playing small forward in the place of Granger.

The next game wasn't until Tue. the 21st with Mil. Instead of doing what JO wanted, Carlisle moved JO back into the post to try and fix the problem. That didn't work either so on Tue. the 28th he moved Foster back into the starting lineup at center, and moved Harrington to small forward, and Granger to the bench, just as JO wanted.

Really, isn't this as believable as anything else put forward?

RWB
07-25-2007, 01:33 PM
The facts are: there was a meeting after Game #8. It was reported that the meeting was "heated" and that voices could be heard from outside the room. Beginning around Game #9, JO went back to the paint, and got about the same number of shots/ touches.

We just had a closed door meeting in my office in which voices got a bit excited because we all want to do the right thing and have different viewpoints on how to do it.

And at the end of the day who make's the final decision? Let's not fool ourselves as you have pointed out we all want to do the right thing and have different viewpoints on how to do it. I'll lay money on Peck's thought process that it was all about JO.

ChicagoJ
07-25-2007, 01:56 PM
Don't you feel at least a little silly saying JO was used as a 2/3? I mean unless you want to say that's what Dirk is, I guess...

A little hyperbole.

But KG and Dirk play more like SGs than Cs. I consider both of them to be supersized SFs.

Just like Rik Smits for the last several years of his career.

(In case I'm not being clear: Power forwards, in my mind, don't 'face the basket', they post up.)

ChicagoJ
07-25-2007, 01:57 PM
I agree! The fact is anyone can come up with a plausible scenario of what happened in that room. Here's mine. Not that I really believe it, because I wasn't there. (grin)

Wed. Nov. 15} JO went in to complain that using Harrington at center wasn't working. What he wanted was Harrington playing small forward in the place of Granger.

The next game wasn't until Tue. the 21st with Mil. Instead of doing what JO wanted, Carlisle moved JO back into the post to try and fix the problem. That didn't work either so on Tue. the 28th he moved Foster back into the starting lineup at center, and moved Harrington to small forward, and Granger to the bench, just as JO wanted.

Really, isn't this as believable as anything else put forward?

Except that we *think* JO doesn't like playing alongside Foster because opponents don't respect Foster at the offensive end. Otherwise, its as pluasible as anything else.

Anthem
07-25-2007, 02:16 PM
Hey, I was just responding to your post that you knew he asked to play down low and not get more touches.

Besides it's been a good while since we :box: so I thought it might be fun to go at it again.:D

Here, if you don't want to talk about it then join me in the dance.

:dance:
It can't be about the touches because his touches went down!

But yeah, I'm ready for the dance.

:dance:

Peck
07-25-2007, 02:22 PM
It can't be about the touches because his touches went down!

But yeah, I'm ready for the dance.

:dance:

I'm dancing :dance:

But....

Remember touches don't equal shot attempts. How much of a % of the offense ran threw J.O. after game 8?

DisplacedKnick
07-25-2007, 02:35 PM
We need to trade JO now, while he still commands the trade value that he does


I just want you to trade him because I'm sick of the "After Game 8 JO meeting" discussion myself. :deadhorse:3deadhors:2deadhors

Bball
07-25-2007, 03:35 PM
I'm here to support the view JO is more about JO than he is "The Pacers". At least on the court. I do think he generally represents the team well off the court in the local and natl press.

For those brave enough to venture into this territory, I'm here for you. Not sure what I can add that hasn't been said though.

-Bball

Trader Joe
07-25-2007, 03:38 PM
I'm here to support the view JO is more about JO than he is "The Pacers". At least on the court. I do think he generally represents the team well off the court in the local and natl press.

For those brave enough to venture into this territory, I'm here for you. Not sure what I can add that hasn't been said though.

-Bball

Exactly. This discussion has been rehashed to death. There are clearly three camps on the subject. Those who believe JO has the Pacers best wishes in his mind, those who don't, and those who are somewhere in the middle. And IMO if any headway in the conversation was going to be made, it would have done so already.

bellisimo
07-25-2007, 05:38 PM
just thought i'd bring some QUOTES and what not to REFRESH the minds of everyone. :)



"It's a very difficult situation because we have guys that can make shots, but at times when we are struggling and losing, I do want the ball in my hands," O'Neal said. "I have a lot of confidence in my teammates, but in a tough situation I want the ball in my hands. In any given matchup, I feel I can make plays. Even when I'm double-teamed, I can find the open guy to score for us." That premise isn't exactly the game plan of Pacers coach Rick Carlisle, who wants to play through O'Neal to make his teammates more effective.
"We are not going to go out of our way to give Jermaine the ball 25-30 times a game but we can be creative and find ways to get him more involved," Carlisle said. "We have a lot of guys that can score for us, but we have to find a way to keep everyone involved."
http://cbs.sportsline.com/nba/story/9926475/rss

SoupIsGood
07-25-2007, 06:09 PM
I have to aggree with Peck here. Sorry Anthem and SIG, but when someone uses the "don't assume this while you don't know"-sentence and then makes an assumption himself on such a pretty sensitive topic with two opposite lines of thought then you are going to get it returned. Not more then fair.



Yeah, except that Peck's the one in the wrong here. Peck is the one making the extreme accusation, saying that JO is essentially a stathogger. I replied by saying that that's an unfair accusation, and that JO probably doesn't care about his stats any more than the average athlete. (And I think it'd be pretty naive to think that there's an athlete who doesn't think about their stats even a little bit--our sportsworld has been crazy for stats for a long time now.)

But instead Peck is doing the old 'Well, I can't prove myself right, but you can't prove me wrong, either' thing. But that doesn't work: he's the one making the crazy accusations. I'm just asking for some PROOF before he goes all nuts w/ the JO mud-slinging.

And if he's got some convincing evidence, then I'll agree w/ him that JO is a stathogger or whatever. But so far, all I've seen is some unfair ranting.




Do you think that if we were playing the style of basketball he wanted and yet it wasn't working would he have marched into Carlisle's office and demanded that we alter our style so that the team would win?

Well, by definition, I think the answer here is NO. If we are playing the style of ball that JO 'wants,' then he isn't going to ask for a change--because it's the style he wants! If it is the style that he thinks will help the team most, then he's not going to want it changed--he's just going to work harder at implementing it. Seems pretty simple to me, and only means something negative if you assume that the style JO wants runs counter to the best interests of the team--and again, that's a big leap to make.

Trader Joe
07-25-2007, 06:58 PM
just thought i'd bring some QUOTES and what not to REFRESH the minds of everyone. :)


http://cbs.sportsline.com/nba/story/9926475/rss

The context of those quotes is that in a tough situation JO wants the ball in his hands. What do you want him to say? "When the going gets tough I'm going to defer to someone else. I don't want to have to deal with the pressure." That would make me more angry than this.

Naptown_Seth
07-25-2007, 07:32 PM
Wow, you summed it up perfectly in one sentence. You need to do this more often :-p.

In all seriousness, you've pinpointed exactly what is happening. We either can't, or won't make the necessary changes to the core of this team, and instead we're left with these bench players who "fit the new style".

The problem is that as long as we have JO as the centerpiece of this team, the style is never going to truly change. One could argue that more blame should be placed on the shoulders of Rick Carlisle rather than JO, but it wasn't Rick who complained about the "new style" last year less than 10 games into the season.

In order for this team to truly change directions, and truly play a new style - JO will have to be moved. The wrong people/pieces of the puzzle are being addressed by TPTB in my opinion.
Well to me the problem is that two years in a row they've tried to SAY they are going to be this new style, but that style hasn't in any way matched the roster. I don't get it. If you own a Renault F1 car you don't start running the Baja off-road circuit with it, even if you change the tires.

I have yet to get what was wrong with a team that had more talent in the low post, physical offense area just continuing to be that. Instead TPTB (and I think Bird mostly) decided they'd better keep up with the "new way", which for some reason is supposed to be up-tempo.

PHX - 60 wins, can't reach Finals
DAL - beat by GS in round 1, lost 4 straight in Finals to a typical big man, star guard combo that certainly didn't want to run the pace of Dallas
GS - beat Dallas then got plowed by the ultra half-court team, Sloan's Jazz

Meanwhile who's been winning titles? Um, the defensive ace, non-running Pistons, the slow down grinding defense Spurs, the Shaq in the the post (ie, did he ever run?) Heat.

Where's this wave of the future actually making good on that promise? Nowhere yet. So WHY IN THE F would you force your roster to try and be something that doesn't suit them AND hasn't really won big yet?

Seems to me that Mike Brown just took the Rick system to the Finals. Maybe the Pacers should have stuck with that approach too.


And then to follow up having the worst shooting roster in the entire league Bird picks of all the possible coaches the guy who is most in love with the outside shooting philosophy???

Hey, JOB isn't wrong IMO. I get what he's trying to do and I think it can work, but it sure isn't anything close to a natural fit with this current roster. By the time it's turned into a JOB roster he'll be fired for 3 straight sub-40 win seasons, probably by Bird's replacement no less.


This just in, next year the Colts are going to focus on the run and really try to turn games into a defensive line struggle. You know, cause that's the way the NFL is headed, forget Manning/Harrison/Wayne, that's the old way which doesn't work anymore....actually joking aside people WERE saying the Colts couldn't win with their high-octane passing offense which was made more unbalanced when Edge was let go. To me that says quite a bit about sticking to your guns and consolidating your efforts around your core strengths, trends be damned. Maybe SET THE TRENDS yourself instead. ;)

Naptown_Seth
07-25-2007, 07:54 PM
I'm dancing :dance:

But....

Remember touches don't equal shot attempts. How much of a % of the offense ran threw J.O. after game 8?
The same as before. The change wasn't touches or shots, it was JO being asked to work every play off the elbow instead of the low post. One of the main plays early in the year was the low post screen play between the SG-SF while JO sat at the elbow dumping the pass into the SG rolling off this or the SF going back door if they overplayed.

What was happening was that often if that stage flopped it eventually ended with JO asked to shoot from 15 feet out. That is not his strength and doesn't play to his foul drawing ability.

I always go on about the Jackson/JO give and go, one of their most effective plays. Doesn't work if JO is kept out of the low post.

JO averaged 2.7 FTAs PER GAME during those first 8 (7 games only for him). 2.7 for a guy that typically gets about 7-8 FTAs per. This despite averaging 15-16 FGAs per during the same stretch.

You know what his FTA average was in the 8 games after the rant? 5, 9, 7, 10, 15, 6, 6, 6 = 8 a game, what a surprise. What did it take to get him those extra FTAs? 15.3 FGAs per game, no more attempts, perhaps even a tiny bit less.

Personally I think attacking the rim, getting to the line, getting in the bonus earlier, putting defenders in foul trouble, these are GOOD things to do. I guess JO agreed with me. A few of you consider him a jerk for doing so. Obviously I consider him smart to express a necessary concern regarding the new methods.


And of course I was the one who started the "no more running" thread because of their horrifying conversion rate on breaks. They were running man or two advantages at probably (by my guess) a 40% conversion rate. That crap was not working, everyone was sitting in spots on the floor that were more awkward for their game and the whole thing looked uncomfortable to me.

Peck
07-25-2007, 08:22 PM
Yeah, except that Peck's the one in the wrong here. Peck is the one making the extreme accusation, saying that JO is essentially a stathogger. I replied by saying that that's an unfair accusation, and that JO probably doesn't care about his stats any more than the average athlete. (And I think it'd be pretty naive to think that there's an athlete who doesn't think about their stats even a little bit--our sportsworld has been crazy for stats for a long time now.)

But instead Peck is doing the old 'Well, I can't prove myself right, but you can't prove me wrong, either' thing. But that doesn't work: he's the one making the crazy accusations. I'm just asking for some PROOF before he goes all nuts w/ the JO mud-slinging.

And if he's got some convincing evidence, then I'll agree w/ him that JO is a stathogger or whatever. But so far, all I've seen is some unfair ranting.



Well, by definition, I think the answer here is NO. If we are playing the style of ball that JO 'wants,' then he isn't going to ask for a change--because it's the style he wants! If it is the style that he thinks will help the team most, then he's not going to want it changed--he's just going to work harder at implementing it. Seems pretty simple to me, and only means something negative if you assume that the style JO wants runs counter to the best interests of the team--and again, that's a big leap to make.


Would you please explain to me again how it is that you are so right & I am so wrong about J.O. caring about his own stats? I mean other than just your intutition that J.O. being a wonderfull human being that only cares about his stats. no more than say Jon Koncack would have.

Why are they crazy accusations again? Let's look at this.

We were 8 games into the season.

We had several new players.

We had an entire new offense to run.

We had an entire new coaching staff to work with (Other than Rick).

We had 3 new players in the starting lineup.

So it is a "crazy accusation" on my part to say that when the team was .500% only 8 games into the season that the supposed Leader and captain of the team was only thinking about how he liked to play better than what the Coach and President of Basketball Operations thought they should play.

I'll make a deal with you.

I'll just say that my objectivity about O'Neal is not great if you will agree that your objecitivty is also not great.

My "unfair ranting" as you put it could also be said to balance out the "if God wore shoes" statements that you have had in the past.

Also as to answering my question, nice. Way to duck and cover by trying to say that J.O.'s game plan was what was best for the team.

Now try and answer it for real please.

Here let me put it this way to you.

The Indiana Pacers as a team are faltering. However Jermaine O'Neal is on course for a career season. But in doing so the rest of the club is stagnating and several players are not being used in the areas that they are the most usefull. Does Jermaine O'Neal march into the office and demand that the style of play switch so that the team would play better but at the cost of his own stats.

What? You say no player would be dumb enough to do that. Let's assume you are right.

But all this does is go to what I have been trying to say all along. The post game meeting was not about getting the team to play better. It was about Jermaine O'Neal wanting to play a style that was better suited for him.

Nothing more nothing less.

Peck
07-25-2007, 08:24 PM
Its painfully obvious that after game #8, JO was no longer used as a 7'0", 260 pound SG/SF. It doesn't take a math genious to see that his touches/ shots did not increase.

If JO was asking for more touches far away from the basket, then Rick gave him the exact opposite of what he was asking for.

Give the "I hate JO" goggles back to bball. They are clouding your vision.

As to you....

Well let me put it to you like this.

Exchange the name Jermaine O'Neal for Ron Artest and tell me you are still ok with this.

SparkyPacer
07-25-2007, 08:36 PM
JO didn't ask time off for a rap album, and JO didn't want to go up another option on the offense like Ron did.

JayRedd
07-25-2007, 08:41 PM
Seems to me that Mike Brown just took the Rick system to the Finals. Maybe the Pacers should have stuck with that approach too.

And then to follow up having the worst shooting roster in the entire league Bird picks of all the possible coaches the guy who is most in love with the outside shooting philosophy???

Hey, JOB isn't wrong IMO. I get what he's trying to do and I think it can work, but it sure isn't anything close to a natural fit with this current roster. By the time it's turned into a JOB roster he'll be fired for 3 straight sub-40 win seasons, probably by Bird's replacement no less.


Trying to turn this roster into a perimeter offense also seems reactionary to me. Like you say, it seems the goal here is to "keep up with Joneses" of this "new NBA" that all these talking heads have been drooling over since Nash got to Phoenix. And I'm not trying to overlook the success that some up-tempo teams have had of late, but what exactly is the point of trying to mimic a style that has so far not breed real, tangible success? (You list the Suns, Mavs and Warriors....I'd like to also add the Kings and Wizards, the Sonics from 05-06, and the Celtics in the two or three years prior to this one.)

Look, I have nothing against J'OB or his offense. I also watch a lot of Celtics basketball, and really enjoyed watching his squads there.

I just feel like this whole idea of US playing uptempo -- whether in practice or just through continued rhetoric -- is like trying to turn around a battleship that's already got a full head of steam towards one war to head to another one. Meaning, it's gonna take some difficult manuevering, it's gonna take a long time and we might not be carrying the right arsenal for our new destination.

We have frontcourt-loaded team. If not in pure talent, certainly in depth and versatility. JO is certainly one of the better PFs in the league. Foster is a premier rebounder. We have Granger and Shawne as our developing young'ns, neither of which has shown they excel in ball-handling or open-court play aside from hitting jumpers. Then we trade for two definite front-court guys in Murphy and Ike, and in the process also bring in Dunleavy, who isn't much of a perimeter scorer in terms of shooting or off the bounce.

And now we're a perimeter-oriented team with an "outside-inside" coach? Really? That's the plan? What was getting Ike and Murphy all about then? Shouldn't we just have unloaded Jack for perimeter players like Hudson and Jaric or something if that was the plan? Why draft Shawne? Why not trade Foster yet?

So many questions....So little sense.

I just don't see the logic.

Pacersin2033
07-25-2007, 09:14 PM
JO didn't ask time off for a rap album, and JO didn't want to go up another option on the offense like Ron did.

No he just insists on being the number one option even though he shoots 43% from the field, as POWER FORWARD. The dude refuses to share the ball, he refused to share it with his friend, he is just a ballhog which is detrimental to any team.

SparkyPacer
07-25-2007, 09:16 PM
I thought he was top 10 in Assists for Big Men? I think I heard that before on here, and maybe his turnover ratio isn't great but that has nothing to do with being a ballhog or not.

Mourning
07-25-2007, 09:34 PM
Doesn't change the fact that he has been shotting at horrible clips for a long period now... he has periods when he goes berzerk and does great, the other periods are way longer and more frequent.

I like the dude, but it's time to make a strategic change of course.

Btw Jay I think your softness regarding JO is remarkable compared with your stance on both Ron and Stephen. I mean in your view when is JO accountable for anything actually? When do the people around him stop getting the blame?

I'm not saying at all that JO is to blame for all the problems on the court. Far from it, but to treat him like he's holy is going a bit far IMO.

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

ChicagoJ
07-25-2007, 10:49 PM
He IS the best player on the team.

The team IS SUPPOSED to be built around his strengths. That's how it works. I can't think of a single NBA champion that took its best player away from their strength and made them an out-of-comfort-zone complimentary player. The Cavs seem to need more of an inside presence. Maybe they should move LBJ to power forward and run him exclusively out of the post in order to let him pass to Hughes and Boobie on the perimeter?

:dunce:

---------------

Ron's problem (among many) was that he wanted to be the team's JO. But the team already had its JO. It didn't need a turf war.

SJax - I didn't care for the way he disrespected the coach and teammates with his ballhogging, renegade attitude. And I hated his on-court game of lousy shooting, poor shot selection, and rapid-fire turnovers.

To compare JO, who by all accounts except Peck's and bball's trip into fantasy land is a team-oriented guy, to those two ballhogs is incomprehendible. I don't blame JO for undermining anything because I don't see any evidence of him undermining anything. Game #8 discussions included. What did he possibly undermine, Rick's sabotaging of the team?

For whatever reason, fans in Indiana would rather embrace an untalented "energy/ hustle player", like Heywoode Workman instead of Mark Jackson, like Darrell Armstrong instead of whomever, like anybody else instead of JO.

But as JO continues to improve his passing, raising his assists while controlling his turnovers, taking charges, blocking shots, doing his dirty work, while not hogging the ball on offense, somebody needs to counteract the fantasy land "JO only cares about his stats and not W/L's" nonsense that gets spouted, and quoted, and believed, as if it were actually true.

Rick's offense, and some of Rick's lineups, were no longer working. I expect a JO revitalization in '07-08, and I'd rather it be in Indianapolis than Los Angeles.

Anthem
07-25-2007, 10:49 PM
No he just insists on being the number one option even though he shoots 43% from the field, as POWER FORWARD.
I guarantee Jermaine's FG% will go up now that he's not under Carlisle.

Ike's FG% dropped by 10% the moment he put on a Pacers jersey. You think that was coincidence?

Bball
07-26-2007, 01:07 AM
Jay's now living his nightmare of seeing TPTB take so long to address 'issues' that JO has been called into question by several of us.

-Bball

SoupIsGood
07-26-2007, 03:13 AM
Would you please explain to me again how it is that you are so right & I am so wrong about J.O. caring about his own stats?

It's not that I'm right or something, it's just you haven't proven that you're not wrong. You say JO is a stathogger, I said :bs: and asked for proof. You haven't got any. I'm done: you've been unreasonable about JO for about a year now. Ever since the Gooden Revelation.

Peck
07-26-2007, 04:37 AM
It's not that I'm right or something, it's just you haven't proven that you're not wrong. You say JO is a stathogger, I said :bs: and asked for proof. You haven't got any. I'm done: you've been unreasonable about JO for about a year now. Ever since the Gooden Revelation.

Well at least your only saying a year. Some would say seven years.;)

Proof is in the eye of the beholder, what I will offer as proof you will dispute (as will others who we both know).

My proof, if that's what you want to call it, is in the fact that the Captain of the team demanded a change in style of play less than a quarter of the way into the season. Going against the Coaching staff and the Management.

The Captain demanded a style of play that was suited to him. I don't care if his points went up or not, the fact that the style of play he wishes to play is the easiest basketball to defend on the planet earth is one of the reasons his points didn't jump threw the roof.

However where I hold my belief in is the fact that his shots may not have gone up but the amount of times the ball went to him did.

But again, I understand, you will dispute this.

Would you like me to go back to his press conferance when he was traded here? Where he set and talked about M.I.P., M.V.P., All-star apperances and then at the end said he would like be be on a winner here.

However, frankly speaking, some of the things I would use as proof I cannot do. So basically I have to set back and just take some of this tripe about what a wonderfull player he is and only cares about the welfare of the Indiana Pacers while not able to say some of the things I want to.

Actually that sucks quite a bit, but oh well.

I think we can both agree to be done with this.

Now in a spirit of unity I invite you to join the dance.

:dance:

Peck
07-26-2007, 04:40 AM
I guarantee Jermaine's FG% will go up now that he's not under Carlisle.

Ike's FG% dropped by 10% the moment he put on a Pacers jersey. You think that was coincidence?

Actually you now have my curiosity peaked.

Enthrall me with your theory as to why this is. No, honest I want to know. I didn't realize that his fg% dropped that much.

Do you think it was systemic or isolated to one thing?

Hicks
07-26-2007, 11:14 AM
Peck, regardless of things you can't say, it's not like you didn't feel this way before knowing that. You can do better. :sheepy:

Anthem
07-26-2007, 11:34 AM
Actually you now have my curiosity peaked.

Enthrall me with your theory as to why this is. No, honest I want to know. I didn't realize that his fg% dropped that much.

Do you think it was systemic or isolated to one thing?
Full disclosure: I remembered wrong. It was slightly less than 10%. In Golden State, Ike shot 53%. But when he moved here, he shot 45%. So it was an 8% drop, not a 10% drop. But that's still way more than you'd expect, especially considering the 53% is consistent with what he shot the year before. So something in Indiana made his FG% drop tremendously.

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/ike_diogu/

I don't have proof for this, but I'd put the blame squarely on two things:

1. Indy's tendency to force the ball into post isolation. This isn't the same thing as scoring in the post. This is Carlisle's "dump it in" philosophy. It's ugly and it doesn't work. When you look at any other post player in the NBA, they don't play the post against three guys. But we see Indy players (not just JO) do that all the time. I've got to believe that's a gameplan thing.

2. Our backcourt is horrific. In GS, you had to be careful because doubling the post meant leaving shooters on the wing. When you play the Pacers, you can double and triple the post because our wing players aren't a threat.

I'm open to other reasoning, but those are the two things that stick out at me. And both point to Carlisle, not JO, as the culprit. I've made this argument a couple of times before.

Bball
07-26-2007, 01:03 PM
Why is it that when JO went out with his shoulder injury that the team's guards suddenly got better... even Sjax and AJ? Why is it that Carlisle so quickly gets away from the 'dump it in to JO and let him go to work' gameplan when JO is out for extended periods of time yet starts reverting back to that style when JO's return from injury/suspension has been imminent?

Why is it we tried to get away from that style last season but JO went into the office to throw his hissy fit and we immediately went back to more of the same?

Why didn't we run that style of offense in 2000 with Rick holding the reins to that side of the court?

Why did Rick change up the offense after the brawl suspensions were announced (until JO's imminent return)? If he's so comfortable slowing things down and dumping the ball inside, why not stick with that in such trying times where you'd think he'd want to be in his comfort zone?

My opinion: We ran the starmaker offense because it initially was what TPTB wanted to push JO to the forefront and make him a star on two fronts (on the court and off the court with fans). The problem is, he never quite got to that level with any consistency on the court. During our good years IMO he never was the Pacers best player.... let alone most important. A vital cog, but not nearly as important as others on the team. He might be the best player on a bad team (now) though. Whoopee! But he still wants the starmaker offense. So we created a monster... a monster who needs a mirror and needs someone to tell him the story of the emperor who has no clothes. JO needs other players to make him look good... probably as much or moreso as anyone in his salary bracket. But, unfortunately, JO is not willing to defer for the good of the team. That's what my eyes have told me... but then I haven't watched any games since I loaned Peck my goggles. ;)

-Bball