PDA

View Full Version : JO: Should he stay, or should he go?



Shade
08-07-2007, 05:43 PM
Go on the record.

Oneal07
08-07-2007, 05:44 PM
Sty Obviouly. . Our team is not that bad compared to the Lakers!! If Lakers didn't have Kobe they would have gotten Greg Oden last year, that's how bad they are

Naptown_Seth
08-07-2007, 05:44 PM
STAY
A) I want to watch him as a Pacer

B) I don't want the Pacers to cave on what's being offered for him either.

Trader Joe
08-07-2007, 05:44 PM
If our best deal is Bynum and crap. Keep him.

Really you know what I just say lets keep him. We ride together, baby!

Hicks
08-07-2007, 05:46 PM
I admit I'm curious to see if he looks better without Rick around. Also the knee thing I did not know about.

If you can get what you as the GM consider fair value, I'd probably do it. I'm ready for a team with no attachments to the core of the 2002-2006 teams.

bellisimo
08-07-2007, 05:49 PM
I said if we get fair value - ship him!
he's been here for 7 seasons...and I just don't feel like he has the characteristic of someone that can carry the team on his back deep into the playoffs...
he is great at talking...
but just can't walk the walk...

Shade
08-07-2007, 05:52 PM
I admit I'm curious to see if he looks better without Rick around. Also the knee thing I did not know about.

If you can get what you as the GM consider fair value, I'd probably do it. I'm ready for a team with no attachments to the core of the 2002-2006 teams.

That's the second time today you've been down on Jeff Foster... :devil:

Naptown_Seth
08-07-2007, 05:55 PM
That's the second time today you've been down on Jeff Foster... :devil:
He hates these cans! Get away from the cans!

:zip: :uhoh: More cans!

pwee31
08-07-2007, 07:00 PM
After today's interview, I would like the Pacers to hold on to him... at least for a quarter of the season. We'll probably be better off to move him if we can get equal or better value, but I dont' mind holding onto him to see what can happen

ChicagoJ
08-07-2007, 07:05 PM
I'd vote something different that the choices. Keep him unless you get an offer that blows you away.

LoneGranger33
08-07-2007, 07:43 PM
I don't think I need to say this, but...

If he stays there will be trouble,
And if he goes it will be double
So should he stay or should he go?

---

If a good deal comes along, we must take it.
Before he goes down for long, we must take it.
If something does go wrong, that would break it.

---

Trade him now Trade him now!
Trade him soon Trade him soon!
He'll be gone
in a day or twooooo

QuickRelease
08-07-2007, 07:49 PM
I say we keep Jermaine. After today's interview, I have to say that he deserves the benefit of the doubt. I think Rick had become very predictable, and all the players will benefit from JOB's offensive philosophy. Plus it's just good to have ol' D Harter back in the saddle! Keep Jermaine is my vote!

Shade
08-07-2007, 08:24 PM
I don't think I need to say this, but...

If he stays there will be trouble,
And if he goes it will be double
So should he stay or should he go?

---

If a good deal comes along, we must take it.
Before he goes down for long, we must take it.
If something does go wrong, that would break it.

---

Trade him now Trade him now!
Trade him soon Trade him soon!
He'll be gone
in a day or twooooo

I can't believe it took 11 posts to get this. Buncha slackers in this thread. :laugh:

OnlyPacersLeft
08-07-2007, 09:01 PM
wish he'd stay because he's my fav player...but he doesn't want to be here...so be it i guess :(

Rajah Brown
08-07-2007, 09:03 PM
I'll fess up, I was the lone dissenter who said trade him no matter
what (though I didn't really mean no matter what; bad wording on
that poll option).

I just don't get the sentimentality angle on J.O. I like the guy alot
and I like his game. But he's an asset. No more, no less. He's not
Reggie at the age of 35, a beloved, Indy institution.

If J.O. sticks around, given the resulting inflexibility in our roster/cap
what's the upside for this squad 2-3 years down the road ? Maybe
50-52 wins, a #4, EC seed and a sniff at the EC semis ?

We need two things, a young C with a shot at stardom and a
young stud prospect at one of the G spots. Sure, maybe moving
one of either Granger, Williams or Diogu along with our 1st to move
up next June gets us a Lottery pick and one of those two. Or maybe
it doesn't.

rexnom
08-07-2007, 09:09 PM
If he's an asset...shouldn't we get as much as possible for him and not just trade him away?

ajbry
08-07-2007, 09:15 PM
I honestly think we are pretty much forced to trade him at this point. However, the most reasonable wish would be to get as much value as possible considering he's a near-dominant big man still in his prime.

The JO era is officially fractured (especially due to the events of the last 2 days) and there's little to be done to resolve the doubts. If he stays, the second-guessing will be even more constant and it ain't like the supporting cast's talent level is high enough to take that out of the spotlight.

LoneGranger33
08-07-2007, 09:33 PM
I can't believe it took 11 posts to get this. Buncha slackers in this thread. :laugh:

Yeah, I was surprised it was there for the taking...

Oneal07
08-07-2007, 09:58 PM
wish he'd stay because he's my fav player...but he doesn't want to be here...so be it i guess :(


U need to relax!!!

317Kim
08-07-2007, 10:01 PM
I feel like listening to the Clash now. "Darlin' you've got to let me know. Should I stay or should I go . . ."

JO should stay. There's not one bit of me that wants JO to leave.

DisplacedKnick
08-07-2007, 10:23 PM
Obviously, from my vote, I think the Pacers should trade him - for something of value. I don't know what's equal value exactly but Krstic/RJ and a pick or Williams about fits. I've never figured out how well I like Bynum so I don't know how I feel about a Laker deal.

Bottom line though is that JO wants to be traded. For all his diplomacy, you don't talk about "if I'm traded" and how great he gets along with Kobe and name preferred teams unless you'd like to be traded. I'm glad to see that apparently he wasn't the jerk about it like the ESPN writer said because he's always been a stand-up guy and I hated to see that image destroyed. But he still wants to go.

It doesn't have to happen today, or next week, but it needs to happen. And even if he loved being in Indy, the team's in bad shape, you have almost no tradable players, your cap situation's a mess - how else are you gonna put humpty-dumpty back together again? With Kareem Rush and Travis Diener?

However, since Bird seems to have an overinflated view of the worth of Pacer players, I very much expect JO to be in a Pacer uni at the start of the season. If there's a trade I bet it'll be midseason.

LAKERERIC
08-07-2007, 10:45 PM
Obviously, from my vote, I think the Pacers should trade him - for something of value. I don't know what's equal value exactly but Krstic/RJ and a pick or Williams about fits. I've never figured out how well I like Bynum so I don't know how I feel about a Laker deal.

Bottom line though is that JO wants to be traded. For all his diplomacy, you don't talk about "if I'm traded" and how great he gets along with Kobe and name preferred teams unless you'd like to be traded. I'm glad to see that apparently he wasn't the jerk about it like the ESPN writer said because he's always been a stand-up guy and I hated to see that image destroyed. But he still wants to go.

It doesn't have to happen today, or next week, but it needs to happen. And even if he loved being in Indy, the team's in bad shape, you have almost no tradable players, your cap situation's a mess - how else are you gonna put humpty-dumpty back together again? With Kareem Rush and Travis Diener?

However, since Bird seems to have an overinflated view of the worth of Pacer players, I very much expect JO to be in a Pacer uni at the start of the season. If there's a trade I bet it'll be midseason.

Seems to me Bird said it all today when he said that he considers rebuilding trading one of his better players for young players and draft picks. If he is not posturing, this tells me he is not prepared to take his team along the route of the Wolves. The risk is what if he leaves? He may actually leave. If the Pacers are a lottery team and not looking like any kind of immediate contender, than he could bolt. Because his trade value will never be higher than it is now, it seems clear that the Pacers face a tough decision. But, based on Bird's comments today, he does not want to conced to the rebuild, as McHale obviously did. If this is true, I completely expect JO to be a Pacer next year.

Evan_The_Dude
08-07-2007, 11:05 PM
I'd be tempted to do the NJ deal if there's truth to that, otherwise just keep Jermaine. It's sort of weird that the words he said that were taken out of context by ESPN ended up bringing more respect to him and Bird. It's like it was something that needed to happen. I haven't even seen or read the transcript of the interview, but I've heard enough to know I want the guy on my team. If the wheels somehow fall off and he opts out and signs with another team because we suck, we'll have a lottery pick and some cap space to fall back on.

Arcadian
08-07-2007, 11:22 PM
I like JO. I'd only trade JO if it obviously made us better. Getting great players is a lot harder to do than getting players with potential.

LAKERERIC
08-07-2007, 11:25 PM
I'd be tempted to do the NJ deal if there's truth to that, otherwise just keep Jermaine. It's sort of weird that the words he said that were taken out of context by ESPN ended up bringing more respect to him and Bird. It's like it was something that needed to happen. I haven't even seen or read the transcript of the interview, but I've heard enough to know I want the guy on my team. If the wheels somehow fall off and he opts out and signs with another team because we suck, we'll have a lottery pick and some cap space to fall back on.

More respect? What are you talking about. That video certainly implies that JO does not want to play for the Pacers. The Pacers have some young pieces and should rebuild. I just hope moves are not being made because of Laker hatred. I think if this offer came from another team, more people would support it. It just baffles me how a team that is obviously first round fodder will not trade JO for youth and picks. Not even to the Lakers. Keeping him seems like a conservative, boring, stay-the-course move. Kind of like a certain political regime I know. Stubborn resistance to the obvious. Pacers fans are just ****ed that the Lakers are in position to offer market value for a player and put themselves in good position, when they are not anywhere close to contention in a far inferior conference. Dunleavy, Murphy, Tinsley? Granger, a guy the Lakers passed to pick Bynum, is your favorite player. He has equal value to Bynum. You are telling me JO is not worth that plus 3 1st round picks, including Crittenton? Larry was an amazing player, but nobody ever accused him of being bright. For your sake, Walsh will hopefully step in.

LAKERERIC
08-07-2007, 11:26 PM
I like JO. I'd only trade JO if it obviously made us better. Getting great players is a lot harder to do than getting players with potential.

JO is not great he is very good. Potential is what you would be trading for, but what is the downside? The lottery?

Reggierock
08-07-2007, 11:39 PM
I would like him to stay. I don't see any reason for him to go, outside of him possibly wanting out. I think whatever deal we drum up for J.O will be taking one step forward and two steps back.

PaceBalls
08-07-2007, 11:48 PM
too bad there was no "keep JO and see what happens this year" option. So I took "keep JO at all costs"... at least till the trade deadline.

I think we are due for an upswing in fate, and it would be nice to have a great player like JO there when that upswing of good fortune befalls the Pacers.

bulldog
08-07-2007, 11:52 PM
This poll is set up poorly.

There's a lot of players in the NBA you'd trade for "equal value or better."

Arcadian
08-07-2007, 11:56 PM
JO is not great he is very good. Potential is what you would be trading for, but what is the downside? The lottery?

Semantics. It's harder to get a player of JO's caliber than potential.

LAKERERIC
08-08-2007, 12:41 AM
Semantics. It's harder to get a player of JO's caliber than potential.

Maybe. But the Pacers in my eyes miss the playoffs. So, you get Bynum, Crittenton ,2 #1s, including next year, and you also get a better draft pick. Bird said in his words that he does not think the way the Wolves are operating right now is the way it should be done. If he believes that and is not posturing, JO goes nowhere. Larry does not have the vision to be a good GM. The Pacers are treading water. At least if they deal JO they will be heading in a direction, much like the 76ers and Wolves, who are in better shape overall than the Pacers in terms of having quality young talent. If they make this deal, that changes. I just don't see the downside for the Pacers. The upside could be good.

PaceBalls
08-08-2007, 12:55 AM
Maybe. But the Pacers in my eyes miss the playoffs. So, you get Bynum, Crittenton ,2 #1s, including next year, and you also get a better draft pick. Bird said in his words that he does not think the way the Wolves are operating right now is the way it should be done. If he believes that and is not posturing, JO goes nowhere. Larry does not have the vision to be a good GM. The Pacers are treading water. At least if they deal JO they will be heading in a direction, much like the 76ers and Wolves, who are in better shape overall than the Pacers in terms of having quality young talent. If they make this deal, that changes. I just don't see the downside for the Pacers. The upside could be good.


I think I can speak for most of the folks on this board and say, with a good conscience, that this would be a much better team with JO than with those guys. Of course, who knows what those #1s will turn into, but thats way down the road and I would rather give this current team a chance than the team those #1s would be joining.

JO is like 10x better than Bynum will ever be, and no one is gonna buy that crap you are selling except Lakers fans...

wintermute
08-08-2007, 12:55 AM
Bottom line though is that JO wants to be traded. For all his diplomacy, you don't talk about "if I'm traded" and how great he gets along with Kobe and name preferred teams unless you'd like to be traded. I'm glad to see that apparently he wasn't the jerk about it like the ESPN writer said because he's always been a stand-up guy and I hated to see that image destroyed. But he still wants to go.


i agree 100% - both on j.o. still wanting to go to the lakers and at least he's not sabotaging the pacers.

the only thing imo that keeps him from getting traded right now is because no one has come up with the right price yet. sooner or later though the situation will change - one of the suitors becomes desperate and ups the ante, or tptb realize that the holding pattern can't be maintained forever and just takes the best offer. at least that's how i read the situation.

LAKERERIC
08-08-2007, 01:24 AM
I think I can speak for most of the folks on this board and say, with a good conscience, that this would be a much better team with JO than with those guys. Of course, who knows what those #1s will turn into, but thats way down the road and I would rather give this current team a chance than the team those #1s would be joining.

JO is like 10x better than Bynum will ever be, and no one is gonna buy that crap you are selling except Lakers fans...

Okay, so with JO you will be so much better that you will finish where? Probably the lottery. NJ, Tor, Chic, Clev, Miami, Boston, Detroit are clearly better. That is 7 teams. Washington is probably better, as is Orlando. I would put Indiana on par with the Sixers, probably the 10th seed in the east. That is just lovely. Why not grab some young, talented players and draft picks, plus, ensure yourself of a top 5 pick in this draft, instead of probably being around 11. A step back? Maybe. But this equal value thing can mean a lot of things, including getting value in a few years. If Bird is only dealing JO for equal value right now, then there is no doubt JO is going nowhere, because the most the Pacers could get is a similar package to the Lakers. And I think most Pacers fans know that and are resigned to keeping him, also, to keep him away from the Lakers because of the hatred people here have for the Lakers.

LAKERERIC
08-08-2007, 01:30 AM
Maybe. But the Pacers in my eyes miss the playoffs. So, you get Bynum, Crittenton ,2 #1s, including next year, and you also get a better draft pick. Bird said in his words that he does not think the way the Wolves are operating right now is the way it should be done. If he believes that and is not posturing, JO goes nowhere. Larry does not have the vision to be a good GM. The Pacers are treading water. At least if they deal JO they will be heading in a direction, much like the 76ers and Wolves, who are in better shape overall than the Pacers in terms of having quality young talent. If they make this deal, that changes. I just don't see the downside for the Pacers. The upside could be good.

As I asked in another quote: If you were an NBA GM, what three guys would you prefer: KG, Bynum, Crittenton or JO, Jefferson, Green? I believe the majority of teams would choose the first. So, throw in the picks, and there is fair market value. But the Pacers, unlike the Wolves, seem unwilling to accept the obvious, which is their need to rebuild. They just do. The Lakers don't. They are a good, nothing special team. A top 10-12 team. They are in win-now mode. If they are in this same position next summer, trading Kobe may be a possibility. Because to be treading water is to be going nowhere. Pick a direction and go in it. Don't keep a player because you are afraid to take a chance on youth. Plus, the Pacers would be lessening their financial burden as well, which is always good.

Young
08-08-2007, 01:45 AM
Here is what I think.

- Jermaine doesn't want to be here.
- There are not a lot of teams that are options for Jermaine. I posted a list of every NBA team in the league and if they would want Jermaine or not and when it comes down to it at the most he has maybe a few possible destinations.
- The Pacers are going to suck with Jermaine, with Odom and Bynum, or with just Bynum. It doesn't matter. We might as well just deal Jermaine now, don't give him the option to walk and us be left with nothing but a 15 million dollar TE and a first round draft pick.
- Jermaine isn't worth half as much to other teams as he is to us therefore we won't get "full market value" as we all would like to think. Jermaine isn't KG no matter how much people like to think that. He is an all star big man but injury prone and paid as a top 5 player. Not exactly giving him great trade value.
- This is sports. In order to get to the next level sometimes you have to take a step back. As I said above it doesn't matter if Jermaine is here or not, we still might be out of the playoffs. I'd rather just take a chance on Bynum. I know I知 such a risk taker. I guess I want to see this team going somewhere and right now we are just dicking around with being a medicore team and while some might be content with that I知 not one bit. I want to see this team become NBA champions and it will not happen with Jermaine here. This team is not at that point right now and everyone just needs to accept that.

Are we taking a risk by dealing Jermaine for someone such as Bynum and draft pick(s), JC, etc? Hell yes. But if you池e too much of a pussy to take that risk then you will never win a championship. It's an investment. It can be a safe one if you do some research on who and what you are getting. I have been getting so ****ed off because I ****ING HATE ROOTING FOR A MEDICORE TEAM THAT IS GOING IN CIRICLES AND IF WE KEEP JO THAT IS WHAT WE ARE DOING, GOING IN A BUNCH OF ****IGN CIRICLES.

Sorry, but I知 just so ****ed that Larry feels that a package with Bynum and not Odom is a bad deal yet he makes the Golden State deal. And that some fans can't accept a fair realistic offer for Jermaine. Like the Laker fans are nuts for not wanting to part with Odom and Bynum for Jermaine. For those who feel that way if you were the Lakers would you trade Odom and Bynum for Jermaine? Hell no because you can't justify that.

Sorry for the rant but some things just get on my nerves.

LAKERERIC
08-08-2007, 02:05 AM
Here is what I think.

- Jermaine doesn't want to be here.
- There are not a lot of teams that are options for Jermaine. I posted a list of every NBA team in the league and if they would want Jermaine or not and when it comes down to it at the most he has maybe a few possible destinations.
- The Pacers are going to suck with Jermaine, with Odom and Bynum, or with just Bynum. It doesn't matter. We might as well just deal Jermaine now, don't give him the option to walk and us be left with nothing but a 15 million dollar TE and a first round draft pick.
- Jermaine isn't worth half as much to other teams as he is to us therefore we won't get "full market value" as we all would like to think. Jermaine isn't KG no matter how much people like to think that. He is an all star big man but injury prone and paid as a top 5 player. Not exactly giving him great trade value.
- This is sports. In order to get to the next level sometimes you have to take a step back. As I said above it doesn't matter if Jermaine is here or not, we still might be out of the playoffs. I'd rather just take a chance on Bynum. I know I知 such a risk taker. I guess I want to see this team going somewhere and right now we are just dicking around with being a medicore team and while some might be content with that I知 not one bit. I want to see this team become NBA champions and it will not happen with Jermaine here. This team is not at that point right now and everyone just needs to accept that.

Are we taking a risk by dealing Jermaine for someone such as Bynum and draft pick(s), JC, etc? Hell yes. But if you池e too much of a pussy to take that risk then you will never win a championship. It's an investment. It can be a safe one if you do some research on who and what you are getting. I have been getting so ****ed off because I ****ING HATE ROOTING FOR A MEDICORE TEAM THAT IS GOING IN CIRICLES AND IF WE KEEP JO THAT IS WHAT WE ARE DOING, GOING IN A BUNCH OF ****IGN CIRICLES.

Sorry, but I知 just so ****ed that Larry feels that a package with Bynum and not Odom is a bad deal yet he makes the Golden State deal. And that some fans can't accept a fair realistic offer for Jermaine. Like the Laker fans are nuts for not wanting to part with Odom and Bynum for Jermaine. For those who feel that way if you were the Lakers would you trade Odom and Bynum for Jermaine? Hell no because you can't justify that.

Sorry for the rant but some things just get on my nerves.

Couldn't have been said better.

Hoosier Daddy?
08-08-2007, 02:05 AM
I want J.O. gone. I want the team to rebuild around Granger, Shawne, Ike, whatever assets we get in return for J.O., and of course our future draft picks.

Let's just accept reality folks - "retooling" is for losers who are in denial, which is apparently what Larry Bird is. Answer me this - how can we "retool" when we have very few desirable players? Does anyone here truly believe Larry Bird has the ability to swindle any other GM of an actual talent? I don't.

Grow a set Bird. Move J.O. and lets start working towards the future instead of settling for the overpaid, aging, bad to mediocre team were are as of right now.

Arcadian
08-08-2007, 02:11 AM
I want J.O. gone. I want the team to rebuild around Granger, Shawne, Ike, whatever assets we get in return for J.O., and of course our future draft picks.

Let's just accept reality folks - "retooling" is for losers who are in denial, which is apparently what Larry Bird is. Answer me this - how can we "retool" when we have [b]very few desirable players?[b] Does anyone here truly believe Larry Bird has the ability to swindle any other GM of an actual talent? I don't.

Grow a set Bird.

I lust after many of our players.

The best thing you is to keep PMing Uncle Buck. He's got pull with Stern also.

Hoosier Daddy?
08-08-2007, 02:14 AM
Here is what I think.

- Jermaine doesn't want to be here.
- There are not a lot of teams that are options for Jermaine. I posted a list of every NBA team in the league and if they would want Jermaine or not and when it comes down to it at the most he has maybe a few possible destinations.
- The Pacers are going to suck with Jermaine, with Odom and Bynum, or with just Bynum. It doesn't matter. We might as well just deal Jermaine now, don't give him the option to walk and us be left with nothing but a 15 million dollar TE and a first round draft pick.
- Jermaine isn't worth half as much to other teams as he is to us therefore we won't get "full market value" as we all would like to think. Jermaine isn't KG no matter how much people like to think that. He is an all star big man but injury prone and paid as a top 5 player. Not exactly giving him great trade value.
- This is sports. In order to get to the next level sometimes you have to take a step back. As I said above it doesn't matter if Jermaine is here or not, we still might be out of the playoffs. I'd rather just take a chance on Bynum. I know I知 such a risk taker. I guess I want to see this team going somewhere and right now we are just dicking around with being a medicore team and while some might be content with that I知 not one bit. I want to see this team become NBA champions and it will not happen with Jermaine here. This team is not at that point right now and everyone just needs to accept that.

Are we taking a risk by dealing Jermaine for someone such as Bynum and draft pick(s), JC, etc? Hell yes. But if you池e too much of a pussy to take that risk then you will never win a championship. It's an investment. It can be a safe one if you do some research on who and what you are getting. I have been getting so ****ed off because I ****ING HATE ROOTING FOR A MEDICORE TEAM THAT IS GOING IN CIRICLES AND IF WE KEEP JO THAT IS WHAT WE ARE DOING, GOING IN A BUNCH OF ****IGN CIRICLES.

Sorry, but I知 just so ****ed that Larry feels that a package with Bynum and not Odom is a bad deal yet he makes the Golden State deal. And that some fans can't accept a fair realistic offer for Jermaine. Like the Laker fans are nuts for not wanting to part with Odom and Bynum for Jermaine. For those who feel that way if you were the Lakers would you trade Odom and Bynum for Jermaine? Hell no because you can't justify that.

Sorry for the rant but some things just get on my nerves.

I'm with you 110%. I will never ever in my life settle for mediocrity at anything. I'd rather be atrocious with a glimmer of hope via Andrew 'Best" Bynum, Javaris Crittenton, etc. than be what we are right now.

I think there are a lot of people in denial here. People who've been brain washed by Larry Bird's words into believing we'll be a good team next year. It's not gonna happen. We don't have near the talent for it to happen.

Stop the ridiculous, laughable "retooling' B.S. and rebuild. All it takes for a successful rebuilding process is good drafting. That's it. If you don't have the confidence that you'll draft the right players, then do the franchise a favor and resign.

able
08-08-2007, 05:20 AM
To those last two posters who are so adamant that one can rebuild and become champion, please name me 4 teams that have done so in the past let's say 15 years?
And then I mean a rebuild by your standards, scrap everything and get potential and work from there.

We do not count the Spurs, because them getting Duncan was sheer luck.

If you cant name those teams, then take a deep breath, relax, sit down and stop calling names to other people's opinions, stop using cuss words to drive a point home, it should be fun, not bad for the nerves and temper.

Hoosier Daddy?
08-08-2007, 06:01 AM
To those last two posters who are so adamant that one can rebuild and become champion, please name me 4 teams that have done so in the past let's say 15 years?
And then I mean a rebuild by your standards, scrap everything and get potential and work from there.

We do not count the Spurs, because them getting Duncan was sheer luck.

If you cant name those teams, then take a deep breath, relax, sit down and stop calling names to other people's opinions, stop using cuss words to drive a point home, it should be fun, not bad for the nerves and temper.

That's easy - Bulls, Spurs, Heat, and Rockets.

Bulls got both Jordan and Pippen while in a rebuilding phase.

Spurs got Duncan while a lottery team.

Heat got Wade while a lottery team. They used other assets gained while rebuilding (Butler, Odom) to acquire Shaq.

Rockets got Hakeem while in the lottery.

Championship teams are built on players drafted in the lottery. It's about using the draft lottery to find that one (or more) special championship-caliber player then building around that player as he matures and the team grows. It doesn't happen over night, it takes time.

Can you name me just 1 team in the past 25 years that's missed the playoffs, had an overpaid roster with 0 capspace and no 1st round draft pick that's managed to "retool" their way to a championship?

able
08-08-2007, 06:25 AM
Rebuilding; I think you need to find a definition of that one, the emphasis on "re" I.e. once champ, out, then rebuild.

None of the above, outside of the fact I said Spurs would, should (Robinson),could not count.

How many champs did the Heat have before they landed Shaq ?

0

RE-building

Bulls before Jordan?


and the Celtics did a nice job of retooling between 66 and 86 or did they have the same players all those 20 years?

No they never went into full RE-build mode.

Hoosier Daddy?
08-08-2007, 06:52 AM
Just take a look at the history of NBA Finals MVP's....


2007 Tony Parker San Antonio Spurs (#28)
2006 Dwyane Wade Miami Heat (#5)
2005 Tim Duncan San Antonio Spurs (#1)
2004 Chauncey Billups Detroit Pistons (#3)
2003 Tim Duncan San Antonio Spurs (#1)
2002 Shaquille O'Neal Los Angeles Lakers (#1)
2001 Shaquille O'Neal Los Angeles Lakers (#1)
2000 Shaquille O'Neal Los Angeles Lakers (#1)
1999 Tim Duncan San Antonio Spurs (#1)
1998 Michael Jordan Chicago Bulls (#3)
1997 Michael Jordan Chicago Bulls (#3)
1996 Michael Jordan Chicago Bulls (#3)
1995 Hakeem Olajuwon Houston Rockets (#1)
1994 Hakeem Olajuwon Houston Rockets (#1)
1993 Michael Jordan Chicago Bulls (#3)
1992 Michael Jordan Chicago Bulls (#3)
1991 Michael Jordan Chicago Bulls (#3)
1990 Isiah Thomas Detroit Pistons (#1)
1989 Joe Dumars Detroit Pistons (#18)
1988 James Worthy Los Angeles Lakers (#1)
1987 Magic Johnson Los Angeles Lakers (#1)
1986 Larry Bird Boston Celtics (#6)
1985 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar Los Angeles Lakers (#1)
1984 Larry Bird Boston Celtics (#6)
1983 Moses Malone Philadelphia 76ers (#22 ABA)
1982 Magic Johnson Los Angeles Lakers (#1)
1981 Cedric Maxwell Boston Celtics (#12)
1980 Magic Johnson Los Angeles Lakers (#1)
1979 Dennis Johnson Seattle SuperSonics #29)
1978 Wes Unseld Washington Bullets (#2)
1977 Bill Walton Portland Trail Blazers (#1)
1976 Jo Jo White Boston Celtics (#9)
1975 Rick Barry Golden State Warriors (#2)
1974 John Havlicek Boston Celtics (#7)
1973 Willis Reed New York Knicks (#8)
1972 Wilt Chamberlain Los Angeles Lakers (#1)
1971 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar Milwaukee Bucks (#1)
1970 Willis Reed New York Knicks (#8)
1969 Jerry West Los Angeles Lakers (#2)

Of the 39 NBA Finals MVP's, 35 have been drafted in the top-12 (90%) with only 4 drafted outside of the top-12 (10%). The average draft position for a Finals MVP is #5. (202/39)

This proves my point - championship-caliber talent is found in the lottery, usually inside the top-5. And by far the easiest way to acquire these players is to draft them yourself (try trading for Tim Duncan or Dwyane Wade). Rebuilding teams draft high in the lottery where these special types of talents will be available. Of course every top-5 pick isn't going to be a great player, but a large percentage are, and if you're looking for a championship, getting lucky in the lottery is as good a place as anywhere to start.

So who are the next "championship-caliber" players? LeBron and Oden are obviously candidates, but after them? Derrick Rose in 2008? Renardo Sidney (6'10" 250 lb. 16 year old) in 2010?

Kstat
08-08-2007, 07:03 AM
.....so your findings indicate that most finals MVP are drafted in the top twelve of their draft class?

riveting stuff. Top-12 twelves picks don't come along but 12 times a year or so.

Rajah Brown
08-08-2007, 07:10 AM
Able-

I've yet to see anyone who wants to 'rebuild' (that includes me)
suggest we should 'scrap everything'. Trading J.O. isn't scrapping
everything.

Are those who want to 'retool' that desperate to get back to the
no-man's-land of winning 45-46 games, a #6 seed and an early
playoff exit ?

Pacers' mgmt apparently is as Bird is sending a clear signal that, his
rhetoric otherwise aside, his goal is no longer winning an NBA
championship. Because that's never gonna happen with J.O. and
the existing roster or any version of it that includes J.O.

DisplacedKnick
08-08-2007, 07:23 AM
That's easy - Bulls, Spurs, Heat, and Rockets.



I thought Detroit was the obvious answer to this one. The team was built around Grant Hill as their feature player with Jerry Stackhouse has his sidekick. They were muddling along around .500 for about 3 years, barely getting in the playoffs and all the talk was about getting Grant some help.

Well, they couldn't get Grant any help without getting rid of Grant. So they made a trade that turned into Ben Wallace, picked up Billups in a trade, traded Stackhouse, a proven elite scorer, for Rip Hamilton, drafted Prince and added Sheed as the missing piece. I'm sure kstat knows the details better than I do but that's the rough outline of it.

They had a really down year or two but getting rid of their franchise player, who at the time was better than JO has ever thought of being, and biting the bullet for a couple of years was what got them headed for their title.

Hoosier Daddy?
08-08-2007, 07:23 AM
.....so your findings indicate that most finals MVP are drafted in the top twelve of their draft class?

riveting stuff. Top-12 twelves picks don't come along but 12 times a year or so.

The number 12 was used as it was the highest number for a Finals MVP that would fall in the lottery in todays NBA. Most (28 of the 39) were drafted in the top-5.

Lesson of the story - the guys who lead their teams to titles are found in the lottery. Thus if a championship is your ultimate goal, then it's best to take your chances on rebuilding and getting lucky in the draft than this "retooling" crap.

Take the Pistons for example. They're a team that should have started the rebuilding process 2 years ago. They could've received lottery picks and great young talent and been a top contender for the next decade. Instead, they held on too long, and now they're a roster of decrepit, overpaid has beens and, judging by their annual declinations, a 45 win team next season. One could even say they're a doomed franchise at this point. Joe Dumars has truly been a horrible GM the past 4 seasons and it's gotten worse with the overpaying of elderly Billups and the drafting of future ABA 2000 All-Star Rodney Stuckey at #15.

Kstat
08-08-2007, 07:31 AM
Lesson of the story - the guys who lead their teams to titles are found in the lottery. Thus if a championship is your ultimate goal, then it's best to take your chances on rebuilding and getting lucky in the draft than this "retooling" crap.


...you mean like the spurs, who managed to rebuild %95 of their championship roster in 1999 and win 3 more titles?



Take the Pistons for example. They're a team that should have started the rebuilding process 2 years ago.

:lmao:

Two years of 50-60 wins and two trips to the ECF! Oh the humanity! The suffering!


They could've got lottery picks and great young talent and been a top contender for the next decade because of it. Instead they're a roster of decrepit, overpaid, has beens and, judging by their annual decline, a 45 win team next season. They held on too long. I don't want to see the same happen to my beloved Pacers.

I'm sure you won't have to suffer through another 50+ win season and ECF appearance for the Pacers anytime soon, you poor thing.. :laugh:

decrepit, overpaid has-beens. That's awesome. We have 4 rookies on our roster, and four rotation players under the age of 25.

We're just not interested in tanking. We're actually interested in winning games, imagine that!

Good luck with the whole "not trying to win" thing. It's worked out so well for so many teams before, and I hear the fans just love it...


Joe Dumars has truly been a horrible GM the past 4 seasons

If by "horrible" you mean he constructed a championship team over that time span and reached the conference finals every year, then yes, he's horrible.


it's gotten worse with the overpaying of elderly Billups and the drafting of future ABA 2000 All-Star Rodney Stuckey at #15.

The fiend*! How dare he re-sign his all-star PG and draft one of the leading scores in college basketball! He's horrible, I tell you!

"elderly"=31 years old.

Does that maen The Spurs should trade Tim Duncan right now?

Then again, RC Buford is a "horrible" GM. He passed up the opportunity to tank after 199 and actually re-tooled his roster without losing. If only he had taken your advice...

Hoosier Daddy?
08-08-2007, 07:40 AM
...you mean like the spurs, who managed to rebuild %95 of their championship roster in 1999 and win 3 more titles?

There's 2 common bonds between the 1999 and 2000's Spurs title teams - Greg Popovich, and more importantly, a little fella named Tim Duncan, who was coincidentally drafted #1 overall in 1997.

You can have your Manu's and your Tony Parkers, it's Tim Duncan that makes that team a champion.

Kstat
08-08-2007, 07:45 AM
I thought Detroit was the obvious answer to this one. The team was built around Grant Hill as their feature player with Jerry Stackhouse has his sidekick. They were muddling along around .500 for about 3 years, barely getting in the playoffs and all the talk was about getting Grant some help.

Well, they couldn't get Grant any help without getting rid of Grant. So they made a trade that turned into Ben Wallace, picked up Billups in a trade, traded Stackhouse, a proven elite scorer, for Rip Hamilton, drafted Prince and added Sheed as the missing piece. I'm sure kstat knows the details better than I do but that's the rough outline of it.

They had a really down year or two but getting rid of their franchise player, who at the time was better than JO has ever thought of being, and biting the bullet for a couple of years was what got them headed for their title.

Yes and no, Rim.

While Dumars did indeed scrap and rebuild the roster in 2000 once Grant left, he didn't do it via the draft.

The only picks he made that were any kind of impact players in 2004 were Tayshaun prince, and he was the 25th pick, and Mehmet Okur, a 2nd-round pick.

Yeah, Dumars blew several lottery chances over that span, but he also proved you don't need to draft a blue chip player in the lottery to construct a title winning team. A GM worth his salt can re-build in other ways, and you don't need to lose games to make shrewd trades/signings.

Kstat
08-08-2007, 07:46 AM
You can have your Manu's and your Tony Parkers, it's Tim Duncan that makes that team a champion.

Yeah, what does Tony Parker know, he was only MVP of the finals.... :rolleyes:

Hoosier Daddy?
08-08-2007, 07:48 AM
Does that maen The Spurs should trade Tim Duncan right now?

Then again, RC Buford is a "horrible" GM. He passed up the opportunity to tank after 199 and actually re-tooled his roster without losing. If only he had taken your advice...

Give me a 25 year old Tim Duncan on a rookie contract and I'll gladly re-tool the team around him.

A 29 year old Jermaine O'Neal, making $20M per, surrounded by overpaid trash? It's time to hit reset and start over.

As for the Pistons, right now is clearly the time for them to rebuild. They're no longer a top-5 team in the league, they may not even be a top-5 team in the East by seasons end. They're aged. They're overpaid. At this point, they have nothing to lose. Trade Billups while he still has some value. Trading him to the Lakers for Kwame Brown and spectacular rookie Javaris Crittenton would be a great move by Dumars.

Hoosier Daddy?
08-08-2007, 07:50 AM
Yeah, what does Tony Parker know, he was only MVP of the finals.... :rolleyes:

Duncan was an NBA champion when Tony Parker was still a teenager in France. What has Parker done without Duncan? There are 5-10 point guards in the NBA you could replace Parker with, and given a year or so to develop chemistry, the Spurs would still be the favorites for the title. There is no one you could replace Duncan with and be able to say that.

Kstat
08-08-2007, 07:52 AM
What has Parker done without Duncan?

What has Jordan won without Pippen? That's a nonsense argument, when one guy plays out his entire prime alongside a teammate...

Kstat
08-08-2007, 07:56 AM
As for the Pistons, right now is clearly the time for them to rebuild. They're no longer a top-5 team in the league, they may not even be a top-5 team in the East by seasons end. They're aged. They're overpaid. At this point, they have nothing to lose. Trade Billups while he still has some value. Trading him to the Lakers for Kwame Brown and spectacular rookie Javaris Crittenton would be a great move by Dumars.

1. "aged"= two guys past the age of 31. Wow, we're a bunch of greybeards....

2. What idiot would deal an all-star PG, especially considering how hard it is to find one?

3. I wouldn't trade anybody on our roster for Javaris Crittenton. Dealing Billups for him is the funniest thing I've heard all day...

Here's a newsflash: We could have drafted Crittention. We don't want him. Dumars isn't interested in a PG that can't pass, and neither am I.

I'm happy he went to the stylish Lakers, because he has zero substance to his game.

But hey, Crittenton was drafted outside of the top-12, so by your logic, he isn't worth going after anyway, right?

DisplacedKnick
08-08-2007, 08:20 AM
Yes and no, Rim.

While Dumars did indeed scrap and rebuild the roster in 2000 once Grant left, he didn't do it via the draft.

The only picks he made that were any kind of impact players in 2004 were Tayshaun prince, and he was the 25th pick, and Mehmet Okur, a 2nd-round pick.

Yeah, Dumars blew several lottery chances over that span, but he also proved you don't need to draft a blue chip player in the lottery to construct a title winning team. A GM worth his salt can re-build in other ways, and you don't need to lose games to make shrewd trades/signings.

Don't recall either me or able saying anything about rebuilding through the draft. You rebuild how you rebuild - and usually the only good draft picks do you is something you trade later for veteran help - franchise players like Wade excepted of course.

Young teams don't win championships. The first thing you do if you want to win a title should be get rid of most of the youngsters for vets. I don't know this for sure but it wouldn't surprise me if every title-winning team for the past 10 years was among the oldest in the league.

Youth is way overrated.

Kstat
08-08-2007, 08:37 AM
Youth is way overrated.

Yep.

If you're going to deal a productive vet for a draft pick, you had better already be a lottery team, or else you're an idiot.

able
08-08-2007, 08:54 AM
Let me see, Heat with Odom lose 4-2 to the Pacers, with O'Neal
Heat with Shaq beat Pistons and become champs

Robinson had nothing to do with the wins in SanAn of course and all the players they got were drafted in the top 5 - 12 (like Parker and Genobili)

Your remarks about the Pistons tell me all I needed to know.

Pacers are better off trading Williams (if and when he has value) and f.i. Ike or even Granger, for a proven vet SG (like an Allen) and they would be contending, without JO we will be a lottery team for at least the next 5 years, while players like Granger and such walk out for the same reason O'Neal would be walking.

Evan_The_Dude
08-08-2007, 08:54 AM
More respect? What are you talking about. That video certainly implies that JO does not want to play for the Pacers. The Pacers have some young pieces and should rebuild. I just hope moves are not being made because of Laker hatred. I think if this offer came from another team, more people would support it. It just baffles me how a team that is obviously first round fodder will not trade JO for youth and picks. Not even to the Lakers. Keeping him seems like a conservative, boring, stay-the-course move. Kind of like a certain political regime I know. Stubborn resistance to the obvious. Pacers fans are just ****ed that the Lakers are in position to offer market value for a player and put themselves in good position, when they are not anywhere close to contention in a far inferior conference. Dunleavy, Murphy, Tinsley? Granger, a guy the Lakers passed to pick Bynum, is your favorite player. He has equal value to Bynum. You are telling me JO is not worth that plus 3 1st round picks, including Crittenton? Larry was an amazing player, but nobody ever accused him of being bright. For your sake, Walsh will hopefully step in.


1. I didn't watch the video and pretty much said I hadn't actually seen or heard any of the media stuff, I've just read it.

2. If we have some young pieces, why should we rebuild? Isn't the point of rebuilding to get young pieces? Have we not learned anything from the Celtics, who went out and got some veterans after having too much youth?

3. I like the Lakers and I'm a big fan of Kobe Bryant, but I'm not a fan of the proposed Laker deal because I'm not high on Bynum. I like the NJ deal better because I like Jefferson and Kristic.

4. Despite how boring, conservative, or stay-the-course it might seem to keep Jermaine, keep in mind that we have a new coaching staff that is going to have this team playing a completely different style and we also added a couple of much needed shooters to spread the floor a bit. I'd rather give Jermaine a shot in this new system before shipping him off. If Carlisle was still the coach, I'd say get him out of town but that's not the case anymore.

BobbyMac
08-08-2007, 09:24 AM
JO is not going to be traded this year. I've said it all along and I'm sticking to it.

ChicagoJ
08-08-2007, 10:54 AM
There's 2 common bonds between the 1999 and 2000's Spurs title teams - Greg Popovich, and more importantly, a little fella named Tim Duncan, who was coincidentally drafted #1 overall in 1997.

You can have your Manu's and your Tony Parkers, it's Tim Duncan that makes that team a champion.

Have you lost your mind? Not only do the Spurs have the best individual player (Duncan), they've also got the best backcourt in the league.

The Spurs were never rebuilding, Bob Hill, of all the desparaged coaches in NBA History, had them at 59- and 61- wins and in the WCFs before a one-year rash of injuries (the starting frontcourt of David/Chuck/Sean played in a combined 20 games that season) that landed Duncan.

Just think, for all the Bob Hill bashers, that could've been a 76-win team with a better coach. (:tongue: ) And yet you've got them as "rebuilding" when they won the lottery and got Duncan. If by rebuilding, you mean "getting everybody from a 61-win WCF team healthy again", then okay.

:rolleyes:

ChicagoJ
08-08-2007, 11:00 AM
Maybe. But the Pacers in my eyes miss the playoffs.

Don't know about that. After watching this team for decades, my opinion is still that last season's team was in dire need of a coaching change, which they've got.

Carlisle and Larry may have been great friends, but they weren't on the same page. Larry seems to have come to terms with that, and hired a coach he sees eye-to-eye with.

I happen to think the coaching change will make a bigger difference than what the so-called experts say. I also think that some of the big splashes in the free-agent and trade market will fizzle, as happens every summer.

Oh yeah, I'm still waiting for the total domination from Backcourt 2000: Jason Kidd and Penny Hardaway together in Phoenix. That still sends shiver (of laughter) down my spine. On-paper contenders in August don't necessarily translate to on-court contenders in May.

LoneGranger33
08-08-2007, 11:15 AM
The Spurs were never rebuilding, Bob Hill, of all the desparaged coaches in NBA History, had them at 59- and 61- wins and in the WCFs before a one-year rash of injuries (the starting frontcourt of David/Chuck/Sean played in a combined 20 games that season) that landed Duncan.

Just think, for all the Bob Hill bashers, that could've been a 76-win team with a better coach. (:tongue: ) And yet you've got them as "rebuilding" when they won the lottery and got Duncan. If by rebuilding, you mean "getting everybody from a 61-win WCF team healthy again", then okay.

:rolleyes:

Too bad the brawl didn't work out in our favor...that would have been nice.

ChicagoJ
08-08-2007, 11:21 AM
Yeah, we couldn't "get everyone from a 61-win ECF team mentally healthy again."

The catch was: again. At least one of those guys was never mentally healthy.

JayRedd
08-08-2007, 11:25 AM
3. I wouldn't trade anybody on our roster for Javaris Crittenton.

What about for JC Superstar?

JayRedd
08-08-2007, 11:28 AM
This poll is set up poorly.

There's a lot of players in the NBA you'd trade for "equal value or better."

Exactly. Pretty much everyone except about 5 dudes.

Kegboy
08-08-2007, 11:30 AM
What about for JC Superstar?

I'd make a joke about Molly Shannon's SNL character, but I hated it so much, I'd actually rather have Critt. Not by much, though.

LAKERERIC
08-08-2007, 11:45 AM
1. I didn't watch the video and pretty much said I hadn't actually seen or heard any of the media stuff, I've just read it.

2. If we have some young pieces, why should we rebuild? Isn't the point of rebuilding to get young pieces? Have we not learned anything from the Celtics, who went out and got some veterans after having too much youth?

3. I like the Lakers and I'm a big fan of Kobe Bryant, but I'm not a fan of the proposed Laker deal because I'm not high on Bynum. I like the NJ deal better because I like Jefferson and Kristic.

4. Despite how boring, conservative, or stay-the-course it might seem to keep Jermaine, keep in mind that we have a new coaching staff that is going to have this team playing a completely different style and we also added a couple of much needed shooters to spread the floor a bit. I'd rather give Jermaine a shot in this new system before shipping him off. If Carlisle was still the coach, I'd say get him out of town but that's not the case anymore.

If you are not high on Bynum, you probably should not want this deal. Crittenton and the 2 #1s are nice, but AB is the key. I see him as a 15-10-3 center in his prime. Crittenton has lots of talent, so who knows. As for the Pacers, which of those east teams do they beat? Washington? Maybe, but not likely if they are healthy. Orlando? Maybe, but they have added R.Lewis and probably are slight favorites over the Pacers. That puts you out of the playoffs, because surely the other teams I listed are ahead. Shoot, I barely have the Lakers in the playoffs. I have them behind SA, Suns, Denver, Dallas, Houston. I think they will finish ahead of the Jazz and Warriors by adding Fisher and Crittenton and with the improvement I expect Bynum to make. That puts them as a #6 seed. With JO, I would expect a #3-#4 seed, which obviously gives them a better chance. The Pacers after this trade move from the #9-#10 seed in the east to a team with a top 5 pick, which I would think is better for you anyway. And JOB, while a solid coach, is not going to make that much of a difference in the win column this year. You may be more exciting, but does that necessarily lead to victories?

ChicagoJ
08-08-2007, 11:47 AM
Yeah, but I see JO as a 21-10-3-3 C in his prime, and its now.

Its still the Pacers job to put a contending, complimentary team around JO. Something that didn't work when none of Walsh, Bird, Carlisle, and perhaps JO were on the same page. At least it appears that JOB and Bird are on the same page currently, and that could/should get JO on board.

Evan_The_Dude
08-08-2007, 07:00 PM
You may be more exciting, but does that necessarily lead to victories?

Right away? No. Eventually? Yes.

If you hate your job are you excited to give it all you've got, or do you work, but do enough to pass the time by until it's time to leave? If you love your job, do you give your maximum effort and have the willingness to work overtime if need be?

Rick had the guys here not enjoying the game. A lot of the players went elsewhere and said they're having more fun now than they were before [while playign under Rick]. They obviously weren't loose out there and I think it really hurt the team in the long run... Because they were just doing enough to try to compete, but not necessarily busting their butts to win.

I think having fun while playing goes a long way. It brings players closer to the coaching staff, to each other, and gets the fans very involved as well. If you become a team that's known to play a style that's fun to play in and watch, that can go a long way to attract players to the team in the future.

My most recent examples of that are the style the King's started playing in Jason Williams' rookie year. It was a fast paced run & gun style with fancy passes etc. and it was fun to watch, and the players had fun playing in it. They went on to get players like Chris Webber, Peja Stojacovic, Mike Bibby, and Bobby Jackson who all excelled in that system. They all bought into it, and it eventually led to more wins.

You can also use the current Suns squad, or you could even go back to the Suns when Kevin Johnson was their starting PG. You can use last years Knicks as an example with the way they made a surge in the last half of the season and just let it all hang out on the court. Look at the Nets, the Raptors, the Warriors, the Mavericks, all those teams have a lot of fun playing, and have no trouble attracting players.

So I guess my point is, if we establish the type of style/system that it seems that Larry Bird probably wanted in the first place, it could definitely lead to a lot of wins and some good times in the near future.