PDA

View Full Version : What we feared happened: no legit backup point guard.



McKeyFan
01-03-2008, 12:24 AM
Seriously. Are some of the guys on this board simply smarter than Walsh and Bird?

We discussed intensely the past three weeks the need to get a solid packup pg. We discussed the danger of Tinsley getting so many minutes. We discussed Quis also being injury prone and not being a pure pg, though maybe tolerable as a third backup.

There were rebuttals: don't address a need that doesn't exist; Quis can do it; Owens and Diener are the answer. But most of the more knowledgeable posters agreed that the issue of a backup pg needed to be addressed quickly.

Nothing was done. Five game losing streak.

Will something be done now?

Can PD apply for the GM position, by committee?

Bball
01-03-2008, 12:43 AM
Seriously. Are some of the guys on this board simply smarter than Walsh and Bird?

Either Walsh is still firmly in control or else the problem goes higher to ownership.

There's no way the management consortium could be this lame and without vision and understanding. I realize having 13 managers/executives/GM's/President of basketball operations/VP of basketball operations/Assistant GM/Magic 8 Ball/Etc. could be problematic, but the settling, pond water slow pace to address issues, waiting, tweaking the edges while the core rots can't be signed off on by everyone.

I can believe one man could do it but I can't believe any change in management could still operate essentially the same way. Therefore, I've been thinking for a while our problems go higher than the management level. I'm leaning toward believing we have ownership who took over the team to:
A: Keep the team in Indy
B: Let them join the club of billionaires who own sports teams

Unfortunately, it's looking like "To win a championship" is nowhere on the list, or buried too far down to matter.

Their loyalty to maintaining the status quo, or insistence on it, is going to be the ruination of the franchise if anything is.



-Bball

Young
01-03-2008, 12:52 AM
Well I was one of them saying don't address a need that does not exist. I was really hoping that Travis would be a solid back up and even early on that he would find his game just like Kareem has done. But it looks like i'm wrong.

I like Andre Owens but as a third stringer. He isn't a bad guy to have on your team but not as your number one backup. And starter since Jamaal is out.

Marquis is a two guard. I like him. But not against trading him if we can get a backup point guard.

We should try and get something done. There are plenty of guys avaliable who would be upgrades. Earl Watson, Luke Ridnour, Mike James, Luther Head but he may be no better than Marquis at the 1, Chucky Atkins (may not be avaliable), Marcus Banks, there are some solid names that could help us out.

I really don't feel that we make a move though this season. I really believe that Bird will let Jim do what he can with this team first and give Travis a whole season to show why we gave him 5 million dollars. I really hope it works out.

Naptown_Seth
01-03-2008, 12:53 AM
The problem is what can be done?

I will say this, I was very disappointed that the Pacers didn't get into a 3 way deal with DEN/PHI last year to get Miller here, which I think they could have done.

But other than that there hasn't been much available. And while everyone downplays the increased cost of Dun/Troy, that's a few million closer to the lux tax that I think TPTB are trying to avoid (and without winning why would you want to pay it).



The GS trade was a big mistake just because of the talent distribution among positions. They didn't need Ike, they needed another guard. I know Pietrus isn't a great answer, but at least that would have been in the right direction.

Everyone thinks I rant against the deal out of some love for Jack. While I liked him I saw tons of flaws in his game. That wasn't the problem. The problem was they didn't deal in a way that solved ON-COURT issues, they dealt from a PR standpoint. Big mistake.

Undo that deal and you still have some flexability with lower contracts and a bit more talent behind them. Maybe you can move Al and Jack for a new PG right now (or last summer obviously).

I think in the summer I talked about a SnT for Knight. I sure wish they'd made that move, or some effort to get him. ESPN has him at 1.6m, I haven't looked back at his deal to verify details. Still, this had to be in the realm of possible for Indy.

Bball
01-03-2008, 01:29 AM
I've said it for a while but the first people traded should've been:
1A Tinsley
1B JO

This should've happened before Sjax even had a chance to reach the lows he ultimately reached in the eyes of Pacer fans.

It really didn't matter in which order in my mind, but JO obviously is not the answer in Pacerland and his salary and what he brings to the team are not even close. But we held onto him and let his value drop and drop, even while it grew clearer that the team was as good with him as without him (if not better without him). ...And his injury history has multiplied.

Tinsley's coach killing attitude is not a positive for any team. He could've at least TRIED under Rick Carlisle but he didn't. And Isiah ultimately didn't want him here either so obviously they didn't see eye to eye in the final wash.

And neither player is good for chemistry in the situation they find themselves in here. JO, because he fails to live up to the mantle the team put him nor due to the salary he commands... And Tinsley because sinupoutinitis, missing practices, etc is not good for team unity either.

Could a clean slate help them elsewhere? Dunno... In JO's case I think it could've 2 years ago. Now...??? :shrug: If JO could've gotten in a situation where another star was already there and he respected that player enough to realize they weren't equals then maybe.

Tinsley... I think Tinsley is what he is. I think Tinsley likes the lifestyle better than the game itself. He wants everything on his terms. And even if that isn't the case, his game has so many flaws that ULTIMATELY the flaws win out over the positives. He'll get you some wins... then he'll get you some losses with his oneupmanship. Then he'll get injured and he'll get you nothing.

JO should've been on the block after the brawl year with a deal made for the best offer (I think decent offers could've been had then). Even if you give him the benefit of the doubt that it was the first season where he really needed to step up and needed to learn to play in that role, the next season proved he wasn't capable. IMHO...

But waiting too long to do anything until we just HAVE to, and then trying to make lemonade with the lemons we have, is a Pacer tradition.

-Bball

Unclebuck
01-03-2008, 09:49 AM
Owens has played pretty well. But this team needs Tinsley for sure

Hicks
01-03-2008, 01:08 PM
Owens has played pretty well. But this team needs Tinsley for sure

"Anyone but Tinsley"..... ;)

And it wasn't/isn't just you. In fact I'm not sure if you've said that THIS season or not.

People can say what they want about Tinsley, but to those who said just getting rid of him (this year, last year, year before that, or that, etc.) would make things better: I give you this stretch. No it doesn't make things better.

McKeyFan
01-03-2008, 01:21 PM
"Anyone but Tinsley"..... ;)

And it wasn't/isn't just you. In fact I'm not sure if you've said that THIS season or not.

People can say what they want about Tinsley, but to those who said just getting rid of him (this year, last year, year before that, or that, etc.) would make things better: I give you this stretch. No it doesn't make things better.

This stretch proves nothing.

To trade Tinsley means we get something back, or even trade another chip to get a solid, decent point guard.

I don't want someone as good as Tinsley. I want a decent point guard, not as good as Tinsley, who is more reliable, more fundamental, more consistent.

THAT would make our team better in the long run, IMHO.

NapTonius Monk
01-03-2008, 01:58 PM
This stretch proves nothing.

To trade Tinsley means we get something back, or even trade another chip to get a solid, decent point guard.

I don't want someone as good as Tinsley. I want a decent point guard, not as good as Tinsley, who is more reliable, more fundamental, more consistent.

THAT would make our team better in the long run, IMHO.

I disagree. I think this stretch is a strong argument in Tinsley's favor. The decision making down the stretch has killed us, and Quis deflated my balloon as far as my thinking that he made Tins expendable. The value of a true point for this team has been demonstrated. I would like to see them start Diener, to see if that scrappiness we've heard about comes through. But he's such a defensive liability, who knows if that'd ever happen. You know what...it sure wouldn't seem so bad to have McCleod or Armstrong backing up Tinsley now, does it? We've played our best when Jamaal has played his best, and to me, that points to him as team MVP. I like Jermaine, but that's the area of focus if we're going to make a move. And that's not a knee-jerk reaction to this latest streak. It's just flat out logical.

Hicks
01-03-2008, 02:07 PM
This stretch proves nothing.

To trade Tinsley means we get something back, or even trade another chip to get a solid, decent point guard.

I don't want someone as good as Tinsley. I want a decent point guard, not as good as Tinsley, who is more reliable, more fundamental, more consistent.

THAT would make our team better in the long run, IMHO.

That might be OK. But what I was jabbing at was there were posts made over the past few years saying we'd be better off just trading Tinsley for potato chips or simply cutting him.

Shade
01-03-2008, 02:08 PM
Andre Miller is the guy I've been pimping for a while now.

How about JO to the Sixers for Miller, Dalembert, and their 2008 #1? I'm not a big fan of Dalembert or his contract, but he would be a competent big man, we'd get a new starting PG/very good back-up PG in Andre, and a pretty high #1 in next year's draft. Then, if necessary, we try to combine first-rounders to move up and nab Eric Gordon or Derrick Rose, and re-sign Harrison.

Dalembert/Harrison/Murphy
Diogu/Foster
Granger/Williams
Gordon/Dunleavy/Daniels/Graham
Tinsley/Miller/Diener

Don't know if Philly would bite, though.

Unclebuck
01-03-2008, 02:10 PM
"Anyone but Tinsley"..... ;)

And it wasn't/isn't just you. In fact I'm not sure if you've said that THIS season or not.

People can say what they want about Tinsley, but to those who said just getting rid of him (this year, last year, year before that, or that, etc.) would make things better: I give you this stretch. No it doesn't make things better.

ABT was my motto for years. But not this year. The entire team (the offense anyways) is built around Tinsley and without him, the team is nowhere near the same

Kegboy
01-03-2008, 02:19 PM
I wish I could ask TPTB, "Why sign Travis Diener when you could have had Janero Pargo for the same money?"

Naptown_Seth
01-03-2008, 02:30 PM
Buck is right, this version is centered on Tinsley/PG play. This is one issue I had with JOB's offense (love his defensive attitude), it's based on playmakers and this team doesn't have them. That's why Rick gave up on running and worked with slower, developing plays instead.

It's been a big risk to count on Tins and 3pt shooting from this squad. Certainly it works some nights, but it just seems like they are relying on a weakness rather than a strength.


Shade - um, Dalembert hates JOB from his time in Philly. Maybe not such a good deal to bring him in. ;) I think they clearly missed their chance with Dre.


As for the general ABT attitude, I never had it. I hated that view with Jackson, Ron, Tins, JO...it's not realistic. Tinsley and Jackson are both fairly paid for their output, but they aren't the highest paid guys on this or any team, so why would they be the focus of an offense?

Jack was out of necessity at times, Tins is due to style. Nash or Baron Davis as the focus with a 7m PF instead would probably be working much better for JOB. This team doesn't have an AI or Pierce, off the dribble scorer and there is no way we could expect Tins to be that.

I also think too many people are assuming the slump is just due to Tins. But the reality is that he played during the 6 game losing streak. This roster has more issues than just Tins being out.


My issue with Diener right now is that when he has played he just dribbles down and chucks his small-guy 3 (ie, lot of body effort into getting it up, not naturally smooth).

Some of this is the game being out of hand, but frankly there are times that even making a few 3s wouldn't help and he still does it. I'd like to see if he can actually run a proper offensive set instead.

NapTonius Monk
01-03-2008, 02:36 PM
I also think too many people are assuming the slump is just due to Tins. But the reality is that he played during the 6 game losing streak. This roster has more issues than just Tins being out.

But, unlike this streak, would it be fair to say that 1st losing streak could be attributed to trying to "figure out" the offense meshing with JO? I think this 2nd losing streak has a lot more to do with the absence of JT than the 1st one. What do you think?

Shade
01-03-2008, 02:42 PM
Shade - um, Dalembert hates JOB from his time in Philly. Maybe not such a good deal to bring him in. ;)

Oops, I forgot all about that, lol.

Instead of Dalembert, I would happily take the expiring contracts of Ollie and (at the end of February) Giricek.

naptownmenace
01-03-2008, 02:48 PM
Their loyalty to maintaining the status quo, or insistence on it, is going to be the ruination of the franchise if anything is.

-Bball

Whether right or wrong, TPTB will not maintain the status quo if the team has a losing record and are floundering by midseason. Maybe they should've made more changes before but DW has made it clear that if the team as assembled can't get it done, he'll move players.

I don't think maintaining the status quo is ever their plan either intentionally or unintentionally.

grace
01-03-2008, 02:57 PM
I wish I could ask TPTB, "Why sign Travis Diener when you could have had Janero Pargo for the same money?"

I know the answer, but I'm not saying.

CableKC
01-03-2008, 02:59 PM
Oops, I forgot all about that, lol.

Instead of Dalembert, I would happily take the expiring contracts of Ollie and (at the end of February) Giricek.
It would seem like Stefanski is trying to dump contracts and rebuild for the future with cap-flexibility. There is no way that they would want to make a trade for Chris Webber "Part Deux".

You know it and I know it....TPTB overvalues JONeal. As some Laker troll pointed out here months ago.....the best that we are likely to get out of trading JONeal is a situation similiar to when the Kings traded for Chris Webber. I hate to admit it...but I think he's right. Unless TPTB get some offer that would meet their price for JONeal....which we know is unlikely....I am guessing that we will ride out the rest of the season with the same roster then see what JONeal's 44 mil contract can get us during the offseason.

Unclebuck
01-03-2008, 03:04 PM
Whether right or wrong, TPTB will not maintain the status quo if the team has a losing record and are floundering by midseason. Maybe they should've made more changes before but DW has made it clear that if the team as assembled can't get it done, he'll move players.

I don't think maintaining the status quo is ever their plan either intentionally or unintentionally.

I agree with you. If this current team continues to go bad over the next couple of weeks. I think there is a very good possibility of a major trade before the deadline - but it womn't be a trade that would help the team this season. Just looking at it from a franchise perspective with the attendance so bad and I see no evidence that a just above .500 season will change that at all, why not bite the bullet on a trade that will hopefully help us in the long run.

Bball
01-03-2008, 03:23 PM
I agree with you. If this current team continues to go bad over the next couple of weeks. I think there is a very good possibility of a major trade before the deadline - but it womn't be a trade that would help the team this season. Just looking at it from a franchise perspective with the attendance so bad and I see no evidence that a just above .500 season will change that at all, why not bite the bullet on a trade that will hopefully help us in the long run.

My fear would be that the trade is done to help NOW, in a push to keep the playoffs in the team's sights. So it could be a panic trade, not a well thought out long-term trade. There's absolutely no reason that I can see to try and push this core collection of players into the playoffs. ...And, unless that trade would really be for the future with well thought out plans, then I'd rather this group keep right on playing until a trade is available that makes more sense for the future than the here and now.

I know I'm the guy that used to say you build for the here and now because you don't know what the future will bring... BUT BUT BUT... that was when we had some semblance of a 'here and now' with core players that had a future here (players you could count on).

But history says if this team slides from the playoff hunt, the one and only true goal of TPTB, a trade will happen.

-Bball

NapTonius Monk
01-03-2008, 03:35 PM
But history says if this team slides from the playoff hunt, the one and only true goal of TPTB, a trade will happen.

-Bball

If we lose this Atlanta game, we could see an ugly slide with us heading out west.

slyder
01-03-2008, 07:48 PM
i think everyone agrees we need that strong backup point.

i vote for the kind of player / impact we got with byron scott (not a point, but that level of maturity, playoff experience, basketball smarts, and talent.

why wait. who is that guy and can we get him?

BruceLeeroy
01-03-2008, 08:25 PM
As soon as we go out and get some competition for JT the same thing will happen that always does. He'll pout, probably alienate that player, and come up with these week long thigh bruise injurys or sinustiputous. I think the better idea would be to look for a DEPENDABLE starting PG that's a LEADER then find him a backup.

Trader Joe
01-03-2008, 09:27 PM
As soon as we go out and get some competition for JT the same thing will happen that always does. He'll pout, probably alienate that player, and come up with these week long thigh bruise injurys or sinustiputous. I think the better idea would be to look for a DEPENDABLE starting PG that's a LEADER then find him a backup.

In the past when Tinsley had been benched (up until last year at least) Tins had kicked his game up a notch whenever his starting job was challenged. Best example of this would be the 61 win season when Tinsley had to beat out Kenny Anderson.

Tinsley is the motor of this team right now. Like it or not.

Hicks
01-03-2008, 10:28 PM
When I think, "Who's a 'Byron Scott' circa 1994 in today's NBA?", the first guy who comes to my mind is Derek Fisher. Unfortunately, due to family medical needs he's locked into LA so he's out. He'd be a great backup PG to have. Outstanding.

Oh well.

Next to Fish... I don't know.

BruceLeeroy
01-04-2008, 06:25 PM
In the past when Tinsley had been benched (up until last year at least) Tins had kicked his game up a notch whenever his starting job was challenged. Best example of this would be the 61 win season when Tinsley had to beat out Kenny Anderson.

Tinsley is the motor of this team right now. Like it or not.

Just because he beat out an aging Kenny Anderson doesn't change the fact that he pouted on the bench the whole time then and every other time his starting position was threatened or that he's not dependable and not a leader.

You're right though, Tinsley is the motor of this team. That's the problem. We need a reliable starting PG before we trade our assets for a backup.

Bball
01-04-2008, 07:11 PM
Just because he beat out an aging Kenny Anderson doesn't change the fact that he pouted on the bench the whole time then and every other time his starting position was threatened or that he's not dependable and not a leader.

You're right though, Tinsley is the motor of this team. That's the problem. We need a reliable starting PG before we trade our assets for a backup.

I second this post...

-Bball

Arcadian
01-04-2008, 07:17 PM
I don't know why we do just trade for Nash. That would solve everything.

Bball
01-04-2008, 09:48 PM
I don't know why we do just trade for Nash. That would solve everything.

The problem isn't that we need to do something NOW... it's that we've neglected to do anything for a few seasons. We should've just gotten some PG's in here and let them fight it out for the pecking order fully knowing that JT isn't the answer for one reason or another. You can't rely on an unreliable player. Instead, we've focused on trying to find backups and diamonds in the rough.

We've had plenty of time to address this. If anything, we've made it worse.

-Bball

Young
01-04-2008, 10:23 PM
Here you guys go. This could be your answer at the point guard spot at least for this season.

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/jan/03/agent-says-stoudamire-will-seek-release-or-trade/

Not for sure what we would give to get him. And from the article it almost sounds like the Grizzles would look to trade him to a championship contender.

Damon has been one of my favorite players. He has had some issues. However I remember seeing on ESPN not to long ago how he was taking Mike Conley under his wing and showing him things. I love that.