PDA

View Full Version : The Days of Malaise: Acceptance, Understanding, and Actions



thunderbird1245
01-30-2008, 04:08 PM
The time has come for our franchise and its leaders to face the bitter truth: The era of the Pacers being playoff contenders is over. We all recognize as members of Pacer Nation that our team is far away from a championship, and is likely to miss the playoffs. Attendance is down, enthusiasm is down, and there is a malaise hanging over our franchise. Our team's spirit is down, our city has it's attention span elsewhere, and the enthusiasm and civic pride our Pacers once provided has slipped into our memory banks, far removed from the reality of the current day. I recognize this, so do most of you reading this.

I understand the Pacers thinking in trying to make us into a playoff team this season. They don't think we as a fanbase can tolerate a total rebuild, and perhaps in the casual fans thinking they are correct, I don't know. I'm sure memories of telethons, curtains, and half filled arenas have influenced their thinking and their goals, but it's time for the Pacers top brass to finally grasp that Indianapolis and the surrounding pockets of fans aren't the same as 20 years ago, we aren't just happy having a team, we crave being a championship level franchise. We also know are savvy enough in my opinion to realize that reaching the mountain top sometimes means you need to start the journey in the deepest valley. The time to start the trek toward the summit of success needs to start now.

It's time for Larry Bird to admit to himself that we simply lack the talent necessary to win. It's also way past time to begin planning a way to slowly over time acquire the kind of talented assets and people who can lead us not to being good, but to being extraordinarily good. The Colts have whetted our appetite for sustained excellence, now we know what it feels like and that it can be done with a clear plan and strong structure. But let it be known that the Colts started this from the depths of being the worst franchise in the NFL, accepted that fact, and totally remade how they thought and how they built.

It's time for this: If Larry Bird doesn't want to re-build, doesn't want to start from scratch and build a true team on a solid foundation instead of the quicksand he inherited, then he apparently lacks the creativity and vision that it takes to do this job. If that is the case, then he needs to be shown the door and thanked for his service.

Building a franchise from the depths of despair is hard work, but it can be done, and it has been done. But it takes a committment not just from ownership, but from the entire organization including the fanbase....especially the fanbase! Right now our Pacers biggest problem as a franchise lacking focus and direction is that they have no faith in us as fans to stick around thru the darkness of a total collapse and rebirth, they believe they must keep selling us the snake oil of playoff attempts and minor tweaks in order to keep us around, when in fact the exact opposite is true. I think this statement is sad, but true: "The Pacers aren't just bad, the are UNINTERESTING." It is time for the franchise to accept the fact that building a new franchise from the ground up is what is needed.

Once acceptance is reached, now we need understanding. By that I mean our top brass needs to understand our own players, and the business of winning. If truly winning is a long process that is 2 or 3 years away, then what are we waiting for to begin the quest from the Valley to the Mountain top? To me the model we need to follow is in Portland, where a market our size with a fanbase like ours finally rose up and DEMANDED changes with their horrible leadership, and finally the team got the message. In a short time, they've became perhaps the NBA franchise with the brightest future in the entire league. They made a plan, they accepted what they were, they understood what they needed to do, and they have continued to execute it. Our Pacers can do what Portland is doing, if we have as an organization the courage to change.

Portland understood that some players would have to go, almost no matter what they got back. They had an owner who tired of reading about is team's players in the police blotter, and made the moves financially to rid his players the stigma of the stench their losing ways left in the nostrils of the paying customers in the Rose Garden. Will the Simon's step up and buy guys out if needed? Do they truly want to win and win the right way? How important is it to them? These are some of the questions that will determine how quickly our Pacers re-birth can happen.

After acceptance and understanding comes action. I think almost all of us believe the time has come for Tinsley to go, so I will not discuss him here. Jermaine has a huge contract that complicates matters, and it will likely be extremely difficult to move him until at least the summer, hopefully near the draft. Therefore, I won't really discuss him either.

What I do want to discuss is the opportunity we have in the next 3 weeks or so to begin the rebuilding process with moves that will begin the long journey up the mountain for us. We have some very tradeable assets I believe, and I believe that trading some of them, even if it is for less than optimal value, needs to happen to clearly begin the rising from the ashes or franchise and its fans are thirsting for.

In many ways, even though I'm not his biggest fan, JEFF FOSTER epitomizes the attitude and work ethic we wish all of our players had. He has been a true warrior, a solid professional, and a great example of how a player with limited skills can carve out a great career as a professional athlete.

Having said that, 3 years from now when we can be a championship level contender again, Jeff Foster won't be here. The time to trade Foster is now, in the next 3 weeks, to a team who he can help right now. There are excellent trade possibilities for Foster to teams like the Lakers, San Antonio, Utah, Dallas and Portland.....and perhaps others. We need to get young players with potential (Javaris Crittendon, Martell Webster, Ronnie Brewer, Rudy Fernandez to name a few) at positions we need. We need expiring contracts, and we need to collect a low level first round pick or multiple second rounders.

Some of you can come up with some good Foster trades, if you like. I hate to give him up too emotionally, but the time for bold action is now, where his value has never been higher.

We need to explore the possibility of trading Mike Dunleavy Jr as well. He may be our best player currently, or at least close to it, but no team with Dunleavy as it's big gun will ever win a title. The time to move him is in the next 3 weeks, to a team he can fit well with and that has assets we need to build with to give up. By playing the best he has ever played, Dunleavy still hasn't made our overall franchise have a better future, unless we deal him now while his value is at his highest peak.

Some teams that may like Dunleavy would include the Clippers, Lakers, Houston, Utah, and Pheonix.

Marquis Daniels can be a useful player for a playoff caliber team, but for us he is just taking time away from players who need to play for the sake of the future. It would be great to get expiring deals, draft picks, and perhaps a useful young player for Daniels, and getting out of his contract and saving the money is another great bonus. As it turned out, keeping Croshere's huge expiring deal would've been a much better move than trading it for Marquis Daniels.

Daniels would seem to be a good fit perhaps in Dallas, Golden State, Pheonix or maybe in New Orleans.

David Harrison also needs to go, and it really doesn't matter what you get for him as long as it is an expiring contract or a future pick. Harrison might make sense in Golden State or maybe Denver. More than anything, Harrison needs to be away from the other young guys you bring in in the other deals, and to be made an example of.

Trading these guys here in February enables to save money, stockpile late first round picks perhaps, and hopefully get a young player or 2 for a future. This is necessary even if it means getting only 75 cents on the dollar, because it forces Jim O'Brien to play Shawne Williams and Ike Diogu, so we can see what we have in those 2 young guys. It also assures that we make the lottery without having to intentionally play badly, which I view as an ultimate sin against the game and its spirit.

But more than any of that, it sets us clearly on the path of being a championship contender again, albeit a few years down the road. It is time to take our medicine in my opinion, and make the moves that are painful but necessary to once again rise as the basketball capital of the world.

In the summertime, with a new direction clearly established, it will now make it easier to deal the others who must be dealt to complete the purge. We won't be as dependent on getting certain positions back, and we can search and trade for talent rather than need.

Doing it this way, having the courage to fundamentally change the way we do business, will take a bold stream of leadership from the top on down. We do not need Larry Bird or Donnie Walsh to make this a priority, we need the Simon's to make it happen. You will not read criticism of Bird/Walsh from me (very much lol) in the beginning of March if we don't make bold moves, because they likely are only doing what is acceptable to those above them.

"Accept, Understand, and Act." Herb and Mel, the eyes of Indiana are on you in the next 21 days or so.




As always, the above is just my opinion.

Tbird

OnlyPacersLeft
01-30-2008, 04:14 PM
we need to trade for something to inject a shot into the franchise...you can't tell me that someone like boston who threw away some pretty much crap to get ray allen...we couldn't do the same?

Shade
01-30-2008, 04:27 PM
:amen:, TBird. I agree whole-heartedly.

Putnam
01-30-2008, 04:29 PM
Amen! Preach, brother!

Rajah Brown
01-30-2008, 04:33 PM
The thing TBTP seem not to understand is that the Pacers will
get as many and maybe more fans to show up if they see a
team trying to rebuild with promise for the future as they're
getting now to watch a team that's simply spinning it's wheels.

The post-Brawl stretch when fans rallied behind that group of
overachievers should have made that clear.

Putnam
01-30-2008, 04:39 PM
I don't like the sugestion to trade Foster, but you are right: TPTB needs to do everything with the objective of winning three years from now. Foster won't be part of that team, so we must be willing to deal him.

Just one question, Tbird. Dunleavy is, as you say, not a player to build around. But isn't he good enough to play a part on a championship team three years from now?

We've got how many pieces of a championship team right now? Really not more than a couple of players and a great stadium. I'd add O'Brien, but my good friend Peck would not agree with that. So we really only have a few pieces. Even three years becomes a short amount of time to rebuild the whole team, its ethic, playing style, competitive spirit, etc. Wouldn't keeping Dunleavy (as a possible 6th man lined up behind better starters) be a good idea?

Gyron
01-30-2008, 04:44 PM
:kegboypreachit:

Tbird, that is the best response to the entire situation this franchise faces that I have seen to date. Many others have said it in different ways, but you have said it best.

thunderbird1245
01-30-2008, 04:58 PM
I don't like the sugestion to trade Foster, but you are right: TPTB needs to do everything with the objective of winning three years from now. Foster won't be part of that team, so we must be willing to deal him.

Just one question, Tbird. Dunleavy is, as you say, not a player to build around. But isn't he good enough to play a part on a championship team three years from now?

We've got how many pieces of a championship team right now? Really not more than a couple of players and a great stadium. I'd add O'Brien, but my good friend Peck would not agree with that. So we really only have a few pieces. Even three years becomes a short amount of time to rebuild the whole team, its ethic, playing style, competitive spirit, etc. Wouldn't keeping Dunleavy (as a possible 6th man lined up behind better starters) be a good idea?


I like Dunleavy as a basketball player, let me be clear about that. He is smart, plays hard, plays the right way with hustle, desire and stability. He plays every game, doesn't complain, and produces to the utmost of his ability. I not only think Dunleavy can be a really good player on a championship team 3 years from now, I think he can be a really good player on the right type of team right now.

I just don't think he and Granger are a particular good combination together, and I think Dunleavy is an asset we can use to get other things done that we need to do.

I strongly believe that we Dunleavy would be a great player to have, but he needs a really strong wing defender along side him to be part of a winning team. He and Granger are very similar in that regard in my view, as I don't see Granger as nearly the defender that many of you do. Therefore, both of them need a really good perimeter defender around them, so they can concentrate on scoring and doing other things. I think they together are a bad combination defensively.

Dunleavy can get us a better return on our money in a trade, in my view, and I think Granger has more long term upside.

If by magic you could substitute Dunleavy for Ginobili in San Antonio for example ( a well built team with a scoring and good defending point guard, a great defender in Bruce Bowen, and a premier inside defender in Duncan) then I think Dunleavy fits very well. But you wouldn't want a Dunleavy-Ginobili combination, because then you'd have 2 similar players.....that's similar to how I view Dunleavy-Granger.

ABADays
01-30-2008, 05:01 PM
Nice job T-bird. I have stated on this board that Foster is gone. I don't like it but a player like him is going to be in demand. Tinsley, O'Neal - just get what you can. The only way they would be a factor in rebuilding is if they are gone. Harrison - whatever.

Your thought on the fanbase is interesting. You stated Portland fans DEMANDED change. For the past couple of years the Pacers fans may have not been demanding - how about prompting - and it showed in attendance. This year - they have made a STATEMENT.

I agree with a complete overhaul. We've had to do it before. It wasn't pretty but we did it. i went through it and I'm still here.

I must be a REAL fan! :dance:

OakMoses
01-30-2008, 05:25 PM
we need to trade for something to inject a shot into the franchise...you can't tell me that someone like boston who threw away some pretty much crap to get ray allen...we couldn't do the same?

Boston gave up the #5 pick to get Ray Allen. That's not crap.

D-BONE
01-30-2008, 05:45 PM
I'm completely down with this proposal. I think the writing was on the wall last year. Maybe even the summer before last season.

Tbird, you're definitely right on target about the Granger-Dunleavy similarity. Perhaps the biggest similarity is the optimal position for each to play is SF, in addition to the skill set comparison. I know I have suggested a couple of times the need to move one of our many wings just to try and fix the unbalanced roster. There's no better time than now to move one of those two.

If Tins is back and playing beginning Fri., would be happy to move him along before the deadline, too.

Honestly, if the guys you mention are sent packing and a JO deal gets done over the summer, of the remainder of the guys only DG, SW, TD, and KR do much of anything for me. DG and SW would hopefully develop into major pieces in the future foundation and TD and KR would be excellent in the 2nd unit. Love to throw Ike in there but I really have my doubts. The most serious of which is his size/height disadvantage for where he needs to line up, PF.

idioteque
01-30-2008, 05:46 PM
Jeff Foster for Trevor Ariza/Crittendon works, for those who are high on Crittendon.

CableKC
01-30-2008, 06:18 PM
Losing games when we are rebuilding sucks but IMHO is expected.

But losing games ( especially against teams that we should be beating ) when we have been told that we are trying to make the Playoffs sucks even more if not disheartening.....cuz it means that no matter how much we try.....clearly it isn't good enough to beat most teams.

I have no problem with losing games, as long as I know that the direction that the SS Pacers is pointed towards rebuiliding and that we are doing our best to play those players that are part of the future and weeding out those that shouldn't be.

CableKC
01-30-2008, 06:28 PM
I like Dunleavy as a basketball player, let me be clear about that. He is smart, plays hard, plays the right way with hustle, desire and stability. He plays every game, doesn't complain, and produces to the utmost of his ability. I not only think Dunleavy can be a really good player on a championship team 3 years from now, I think he can be a really good player on the right type of team right now.

I just don't think he and Granger are a particular good combination together, and I think Dunleavy is an asset we can use to get other things done that we need to do.

I strongly believe that we Dunleavy would be a great player to have, but he needs a really strong wing defender along side him to be part of a winning team. He and Granger are very similar in that regard in my view, as I don't see Granger as nearly the defender that many of you do. Therefore, both of them need a really good perimeter defender around them, so they can concentrate on scoring and doing other things. I think they together are a bad combination defensively.

Dunleavy can get us a better return on our money in a trade, in my view, and I think Granger has more long term upside.

If by magic you could substitute Dunleavy for Ginobili in San Antonio for example ( a well built team with a scoring and good defending point guard, a great defender in Bruce Bowen, and a premier inside defender in Duncan) then I think Dunleavy fits very well. But you wouldn't want a Dunleavy-Ginobili combination, because then you'd have 2 similar players.....that's similar to how I view Dunleavy-Granger.
Easy solution........TPTB should do what the both of us have agreed they should do.......sign Quinton Ross in the offseason as our role-playing perimeter defender. Have Dunleavy come off the bench as the 6th Man while trying to minimize the # of minutes that both Granger and he share on the court at the same time. When we need some defense.....play Ross with either of them...either individually...or at the same time.

Either way.....I agree with Putnam....unless we get players that totally fit what we are doing, expiring contracts or even draft picks for Dunleavy......then I would prefer to keep him. To me, he's one of those players ( much like Foster is ) that is worth more to the team then he is to others.

Mr. Pink
01-30-2008, 06:36 PM
Every year, the new season brings in a new motto. Something always giving the fans of false hope of being better than last year. TPTB need to come out and blantly say that the Pacers are going to rebuild, and they need the fans support more than ever. I feel like the casual fans are turning their backs because we're always being fed some false hope. Indiana basketball is filled with pride. The fans will come to support a rebuilding proccess. We just need a solid direction to follow. Solid players with good qualities. I could easily welcome something like that. It's hard being a fan of the team we have now. Injuries (oneal), bad media attention (harrison), crazy suspensions/injuries (tinsley).

I'm so glad we still have Foster. Who doesn't like the guy?

grace
01-30-2008, 06:47 PM
Every year, the new season brings in a new motto.

On 950 they were asking for ideas to give to the marketing department. I've got one:

:kegboypreachit:

Prayer: it's our only hope.

Tom White
01-30-2008, 07:14 PM
While I agree with the points T-bird has made in his post concerning what the mindset of Pacers management and ownership should be, I have to disagree with some of the choices he used for "trade bait".

If Granger actually has more upside than Dun (count me in the group that is not sure about this), then would Granger not fetch more in return? His lower salary may be attractive to the Pacers, but might be more of an inducement to a another team to give up a good young guard AND a 1st round pick.

Because of Dun's contract another team might have to give up two young prospects, and to me that seems less likely to happen.

I like the idea of Harrison to Denver. With Nene having assorted injuries during his career, the Nuggets might bite on that. (By the way, I'm not comparing the two players talent wise.) If all attempts to trade Harrison fail, just let him walk at the end of the year. Please.

If needed I would package Ike and Daniels to see what could be gotten.

I'm afraid we are pretty much stuck with Murphy's contract. I don't have the dislike for him that some have, but I do dislike his contract.

I do think we have to move both O'Neal and Tinsley. I would even be willing to do a rent-a-malcontent with an expiring contract for either of them.

Rajah Brown
01-30-2008, 07:41 PM
D-Bone-

I'm w/ you on moving a SF for roster/talent balancing. But I
think it'd be better to keep our powder dry until things sort
out in terms of probable Lottery spots and underclass
declarations later this Spring.

Will Galen
01-30-2008, 08:28 PM
If Granger actually has more upside than Dun (count me in the group that is not sure about this), then would Granger not fetch more in return? His lower salary may be attractive to the Pacers, but might be more of an inducement to a another team to give up a good young guard AND a 1st round pick.


Granger's a piece we want to build with, not trade for another piece to build with. The only way I trade him is if we can get the draft rights to Rose or Gordon in the draft. And that can only be done with a team that needs a SF.

For instant, say Memphis picks Gordon. They have Gay so they wouldn't trade for Danny. There would simply be no way we could get Gordon or Rose in some situations.

Infinite MAN_force
01-30-2008, 09:10 PM
I agree with most of this, except about trading dunleavy. I'm not sure what Foster could get us though, we need an expiring contract more than anything, might be best to just let him opt out at the end of the year, we need money to sign Kareem Rush. I also like the idea of packaging Diogu and Daniels, I don't think Diogu fits our system very well and that pairing might fetch us something nice.

As far as trading Dunleavy vs. Granger, I think Granger is the one who should be traded. Dunleavy still young enough to be ready to contend with this team in a few years, and assuming we stay with obrien's system, Dunleavy is a better fit. not to mention Williams has shown a lot of promise as well.

Really though I think Granger just has a lot more trade value, because of his smaller contract and perceived upside. Dunleavy still has to live with his reputation from the golden state days as a bust, and I think we could potentially get a much better player for granger. I would look to trade Granger for a promising young point guard because that is what we really need. If the grizzlies landed a high enough pick to grab rose or mayo, we might be able to say pry conley away from them for granger (i think they could run rudy gay at SG). Not to sound like a homer but replacing tinsley with a local kid who was 4th pick overall would probably go over really well. Plus he is a very smart player and can actually defend the position. I would like to build a team like the 90s team with a lot of higher Bball IQ players. Another reason I like Dunleavy.

Pacers4Life
01-31-2008, 12:16 AM
Amen! Preach, brother!
absolutely. this was one of the best posts i have ever read. it convinced me, who whole-heartedly wanted to stay the course, that that just is not going to work. but if we trade mike dunleavy away, theres going to be problems from me lol...

Roaming Gnome
01-31-2008, 01:03 AM
I'm in agreement with what you had to say T-bird, BUT its too bad that TPTB will continue to insist that a rebuilding effort will bring a swift death to this franchise.

I hate to say it, but I have a feeling that ownership/managment are too afraid to rebuild, so we can only look forward to more slogans and tweaks.

Either way, I can't see fewer folks in the stands then there are now. Too bad TPTB can't see this.

I mentioned to Mal and Seth at the game versus Detroit...The people in the stands now are the people that really want to be here. We all seemed to agree that these are the same people that would be here thru a rebuilding effort.

Jose Slaughter
01-31-2008, 01:31 AM
Foster to the Spurs for Brent Barry (expiring contract) & the right to Tiago Splitter, works on RealGM.

d_c
01-31-2008, 01:35 AM
Portland understood that some players would have to go, almost no matter what they got back. They had an owner who tired of reading about is team's players in the police blotter, and made the moves financially to rid his players the stigma of the stench their losing ways left in the nostrils of the paying customers in the Rose Garden. Will the Simon's step up and buy guys out if needed? Do they truly want to win and win the right way? How important is it to them? These are some of the questions that will determine how quickly our Pacers re-birth can happen.


I don't know the Simon's financial situation, but I do know that Paul Allen has some pretty deep pockets.

That's how he was willing to buy out guys like Steve Francis and Shawn Kemp.

That's how he was willing to buy Phx's 1st round pick for $3M to take Rudy Fernandez and then stash him over in Europe.

That's how they were able to trade for Brandon Roy last year: by agreeing to trade Theo Ratliff's expiring deal for Raef Lafrentz, who had an additional year left on his deal at $13M. That's an extra $13M commitment for a guy who doesn't sniff the court. They basically bought the pick for $13M. I know getting Brandon Roy looks like a no brainer now, but most owners would have to at least think twice about that if a similar situation ever presented itself.

Keep in mind that not every owner in the league has the financial power to do that. Again, I have no idea on how deep pocketed the Simons are or how willing they are to spend, though I do know they are owners (like most others) who prefer to avoid the luxury tax.

wintermute
01-31-2008, 01:37 AM
i've been on the rebuild bandwagon for a while now (2 years?), so yes i agree wholeheartedly with tbird's post. especially about trading foster and dunleavy, even though that will certainly mean missing the playoffs this year.

sucks to move foster, but we badly need a talent infusion. and in a way, it would be a reward for his years of service to move him to a contender at this point.



As far as trading Dunleavy vs. Granger, I think Granger is the one who should be traded. Dunleavy still young enough to be ready to contend with this team in a few years, and assuming we stay with obrien's system, Dunleavy is a better fit. not to mention Williams has shown a lot of promise as well.


while dunleavy does fit in nicely with obie's offense, can we say with certainty that obie will still be at the helm once rebuilding is over? while dun is a good player, he's sucked before in other systems, and who's to say what the rebuilt team will look like in the future?

granger on the other hand, does everything pretty well - i.e., no holes in his game. he's a great building block because he'll probably fit in to whatever system we'll run. plus he's a good guy, which is not to be underrated when your franchise has image problems.

of course we might choose to keep dunleavy, granger, *and* williams, but do we really want an sf logjam? makes more sense to move one for another building piece, and to me dunleavy is the most expendable.


Granger's a piece we want to build with, not trade for another piece to build with.

yes exactly. danny seems to have become underrated recently. how many 3rd year players are scoring 17-18ppg anyway? danny's improvement has been slow and steady rather than by big jumps, but that shouldn't mask the fact that he's already a very good player right now, in just his 3rd year.

Bball
01-31-2008, 03:04 AM
You'll got no arguments from me. I agree whole-heartedly.

-Bball

Kemo
01-31-2008, 03:09 AM
My opinion is ...

If the Pacers even THINK of trading Dunleavy , I will stop watching Pacers basketball for good .... I really enjoy watching him play his heart out for us

Mike has played better basketball this year , than he has EVER played in the NBA...

He has come out and busted his *** for this team , and has epitomized what a team player should be..


Even though I like Foster , I think he deserves to at least win a ring while he is still able to play... that being said, we at least owe him that , for all his loyalty to this team , and if that means trading him to a team such as the Lakers or Phx .. or putting guys round him on this Pacers team to win a championship... it needs to be done...

I like Troy Murphy , but if trading him means , being free of his big contract , being able to get rid of Jamaal , or Daniels , then it needs to be done... but I wouldn't just "give" him away...

which brings up my next order of business....

Tinsley absolutely NEEDS TO GO....
as I've said before he is a Cancer to this ballclub..

Other's I wouldnt care if the got traded would be David Harrison... Daniels , and Owens...

Honestly.. the only player's that absolutely need to stay here are Granger , Dunleavy ,Diener , Shawn Williams and Kareem Rush ...

Shawn Williams I believe in a few years will be an excellent player.. and we will kick ourselves in the *** for getting rid of him if we do...

As far as Ike ... I really like Ike , but he has alot of trade value to other teams, and I think we will end up having to give him up to get rid of Tinsley , and get someone who can really help this ballclub

and if J.O could get , and STAY healthy , I would like for us to keep him ,when he is healthy , he is an all-star, but if we could get a very good deal ,and get ourselves a good center .. I'd heavily consider it ...

Will Galen
01-31-2008, 04:52 AM
I thought someone would disagree with a lot of this before now. No one has so I will.

[quote=thunderbird1245;649683]The time has come for our franchise and its leaders to face the bitter truth: The era of the Pacers being playoff contenders is over. We all recognize as members of Pacer Nation that our team is far away from a championship, and is likely to miss the playoffs. Attendance is down, enthusiasm is down, and there is a malaise hanging over our franchise. Our team's spirit is down, our city has it's attention span elsewhere, and the enthusiasm and civic pride our Pacers once provided has slipped into our memory banks, far removed from the reality of the current day. I recognize this, so do most of you reading this.

Because Bird is so closed mouthed, and he doesn't tell people what he is really thinking it's not possible to read what he really believes. Of course in his position he's going to put a positive spin on things.


I understand the Pacers thinking in trying to make us into a playoff team this season. They don't think we as a fanbase can tolerate a total rebuild,

I don't know what they think myself. As for the fanbase I think most will only show up for a winner.

and perhaps in the casual fans thinking they are correct, I don't know. I'm sure memories of telethons, curtains, and half filled arenas have influenced their thinking and their goals, but it's time for the Pacers top brass to finally grasp that Indianapolis and the surrounding pockets of fans aren't the same as 20 years ago, we aren't just happy having a team, we crave being a championship level franchise. We also know are savvy enough in my opinion to realize that reaching the mountain top sometimes means you need to start the journey in the deepest valley. The time to start the trek toward the summit of success needs to start now.

It's been said over and over that the best time to make trades is the off season, not mid season.

It's time for Larry Bird to admit to himself that we simply lack the talent necessary to win.

We don't lack the talent to win. We lack the healthy players to win. Which I guess is really the same thing.

It's also way past time to begin planning a way to slowly over time acquire the kind of talented assets and people who can lead us not to being good, but to being extraordinarily good.

This is what every GM tries to do.

But let it be known that the Colts started this from the depths of being the worst franchise in the NFL, accepted that fact, and totally remade how they thought and how they built.

Flat out disagree.


It's time for this: If Larry Bird doesn't want to re-build, doesn't want to start from scratch and build a true team on a solid foundation instead of the quicksand he inherited, then he apparently lacks the creativity and vision that it takes to do this job. If that is the case, then he needs to be shown the door and thanked for his service.

What? Starting from scratch means getting rid of everybody and starting over, and because Bird doesn't want to start from scratch that means he lacks what it takes to do the job?

You could be right about Bird not being good at his job. For one he's tight with money and might not be able to resign his players, but we don't know that yet.

However to say because he doesn't want to start from scratch means he doesn't have what it takes, well to be nice it doesn't compute.


Building a franchise from the depths of despair is hard work, but it can be done, and it has been done. But it takes a committment not just from ownership, but from the entire organization including the fanbase....especially the fanbase! Right now our Pacers biggest problem as a franchise lacking focus and direction is that they have no faith in us as fans to stick around thru the darkness of a total collapse and rebirth, they believe they must keep selling us the snake oil of playoff attempts and minor tweaks in order to keep us around, when in fact the exact opposite is true.

I disagree with your conclusion. Hardcore fans will be at games no matter what. But most fans are just front runners. They won't make a commitment because they only show up when the Pacers are winning. The Pacer brass know this and that's why they try to win and rebuild at the same time.

I think this statement is sad, but true: "The Pacers aren't just bad, the are UNINTERESTING." It is time for the franchise to accept the fact that building a new franchise from the ground up is what is needed.

Disagree again. I don't think the Pacers are uninteresting. And I really disagree that what is needed is to build from the ground up. What you do is make moves that you think will improve your team, and this is something you try to do all year long.

Will the Simon's step up and buy guys out if needed? Do they truly want to win and win the right way?

The Simon's have already proved themselves!!!!!!!!!

Peck
01-31-2008, 05:43 AM
Actually Will beat me to it but I wanted to register my disagreement as well.

Not that I think what Tbird is saying is wrong, nor do I disagree with his premis.

I just want everybody who believes that the tearing down of a franchise and rebuilding with youth is a sure thing to understand that there are no sure things.

Remember for every Tim Duncan there is a Michael Olawakandi for every LaBron James there is an Andrea Bargnani (btw Bargnani is not a bad player, far from it, but he is not a franchise player either).

Lest we forget that the Pacers are where we are right now because we built through youth as well. Yes that's right, not 4 years ago we were considered a young team as well.

It netted us one 61 win season (some love it others don't but the fact is they did win 61 games that season and went to the ECF) but other than that one season we have had years of mediocrity and now the last couple of years we have had crap.

Just because you draft high and for that matter even talented players does not mean that they will gell.

Also this nonsense of trading Danny away for a player who is younger and better???? Um, well I don't even know how to respond to that.

It's the same mentality that every June starts looking at draft picks as though they are sure fire superstars.

While there is no one sure fire way to win a title in the NBA there are a couple of time tested and true ways of getting to be one of the elite teams.

1. Draft a superstar, best player on the planet.

2. Build a team of better than average players with two or three all-star or borderline all-star players and a great group of role players.

Option 1 is a no brainer, or is it? Kevin Garnett had one or two years of true success in Min. but spent over a decade mired on a poor or middle of the road team and nobody is going to argue that Kevin wasn't at one time one of the if not the best players in the NBA.

Option 2 sounds good as well but only the Pistons (both old and new) have ever really reached the promised land with this type of team.

Also for those of you who believe that spending a ton of money will win a title I give you the current N.Y. Knicks.

On the other hand for those of you who believe that being thriftfull with the money will get you to the top I give you the L.A. Clippers.

In other words what I'm saying is there is NO easy guaranteed way to build a team.

Everybody wants to say Portland, fine. But for every Portland I give you Milwaukee, Minnesota and Atlanta. Everybody is raving about the success of Atlanta yet the last I looked they had a losing record and were only playoff contenders because they were in the East.

We have good solid players on our team right now. What we lack is a core group who will get you to the top.

Nobody can tell me that if you replace the names Jermaine O'Neal and Jamaal Tinsley with Tim Duncan and Tony Parker that the group around them would not be good enough to be one of the better teams in the East if not the NBA.

Yes, we need some talent upgrades. However why throw out everything when right now we could not lose to get to the top 5 without some lottery help.

Even if we got to the top 5 can you guarantee the person we pick will be able to step in and be "the man" and not be a player who may take 3-4 years to develop.

Granger is still making some mistakes at this stage of his career and he has had the opprotunity to play many more min. than a lot of players at this stage of thier careers because of our ever present personnel problems.

Can you guarantee that whoever comes in next won't make the same mistakes?

What is your time frame for a winner if you do this btw?

3, 4, 6 years?

If you draft a point guard this year, do you draft a shooting guard the following year? Are you going to draft a position a year till you get your 5 man starting unit?

Look I'm not saying don't make a trade. Far from it.

I also understand to get anything of value out of Tinsley or O'Neal that one of the young players will have to be packaged up.

I believe that Ike has the "P" word still attatched to him so I feel you could package him up with Jamaal and get something decent in return.

I am not kidding myself either, I know we are nowhere near a title contender. But I just disagree with this prevailing notion that sinking to the bottom will bring you back to the top.

Get a better than average point guard, give up on this crazy small ball lineup and get a decent draft pick and let's see what we can do next summer.

Look you are not going to get back a draft pick and a great player for Tinsley but as an example of something you could do would be.

Jamaal and Ike to Seattle for Dalonte West and Chris Wilcox.

Wilcox would give us more beef up front and West may fit better in a system like O'Briens and if it didn't work out West contract ends this year and Wilcox ends next year so if nothing else you got rid of your salary you were committed to Jamaal for two years early.

West is just extra scraps for the Sonics and you might sucker them into believeing that Ike might match up well with Durant.

Jermaine is going to be tricky but it can be done. We may have to take back a player we don't want as well.

Overall creative trades, good solid free agent signings and smart draft picks to me would right the ship better and faster than take the crapshoot that is the lottery.

However, much like tbird these are just my opinions and I could be wrong.

Again, I am not disagreeing with the feeling that something needs to be done though.

d_c
01-31-2008, 06:07 AM
Jamaal and Ike to Seattle for Dalonte West and Chris Wilcox.

Wilcox would give us more beef up front and West may fit better in a system like O'Briens and if it didn't work out West contract ends this year and Wilcox ends next year so if nothing else you got rid of your salary you were committed to Jamaal for two years early.

West is just extra scraps for the Sonics and you might sucker them into believeing that Ike might match up well with Durant.

Chris Wilcox isn't a worldbeater, but he's a better player than Ike and he's a only 1 year older. He's also signed to a reasonable deal. And a rebuilding team like the Sonics doesn't need a middle aged player like Tinsley who still has a long term contract and would most likely sulk if placed on such a rebuilding squad.

From a Sonics perspective, there really isn't much reason to do that deal.

Unclebuck
01-31-2008, 09:06 AM
I'm in agreement with what you had to say T-bird, BUT its too bad that TPTB will continue to insist that a rebuilding effort will bring a swift death to this franchise.

I hate to say it, but I have a feeling that ownership/managment are too afraid to rebuild, so we can only look forward to more slogans and tweaks.

Either way, I can't see fewer folks in the stands then there are now. Too bad TPTB can't see this.

I mentioned to Mal and Seth at the game versus Detroit...The people in the stands now are the people that really want to be here. We all seemed to agree that these are the same people that would be here thru a rebuilding effort.

Isn't the franchise already dead, I sure feel like it is. The attendance I think is the lowest it is going to go, so I agree with you Gnome. But I disagree with you on your point about TPTB not seeing it - I am 100% confident that the see it as clearly as we do.


I do want to say something about the reference to the Colts. The Colts franchise turned around for one reason and IMO only one reason. Peyton Manning. Ok, you say well then the Pacers have to suck really bad and get the top pick - unfortunately that isn't good enough. You have to get the top pick in the right year. And the "right year" in the NBA draft comes around about every 4 years or so. Most years the top pick isn't a franchise player, so there is hardly any guarantee that sucking really bad is going to help - you have to be lucky also.

Look at the Cavs - they were probably the worst frnachise in the NBA for a few years there, attendance was horrible, no one cared, until they got lucky and got Lebron James and he singlehandily saved and turned the entire franchise around - otherwise they would still be last in the standings and last in attendance right now. Getting Andrew Bogout would not have helped the Cavs at all.

I just don't see the Pacers in that bad of a place right now, a couple of smart trades and a little luck and things can turn around very, very quickly. One thing about the NBA - it only takes one - it really only takes one player to turn a whole franchise around.

Edit: went back and read the whole thread - I am in agreement with Peck and Will

Kofi
01-31-2008, 09:24 AM
I don't agree that rebuilding would be the death of our franchise. We may lose a little more for a few years, but that'll be outweighed by the sense of rejuvenation from a long overdue change, the fans that reject the team due to the reputation of J.O. and Tinsley, and a sense of excitement from the new guys coming in, especially the rookies.

Things may look bleak now, but throw in an O.J. Mayo to pair up with Granger, and suddenly things aren't looking so bad.

aceace
01-31-2008, 10:13 AM
I have to agree with Peck,Will and UB. There are no guarantees. Our problem for the past few years is late nights out on the town and injuries. JO has not practiced for the past year and a half. Tinsley mostly injured for the past 3 years. I believe you can rebuild a little if you can find a trading partner to get those 2 contracts off the books. The fan base is definitely sending a message. What I do not understand is why Ike isn't playing, he's young and has a big upside. I say put this guy in and give him some consecutive 36 minute games. I really don't want to play Boston in the first round of the playoffs. I would rather get all the young guys as many minutes this year as possible and prepare for next year, . We really have to gamble a little at this point and try and find a way to get Eric Gordon. He's the only guy coming in the draft (IMHO:he will turn pro) that would definitely sell seats. If we could trade and get a couple picks and trade them for maybe the 5th pick if Gordon's available.

Elgin56
01-31-2008, 10:48 AM
I thought someone would disagree with a lot of this before now. No one has so I will.

[quote=thunderbird1245;649683]The time has come for our franchise and its leaders to face the bitter truth: The era of the Pacers being playoff contenders is over. We all recognize as members of Pacer Nation that our team is far away from a championship, and is likely to miss the playoffs. Attendance is down, enthusiasm is down, and there is a malaise hanging over our franchise. Our team's spirit is down, our city has it's attention span elsewhere, and the enthusiasm and civic pride our Pacers once provided has slipped into our memory banks, far removed from the reality of the current day. I recognize this, so do most of you reading this.

Because Bird is so closed mouthed, and he doesn't tell people what he is really thinking it's not possible to read what he really believes. Of course in his position he's going to put a positive spin on things.


I understand the Pacers thinking in trying to make us into a playoff team this season. They don't think we as a fanbase can tolerate a total rebuild,

I don't know what they think myself. As for the fanbase I think most will only show up for a winner.

and perhaps in the casual fans thinking they are correct, I don't know. I'm sure memories of telethons, curtains, and half filled arenas have influenced their thinking and their goals, but it's time for the Pacers top brass to finally grasp that Indianapolis and the surrounding pockets of fans aren't the same as 20 years ago, we aren't just happy having a team, we crave being a championship level franchise. We also know are savvy enough in my opinion to realize that reaching the mountain top sometimes means you need to start the journey in the deepest valley. The time to start the trek toward the summit of success needs to start now.

It's been said over and over that the best time to make trades is the off season, not mid season.

It's time for Larry Bird to admit to himself that we simply lack the talent necessary to win.

We don't lack the talent to win. We lack the healthy players to win. Which I guess is really the same thing.

It's also way past time to begin planning a way to slowly over time acquire the kind of talented assets and people who can lead us not to being good, but to being extraordinarily good.

This is what every GM tries to do.

But let it be known that the Colts started this from the depths of being the worst franchise in the NFL, accepted that fact, and totally remade how they thought and how they built.

Flat out disagree.


It's time for this: If Larry Bird doesn't want to re-build, doesn't want to start from scratch and build a true team on a solid foundation instead of the quicksand he inherited, then he apparently lacks the creativity and vision that it takes to do this job. If that is the case, then he needs to be shown the door and thanked for his service.

What? Starting from scratch means getting rid of everybody and starting over, and because Bird doesn't want to start from scratch that means he lacks what it takes to do the job?

You could be right about Bird not being good at his job. For one he's tight with money and might not be able to resign his players, but we don't know that yet.

However to say because he doesn't want to start from scratch means he doesn't have what it takes, well to be nice it doesn't compute.


Building a franchise from the depths of despair is hard work, but it can be done, and it has been done. But it takes a committment not just from ownership, but from the entire organization including the fanbase....especially the fanbase! Right now our Pacers biggest problem as a franchise lacking focus and direction is that they have no faith in us as fans to stick around thru the darkness of a total collapse and rebirth, they believe they must keep selling us the snake oil of playoff attempts and minor tweaks in order to keep us around, when in fact the exact opposite is true.

I disagree with your conclusion. Hardcore fans will be at games no matter what. But most fans are just front runners. They won't make a commitment because they only show up when the Pacers are winning. The Pacer brass know this and that's why they try to win and rebuild at the same time.

I think this statement is sad, but true: "The Pacers aren't just bad, the are UNINTERESTING." It is time for the franchise to accept the fact that building a new franchise from the ground up is what is needed.

Disagree again. I don't think the Pacers are uninteresting. And I really disagree that what is needed is to build from the ground up. What you do is make moves that you think will improve your team, and this is something you try to do all year long.

Will the Simon's step up and buy guys out if needed? Do they truly want to win and win the right way?

The Simon's have already proved themselves!!!!!!!!!


I would have to agree with your line of thinking. I think that the frustration of losing has stirred up the temptation to blow up this team and start over, easier said than done, imo. To use a carpenter's analogy, when remodeling save the good and get rid of the bad.

Unclebuck
01-31-2008, 11:03 AM
See, I think the pacers have some very good role or complementary players - all they need are two star or primary players.

Players like Foster, Dunleavy, Granger, even Murphy are excellent role players, but they need the "star players" to complement what they are capable of doing.

Hicks
01-31-2008, 11:08 AM
I lean more towards where Peck/Will/UB are going, though not completely.

Why does a lotto pick have to be seen as either "franchise star or bust"? Who says that pick can't be a Luol Deng, a Mark Jackson, a Dale Davis, a Josh Howard level or type of player? I sure as hell would feel good walking away with a player on one of those levels. Well, maybe not another )(*)ing small forward, but say that level of player who is a PG or a big man? Hell yes I would welcome that.

It seems to me most are saying "lotto = superstar!" and the rest are saying "lotto = tiny chance of superstar, so it's not worth getting there!". The truth is that there's a tiny chance you get a franchise player, but at the same time you are still in a great position to get a good to very good player who you will want on your team for years to come. A quality starting player in the NBA.

Now, where I swing back the other way is this: I don't want to have a fire sale of Danny Granger, Mike Dunleavy, Jeff Foster just to get there. Because then you've cut off your left foot for a pair of right feet. In other words, you already had what you're looking for, and you're spinning in place. The way to lotto is to stay the course, let it take you to the lotto WITHOUT trading away more talent, and let the new player ADD TO YOUR TALENT. I'm just hoping our pick is around 10 or 11. I think we can get a future starting-caliber player or if it's a PG an immediate starting player who we'll just have to live with some mistakes the first few years.

In other words, while you don't want to keep breathing life into a bad team just to limp to an 8th seed (by making "win now" trades), you also don't want to trade your precious few assets (Granger, Dunleavy, Foster, and Shawne if you believe in his future) just to get new assets. Let this team be what it is, and that should land you a pretty good pick all by itself, and then next year you've got one more asset than you did before. If you can also trade players you don't think are a part of your future (Ike Diogu) to get another pick, then do it, but hold on to the guys you really like. Don't trade young talent for younger talent.

themayhem87
01-31-2008, 11:14 AM
The problem is we have known we have to rebuild for a while now...pretty much two years. Bird has yet to act on the rebuilding process and i honestly think he still believes only minor changes need to be made. We need young talent and prospects. Bottom Line. Portland is the epitimy of what the pacers should be trying to achieve. Draft smart, effiecient players who have no character issues and deal the players that do. Its sad to think about the young talent we had on the 03-04 team: Bender (ruined by injuries), Al, Tinsley (played great with Reggie), Fred Jones,Foster, Jermaine (3rd in MVP voting that year). And none of them developed like we had all hoped.

Rajah Brown
01-31-2008, 11:17 AM
Lotto= valuable asset. It could be used in a variety of ways.

NapTonius Monk
01-31-2008, 11:18 AM
Everything rises and falls on GM savvy. So the real question is if L-Bird is the man to take us forward. The freedom to spend in the wrong hands = Knicks. A multitude of draft picks means nothing if you're not a great talent evaluator. So, it's good to pick up assets like cash and picks, but it still comes down to what we do with those things that will determine our future. How many teams are in rebuild purgatory right now, and have been there for longer than 3 years. That seems to be a prevalent thought, that if we seek the route to tear everything down, we would be back in the running 3 yrs from now. For some that went that rte, they are still waiting to turn the corner a decade later. We're going to have to exercise some patience. It may be next season before we could do some things, when we have some expiring contracts, and another year lopped off of some of the albatross deals on our roster.

I will say that I don't agree that Danny and Dun don't fit together. I think they play well off each other. Someone mentioned a Wilcox/Delonte West proposal, and I think that would be a great fit for what we have. Wilcox wouldn't need to be the focal point of the offense, and West would provide stability and perimeter pop at the guard position. We wouldn't have to give up the world to get guys like that. This time of year, everyone gets anxious and trigger happy, but we may need to ride out this season, and really look to the off-season before addressing our needs.

Unclebuck
01-31-2008, 11:26 AM
I lean more towards where Peck/Will/UB are going, though not completely.

Why does a lotto pick have to be seen as either "franchise star or bust"? Who says that pick can't be a Luol Deng, a Mark Jackson, a Dale Davis, a Josh Howard level or type of player? I sure as hell would feel good walking away with a player on one of those levels. Well, maybe not another )(*)ing small forward, but say that level of player who is a PG or a big man? Hell yes I would welcome that.

It seems to me most are saying "lotto = superstar!" and the rest are saying "lotto = tiny chance of superstar, so it's not worth getting there!". The truth is that there's a tiny chance you get a franchise player, but at the same time you are still in a great position to get a good to very good player who you will want on your team for years to come. A quality starting player in the NBA.

Now, where I swing back the other way is this: I don't want to have a fire sale of Danny Granger, Mike Dunleavy, Jeff Foster just to get there. Because then you've cut off your left foot for a pair of right feet. In other words, you already had what you're looking for, and you're spinning in place. The way to lotto is to stay the course, let it take you to the lotto WITHOUT trading away more talent, and let the new player ADD TO YOUR TALENT. I'm just hoping our pick is around 10 or 11. I think we can get a future starting-caliber player or if it's a PG an immediate starting player who we'll just have to live with some mistakes the first few years.

In other words, while you don't want to keep breathing life into a bad team just to limp to an 8th seed (by making "win now" trades), you also don't want to trade your precious few assets (Granger, Dunleavy, Foster, and Shawne if you believe in his future) just to get new assets. Let this team be what it is, and that should land you a pretty good pick all by itself, and then next year you've got one more asset than you did before. If you can also trade players you don't think are a part of your future (Ike Diogu) to get another pick, then do it, but hold on to the guys you really like. Don't trade young talent for younger talent.

All excellent points - don't disagree with any of it. I'm a believer in the stair-step approach to building a team. I don't agree with the approach that it is better to get really bad and then get really good - that approach I believe is more difficult. It is easier to go from 39 wins to 55 wins than it is to go from 22 wins to 55 wins. You say, well of course - but most of you (Not you Mal) want the pacers to win 22 games and you seem to think that is the best approach in order to get to 55 wins.

Mal, I agree getting a top 10 pick certainly increases a teams chances of getting a good player, and every player is a superstar or bust - there are a lot of really good players in between.

Let me ask a question, that hopefully makes my point I'm trying to make.

Let's say the Pacers could trade JO and JT to the Jazz for Boozer and Williams. (I don't consider either Jazz player a superstar - both are allstars) And let's assume no other changes are made to the roster - How good do you think the Pacers could be? I believe they would likely be a 55 win team. So I repeat my overall point, the problem with this current Pacers team is not Granger, Dunleavy and Foster - it is JO and JT. I'll repeat another one of my sayings - a team is only as good as it best one or two players. And right now that is the Pacers problem.

Hicks
01-31-2008, 11:41 AM
To those who say we've not begun rebuilding, I disagree.

Let's look at 1) The roster we had the night of the brawl 2) the roster we had at the time of the Artest trade

Stephen Jackson = traded (no, he was not FORCED to do this)
Austin Croshere = traded
Anthony Johnson = traded
James Jones = traded
Fred Jones = let go
Scot Pollard = let go
Eddie Gill = let go
Jonathan Bender = injury retirement
Ron Artest = traded (this one I grant you was forced, but I'd argue his trade truly kick-started our building)
Reggie Miller = retired
Jeff Foster = still here
Jamaal Tinsley = still here
Jermaine O'Neal = still here
David Harrison = still here

Then let's look at the guys who came in between then and the Artest trade:

Sarunas Jasikevicius = traded
Peja Stojakovic = let go because grossly overpaid by NO
Samaki Walker = let go
Danny Granger = still here

I count ten players from that era that were deliberately moved out for one reason or another. We've already been rebuilding, guys. In my eyes, we just haven't FINISHED rebuilding. That requires Jermaine, Jamaal, and David to be on different teams. After that, it's all about (not that it isn't now as well) molding a roster that fits together and can win.

Hicks
01-31-2008, 11:47 AM
Now, how to build? I think priority number one is to improve both back court positions. The new PG doesn't need to be as talented as Tinsley, but he does need to be clearly more talented than Diener and clearly be good enough to be a solid starter. Where we really hurt as well is a quality starting SG. Kareem Rush may very well be developing into that SG right now, so we'll see how things go; maybe one problem is solved. I believe our PG will come in the draft (hopefully this next one).

If/when you can address that, I'd look to getting a quality big man. This is likely where you trade one of our current talents (Granger, Dunleavy, Williams) and package one of them (or two if it's worth it) with Jeff Foster for a quality big man (PF or C).

McKeyFan
01-31-2008, 11:50 AM
Tell you what, before we throw the current team and franchise under the bus . . . why don't we first just simply . . .

GET A GOOD POINT GUARD WHO CAN SHOOT AND PLAY DEFENSE!!!

OakMoses
01-31-2008, 12:17 PM
Let's say the Pacers could trade JO and JT to the Jazz for Boozer and Williams. (I don't consider either Jazz player a superstar - both are allstars) And let's assume no other changes are made to the roster - How good do you think the Pacers could be? I believe they would likely be a 55 win team. So I repeat my overall point, the problem with this current Pacers team is not Granger, Dunleavy and Foster - it is JO and JT. I'll repeat another one of my sayings - a team is only as good as it best one or two players. And right now that is the Pacers problem.

UB, I completely agree with this statement. The question for the Pacers then becomes how do we go about getting those players. The second quetsion is do we have any of those players on the roster. Can Danny, Shawne, or Ike become those types of guys?

I'm not a tear it down and rebuild guy. I don't really think that team's win championships that way. I'd rather follow the Detroit or San Antonio model and put a good team out on the floor every year while we wait for some of our mid-late first round picks to turn into very good players. If you look at Detroit and San Antonio, Tim Duncan is the only player on either team who was a lottery pick by their current team. Detroit even completely wasted the one lottery pick they had recently.

I'm all for doing something because I think there is some dead weight that needs to be cut from this roster. For this reason I think that T-Bird's plan is reasonable. He's not suggesting a complete fire sale, just some prudent trades of guys who will never help this franchise win a title.

Also, I'm not sold on the guys at the top of this year's draft. Other than Eric Gordon, they've all got some fairly serious question marks. Mayo and Beasley have character issues. Derrick Rose has a ton of talent but has not been a stellar performer for Memphis this year. There are a bunch of young, raw big men of whom anywhere from 0-2 may pan out. Then there are some foreign dudes that nobody knows anything about. The history of international players being taken at the top of the draft is nearly as spotty as that of big guys.

All this being said, I'm for change, but I'm don't see expiring contracts and high draft picks as the holy grail for the franchise.

Unclebuck
01-31-2008, 12:29 PM
UB, I completely agree with this statement. The question for the Pacers then becomes how do we go about getting those players. The second quetsion is do we have any of those players on the roster. Can Danny, Shawne, or Ike become those types of guys?



I think of the three Williams has the best chance of becoming that type of player. Danny I don't think has the talent to ever be more than a 3rd best player on a really good team. Ike has other problems, like his inability to have a clue what to do on defense.

Infinite MAN_force
01-31-2008, 01:09 PM
I think of the three Williams has the best chance of becoming that type of player. Danny I don't think has the talent to ever be more than a 3rd best player on a really good team. Ike has other problems, like his inability to have a clue what to do on defense.

I know people are very hesitant to trade Granger, but its this reason why I think we should shop him this offseason, Williams is still fairly under the radar and Granger just flat out has a lot of value right now.

I really like some of the pieces we have but I think we badly need a center and a point guard to fix this team. I also think Shawne has the size and length to play power forward for us. I like a starting lineup that includes Rush, Dunleavy, and Williams along with a big dominant defensive minded center and a smart passing/defensive point guard.

In some ways what I am saying is I don't think we are necisarilly too far off and we might not need to dwell in the lottery basement for three years... One really nice pick and some smart moves this offseason could get us right on track.

Shade
01-31-2008, 01:22 PM
For those saying there are no guarantees, I can guarantee you this:

If we keep doing what we've been doing, we'll never be a title contender again.

It's worth the gamble. Now is the time, and Eric Gordon is the guy.

CableKC
01-31-2008, 01:31 PM
To those who say we've not begun rebuilding, I disagree.

Let's look at 1) The roster we had the night of the brawl 2) the roster we had at the time of the Artest trade

Stephen Jackson = traded (no, he was not FORCED to do this)
Austin Croshere = traded
Anthony Johnson = traded
James Jones = traded
Fred Jones = let go
Scot Pollard = let go
Eddie Gill = let go
Jonathan Bender = injury retirement
Ron Artest = traded (this one I grant you was forced, but I'd argue his trade truly kick-started our building)
Reggie Miller = retired
Jeff Foster = still here
Jamaal Tinsley = still here
Jermaine O'Neal = still here
David Harrison = still here

Then let's look at the guys who came in between then and the Artest trade:

Sarunas Jasikevicius = traded
Peja Stojakovic = let go because grossly overpaid by NO
Samaki Walker = let go
Danny Granger = still here

I count ten players from that era that were deliberately moved out for one reason or another. We've already been rebuilding, guys. In my eyes, we just haven't FINISHED rebuilding. That requires Jermaine, Jamaal, and David to be on different teams. After that, it's all about (not that it isn't now as well) molding a roster that fits together and can win.
If anything, we have been "retooling" over the last couple of seasons around JONeal. To me.....rebuilding doesn't start until JONeal is gone.

To follow Elgin56's carpentry analogy.....rebuilidng implies tearing down and building over a new foundation....we haven't done that over the last couple of seasons. We just "retooled" the key players around JONeal and replaced them with someone else.

If we were to rebuild, it would have been building around a different foundation of Granger, Shawne and whoever else you think fits in this new offense. If anything....this last month is the closest thing we have come to rebuilding since TPTB have decided to focus more on running the offense through the Wing players rather then whatever Low-Post option we have.

As someone has pointed out before......all we have been doing is putting lipstick on the same prize pig that we have been trotting out to the County Fair over the last couple of seasons. Until we get a different Prize pig and a new groomer for that pig ( which I guess we have done with JO'B ) .....we're gonna have the same results...year in and year out.

CableKC
01-31-2008, 01:38 PM
For those saying there are no guarantees, I can guarantee you this:

If we keep doing what we've been doing, we'll never be a title contender again.

It's worth the gamble. Now is the time, and Eric Gordon is the guy.
I know that many won't agree with me.....but if all it cost us was Granger to get Gordon....I would take the risk.

Gordon may or may not be a Franchise player....but at worst...he can be ( as Mal suggests ) a key cog for this team for the future. Not that Granger isn't or can't be a key cog in the future....but we are overflowing and redundant with SFs.

This would allow us to actually get a true SG while getting a player that would help draw in the common Indy fan. I know that it's stupid to consider drafting a player for PR reasons ( much like that IU player that DW ignored when decided to draft Reggie instead )....but when your team is drawing in the lowest attendance record....drafting the most recognized local IU college player isn't that bad of a move ( unless there is a clear cut player in the draft that would be an absolute "no-brainer" over Gordon ) ESPECIALLY when that player happens to be a top ranked player in college that actually fills a key position on your team.

However, if it costs us more...as in Granger+our current Draft pick......then I would probably be hesistant.

rexnom
01-31-2008, 01:48 PM
I'd give up our entire team for Eric Gordon. I mean, why not?

Infinite MAN_force
01-31-2008, 01:53 PM
I know that many won't agree with me.....but if all it cost us was Granger to get Gordon....I would take the risk.

But if it costs us more....then I would probably be hesistant.

what about say the #10 pick + Granger, which is probably the only realistic scenario (unless we land a top 3), and that is only if a team is really looking to upgrade the SF position.

I might do it, it might be overpaying, but I'm worried about the current state of affairs. It might not solve all our problems, but it could solve the attendance problem. It's certainly a step in the right direction.

Rajah Brown
01-31-2008, 01:55 PM
Cable-

Given where we are and where we're likely to finish (with a draft slot
roughly between 9 and 15, the question will likely be wether we'd be
willing to include DG with our pick in exchange for a slot high enough
to grab EJ. Given our backcourt woes, I'd be ok with it. But many
who revere DG for whatever reason probably wouldn't.

Or alternatively, we could settle for Bayless who's game I LOVE and
who might well end up being as good an NBA player as EJ in the long
run.

CableKC
01-31-2008, 02:05 PM
Cable-

Given where we are and where we're likely to finish (with a draft slot
roughly between 9 and 15, the question will likely be wether we'd be
willing to include DG with our pick in exchange for a slot high enough
to grab EJ. Given our backcourt woes, I'd be ok with it. But many
who revere DG for whatever reason probably wouldn't.

Or alternatively, we could settle for Bayless who's game I LOVE and
who might well end up being as good an NBA player as EJ in the long
run.
If we are good enough to actually get a 13th to 15th pick ( assuming that Thabeet was gone ;) ), I may consider it...but would probably want something of "some value" ( like some decent backup player that would actually fit our needs ) back in return as well as the rights to Gordon.

If we had the 10th to 12th pick....then I would be on the fence.

But if it's Granger and a top 5th to 10th pick for Gordon....unless he was a guaranteed Franchise player....I would think that it would be too much. The problem isn't giving up Granger....it's giving up a player that would be drafted in that range. Assuming that we actually have a decent Scouting staff and knowing that there are no guarantees....we could actually draft a very solid player in the future.

Shade
01-31-2008, 02:17 PM
I know that many won't agree with me.....but if all it cost us was Granger to get Gordon....I would take the risk.

Gordon may or may not be a Franchise player....but at worst...he can be ( as Mal suggests ) a key cog for this team for the future. Not that Granger isn't or can't be a key cog in the future....but we are overflowing and redundant with SFs.

This would allow us to actually get a true SG while getting a player that would help draw in the common Indy fan. I know that it's stupid to consider drafting a player for PR reasons ( much like that IU player that DW ignored when decided to draft Reggie instead )....but when your team is drawing in the lowest attendance record....drafting the most recognized local IU college player isn't that bad of a move ( unless there is a clear cut player in the draft that would be an absolute "no-brainer" over Gordon ) ESPECIALLY when that player happens to be a top ranked player in college that actually fills a key position on your team.

However, if it costs us more...as in Granger+our current Draft pick......then I would probably be hesistant.

Granger is the one guy I'd want to keep on this current Pacers team, but I'd still deal him with our draft pick for Gordon. Granger will never be as good as EJ.

Unclebuck
01-31-2008, 02:25 PM
Granger is the one guy I'd want to keep on this current Pacers team, but I'd still deal him with our draft pick for Gordon. Granger will never be as good as EJ.

But if Gordon is as good as you suggest, why would at team trade him for Granger and lets say the 10th pick in the draft. (Plus I don't think the Pacers can trade their first round draft pick this year because they traded last years away)

CableKC
01-31-2008, 02:25 PM
Granger is the one guy I'd want to keep on this current Pacers team, but I'd still deal him with our draft pick for Gordon. Granger will never be as good as EJ.
I agree on this.....a straight up "Granger for the rights to Gordon" trade would be one of the very few trades scenarios that I would be okay with that involved him.

CableKC
01-31-2008, 02:28 PM
But if Gordon is as good as you suggest, why would at tream him for Granger and lets say the 10th pick in the draft. (Plus I don't think the pacers can trade their first round draft pick this year because they traded last years away)
Anything up to the 14th to 15th Pick ( which I don't think that we are good enough to actually get ), I would be hesitant.

But if we somehow "barely miss the Playoffs" or ( God-willing ) we actually make the Playoffs and land that mid-round draft pick...I would consider it as long as we get something else in return ( like some solid Backup Player that filled one of the many holes that this team has in its roster ).

Rajah Brown
01-31-2008, 02:29 PM
Cable-

Agreed if we have a slot in the #5-8 range. In that case, if EJ
was gone, I'd probably settle for Bayless and either hang on
to DG or move him in a seperate deal.

Dr. Goldfoot
01-31-2008, 02:40 PM
(Plus I don't think the pacers can trade their first round draft pick this year because they traded last years away)


I think the rule is you can't trade multiple 1st rounders at once. Meaning you can't trade your next five 1st rounders for Lebron. I also think you can't trade this years for one player then a few weeks later trade next years. I think you can trade one last year wait until the next season is going and trade next years etc....I think the rule just means you can't trade more than one of your own 1st rounders in any given season. But you can trade picks you've accumulated or trade consecutive picks just not all at once or in the same season.


I think

Bball
01-31-2008, 02:43 PM
I think some of you have misread some or all of what T-Bird was saying. ...Or else I have...

We might've made several player changes over the past few years but never to the core. Everything has been with Jermaine O Neal and Jamaal Tinsley in the picture as our most important players. These are players that need to succeed or else we're building on a faulty foundation. Well, guess what... these are players who are not succeeding. You can fill in the blank as to why, but surely no one is left to defend either player as 'succeeding' as an Indiana Pacer.

T-Bird isn't saying we should intentionally suck to get a higher pick. As I read it, he's saying we should simply coach and operate the team from a position of being willing to accept losses in the short term for some long term gain. You're still trying to win, but you're trying to do it with guys more in tune with the system and who can grow in the system. We gain nothing to milk a few extra wins out of a team centered around JO and JT because these are two players that aren't going to be part of a future contending Pacer team. JT won't be because he's part of the problem on the court in the first place (cancer, non team player).

JO won't be because his game has been in reverse for some time AND the Pacers are trying to go in a direction that is just going to be worse for JO. Then factor in his contract!

I've thought for a while that we have a logjam problem with Dunleavy/Granger/Williams. They are all too similar but with pros and cons that are different making it difficult to move forward. Williams is getting little playing time so that confuses things even more...

Since Williams isn't getting minutes the logjam on the court is not necessarily going to be solved by moving Williams. Williams is just the mystery man because you don't know if he has a higher ceiling than those other two because he's not playing. Is he not playing because he's not got a higher ceiling or is it because the guys in front of him give us a better chance to win 'now'? If I was TPTB the question I'd ponder is if I could move Danny for a quicker SG with some defensive ability or a consistent PG (with a solid defensive game), would that allow Dun to move to SF? Even if we lose some scoring is it addition thru subtraction overall? Would Dun's overall rounded game be more effective as a true SF?

Or... do you trade Dun and stick with Danny? The same questions could be asked.

If you get a PG then Rush is your starting SG. If you get a SG then we still have PG issues to address down the road.

Then additionally that will open some minutes for Williams to develop and see what we have there.

As much as I'd hate to lose either player (Danny-Dun), that is a position that I just see too much redundancy plus the need to keep them both on the court is creating a weakness in the backcourt and/or taking time away from Rush.

Yes, you can play small-ball to rectify some of that... but I think that is just silly. That's not our best 'team'. That's just a way to get our best players on the court at the same time BUT it just points out how flawed our lineup is that we'd have to do that. It's too unbalanced. You just move the problem around.

You could move Dunleavy or Granger to 6th man, and that's probably what I would do before going "small ball"... but I don't know that is a viable long term solution. I'd prefer trading one of the two for a position of need and then seeing what the draft gets us.

But I don't think anyone is saying have a fire sale for those two guys (or Williams).

As for Tinsley... yes... have a firesale. JO... if we can dump his contract then you have to do it.

Foster you could keep as a glue guy but I'd sure want to know what I could get if he was on the market, especially with some of the other guys.

-Bball

Gyron
01-31-2008, 02:55 PM
My god, some of you seem to think Gordon is going to be the third or 4th coming of Micheal Jordan(depends on if you consider Oden a 3rd coming).


I have no doubts he's good and could be very good in the NBA, but We have some proven talent in Granger, One of the few real gems we have on the team and you want to trade him away for something unproven? I don't agree.

NapTonius Monk
01-31-2008, 03:07 PM
I'd give up our entire team for Eric Gordon. I mean, why not?

Because I think this is a drastic overestimation of Gordon. He's good, and I think he'll be a good NBA player, but I don't know that I see him being "get him at all cost" good. Possibly from the standpoint of PR, you make a stronger push to get him, but from a talent standpoint in this draft, Gordon wouldn't be the one I'd pursue on that level. I'd say either Beasley or Rose fall into that category IMHO.

Unclebuck
01-31-2008, 03:19 PM
I think the rule is you can't trade multiple 1st rounders at once. Meaning you can't trade your next five 1st rounders for Lebron. I also think you can't trade this years for one player then a few weeks later trade next years. I think you can trade one last year wait until the next season is going and trade next years etc....I think the rule just means you can't trade more than one of your own 1st rounders in any given season. But you can trade picks you've accumulated or trade consecutive picks just not all at once or in the same season.


I think

I pretty sure that is not correct.

Kofi
01-31-2008, 03:24 PM
I was under the impression the rule was you can't trade consecutive future 1st round draft picks. Meaning, as long as we still have our 2009 1st, we can trade our 2008 1st. 2007 is in the past, it's no longer relevant to the rule.

Dr. Goldfoot
01-31-2008, 03:31 PM
Sorry. I should have just typed...the rule only applies to future draft picks. The Pacers traded away last years pick it is no longer a future pick. They can't trade a 2008 and a 2009. They can trade a 2008 and after that draft they can trade the 2009 if the want.

d_c
01-31-2008, 03:34 PM
But if Gordon is as good as you suggest, why would at team trade him for Granger and lets say the 10th pick in the draft. (Plus I don't think the Pacers can trade their first round draft pick this year because they traded last years away)

In short, they probably wouldn't.

If the Pacers had the #3 or 4 pick in the draft and could get Gordon with that pick, would they bother taking a trade of the #9 pick and some player the level of Granger?

They probably wouldn't mess around and they'd just take Gordon.

The rule on first round draft picks is that you can't have two consecutive FUTURE 1st round picks traded away at ONE SIMULTANEOUS TIME. The Pacers can trade their pick away right now because they don't have any future 1st round picks traded away.

What they can't do is trade away their 2008 and 2009 picks away right now in some deal. And in any case, if you want to trade a pick, you can always use the pick to draft for another team, and then trade it. There is no rule against trading a player you just drafted. You could do that ever year if you wanted to.

Dr. Goldfoot
01-31-2008, 03:38 PM
Furthermore, if some crazy thing happened and the Pacers acquired an extra pick in the 2009 draft and an extra pick in the 2010 draft they could trade three consecutive first rounders. The rule is you have to a pick in future drafts. Once the draft is completed it all starts again. Theoretically, you could never actually pick in the first round again. You can only trade picks five years away though so you can't trade a pick in 2033.

Dr. Goldfoot
01-31-2008, 03:40 PM
At least not until 2028 anyways.

Dr. Goldfoot
01-31-2008, 03:40 PM
Also if you're trading a pick for a pick you're golden anyways cause you'd have a pick.

Elgin56
01-31-2008, 03:59 PM
I think some of you have misread some or all of what T-Bird was saying. ...Or else I have...

We might've made several player changes over the past few years but never to the core. Everything has been with Jermaine O Neal and Jamaal Tinsley in the picture as our most important players. These are players that need to succeed or else we're building on a faulty foundation. Well, guess what... these are players who are not succeeding. You can fill in the blank as to why, but surely no one is left to defend either player as 'succeeding' as an Indiana Pacer.

T-Bird isn't saying we should intentionally suck to get a higher pick. As I read it, he's saying we should simply coach and operate the team from a position of being willing to accept losses in the short term for some long term gain. You're still trying to win, but you're trying to do it with guys more in tune with the system and who can grow in the system. We gain nothing to milk a few extra wins out of a team centered around JO and JT because these are two players that aren't going to be part of a future contending Pacer team. JT won't be because he's part of the problem on the court in the first place (cancer, non team player).

JO won't be because his game has been in reverse for some time AND the Pacers are trying to go in a direction that is just going to be worse for JO. Then factor in his contract!

I've thought for a while that we have a logjam problem with Dunleavy/Granger/Williams. They are all too similar but with pros and cons that are different making it difficult to move forward. Williams is getting little playing time so that confuses things even more...

Since Williams isn't getting minutes the logjam on the court is not necessarily going to be solved by moving Williams. Williams is just the mystery man because you don't know if he has a higher ceiling than those other two because he's not playing. Is he not playing because he's not got a higher ceiling or is it because the guys in front of him give us a better chance to win 'now'? If I was TPTB the question I'd ponder is if I could move Danny for a quicker SG with some defensive ability or a consistent PG (with a solid defensive game), would that allow Dun to move to SF? Even if we lose some scoring is it addition thru subtraction overall? Would Dun's overall rounded game be more effective as a true SF?

Or... do you trade Dun and stick with Danny? The same questions could be asked.

If you get a PG then Rush is your starting SG. If you get a SG then we still have PG issues to address down the road.

Then additionally that will open some minutes for Williams to develop and see what we have there.

As much as I'd hate to lose either player (Danny-Dun), that is a position that I just see too much redundancy plus the need to keep them both on the court is creating a weakness in the backcourt and/or taking time away from Rush.

Yes, you can play small-ball to rectify some of that... but I think that is just silly. That's not our best 'team'. That's just a way to get our best players on the court at the same time BUT it just points out how flawed our lineup is that we'd have to do that. It's too unbalanced. You just move the problem around.

You could move Dunleavy or Granger to 6th man, and that's probably what I would do before going "small ball"... but I don't know that is a viable long term solution. I'd prefer trading one of the two for a position of need and then seeing what the draft gets us.

But I don't think anyone is saying have a fire sale for those two guys (or Williams).

As for Tinsley... yes... have a firesale. JO... if we can dump his contract then you have to do it.

Foster you could keep as a glue guy but I'd sure want to know what I could get if he was on the market, especially with some of the other guys.

-Bball


He said trade Foster and Dun, so how does that help if he also said that it is a given that JO and Tins are gone? Doesn't leave much of a team if you ask me.

Naptown_Seth
01-31-2008, 04:10 PM
What is the world coming to when Peck and I start agreeing so often? F'in chaos man, Cloverfield-caliber chaos.


The GS trade made several points IMO. One, you just can't trust the fans. They didn't want to come because of Jack. He was moved. Even less people started coming to games.

So let them boo, just win.

Second, you can't win on "chemistry" as built by "good guy" trades. Troy came in and put up that nice message in the Star. He's very likable. So is Mike. They try, and at times both can really help your team.

Yet neither have been in a playoff winning situation yet. It's starting to look like a pattern. For all the talk from the Pacers about a better locker room, what has that produced in on-court product? Jack squat.

In other words, you can't make WINNING chemistry happen. You can tinker and hope, but you can't be certain.

Third, you should avoid trading into longer and more expensive contracts, at least if the talent adjustment seems at best slightly better and at worst actually less than you are giving up.

You could have always traded Al or Jackson or both to other situations. You could have won out with those 2 and perhaps still made the playoffs. No damage to your pick since it goes to ATL, but playoffs help the bottom line. THEN you deal those players for picks or contract improvements.

You only deal for an expensive deal if it's THE guy to put you over the top. The Pacers weren't adding a guy, they were just swapping guys. And the guys they were swapping for weren't winning either, and in fact had a worse history of losing games. Not only that, but by position need it was a big hit, giving up a PG, SG, SF to get a SF, PF and C when you had Danny and Shawne already?



With all those aspects in mind, I'd hope the TPTB have learned their lesson. Oddly I thought they already knew this lesson by how they were willing to sit and wait out an Artest deal.

But then they panicked for Al, throwing in a pick that ATL had no biz getting, and then knee-jerking to the anti-Jackson mood in Conseco despite the fact that the team was above .500 and playing half their games on the road away from those fans.

No more panic deals. And it's funny because of this rep of dealing too slow. What's hurt them most is the recent rushed deals with ATL and GS.

Shade
01-31-2008, 04:35 PM
But if Gordon is as good as you suggest, why would at team trade him for Granger and lets say the 10th pick in the draft. (Plus I don't think the Pacers can trade their first round draft pick this year because they traded last years away)

Because a lot of GM's don't think the same way I do?

Wade fell to 5th in his draft class. I have the same feeling about EJ I did about Wade, and look how that turned out.

Naptown_Seth
01-31-2008, 04:38 PM
Sorry. I should have just typed...the rule only applies to future draft picks. The Pacers traded away last years pick it is no longer a future pick. They can't trade a 2008 and a 2009. They can trade a 2008 and after that draft they can trade the 2009 if the want.
And of course after the pick is made I think trading the "rights" is a whole new thing too.

As Goldfoot says, the Pacers couldn't trade their 08 and 09 1st round picks right now to get a player. Not sure how that works if it's to get a 1st round pick in return. Ultimately a team can never have 2 years pending with no 1st round pick in either, that part I'm sure on.

Rajah Brown
01-31-2008, 05:17 PM
A team like a Milwaukee, with Redd manning the SG spot, might well
rather have DG plus whomever they'd get at #10 (Thabeet, the big
kid from G-Town, etc.). Just an example.

Elgin56
01-31-2008, 05:52 PM
Yeah, it is really easy to Monday morning quarterback and then rewrite history on the GS trade. Jackson had to be moved, he saw to that. All the what ifs won't change the fact that he forced the trade with his off court and on court actions.

Hicks
01-31-2008, 07:53 PM
Bird did not have to trade Jackson. He felt pressure to, but he did not have to do it.

Hoop
01-31-2008, 08:10 PM
I thought someone would disagree with a lot of this before now. No one has so I will.





I would have to agree with your line of thinking. I think that the frustration of losing has stirred up the temptation to blow up this team and start over, easier said than done, imo. To use a carpenter's analogy, when remodeling save the good and get rid of the bad.
I lean to this way of thinking, of course T-Bird has some valid points as always.

Elgin56
01-31-2008, 09:32 PM
Bird did not have to trade Jackson. He felt pressure to, but he did not have to do it.


Technicaly your correct, however practicaly your not. It's like saying the driver killed by someone running a red light, sure he had the green light and was right, but he was also dead right.

Hicks
01-31-2008, 09:37 PM
Actually, I think Bird thought/was convinced he had to, when in reality he didn't have to, and went ahead with a trade.

This is not to say I want Jackson back (though part of me is curious); he had his own club incident while he was here, and of course he had issues with the coach and referees as well. It wasn't all sunshine here by any stretch. I'm still more glad than not that we're done with him, though like with Artest I miss the pure basketball ability.

Infinite MAN_force
01-31-2008, 09:52 PM
I'm very glad to have dunleavy instead of jackson, I just wish it would have been a straight up trade.

We could have gotten rid of Al without taking on murphy's contract. I would have been happy with an expiring contract and a first rounder. Diogu hasn't come close to proving it was worth it yet.

BlueNGold
01-31-2008, 10:00 PM
Bird did not have to trade Jackson. He felt pressure to, but he did not have to do it.

Correct. Also, the team WITH Jack and Al was better.

But none of that really matters if you really care about competing for a championship. Even with Al and Jack, that team was not that good. Maybe a little above .500 and probably first round fodder for Detroit. Now we are a little above .400 and probably have a shot at the lottery. I would prefer that for a couple years over 9 straight years of one an outs with JO losing a body part every other month.

The truth is, once Reggie Miller and Ron Artest left the team, it was over. Al and Jack are a lame shadow of those two guys. We should have immediately traded the overrated JO a long time ago, but for some reason people enjoy their slowly sinking ship.

Oh well...

The good news is, this TPTB is still pretty good at choosing picks in the draft. They should have better options in the next few years...

Peck
01-31-2008, 10:54 PM
Why are we back to saying Larry Bird traded Jackson?

Chris Mullin has said the Donnie Walsh made the trade. Larry Bird has said Donnie Walsh made the trade. Donnie Walsh has said Donnie Walsh made the trade.

I have a feeling that some of you, not you Hicks, would still try and pin this trade on Bird if we had a film of Donnie making the trade with all of the recordings of the voice phone converstaions.

I'll say it again.

DONNIE WALSH made the trade, it was the last trade that he made for our team. Like the trade or hate the trade let's at least deal with the fact that it was not Larry Bird who did this.

Dr. Goldfoot
02-01-2008, 01:26 AM
It doesn't really matter who made the trade. It was a bad trade. The Pacers are worse off for it. The team is less talented. The team is in a less desirable spot salary wise and the general fan likes the players we got in return less than those sent out.


You'll never convince me that people are more excited about Dun, Troy and Ike than they were about Jack & Al.


........or McLeod, Powell and Runi


Most people don't care that they were trouble makers it's only us guys that over and over and over analyze. And those idiots that call into local radio shows that nobody is willing to associate with.

Hicks
02-01-2008, 01:29 AM
It's more than just them, I have no doubt about it. Hell I started getting season tickets THIS SEASON and I don't like that ****.

Secondly, it does matter who made the trade because one guy is here moving forward and the other guy is leaving. If it's the guy who is leaving we may see different kinds of trades moving forward.

Roaming Gnome
02-01-2008, 01:33 AM
I have a feeling that some of you, not you Hicks, would still try and pin this trade on Bird if we had a film of Donnie making the trade with all of the recordings of the voice phone converstaions.


That film and those recordings were all doctored up! Bird was also behind the grassy knoll!

Will Galen
02-01-2008, 01:37 AM
If it's the guy who is leaving we may see different kinds of trades moving forward.


Yep and they could be bad!

avoidingtheclowns
02-01-2008, 11:22 AM
it actually was bird's trade. donnie just had to do the grunt work with mullin because bird was too busy smoking johnny cougar under the table.

BobbyMac
02-01-2008, 01:05 PM
If the Pacers blow up this team then the rebuild will take more than 3 years...more like 5+....are we willing to be the doormat that long?

Rajah Brown
02-01-2008, 01:42 PM
5 years to get where ? Back to 50+ wins ? NBA title contention ?

Depending on how 'blow it up' is defined, I don't think too many are
calling for that. And considering the unattractiveness of some of the
contracts the Pacers are lugging around, I'm not sure it's even
possible without taking back contracts just as bad.

Hicks
02-01-2008, 04:39 PM
I'm telling you, once Tinsley, O'Neal, and Harrison are gone, we have officially been "blown up". There's not a lot left before it's all about building towards a true winner again.

Elgin56
02-01-2008, 04:53 PM
I'm telling you, once Tinsley, O'Neal, and Harrison are gone, we have officially been "blown up". There's not a lot left before it's all about building towards a true winner again.


I agree! I don't think it is necessary to trade either Dun or Foster in the process, now Troy is a different matter all together.

BlueNGold
02-01-2008, 10:58 PM
I'm telling you, once Tinsley, O'Neal, and Harrison are gone, we have officially been "blown up". There's not a lot left before it's all about building towards a true winner again.

I'd go one step further. The team has already been blown up a few times now. The only thing left are couple remnants and scraps of has-beens....no, wanna be has-been players.

JO and his gumby knee are done. Tinsley's papers are all ready to sign as soon as a sucker is found...or as soon as his contract expires...whichever comes first...and he knows it. Harrison is a nothing. Basically, all you see are shrapnel and broken parts after the explosion.

BlueNGold
02-01-2008, 11:09 PM
If the Pacers blow up this team then the rebuild will take more than 3 years...more like 5+....are we willing to be the doormat that long?

Doormat? That's really a great fund raising idea. I would buy a Pacer doormat.

BTW, we are on a 5 game losing streak and will likely lose 5 of the next 6 games. ...and we will definitely go under .400.

I think that's doormat territory...

Infinite MAN_force
02-02-2008, 02:23 AM
If the Pacers blow up this team then the rebuild will take more than 3 years...more like 5+....are we willing to be the doormat that long?

I don't agree. I think we have some nice pieces right now, and one bad year (lottery pick) and a smart trade (trading one of our small forwards to upgrade another position) and you could possibly create the starting 5 of the future by next year. a year or two of development and the sky is the limit. I don't think Tinsley and JO will be around too much longer...

Question being, is our management capable of making these smart moves? eh... we will see.

JayRedd
02-02-2008, 05:10 PM
I'm just getting here now. Like most of us, I agree with the basis of TBird's initial post.

Two things though:

A) Like DC said, it's pretty unfair to compare the Simons to Paul Allen. Allen is worth $16.8 billion. The Simons, of course, are rich b@stards too, but they have a combined $3.8 billion. That's a big difference when it comes to $20 million buyouts and essentially lighting on fire the type of money it took the Blazers to make all those buy-outs, take on Ratliff, etc., etc.

B) Trading Dunleavy is a horrible idea, IMO. I don't think he has that much trade value still, comparatively to what he's worth. A half-season of improved numbers, while impressive to us and some around the League, isn't nearly enough to erase the stigma he had the first few years. People in LA, NY, Chicago, etc. are still gonna wonder if he turns back to Charmin if the press/fans start to get on him after a prolonged shooting slump or something. And his contract, while fair, is still pretty long -- a type of salary cap inflexibility many GMs will shy away from by nature.


But if Gordon is as good as you suggest, why would at team trade him for Granger and lets say the 10th pick in the draft. (Plus I don't think the Pacers can trade their first round draft pick this year because they traded last years away)

They wouldn't.


Sorry. I should have just typed...the rule only applies to future draft picks. The Pacers traded away last years pick it is no longer a future pick. They can't trade a 2008 and a 2009. They can trade a 2008 and after that draft they can trade the 2009 if the want.

This is correct.


it actually was bird's trade. donnie just had to do the grunt work with mullin because bird was too busy smoking johnny cougar under the table.

Please...John Mellencamp, dude. Cougar is not the preferred nomenclature.