PDA

View Full Version : Ok, let's look at our options.....



Peck
06-10-2004, 04:52 AM
Enough time has gone past now so that we can take an honest look at our team without looking at it through the eyes of pain or dissapointment of losing to the Pistons in the E.C. finals.

It's now conventional wisdom that a trade will/must be made to ease the glut of players we have at the small forward spot. It has been spoken by Carlisle, Bird, Walsh, local & national newsmedia. We've even talked about it on here.

What I want to do now is challenge that wisdom & see if that really is the best & only way for our team to take the next step.

Obviousley the trade fodder in the press & even somewhat the management has been Al Harrington.

Al himself helped get the ball rolling by asking that if more playing time weren't made available he would prefer a trade. Everybody assumes that by him stating "more playing time" he means starting. That's not what he said, reportedly, but I think it's a safe assumption.

The team does seem to have a glut of players who are what I call tweeners. This is not an accident btw, Walsh started in the late 90's drafting players who could fill multi-role capabilities. He felt that that was the future of the league. Watching Garnett, O'Neal, etc. it's hard to argue against him, to a point.

But I wonder if it's necassary to make the big changes that most people think we need.

Could we not make a drastic change in our team structure just by altering the starting lineup?

Instead of being forced to trade Al, who we have a lot of time & money invested into, could we not accomodate his desire to start?

People are always telling me that it doesn't matter who starts, it's just about who finishes & gets the min. Of course I have never ever agreed with that because it absolutely matters to the players & if it didn't matter they would have no problem with the following.

Bench Jeff Foster & Reggie Miller. Start Fred Jones & Al Harrington.

This gives you

C- Jermaine O'Neal
Pf- Al Harrington
Sf- Ron Artest
Sg- Fred Jones
Pg- Jamaal Tinsely

I know some are going to come on here & talk about lack of size in that starting lineup & I agree. However, I want to point out to those people (U.B.) you keep saying it doesn't matter who starts but who finishes & plays the min.

If this lineup became overwhelmed then a change can be made during the game. Besides, other than Fred, this is the lineup that finished a lot of games last season.

Now the one thing this does not do is address the outside shooting that we need. Fred seems to have grown as the season has gone on & if he works on it this summer he may get even better.

What this does do though is hold fast the fear of some (U.B.) that trading for a s.g. would affect our defense. Fred is a GREAT defender. Actually when Fred & Ron are on the floor at the same time the peremater players of the other team are usually thrown into chaos.

Al has shown time & time again, that if he starts he goes out of his way to blend into the system. Sometimes he does this to the teams detriment, but if he knew he was starting all of the time then I think he would adjust.

Offensive spacing I don't think will be that much of a problem either. Al does like to play on the blocks but he plays more on the wings while J.O. plays more to the front of the rim.

This also assures that Ron sticks with the team as well (smile U.B.).

Why is this a bad idea.

Also back to the size thing, I am going to use the whole argument that you guys use with me about Foster. How many teams really have that many big players that Al couldn't handle? How many of those same players would Al cause problems for?

Now the problem with this is several fold. Let's do this one at a time.

1. Reggie Miller. His fans won't let it go. If he stays 5 more years they are going to want/demand that Reggie start & get big min. Most of you on-line came to the realization that he should probably come off of the bench. You are in the minority. Carlisle already said he sees him starting. I'll be honest with you this is the biggest obsticle to overcome & I'm not sure it can be. Reggie Miller may cost us Al Harrington.

2. Jon Bender. This does nothing to help Jon get the solid min. he needs. Unless they relegate Foster to the 9th or 10th man spot I don't see Jon getting more than 12-15 min. a game with this lineup.

3. Jeff Foster. Foster deserves better than this. He played well all season long & did make big improvements. But at this point in time it has to come down to what helps the team the most & right now the lineup I've given you above solves some of our problems.

4. Austin Croshere. I'm not sure this is a problem because he's spent so many years now with inconsistant min. But this would be another year of that.

I'm sure there are more issues that some of you will come up with.

Ok, that is option # 1.

Let's look at another option.

Trade Al & filler for shooting guard & filler.

First off, let's erase the name T-Mac out of our minds. Al ain't going to get it done. Let's just assume Al will bring somebody like Flip Murray from Seattle (I'm not saying him but along those lines).

Thus you still have...

C- Jeff Foster
Pf- Jermaine O'Neal
Sf- Ron Artest
Sg- _____________
Pg- Jamaal Tinsely

This does solve some of your outside shooting problems. But we don't know about thier defense.

The bench does become thinned out & Bender does get his chance to get more min. per game.

Now let's look at the downside.

1. Reggie Miller. His fans won't let it go. If he stays 5 more years they are going to want/demand that Reggie start & get big min. Most of you on-line came to the realization that he should probably come off of the bench. You are in the minority. Carlisle already said he sees him starting. I'll be honest with you this is the biggest obsticle to overcome & I'm not sure it can be.

2. Jon Bender. He gets his shot, but what if he flops. What he shows there is nothing more to it & that he does not get it. You go from having a solid bench to now having your 6th man be very unreliable.

3. Austin Croshere. You now have to depend on a player who has yet to show that he will be consistant. He won't hurt you, but he may not help much either.

4. Shooting guard. The player you trade for (if it is for Al) will most likely be an up & coming player or a lesser known player. What if they don't produce. What if they can't hit the outside shot, what if they turn out to be like Ron Mercer?

That's option # 2.

Option # 3.

Ron Artest & filler is traded for star shooting guard. Insert T-Mac trade here.

Let's assume that Ron will bring a top flight player so our lineup looks like this.

C- Jeff Foster
Pf- Jermaine O'Neal
Sf- Al Harrington
Sg- T-Mac (or other star)
Pg- Jamaal Tinsely

This certainly helps the offense. Some will argue that our defense drops way down & without a doubt it will. However Carlisle's system can overcome the loss of any one player & not all s.g.'s are horrid defenders. Nobody will be on Ron's level, but they won't be on World B. Free's level either.

The other side benefit to this might be something we don't know about, it might improve team chemistry. We don't know, but it has been discussed.

Ok, the down sides to this.

1. Reggie Miller. His fans won't let it go. If he stays 5 more years they are going to want/demand that Reggie start & get big min. Most of you on-line came to the realization that he should probably come off of the bench. You are in the minority. Carlisle already said he sees him starting. I'll be honest with you this is the biggest obsticle to overcome & I'm not sure it can be.

2. Ron Artest defense. There can be no doubt, this will hurt.

3. Al Harrington. He has never had to stand up to be a starter for an entire season. Will it work?

Ok, those are just some ideas. Can we say that we really have to do option # 2 as opposed to # 1 or # 3?

able
06-10-2004, 06:46 AM
Very nice post Peck (as usual).

My problems with all or most of the proposals made and even in your post is the Al starting.
As simple as that, Al has not proven one minute that he can do a consistent, good job at PF and has himself said he would prefer the SF position, since that is his natural position.
This would only be possible I think if we trade Ron, so you add the question: do you want to satisfy Al by trading Ron?
Not that it would make me happy, I just feel like some, that Al is not starting material on this team.
Indeed it weakens the bench IF JB fails, but I feel it also weakens the starting 5.

If trading Ron leaves us with Al starting, he will want to be the SF, which leaves us indeed with a weaker bench and I for one feel that it would leave our starting 5 weaker by en large, unless indeed Tmac.

Option 1 strangely enough is a team we have not seen together on court all season according to the 5-man +/- .

However take Tins out and insert Aj and that unit had floor time, resulting in -10 avg, which I think is some indication that even with Tins on the floor this unit would not be that impressive.

It also assumes that your franchise player will move to C knowing that foul trouble will be his the larger part of every game, which I think weakens us even further.

In short, I think it is not such a great idea.

Option 2 leaves you with the question of JB, however if he fails, perhaps Fred can move over, though that would be asking very much, Cro? again asking a lot, so yes, going with that option makes you ride quite a bit on JB, whether that is a good idea remains to be seen, of course we could also draft someone to be the backup, or see that the filler can be a backup SF.

If the traded SG can't hit his shot then you have Fred to step in, so some cover is available at that position.

So by far this does the least to weaken the team.

Option 3 weakens the team on defense, that much is sure, perhaps even a lot but whether the arrival of Tmac would "solve" that is the major question.
I can see more minutes for JB though not nearly enough to assess him in that team. Al will remain pouting because he will play less minutes then he does now, despite starting because IF JB breaks out, he will get the majority of those minutes.
Al will likely have to move to PF during the game when Jeff is out and again, that is not his liking.

The more we discuss these options the more i get the feeling that it is perhaps a lot better for everyone involved inclduing team chemistry, that Al moves on.
There are few ways to satisfy his demands, and none would improve the team in the least.
The main problem as I see it is that Al simply wants to be the man, which JO is primarily and Ron secondarily.
In the league wide +/- per player Ron is at a respectable # 8 in VERY nice company and getting rid of a player of that statue to comfort Al is something I can not see happening.

I heard the rumours, like most, that there "might" be issues with Ron behind the scenes, but no matter what anyone says, they are far less then last year, when the management decided not to let him go, and though his tradevalue might be lot higher now, I do not see them trading this lot of talent at 24 yrs old without getting a major asset as Tmac, which on the other hand might cause serious problems with JO.

Jo has over the past year shaken his introvert self into the absolute team leader, his comments make that clear, his presence make that clear.

I remember him int he final press conference ofter the Det loss clearly referring to the team as "my team", which tells me a lot. Add to that the fact that the max contract rewarded to him is not something that management has done lightly to a then 24 year old, so he is in for the ride and I can not imagine he would not be asked for an opinion which would then be taken into serious consideration.
On the one hand it can be exciting that he can play with Tmac, but on the other hand, to many captains and or to many alphas on the same team might give very serious problems.
Now Tmac might be the one exception to that considering his attitude to gladly allow someone else to be THE man on the team, but a guy like Allen would give you that problem most surely.

I do not think Al is the right material to be one of the alphas on the team, though he wants to be. Adding another problem such as that might ruin more then it brings.
Keeping Ron and adding a "role" player at SG would most likely be the best solution, something Al can bring us, and at the same time you solve the problem of Al's desires, he can try and be THE man on another team
.

BillS
06-10-2004, 09:01 AM
Option 1 leaves us with little to no rebounding during the starting minutes. I don't see our "get back down the court after a shot" defensive strategy changing next year, so we really need someone at 5 or 4 who can concentrate on offensive rebounds. That's what keeps Foster in it for me, because he is the rebounder who doesn't need the offensive touches to stroke his ego.

Option 3 bothers me because I really think Artest is our "second star" and that we should be adding to him, not just swapping him out to see what happens. In the long run, our problems with Ron are a lot less than the problems with Sprewell, Iverson, and Bryant (to name a few). I don't want to lose him unless it is clear that we upgrade offesnisvely and stay the same defensively. Anything else means we're trading down, and we all agree we don't need that.

So, it's Option 2 for me almost by default. Of course, I've always been in the "do everything by doing nothing" school, and for me to even admit we need a major starter position filled via trade or Free Agency is a big step :D

Unclebuck
06-10-2004, 09:06 AM
Wow, so much to respond to.

Let me address your first scenerio.

No trades and moving AL and Fred into the starting lineup.

That does improve the perimeter defense. Fred's lack of size is the only thing that hurts him at times. I was surprised to see Rip post him up in the ECF with great success.

Let me get to my 2 problems with that lineup.

1) That moves the three best perimeter shooters to the bench. (Reg, Cro, Bender) I suppose with creative substitutions you coud work around that. But unless Ron and Fred really improve their outside shooting, I think that is a problem

2) Peck, I know you know this is coming. Several times this past season I said for whatever reason a front line of Ron, Al and J.O. was not as successful at crunch time as a lineup of Ron, J.O and Jeff. On paper you would not think so, but as the season went along Rick used AL less and less at crunch time, and used jeff more and more. I don't know why they are better with Jeff in there, but they are.

Rick sees that, why do you think Rick started Cro in games 4 and 5 instead of AL. Yes Rick went with Al to start game #6, but Cro was on the floor at crunch time after Al got his dunk blocked.

I think Al's best role is with the second unit as its main post player, the second unit needs one and the first unit with J.O and Ron does not

As long as ron and J.O are on this team, hopefully for the next 10 years, I don't think Al will start or finish most games. AL is too good for that therefore, as much as I like AL and would hate to see him go, if the right trade comes along he should be traded.

I'll comment on your other scenerios later

Will Galen
06-10-2004, 09:07 AM
I more or less agree with Able. But here's some other thoughts in no certain order.

1] Thinking the team will get better just by changing the starting lineup is probably true, but it's a young team and will get better even if the starting lineup doesn't change. Plus keeping the team the same doesn't insure that Carlisle will make changes in the starting lineup.

2] Larry Bird has said we will trade Al only if we can get better, if not, he's not trading Al.

3] No doubt JO is the Pacers best center, (Just like Tim Duncan is SA's best center) but he's also our MVP and he gets beat up playing center, even in the east. It's better for him and thus the team if he plays PF.

4] The Pacers have to many players that could start for other teams. Although the players more or less bought into getting less time this year, they are young and want to play. Free agents Anderson, and Brewer, are both thinking of leaving because of playing time. My question is how many others would leave if they had the chance?

5] To keep the players happy the Pacers HAVE to thin out the ranks of those who think they should play more minutes or down the road the team will implode.

Grant
06-10-2004, 09:46 AM
Bench Jeff Foster & Reggie Miller. Start Fred Jones & Al Harrington.

This gives you

C- Jermaine O'Neal
Pf- Al Harrington
Sf- Ron Artest
Sg- Fred Jones
Pg- Jamaal Tinsely

Sorry to say. I don't like this one. Its not "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic" but its just shuffling and still doesn't address our weaknesses, it just placates a few guys. I agree that Fred should start. The problem with benching Foster for Harrington are two-fold. One, Jermaine is at risk for early foul trouble by guarding the opposing center at the outset. Second, the second unit becomes very offensively challenged - Johnson, Miller, Bender, Croshere and Foster won't scare anyone - there is not a consistent guy in that bunch.



Thus you still have...

C- Jeff Foster
Pf- Jermaine O'Neal
Sf- Ron Artest
Sg- _____________
Pg- Jamaal Tinsely

This does solve some of your outside shooting problems. But we don't know about thier defense.

The bench does become thinned out & Bender does get his chance to get more min. per game.

This seems most likely. Who know what Reggie will do though? If he won't sit for Jones, will he sit for any other "tier 2" guy (Richardson, Murray, Barry, etc.) ? If Fred has moved past Reggie and another SG is added would you move Reggie to the 3rd SG? Would Jones be moved to the 3rd SG? I fear that the SG spot is going to be chaotic if another SG is added.


Option # 3.

Ron Artest & filler is traded for star shooting guard. Insert T-Mac trade here.

Let's assume that Ron will bring a top flight player so our lineup looks like this.

C- Jeff Foster
Pf- Jermaine O'Neal
Sf- Al Harrington
Sg- T-Mac (or other star)
Pg- Jamaal Tinsely

This one seems to be gathering momentum, but seems less likey. Its tough to pull off a superstar trade anyway, but this Pacer team, probably needs less tinkering and I think that trading Artest might be going to far, but we would be naive to think that LB/DW are not looking at this possibility.

Great post as always. What are your thoughts on moving up in the draft? I think that its the teams best interest to forget trading up. Just get the best guy at #29. Anybody who disagrees with trading Antonio Davis for the 5th pick and favors trading Al for a top ten pick should explain themselves.

MagicRat
06-10-2004, 10:20 AM
If one of your options is not moving anybody, why not:

Tinsley
Artest
Harrington
O'Neal
Foster

Slick was pushing the idea of Ron playing the 2 during the Heat series. If it's good enough for Slick, it's good enough for me.......

Suaveness
06-10-2004, 10:22 AM
2] Larry Bird has said we will trade Al only if we can get better, if not, he's not trading Al.

3] No doubt JO is the Pacers best center, (Just like Tim Duncan is SA's best center) but he's also our MVP and he gets beat up playing center, even in the east. It's better for him and thus the team if he plays PF.


Great points. Al won't be traded unless we can get someone of equal or better value, in terms of a different position however.

And 3 is a great great point. JO gets beat up every time he plays C. This is why he and Duncan always are at PF.

Harddrive7
06-10-2004, 10:32 AM
1) That moves the three best perimeter shooters to the bench. (Reg, Cro, Bender) I suppose with creative substitutions you coud work around that. But unless Ron and Fred really improve their outside shooting, I think that is a problem


Well if those are our 3 best perimeter shooters, then I think that we're already in trouble.

diego
06-10-2004, 10:43 AM
My thoughts are as long as Reggie plays, he is starting. Not that i want to see that, but thats what will happen. Reggie will spend one more year chasing the ring as a starter. But i honestly feel he will play significantly less minutes. Almost like ok...you get to start but you are only gonna get about 15 minutes a game.

I think the Pacers use the mid level to sign a mid tier guy that is a good shooter and use him and Freddie getting the remaining minutes. That leaves about 33-35 minutes a game for them to split based on matchups.

I think Al will be traded, but it will be for a big man, and i really think it will be Dampier. I think Bird and carlisle like the idea of a front line of Ron, Jo, And Dampier...that is a hoss of a front line. Add to that Foster coming off the bench, thats a pretty formidable lineup.

bender will become 6th man and play minutes at SG, SF, and possibly PF at specific match up times. Cro will get the back up minutes at PF, hence cementing his spot in the rotation. Plus Bird and Carlisle like him and his shooting ability.

at PG, Tins is the man. Unfortuneatly i see Brewer going elsewhere as Rick is just to set on AJ as backup and AJ stays knowing no other team will play him as amny minutes as he gets here. So Brewer bolts for better opportunity. If this happens i anticipate seeing Freddie get more minutes at PG in specific situations. I still think if Freddie is ever going to start it will be at a PG spot, not a SG. As his passing ability gets better, he could make a devastating PG. Quick, good defender, can penetrate and finish at basket. I know this sounds crazy but i see Freddie's main future with the pacers as that combo guard we all thought, not as our future SG.

Peck
06-10-2004, 10:50 AM
Able wrote:

"I heard the rumours, like most, that there "might" be issues with Ron behind the scenes, but no matter what anyone says, they are far less then last year, when the management decided not to let him go, and though his tradevalue might be lot higher now, I do not see them trading this lot of talent at 24 yrs old without getting a major asset as Tmac, which on the other hand might cause serious problems with JO.

Jo has over the past year shaken his introvert self into the absolute team leader, his comments make that clear, his presence make that clear."

The one thing to consider is that upper management (read Walsh) probably had an idea that he was going to be getting a new middle management & coach this season so he it is reasonable to think that he wanted to see how Ron would react to a new structure.

Also, yes, J.O. is the leader & I don't know if the team would give him a say in matters or not. They didn't with Thomas, but they probably already knew that answer.

But seeing as how if we go on J.O. alone I think a couple of things need to be considered.

1. Al & J.O. are friends.

2. J.O. may have to help Al with moods because of P.T. but he doesn't have to babysit him the way he does with Ron. Remember back to last fall when he said he had to go out of his way to get closer to Ron.

3. I think people look at Al & automatically assume he wants to be the man. That may be right, I don't know but I do know this. At the end of game 6 Ron didn't say he wanted to rebound better to help the team. He said he wanted to get the ball more. He shot the ball 17 times a games, how many more shots did he want? BTW, before the Ron Artest chorus begins to tell me that it was a statement made in frustration, let me remind them that he made the same comments at the end of game 2 & after game 4 he said he played better because he got the ball more. Is everybody certain that Ron doesn't want to be the man? Remember when he was benched do to conduct detrimental to winning? Remember what he was complaining about? It was about our inside outside game. In other words O'Neal. Are you sure that if J.O. was to have input that Artest would be his option?

Peck
06-10-2004, 10:57 AM
Option 1 leaves us with little to no rebounding during the starting minutes.

Al Harrington 6.4 rpg

Jeff Foster 7.4 rpg

I don't want to hear anything about rebounds per min. btw, because as U.B. has pointed out this isn't fantasy basketball. If Foster was so good then it didn't matter how good Al was, Jeff would play more min. a game.

Peck
06-10-2004, 11:03 AM
Wow, so much to respond to.

Let me address your first scenerio.

No trades and moving AL and Fred into the starting lineup.

That does improve the perimeter defense. Fred's lack of size is the only thing that hurts him at times. I was surprised to see Rip post him up in the ECF with great success.

Let me get to my 2 problems with that lineup.

1) That moves the three best perimeter shooters to the bench. (Reg, Cro, Bender) I suppose with creative substitutions you coud work around that. But unless Ron and Fred really improve their outside shooting, I think that is a problem

2) Peck, I know you know this is coming. Several times this past season I said for whatever reason a front line of Ron, Al and J.O. was not as successful at crunch time as a lineup of Ron, J.O and Jeff. On paper you would not think so, but as the season went along Rick used AL less and less at crunch time, and used jeff more and more. I don't know why they are better with Jeff in there, but they are.

Rick sees that, why do you think Rick started Cro in games 4 and 5 instead of AL. Yes Rick went with Al to start game #6, but Cro was on the floor at crunch time after Al got his dunk blocked.

I think Al's best role is with the second unit as its main post player, the second unit needs one and the first unit with J.O and Ron does not

As long as ron and J.O are on this team, hopefully for the next 10 years, I don't think Al will start or finish most games. AL is too good for that therefore, as much as I like AL and would hate to see him go, if the right trade comes along he should be traded.

I'll comment on your other scenerios later

On # 2, do you remember when he started using Jeff as the closer? I know it wasn't till after the all-star break but I just don't know when it was.

Second of all your argument about Cro & Al starting at the end of the playoffs makes no sense to me in this scenario. If anything it is saying that Jeff is a problem seeing as how he barely played at all those last three games. Now we both know that is not the real answer because it was just a matter of matchups & Jeff will play more than that on any given occasion, but it just didn't help advance your arguement IMO.

able
06-10-2004, 11:15 AM
Peck,

1. a well known fact
2. it worked and they are much closer, Ron joins him on nights out nowadays, some people are harder in opening up to their collegues and new friends.
3. One remark from a guy who has his tongue on his heart, however I can not recall him saying so after game 2 & 4, nonetheless, what he means is not so much that he gets the ball more, even though when he takes over 20 shots a game, we usually win, but I am sure he means that he doesn't want the ball in the last 3 seconds of the shotclock which now often happens, but earlier on, when playmaking is still possible, he never said he wants to shoot more, just that he wants the ball more, with AJ on the floor he often takes over the distribution, because otherwise nothing happens at all.

And yes I remember what he was complaining about, exactly about what was changed from then on, the grinding out halfcourt, we started playing faster, less plays were called and we went on a rampage.

Tins out took our speed out of the offense, and it showed in the result.

Ron is not the only player who does not like the coach calling every play (something Rick did a lot again in the playoffs) but he is the only one that is openly speaking of it.

I prefer a guy who wants the ball more to win, to a guy who wants the ball because he wants to shoot a fade-away.

Several times Al played black hole again and it showed in the minutes he played, they were far less then in the regular season, that tells you something I would think.

Ron had 6.3 Rpg in the po's , 5.3 in the reg season btw

bulletproof
06-10-2004, 11:55 AM
Once again, nice post, Peck. Allow me to weight in on a couple of things. Able, I'll start with you:

I heard the rumours, like most, that there "might" be issues with Ron behind the scenes, but no matter what anyone says, they are far less then last year, when the management decided not to let him go, and though his tradevalue might be lot higher now, I do not see them trading this lot of talent at 24 yrs old without getting a major asset as Tmac, which on the other hand might cause serious problems with JO.

There is no "might" to it. There were considerable issues with Ron behind the scenes this year. You assume because you saw an improvement in his on-court behavior that the behind the scenes stuff diminished commeasurately. Which is simply not true. Ron is a handful, and that's putting it kindly.

The million dollar question then would be: Is management fed up with babysitting and mollycoddling Ron? I don't know the answer to that...yet. But I've heard some things that point to yes. As I told Peck privately, I don't care how talented anyone is, life is too short to have to deal with anyone's BS indeterminately. After awhile, you just get tired of it. And both Walsh and Bird are no BS kind of guys.

As far as Al goes, diego made a compelling argument for trading for Dampier. I'm not convinced Walsh is the kind of person to go back in time, so to speak. Just a feeling I have. Although it wouldn't be a trade that surprises me.

able
06-10-2004, 12:00 PM
BP, i would understand that, as i said, it would not make me happy, but on the other hand, it might give us some hope of a spectacular trade.

I would however appreciate some examples of this BS that goes on, just to "form an opinion" so to speak.

Al, well I still think he should go, so combining him with Ron should give us a serious shot at Tmac :D

hey, there's half full bottle left somewhere.

Arcadian
06-10-2004, 12:04 PM
I can think of a worse still senario in the off season. Indiana does consider pursuing T-mac because they are unwilling to part with Artest.
New Jersey gets him and the Pacers become the third best team in the conference. And for the second time in 6 months a rival takes a risk and gets a big name star.

If T-mac is avalible we have to at least talk about it. Otherwise (assuming there aren't huge behind the scene Artest issues) option two is the best course.

Will Galen
06-10-2004, 12:25 PM
Thinking more on the subject I revisited what Bird and Carlisle have said since the season ended and I don't think rearranging the lineup is a very good option.

First Carlisle said, "This is an unbalanced roster."

He's right. We mostly have young guys that want to play and need to play to improve. So my question is what is a balanced roster? I would say an 8 man rotation is optimum, with five guys up front and three in the back court. The five players up front need to cover three positions. Best would be a player who can backup 4 & 5, and a player who can backup 3. In the back court we need a combo guard to backup both guards. The bench to be balanced needs to be half veterans and half young guys.

Bird said, "With the players we have, we have a chance to make our team stronger. . . If we make a couple of moves, we have a legitimate chance to get out of the Eastern Conference. Everybody else's roster seems to be set. We have assets here and logjams in certain areas. If we make the right moves, we can separate ourselves from everybody else."

"A couple moves," Bird said. I think most would agree that what we need is another big guy up front, and Reggie's replacement. Since Walsh said Reggie's replacement is not on the team now, that rule's out both Jones boys and Artest starting at guard.

Okay, let's look at what we need by roster.

1] PF...Starter
2] SF...Starter
3] C....Starter
4] SG..Starter
5] PG..Starter
6] Rotation player at 4 & 5.
7] Rotation player at 3.
8] Rotation player at 1 & 2.
9] Veteran
10 Veteran
11 Veteran
12 Young guy
13 Young guy
14 Young guy
15 young guy

Now lets break it down a bit more. Let's take the C & PF positions, optimum would be a 3 man rotation, but we don't really have what we need. At PF we have JO, who can backup center. At center we have Foster. Right now the only player who can back up both is Croshere. What it boils down to is we need someone bigger than both JO and Foster to be part of this rotation.

Elsewhere up front we have Artest playing the small forward position and Al backing him up. This is perfect except Al doesn't want to be a backup. Moving Bender here as 6th man looks good.

In the back court we have Tinsley and an aging Reggie. Fred is an undersized combo guard.

The problems we need to solve to have an optimum balanced rotation are we need a big guy in the 4-5 rotation, we need Reggie's replacement, and to a lessor extent we need a bigger combo guard. Once we have a balanced rotation then the rest of the roster needs to be balanced with vets and young players.

Sitting still with this roster is not the way to go, the problems need to be addressed.

Hicks
06-10-2004, 12:26 PM
Option 1 leaves us with little to no rebounding during the starting minutes.

Al Harrington 6.4 rpg

Jeff Foster 7.4 rpg

I don't want to hear anything about rebounds per min. btw, because as U.B. has pointed out this isn't fantasy basketball. If Foster was so good then it didn't matter how good Al was, Jeff would play more min. a game.

You're trying to make it sound more simple than it actually is.

Al plays more minutes than Jeff, not because he's a better rebounder, but because he's a better basketball player; he brings more collectively to the table than Jeff. THAT is why he gets more minute. And with more minutes, you have more chances at grabbing rebounds, and he STILL doesn't get as many as Jeff.

No way does anyone convince me Al is in Jeff's league as a rebounder. In 7 more minutes, Al grabs 1 less rebound.

And we need someone to grab the boards in the starting lineup, and Jeff's the man for that.

ChicagoJ
06-10-2004, 12:57 PM
Thinking more on the subject I revisited what Bird and Carlisle have said since the season ended and I don't think rearranging the lineup is a very good option.

First Carlisle said, "This is an unbalanced roster."

He's right. We mostly have young guys that want to play and need to play to improve. So my question is what is a balanced roster? I would say an 8 man rotation is optimum, with five guys up front and three in the back court. The five players up front need to cover three positions. Best would be a player who can backup 4 & 5, and a player who can backup 3. In the back court we need a combo guard to backup both guards. The bench to be balanced needs to be half veterans and half young guys.

Bird said, "With the players we have, we have a chance to make our team stronger. . . If we make a couple of moves, we have a legitimate chance to get out of the Eastern Conference. Everybody else's roster seems to be set. We have assets here and logjams in certain areas. If we make the right moves, we can separate ourselves from everybody else."

"A couple moves," Bird said. I think most would agree that what we need is another big guy up front, and Reggie's replacement. Since Walsh said Reggie's replacement is not on the team now, that rule's out both Jones boys and Artest starting at guard.

Okay, let's look at what we need by roster.

1] PF...Starter
2] SF...Starter
3] C....Starter
4] SG..Starter
5] PG..Starter
6] Rotation player at 4 & 5.
7] Rotation player at 3.
8] Rotation player at 1 & 2.
9] Veteran
10 Veteran
11 Veteran
12 Young guy
13 Young guy
14 Young guy
15 young guy

Now lets break it down a bit more. Let's take the C & PF positions, optimum would be a 3 man rotation, but we don't really have what we need. At PF we have JO, who can backup center. At center we have Foster. Right now the only player who can back up both is Croshere. What it boils down to is we need someone bigger than both JO and Foster to be part of this rotation.

Elsewhere up front we have Artest playing the small forward position and Al backing him up. This is perfect except Al doesn't want to be a backup. Moving Bender here as 6th man looks good.

In the back court we have Tinsley and an aging Reggie. Fred is an undersized combo guard.

The problems we need to solve to have an optimum balanced rotation are we need a big guy in the 4-5 rotation, we need Reggie's replacement, and to a lessor extent we need a bigger combo guard. Once we have a balanced rotation then the rest of the roster needs to be balanced with vets and young players.

Sitting still with this roster is not the way to go, the problems need to be addressed.


Great comments. I agree with almost everything in there. Eight-man rotation. Combo guard. Need more size and an oustide threat.

I'd consider filling out the roster as:

PF - O'Neal
C - Dampier (trade Al + change)
SF - McGrady (trade Ron + Bender + F. Jones EDIT Okay, I'll keep Jones)
SG - Reggie (by default)
PG - Tinsley
combo guard - Brent Barry (MLE)
PF/ C - Croshere EDIT or Foster depending on matchups
G/F - Sato (draft) (one-year apprenticeship as the backup)
EDIT Tenth-man - Brian Cardinal

Will Galen
06-10-2004, 01:29 PM
Great comments. I agree with almost everything in there. Eight-man rotation. Combo guard. Need more size and an oustide threat.

I'd consider filling out the roster as:

PF - O'Neal
C - Dampier (trade Al + change)
SF - McGrady (trade Ron + Bender + F. Jones)
SG - Reggie (by default)
PG - Tinsley
combo guard - Brent Barry (MLE)
PF/ C - Croshere
G/F - Sato (draft) (one-year apprenticeship as the backup)

I could live with that lineup! <said tongue in cheek>

However I think you are giving to much to get TMac. Ron is almost his equal when you consider the defence Ron plays. Giving up another player to match salary's would be ok, but not both Bender and Fred.

I'm gonna do my own roster!

diego
06-10-2004, 02:01 PM
Again I will reiterate, Reggie will start again next year. Simply because DW is too loyal and all along they said Reggie will start as long as he plays. Unless Reggie says he doesnt want to, i expect him to be next years starter.

That being said is the reason i think Dampier is the person we are going after. We need to get bigger up front. Dampier, JO, and Artest makes us one of the biggest and most talented frontcourts in not only the east but the league.

I dont think we will get Richardson as he is their main scoring threat and they are looking for a PF that can combo with him. Al would give them a line up of Claxton, Richardson, Dunleavy, Al, Pollard/Foyle/someone. Not bad for them.

Now as for the deal i would like to throw the idea of Al and Pollard for Dampier and Cheaney...then throw ins to make it work. I liek Cheaney and he is not the SG of the future but he provides a good player there for a coupel seasons while Reggie is still here. Cheaney is a career 46% shooter and 31% 3 point shooter which isnt great from behind arc, but he has a great mid range shot which is deadly. Which we dont have anyone on this team that has. He is 6'7" 217, so he can guard bigger guards and SFs without a big mismatch so Ron could cover a SG if needed and not lose much at the defensive SF spot.

The pacers would then have Reggie playing 15 minutes a game and Cheaney and Freddie playing the other 33 minutes or so. This would allow Foster to play back up center which IMO is better as he is matched up against other teams backups and he can dominate inside ont he boards even more.

So lineup is
Tins
Reggie
Ron
JO
Damp

Backups:
AJ
Cheaney/Freddie
Bender/Cheaney
Cro/Bender
Foster/Primoz


I like that lineup. I think we need to face the fact that Reggie is not retiring and he will remain starter another year but with much less minutes, more of a you deserve it type thing...much liek Mullin did when he played under Bird. If hes feeling it, maybe more, but if not, he comes out and lets others play. Then at end if you need a big shot, he is fresh and able to come in and finsih out a game. So since we are not going to get a TMAc or such, we need a shooter and Cheaney can fill that role.

Will Galen
06-10-2004, 02:19 PM
Okay, how about this roster?

1] PF...Starter .......................JO
2] SF...Starter .......................Ron
3] C....Starter .......................Dampier (Trade, AL & Pollard)
4] SG..Starter .......................Reggie
5] PG..Starter .......................Tinsley

6] Rotation player at 4 & 5......Mark Blount (S&T Foster & Brezac)
7] Rotation player at 3. ..........Bender
8] Rotation player at 1 & 2......B.Barry (MLE)

9] Veteran ............................Croshere
10 Veteran ............................Johnson
11 Young guy ........................Cardinal (S&T, AL & Pollard)
12 Young guy ........................Pietrus (Trade, AL & Pollard)
13 Young guy ....................... #29 pick & Fred for a higher SG pick.

Lose JJ or nobody to Charlotte in the expansion draft.

ABADays
06-10-2004, 02:24 PM
:yikes: aaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!

ROCislandWarrior
06-10-2004, 02:25 PM
Okay, how about this roster?

1] PF...Starter .......................JO
2] SF...Starter .......................Ron
3] C....Starter .......................Dampier (Trade, AL & Pollard)
4] SG..Starter .......................Reggie
5] PG..Starter .......................Tinsley

6] Rotation player at 4 & 5......Mark Blount (S&T Foster & Brezac)
7] Rotation player at 3. ..........Bender
8] Rotation player at 1 & 2......B.Barry (MLE)

9] Veteran ............................Croshere
10 Veteran ............................Johnson
11 Young guy ........................Cardinal (S&T, AL & Pollard)
12 Young guy ........................Pietrus (Trade, AL & Pollard)
13 Young guy ....................... #29 pick & Fred for a higher SG pick.

Lose JJ or nobody to Charlotte in the expansion draft.

Okay.

You have blown up our roster. We don't need that. We need to get a key piece or two...we don't need to rebuild

Unclebuck
06-10-2004, 02:40 PM
Some of you are getting a little carried away. I can't get beyond trading Ron. I simply could not do that, so I can't advocate doing so.

I suppose I better chime in here about Dampier. I don't want him. What is he going to do when J.O is getting the ball in the post. Can he shoot the 15 foot jumper? No, but then Foster can't either. But Dampier is a terrible passer, has terrible hands. He just clogs the middle for J.O and Ron. Well you say, Ok but on defense he and J.O will be great. Not really. Damp is slow, sure he is good against big post up players, and Damp can block shots, but he will change our system of defense. And how many big post up players will he need to guard. The three best teams in the east, Heat, Pistons, Nets, don't have anyone we need Damp

Also do you want J.O guarding, Odom, Sheed, Kmart, or other similar quick power forwards who weill draw J.O out of the lane. I sure don't.

I would be OK with Damp coming off he bench and playing 20 minutes per game.

indygeezer
06-10-2004, 02:46 PM
Not for the salary he commands you wouldn't.

diego
06-10-2004, 03:04 PM
Some of you are getting a little carried away. I can't get beyond trading Ron. I simply could not do that, so I can't advocate doing so.

I suppose I better chime in here about Dampier. I don't want him. What is he going to do when J.O is getting the ball in the post. Can he shoot the 15 foot jumper? No, but then Foster can't either. But Dampier is a terrible passer, has terrible hands. He just clogs the middle for J.O and Ron. Well you say, Ok but on defense he and J.O will be great. Not really. Damp is slow, sure he is good against big post up players, and Damp can block shots, but he will change our system of defense. And how many big post up players will he need to guard. The three best teams in the east, Heat, Pistons, Nets, don't have anyone we need Damp

Also do you want J.O guarding, Odom, Sheed, Kmart, or other similar quick power forwards who weill draw J.O out of the lane. I sure don't.

I would be OK with Damp coming off he bench and playing 20 minutes per game.



UB,
I respectfully disagree with you...but it seems we dont agree on much. LOL...anyways...one of the reasons we got beat by Detroit was Ben Wallace abused Foster and showed just how much stronger he was than Foster. Dampier would negate that strentgh factor, now Ben will still get his rebounds, that wont matter, but he can definitely body hiim up better than Foster.

I dont garee he is way slow and a lane clogger. I have seen him play quite a few times and he is very athletic especially for his size. Now i iwll agree his hands arent the greatest...but... And on top of that we need another shot blocker that can intimadate people coming into lane. Foster intimadates nobody.

The point im making isnt about Damp guarding those guys you mention, its about him keeping people from driving the lane so easily. How many shots at the rim did the Pistons get in that series that Dampier could affect.

As far as guarding Odom, Rasheed, and Martin, we would still have Foster, and its not liek he would never play, but i like the idea of a bigger front line.

One last point UB, in Dampier you would get the same rebounding if not better, more blocked shots, a bigger body, and better scoring from the center position. I guess i just dont see this as a bad thing.

The funny thing is besides the 15 foot jumper many would say your description of Damp sounds liek Brad Miller, and him and JO seemed to play well together. And i think Damp can hit the 15 footer. JMO though.

Unclebuck
06-10-2004, 03:19 PM
UB,
I respectfully disagree with you...but it seems we dont agree on much. LOL...anyways...one of the reasons we got beat by Detroit was Ben Wallace abused Foster and showed just how much stronger he was than Foster. Dampier would negate that strentgh factor, now Ben will still get his rebounds, that wont matter, but he can definitely body hiim up better than Foster.


We agree on a lot of things, but I enjoy "discussing" stuff with you because I respect your opinion. Ben would use his quickness and blow right by Dampier for rebounds. Foster was taken out of the lineup not because ben ws abusing him, but because the Pacers needed 5 offensive players on the floor at all times.

I dont garee he is way slow and a lane clogger. I have seen him play quite a few times and he is very athletic especially for his size. Now i iwll agree his hands arent the greatest...but... And on top of that we need another shot blocker that can intimadate people coming into lane. Foster intimadates nobody.


The point im making isnt about Damp guarding those guys you mention, its about him keeping people from driving the lane so easily. How many shots at the rim did the Pistons get in that series that Dampier could affect.

As far as guarding Odom, Rasheed, and Martin, we would still have Foster, and its not liek he would never play, but I like the idea of a bigger front line.

One last point UB, in Dampier you would get the same rebounding if not better, more blocked shots, a bigger body, and better scoring from the center position. I guess i just dont see this as a bad thing.

The funny thing is besides the 15 foot jumper many would say your description of Damp sounds liek Brad Miller, and him and JO seemed to play well together. And i think Damp can hit the 15 footer. JMO though.


Brad has very good hands and is an excellent passer. As i said if Damp can be gotten cheaply and can come off the benhc, then i am all for it

Mourning
06-10-2004, 03:19 PM
Again I will reiterate, Reggie will start again next year. Simply because DW is too loyal and all along they said Reggie will start as long as he plays. Unless Reggie says he doesnt want to, i expect him to be next years starter.

That being said is the reason i think Dampier is the person we are going after. We need to get bigger up front. Dampier, JO, and Artest makes us one of the biggest and most talented frontcourts in not only the east but the league.

I dont think we will get Richardson as he is their main scoring threat and they are looking for a PF that can combo with him. Al would give them a line up of Claxton, Richardson, Dunleavy, Al, Pollard/Foyle/someone. Not bad for them.

Now as for the deal i would like to throw the idea of Al and Pollard for Dampier and Cheaney...then throw ins to make it work. I liek Cheaney and he is not the SG of the future but he provides a good player there for a coupel seasons while Reggie is still here. Cheaney is a career 46% shooter and 31% 3 point shooter which isnt great from behind arc, but he has a great mid range shot which is deadly. Which we dont have anyone on this team that has. He is 6'7" 217, so he can guard bigger guards and SFs without a big mismatch so Ron could cover a SG if needed and not lose much at the defensive SF spot.

The pacers would then have Reggie playing 15 minutes a game and Cheaney and Freddie playing the other 33 minutes or so. This would allow Foster to play back up center which IMO is better as he is matched up against other teams backups and he can dominate inside ont he boards even more.

So lineup is
Tins
Reggie
Ron
JO
Damp

Backups:
AJ
Cheaney/Freddie
Bender/Cheaney
Cro/Bender
Foster/Primoz


I like that lineup. I think we need to face the fact that Reggie is not retiring and he will remain starter another year but with much less minutes, more of a you deserve it type thing...much liek Mullin did when he played under Bird. If hes feeling it, maybe more, but if not, he comes out and lets others play. Then at end if you need a big shot, he is fresh and able to come in and finsih out a game. So since we are not going to get a TMAc or such, we need a shooter and Cheaney can fill that role.

Exactly my thoughts, diego. Except that instead of acquiring Cheaney, we could additionally also throw in our MLE and 29th pick at Golden State or a 3rd party which might want to get involved to get a combo-guard a la Barry, resigned and all. I dont know if this is possible, but it would open op more trade scenarios and possibilities for our team.

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

Hicks
06-10-2004, 03:30 PM
I want to hear kerosene's "scouting report" on Dampier. I feel he'd know more than those of us in Indy.

TheSauceMaster
06-10-2004, 03:33 PM
It really doesn't matter to me who we get long as it's a quality SG and he can help imedatiely , Center IMHO isn't a Priotrity..it's one of those things if you can get someone to help ...it's a bonus :)

Hicks
06-10-2004, 03:38 PM
It really doesn't matter to me who we get long as it's a quality SG and he can help imedatiely , Center IMHO isn't a Priotrity..it's one of those things if you can get someone to help ...it's a bonus :)

This is true.

Mourning
06-10-2004, 03:54 PM
Yeah, but whats best isnt what always happens. Reggie starting might not be the best, but its still likely that is what will happen. Getting a high quality SG such as Richardson (just a name as an example) and than NOT starting him and than also somehow fitting in Fred into the rotation for some minutes, while we know he wont get many if any at PG (so, basically lets say 90% or more of the minutes he makes are likely to be at SG), means or better leads to, I think, atleast 2 disgruntled players at SG (the newly attracted SG and Fred Jones).

I rather have us shore up our other weakeness which is size, so lets get that Center and either trade up in the draft for a good SG prospect (I, personally don't like that idea, I don't want to have experience on this team, no rookie errors in play-offs matches or extremely reduced minutes when it matters the most), for example by trading our own pick and Freddie

OR trade Freddie together with our MLE (if that actually CAN be done, I dont know) for a very decent SG

OR use the MLE to acquire a veteran/reliable SG for the short term. The type of player likely beginning on the way down, but still not bad at all.

OR accept a back up SG/young SG from another team for the short term in the trade for the Center.

This last option means IF that other SG develops better than foreseen we might have our Reggie-successor if not then only next year will a real quality SG be within reach as Reggie is likely to retire than.

Just some thoughts.

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

ChicagoJ
06-10-2004, 04:14 PM
Okay.

You have blown up our roster. We don't need that. We need to get a key piece or two...we don't need to rebuild


I'm not sure that's really true. We need to re-balance, and that's harder to do. We've either got to look at multiple team trades or we've got to find a trading partner that also has a roster that is unbalanced in a complimentary way (i.e., needs SFs).

Will Galen
06-10-2004, 04:22 PM
I suppose I better chime in here about Dampier. I don't want him. What is he going to do when J.O is getting the ball in the post. Can he shoot the 15 foot jumper? No, but then Foster can't either. But Dampier is a terrible passer, has terrible hands. He just clogs the middle for J.O and Ron.

Are you saying Foster clogs the middle? Othewise I don't see how you think that Dampier would clog the middle, he would be playing in the same offence and should go to the same spot or position on the floor as Foster would.

bulletproof
06-10-2004, 04:23 PM
Wow, all those who are advocating trading for a center confound me. It makes me wonder if you saw game 4 against the Pistons where we absolutely demolished them because Cro's outside shot was on, thus allowing our big men to take it inside at will.

We need a capable and consistent SG, plain and simple. Someone who can spread the floor and open up the interior. I'm not convinced if Reggie returns that he will automatically start. As DW said, his replacement isn't on the roster. Now, that may have have been a weaseling of words, but I take it to mean that they will be actively looking for that person outside of the team.

Will Galen
06-10-2004, 04:25 PM
OR trade Freddie together with our MLE (if that actually CAN be done, I dont know) for a very decent SG

Can't be done.

Mourning
06-10-2004, 04:31 PM
I'm not convinced if Reggie returns that he will automatically start. As DW said, his replacement isn't on the roster.

Well IF that were to be the case than I'm for getting that high quality SG too, but Reggie starting, keeping Freddie, acquiring that quality SG and playing Reggie more than 16-18 minutes is just asking for problems at SG IMO. Than it would be better to strengthen the interior and get more blocks and rebounds.

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

Mourning
06-10-2004, 04:32 PM
OR trade Freddie together with our MLE (if that actually CAN be done, I dont know) for a very decent SG

Can't be done.

Yeah, I already was afraid of that :blush: . Thx for clearing up ;) .

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

Peck
06-10-2004, 04:56 PM
Wow, all those who are advocating trading for a center confound me. It makes me wonder if you saw game 4 against the Pistons where we absolutely demolished them because Cro's outside shot was on, thus allowing our big men to take it inside at will.

We need a capable and consistent SG, plain and simple. Someone who can spread the floor and open up the interior. I'm not convinced if Reggie returns that he will automatically start. As DW said, his replacement isn't on the roster. Now, that may have have been a weaseling of words, but I take it to mean that they will be actively looking for that person outside of the team.

You think your confounded, try being me.

You know who I'm about to bring up. Let me re-state what I said before, if we are looking for a new starting center within that 7 year time frame than that trade was a horrid horrid thing.

Now before people blast me, let me state this. I am not advocating getting a new starting center.

Like Bulletproof the need for a shooting guard is just screaming.

I can't beleive you guys want Dampier. Have you seen the guy play? His knees are so bad they make my knees hurt. He runs like a turtle.

Let's also not forget that he was entering a contract year last year, what has he done before that?

I guess if that's the best we can come up with, ok I guess. But that still doesn't answer the outside shooting question.

Brad Miller sure would have filled the bill though wouldn't he?

This is where I have to wonder if there wasn't some kind of off court trouble that I didn't know about because Donnie, for all of his faults that I have pointed out over the years is not dumb.

There had to be more to this, because Brad & J.O. were just to perfect of a match.

MagicRat
06-10-2004, 04:59 PM
Didn't Larry and Donnie already trade Dampier once because they thought he was lazy? Or am I mis-remembering?:whoknows:......

Unclebuck
06-10-2004, 05:20 PM
Didn't Larry and Donnie already trade Dampier once because they thought he was lazy? Or am I mis-remembering?:whoknows:......

That be correct

ChicagoJ
06-10-2004, 05:52 PM
I guess I remember that Larry and DW really wanted Mulllin at about any cost, and after much stalling, finally gave into GS's demand of Dampier, which allowed us to also dump Duanne Ferrell ( :puke: ) on them.

Ultimate Frisbee
06-10-2004, 06:21 PM
I want Slava Medvedenko at C... :)

beast23
06-10-2004, 07:26 PM
Peck’s offerings look at different ways to improve the lineup. One uses existing players; the two others deal with acquiring a mid- or upper-level SG by trading Al and Ron, respectively. But basically, the choices deal with improving upon our major weakness – perimeter shooting.

Option #1 – JO, Al, Ron, Tinsley, Freddie

Good: Presuming additional growth from Freddie, I think this lineup is great for brief stretches during games. Particularly against a small opposing lineup or to mix things up when a larger lineup we are playing just isn’t producing.

Bad: This choice removes our best player from his natural and best position (PF) and puts him at C. For reasons mentioned over and over, this may not be a good thing. But worse yet, this choice implies no roster change. We may have beaten the Pistons by the mere addition of a better shooting SG, but by also adding another big I think it would have been a near certainty. Get us an SG and a big, and unless Detroit improves their roster, we go to the finals, unless Miami gets a decent center. But that’s another story.

Option #2 – Jeff, JO, Ron, Tinsley, new mid-level SG

Good (or at least acceptable): This option acknowledges the perimeter shooting woes that we suffered in the ECS, and goes outside the team to fix it. It sacrifices Al for a mid-level SG, presumably one that can hit perimeter shots. IMO, this is a workable solution and although it weakens our bench, it improves our starting lineup and our team by providing an established perimeter scoring threat.

Bad: I’d have to see the SG acquired. I worry about a fair exchange if Al is used to acquire a “mid-level” guard. But to improve, I’ll concede that sacrifices must be made.

Option #3 – Jeff, JO, Al, Tinsley, star-SG

Good: Same reasons as option #2, except Ron is sacrificed. If Ron is an unbearably bad influence as bulletproof states, then this solution is a win-win for the franchise.

Bad: The cornerstone of our defense is sacrificed. If Ron is a bad influence, yet fixable or bearable, then we’ve sacrificed the best defender in the league to fix a problem that might have been fixable by acquiring a lesser player. A second problem for me is that it puts Al at SF for huge minutes. I believe Al’s skills to be much more advantageous at PF than at SF, where he is able to post smaller players, but struggles with perimeter defense.

Conclusion: My choices –
1. New option #4 – offer Al and any combination of Bender, Pollard, Croshere, Brezec for a better SG, or a better SG and a big and whatever crap we get back as filler. I probably wouldn’t pull the plug on Ron, not this year. I really don’t want to change my user name.
2. Option #2 – Sacrifice Al for a mid-level or better SG.

MAJOR NOTE:
The one thing that has not been mentioned is AJ’s status and how that could affect what we want to do in addressing needs at SG and getting a big. If AJ opts out and leaves, then finding a backup PG becomes just as important to fill as SG. In that event, we may not ever get around to getting the big that we need.

Needs:
1. Re-sign AJ.
2. If AJ not re-signed, then get a backup PG.
3. SG.
4. Big.

beast23
06-10-2004, 07:33 PM
Wow, all those who are advocating trading for a center confound me. It makes me wonder if you saw game 4 against the Pistons where we absolutely demolished them because Cro's outside shot was on, thus allowing our big men to take it inside at will.

We need a capable and consistent SG, plain and simple. Someone who can spread the floor and open up the interior. I'm not convinced if Reggie returns that he will automatically start. As DW said, his replacement isn't on the roster. Now, that may have have been a weaseling of words, but I take it to mean that they will be actively looking for that person outside of the team.True.

BP, I would look at it this way. If we had a perimeter shooting SG against Detroit, then there is a good chance we would be in the finals. If we had that same SG AND another big, I know damn well we would be in the finals.

One thing we cannot do is stand pat. Doing so totally relies on any improvement Freddie can make, and ignores the fact that Detroit will probably also improve. And, what if Miami acquires a decent center?

But has anyone asked themselves what do we do if AJ leaves? That may throw a monkey wrench into other plans that Larry and Donny have because suddenly they have to divert their attention to finding a backup PG.

For what it's worth, that still makes me think of Brent Barry. He can play both spots, and would be a great stop gap for 2 or 3 years.

ABADays
06-10-2004, 08:46 PM
Didn't Larry and Donnie already trade Dampier once because they thought he was lazy? Or am I mis-remembering?:whoknows:......

Could that also mean forgetting :D

bulletproof
06-10-2004, 10:36 PM
Good: Same reasons as option #2, except Ron is sacrificed. If Ron is an unbearably bad influence as bulletproof states, then this solution is a win-win for the franchise.

Just to set the record straight, I never said Ron was a bad influence.

beast23
06-10-2004, 10:51 PM
Good: Same reasons as option #2, except Ron is sacrificed. If Ron is an unbearably bad influence as bulletproof states, then this solution is a win-win for the franchise.

Just to set the record straight, I never said Ron was a bad influence.My apologies. I believe either you said or it had been reported that you said that there was more going on with Ron than just what we see on the surface.

From that I apparently inferred more than is the case.

My handle alone says that I like Artest. He is probably my favorite player right now. But it doesn't take a genius so realize that Ron is pretty high maintenance. Another thing that I think hurts Ron is that he is not particularly well spoken, and his choice of words, taken in context, can really make him look bad.

I'm a lot like Buck when it comes to Artest. I would hate to see him sacrificed to enable us to plug the hole at SG. I'd rather it be Al. In fact, I'd rather it be Al AND Bender to get a really decent guard rather than seeing Ron and Freddie, for example, sacrificed to bring back a good SG.

But on the other hand, if the other things going on with Ron are really pushing the threshhold for lack of better words, then I guess I'd seek a solution involving Ron to hlep avoid future drama and to resolve the pressing need.

But at any rate, sorry if I misinterpretted or used a poor choice of words.

bulletproof
06-10-2004, 10:58 PM
But on the other hand, if the other things going on with Ron are really pushing the threshhold for lack of better words, then I guess I'd seek a solution involving Ron to hlep avoid future drama and to resolve the pressing need.

Good way to put it.