PDA

View Full Version : Star}Pacers look at players who fit style



Will Galen
05-06-2008, 01:02 PM
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080506/SPORTS04/805060383/1088/SPORTS04

Pacers look at players who fit style
Bird is keeping a close eye on point guards, power players; Indiana will likely pick 11th

By Mike Wells
Posted: May 6, 2008

The Indiana Pacers are preparing for the June draft just like they did a year ago. They've scouted players in person and watched them on video.

This year, however, the Pacers will determine whether they use or trade their pick; last year, they had no pick. They had given it to Atlanta to complete a trade involving Al Harrington.
Advertisement

The Pacers are slotted to pick 11th if lottery seeds hold, their earliest selection since picking Erick Dampier 10th in 1996. They believe the draft is the first step to improving.

Team president Larry Bird wouldn't divulge names, but he said the Pacers have targeted point guard and center as their primary needs.

As important, Bird said the player has to fit coach Jim O'Brien's style at least "90 percent" of the time.

"If you get somebody that doesn't play his style, he's not going to play much anyways," Bird said. ". . . Jimmy will be involved in it. He won't tell us who to draft, but he'll be watching a lot of tape and getting his hands in the middle of it."

Bird and members of the Pacers scouting department attended the Portsmouth Invitational earlier this month and will be in Orlando at the pre-draft camp in late May. Then they'll bring in potential draft picks for workouts. Teams can bring in six players, up from four last year, per workout. Teams are allowed two workouts per day.

"My thing is, I'm a little worried about it because if you're not in the lottery, a lot of teams are going to be stuck waiting for these guys to get there," Bird said. "What you would like to do is bring two . . . point guards in and all 'bigs' in at the same time. You might not be able to do that because we've got a short window to get everybody in we want. I don't know if it's good or bad."

Putnam
05-06-2008, 02:06 PM
My thing is, I have no idea what that last paragraph is supposed to mean.

croz24
05-06-2008, 02:33 PM
stupid. just plain stupid. the pacers need to pick the best player available, NOT the players who fit their style. job could be gone in 2yrs, then what? you're left with average players who don't fit the new coach's style. drafting players based on the style of your coach, if you aren't a contender, is just setting yourself up for more failure. always draft the best player available, regardless of style.

grace
05-06-2008, 02:35 PM
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080506/SPORTS04/805060383/1088/SPORTS04

"My thing is, I'm a little worried about it because if you're not in the lottery, a lot of teams are going to be stuck waiting for these guys to get there," Bird said. "What you would like to do is bring two . . . point guards in and all 'bigs' in at the same time. You might not be able to do that because we've got a short window to get everybody in we want. I don't know if it's good or bad."

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/O-EZf56AfYc&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/O-EZf56AfYc&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Speed
05-06-2008, 02:36 PM
stupid. just plain stupid. the pacers need to pick the best player available, NOT the players who fit their style. job could be gone in 2yrs, then what? you're left with average players who don't fit the new coach's style. drafting players based on the style of your coach, if you aren't a contender, is just setting yourself up for more failure. always draft the best player available, regardless of style.

To borrow a term from late 80s rappers... Word!

Infinite MAN_force
05-06-2008, 04:00 PM
stupid. just plain stupid. the pacers need to pick the best player available, NOT the players who fit their style. job could be gone in 2yrs, then what? you're left with average players who don't fit the new coach's style. drafting players based on the style of your coach, if you aren't a contender, is just setting yourself up for more failure. always draft the best player available, regardless of style.

I don't really have a problem with it, its bird's show and he seems to expect Obrien to be here awhile, makes sense to avoid guys who wont really work for what obrien's trying to do. They are still looking to take the best player available, if its a close call you go with the guy that fits. Its not like they are gonna take a huge talent dropoff to pick a guy that fits better, its pretty much a crap shoot where we are picking anyway, no big talent gaps between 15-10.

you all get too worked up about this kind of stuff.

Since86
05-06-2008, 04:03 PM
Too worked up over finding players to fit a style that doesn't work in the playoffs?

Okay, I guess we should just look at it as entertainment and not emotionally invest in wins and losses.

Why in the world do I want to watch more players chuck 3s, and not learn a lick on defense? If I want too see horrible offense and **** poor defense, I'll watch high school games.

LG33
05-06-2008, 04:05 PM
Got Buddinger?

Gamble1
05-06-2008, 04:12 PM
He said pg's and bigs not sg's.

Draftnet has us taking Kevin Love now. NOw I know it won't happen.

Ownagedood
05-06-2008, 04:14 PM
Got Russell Westbrook? (PLZ?)

Infinite MAN_force
05-06-2008, 04:18 PM
Too worked up over finding players to fit a style that doesn't work in the playoffs?

Okay, I guess we should just look at it as entertainment and not emotionally invest in wins and losses.

Why in the world do I want to watch more players chuck 3s, and not learn a lick on defense? If I want too see horrible offense and **** poor defense, I'll watch high school games.


JOB has stressed defense since day one, the problem is the lack of defensive players on the roster. If anything defensive players are exactly what Obrien is looking for "defense starts at the pg position" and "JO is our defensive anchor" come to mind. He is looking for a PG that can defend and a defensive anchor in the paint. Makes sense to me.

the offense is up for debate... JOB likes guys who can hit the three, yeah. If bird took an inferior PG prospect cause he had a better outside shot than the better overall player, yeah, I would be pissed. I don't really think that is going to happen. If the clear cut best player available didn't fit Bird would probably look to move up or down.

Obrien's "system" took a marginally talented celtics team (through a more talented pacers team I might add) to the ECF. So I don't buy the playoffs thing totally. I do question the offense at times...

Since86
05-06-2008, 04:38 PM
JOB's defensive philosophy is a tough one to manage. It requires all five guys to be exactly on the same page every possession or you give up layups. Obviously they weren't able to do that.

Defense isn't a complicated structure, and it only further shows how messed up his schemes are.

Defense should be preached about stopping your man's pentration, and being in good helpside defensive position when he doesn't have the ball. From what I understand, from reading/hearing his comments, they have defensive rotations when the ball is moved around.

Obviously you need some, but when they get too complicated you have people that don't know what they're doing. So you end up with one of two things. One, two men rotate out leaving another spot open on the court, usually the middle, and two, no one rotates out.

When players can't grasp your philosophy, they give up and tune you out.

Major Cold
05-06-2008, 04:41 PM
No new news...

Infinite MAN_force
05-06-2008, 04:46 PM
Got Russell Westbrook? (PLZ?)


I think its between Westbrook and Speights personally, and westbrook may not be available. Deandre Jordan is too raw and seems to lack work ethic. A lot of other bigs might be a reach. Augustin is borderline, his problem is defensive potential.

Westbrook is kind of raw too, lots of upside, but hard to say if he can be a true PG. Defense wont be a problem though and he brings some much needed athleticism.

In the end I predict Bird take Marreese Speights. though westbrook should be given strong consideration if he is available.

Birthday:8/4/1987
NBA Postion:PF/C
Class:Sophomore
Ht:6-10 Wt:250
College Team:Florida
Hometown:St. Petersburg,
FLHigh School:Hargrove

Fluid bigman with excellent length and shooting touch … Shows a lot of offensive promise with great touch on his shot within 8 feet of the basket … Very effective at the pick and roll … Has good hands and a terrific frame … He should be able to put on additional weight allowing him to play more physical … Huge wingspan gives him the length to play both the 4 and 5 positions at the next level as his body matures … Neither incredibly fast or explosive, but he is an above average athlete with excellent physical gifts … Still prone to making a careless pass here and there, but has above average vision and can develop into a quality passer … Has the length and athleticism to become a solid shot blocker … His rebounding should improve as he continues to get stronger …

next al jefferson?

Infinite MAN_force
05-06-2008, 04:53 PM
JOB's defensive philosophy is a tough one to manage. It requires all five guys to be exactly on the same page every possession or you give up layups. Obviously they weren't able to do that.

Defense isn't a complicated structure, and it only further shows how messed up his schemes are.

Defense should be preached about stopping your man's pentration, and being in good helpside defensive position when he doesn't have the ball. From what I understand, from reading/hearing his comments, they have defensive rotations when the ball is moved around.

Obviously you need some, but when they get too complicated you have people that don't know what they're doing. So you end up with one of two things. One, two men rotate out leaving another spot open on the court, usually the middle, and two, no one rotates out.

When players can't grasp your philosophy, they give up and tune you out.


His defense seems to have worked for other teams... I believe the celtics and sixers were pretty high rated defensive teams when he coached them. Dick Harter seems to know what hes doing, his defense got the P's to the finals...

when you don't have a PG on the roster who can stop penetraton and your only shotblocking presence missed half the year, your going to be bad defensive team. Can't blame everything on the coach.

Since86
05-06-2008, 05:02 PM
And from what I've read by people on here, the scheme is different from the one he ran in Philly and Boston.

I view him as a quick fix, and those hardly ever work. If you're foundation is cracked, it needs fixed first. Replacing the drywall might take away the cracked walls, but eventually the same problems will pop up.

idioteque
05-06-2008, 05:43 PM
stupid. just plain stupid. the pacers need to pick the best player available, NOT the players who fit their style. job could be gone in 2yrs, then what? you're left with average players who don't fit the new coach's style. drafting players based on the style of your coach, if you aren't a contender, is just setting yourself up for more failure. always draft the best player available, regardless of style.

We need PG, SG, and C. I agree with best player available in most cases but this team has way too many SF/PF type of players. I think you only draft one of those if someone really amazing dramatically slips.

Anthem
05-06-2008, 06:20 PM
My thing is, I have no idea what that last paragraph is supposed to mean.
It's poorly written.

I'm taking it as: "The rules have changed regarding getting prospects into our building for workouts. I'm not sure if it's a good rule or not."

Arcadian
05-06-2008, 08:38 PM
It was poorly spoken. I'm not making a Bird joke. It is the truth. That is why I believe GM's would call to talk to Donnie. That was a Bird joke.

The NBA is not a system league. It is a player league. Jim is not going to be here long enough to draft people for a system. That isn't a knock against Jim. It is just how long coaches last in the NBA.

Hicks
05-06-2008, 09:00 PM
Phil Jackson's teams use the triangle, right? Larry Brown needs/wants certain types of players, right? Don Nelson?

Arcadian
05-06-2008, 09:12 PM
How long has Brown been with one team? Certainly teams are not built around his system. Phil Jackson has won championships having the best players of the era on his team. Nelson I wouldn't say is that great of a playoff coach.

I believe that players not coaches win championships. What coaches do contribute is leadership/management not a system.

croz24
05-07-2008, 12:10 AM
We need PG, SG, and C. I agree with best player available in most cases but this team has way too many SF/PF type of players. I think you only draft one of those if someone really amazing dramatically slips.

honestly, if we are left seriously left with the choice of love, westbrook, or augustin and aren't trading out of the #11 slot, i'd take greene, gallinari, and even joe alexander over the 3...at least, imo, the later 3 have a chance to become better than a role player in this league...

Anthem
05-07-2008, 12:12 AM
honestly, if we are left seriously left with the choice of love, westbrook, or augustin and aren't trading out of the #11 slot, i'd take greene, gallinari, and even joe alexander over the 3...at least, imo, the later 3 have a chance to become better than a role player in this league...
Yeah, but you want us to trade Granger. So we don't take your talent appraisals seriously. :D

Eindar
05-07-2008, 12:28 AM
Based on what Bird said, I'm guessing:

Russel Westbrook
Kosta Koufos
Donte Green
Anthony Randolph

Oneal07
05-07-2008, 12:55 AM
Phil Jackson's teams use the triangle, right? Larry Brown needs/wants certain types of players, right? Don Nelson?

Makes sense. I still think we should draft a legit PG

croz24
05-07-2008, 01:14 AM
Yeah, but you want us to trade Granger. So we don't take your talent appraisals seriously. :D

you ought to take my 'talent appraisals' seriously because unlike most people on this board who are either purely nba fans or who use mock drafts to judge players, i actually watch college games and have a great appreciation for high school basketball/college recruiting. i am usually following these kids as they are still in high school or as soon as they enter as freshman. i would think based on the under the radar names i brought up before the college season began or just as it was getting underway, and seeing how those kids are now being talked about suddenly on this board, you'd think i'd get a little more respect in that department.

as for granger, as far as i can see, granger is NOT a franchise player. to be a title contender, this team needs a great player and solid role players. now how exactly are the pacers to get that franchise player by remaining mediocre under granger? they won't. granger is the only player on this team that COULD land us that franchise player. granger is also playing sf in a league jam packed with sfs of granger's ability or greater. sfs are easy to find. shoot, imo dunleavy is a better fit on this team as a sf than granger is, and will cost us $4mil less and is only 2yrs older. compound that with the fact that granger's appeal to other teams will be drastically depleted once he resigns with the pacers for $10-12mil. granger is also not as young as most, i think, understand. he has essentially 5yrs as our supposed leader until he declines in ability. so are we really going to pin the hopes of our franchise for the next 5yrs on DANNY GRANGER? unless we get lucky, very lucky, in the draft, this team is going nowhere with danny. history shows us that teams need top 5 picks to win titles. which means you must be bad in order to be great. pacers will never be bad enough to become great under granger. by trading him at least we have a chance...

Swingman
05-07-2008, 01:28 AM
So let me get this straight. You think we should trade Granger so we can get worse in order to get a higher pick next year.

What happens if we trade Granger but still good enough to squeak into 30 or so wins?

You're selling Granger short and you never trade away your best player at the chance you'll get a high draft pick and actually draft the right guy.

Isaac
05-07-2008, 01:32 AM
Based on what Bird said, I'm guessing:

Russel Westbrook
Kosta Koufos
Donte Green
Anthony Randolph

I'm an OSU fan, and my friend was on the team this year so I watched every single game they played.

Kosta is the mix of the black hole aspect of Al's game and Troy Murphy. I would cry if we picked him.

So we probably will.

croz24
05-07-2008, 01:36 AM
i'm of the mindset that trading granger for jerryd bayless or oj mayo would drastically improve our chances of becoming good-great and both of those players fill a much more important need on the team...yes, in sports, it can be much more beneficial to the team to be bad than average-good. just do me a favor and tell me the best player on the past oh, 30 nba championship teams. now tell me how many of those players were drafted OUTSIDE the top 5...

Anthem
05-07-2008, 01:43 AM
i'm of the mindset that trading granger for jerryd bayless or oj mayo would drastically improve our chances of becoming good-great
But if Danny's so bad, why would teams give up a top-5 pick for him?

EDIT: Top 4, really, since both of those guys might be gone by 5.

croz24
05-07-2008, 01:50 AM
have i ever said danny was bad anthem? he just is not a franchise player for this team and prevents us from acquiring one if we keep him. even when the pacers drafted danny, he was merely supposed to be the player to take us over the top. the #3 option behind ron and jo. danny is worth trading for if you feel you already have that franchise player. danny is a #2 on a solid team, a #3 on a great team...but anthem, do you have an answer to this statement: "just do me a favor and tell me the best player on the past oh, 30 nba championship teams. now tell me how many of those players were drafted OUTSIDE the top 5..."?

Anthem
05-07-2008, 02:38 AM
have i ever said danny was bad anthem?
"Bad" isn't the point. If he's not going to be a top-tier player, then why would somebody else give us one in return for him?


but anthem, do you have an answer to this statement: "just do me a favor and tell me the best player on the past oh, 30 nba championship teams. now tell me how many of those players were drafted OUTSIDE the top 5..."?
Kobe? Billups? Ginobli?

Regardless, plenty of those "best players" played for other teams than the one that drafted them. This isn't our only shot at a "best player" and frankly outside of Rose and Beasley I don't have a lot of confidence that anybody in this draft is going to become that guy.

Do you really think OJ Mayo is going to have a better career than Danny? Bayless?

croz24
05-07-2008, 02:59 AM
high schoolers are somewhat the exception to the top 5 rule (kobe and moses malone). however, had both played just one year in college, it is VERY likely they would have gone top 5. regardless, shaq was lal's best player. billups was #3 overall. and you aren't telling me ginobili is better than duncan are you? but do you really think a top tier FA will come to the pacers? the only players you can name who changed teams like you suggest during the time frame i gave are shaq, possibly kareem, and billups/rasheed. indiana cannot compete with los angeles or miami as far as city appeal. thus, we rest our hopes on the draft...

Taterhead
05-07-2008, 03:33 AM
But if Danny's so bad, why would teams give up a top-5 pick for him?
EDIT: Top 4, really, since both of those guys might be gone by 5.

If Danny is so good, why won't they? The truth is they wouldn't. But combined with the 11th pick and even another player or some cap relief they might.

Taterhead
05-07-2008, 03:57 AM
"Bad" isn't the point. If he's not going to be a top-tier player, then why would somebody else give us one in return for him?


Kobe? Billups? Ginobli?

Regardless, plenty of those "best players" played for other teams than the one that drafted them. This isn't our only shot at a "best player" and frankly outside of Rose and Beasley I don't have a lot of confidence that anybody in this draft is going to become that guy.

Do you really think OJ Mayo is going to have a better career than Danny? Bayless?

Yes, I think Mayo will definately have a better career than Granger. I live on the WC and watched Mayo a lot, and he is better or as good as Danny in every aspect other than outside shooting and rebounding right now. But definately a much better ball handler, defender and creator before ever stepping on an NBA court, and despite a 6 years head start. Bayless is a tweener, so it's hard to say how he'll adjust. But he is far more talented than Danny as well. Danny is the type of guy who is pretty good at everything, but doesn't make the players around him better.

Every champion has had a top 5 pick, a lot of them have had 2. If you think we are going to stumble into drafting a guy like Kobe Bryant, I strongly disagree. If you think we are going to land a guy like Billups who played for about 5 teams before Detroit and have him blossom into a top 5 PG, then I disagree again. Detroit was mad lucky to build thier team. Rasheed Wallace, Ben Wallace Prince and Billups all exceeded expectations. And if you think we are going to land one in free agency of have the pices to aquire one in a trade I disagree also. The draft is the only way.

Doddage
05-07-2008, 04:30 AM
I'm in agreement with croz and tater, that if we have the opportunity to trade Granger for someone that could make a bigger impact than Granger for us, that we should make a move. Granger's going to be a liability for us when we sign him to a big contract. Right now, sure, we can all love him because he's producing for us at his price. But when the time comes, we're going to be bemoaning him for being inconsistent at the money he gets.

The way I see it, Granger's an excellent complementary player and we should only keep him if we had better pieces ABOVE him, not around him. He's just doesn't ooze the leadership qualities that we'd need of a franchise player.

Edit: I should say that I love Granger and would love to keep him. But the fact is, he's our best asset and could get us something really good. At best, we'll have someone that can help put this franchise back on its feet. Worst case scenario, we end up with better financial flexibility and invest our energy and efforts in Dun at the wing position.

rexnom
05-07-2008, 04:50 AM
We can't trade Danny. And we won't unless something insane happens (i.e. we're made a Godfather offer for someone like Rose).

That being said, I would love for this team to add Mayo. I think he's going to be an excellent basketball player.

rexnom
05-07-2008, 04:51 AM
Yes, I think Mayo will definately have a better career than Granger. I live on the WC and watched Mayo a lot, and he is better or as good as Danny in every aspect other than outside shooting and rebounding right now. But definately a much better ball handler, defender and creator before ever stepping on an NBA court, and despite a 6 years head start. Bayless is a tweener, so it's hard to say how he'll adjust. But he is far more talented than Danny as well. Danny is the type of guy who is pretty good at everything, but doesn't make the players around him better.

Every champion has had a top 5 pick, a lot of them have had 2. If you think we are going to stumble into drafting a guy like Kobe Bryant, I strongly disagree. If you think we are going to land a guy like Billups who played for about 5 teams before Detroit and have him blossom into a top 5 PG, then I disagree again. Detroit was mad lucky to build thier team. Rasheed Wallace, Ben Wallace Prince and Billups all exceeded expectations. And if you think we are going to land one in free agency of have the pices to aquire one in a trade I disagree also. The draft is the only way.
OK, we have Mike. Are we going to win a championship? ;)

I get your point, but the argument goes both ways. Top 5 picks don't guarantee championships.

croz24
05-07-2008, 05:05 AM
OK, we have Mike. Are we going to win a championship? ;)

I get your point, but the argument goes both ways. Top 5 picks don't guarantee championships.

why can't we trade danny?

dunleavy is a very solid player and basically a slightly more consistent version of granger, but nobody ever said every player in the top 5 has won a championship. of course there are going to be busts or players who don't live up to expectations or those who settle for starter - all star status and don't lead their team to the title. but facts are facts and history is history and needs to be learned from. great teams become great by being bad enough to have a top 5 pick and turning that top 5 pick into an all time great or player who leads his team to the title. yes, there are a few exceptions which have been named and there are various ways of obtaining such high picks (in our case trade); but with the way the pacers are heading, we will never have a top 5 pick(s) with granger on our team unless we got VERY lucky. sure we might make a postseason or two, and may even screw up the draft pick if we ever did get a top 5, however, i want to win a championship. an nba championship. something the pacers have NEVER achieved. we can continue doing what we've done the past 30 or so years and maintain our mediocre/occasional contender ways, or we can take a chance at greatness. all i know is that having a top 5 pick does not guarantee you will win a championship...but NOT having a top 5 pick who is your best player guarantees you won't...

check this link out that talks about the top 5 picks from 1984-2003 and the likelihood they are to succeed and how good they turn out... http://www.82games.com/nbadraft2.htm

Rajah Brown
05-07-2008, 07:14 AM
croz24-

I've got your back and always have on this topic.

The question isn't wether a Mayo or Bayless will have a better
career than DG or not. The question is wether the Pacers are
better off with a Mayo/Bayless in the backsourt + Duns at SF
than what they have now in the backcourt + DG at SF.

I obviously think the answer is YES.

Speed
05-07-2008, 08:09 AM
Lots of good stuff here, first let me say this croz24, I like your argument, but watching college and highschool doesn't make you any better at this whole thing than most of us. I mean no disrespect, but you don't think alot of us do this, as well. So unless you actually get paid to scout, then there's absolutely no reason we have to take your word as golden. Hell, even then, a paid scout is wrong alot of the time.

So, the idea is Danny isn't a franchise guy, so move him to take a chance that a 20 year old kid will someday be better. This seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Let me preface it with this, potential and guys who meet their potential hardly ever meet.

1.) One word, Bender. He had the tools to be Kevin Garnett, I don't care what people say, and he's out of the league. Ya injuries, but he wasn't ever going to meet his potential, not by a long shot, his heart wasn't in it, imho. This pains me, but its true, I was the worlds biggest Bender or Bender move supporter.

2.) Reggie. He met his top end and we all are grateful. His top end of potential is what you saw in his prime. Really really good, hof good.

3.) Jordan, his ceiling was to be one of the best ever, if not the best ever. He maximized his potential, obviously.

My point is this, I agree Danny's potential isnt' maybe franchise guy, but I think he'll work and work and work to meet his potential. That is almost rare these days. If you move him and he is young by the way, just starting his prime. Then you've taken a huge step backwards, which guarantees nothing, except drafting guys with potential, guys who could be out of the league in 4 years or a shadow of what you thought they could be.

I'll use the previous example, Billups. He bounced around and was a bust, if you drafted Billups it was a huge mistake, you got pennies on the dollar for your return. It was a wasted pick. Billups turned into a wonderful sucess, but as a free agent for a team that he wasn't drafted by.

Carlos Boozer, went to Utah. I don't care what anyone says if you can get guys to go to Utah, you can get guys to come here.

Mike Dunleavy, guys who don't fit where they are now so you can buy low. Another way to get good players.

The point is that, ya, you need a franchise guy, but picking top 5 is the farthest thing from a guarantee you can have. For every CP3 there is a Darko.

Now as for Mayo and Bayless. You trade Danny and Mayo turns out to be an undersized two guard who can't guard his position. Bayless turns out to be a Point Guard who isn't a point guard at all, but a 6'3" combo guard who can't find the open man.

Or best case, they turn out to be all stars, first off it will take several years, at least for Bayless and at that point your saying to yourself, wow I wish we had a guy like Granger to go along side this kid so we could win more than 37 games.

Look at the Hawks, they hadn't been in the playoffs since 1999. They didn't have a winning record. Ya they had Boston reeling, but 9 years out of the playoffs and they still aren't a contender, not nearly.

I will say this, if the next Lebron comes out and you have a chance to trade Danny and get the number one pick, its a no brainer. You trade the farm for a Lebron or CP3.

Does anyone think Bayless or Mayo are the next Lebron or CP3? Heck, does anyone think Rose or Beasley are the next Lebron or CP3? Even a step further, does anyone think Rose or Beasley are as good as Oden or Durant will be, even?

Will Galen
05-07-2008, 08:42 AM
Have you guys that want to trade Granger for a pick ever heard the saying, 'A bird in hand is worth two in the bush."

The reason that's valid and pertains in this case is even the best judge's of talent get some evaluations wrong. So unless an NBA team has an abundance of riches or some other compelling reason you never see them trade a YOUNG established star for an unknown.

When you are where the Pacers are you don't gamble and trade a player like Danny Granger for an unknown. One, he's the most popular Pacer. Two, he's just starting to come into his prime years. Three, he's now the face of the franchise. Four, he's exactly the type of player Indiana fans love.

Five, if the Pacers traded him there would be immediate fallout with the fans. And sixth, by mid-season there would be a dead fieldhouse if whoever they traded him for didn't pan out immediately. Why? Because even the most diehard fans would lose confidence in managements ability to make things better.

The only pick I could see the Pacers even considering trading Danny for would be Rose, but if he got off to a bad start . . . like I said, the fieldhouse would be mostly empty by mid-season. Then it would be good by Pacers, because even the Simon's couldn't withstand that.

Rajah Brown
05-07-2008, 09:05 AM
Will-

You could have shortened that post to just 'he's the most popular
Pacer'. Cutting through all the other stuff in this thread, that's
what it seemingly boils down to.

Many Pacer fans will never get over Reggie's exit from the scene
and yearn desperately for the next 'Mr. Pacer'. They obviously
think they've found him in DG.

BillS
05-07-2008, 09:45 AM
Many Pacer fans will never get over Reggie's exit from the scene
and yearn desperately for the next 'Mr. Pacer'. They obviously
think they've found him in DG.

Given his current skill level, his potential, and his work ethic, I'm willing to take a chance on him.

Other than the NBA's "gotta have entertainment and hype" mentality, I've never seen any reason to buy into the "build on a star" strategy. For one thing, you don't know in advance who that will be except in very rare circumstances. For another, if that star is brought in for a couple of seasons and then leaves, you have nothing your fan base can cling to.

I'd rather build a strong foundation of fundamental players who may very well be role players, then look for the "star" piece as a final touch. The strong foundation makes sure you play well enough and hard enough to keep an ongoing fan base. Then, when the key player becomes available, you are ready right away instead of a few years later.

Understand that I don't think we have that foundation yet. I think Danny is a critical part of creating it. Even if the right deal came along, I think it would be too soon and that any great player we get in exchange will have worn out his welcome or be long gone before the rest of the pieces are brought together.

Putnam
05-07-2008, 10:35 AM
Viva BillS, Will Galen and Anthem!


Granger doesn't have to be a franchise player to be a keeper.

The Pacers' roster deficiency is not limited to one "franchise player." The Pacers need five starters and at least three top-quality rotation players to be contenders. Right now, small forward is probably the only position where we are set with adequate talent for the next 3+ years.

So we need several pieces before we can even start talkiong about contending. right now, we've got one starter. Trade Granger away for whomever, and you'll still only have one starter.

MyFavMartin
05-07-2008, 11:02 AM
Based on what Bird said, I'm guessing:

Russel Westbrook
Kosta Koufos
Donte Green
Anthony Randolph

Bird said PG and C... that would not include Green and Randolph, who would also be redundant with Shawne. But I'm not sure I would believe everything Bird says, whose misled us in the past... I do like Randolph at #11, but don't think he'll be there. If we pick him up, I'd expect a trade of Shawne to get back into the draft to address our need at PG.

Westbrook, Randolph, Speights, Augustin

Talked to a buddy who is a big OSU fan and he said Koufos isn't very good. He's a C that likes to spend time out at the 3PT line and doesn't like to bang or play defense.

Anthem
05-07-2008, 11:41 AM
The Pacers' roster deficiency is not limited to one "franchise player." The Pacers need five starters and at least three top-quality rotation players to be contenders. Right now, small forward is probably the only position where we are set with adequate talent for the next 3+ years.

So we need several pieces before we can even start talkiong about contending. right now, we've got one starter. Trade Granger away for whomever, and you'll still only have one starter.
Well said.

Naptown_Seth
05-07-2008, 12:21 PM
OK, we have Mike. Are we going to win a championship? ;)

I get your point, but the argument goes both ways. Top 5 picks don't guarantee championships.
Wayman Tisdale is going to punch you square in the mouth. Bender would too but he can't risk the injury to his tiny wrist.


Yeah, I don't get this "must draft high" case contuining on. Rik was a top 5, but was he really more key than Reggie, Dale and Jackson? You very clearly can build a title team without a top 5 pick, even if later you are trading for or signing one.

The success rate of intentional nose dives is pretty poor IMO. The Bulls have yet to truly recover and it's 10 years now. Then other teams like the Spurs had an artificial tank, they KEPT their guys and lost due to injury.


Granger doesn't have to be a franchise player to be a keeper.
I'm also in that camp with you guys. It's a rebuild. So first you slot in which players are answers at their pay and their role. Diener good enough to play backup PG at his pay and willing to do so? If yes then mark it down.

You aren't "building around" those answers, you are just pre-assembling the supporting cast. And at this early stage there is so much room for a star player that it doesn't hurt at all. If you set it up so you HAD to get a star Center and a star PG is on the board/FA/trade available then maybe it's an issue, but for now you just get as ready as you can to slot in that star and run.

The wide open needs means that anything other than a truly elite SF is going to be just what Indy needs. This is why I'm not anti-Westbrook, just anti him as the PG answer. They could use an athletic, defensive SG too.

Let the players and opportunities fall into place rather than trying to force things, it'll end up costing a lot more if you force it.


No way Koufos is on the Pacers board. No way.

OakMoses
05-07-2008, 12:28 PM
My point is this, I agree Danny's potential isnt' maybe franchise guy, but I think he'll work and work and work to meet his potential. That is almost rare these days. If you move him and he is young by the way, just starting his prime. Then you've taken a huge step backwards, which guarantees nothing, except drafting guys with potential, guys who could be out of the league in 4 years or a shadow of what you thought they could be.

I think this is the key point in this discussion. We have a known commodity with Granger. He's already a very good player. Not only is a good player, but he's gotten better every year. It's not just his statistics that are improving either. He's become a better long-range shooter. He's become a better ball-handler. He's showing signs of becoming both a better finisher and a better passer. How has he done this? He works hard to improve.

We also know how he reacts to being a millionaire for the first time in his life. He's been one for 3 years now and he hasn't screwed anything up. You may have watched Mayo and Bayless play in college, but can you tell me what they're going to do once they've got a couple million in their pockets? You can't.

I'm not saying I wouldn't trade Danny. I'm just saying I'd be very, very careful doing so. If you move him, you've got to hit a home run with the trade. You've got to get a guy who, in the near future, is unarguably a better player than Granger is. I like Mayo and Bayless, but I don't see either one of them as sure things.

owl
05-07-2008, 12:34 PM
As has been said already DG for Rose maybe and no additional picks.
Danny is a rising probable all-star, who defends, scores and rebounds.
He has proven to be durable and not an embarrasment to the team.
So lets trade him for an unproven rookie in the 3-5 range?
Who has proven nothing? Wow.
If the Pacers did that it would add an additionaly 3-4 years on the re-build time.

If Love is there that is who Bird is going to pick. That adds another piece to the puzzle.
Next year he drafts a center. JO is traded in the last year of his contract for a guard .
That is how I see it playing out. At least that is a possible plan.

Since86
05-07-2008, 12:38 PM
Phil Jackson's teams use the triangle, right? Larry Brown needs/wants certain types of players, right? Don Nelson?

JOB isn't even close to being on their level. He can't sniff their underwear.

There's a difference between building around a system that works, and JOB's.

Speed
05-07-2008, 12:43 PM
If Love is there that is who Bird is going to pick. That adds another piece to the puzzle.
Next year he drafts a center. JO is traded in the last year of his contract for a guard .
That is how I see it playing out. At least that is a possible plan.

I could absolutely see this happening in some form. JOs contract becomes a nice asset after this year and should, at very least bring in a good prospect or two for teams that are either up against the cap, want to make a play for Lebron or that group or a team that sees a top 5 in the league shot blocker as the missing piece for a year and provide cap relief.

Not to side track the discussing, but it shows that their are other ways to improve then having a top 5 pick. Lots of them.

Naptown_Seth
05-07-2008, 12:56 PM
It's poorly written.

I'm taking it as: "The rules have changed regarding getting prospects into our building for workouts. I'm not sure if it's a good rule or not."
And he's also suggesting that for teams picking below the top spots, say top 10 perhaps, they volume of players those teams can get in and their preferred status for picks (higher = more money) means they are going to hog all the top prospects.

If a team could only get a few in at a time then the others would have open schedules for teams like Indy to get them in. But if Miami can have 8 guys in for a few days (given travel, etc) instead of 4 then they might be holding up 8 of the top 12 prospects.

Now pass that down the line to team 2 who was already waiting, etc.

Worse yet is if you are Miami then even if you don't care beyond Rose/Beasely it's still smart strategy to "filabuster" these prospects simply to hinder the competition from knowing what's what.

For any given team the chance to have more guys at the same time is great, but ultimately it creates a logjam early on where the lower teams have to sit on their hands and wait for players to get a clear schedule.

Will Galen
05-07-2008, 01:26 PM
For any given team the chance to have more guys at the same time is great, but ultimately it creates a logjam early on where the lower teams have to sit on their hands and wait for players to get a clear schedule.

I think they need to address the whole deal of players working out for teams. It has worts as you pointed out. Players also get jet lag and tired from flying around the country.

They could streamline this process a lot. I know last year, teams started to look at players together. There's six divisions, maybe teams should get together as divisions and work the players out that way. Then the player could spend the day talking to the various teams coaching staffs and scouts and they could get a feel for them that way.

I don't really think these workouts are really necessary other than getting a feel for a player face to face. As for the psychological tests why should a player have to do ten of them? Get together and give him one.

SoupIsGood
05-07-2008, 02:48 PM
Every champion has had a top 5 pick, a lot of them have had 2.

Q: Did all these champions trade away their best player to draft in the top 5, or did they perhaps just draft from the spot that their record slotted them?

I think everyone gets that it's nice to pick in the top 5. Where we don't agree is that it's a great idea to trade our best player for a pick in the top 5.

And it's either overly pessimistic or short-sighted to say that the draft is "the only way." Might as well call up Miami and LA and tell them that the Shaq and Gasol trades don't really count.

Taterhead
05-08-2008, 02:26 AM
Q: Did all these champions trade away their best player to draft in the top 5, or did they perhaps just draft from the spot that their record slotted them?

I think everyone gets that it's nice to pick in the top 5. Where we don't agree is that it's a great idea to trade our best player for a pick in the top 5.

And it's either overly pessimistic or short-sighted to say that the draft is "the only way." Might as well call up Miami and LA and tell them that the Shaq and Gasol trades don't really count.

I agree, but the start of thier teams was the draft. Wade and Kobe were both attained through the draft. You can't get a great player like that through a trade without completely gutting your team! And we are probably never going to see the stars align good enough to land one in free agency no matter how much cap room we have.

Without Kobe, Gasol is irrelevant, and without Wade so was the Shaq deal. And furthurmore Shaq wouldn't have went to Miami if Wade wasn't there.

I also agree that it's usually not a good idea to trade your best player, but Danny isn't our best player when everyone is healthy. People on here already want to trade our best player. Danny isn't even an all-star. In fact he'll have a hard time ever making an all star team. Do you honestly see him beating out most of the guys on this list next year...

Wade, James, Marion, Pirece, Carter, Jefferson, Hamilton, Deng, J. Johnson, A. Igoudala, M. Redd, J. Richardson

He is not a better SF than Pierce, James, Marion or Jefferson, and he is definately not a better 2 than Wade, Redd, Hamilton or Joe Johnson. The rest are debatable, but really close.

People on here are vastly overrating Danny. He is a solid SF, but not a player you can build a team around and be successful. And after all, it's not like we would be depleting our SF position by moving him, Dunleavy, S. Williams, and Graham (cheap resigning) would all still be here.

Taterhead
05-08-2008, 02:59 AM
Wayman Tisdale is going to punch you square in the mouth. Bender would too but he can't risk the injury to his tiny wrist.


Yeah, I don't get this "must draft high" case contuining on. Rik was a top 5, but was he really more key than Reggie, Dale and Jackson? You very clearly can build a title team without a top 5 pick, even if later you are trading for or signing one.


I respect your opinion, but your best example of bulding a title team while not having a top 5 pick was not even a title team. The truth is they did have a top 5 pick and made it to the Finals. And yes, Rik had a lot to do with that. He was a major match-up problem until we faced the teams that put us out most of the time (Magic-Shaq, Knicks-Ewing, Lakers-Shaq). The Pacers came up short because of it. At the end of the day they did not have an answer for the more talented players who coincidentally were higher draft picks.

In fact there isn't a title team that did not have one that I can think of over the last 30 years, so where is this evidence that you can CLEARLY build a title team without one? It doesn't exist, the opposite is entirely true and history defends that pont of view. Look at the teams remaining this year, notice anything smiliar about them?

Of course there are a lot of misses. But the people on this board act like picking at 11 is a lock. It's far more likely that the player picked at 11 turns out to be a major dud. People also ignore the fact that resigning Granger to a large extension is going to take away all the flexibility of Jermaine's contract ending. It will ensure we are right up against the cap for the next 3 seasons without signing a single draft pick or free agent. We won't have the room to sign one free agent to a contract more than 5-7 million dollars until the offseason before 2011-2012.

People also continue to bring up Bender, but let me tell you, Bender would have no doubt been a better player than Granger if it wasn't for his injuries. And you can never tell who is going to have injury issues and who isn't. The Pacers took a gamble that didn't pay off, but they did not make an error in talent evaluation. Bender was a project that never got a chance to reach it's conclusion. You add a healthy developed Bender to the squad that lost in the ECF a few years back and the Pacers could've won the title, there is no doubt in my mind.

Taterhead
05-08-2008, 03:14 AM
OK, we have Mike. Are we going to win a championship? ;)

I get your point, but the argument goes both ways. Top 5 picks don't guarantee championships.

I agree, nothing gurantees championships. But sitting around waiting for something to fall in your lap gurantees failure, IMO.

Of course top 5 picks are far from locks, as is anything in life. The issue is getting that opportunity and cashing in.

The Pacers for years played it safe. They did it all throughout the 90's and wasted 5-6 opportunities to win the title. There was a time when Charles Barkley listed us as a team he wanted to play for when he left Pheonix. But we didn't want to give up a package of good solid players and draft picks to get a great player to help take the load off Reggie. They could've made the move for Barkley and easily replaced whoever they had to give up, but refused and in the end got the same result they would have if they gambled and failed.

Taterhead
05-08-2008, 03:26 AM
Have you guys that want to trade Granger for a pick ever heard the saying, 'A bird in hand is worth two in the bush."

The reason that's valid and pertains in this case is even the best judge's of talent get some evaluations wrong. So unless an NBA team has an abundance of riches or some other compelling reason you never see them trade a YOUNG established star for an unknown.

When you are where the Pacers are you don't gamble and trade a player like Danny Granger for an unknown. One, he's the most popular Pacer. Two, he's just starting to come into his prime years. Three, he's now the face of the franchise. Four, he's exactly the type of player Indiana fans love.

Five, if the Pacers traded him there would be immediate fallout with the fans. And sixth, by mid-season there would be a dead fieldhouse if whoever they traded him for didn't pan out immediately. Why? Because even the most diehard fans would lose confidence in managements ability to make things better.

The only pick I could see the Pacers even considering trading Danny for would be Rose, but if he got off to a bad start . . . like I said, the fieldhouse would be mostly empty by mid-season. Then it would be good by Pacers, because even the Simon's couldn't withstand that.


1. Yes I've heard that saying, always thought it was bull*****.
2. Danny Granger is not an established "star"
3. The fieldhouse is already dead. People aren't going there to watch Danny Granger. And they never will, unless the team is contending for a division title at the very least.
4. I don't have any confidence in management, and reading the board this is one area where I'm in the majority.
5. Of course it's a gamble, but trading guys like Murphy, Tinsley, Dunleavy, Diogu, S. Williams and JO (right now) are probable steps back, lateral moves at best. So it's likely unless we get the steal of the draft at #11 we will be bad again next year.

croz24
05-08-2008, 05:33 AM
Look at the teams remaining this year, notice anything smiliar about them?

I DO!!! let's see: spurs - duncan, hornets - paul, jazz - dwill, lakers - kobe/gasol (kobe came out of high which is the ONLY reason he wasn't top 5), magic - howard, cavs - bron, pistons - billups/sheed, celtics - kg/allen...ALL the leader(s) on their respective teams and ALL top 5 picks in the draft (outside of kobe of course)...as i said earlier, high schoolers should be the only exceptions to this because most of these guys would have been top 5 had they played at least 1 year of college ball...

rexnom
05-08-2008, 05:49 AM
I agree with both of you guys. I really do. However, I see Danny as the quintessential Pippen/Robin number two guy. We all want a number one but why set back our rebuilding process a couple of years for the chance (remember Jonathan Bender?!) at a number one when we already have a budding all-star?

I'd rather be patient and wait for the opportunity and not overpay/destroy the entire team for just the chance at hitting the home run (which btw, still wouldn't be a panacea, or do you think that Bayless or Mayo will be enough to lead this franchise to to a championship?).

Patient and wait for the opportunity to strike. I'm pretty sure that is what a lor of these teams did - Pistons (Billups and Sheed); Lakers (Gasol); Celtics (KG/Allen); Utah (got the opportunity to trade up for Williams without great cost, trading Granger is a great cost).

The rest just struck gold, which we could also wait to do, of course. You can't force that Spurs (Duncan at 1), Cavs (Lebron at 1), Magic (Howard at 1), NO (Paul slipping to 4 - obviously if a guy like Rose slips to 4 or something we should trade anything to get him.).

Will Galen
05-08-2008, 07:49 AM
1. Yes I've heard that saying, always thought it was bull*****.
2. Danny Granger is not an established "star"
3. The fieldhouse is already dead. People aren't going there to watch Danny Granger. And they never will, unless the team is contending for a division title at the very least.
4. I don't have any confidence in management, and reading the board this is one area where I'm in the majority.
5. Of course it's a gamble, but trading guys like Murphy, Tinsley, Dunleavy, Diogu, S. Williams and JO (right now) are probable steps back, lateral moves at best. So it's likely unless we get the steal of the draft at #11 we will be bad again next year.


You don't have any confidence in management, yet you would like management to trade Granger for a top 5 pick in the hope we get a franchise player.

Your logic is about as bad as it gets!!!!

BillS
05-08-2008, 09:06 AM
I agree, nothing gurantees championships. But sitting around waiting for something to fall in your lap gurantees failure, IMO.

Of course top 5 picks are far from locks, as is anything in life. The issue is getting that opportunity and cashing in.

The Pacers for years played it safe. They did it all throughout the 90's and wasted 5-6 opportunities to win the title. There was a time when Charles Barkley listed us as a team he wanted to play for when he left Pheonix. But we didn't want to give up a package of good solid players and draft picks to get a great player to help take the load off Reggie. They could've made the move for Barkley and easily replaced whoever they had to give up, but refused and in the end got the same result they would have if they gambled and failed.

Yeah, because the gamble for rising DPOY Ron Artest worked out so well.

Ballerzfan
05-08-2008, 09:09 AM
One point I don't see in this thread is that we already do have that allstar player that would allow Granger to be our "Pippen". JO is not only an allstar but is that major matchup problem "when healthy". Of course the past couple of years his health has been the issue. Can we bank on the fact that he and Tinman will go injury free this year? Of course not, but the fact remains that their salaries are on our books and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Unless the Simons are willing to pull a James Dolan, we have to cross our fingers and hope for good health and another couple years to get the cap flexibility to either sign, trade for or develop the next Pacer allstar player. Then hope we've been smart with our draft picks and trades in the meantime to have the supporting cast we need.

One other note, (i'm too lazy to look up who made this statement...lol) someone was touting how Granger was a role model and a good millionaire. True, but the casual fans are not going to ever turn out enmasse to watch Granger or any other Pacer no mattter how "nice" they are unless one of the following occurs:

1) DG or someone else starts scoring and taking over games like a CPIII, LeBron or Kobe can
2) The Pacers gets to the playoff as a LEGITIMATE contender


And lets face it, the casual fans are the ones who are missing from Conseco.

Hicks
05-08-2008, 11:10 AM
Let's look for the "proven" formula of trading your best player(s) for a top pick that leads you to the glory of the NBA crown.

Spurs? I know they sucked due to injuries, which led to Tim Duncan. I believe Robinson was a top pick, did they trade their best players for that chance? Or did they just suck and it worked out?

Heat? Sucked enough to have a top pick in a great 2003 draft, and Wade ended up being better than advertised. They traded 3 starters for Shaq, but only because the Lakers thought they had to trade him.

Pistons? Even the year they ended up winning, they most likely weren't beating Indiana in the playoffs until they got Rasheed Wallace that February. The rest of those starters were either trades (Billups, Hamilton, B.Wallace) or a non-lottery 1st (Prince).

Lakers? Kobe was a mid-1st pick. Shaq came to LA as a free agent (and this would never happen here because we're not the Lakers, in LA).

Bulls? At least this one was a trade for a pick that landed their star Jordan, but wasn't the trade made 1 or 2 years ago? On top of that, the Blazers had to take Bowie @ #2 to have Jordan there for the taking. Obviously it turned out great, but I don't see a "by design" plan in action to trade their best guys for a top pick to make this all work out. Anyone have more on that trade?

Rockets? They sucked enough to draft Olajuwon, didn't they?

BB Pistons? Did they trade for the picks for Isiah or Dumars?

Showtime Lakers? Did they trade for the pick for Magic Johnson?

Celtics? Did they trade for the pick for Bird?

Depending on the answer to these questions, maybe a couple of them at best did. I'm hardly convinced that's what we HAVE to do.

If we should model after any modern winner, it should be the 2004 Pistons. Find pieces that aren't working where they are, that you think could work together if you assemble them. Draft wisely.

There's no promises in this league, you can only make choices that seem reasonable to you. You certainly shouldn't gamble lightly. Such as trading your best young player and more in the hopes that someone MIGHT like that better than they're top pick, which MIGHT turn out to be a superstar.

I'd care to say that the odds are against you if you go that method, and it's a method that, when it fails, puts you in a much worse hole than we're in right now. If you think people are moaning now, if you think it's horrible now, just wait if we go this route.

Don't call me a genius if I buy a lottery ticket and happen to win.

Naptown_Seth
05-08-2008, 11:14 AM
I think they need to address the whole deal of players working out for teams. It has worts as you pointed out. Players also get jet lag and tired from flying around the country.

They could streamline this process a lot. I know last year, teams started to look at players together. There's six divisions, maybe teams should get together as divisions and work the players out that way. Then the player could spend the day talking to the various teams coaching staffs and scouts and they could get a feel for them that way.

I don't really think these workouts are really necessary other than getting a feel for a player face to face. As for the psychological tests why should a player have to do ten of them? Get together and give him one.
Well I think it is nice to see the core prospects on court together without the chaff of NCAA filler in the mix. I do like your idea of running these things in sub-groups. My guess is that teams want to look at certain arrangements that goes in line with their own plans. Like the Pacers may not want to see SFs out there at all, they might want to run drills/scrimmages that focus on PG play instead.

It's a tough call. Clearly they are trying to adjust and make it work better, but each change brings new problems to solve.

Of course at the very least they better have 15+ games of tape on each player and have scouts that solve them each live a few times. Doing it on a part time basis via Tivo I was able to see about 5+ for perhaps 17 of the top 20 prospects. I'd hope they were using workouts more to verify what they think they already know.

I mean if you want PG tryouts just go look at Collison or Augustin vs Rose for starters, or Rose being defended by Mayo, Lopez vs Love, the list goes on. A lot of "tryouts" have already occured with real wins and losses on the line.

Naptown_Seth
05-08-2008, 11:25 AM
Look at the teams remaining this year, notice anything smiliar about them?
So the Lakers are going to the top because of Gasol and Odom, not Kobe?

Also, give me the list of teams without at least 1 top 5 pick....not so fast, the Pacers have #3 Dunleavy. If most teams have at least 1 top 5 pick then the odds are that the teams in the title hunt have one. Wow. Notice how many teams have a guy under 6'5", proves that you have to get shorter players in order to even have a chance. Or it proves that top 5 picks tend to linger in the NBA and spread out across many teams.



Celtics? Did they trade for the pick for Bird?
Not a top 5, went at #6.
They did trade their #1 (JB Carroll) to GS for the #3 (McHale) AND Robert Parish. Really.

Now imagine the Pacers trading Danny and the #11 to move to #6, finding out EJ is another JB Carroll and watching #11 Love/Westbrook/pick 'em and Granger go on to be an AS tandem. Trading up has burned many teams.


Showtime Lakers? Did they trade for the pick for Magic Johnson?
Basically.


Then they come into the 1979 draft possessing the No. 1 overall pick courtesy of the New Orleans Jazz, who had signed Lakers free agent Gail Goodrich three years earlier.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/nba/news/2001/05/26/sayitaintso_lakers/

Also mentions that the Lakers trading the #8 they got from KC to Boston is what made Boston comfortable with drafting Bird despite him possibly returning to ISU for another season. With the 6 and 8 they felt okay about that risk since they'd still be getting a top player that season, except that player was Freeman Williams.


Again, if 28 of 30 teams have at least 1 top 5 pick on their roster then naturally most to all teams in the playoffs will have a top 5 player on their team. The key is HOW did that player get there and is that player the main reason they are there.

I could just as easily prove how horrible it is to have a top 5 pick by listing all the bottom teams with at least 1 top 5 pick, including Miami this year. This means that logically the argument that you must have a top 5 pick is moot.

With that off the table your better research would be into what the top 5 picks do across the board, looking at ALL top 5 picks and what they turn into. I'm conceding the ability to trade that pick/player, as Boston did to get KG. But Detroit didn't get Sheed with a top 5 pick. Detroit was able to assemble a team basically without using many if any top 5 assets (or top 5 players like Stack acquired with other top 5 picks). They were able to get something out of Hill thanks to the sign and trade bump he got in salary vs just going as a true FA, with Big Ben returning. Of course that was non-drafted, non-AS Ben Wallace at the time.


The Lakers used CAP SPACE to sign Shaq and traded Vlade for a post 10 pick to get Kobe. In other words they neither had to stink nor had to have a top 5 pick in order to win 3 titles and win 70 games.

croz24
05-08-2008, 04:01 PM
*disrespectful comment removed* in my second post on trading granger i asked this..."just do me a favor and tell me the best player on the past oh, 30 nba championship teams. now tell me how many of those players were drafted OUTSIDE the top 5..."

as for my "better research", did you follow the link i provided at all that analyzed every top 5 pick from 1984 to 2003 and how they turned out? i have answered every rebuttal you've stated if you would just READ my posts.

and as i've stated, we have to trade for the top 5 pick because with granger, the pacers will never be bad enough to gain that pick unless they got very lucky. and free agents like a shaq will never choose an indiana over a los angeles or miami...

i get tired having to constantly repeat myself and what taterhead has said because people don't read our posts.

- you brought up kobe...i already talked about kobe and high schoolers (regardless gasol and odom were top 5 and 7 of the 8 playoff teams have top 5 picks as their best player)

- i've clearly stated the teams who are winning titles are those who have their best player/leader as a top 5 pick (bird was 6, but because he was drafted a year early. had he been drafted AFTER making the title game vs msu and AFTER winning the naismith award he would have gone 1 or 2)

- prove to me using fact how horrible it is because it looks to me like the teams with top 5 picks as their best player are the teams who are advancing in the playoffs (didn't miami win a title recently with wade?)

- did you follow my link at all analyzing top 5 picks and how they turn out?

- again, i answered the shaq situation in previous posts

i'm so adament on trading for this pick because the pacers have no other way. as taterhead stated, trading picks is the easiest and most feasible chance the pacers have of landing a great one. even if the player doesn't turn out to be great and lead us to a championship, history and % tell us he will at least be an all-star. something granger will probably never claim.

Peck
05-08-2008, 05:16 PM
I've said it before and I'll say it again.

There is no absolute way to win a title. If there were then everyone would do it.

Luck and skill are almost equal contributers to the mix.

You can't say the best player in the league is the answer because up until now I believe Kevin Garnett (who is arguably the best individual overall player in the past 5 years) does not have a ring.

However having a great team of roll players does not guarantee success either (see the Pacers from 94-00).

As to Granger, I'll say this.

We did not win a title last season we did not get eliminated from the title round.

So therefor there are no untouchable players.

Having said that I will say this, the person or people we trade Danny for have to be better than he is. Or if you get two players back combined they have to be equal to and fill other needs we have.

MyFavMartin
05-08-2008, 05:51 PM
I'd rather build like Boston and keep our Pierce (Granger) and acquire the necessary pieces through having traded the other pieces around Granger.

I'm not sure I want to tank like Boston did, though, for years.

Justin Tyme
05-08-2008, 07:01 PM
[color=red]

i get tired having to constantly repeat myself and what taterhead has said because people don't read our posts.


Au contraire, it's not that we aren't reading your posts, it's we aren't falling blindly in line with how you feel. Others are just in disagreement with your view. Sorry, but I am one that disagrees with you and Taterhead.

Unlike Pacer fans gambling with the Simon's money/franchise and never having to ever be held responsible isn't a luxury Bird has. Trading Granger for a 5 pick will never happen.

Will Galen said it very appropriately "a bird in hand is worth 2 in the bush." The Pacers have a proven commodity in Granger where as the pick has proved nothing in the NBA. Zero, zilch, zippo.

I'm still waiting, so is Portland, on Oden to do something in the NBA! There is no guarantee he will be as great as the hype he received at draft time last year. How many millions did Portland pay for that unproven #1 pick to sit on the bench this past season?

croz24
05-08-2008, 11:18 PM
i understand the varying points of view, but naptown was bringing about questions which i had already answered...

owell. i just want to win a championship and am tired of pacers management screwing that up. the pacers in the 90s should have won at least one title, and would have had they taken a chance. i don't recall the sir charles rumors but we were one player/impact player away and we stood pat. we are doing the exact same thing as a franchise now. standing pat. HOPING things work out in our favor instead of deciding our own fate. granger is a very solid player for the pacers and i would love for him to be with us as a #3 option, but not as a #1...

what does our future look like? honestly. it's not very bright imo. we don't have any assets to trade for a kg or ray allen to come here so we can't build like boston. we don't have the city appeal to build like a miami or los angeles. our only hope is the draft. WE NEEDED TO TANK! tanking ourselves into the top 5 slot would have been ideal. you keep granger to pair with a future all star. granger then could be used as what he was drafted as. but for some reason, management thought it best to try to make the postseason. but why? we are headed nowhere! would you rather be in the pacers' position or miami's? miami even with the worst record in the league had more talent than us. and now they get to add a beasley/rose to wade and marion. that team will be an instant contender. seems like every team in the league knows what it takes to win but the pacers...

just about every top 5 pick in history has had all star/greatness potential, it's just that most of how they turn out as players depends upon their mentality. so we'd have to draft someone mentally strong. danny granger is NOT an all star player. danny was labeled a sure thing out of college (5yrs of college) and only in his 5th yr sr year put up the types of #s that mayo and bayless put up as freshman. and mayo and bayless' #s surpassed grangers collegiate #s. danny was NEVER as highly touted as those two and did his damage in college against lesser competition...

technically, every player in the draft is an 'unknown'. so that means jordan, bird, magic, wilt, shaq, duncan, zeke, russell etc etc were also unknowns at one time. the odds are in your favor of at least finding a player = to granger's talent in the top 5. the difference between players picked top 5 and anywhere else however, is the vast majority of nba hall of famers and leaders on title winning teams were top 5 picks...ugh. i'm done rambling and am tired of this argument. waiting for the stars to align is never the way to go imo...

Oneal07
05-08-2008, 11:59 PM
Put it this way. . .if you draft smart, all that talk about tanking, trading star player. . .it really doesn't mater.

Just because Danny isn't gonna be on the All-Star team doesn't mean he is going to suck. If the Pacers start winning and are at the top of the East, I'm sure Danny will get some kind of recognition if he's a BIG part of the Pacers winning. Trading him only deteriorates our talent even more.

Taterhead
05-09-2008, 12:49 AM
Yeah, because the gamble for rising DPOY Ron Artest worked out so well.

What gamble? We traded Jalen Rose and got Miller and Artest. That trade was a major steal at the time. And we did win 60 games and make the ECF. Nobody could foresee the events that unfolded.

Taterhead
05-09-2008, 01:09 AM
You don't have any confidence in management, yet you would like management to trade Granger for a top 5 pick in the hope we get a franchise player.

Your logic is about as bad as it gets!!!!

Do you have confidence in management? They've got the short end of every trade the last 4-5 trades or so. THEY decided to keep giving Tinsley and Artest chance after chance. THEY decided to give O'neal 100+ million dollars. THEY decided to take on Murphy and Dunleavy's contracts. THEY have drafted 2 euro players who are probably never even going to suit up for us. And THEY will decide Danny Granger is a guy THEY can build this team around and give him a max deal after this year. And I think THEY will be wrong yet again.

I don't think they will do this, but I think they should.

If I owned the team I would have fired Bird the day the season ended and completely started fresh.

Taterhead
05-09-2008, 01:42 AM
I agree with both of you guys. I really do. However, I see Danny as the quintessential Pippen/Robin number two guy. We all want a number one but why set back our rebuilding process a couple of years for the chance (remember Jonathan Bender?!) at a number one when we already have a budding all-star?

I'd rather be patient and wait for the opportunity and not overpay/destroy the entire team for just the chance at hitting the home run (which btw, still wouldn't be a panacea, or do you think that Bayless or Mayo will be enough to lead this franchise to to a championship?).

Patient and wait for the opportunity to strike. I'm pretty sure that is what a lor of these teams did - Pistons (Billups and Sheed); Lakers (Gasol); Celtics (KG/Allen); Utah (got the opportunity to trade up for Williams without great cost, trading Granger is a great cost).

The rest just struck gold, which we could also wait to do, of course. You can't force that Spurs (Duncan at 1), Cavs (Lebron at 1), Magic (Howard at 1), NO (Paul slipping to 4 - obviously if a guy like Rose slips to 4 or something we should trade anything to get him.).

See this is where I am seperate from most of this board. I don't think Danny Granger can or ever will be able to hold Scottie Pippens jock. I have always been puzzled by the comparison, there games are NOTHING alike.

Here is a list of Pippens accomplishments the year after Jordan left to play baseball.

23 Pts 9 Rbs 6 Assist 3 Steals, All NBA First Team, All NBA Defensive First Team, All Star MVP, 3rd in League MVP voting. He carried the Bulls to 55 wins, and BJ Armstrong to the All Star game..

Scottie Pippen is a sure fire HOF player even if he never played a single game with Michael Jordan.

And as far as Mayo or Bayless it's a crap shoot. But I think Mayo's ceiling is much higher than Grangers. The kid has unbelievable ability to create his own shot, and is a very good defender to boot. He was all over Derrick Rose in the USC/Memphis game early in the year last year. A lot of scouts think he'll be able to play PG in the NBA and I agree. So if he can play PG you have a 6'-5" PG who can do it all to start building your team around. And if he can't play PG you have a dynamic shooting guard who has the ability at the very worst to be a defensive stopper and first perimeter option in the NBA. I view Mayo as what Larry Hughes was before the injuries. And most people thought Larry Hughes was going to be a bigtime player before constant injuries thwarted those expectations. I would say the only way Mayo doesn't at the least be a top 10 SG in the NBA is injury problems, which he doesn't have a history of at this point.

But it's amazing to me how people on this board who are hoping we stay at #11 and draft Westbrook is more promising than making a move up. Westbrook is an athletically talented player, but has shown nothing to prove he can play either PG or SG in the NBA, he has a ton of question marks. If he doesn't pan out you have a 6'3" SG that can't shoot. In other words you have spent a lottery pick on Greg Buckner a career journeyman who couldn't crack 20 minutes a game on the lowly T-Wolves.

rexnom
05-09-2008, 02:37 AM
I never meant to say the Granger would be Pippen or anything close. I don't think that most of this board thinks that either. I just meant that I see Danny as the ideal number two guy on a contender...like Pippen was. Not necessarily that good, obviously.

Taterhead
05-09-2008, 11:46 AM
I never meant to say the Granger would be Pippen or anything close. I don't think that most of this board thinks that either. I just meant that I see Danny as the ideal number two guy on a contender...like Pippen was. Not necessarily that good, obviously.

I didn't mean to come off as attacking your take. I knew what you meant. But I have seen a lot of people compare Granger to Pippen, and I just don't see it as a fair comparison to Danny. Pippen got to practice against/learn from the greatest player ever everyday. And he was a little more fluid of an athlete also.

Justin Tyme
05-09-2008, 06:22 PM
[QUOTE=Taterhead;715693]

If I owned the team I would have fired Bird the day the season ended/QUOTE]

AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!