PDA

View Full Version : Pacers.com: Bird hints at possible moves in NBA Draft



blanket
06-19-2008, 05:55 PM
Bird hints at possible moves in NBA Draft
http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/bird_draft_080619.html


Editor's Note: Larry Bird met with the media after the Pacers' final scheduled pre-draft workout on June 19 and shared his thoughts about the prospects as well as his hopes for the June 26 NBA Draft. What follows is a transcript of that session.
Q. Big guys and point guards still the focus?
A. “Yeah, it’s according to what we do in other things but you always look at big guys and we need points so it has to be an emphasis, no question.”

Q. I know you don’t want to show your hand but are there some of these guys that have stepped up and maybe opened your eyes these last few weeks?
A. “Well, it’s always better to bring them in here and work them out the way that we think they can play, if they can get up and down and defend. It’s always better to see them in person. I have a good feeling of who we’re going to take right now and we think he’ll be there.”

Q. Is he a point guard or a big guy?
A. “He’s one of the two.”

Q. Larry, do you feel like there’s one position more important over the other, or do you feel like you need a point guard more than you need a big man?
A. “Not really. We’ll take the best player available. A guy that can help us out right now.”

Q. How much weight do you put on the workout—
A. “I’ve put on quite a bit lately.”

Q. What do you think (about) their body of work throughout college or how much does this weigh when they come in here personally?
A. “It’s good to see them up close and in your own arena. These guys have been scouted. We’ve been scouting them all year long. If a guy has a bad day, you just shake it off and move on.”

Q. Larry, how much do you look into character? Not just the on-court work, do you check with friends? Do you check with coaches? Do you do that kind of homework as well?
A. “Oh yeah, we do it all. We talk to a lot of people. We’ve got guys out there doing background checks and it’s a little different than it used to be.”

Q. Did you hear Jeff Van Gundy talking about you the other night on the broadcast?
A. “No.”

Q. Somebody said that you’re a Celtic and that you’ll always be a Celtic and he said ‘No, he’s a Pacer, that’s what his paycheck says.’
A. “Well, I’m a Pacer. I played out there but I’m happy where I’m at.”

Q. Do you feel like you can get the player you want? Are you guys looking to trade up or do you feel like 11 is going to be where it’s at?
A. “Well, there’s going to be a heck of a player at (pick) 11. There’s no question about that. We’ve talked to a number of teams about different scenarios but we’ve got some things in the works so if we can get another pick that would be just great. We’re looking at all options.”

Q. Do you think there’s a chance you’ll move up?
A. “We possibly could but I like 11. I like a lot of places but whoever we get is going to help us. He’s going to be a good player.”

Q. When you look at this thing, do you feel like it’s turning into more of a point guard league? When you look at some of the top players in the league, it’s more point guard oriented over big men?
A. “Well, there’s a lot of good point guards in the league right now. There’s no question that it’s a very critical position. We look at all of the point guards, but we’ll take the best player available whether it’s a point, a swingman, or a big man. We’d like to have another pick in this draft and that’s what we’re trying to get right now.”

Q. Do you feel like the point guard position is even more vital the way Jim (O’Brien) plays offensively and defensively?
A. “Well, if you don’t have a real strong point guard, you have to have a good off-guard. I always like to have two guards out there that can handle the ball. The way Jimmy plays, anyone can bring it up and start the offense. It’s important to have a solid starter at the point. The way Jimmy plays, quickness and up-tempo, as long as you have a good two guard out there with him.”

Q. The player you’re looking at, do you feel like you’re pretty confident he’ll be at 11?
A. “Oh, yes. Yes.”

Q. The fact that (Russell) Westbrook (UCLA) didn’t come, does that compromise your interest in him at all?
A. “Not really, we’ve seen enough of him. Like I said, we’d like to have them all come through here. (J.J.) Hickson (NC State) didn’t come. Guys that showed up (today) here, this has been our best workout as far as number of guys we’ve had in here. They really played hard and did a good job.”

Q. Is there a reason why Westbrook didn’t come?
A. “He’s been hurt. We’ll probably get him in here early next week.”

Q. What’s your take on Mike Green from Butler?
A. “I like Mike. He’s scrappy, he’s smart and every time he steps on the court he does some good things.”

Q. George Hill from IUPUI was in here last week. Your thoughts on him?
A. “George Hill played very well. I don’t know where he’ll go in the draft but he’ll have a job, no question about it. (He’s) very skilled.”

Q. What do guys have a chance to show in workouts like this that maybe they can’t show in their college setting because they have to do certain things to help that team win?
A. “Right. Here, you can see how athletic they are whereas a lot of places they play in college, some of the teams are so good that kids can’t really do the things they want to do (like) one-on-one and pick-and-pop. Coaches want them to stay down low. You see a number of players come through here that are a lot more athletic than we really thought they are because they were in a structured offense.”

Q. Larry, a lot of the analysts and mock draft types, basically (have) it down to Westbrook and Augustin for you guys at 11. Would you have a surprise for them or is that a reasonable forecast?
A. “We’ll see. We’ll know next Thursday. All I know is that we’re going to get a good player. I can guarantee that.”

Q. What do you take away from some of the guys that come through here that aren’t necessarily first-round draft picks and may be free agents or summer team guys? How seriously do you look at them and how do you evaluate those kind of guys?
A. “Yeah, we will. We think they’re very important. The last couple of years, we’ve had guys we sent overseas. We’re at 41 this year in the second round and we feel we’ll get a player that has the possibility of making our team. We’re looking hard at it. We’re looking at a lot of guys. We feel we can get a player there that could help us down the road.”

Q. How good is this draft?
A. “I think it’s a great draft. The top 20 picks, there’s players that are going to step in and play right away.”

Q. When you say play right away, are you talking starters or..?
A. “I don’t know about starting but they’ll play a lot of minutes.”

Q. Larry, you’ve had a lot of prominent big guys (work out), McGee, Jordan, Hibbert now and Arthur; how do you break down and analyze that group?
A. “They’re all very talented big guys. This (Darrell) Arthur is a man. He’s good. The other guys played very well. Obviously, he didn’t play against the other guys. They were all here together but Arthur’s probably got the most skill of any of them. There’s no question.”

Q. All things being equal, do you lean towards experience and players that are more ready to step in or are you more interested in potential?
A. “Well, I’m ready for a guy to step in and play. We’d like to have him three or four years (in college) but there’s some players that come through here with one year of college and have gone on to make a really big impact in this league. I really feel that the eleventh pick, we’re going to get a heck of a player and he’s going to help us.”

blanket
06-19-2008, 06:03 PM
My decoder rings says he's targeting Augustin, and they're trying to make a deal for a second pick between 12-20.

duke dynamite
06-19-2008, 06:11 PM
I've got a feeling if we trade to get another late first round pick, we will trade it off for something else. I don't know, I just have a feeling.

MyFavMartin
06-19-2008, 06:13 PM
funny mine says they're getting one in the 20s too but for Hill...

going big at 11.


augustin has defensive liabilities and one key point the Ps struggle with is perimeter defense/containment of dribble penetration. DJ does nothing for that.

Would love to deal with seattle and land Bayless for Augustin though...

Speights and Hill '08

BillS
06-19-2008, 06:14 PM
...we’ll take the best player available whether it’s a point, <b>a swingman</b>, or a big man.

:banghead: :suicide4:

Oneal07
06-19-2008, 06:31 PM
LOL. I think he's gonna get a PG. If he gets a swing man, it's because of a trade he's about to make

Phildog
06-19-2008, 06:45 PM
I thought he did a good job of keeping his hand to his chest. He has always been like this----but it's obvious the P's have at least 2 players in mind they are targeting if they want to get another pick. Who do we trade for that pick is the question?

Los Angeles
06-19-2008, 06:49 PM
I can't wait until the "we tried to do something more but it didn't work out" interview.

You can set your watch to it.

Trader Joe
06-19-2008, 06:52 PM
I doubt we pick at eleven.

Natston
06-19-2008, 06:55 PM
I can't wait until the "we tried to do something more but it didn't work out" interview.

You can set your watch to it.

That, we'll have a foreign guy that has to acquire more strengths and powers before coming over.

pianoman
06-19-2008, 07:18 PM
i think he has his eyes on a pick around 12-15. Possibly going after both Augusting and Speights(or hibbert). I think the Pacers will finally have a great draft. and a suprising one at that. We might shock the country like we did last year by drafting stanko!

avoidingtheclowns
06-19-2008, 07:27 PM
funny mine says they're getting one in the 20s too but for Hill...

...

Speights and Hill '08

please tell me you're joking about picking hill in the first round. that is seven different types of ridiculous.

:banghead: :suicide4:

yeah but someone like courtney lee a true 2 and a swing man. we need a (any?) true 2 so it wouldn't be a wasted pick to trade back into the first for him. just no 3s.

Hicks
06-19-2008, 08:06 PM
He's so sure his guy will be there at 11..... must be Koufos!! ;)

Swingman
06-19-2008, 08:13 PM
Q. How much weight do you put on the workout—
A. “I’ve put on quite a bit lately.”

Did Larry just say that he put on quite a bit of weight? Time for him to hit the gym :)

Q. Larry, you’ve had a lot of prominent big guys (work out), McGee, Jordan, Hibbert now and Arthur; how do you break down and analyze that group?
A. “They’re all very talented big guys. This (Darrell) Arthur is a man. He’s good. The other guys played very well. Obviously, he didn’t play against the other guys. They were all here together but Arthur’s probably got the most skill of any of them. There’s no question.”

That makes me think he's targeting Arthur.

owl
06-19-2008, 08:20 PM
A. “They’re all very talented big guys. This (Darrell) Arthur is a man. He’s good. The other guys played very well. Obviously, he didn’t play against the other guys. They were all here together but Arthur’s probably got the most skill of any of them. There’s no question.”

That makes me think he's targeting Arthur.


With his confidence that the guy he wants will very likely be there I suspect he is targeting
a player who is not expected to be in the top 10. Arthur fits that description.
If they are wanting a second player are they looking to cover the pg, big man need in this draft or are they going for two bigs?

Isaac
06-19-2008, 08:24 PM
Q. Larry, you’ve had a lot of prominent big guys (work out), McGee, Jordan, Hibbert now and Arthur; how do you break down and analyze that group?
A. “They’re all very talented big guys. This (Darrell) Arthur is a man. He’s good. The other guys played very well. Obviously, he didn’t play against the other guys. They were all here together but Arthur’s probably got the most skill of any of them. There’s no question."

That makes me think he's targeting Arthur.

It made me think the opposite, if he's learned anything from Donnie it means he has no interest in Arthur what-so-ever.

owl
06-19-2008, 08:27 PM
Q. What do guys have a chance to show in workouts like this that maybe they can’t show in their college setting because they have to do certain things to help that team win?
A. “Right. Here, you can see how athletic they are whereas a lot of places they play in college, some of the teams are so good that kids can’t really do the things they want to do (like) one-on-one and pick-and-pop. Coaches want them to stay down low. You see a number of players come through here that are a lot more athletic than we really thought they are because they were in a structured offense.”

Makes me think of Hibbert.

travmil
06-19-2008, 08:29 PM
That makes me think he's targeting Arthur.



That makes me think it's a smokescreen. Like in 2004 when we had the 30th pick and he kept telling everyone who would listen that he really liked Luke Jackson. Later he revealed that Ben Gordon was his true target all along and he had never once mentioned Gordon in any interview.

Swingman
06-19-2008, 08:35 PM
Good point on possible smokescreen but is Bird as good at that as Walsh was?

Anyway, too bad we didn't get Ben Gordon.

madison
06-19-2008, 08:38 PM
Larry handled this interview very well. Seriously. He didn't tip his hand and left all his options open. Having said that, I recall last year at this time he told us he was going to get us a really good shooting guard, etc. So far, Larry's best moves have been the moves he didn't make. Nothing wrong with that, per se. I'm hopeful that a #11 pick and a trade of someone like JO for an even better pick (or perhaps a JT for a later 1st round pick) will give us a leg-up obtaining some badly needed athleticism, defense and shooting abilities.

NapTonius Monk
06-19-2008, 08:43 PM
:banghead: :suicide4:

Dude, when you're in the Pacers position, the chief objective is to acquire talent. If the best player available is something you already have, then you take it, and trade from your strength.

Justin Tyme
06-19-2008, 08:43 PM
I can't wait until the "we tried to do something more but it didn't work out" interview.

You can set your watch to it.


Then there is the "we got the player we really wanted all along" spiel.

Justin Tyme
06-19-2008, 08:54 PM
Q. How much weight do you put on the workout—
A. “I’ve put on quite a bit lately.”

Did Larry just say that he put on quite a bit of weight? Time for him to hit the gym :)

Q. Larry, you’ve had a lot of prominent big guys (work out), McGee, Jordan, Hibbert now and Arthur; how do you break down and analyze that group?
A. “They’re all very talented big guys. This (Darrell) Arthur is a man. He’s good. The other guys played very well. Obviously, he didn’t play against the other guys. They were all here together but Arthur’s probably got the most skill of any of them. There’s no question.”

That makes me think he's targeting Arthur.


After reading Bird's response about the weight, I had to go back and re-read the question to be sure what was asked.

Speights is who Bird is interested in. He never mentioned his name. He said Arthur was "probably" the most talented. Speights will be available at 11.

If Alexander is available, Bird will take him no matter how many SF on the team.

Swingman
06-19-2008, 09:01 PM
After reading T-bird's analysis on Speights, he is probably who I'd want if no one drops like Granger did.

I noticed that he didn't mention Speights but I wasn't sure if he had gone to Indy for a workout so didn't know if he intentionally left him out.

Justin Tyme
06-19-2008, 09:09 PM
The comment about trying to get another 1st rounder was nice PR. I remember his comment last year about getting a pick to get back into the draft, and he did. Unfortunately it was a 2nd round pick which he used to get Stanko b4 anyone else could get him 1st.

Wouldn't it be a hoot, sorry Owl but you did mention this player earlier in another thread, if Bird got a 2nd 1st round pick, after drafting Westbrook, for the Frenchman Ajinca. Bird gets his big and a Euro who can play now instead of having to go back to Europe to season up.

thunderbird1245
06-19-2008, 09:16 PM
Q. Larry, you’ve had a lot of prominent big guys (work out), McGee, Jordan, Hibbert now and Arthur; how do you break down and analyze that group?
A. “They’re all very talented big guys. This (Darrell) Arthur is a man. He’s good. The other guys played very well. Obviously, he didn’t play against the other guys. They were all here together but Arthur’s probably got the most skill of any of them. There’s no question.”

That makes me think he's targeting Arthur.[/quote]


I love the games these teams play with each other, which is what I think this is. In this case, I think Larry might be playing a mind game with Sacramento.

It is rumored (although this could all be smoke as well) that Sacramento worked out Arthur and loved him, and gave him a promise at #12 that he won't slip past them. I believe I read that Arthur promptly canceled workouts with teams picking after Sacramento after he met with the Kings brass.

Assuming this is true, and that I am correct in thinking Larry actually has zero interest in Arthur, then it is logical for Larry to put this story out publically, to make the Kings wonder if they will really get their man. In Bird's mind, the ideal scenario would be for Sacramento to feel they have to make a deal with either the Pacers themselves (maybe get a second rounder from the Kings, or more likely get some cash), or for the Kings to feel they have to move up past the Pacers in order to get Arthur, moving up to make a deal with perhaps Charlotte at #9 (I still think they want Rush, although I could be totally wrong) or with New Jersey at #10.

If that would work and Sacramento does move up past us and takes Arthur, then that is one less spot we'd have to worry about a team taking the player we REALLY want, whomever that might be.

It would be classic cloak and dagger NBA style, and I have no doubt that Larry's statement was carefully planned out just to create the kind of discussion it is creating.

At least, that's what I'd be doing if I was in charge.

Tbird

Erik
06-19-2008, 09:25 PM
Wouldn't it be a hoot, sorry Owl but you did mention this player earlier in another thread, if Bird got a 2nd 1st round pick

:)

BillS
06-19-2008, 09:36 PM
Dude, when you're in the Pacers position, the chief objective is to acquire talent. If the best player available is something you already have, then you take it, and trade from your strength.

Yeah, that's why we've always had the exact number of small forwards we need, because we traded away the extras.

:loco:

Swingman
06-19-2008, 09:38 PM
Sounds very plausible Tbird but posting that might kill the plan lol

eldubious
06-19-2008, 09:40 PM
I'm in the thinking that Bird knows somebody after them is targeting Arthur, if they are made to believe that the Pacers want Arthur then they may give up something in return. That strategy would give the Pacers an extra pick or player along with the player they are targeting all along, my guess is that would be Augustine.

will567
06-19-2008, 09:40 PM
I think Bird is serious about adding a 2nd pick based on the players they have worked out. You can see that some players are players projected at 11 and others are clearly late 1st round picks like Rush, Kosta Koufos, Roy Hibbert and Mario Chalmers. They are all projected late to mid round picks. I believe that something is in the works if not agreed to already. I would be surprised to see us move up in the draft and I agree with Bird that this draft has players that could help next year. I hope we are able to shake things up next week.

Kegboy
06-19-2008, 10:06 PM
I would be pretty happy if we drafted Arthur. The fact that Larry actually mentioned him is disappointing.

Unless, he knows that people will know he said him as a smokescreen, and hence don't intend to draft him. But then, they would know that he knows that they will think it's a smokescreen. I would like to think he would know that they know that he knows they know, but his head would have exploded before then.

:losangeles:

Trader Joe
06-19-2008, 10:08 PM
I really don't want Arthur after he measured shorter than originally thought.

Kegboy
06-19-2008, 10:13 PM
I really don't want Arthur after he measured shorter than originally thought.

Yes, but he's a man. A short man, relatively speaking, but still a man. :cool:

owl
06-19-2008, 10:43 PM
I would be pretty happy if we drafted Arthur. The fact that Larry actually mentioned him is disappointing.

Unless, he knows that people will know he said him as a smokescreen, and hence don't intend to draft him. But then, they would know that he knows that they will think it's a smokescreen. I would like to think he would know that they know that he knows they know, but his head would have exploded before then.

:losangeles:

Made me laugh Kegboy.

owl
06-19-2008, 10:46 PM
The comment about trying to get another 1st rounder was nice PR. I remember his comment last year about getting a pick to get back into the draft, and he did. Unfortunately it was a 2nd round pick which he used to get Stanko b4 anyone else could get him 1st.

Wouldn't it be a hoot, sorry Owl but you did mention this player earlier in another thread, if Bird got a 2nd 1st round pick, after drafting Westbrook, for the Frenchman Ajinca. Bird gets his big and a Euro who can play now instead of having to go back to Europe to season up.


It really is hard to say what Bird is thinking but Larry laying down a smoke screen
would not surprise me at all. We really need a thread on Wednesday for everyone to list
who they think the pick will be.

BlueNGold
06-19-2008, 10:54 PM
I think it's proof we will not pick Arthur at #11. There's simply no reason at all to mention the player you want to pick...because it can only hurt your negotiating position. There are probably 15 players among whom the #11 pick is likely. One of the other 14 will be picked...

I don't think you can draw anything else from it.

Anthem
06-19-2008, 11:03 PM
I thought Speights when I read the article.

idioteque
06-19-2008, 11:09 PM
I really think they're drafting Speights. The chances of him going top-10 are next to nothing, whereas with Augustin there are rumors of him going as high as 7.

But then again every year I have tried to infer what LB is saying about the draft I have been horribly wrong.

PR07
06-19-2008, 11:54 PM
As much I'd hate it, couldn't it be Koufos just as much? I mean there's no mention, and we've had him in for two workouts now. He's not projected to go higher than #11.

Infinite MAN_force
06-20-2008, 12:31 AM
As much I'd hate it, couldn't it be Koufos just as much? I mean there's no mention, and we've had him in for two workouts now. He's not projected to go higher than #11.


Please no :pray:

I have been pumping Speights for like two months, I will feel very vindicated if Larry picks him. I just can't get behind Randolph, Arthur, Jordan, etc... for various reasons. Randolph and Jordan sound like big busts and Arthur is another undersized PF. Speights should be a very productive player, I agree with T-bird that he will need to play with a bigger defense oriented center though, and I am dissapointed we did not work out Robin Lopez. That is who I would go after with a later pick..

If we did go gaurd, I would be happy with westbrook though. Looks like he wont be there though.

Shade
06-20-2008, 02:33 AM
Sounds to me like we're going to be reaching for someone at #11.

I really hope we trade into another first-rounder and grab Chalmers. That would make me happy...unless we draft someone like Koufos or Hibbert at #11.

underwave
06-20-2008, 07:44 AM
whether it is smokesecreen or not the only thing we know is that bird mentioned his name and said he is The Man. We have no clue at all whether he said this truthfully or for tactical reason to influence the teams that are interested in arthur and make them to pick up, thus securing the player Bird really want. isn't it? / I just wish we could pick russell westbrook. that would totally make my summer :)

purdue101
06-20-2008, 08:32 AM
I think w/o a doubt we're going PG at 11. Probably Augustin as it looks like Westbrook will be gone.

I think LB's trying to get back into the 13-20 range to get the big he wants. Probably dropped that line about Arthur as a smokescreen for Speights or Koufus. I've heard both have been very solid through their workouts.

Unclebuck
06-20-2008, 08:38 AM
One thing about having the 11th pick. There is no doubt that there will be a future allstar available, but there will also be a number of guys taken between 11 and 20 who won't be in the NBA after 4 years or so. I think picking between 9 and 14 is really tricky.

I just hope the pacers don't take the "safe pick". If they think there is a possible future star player available at 11, I want the Pacers to take him. And I don't care what position the guy plays. I'll be disappointed if we take a point guard just for the sake of taking a point guard - if we don't think the guy is the answer for a starting point guard, then I want us to take someone else.

I never have and never will criticize the Pacers for taking a chance on someone they think will be a future star. I've never criticized them for taking Bender (except perhaps they should have been able to determine his knee problems)

More than anything I want the Pacers to take the player that in 4 years from now will be the best player taken after pick 10 - perhaps that is obvious - but if you take the safe choice - chances are you won't get the future star
'

Rajah Brown
06-20-2008, 09:10 AM
UB-

Very well said and I agree completely. At #11, you have to take the
kid you think will be the best player down the road, regardless of
position. At this point, the Pacers need valuable, attractive assets
more than they need to try and fill some apparent, immediate need.

If they're lucky enough that they get both in the same kid, terrific.

BillS
06-20-2008, 10:11 AM
More than anything I want the Pacers to take the player that in 4 years from now will be the best player taken after pick 10 - perhaps that is obvious - but if you take the safe choice - chances are you won't get the future star

The problem is that I don't think there is this huge and obvious gap between the "best player available" and the "second best player available", nor is there going to be a significant difference <i>now</i> between that best player and our current SF/PF choices.

I'd rather have the second-best player after pick 10 if he plays at a position that will either immediately help us or at least allow him significant playing time. Picking the best player but not getting him court time because there's a logjam won't do him or us any good, now or 4 years from now. All that will happen is that no one will know he was the best player because he never had a chance to prove it.

Obviously, if a gift like a Granger comes along, you jump at that. However, I don't think it'll happen.

2minutes twowa
06-20-2008, 10:25 AM
Don't know if anyone has posted this yet, but here are the players that were picked at #11 in the last 10 drafts.

98 - Bonzi Wells - Detroit
99 - Trajan Langdon - Cleveland
00 - Jerome Moiso - Boston
01 - Kedrick Brown - Boston
02 - Jared Jeffries - Washington
03 - Mickael Pietrus - Golden State
04 - Andre Biedrius - Golden State
05 - F. Vazquez - Orlando
06 - JJ Redick - Orlando
07 - Acie Law - Atlanta

Not much there to get excited about, but in all of these drafts, there were some great players selected after #11.

Unclebuck
06-20-2008, 10:39 AM
The problem is that I don't think there is this huge and obvious gap between the "best player available" and the "second best player available", nor is there going to be a significant difference <i>now</i> between that best player and our current SF/PF choices.

I'd rather have the second-best player after pick 10 if he plays at a position that will either immediately help us or at least allow him significant playing time. Picking the best player but not getting him court time because there's a logjam won't do him or us any good, now or 4 years from now. All that will happen is that no one will know he was the best player because he never had a chance to prove it.

Obviously, if a gift like a Granger comes along, you jump at that. However, I don't think it'll happen.



I agree it seems right now that there isn't much of a difference. But 4 years from now there will be a huge difference between players - You know what happens, 4 years from now we all look at lists of who was available at pick 11 and say, why didn't we draft so and so, he is a much better player even though he was drafted 20th. Pacers need maybe two or three straight drafts where that doesn't happen. (you know the why did we take George McCloud when Tim hardaway was available).

Naptown_Seth
06-20-2008, 11:01 AM
My decoder rings says he's targeting Augustin, and they're trying to make a deal for a second pick between 12-20.

I have a good feeling of who we’re going to take right now and we think he’ll be there


"A lot of places in college, teams are so good the kids can't do things they want, whether it's one-on-one, pick and pop. Coaches want them to stay down low. We've seen a number of players come through here that are lot more athletic than we thought they were because they were in a structured offense."

Koufos shows up on my decoder and I don't like it. Could he really have made that much of an impression in workouts? Sure seems like Bird has already excused players for how they were "stuck" in their college system.

Of course T'Bird's view on Speights also comes to mind since he did suggest that the FLA system limited his ability to prove himself out. However Bird also talks about being asked to go into the low block RATHER THAN playing more to the outside.

So what big was asked to post up but the Pacers like his ability to play the outside? Back to Koufos perhaps.

If so then Bird better be 100% right and it better show within 2 years or he'll have done himself in IMO. :mad:


That makes me think he's targeting Arthur.
The only issue there is that Arthur's strength is his low post ability, it's not like KS made him play down there against his will or ability. Now I'm a huge fan of Arthur due to the tight polish on his low post game and overall well-rounded play. Size is the only issue with him. I have little doubt he impressed the heck out of the Pacers.

But I still think Koufos. Wonder if they are going to try to trade down AND back in at the same time, maybe give the 11th to someone, a player to Portland, and get the 13th and someone's later pick, plus someone like Jack. The team losing the lower pick might get another young player from Portland. Seems likely that Koufos would be there at 13...unfortunately.

Cross fingers for Arthur (and a few others) and prepare for disappointment.

MyFavMartin
06-20-2008, 11:22 AM
what if larry gets speights AND koufos?

Naptown_Seth
06-20-2008, 11:29 AM
I would be pretty happy if we drafted Arthur. The fact that Larry actually mentioned him is disappointing.

Unless, he knows that people will know he said him as a smokescreen, and hence don't intend to draft him. But then, they would know that he knows that they will think it's a smokescreen. I would like to think he would know that they know that he knows they know, but his head would have exploded before then.

:losangeles:
What, no obligitory Princess Bride derail at this point?


what if larry gets speights AND koufos?
I suggest penicillin.

ESutt7
06-20-2008, 11:31 AM
Courtney Lee has been looking good. The video I've seen on him he has been impressive. He'd definitely be there at 11...or we could trade in to get him. What's the consensus on PD about Lee?

Rajah Brown
06-20-2008, 11:40 AM
If Bird reaches for Koufos at #11, he might as well just turn in
his resignation asap and save the franchise the 2 yrs left on his
deal. As for Aurthur, if it's him, then I hope Diogu's exit is already
in the works as it doesn't make much sense to carry both.

BillS
06-20-2008, 11:43 AM
I agree it seems right now that there isn't much of a difference. But 4 years from now there will be a huge difference between players - You know what happens, 4 years from now we all look at lists of who was available at pick 11 and say, why didn't we draft so and so, he is a much better player even though he was drafted 20th. Pacers need maybe two or three straight drafts where that doesn't happen. (you know the why did we take George McCloud when Tim hardaway was available).

Understood, but I don't think we're in quite the same situation. We have so many positions where we can use immediate help but only 1 (well, call it 1-1/2) where we have a logjam. That makes it much easier to pick one of a few top remaining players rather than having to pick for a specific position.

Besides, if someone else manages to get lucky with a lower draft pick, we'll still be second guessing whatever Larry does.

To summarize, I think we've had our fill of taking gambles for players who <i>might</i> develop. I think for this year at least we need someone who can produce right away. After all, if someone picked this year looks like they are jelling into a future prospect, we have a few expiring contracts at the end of next season we could use to make a play for a promising but not yet broken through sophomore.

PacerGuy
06-20-2008, 12:03 PM
Obviously, if a gift like a Granger comes along, you jump at that. However, I don't think it'll happen.

Just curious, Who do you think could/will be the Granger-slip of this years draft? Who would you qualify in that catagory?
(Gordan, Lopez,...?)

2minutes twowa
06-20-2008, 12:07 PM
Don't know if this qualifies as a "Danny Granger" type fall, but I just have a feeling that Love is going to slip out of the top ten.

PacerGuy
06-20-2008, 12:14 PM
Don't know if this qualifies as a "Danny Granger" type fall, but I just have a feeling that Love is going to slip out of the top ten.

Top 10, or Top 11?

Hicks
06-20-2008, 12:14 PM
Courtney Lee has been looking good. The video I've seen on him he has been impressive. He'd definitely be there at 11...or we could trade in to get him. What's the consensus on PD about Lee?

I don't know, but I'm quoting this in hopes someone else sees it who does know and can give you an answer.

Anthem
06-20-2008, 12:43 PM
Don't know if this qualifies as a "Danny Granger" type fall, but I just have a feeling that Love is going to slip out of the top ten.
I don't.

But I'd be thrilled with Love at #11. Or Gordon, or Lopez.

Raoul Duke
06-20-2008, 12:46 PM
Courtney Lee has been looking good. The video I've seen on him he has been impressive. He'd definitely be there at 11...or we could trade in to get him. What's the consensus on PD about Lee?

ummm you don't seriously think we should pick him in the lottery do you? let alone the first round...the guy is a 2nd rounder

Doug
06-20-2008, 01:51 PM
Unless, he knows that people will know he said him as a smokescreen, and hence don't intend to draft him. But then, they would know that he knows that they will think it's a smokescreen. I would like to think he would know that they know that he knows they know

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.


What, no obligitory Princess Bride derail at this point?

Happy now?

Kegboy
06-20-2008, 01:55 PM
I like Lee quite a bit, but 11 is too high, especially considering I don't think he's the best fit for us.

avoidingtheclowns
06-20-2008, 03:21 PM
Courtney Lee has been looking good. The video I've seen on him he has been impressive. He'd definitely be there at 11...or we could trade in to get him. What's the consensus on PD about Lee?

i like lee but taking him at 11 (like kegboy says) is a terrible idea. he isn't worth that. lee most likely won't be a star but could be a starter/6th man type like a raja bell or derrick mckey. he's a nice defender and has a nice shot. probably a solid role player for his NBA career. but he isn't #11 good. you take him in the 20s or later.


ummm you don't seriously think we should pick him in the lottery do you? let alone the first round...the guy is a 2nd rounder

lee is a late first rounder. definitely not lotto but he'd be worth a shot in the 20s. why so opposed?

ESutt7
06-20-2008, 04:33 PM
Right right, I meant more to get that late pick and get him (Lee). Maybe get a big at 11, and trade for a PG if they're worried about DJ's size.

Naptown_Seth
06-20-2008, 04:35 PM
I don't know, but I'm quoting this in hopes someone else sees it who does know and can give you an answer.
Well I only saw him a couple times but he struck me as a poor man's Westbrook/Rush, and really not that far off either of them. He gave Westbrook fits in the NCAA tourney (both shot poorly) and was defending him most of the time. He was nice chasing after a player or helping someone else, so even if a guy gets a step he keeps himself in the play. In that way he had a slight Weaver-ness to his game.

On offense he's smooth and has a couple of solid moves that I think could apply at the next level. I thought his reached looked short but IIRC he measured okay in Orlando so what do I know.

I'd place him around 28-35 but he's been climbing for whatever reasons, much like Rush (I'd call him an 18-23 guy, Weaver 25-30).

I like Lee and if you get back in and find Rush gone then I'd consider him, though I'd take Chalmers first and perhaps Weaver as well for a more defense, less offense trade-off. I'd been hoping to see a 2nd round trade up to get Lee, but the 1st round buzz makes this look unlikely. :(

Naptown_Seth
06-20-2008, 04:36 PM
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

Happy now?
:dance::happydanc:dance:

avoidingtheclowns
06-20-2008, 05:00 PM
Right right, I meant more to get that late pick and get him (Lee). Maybe get a big at 11, and trade for a PG if they're worried about DJ's size.

if we could do that (speights or arthur at 11, courtney lee late first and trade for a defensive-minded pg) that'd be fantastic

i'm just trying to think of a scenario where that works. the only one is seattle with the #24 pick and earl watson. as LG33's sig suggests we could have him maybe for quis' exp contract. i dunno. any other thoughts?

LG33
06-20-2008, 05:37 PM
I'd throw Ike into that deal too (if we're getting the earlier pick), but I've never been too high on Ike so maybe that's just me.

avoidingtheclowns
06-20-2008, 05:42 PM
I'd throw Ike into that deal too (if we're getting the earlier pick), but I've never been too high on Ike so maybe that's just me.

i don't think that works financially -- we'd have to take someone else back. not sure who.

LG33
06-20-2008, 05:43 PM
Damn.

avoidingtheclowns
06-20-2008, 05:47 PM
Damn.

my REAL hope is that since we're saving them $6mil that they'll just give us the late first. :happydanc


EDIT: the only way i could see them doing that is by including adrian griffin with watson, which i might do, along with the first. but shamsports lists griffin's contract as unguarenteed next year so that doesn't make a ton of sense for them to exercise it just to trade him when they could just let him go.

Speed
06-20-2008, 06:16 PM
A couple of thoughts, after hearing what Larry said and I believe him on this I don't think Anthony Randolph is even on the list. He wants someone to help them now which makes sense because later may never come for Bird. He would take him at 41, and I know I know he'll be way gone before then, but he has Bender written all over him.

If the Pacers get a second 1st round pick. Courtney Lee, Mike Wells thought there was a decent chance that they COULD pick up a second 1st rounder and he thought Hibbert or Lee would be the guy, with that pick.

Koufos, Why does everyone dislike him so much, he has the numbers as far as height, skill set, etc. He may be soft, but he's freaking 19 at 7'1" with all of the tools. I know I've seen him too and he looks well like a 14 man on an NBA roster or a Euro player, but he really has all the measureables and he seems like a bright well adjusted kid who can hit a jumper. Can't you teach some of the other things needed when you have the ability? I say this and I'm always the first one to jump on here and run a big stiff into the ground. We'll see, but I get a different vibe about Koufas, never a star, of course, but a nice piece I'm feeling. Maybe I'm just wistful for Rik Smits, I never imagined I'd say that one.

This was the other big thing from Wells, which I really am not a fan of, but he does get access to the team. He said that if Westbrook is gone, (which he evidently has a top 10 guarantee) and Augustine is gone, he doesn't think they will go big he thought the pick was BRANDON RUSH.

Now, again, I get the play now deal, but come on.

I don't dislike Rush, but is he really a 2???? Wells called him a 2/3 and said it was a weakness last year.

I absolutely agree, but it wasn't one of the PRIMARY weaknesses. I'd rather take Arthur or Speights.

Hell you don't even have to move JO, Arthur/Speights will get burn anyway.

I like Arthur, he's ready to play, he's compared to Antwain Jamison, he already has applicable skills. And he still has a big upside.

The other thing that Wells said was the last time he saw Mal Mal was April 16th the last day of the season and he looked like he had been hanging out with him at BW3s a little too much.

Tinsley done, hopefully they won't mess that up.

Also, a faller is Brook Lopez, which I called but we all know he's a lead ballon now and you still have to take him if he's there at 11.

Not Eric Gordon, he's been quiet but you don't pass on a potential 20+ point a night scorer in the NBA.

Anthony Randolph could fall alllllll the way to the late 20's, imho. He's a 5 year project and you only get the guys for sure for 4 or 5 years to start anyway. Plus he has Shawne Williams like maturity. Maybe he goes to the San Antonio or Boston, wouldn't that be a hoot. I really really wouldn't be surprised if he falls OUT of the first round, which is incredible because he was projected as high as 5 earlier this month.

Bill Walker, who's going to take a chance on a guy with paper knees?? I feel bad for him, but put yourself in the GM seat, would you take him with a guaranteed 1st round contract, not in a million years.

Also, while I'm playing prognosticator, who is the last guy in the green room Thursday, I say Darrell Arthur, unless Anthony Randolph is there. I'm just not sure Randolph is coming to the draft or not.

Very lastly, I think you're drafting at 11 for JOs replacement, NOT Tinsley. I think you trade JO for Tinsley's replacement.

Why?

You aren't going to trade JO for another younger potentially better PF. Other teams just won't do that. Or the most extreme case, the Pacers keep JO and he drops off in two years, don't you need 2 years to have a young PF or Center to develop to where they are viable.

If you draft Augustine, you have put another band aid on the next two years, maybe. And then exactly two years from now we are talking about how you really need a PF/C to get this team to the Playoffs.

If you draft a PF/C you are sitting here maybe saying the same thing or maybe you're glad that they have an up and comer at the position while they've picked up a semi veteran PG or even drafted one next year.

The point is this, I think if you take a PG at 11, its short sighted and you aren't building something that has staying power.

Now the exception is if you think the Bigs at 11 are stiffs and Augustine is your starting PG for the next 10 years, then I'm on board.

I just don't want to draft Augustine just cuz Obie and Bird may only be here 2 more years and they are desperate for a Point Guard cuz Tinsley has F'd them over. It's the wrong reasons to do it.

Rajah Brown
06-20-2008, 06:26 PM
My biggest problem with Koufos is the presence of Murphy and his
$30 tag over the next 3 years. Koufus is just a softer, right-handed
version of Murphy.

Granted, we need help up front. But what we need is an explosive
athlete who can defend, board and finish inside in traffic. Koufos is
the antithesis of that.

Matta had to play zone last year to cover up for Koufos's defensive
shortcomings. Those shortcomings will only be more glaring at the
NBA level (of course, in that respect, he'd have plenty of company
with Duns, Murph and Diener around).

BillS
06-20-2008, 08:26 PM
Just curious, Who do you think could/will be the Granger-slip of this years draft? Who would you qualify in that catagory?
(Gordan, Lopez,...?)

Bearing in mind that draft is one of the weakest of my many weak areas of lack of expertise, I don't think there is anyone this year likely to fall. As I recall, there were hints the week before the draft that Granger's stock was falling a bit, but it was shocking that he fell out of the top 15.

For this year, I don't hear anyone's stock falling that I would have expected not to fall.

Yet, anyway.

owl
06-20-2008, 08:47 PM
It really is hard to say who they are going to pick but Augustin and Koufos do not help
out defensively. The player they pick has to help at least some on defense along with the offense.

Wage
06-20-2008, 08:54 PM
I really like Koufos, and disagree with the idea that he is "soft." I think the kid has the tools to be solid in the low post, with the ability to stretch the defense to the 3 point line. He has a lot of tools I like, as well as a lot he needs to improve on. Pretty much every 19 year old center has a lot of room for improvement.

With that said, I do not think he is the right fit for the Pacers as long as JOB is here. In our current situation, I think he may well turn into another Troy Murphy, and one is enough.

eldubious
06-21-2008, 12:19 AM
A couple of thoughts, after hearing what Larry said and I believe him on this I don't think Anthony Randolph is even on the list. He wants someone to help them now which makes sense because later may never come for Bird. He would take him at 41, and I know I know he'll be way gone before then, but he has Bender written all over him.

If the Pacers get a second 1st round pick. Courtney Lee, Mike Wells thought there was a decent chance that they COULD pick up a second 1st rounder and he thought Hibbert or Lee would be the guy, with that pick.

Koufos, Why does everyone dislike him so much, he has the numbers as far as height, skill set, etc. He may be soft, but he's freaking 19 at 7'1" with all of the tools. I know I've seen him too and he looks well like a 14 man on an NBA roster or a Euro player, but he really has all the measureables and he seems like a bright well adjusted kid who can hit a jumper. Can't you teach some of the other things needed when you have the ability? I say this and I'm always the first one to jump on here and run a big stiff into the ground. We'll see, but I get a different vibe about Koufas, never a star, of course, but a nice piece I'm feeling. Maybe I'm just wistful for Rik Smits, I never imagined I'd say that one.

This was the other big thing from Wells, which I really am not a fan of, but he does get access to the team. He said that if Westbrook is gone, (which he evidently has a top 10 guarantee) and Augustine is gone, he doesn't think they will go big he thought the pick was BRANDON RUSH.

Now, again, I get the play now deal, but come on.

I don't dislike Rush, but is he really a 2???? Wells called him a 2/3 and said it was a weakness last year.

I absolutely agree, but it wasn't one of the PRIMARY weaknesses. I'd rather take Arthur or Speights.

Hell you don't even have to move JO, Arthur/Speights will get burn anyway.

I like Arthur, he's ready to play, he's compared to Antwain Jamison, he already has applicable skills. And he still has a big upside.

The other thing that Wells said was the last time he saw Mal Mal was April 16th the last day of the season and he looked like he had been hanging out with him at BW3s a little too much.

Tinsley done, hopefully they won't mess that up.

Also, a faller is Brook Lopez, which I called but we all know he's a lead ballon now and you still have to take him if he's there at 11.

Not Eric Gordon, he's been quiet but you don't pass on a potential 20+ point a night scorer in the NBA.

Anthony Randolph could fall alllllll the way to the late 20's, imho. He's a 5 year project and you only get the guys for sure for 4 or 5 years to start anyway. Plus he has Shawne Williams like maturity. Maybe he goes to the San Antonio or Boston, wouldn't that be a hoot. I really really wouldn't be surprised if he falls OUT of the first round, which is incredible because he was projected as high as 5 earlier this month.

Bill Walker, who's going to take a chance on a guy with paper knees?? I feel bad for him, but put yourself in the GM seat, would you take him with a guaranteed 1st round contract, not in a million years.

Also, while I'm playing prognosticator, who is the last guy in the green room Thursday, I say Darrell Arthur, unless Anthony Randolph is there. I'm just not sure Randolph is coming to the draft or not.

Very lastly, I think you're drafting at 11 for JOs replacement, NOT Tinsley. I think you trade JO for Tinsley's replacement.

Why?

You aren't going to trade JO for another younger potentially better PF. Other teams just won't do that. Or the most extreme case, the Pacers keep JO and he drops off in two years, don't you need 2 years to have a young PF or Center to develop to where they are viable.

If you draft Augustine, you have put another band aid on the next two years, maybe. And then exactly two years from now we are talking about how you really need a PF/C to get this team to the Playoffs.

If you draft a PF/C you are sitting here maybe saying the same thing or maybe you're glad that they have an up and comer at the position while they've picked up a semi veteran PG or even drafted one next year.

The point is this, I think if you take a PG at 11, its short sighted and you aren't building something that has staying power.

Now the exception is if you think the Bigs at 11 are stiffs and Augustine is your starting PG for the next 10 years, then I'm on board.

I just don't want to draft Augustine just cuz Obie and Bird may only be here 2 more years and they are desperate for a Point Guard cuz Tinsley has F'd them over. It's the wrong reasons to do it.

Very good points, but you draft based on need and value. If the pick came down to Augustine and Speights, you have to take Augustine because he is the highest rated out of the two. If it came down to B. Lopez and Augustine, then you would have to take Lopez because he is the highest rated out of the two. Now, some GM's are headstrong on a player and pick them no matter what, like Bird in 2006. Also, I agree on Koufos, he's not worth a lottery pick, but he could be a solid late round pick. I have not read a terrible review on him yet, unlike Jordan and McGee.

Will Galen
06-21-2008, 11:13 AM
Don't know if this qualifies as a "Danny Granger" type fall, but I just have a feeling that Love is going to slip out of the top ten.

No way! He could go as high as 3rd to Minny.

Randolph is the one that's going to fall. Both his workouts and his physc tests aren't very good.

Unless something happens to get him interested no telling where he might fall!

imawhat
06-21-2008, 01:02 PM
No way! He could go as high as 3rd to Minny.

Randolph is the one that's going to fall. Both his workouts and his physc tests aren't very good.

Unless something happens to get him interested no telling where he might fall!

Like the rumors of Robin Lopez moving into the top 10. Though it probably won't affect Kevin Love, it would definitely drop somebody worth drafting. One can only hope.

imawhat
06-21-2008, 01:06 PM
Koufos shows up on my decoder and I don't like it.

Not showing up on mine. Larry said he's wanting someone that can step in and contribute right away. Does anyone think Koufos (hypothetically) is able to do that? From all accounts, even the good ones, he's a couple years away.

I'll be the first to say that Larry's looking at a guard. I think he's going for Augustin.

Mourning
06-21-2008, 01:38 PM
I think the kid has the tools to be solid in the low post, with the ability to stretch the defense to the 3 point line.

Well call me old-fashioned, but I really don't want my Center to spread out the floor all the way up to 3PT range. I want my Center close to the board as much as possible. I want him to rebound, block shots, take high percentage shortrange shots and if possible to hit a few midrange shots, though that is not prerequisite to me, but more like a nice added bonus.

He's only 19, so yes, he will improve and possibly a lot, but I just keep hearing he's not a banger and not that good of a rebounder, is soft. All things I basically don't want to hear when I talk about Centers (unless your name is Rik Smits :flirt:).

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

MyFavMartin
06-21-2008, 03:56 PM
Very good points, but you draft based on need and value. If the pick came down to Augustine and Speights, you have to take Augustine because he is the highest rated out of the two.

Not if you've already worked out a trade of JO for a PG like Hinrich. ;)

Doug
06-21-2008, 04:05 PM
Well call me old-fashioned, but I really don't want my Center to spread out the floor all the way up to 3PT range. I want my Center close to the board as much as possible. I want him to rebound, block shots, take high percentage shortrange shots and if possible to hit a few midrange shots, though that is not prerequisite to me, but more like a nice added bonus.

Amen! The ability to hit a 3 is soooooo far down my list of desirable talents for a center...well...it's so far down there it's not even on it.

If my center has to take 3 point shots, then my team is flawed beyond belief

Hicks
06-21-2008, 05:00 PM
Amen! The ability to hit a 3 is soooooo far down my list of desirable talents for a center...well...it's so far down there it's not even on it.

If my center has to take 3 point shots, then my team is flawed beyond belief

Are the Utah Jazz flawed beyond belief?

Speed
06-21-2008, 05:06 PM
Not if you've already worked out a trade of JO for a PG like Hinrich. ;)


Bird has seemed like he already has a second 1st rounder. By the way he spoke about it this last week and by the guys they have brought in. 9 of the 31 listed are probably going to go late first round. He really only brought in about 4 guys that you would even have to take at 11 and NONE of the prospects who may go earlier than 11.

I just really really wonder if he has a very firm trade in place.

On a semi related note, it really bothers me he's SURE the guy they want will be there, that doesn't even make sense. It's like saying, hey we are going to reach for someone at 11 that absolutely no one would take him higher. Drives me crazy. Maybe he means we 11 guys who we really really like and we'll get one of them at 11, but that IS NOT what he said.

Peck
06-21-2008, 05:07 PM
Are the Utah Jazz flawed beyond belief?

I think the key word in what Doug is saying is HAS, as in HAS to take a three.

Not "can" as in, Can step back and hit the three.

If that is what Doug is meaning then I am with him 100%. I don't believe Utah has to have Okur take the three. I believe they use him to take a three because he can.

There is a differance IMO.

Peck
06-21-2008, 05:10 PM
Bird has seemed like he already has a second 1st rounder. By the way he spoke about it this last week and by the guys they have brought in. 9 of the 31 listed are probably going to go late first round. He really only brought in about 4 guys that you would even have to take at 11 and NONE of the prospects who may go earlier than 11.

I just really really wonder if he has a very firm trade in place.

On a semi related note, it really bothers me he's SURE the guy they want will be there, that doesn't even make sense. It's like saying, hey we are going to reach for someone at 11 that absolutely no one would take him higher. Drives me crazy. Maybe he means we 11 guys who we really really like and we'll get one of them at 11, but that IS NOT what he said.


Actually what he said was nothing more than a positive pr spin. As in no matter who we select at 11 it is exactly who we were looking at all along and got exactly who we wanted.

At least that is the way it will be spun after the draft.

Donnie used to just outright lie about who he wanted to draft, Larry doesn't even bother. He just puts out the old "we are going to get who we want" and then tell noone who that is so that when we pick whoever it is is THE person we wanted.

God I hate P.R. spin.

I understand why they do it, I just hate it myself.

Justin Tyme
06-21-2008, 05:29 PM
As in no matter who we select at 11 it is exactly who we were looking at all along and got exactly who we wanted. At least that is the way it will be spun after the draft.

Yeah right, like all the sheep believe it, and blindly follow that line of bull.

Justin Tyme
06-21-2008, 05:43 PM
Are the Utah Jazz flawed beyond belief?

If they want an Okur clone, the Pacers have one named Murphy. Murphy, Quis, and Williams for AK47 and Almond.:nod:

Speed
06-21-2008, 05:58 PM
Actually what he said was nothing more than a positive pr spin. As in no matter who we select at 11 it is exactly who we were looking at all along and got exactly who we wanted.

At least that is the way it will be spun after the draft.

Donnie used to just outright lie about who he wanted to draft, Larry doesn't even bother. He just puts out the old "we are going to get who we want" and then tell noone who that is so that when we pick whoever it is is THE person we wanted.

God I hate P.R. spin.

I understand why they do it, I just hate it myself.


That makes sense, well, what you said does, but Bird acting like they targeted one guy all along and he was smarter than the room to know that one guy would be their pick is ridiculous spin.

I do believe, like Bird eluded to, that they will pick someone who can help them right away, in this draft that pretty much narrows it down where the Pacers are picking at 11. Its likely not Anthony Randolph or Deandre Jordan. It's more like Augustine or B Rush are two that come to mind as ready to play next year. Really other than that, at 11, it is a bunch of kids or big guys who are going to take time.

Like I said earlier, I think you need to draft for JOs replacement at 11, whether there is a trade in place Thursday or JO just leaves in 2 years, unless there is just a far superior talent there at 11 for you, at another position.

Rajah Brown
06-21-2008, 07:09 PM
Hicks-

Good point. Utah is not flawed in that way. While I want no part
of Koufos whatsoever, if we already had Boozer at PF and D-Will
at PG, I'd be more than willing to reconsider.

But alas, we don't.

Tom White
06-21-2008, 09:29 PM
Bird has seemed like he already has a second 1st rounder. By the way he spoke about it this last week and by the guys they have brought in. 9 of the 31 listed are probably going to go late first round. He really only brought in about 4 guys that you would even have to take at 11 and NONE of the prospects who may go earlier than 11.

I just really really wonder if he has a very firm trade in place.



...or is just a bad judge of talent?
...or is trading down from #11?

Tom White
06-21-2008, 09:31 PM
Actually what he said was nothing more than a positive pr spin. As in no matter who we select at 11 it is exactly who we were looking at all along and got exactly who we wanted.

At least that is the way it will be spun after the draft.

Donnie used to just outright lie about who he wanted to draft, Larry doesn't even bother. He just puts out the old "we are going to get who we want" and then tell noone who that is so that when we pick whoever it is is THE person we wanted.

God I hate P.R. spin.

I understand why they do it, I just hate it myself.

Yep. You never hear a GM say "Well, the guy we wanted was long gone, so we got stuck with this turd."

Naptown_Seth
06-21-2008, 10:02 PM
Not showing up on mine. Larry said he's wanting someone that can step in and contribute right away. Does anyone think Koufos (hypothetically) is able to do that? From all accounts, even the good ones, he's a couple years away.

I'll be the first to say that Larry's looking at a guard. I think he's going for Augustin.
Yeah, but he can't contribute ever so that doesn't work either. ;)


Sheesh, there is no way I should be so snarky on DJ. He might make it but I think he's a big risk, a forced pick that early (same with Rush).

I don't dislike Rush, but is he really a 2????
What? What else would he be. He's got a great outside shot, he's quick enough to be put on Curry during the tourney and fair alright, and he basically played the perimeter all the time for KS. It just happened that KS ran a lot of 3 guard sets, often with 2 PGs which let Chalmers roam more for his own shot and kept a ton of speed on the court.

Rush is more classic NBA SG than Westbrook is IMO. My issue is just that I don't think he's top 11 skilled as a SG.

Naptown_Seth
06-21-2008, 10:07 PM
I think the key word in what Doug is saying is HAS, as in HAS to take a three.

Not "can" as in, Can step back and hit the three.

If that is what Doug is meaning then I am with him 100%. I don't believe Utah has to have Okur take the three. I believe they use him to take a three because he can.

There is a differance IMO.
I agree that this is what Doug was going for. We all would love a guy with Shaq's size, Reggie's 3, and Nash's PG ability. What we balk at is compensating for a lack of a core positional talent with a "gimmick" aspect like a big with a 3.

A guy like Okur isn't quite true inside muscle but he's not full on soft either. He passes extremely well, moves in the PnR or 3 man game very well and just makes teams pay if they leave him. But if they worry about his 3 instead then he burn them by going or getting it back inside.

Anthem
06-21-2008, 10:13 PM
We all would love a guy with Shaq's size, Reggie's 3, and Nash's PG ability.
:laugh: Man, that was the greatest Shaq commercial ever. Remember it? Might have been Taco Bell or something. It was 5 Shaqs vs. 5 Shaqs, and everything one guy did the opposing guy did. Crazy passes, trick shots, threes, dunks, etc.

Commercial ends with the camera panning out and the announcer says "Looks like we're going to have to settle this with free throws!"

Anybody remember that?

Anthem
06-21-2008, 10:17 PM
On a semi related note, it really bothers me he's SURE the guy they want will be there, that doesn't even make sense. It's like saying, hey we are going to reach for someone at 11 that absolutely no one would take him higher. Drives me crazy. Maybe he means we 11 guys who we really really like and we'll get one of them at 11, but that IS NOT what he said.
Yeah, good call. That worries me as well... I thought the exact same thing.

I could have written that post, if I could write as well as you.

Will Galen
06-21-2008, 10:22 PM
Actually what he said was nothing more than a positive pr spin. As in no matter who we select at 11 it is exactly who we were looking at all along and got exactly who we wanted.

At least that is the way it will be spun after the draft.


I think most of you guys are making way to much out of a team saying they got who they wanted. It's spun that way because most of them do get who they want.

You have to take what they are saying in the context of where they are picking. Most teams can figure out who other teams are going to pick, thus they know who is going to be there when they pick, so in that respect they do get who they wanted with that pick.

That doesn't mean that was who they coveted. Most teams covet Rose or Beasley, but they can't get them, but they usually do get who they singled out with their pick.

For example; If you are having dinner and the fried chicken platter is going around the table, but your favorites, the drumsticks, are all gone, whichever piece you decide on is still your choice. So you can rightfully say you got the piece you wanted. It's just context.

I also don't think Bird has another pick in hand. A lot of teams are thinking this is a great draft, probably because it has so many 19 year olds with potential in it.

Seeing all that potential has a lot of teams wanting extra picks and we don't look like a team with a lot of assets, so we will probably get outbid.

Speed
06-21-2008, 11:56 PM
Yeah, good call. That worries me as well... I thought the exact same thing.

I could have written that post, if I could write as well as you.


Thanks Anthem. Especially when you were referencing a post where I said.."Maybe he means we 11 guys who we really really like and we'll get one of them at 11". That is some good az writing!

Speed
06-21-2008, 11:59 PM
What? What else would he be. He's got a great outside shot, he's quick enough to be put on Curry during the tourney and fair alright, and he basically played the perimeter all the time for KS. It just happened that KS ran a lot of 3 guard sets, often with 2 PGs which let Chalmers roam more for his own shot and kept a ton of speed on the court.

Rush is more classic NBA SG than Westbrook is IMO. My issue is just that I don't think he's top 11 skilled as a SG.

I suppose, if he can guard twos is all I was concerned about. I was just wondering if he was more of a 3, who maybe didn't have the foot speed to guard shooting guards. We have enough of those players.

Doug
06-22-2008, 01:36 AM
Are the Utah Jazz flawed beyond belief?

How many championships have they won?

I would much, much, much rather my 5 be able to rebound, defend, and score on the block than be able to shoot outside.

If I can't create an open three point shoot for my 1 or my 2 or my 3 or two of the three can't hit it, then yes, I have a severely flawed team.

If I have to pull my best rebounder, my best post player, out away from the basket, yes, I have a severely flawed team.

imawhat
06-22-2008, 05:18 AM
:laugh: Man, that was the greatest Shaq commercial ever. Remember it? Might have been Taco Bell or something. It was 5 Shaqs vs. 5 Shaqs, and everything one guy did the opposing guy did. Crazy passes, trick shots, threes, dunks, etc.

Commercial ends with the camera panning out and the announcer says "Looks like we're going to have to settle this with free throws!"

Anybody remember that?

As he turns to the camera with a wide-eyed look. Yes, I remember that.

Anthem
06-22-2008, 12:11 PM
As he turns to the camera with a wide-eyed look. Yes, I remember that.
So I'm not crazy. Do you remember the product? I tried finding the commercial, but I couldn't.

Roaming Gnome
06-22-2008, 02:10 PM
So I'm not crazy. Do you remember the product? I tried finding the commercial, but I couldn't.

I thought that it was Powerade, because I do remember Shaq being a Powerade guy back then.