PDA

View Full Version : Rush vs Bayless



MillerTime
10-09-2008, 02:59 AM
In the past few hours, there has been a lot of talk about Bayless. Especially how Rush didnt play how we expected him to and how hes not going to be that good of a player. You guys have to remember, this is his first taste of NBA competition. He never got a chance to play in the summer league, like Bayless did. After look at Bayess's numbers today, he seems like a shoot first type of player, has horrible dee, and creates a lot of turnovers. Lets compare their numbers for today:

Rush:
mins = 26.38
FG: 2/9
3FG: 1/4
FT: 0/0
Rebs: 2
Ats: 2
TO: 3
STL: 0
BLK: 0
PTS: 5
+/-:

Bayless:
Mins: 30
FG: 3/9
3FG: 2/6
FT: 5/6
Rebs: 2
Ats: 0
TO: 5
STL: 0
BLK: 0

If you look at Bayless' number, he pretty much seems like someone who just wants to score and doesnt want to play defense and is turn-over prone.

Rush, who might not be as good of a scorer as Bayless, can atleast play defense and can play more of a team game than Bayless

croz24
10-09-2008, 03:10 AM
not sure anybody was comparing rush's 1st preseason game numbers vs bayless' numbers in the preseason. the analysis of the two comes from watching game after game after game of the two in college. but since you're here, you might as well post bayless' summer league stats. hell, do you have any training camp scrimmage #s you could post too?

Roaming Gnome
10-09-2008, 03:26 AM
Ahh, this thread has potential "train wreck" written all over it. :D

duke dynamite
10-09-2008, 03:33 AM
Ahh, this thread has potential "train wreck" written all over it. :D
Only if Shade doesn't see it.:p

d_c
10-09-2008, 03:34 AM
If you look at Bayless' number, he pretty much seems like someone who just wants to score and doesnt want to play defense and is turn-over prone.

What from his numbers would indicate that he didn't want to play defense? Maybe he did and maybe he didn't, but what exactly are you going by? Did you watch the game?

I'm not saying anything either way on whether Bayless defended well or not. I'm just making a general comment that you need to actually watch the game before saying something like that, which nobody on this board seems to have done. If someone actually did watch, I would be more than willing to listen to their observations.

Alpolloloco
10-09-2008, 03:36 AM
I like Rush as a player, and think his play will get better as the season goes on.

And I don't care for Bayless ...

Kuq_e_Zi91
10-09-2008, 03:47 AM
My opinion on this is that it's done and over with. No matter how much people want to complain about it, Bayless isn't a Pacer.

I'm just looking forward to the future and watching these guys grow into something special, hopefully.

Eindar
10-09-2008, 04:04 AM
My opinion on this is that it's done and over with. No matter how much people want to complain about it, Bayless isn't a Pacer.

I'm just looking forward to the future and watching these guys grow into something special, hopefully.

I concur. My team is on the floor.

Major Cold
10-09-2008, 06:56 AM
I now declare this thread ignored.

count55
10-09-2008, 07:24 AM
My opinion on this is that it's done and over with. No matter how much people want to complain about it, Bayless isn't a Pacer.

I'm just looking forward to the future and watching these guys grow into something special, hopefully.


I concur. My team is on the floor.

I agree completely.


I now declare this thread ignored.

...and I follow his lead.

Hicks
10-09-2008, 07:56 AM
It was Bayless for Rush AND Jack. No one who whines about it ever wants to mention that we got two good players back.

Personally, I see Bayless as a Gilbert Arenas wannabe. No thanks.

Furthermore, even if he's the PG equivalent of Michael Jorden, he will never be a Pacer. WE DID NOT WANT HIM. That is obvious.

Anthem
10-09-2008, 08:07 AM
Millertime, the proper name for this sort of thread is "Two Players Forever Linked: Jarryd Bayless and Brandon Rush."





:flirt:

Raskolnikov
10-09-2008, 08:09 AM
Millertime, the proper name for this sort of thread is "Two Players Forever Linked: Jarryd Bayless and Brandon Rush."

Lol, I was thinking that as well.

MillerTime
10-09-2008, 08:22 AM
It was Bayless for Rush AND Jack. No one who whines about it ever wants to mention that we got two good players back.

Personally, I see Bayless as a Gilbert Arenas wannabe. No thanks.

Furthermore, even if he's the PG equivalent of Michael Jorden, he will never be a Pacer. WE DID NOT WANT HIM. That is obvious.

We also gave up Diogu....who we basically gave up on

Hicks
10-09-2008, 08:25 AM
I consider Ike for Josh a wash. Both are unlikely to amount to much.

Raskolnikov
10-09-2008, 08:29 AM
It was Bayless for Rush AND Jack. No one who whines about it ever wants to mention that we got two good players back.

Personally, I see Bayless as a Gilbert Arenas wannabe. No thanks.

Exactly.

Unclebuck
10-09-2008, 08:53 AM
It is not a good idea to use the preseason - especially preseason stats to mean anything.

I have been reading a lot of very good things about Augustin out of Charlotte

owl
10-09-2008, 09:12 AM
I consider Ike for Josh a wash. Both are unlikely to amount to much.

After watching McBob last night I was favorably impressed. He looks to have better defense than Croshere already and that is who he is competing for a spot on the team against.

BKK
10-09-2008, 09:28 AM
We also gave up Diogu....who we basically gave up on

Diogu=filler

...and I'm out

idioteque
10-09-2008, 09:28 AM
It was Bayless for Rush AND Jack. No one who whines about it ever wants to mention that we got two good players back.

To me that's really only a few steps away from saying, from Indiana's perspective, that the JO-Dale Davis trade was really for JO AND Joe Klein. It's not quite there, but my point is Jack is basically a dime a dozen backup PG who is never going to be better than a 7th or 8th man on anybody's team.



Furthermore, even if he's the PG equivalent of Michael Jorden, he will never be a Pacer. WE DID NOT WANT HIM. That is obvious.

That would in no way justify how bad that trade would have been if Bayless pans out that way. Personally, I think he's a smaller version of Tim Thomas, but you never know. In the end I think Rush will be the better player, but hey, I'm not paid to make these decisions, and if this doesn't pan out I will be angry.

naptownmenace
10-09-2008, 11:00 AM
It was Bayless and Diogu for Rush AND Jack AND McRoberts. No one who whines about it ever wants to mention that we got three good players back.


Fixed. ;)

Roaming Gnome
10-09-2008, 11:44 AM
I have someone's words in my head..."Never trade quality for quantity!"

Nothing is decided on one pre-season game, but it starts to get hard to ignore that we might have given up quality for quantity. Especially if J. Jack can't handle the ball *** loads better then what we saw last night. It's nice to say that, "aww shucks, we can just have him play the two.", but in the end, we gave up Bayless and brought Jack in here to be a point guard. As for B. Rush, I hope that he just had first game jitters so bad that he didn't want to look at the rock. He was nearly invisible to me, and I'm not talking production.

JayRedd
10-09-2008, 12:26 PM
Trying to determine anything based on preseason basketball is as much an exercise in futilty as trying to predict tomorrow's winning lottery numbers based on fortune cookies.

pacerfreak
10-09-2008, 12:34 PM
After watching McBob last night I was favorably impressed. He looks to have better defense than Croshere already and that is who he is competing for a spot on the team against.


I was impressed as well, how ever he'll have to keep it up all during preseason. I do think it will be Shawne who gets cut and not Austin.

'Freak...out.

QuickRelease
10-09-2008, 03:51 PM
To me that's really only a few steps away from saying, from Indiana's perspective, that the JO-Dale Davis trade was really for JO AND Joe Klein. It's not quite there, but my point is Jack is basically a dime a dozen backup PG who is never going to be better than a 7th or 8th man on anybody's team.

Hardly the same thing.

jeffg-body
10-09-2008, 04:41 PM
Come on guys, the world is not coming to an end. it was one pre-season game against a very good team. We need time to get some chemistry between the players. I could care less if Bayless would have scored 30 points, we got 3 quality guys in the trade.

Shade
10-09-2008, 05:16 PM
I'm going to wait a bit longer before chiming in on this.

But you all know I eventually will.

duke dynamite
10-09-2008, 05:56 PM
Come on guys, the world is not coming to an end. it was one pre-season game against a very good team. We need time to get some chemistry between the players. I could care less if Bayless would have scored 30 points, we got 3 quality guys in the trade.
I like this. I feel that I would rather have 3 decent players than one "potentally" good player.

BlueNGold
10-09-2008, 07:15 PM
I don't see the interest in discussing Bayless....but I guess I'm past that. He's like an Arenas/Marbury type player who is talented but usually doesn't help your team advance very far.

As for Rush, I saw a guy with quickness who has good instincts on defense and gets down on the floor. Lots of effort. I know the guy is going to be clever driving to the bucket as well...along the lines of SJax dare I say. He will be a good shooter. Heck, he is a good shooter and just needs to settle down.

He has the tools to be a good SG. He has skills, that is, he is not James White. He is also not undersized like Fred Jones.

Yes, I see the ingredients for a good player, but it will not be this season. He will need to come off the bench.

d_c
10-09-2008, 07:30 PM
I don't see the interest in discussing Bayless...

If Bayless falls flat on his face and Rush has a good rookie year, I'm willing to bet this board will have great interest discussing Bayless.

Doddage
10-09-2008, 07:37 PM
Ok, the "this board" stuff is getting tiring already.

aceace
10-09-2008, 07:41 PM
If Bayless falls flat on his face and Rush has a good rookie year, I'm willing to bet this board will have great interest discussing Bayless.Lets hope! Bayless may not get a lot of minutes once the season starts. Portland has depth now. Pre-season has so many mixed line-ups and guys playing that won't make the team. We had a guy (PF-name?) a few years back that scored 20 pts in a pre-season game that was cut before the season started. Pre-season means absolutely nothing.

d_c
10-09-2008, 07:50 PM
Ok, the "this board" stuff is getting tiring already.

Is what I said false? C'mon....

BlueNGold
10-09-2008, 08:26 PM
If Bayless falls flat on his face and Rush has a good rookie year, I'm willing to bet this board will have great interest discussing Bayless.

I guess I could see that. At least it would be news.

Anyway, I smell Starbury, Iverson and Arenas. Good for some ESPN highlights. Not good for building a contender. Not sure why he's in Portland. I suppose Prichard is a lot smarter than I am...

d_c
10-09-2008, 08:44 PM
Anyway, I smell Starbury, Iverson and Arenas. Good for some ESPN highlights. Not good for building a contender. Not sure why he's in Portland. I suppose Prichard is a lot smarter than I am...

Before Arenas got to Washington, the Wiz were nothing. Absolutely nothing. At least with him, now you know they're in the NBA. Arenas is an oustanding player. His main problem is that Lebron James is simply a much better player and Lebron has kicked Arenas' (and the Wiz') butt in the playoffs.

Allen Iverson, all 6' 175 lbs of him, dragged a group of Larry Brown role players into the NBA Finals by sheer force of will. That was very impressive.

I mean, if you're accusing those guys of not being good enough to build a true contender around, well I agree. It's simply because they're not quite good enough for that. I'd rather have Tim Duncan, but so would everyone else. It's not like the Wiz have Arenas because they said "Oh no, we don't want Tim Duncan. We'd rather build around a guy like Gilbert." They got Gilbert because at the time they had nothing else and the oppurtunity happened to present itself.

Jerryd Bayless is simply another very talented guy on what is easily the most talented young roster in the league (Portland). I have no idea how much Bayless is going to help Portland in the long run. I just know they'd be pretty damn good with or w/o Bayless anyways. It's almost overkill. Reality is, they didn't really need anyone from the draft this year at all (Rush, Bayless, Randolph, you name it), but what the hell, the league gave them a pick so they got another talented guy. Doesn't hurt'em.

JayRedd
10-09-2008, 08:53 PM
Wait...We're using first-ballot Hall of Famers for negative projections now too? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

d_c
10-09-2008, 09:02 PM
Wait...Now we're using first-ballot Hall of Famers as negative examples? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

People look at guys like Iverson and say "What a loser. This guy could never win anything." Well, tough to win it all when the only way to win it is to beat a Laker team with Kobe +Shaq at his peak.

Same with a guy like Carmelo. I guess he's a loser. So what are the Nuggets choices? Dump Carmelo for less talent, then tank in the draft again and hope that the next time in the lottery they wind up with the next Lebron instead of the next Carmelo?

People forget that there are a lot of stars in this league and not all of them can make it to the top of the mountain. A lot of these stars just end up getting beaten by BETTER stars.

Kid Minneapolis
10-09-2008, 09:37 PM
Bayless is gonna impress sooner; Rush will be more impressive in the long run.

JayRedd
10-09-2008, 10:00 PM
Cool little blog post from some trainer I've never heard of that sorta broaches the class action suit of Bayless Believers v. TPTB. Found via TrueHoop.

Brian McCormick
BMac's Blog

http://highfivehoopschool.blogspot.com/2008/10/basketball-recruiting-nba-draft-and.html


The reason to draft or recruit "potential" is to develop the potential. However, college coaches do not have enough time to work with players to really develop players to maximize their potential. Players develop because college programs take weight lifting far more seriously than high school programs, but technical skills like shooting rarely develop in college.

For a player to develop greatly, he must take the initiative and work out diligently on his own, which is why a college or NBA team must assess psychological and mental characteristics as much as physical characteristics, because ultimately the player's competitiveness, desire and work ethic will determine his development and success as much as his physical gifts.

BlueNGold
10-09-2008, 10:14 PM
Iverson and Arenas are tremendously talented players. On the right team, they could be part of something special. The problem is, they are paid too much in most instances to be part of a winning team. They suck up the cap like Jermaine...who is also not sufficiently talented to dominate like Kobe, MJ, DWade, etc.

That's the reason why it's best to avoid the flashy, highly paid players who really are not in the top 5 of the league in both D and O. You know they can't get by the likes of similarly paid players of MJ, Kobe and Lebron's ilk....so it's better to build a team like Detroit or the old Indiana team that had pretty good talent and great team work....and had a true shot at a championship. If LA had not been so strong in 2000, the Pacers would have a banner IMO.

So, that's the point. Do you want to win, or do you want to watch regular season highlight reels...?

Anthem
10-09-2008, 10:45 PM
That's the reason why it's best to avoid the flashy, highly paid players who really are not in the top 5 of the league in both D and O.
This boggles the mind. So you should avoid basically everybody?

You talk about "teams like the old Pacers" as if you weren't aware that they had one of the largest payrolls in the league.

BlueNGold
10-09-2008, 11:20 PM
This boggles the mind. So you should avoid basically everybody?

You talk about "teams like the old Pacers" as if you weren't aware that they had one of the largest payrolls in the league.

Some of this admittedly is based on my view that those players call their number too much and focus on their own stats.

As for the money, I would rather spread it around like the Pistons did and win a championship, than to pile it up and pay Gilbert Arenas. I tend to think you get better results that way unless you have a player along the lines of Kobe. Then, you pay up.

Iverson has been really, really good over the years...but what does Arenas make again? Is that money truly well spent if you want a contender? Sure, he's a better deal than JO, but he's not leading the Wiz anywhere and he's sucking too much cap.

Anyway, I would prefer a balanced roster like the Pistons with balanced paychecks over the 100 million dollar Arenas who is probably individually better than any one Piston.

BTW, I will never forget seeing the entire Pistons roster eating at Circle Center mall during the playoffs several years back. I was in line behind Rasheed getting Chinese. Those guys were tight and you could tell it. I personally think part of the reason they had a good team was because they were paid relatively similar amounts and were of relatively similar talent. A better team than the Wiz for sure. An NBA champion.

JMHO.

d_c
10-10-2008, 12:49 AM
If LA had not been so strong in 2000, the Pacers would have a banner IMO.


Same could be said of Iverson and the 76ers the very next season in 2001, no?

Arenas is probably overpaid with his new deal, but prior to his current deal, he had a very reasonable 6 year, $64M deal. Whatever it was preventing the Wiz from acquiring a franchise changing player, it certainly wasn't Arenas' deal, as he was paid right for his deal.

As far as Iverson and Arenas taking up too much cap space, neither of those guys' salaries have really prevented their teams from spending. If anything, weren't people talking about KG being WAY overpaid (due to being grandfathered under theh old CBA and allowed to make more than the current MAX) and unable to ever get the TWolves out of the 1st round of the playoffs for countless consecutive seasons?

Even with KG's huge salary, Boston still found a way to put him alongside two other MAX players (well, Ray Allen's 2nd extension was near MAX). Seeing as Boston was able to do that, I don't think Iverson's salary was the reason Philly couldn't acquire more needed fire power. That had a lot to do with overpaying role guys like McKie and Kenny Thomas (who got a Croshere like deal).

Detroit and Indy's methods of building contending teams w/o mega superstars are obviously something for a lot of teams to shoot for. Don't disagree with that at all. It's also VERY VERY hard to do. If that method was so easy, why haven't there been more old Indy and Detroit like teams? I'm sure John Hammond is going to try to do for Milwaukee exactly what he and Dumars did for Detroit. And it's hardly going to be easy.

For another thing, the Detroit teams of the past few years have had a lot more talent than people think. Billups was a #3 overall pick. Rasheed a #4 pick and considered by many the 2nd most talented guy in a highly touted 95' draft. Rip was a mid lottery pick. McDyess was picked 2 spots ahead of Rasheed. In fact, a lot of those Detroit players were considered talented malconents in other places before Dumars acquired them. Rasheed you know about. But Billups had played on 4 different teams before Detroit. McDyess was considered a whiny baby when the Nugz traded him to Phx, and then spurned Phx to sign back with Denver. Rip Hamilton was considered immature in Washington.

imawhat
10-10-2008, 12:50 AM
Cool little blog post from some trainer I've never heard of that sorta broaches the class action suit of Bayless Believers v. TPTB. Found via TrueHoop.

Brian McCormick
BMac's Blog

http://highfivehoopschool.blogspot.com/2008/10/basketball-recruiting-nba-draft-and.html

This is why I believe Bayless will not fail in the NBA. He has an unbelievable work ethic that is somewhat comparable to Gilbert Arenas. He has far too much pride and talent to fail.

I LOVE Rush, but I don't believe a team should ever take two good players over a possible great player.

d_c
10-10-2008, 01:14 AM
This boggles the mind. So you should avoid basically everybody?

You talk about "teams like the old Pacers" as if you weren't aware that they had one of the largest payrolls in the league.

Yep. And it's very, very difficult to build an "old Pacers" team. A lot harder than peole think.

I mean, there are plenty of sorry teams in teams in the league who never gotten the Carmelos, Gilberts and Iversons of the world. Not having one of these players and their salaries and supposed selfish play, wouldn't you assume it then makes it easy to constrcut a "non superstar" team like the old Pacer teams?

If that's the case, the Milwaukee Bucks and Atlanta Hawks should had multiple contending dynasties by now.

Heck, isn't that the very type of team the Chicago Bulls have tried constructing in the John Paxson era? Hard working, defensive minded, role players willing to do the dirty work, not centered around a superstar, etc.....How far have they gotten? At the end of the day they have yet to get any further than Gilbert Arenas, LOL. And then their non-star players wound up asking for star money anyways.

rexnom
10-10-2008, 02:19 AM
Yep. And it's very, very difficult to build an "old Pacers" team. A lot harder than peole think.

I mean, there are plenty of sorry teams in teams in the league who never gotten the Carmelos, Gilberts and Iversons of the world. Not having one of these players and their salaries and supposed selfish play, wouldn't you assume it then makes it easy to constrcut a "non superstar" team like the old Pacer teams?

If that's the case, the Milwaukee Bucks and Atlanta Hawks should had multiple contending dynasties by now.

Heck, isn't that the very type of team the Chicago Bulls have tried constructing in the John Paxson era? Hard working, defensive minded, role players willing to do the dirty work, not centered around a superstar, etc.....How far have they gotten? At the end of the day they have yet to get any further than Gilbert Arenas, LOL. And then their non-star players wound up asking for star money anyways.
Well, the Bulls did end up sweeping the Heat that one year.

I think Iverson, Carmelo and Arenas are in three different leagues. AI is a future first-ballot HOFer. Carmelo is one of the best players in the NBA. Gil? He's really good, but he has draw-backs which will never let the Wizards win a championship. To some extent, what BnG says about Arenas-type players is right.

It reminds me of the Schrempf/McKey debate somewhat but more it reminds me of McGrady in Orlando. McGrady put up some amazing seasons in Orlando and the Magic essentially traded him away for essentially nothing and now only a few seasons they're more successful than they were the entire T-Mac era. The Arenas situation is similar. I think the Wizards would be better if they had guys like Chauncey Billups, Tony Parker or even Andre Miller instead of Arenas. Players like Arenas as the franchise players need the team to bend to their games. Now, that's not a bad thing necessarily. I just think that with the way Arenas plays the game, the Wizards are not maxing their potential. If instead of Arenas the Wiz had Miller and a defensive player or a big man (like Dalembert), they would be a vastly better ballclub than they are right now with Arenas.

Now, just to repeat, I think that AI and even Carmelo are both on different levels as franchise guys. You can definitely win a championship with those guys as your number one IMO. I think Denver just needs to figure out a new way to build around Carmelo but they can definitely get there.

As for Bayless, I think he would have had much less success here than in Portland. Here, people like our friend croz, would be calling for him to be the franchise guy. Something he'd happily do, or try to do. Unfortunately, I don't think he's cut out for it, and he'd either fail miserably, or suceed with the team losing. In Portland Bayless should find it easier. He's not going to be asked to be their franchise. He's not even the best player in the backcourt. Hell, he's not even the best rookie in the backcourt. He's going to have to earn his time and probably end up as a very useful scoring-punch for the Blazers in the future, either off the bench or occasionally starting with Brandon Roy.

I just don't know if Gilbert Arenas - as presently constructed, I think he can fine-tune his game like Ray Allen did in Boston - could ever be the best player on a championship team. It's not for a lack of talent but rather for a lack of being one of those rare franchise guys but everyone acting as if he is, thus eliminating the possibility for a "coalition" team like in Detroit or Indiana (90s).

Btw, the problem with Milwaukee and Atlanta is not necessarily their "approach" but rather the fact that they just aren't nearly as talented as Detroit or 90s Indiana. On Detroit and Indiana you had several all-star level players (not to mention good coaches, good GM, consistency, etc...you get the point). As for Chicago, they erred when they inexplicably signed Ben Wallace to a long deal and traded away Chandler and LaMarcus Aldrige. Basically, they went away from the approach that had been working. If they hadn't thrown away their money like that, the Deng/Gordon contract issues would probably be non-existant.

d_c
10-10-2008, 02:46 AM
Well, the Bulls did end up sweeping the Heat that one year.
.
.
.
Btw, the problem with Milwaukee and Atlanta is not necessarily their "approach" but rather the fact that they just aren't nearly as talented as Detroit or 90s Indiana. On Detroit and Indiana you had several all-star level players (not to mention good coaches, good GM, consistency, etc...you get the point). As for Chicago, they erred when they inexplicably signed Ben Wallace to a long deal and traded away Chandler and LaMarcus Aldrige. Basically, they went away from the approach that had been working. If they hadn't thrown away their money like that, the Deng/Gordon contract issues would probably be non-existant.

Point is, the Paxson era Bulls have gotten so far as the 2nd round, which is just as far as the Arenas era Wiz have gotten.

You are correct. Milwauke and Atlanta just weren't that talented. My point is that the "old Pacers" and Pistons of now are a lot more talented than people give them credit for, and those types of teams are also a lot harder to contruct than people think. It's a testament to Donnie Walsh and Dumars that they were able to build them. What they did is not easily repeatable, otherwise we'd see a lot more of those types of teams that are just as successful.

The Bulls essentially traded Chandler for Ben Wallace. They signed Wallace and then traded Chandler for an expiring deal because they didn't want to pay both of them at the same time in future seasons. Those 2 make about the same amount money, so it didn't impact the Gordon/Deng signings. They'd be in the same boat with those guys if they had Chandler now instead of Wallace. Those guys simply asked for a lot of money (and Deng got it).

In theory, Wallace was the defense, rebounding, hustle, heart, unselfish guy that was the backbone of the Pistons success, right? If you wanted to be like the Pistons, what better way then to take away the very guy who epitomized their style of play? They simply erred in thinking that Big Ben still had 2-3 prime seasons left in him when in fact he was really starting to decline.

Paxson simply overthought himself by trading down to take Thomas instead of Aldridge. In fact, Aldridge was passed on by the Bulls because he was considered the "soft" guy while Thomas was the athletic hustle guy that Paxson thought would fit right in with his young squad. People probably also pointed to Thomas outplaying Aldridge when LSU and Texas faced off in the tournamount. In fact, Aldridge was quite simply the better, more talented player.

BlueNGold
10-10-2008, 09:07 PM
The Pistons may have been quite talented, but no one was paid huge dollars....like, for example, JO. Which further proves the point. It's not about having no talent on your team, it's more about using your money wisely, particularly on a team like the Pacers that will do what they can to avoid the luxury tax. BTW, if money grew on trees, Danny Granger would have already been signed...

What this comes down to is, do you want to contend? 2nd round is not contending Gilbert. Yes, it is difficult to build a Pacer 90's squad, but the ride up was worth every minute....

Of course if you can draft MJ or Kobe you do it...but I'd rather have this Pacer team with Danny Granger, TJ Ford, Brush and Hibby than the Wiz with Arenas and his 100M...

d_c
10-10-2008, 09:40 PM
The Pistons may have been quite talented, but no one was paid huge dollars....like, for example, JO. Which further proves the point. It's not about having no talent on your team, it's more about using your money wisely, particularly on a team like the Pacers that will do what they can to avoid the luxury tax. BTW, if money grew on trees, Danny Granger would have already been signed...

What this comes down to is, do you want to contend? 2nd round is not contending Gilbert. Yes, it is difficult to build a Pacer 90's squad, but the ride up was worth every minute....

Of course if you can draft MJ or Kobe you do it...but I'd rather have this Pacer team with Danny Granger, TJ Ford, Brush and Hibby than the Wiz with Arenas and his 100M...

I would of course prefer an old Pacer or current Detroit team than the current Wiz team. That's a no brainer. That being said, before Gilbert got to Washington, what were they? They weren't ever close to being a Pacer/Piston type of team. So if they dumped Gilbert now instead of giving him that big contract, they would automatically be on there way to being such a team? (and I'm not neccessarily advocating that what they did was the right move)

As far as the current Pacer team vs. Gilbert's team, they may yet turn out better, but let's wait for them to get to the playoffs and advance past the first round first (which Gilbert has done). They have a long, long way to go before they resemble anything close to those old Pacer teams.

Building that the type of team you're striving for is just very difficult, based on how many teams have tried to go that route and had any kind of success. IMO, the Bulls have tried exactly the type of team you speak of and have so far come up short.

As for the Pistons, the reason they were able to sign a lot of those guys to relatively cheap deals is simple: Most of those guys were talented rejects with character issues from other teams (the type this current Pacer management would avoid acquiring). They played on multiple teams before they got to the Detroit and they were basically run out of town in all those places. Dumars got a group of talented guys (note the draft positions of some of those guys) who had chips on their shoulders and whos' talents meshed well together.

Had those guys actually panned out the way people expected to with their original teams (when they were younger), they would have been higher paid guys. That's one reason Jermaine got the dough in Indy: He was very young, a rare talented bigman, and had appeared to pan out to his potential. Most every team in the league would have done the same thing Donnie Walsh (the architect of the old Pacer teams) did.

mildlysane
10-11-2008, 09:30 AM
I will still be interested in seeing Bayless, as a tweener, guard Dun or Rush. Or is going to guard Ford? What good is a "great" player who gets posted on every time down the court, or blown by every time?

d_c
10-11-2008, 12:52 PM
I will still be interested in seeing Bayless, as a tweener, guard Dun or Rush. Or is going to guard Ford? What good is a "great" player who gets posted on every time down the court, or blown by every time?

With Portland, Bayless is probably going to guard the PG with Fernandez/Roy guarding the SG.

With the amount of talent that team has, they're hardly expecting Bayless to have to perform any miracles or carry any loads. They are absolutely stacked. Bayless hardly needs to be a "great" player over there. He doesn't even need to be average.

That team barely even needed Rush, Bayless, or any other guy in the draft, for that matter. They are that good.

avoidingtheclowns
10-11-2008, 02:02 PM
Iverson has been really, really good over the years...but what does Arenas make again? Is that money truly well spent if you want a contender? Sure, he's a better deal than JO, but he's not leading the Wiz anywhere and he's sucking too much cap.

maybe not well spent if you want a contender but its well spent if you want to make a buck.

arenas (along with tawn and tough juice) revived wizards basketball in the district and gilbert is beloved here. from a business perspective it would have been brutal to not bring him back. they kept together the team that they had which in a lot of ways already knows it's ceiling (losing to the cavs in the playoffs). either they bring gilbert (and jamison) back and keep up interest and the business-side or they let them go and risk years of losing and disinterest again. they were in a tough spot and i think they made the right move for the organization but it doesn't mean its the right one if they'd like to be in serious championship discussions.

they're gambling by hoping that something magical happens on the court. business-wise it makes sense: tickets will be purchased, merchandise will sell. if they stay healthy they'll get into the playoffs and that'll be that. gilbert will talk, deshawn will **** Jay-Z off, andray blatche will drive to thomas circle to get serviced by undercover cops... but i really don't think they're going to be a serious championship contender anytime soon.

sorry MTO.

rexnom
10-11-2008, 02:35 PM
maybe not well spent if you want a contender but its well spent if you want to make a buck.

arenas (along with tawn and tough juice) revived wizards basketball in the district and gilbert is beloved here. from a business perspective it would have been brutal to not bring him back. they kept together the team that they had which in a lot of ways already knows it's ceiling (losing to the cavs in the playoffs). either they bring gilbert (and jamison) back and keep up interest and the business-side or they let them go and risk years of losing and disinterest again. they were in a tough spot and i think they made the right move for the organization but it doesn't mean its the right one if they'd like to be in serious championship discussions.

they're gambling by hoping that something magical happens on the court. business-wise it makes sense: tickets will be purchased, merchandise will sell. if they stay healthy they'll get into the playoffs and that'll be that. gilbert will talk, deshawn will **** Jay-Z off, andray blatche will drive to thomas circle to get serviced by undercover cops... but i really don't think they're going to be a serious championship contender anytime soon.

sorry MTO.
****. That was Thomas Circle? Literally a block away from my apartment. Wow. I feel like a celebrity. This a notch away from being near the Divine Brown-Hugh Grant incident.