PDA

View Full Version : Kravitz: Pacers still digging out of '06 draft



Unclebuck
10-15-2008, 08:12 AM
I'm no fan of Larry Bird, but once again Bob has way overstated his case here. To suggest that Shawne was a "horrendous choice" isn't fair - I mean he was the 17th pick - half of those picks are out of the NBA within 5 years - very few ever turn into starters. And none of the players taken after Shawne will ever be star players - or anything close to star players.

Oh, I love it how he is saying the pacers should have shown a little more patience with him - really Bob - would you have said that after his next incident?



http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081015/SPORTS15/810150376/1088/SPORTS04&template=printart

October 15, 2008


Pacers still digging out of '06 draft


Here is a list of all the players the Indiana Pacers have to show for their fine work in the 2006 NBA draft:

Well, unless you count 106-year-old Eddie Jones, who was acquired in last week's Shawne Williams trade and seems less enthusiastic about coming to Indianapolis than, say, Mike Tyson.

The story here isn't Williams, who was a complete bust on and off the court and a horrendous choice for the Pacers at No. 17.

The story here is team president Larry Bird, who will carry this draft like an albatross until he shows he can turn around this franchise. As much as some of us like what Bird has done this summer, ridding the team of virtually every last remnant of the TrailPacers, that 2006 draft will remain on his record.

He took Williams at No. 17. And he moved up in the second round to take James White with the first pick in the second round, then gave the kid an unnecessary guaranteed contract, only to see him fail to get out of training camp. "Which," Bird acknowledged the other day, "we knew would look bad."

The '06 draft qualifies as the biggest swing-and-a-whiff in recent Pacers history. It's the kind of oh-fer a franchise on the rebound can't afford, the kind of miscue that gets team presidents -- even Hoosier legend-turned-team-president -- fired.

In case you were wondering about players who were chosen after Williams, here you go: Rajon Rondo at No. 21. Marcus Williams at No. 22. Kyle Lowry at No. 24. Jordan Farmar at No. 26. Paul Millsap at No. 47 in the second round. Leon Powe at No. 49 in the second round. And these are just the 2006 draftees who have made their mark within two years of entering the league.

At this point in the game, it made sense to move Williams, even if it wasn't going to cost the Pacers much to keep him around and wait for the light to go on. The fact is, he wasn't going to play, not with Danny Granger, Mike Dunleavy, Brandon Rush and the rest of the crowd they have at the swingman positions. And he wasn't going to be happy sitting on the bench, especially during the final year of a contract that the Pacers had no intention of extending.

Instead of losing him for nothing at season's end, the Pacers got next-to-nothing, notably a veteran who doesn't want to be here, two second-rounders (who only matter if they're used well) and some cash. The hope is, the cash will help make the Jamaal Tinsley trade work for the Denver Nuggets; Bird recently said, "That's in Denver's hands right now."

At first blush, my thought was, why not show a little more patience with Williams? He's only in his third season, which would make him a senior in college. Guys grow up, and some of them even quit hanging around with accused murderers. Heaven knows, Williams has some serious talent, even if he's not quite as good as he thinks he is and doesn't know much about work ethic.

But you put some things together, and it makes sense. Like the fact he never stopped hanging around the wrong people, even when he was embarrassing the organization. Like the fact he didn't get into the kind of condition the Pacers wanted him in this summer. Like the fact he was often at odds with coach Jim O'Brien about a lack of playing time.

Bottom line, he wasn't going to become the kind of player Bird thought he saw when Williams was in college for that one year at Memphis.

The epitaph on the 2006 draft? A disaster.

"When Scottie Pippen went from being an average young guy to blossoming into Scottie Pippen, he said that everything changed when he first started to think about basketball all the time," O'Brien said. "He said once he thought about how he slept, about nutrition, about what he did in the offseason, that's when he became an excellent player. If people only think about basketball when they come in the locker room and lace them up, that's not enough."

That, regrettably, was the case with Williams, who wasn't in top shape this camp and only worked out in Indianapolis less than a quarter of the summer, according to O'Brien.

How could Bird have anticipated that Williams was going to be a less-than-fully-committed draft choice?

Listen, that's why they pay Bird the big bucks, why some general managers get it and some don't. A personnel man has to know as much about a potential draftee's internal fire as his external talents. Bird and the Pacers missed badly on two picks in 2006, two mistakes that a rebuilding team can't make.

The 2008 class of Brandon Rush and Roy Hibbert better be the real deal, or Bird will be back on the golf course sooner rather than later.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Justin Tyme
10-15-2008, 08:38 AM
Hum, this sounds like something that was posted on this forum last week!

Dece
10-15-2008, 08:40 AM
I've been saying he was an awful choice since we made it, I think it IS fair. There were 3 legit point guard options there, and 2 of them have proven to be far superior players than Shawn. Bird should have drafted Rondo or Farmar, we'd be better off for it. If Bird had drafted the PG Williams I could see a legit defense, but he drafted a far too young, unproven player who played a position we had no need for. Terrible pick.

Unclebuck
10-15-2008, 08:43 AM
Don't get me wrong, Williams as it turns out was the wrong pick. But it isn't like Chris Paul or Deron Williams was available. Rhondo, Williams or Farmar - are not that good

DGPR
10-15-2008, 08:44 AM
This is recycled garbage. Kravitz really shouldn't be allowed to talk about the Pacers or the NBA in general, it usually seems like he doesn't really know what he's talking about.

RamBo_Lamar
10-15-2008, 08:45 AM
Sure, the 2006 draft was botched, but :kravitz:needs to get over it.

How about some positivity towards the good guys we have now. This is an
entirely different team going in an entirely different direction than what we
had going into the 2006 draft.

Those picks didn't work out, they are not here, that was then, this is now.

Move on Kravitz....chit happens.

Hicks
10-15-2008, 09:07 AM
Kavitz gets two thumbs down from me on this one.

The first thumb is for speaking out of both sides of his mouth in the same article, and the second is for doing what I think others predicted he would do: Be critical about the Pacers keeping the "bad eggs", and then turn around and be critical of trading the "bad eggs".

If I had a third thumb, it would be down, too, because I think he's making more out of it than should be.

croz24
10-15-2008, 09:41 AM
kravitz is an idiot. heard him complaining about this monday on the radio. to suggest that the players we "passed on" are anything more than average to decent role players at the moment just shows how little knowledge he possesses about the nba.

count55
10-15-2008, 09:45 AM
Look, the 2006 draft was a failure by every measure. There's nothing wrong with pointing that out, though it doesn't accomplish much of anything.

Here's my problem with Kravitz here: He basically sandbagged Bird. Bird's quotes are taken directly from an interview Bird had on Monday...with Kravitz and Eddie. So, Bob sits mute during the interview, swallowing basically all of these criticisms, then trashes Bird in print two days later. I am not impressed by that particular tactic.

Doddage
10-15-2008, 09:53 AM
I am not impressed by that particular tactic.
That (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cowardice) tactic, indeed.

owl
10-15-2008, 09:58 AM
Bird likes to needle Bob and that article is just a chance to be vindictive. Not very professional in my opinion.

Tom White
10-15-2008, 10:10 AM
This is recycled garbage. Kravitz really shouldn't be allowed to talk about the Pacers or the NBA in general, it usually seems like he doesn't really know what he's talking about.

So, you think the Pacers should have kept Williams & White, or what?

I think he has hit it pretty much on the nose. Maybe he overstated it a bit, but you can hardly call the legacy of that draft a success. Bird himself had spoken about being tired of getting the younger players (high school or very young college players), and wanting players with a bit more maturity or experience.

Shade
10-15-2008, 10:11 AM
Why do we still care about Rondo or Farmar? Ford is a much better PG than either of them.

Kegboy
10-15-2008, 10:12 AM
Buck, if you'd seen Williams in college, you might have been more inclined to feel it was a horrible pick. But Kravitz is an idiot, so what does it matter.

OakMoses
10-15-2008, 10:18 AM
Kravitz is wrong on several fronts, most of which have been pointed out already. Personally, I don't think Shawne was a bad choice. He had/has more potential than any of the guys drafted after him that Kravitz mentions. I don't think it's fair to slam Bird for his failure to accurately gauge Shawne's poor work ethic.

As for the James White pick, it didn't work out. I still like that we saw a guy we liked and went after him aggressively.

If you can find a GM in the NBA that hasn't blown a draft pick in his career, let me know who he is.

Kegboy
10-15-2008, 10:25 AM
If you can find a GM in the NBA that hasn't blown a draft pick in his career, let me know who he is.

Kevin Pritchard. :-p

Unclebuck
10-15-2008, 10:31 AM
Buck, if you'd seen Williams in college, you might have been more inclined to feel it was a horrible pick. But Kravitz is an idiot, so what does it matter.

Don't need to see him in college, I've seen enough of him in the NBA to know that he has NBA talent for sure and still has a chance to be a really good scorer in the league

idioteque
10-15-2008, 10:43 AM
We have "dug out" of the draft in two very obvious ways and for Kravitz not to realize this just shows how ignorant we can be. How did we "dig out?"

-Most obviously we traded Shawne Williams and in return we basically got back those second round picks we lost in the James White albeit they were from a different team and for different years. But we got back two second round picks. That trade in and of itself basically exorcised that draft.

- If you want to get a bit more picky though, now we have T.J. Ford who is better than Rondo and much better than Jordan Farmar. Farmar is probably going to be a career backup, though a rather solid one, but I mean if the guy is playing behind someone as remarably average as Derek Fisher how good can he be? And while Rondo is solid, he plays for a hell of a good team, too. Sure, we lost out on a couple of decent point guards, but it's not like we missed Chris Paul and Deron Williams like Atlanta did. I'm still not convinced that either Rondo or Farmar will ever be a long term starter in the NBA. T.J. Ford, however, will.

McKeyFan
10-15-2008, 10:49 AM
Look, the 2006 draft was a failure by every measure. There's nothing wrong with pointing that out, though it doesn't accomplish much of anything.

Here's my problem with Kravitz here: He basically sandbagged Bird. Bird's quotes are taken directly from an interview Bird had on Monday...with Kravitz and Eddie. So, Bob sits mute during the interview, swallowing basically all of these criticisms, then trashes Bird in print two days later. I am not impressed by that particular tactic.

Exactly my thoughts.

In fact, Eddie asked Bird in the interview if he thought Kravitz was a "hater."

"No, not a hater. Just opinionated," Bird said.

After that olive branch, Kravitz prints this piece of crud.

Mr. Sobchak
10-15-2008, 10:51 AM
It's really easy to play monday morning quarterback.

pacergod2
10-15-2008, 10:53 AM
I really think Bird made his priority in the 2006 draft, being his first real shot at a draft, talent. White and Williams were both EASILY the most talented guys at that point in the draft. Neither are good basketball players and we know that now. Obviously Bird has wizened up a lot as evidenced by this draft in selecting two, four year guys with great personalities.

Kravitz has always been an idiot who just looks to stir the pot whenever he gets the chance, instead of actually having a formidable opinion on the Pacers and/or the NBA. He has NO credibility other than he has Larry Bird's phone number and even that I am not sure of.

kellogg
10-15-2008, 10:57 AM
Kavitz gets two thumbs down from me on this one.

The first thumb is for speaking out of both sides of his mouth in the same article, and the second is for doing what I think others predicted he would do: Be critical about the Pacers keeping the "bad eggs", and then turn around and be critical of trading the "bad eggs".

If I had a third thumb, it would be down, too, because I think he's making more out of it than should be.

Totally agree with this. Kravitz rails about the bad apples we've kept here, then the only one of the whole entire bunch who actually had a murderer for a buddy is the one he complains about us unloading. SJax kicking a disabled guy on the ground pales in comparison.

And like UncleBuck said, it's not like it was a slam dunk that anyone else would have been any better...or will be. Rondo and Farmar probably look the best of the bunch, but when the entire defense is trying to stop Boston's big 3 or Kobe and friends, you will tend to get a few more open looks.

pacergod2
10-15-2008, 11:05 AM
Oh yeah. Shawne on the Lakers or Celtics is a whole different story. How good would Rondo or Farmar be if they were on the Pacers? Not very good. We would be sending them away to a contender that would make more out of them than we could because we don't have the overall talent level to hide all of their mistakes. We added more usable talent this off-season and hopefully as guys develop the team will get better and will hide the flaws of our young players over the next several years moreso than we have been able to recently.

Major Cold
10-15-2008, 11:08 AM
If I had a third thumb, it would be down, too, because I think he's making more out of it than should be.
If I had a third thumb Krapitz could sit on it.



:kravitz:

:thumbsup:

Roaming Gnome
10-15-2008, 11:28 AM
Look, the 2006 draft was a failure by every measure. There's nothing wrong with pointing that out, though it doesn't accomplish much of anything.

Here's my problem with Kravitz here: He basically sandbagged Bird. Bird's quotes are taken directly from an interview Bird had on Monday...with Kravitz and Eddie. So, Bob sits mute during the interview, swallowing basically all of these criticisms, then trashes Bird in print two days later. I am not impressed by that particular tactic.

How ironic, I just listened to this inteerview this morning for the first time this morning only to read this column a couple hours later. It's no wonder that Marvin Harrison won't deal with him.

Also, I found it interesting that Mark Boyle had to "lightly" put Kravitz in check during an interview that was done yesterday. A lot of things that Kravitz does fits his job as "head bomb thrower" and shouldn't come as a suprise. When everyone is down on something, Bob is here to argue that were foolish to be down on something. When everyone is up about something, he is trying to cast that something in a bad light.

Ie. Lucas Oil Stadium, General sports fans love it, so he comes on the side against it.
Ie. SJax/Harrington trade, did we not get enough for 'em, ask Kravitz.
Ie. Pacers are at their lowest PR point, he offers an olive branch
Ie. Pacers are starting to show gains in interest, Kravitz uses an interview to write this column.

Bomb Thrower, nothing more! It keeps people irritated which keeps him in a job. Wfan and The Star want you to keep complaining. At least I felt when Bill Benner complained, it came from the heart and not just to "move the neeedle".

I don't hate Kravitz, but I hate the Star for keeping this guy around when he doesn't know ***** from Shinola about either Racing or Basketball. Our states two biggest passions before the Colts became popular. The only reason they Keep Kravitz around is threads like this one... It gets attn. and that is all the Star wants out of their columnist!

Peck
10-15-2008, 11:30 AM
Normally I take time to point out that nobody should be upset or happy by anything Kravitz says because his entire job is not to make you think about the Pacers, it is to make you talk about him. Mostly he does a very good job about that.

However in this case I want to point out that Bob is really stretching here for the weekly bomb throwing events. This is the literal equivelant of making a mountain out of a molehill.

duke dynamite
10-15-2008, 11:35 AM
I've given up on Kravitz a long time ago, I don't even bother...

OakMoses
10-15-2008, 11:36 AM
I suppose somebody should mention that Patrick O'Bryant, Saer Sene, J.J. Redick, and Cedric Simmons were all picked ahead of Shawne. Also that Bargnani was the #1 pick and Adam Morrison was the #3 and Shelden Williams was the #5. There were a lot of picks in that draft that look worse than us taking Shawne.

Pacers
10-15-2008, 11:36 AM
Oh, I love it how he is saying the pacers should have shown a little more patience with him - really Bob - would you have said that after his next incident?

He didn't say that at all. He said at first glance he thought that, but after thinking about it realized it was the right thing to do.

Slick Pinkham
10-15-2008, 11:36 AM
Personally I think Lowry is better than Rondo, Williams, or Farmar and would be pushing Ford. He kept Conley on the bench most of last year and only their "investment" in Conley seems to be affecting that arrangement. Millsap or Powe would be great PF pieces to have, and either could start for us.

So while I do think that the article is overstated, since the bust rate for #17 picks is probably >50% over history, the valid question is you have to wonder why character and work ethic seemed not to matter as much as an impressive physical workout.

Teams that draft well most of the time find players committed to working hard. Michael Jordan would not have been Michael Jordan if he only worked on his game when he had to. He had the drive to get the most out of everything he had. Derrick Coleman, as an example in contrast, would not have been only Derrick Coleman if he similarly had the drive to get the most out of everything he had. He could have been a Karl Malone, a Tim Duncan, a Kevin McHale. Instead he was another guy with that type of ability but no desire to get there.

GMs have to determine where your head is, and of course it isn't easy, but the warning signs with Shawne were in big red letters on draft day "Needs to grow up, lacks maturity, etc."

OakMoses
10-15-2008, 11:43 AM
Kevin Pritchard. :-p

Pritchard was actually not Portland's GM during the 2006 draft. He was Assistant GM and wasn't promoted to GM until the 2007 offseason. You can't give him total credit for the 2006 draft.

Here are the picks you can give him total credit for: Oden, Fernandez, Petteri Koponen, Josh McRoberts, Taurean Green, Bayless, Batum.

It looks pretty good for him so far, but it's a small sample.

I do like that the term "Pritch-slap", according to Wikipedia, is now being used to describe one-sided trades.

Pacers
10-15-2008, 11:45 AM
You said "in his career", not "in 2006".

RamBo_Lamar
10-15-2008, 11:48 AM
Well if Larry Bird wants to, he has my vote of approval to stall any ongoing
Tinsley trade talks until after training camp breaks, just to make sure Kravitz
has to take that long 50 mile walk to Kokomo.

:devil:


Edit: How funny would it be if they pulled the trigger on a Tinsley trade
one day after Kravitz takes his walk?

ChicagoJ
10-15-2008, 12:36 PM
Don't get me wrong, Williams as it turns out was the wrong pick. But it isn't like Chris Paul or Deron Williams was available. Rhondo, Williams or Farmar - are not that good

Right. It is likely - in that draft - that no matter who Bird picked at #17 they would be gone by now.

Bird needs to learn when to trade out of a draft altogether.

Phree Refill
10-15-2008, 12:36 PM
Well if Larry Bird wants to, he has my vote of approval to stall any ongoing
Tinsley trade talks until after training camp breaks, just to make sure Kravitz
has to take that long 50 mile walk to Kokomo.

:devil:


You figured it out! There in lies the harsh critisizm Bob put forth in his article. He is mad because now he will actually have to do some hard work to generate attention to himself (walking to Kokomo) rather than just sitting in his little cave coming up with smear stories that he can garner attention with.

Side note: I thought the deal was he would walk to Kokomo if if by the start of training camp tinsley was still here? Not the start of the regular season? Can anyone clarify?

Bball
10-15-2008, 12:53 PM
What Kravitz failed to point out was how refreshing it was to finally see a mistake sent down the road rather than signed to an extension to both mollify the player as well as wait on his 'potential' to be exposed at some future point.

KennerLeaguer
10-15-2008, 12:56 PM
Personally I think Lowry is better than Rondo, Williams, or Farmar and would be pushing Ford. He kept Conley on the bench most of last year and only their "investment" in Conley seems to be affecting that arrangement. Millsap or Powe would be great PF pieces to have, and either could start for us.

So while I do think that the article is overstated, since the bust rate for #17 picks is probably >50% over history, the valid question is you have to wonder why character and work ethic seemed not to matter as much as an impressive physical workout.

Teams that draft well most of the time find players committed to working hard. Michael Jordan would not have been Michael Jordan if he only worked on his game when he had to. He had the drive to get the most out of everything he had. Derrick Coleman, as an example in contrast, would not have been only Derrick Coleman if he similarly had the drive to get the most out of everything he had. He could have been a Karl Malone, a Tim Duncan, a Kevin McHale. Instead he was another guy with that type of ability but no desire to get there.

GMs have to determine where your head is, and of course it isn't easy, but the warning signs with Shawne were in big red letters on draft day "Needs to grow up, lacks maturity, etc."

Great post!

And for the record, as unfair as this may sound, I wouldn't draft most guys coming out of the current Memphis program no matter how talented they are.

Anthem
10-15-2008, 01:10 PM
I suppose somebody should mention that Patrick O'Bryant, Saer Sene, J.J. Redick, and Cedric Simmons were all picked ahead of Shawne. Also that Bargnani was the #1 pick and Adam Morrison was the #3 and Shelden Williams was the #5. There were a lot of picks in that draft that look worse than us taking Shawne.
This is a great point. I hadn't thought about that.

ABADays
10-15-2008, 01:32 PM
I wonder how many columnists from every NBA city rail on the front office for "blown" draft picks, "blown" trades, yada, yada, yada.

Jonathan
10-15-2008, 01:43 PM
Who Cares?
It it not like Bird Drafted Darko over Bosh or Melo

Dr. Goldfoot
10-15-2008, 01:52 PM
For a team in the position of the Pacers, drafts can't be wasted in this manner. You've got to end up with more than 2nd rounders and small financial relief for your 1st rounder.

The 17th pick is under rated. The Pacers need to be included in the 50% who got it right at this point. If you go back and look at the draft periods of 9-15 years ago, nearly 2/3 of the players selected in 16-18th pick range proved to be nothing less than big time rotation players. The drafts of 4-8 years ago produced less (40%) of the same kind of players including our own Danny Granger.

I'm not taking a swipe at anybody here just saying the team I root for better start getting this stuff right. Roy could really turn this around. If he becomes at least a solid contributer ala Foster (meaning career length and relevance to team progress) we're doing alright but if he falls into the Jason Collier realm Larry will start deserving these kind of articles.

DgR
10-15-2008, 01:52 PM
Kravitz is pathetic

The way I look at it- Bird is a rookie GM. He's allowed to make mistakes. It's ok as long as they're reasonable and that he learns from them. And it seems he is. Bird made a mistake drafting Shawne, boo- hoo. so we could of had another role player to our already impressive collection. I bet our record would've been the same either way.

I feel very good about Bird being GM from what I've seen over the summer. I think he made all the right moves in his first summer in charge. Even if they don't work out eventually, they were the right moves to make at this point in time.

avoidingtheclowns
10-15-2008, 02:17 PM
Roy could really turn this around. If he becomes at least a solid contributer ala Foster (meaning career length and relevance to team progress) we're doing alright but if he falls into the Jason Collier realm Larry will start deserving these kind of articles.

i always judge the success of a draft pick on whether they die suddenly.

grace
10-15-2008, 02:26 PM
Kravitz really shouldn't be allowed to talk about the Pacers or the NBA in general, it usually seems like he doesn't really know what he's talking about.

So far I haven't found anything :kravitz: should be allowed to talk about. Two weeks ago he wrote a column about Helio Castroneves in which I honestly had no idea what he was trying to say.

Anyone remember Robin Miller? I dislike that man more than I can express, but it's to the point now I wish he was back at The Star. Even though I rarely agreed with what he wrote at least I felt like he knew what he was writing about.

Dr. Goldfoot
10-15-2008, 02:29 PM
I was referring more to his basketball ability than his sudden death. Although in hindsight, that was a poor choice given the overwhelming pool of underwhelming players.

For arguments sake, let's change that to Mirsad Turkcan.

Unclebuck
10-15-2008, 02:35 PM
Ok, here are the 17th picks since 1990

'08 - Hibbert
'07 - Sean Williams
'06 - Shawne Williams
'05 - Granger
'04 - Josh Smith
'03 - Zarko Cabarkapa
'02 - Juan Dixon
'01 -Michael Bradley
'00 - Desmond Mason
'99 - Cal Bowdler
'98 - Radoslav Nesterovic
'97 - Johnny Taylor
'96 - Jermaine O'Neal
'95 - Bob Sura
'94 - Aaron McKie
'93 - Greg Graham
'92 - Doug Christie
'91 - Victor Alexander
'90 - Terry Mills


Actually the 17th pick has been better than I figured over the years.

I would say 5 of those 19 are what I consider starters - JO, Mason, Smith, Granger, Christie.

Speed
10-15-2008, 02:39 PM
http://www.1070thefan.com/insider/blogentry.aspx?BlogEntryID=10010804

Yesterday afternoon on the Kravitz and Eddie show, the discussion turned to conflicts of interest in the media and mostly was pointed this way. It began with the news that Tony Dungy confirmed that Peyton Manning had a second surgery on his knee during the preseason. After Bob called Dungy a liar for not disclosing this earlier, they promoted my appearance on the show, and Bob warned that you shouldn't believe anything I say because I work for the Colts.

This (I think) was a joke and I took no offense. As I joined the conversation, Bob pointed out that I am an employee of the Colts and Pacers (which I have often pointed out myself) and I have a conflict of interest. I'm not sure what his point was since the purpose of the interview was to rehash the facts of Tony Dungy's press conference.

My response about the conflict of interest question was that most all media people have some type of conflict of interest. It may not be a paycheck, but it may be because of a friendship or some type of affinity or a dislike of an individual or team. I admitted there are things I learn on occasion that are not directly reported, but I use the information as a reference for perspective and to provide insight (even if I can't directly say it). All reporters use this type of information. It's the same as an "off the record" conversation. Plus, much of what we learn can't be substantiated to the satisfaction of an editor, but if you know it's true, you keep it in the back of your mind for future reference. It often explains why a future event happens.

Then we moved on to why I was on the show in the first place - to summarize Tony Dungy's Monday media session - and I was done. I enjoy talking about issues in the media and have discussed these types of issues with Bob before and find them interesting (although the average listener may not care about our business). This was one of those conversations and I would have thought no more of it. But, after I was off the air, the conversation continued regarding conflicts of interest and became more critical of those of us that work as team broadcasters.

I may have misunderstood, but it sounded as if Bob was leaning towards saying not to trust any of us that work for teams and only newspaper people will give the real story.

So, since I didn't have a chance to further respond and am asked to fill this space daily, I'll use it to offer more of my thoughts on the credibility (and it sounded like that's what Bob was questioning) of those of us employed by teams as broadcasters.

Eddie asked Bob what if I learned that Peyton Manning broke his leg in practice and the Colts asked me not to say anything - would I tell the station? I'll use an analogy. I believe Eddie may still work for Reebok, or at least has since he joined the station. If he discovered one of their most popular products was defective and they weren't ready to release the information, would he talk about it on the radio? He could do it, but he probably wouldn't be working for Reebok anymore.

By the way, I'm quite certain I've never stumbled upon any significant information and been asked to keep quiet.

In my coverage of the Pacers and Colts, I generally operate under the same parameters as other reporters. Anything I learn in that course is fair game. However, if I'm somewhere in the building or on the team plane where other media types are not allowed, then it's off limits. It may be something I can file away for perspective, but it seems obvious that if I betray their trust (or start snooping around in off limits areas), then I can no longer work for them.

As for conflicts of interests, while some may think a team broadcaster will spin a story positive, I would submit that many columnists (and talk show hosts) spin stories negative to fit the theme of the column or rant. Many have an agenda. I believe team broadcasters are often more balanced (positive and negative) than some columnists and talk show hosts. I may offer an opinion, but I also prefer to give the facts from both sides and let the listener decide. Being a columnist and a good talk show host is difficult. That's why a columnist is the most prominent position at a newspaper. Columnists must take a stand and have a strong opinion. They usually can't offer the reasons for and against. They pick a side and then hammer it home. It's greatly entertaining, but not always fair. I frequently see facts skewed (or sometimes simply incorrect) to help make a point.

Beat writers are also conflicted. Like a team employee, they don't report every thing they learn. Reporting a negative story that is insignificant might not be worth losing the subject as a source.

I also believe being at every game and most practices and talking with players and coaches and hearing their perspective, instead of just guessing, allows team broadcasters to offer something that others can not. While the opinions may not be as caustic, the commentary and insight is often more fully accurate. I think there's a place for both. I enjoy the bombastic opinions of talk show hosts and columnists, even if don't agree. But, I also like to hear the whole story, which you're more likely to get from someone who is there most every day (which is why I've always enjoyed talking with beat reporters as well as columnists on the air.)

The good teams (especially those who want people to listen to their broadcasts - and frequent their advertisers) allow their broadcasters to be critical when warranted. I've had this discussion with my bosses with the Pacers and they agree - we must be critical at times. If we always say everything is rosy, then no one will believe us when their actually is reason for optimism. That said, most try to stay away from cheap shots and piling on. If you like that type of thing, there are always plenty of other options. I've not had the discussion about criticism with the Colts because I'm not hosting a show on the Colts that features many opinions.

I think people who listen to the Pacers post-game show would agree that I have not backed away from their issues over the last several years. That said, you can never please everyone. I'm sure some think we're way too soft and I've had others tell me I'm too critical (including one of our head coaches). It's the team's broadcast (and most of the people listening support the team and want it to do well), so I usually try to offer something positive if possible, but won't hide from the negative.

All of this said, it is challenging to host a talk show and work for teams. I'm much more comfortable with it than I was when I started 14 years ago. As I mentioned, a team broadcaster shouldn't take cheap shots or endlessly pound on the negative. But, this is often entertaining, especially if the team is down. There are opportunities for good liners, that often aren't fair. A talk show host not associated with the team doesn't have to worry about being fair. That's their advantage. The team broadcaster's advantage is knowledge and insight. There are plusses and minuses to both but the talented host from either side can make it work well.

A host who is a team employee can be honest (and must be honest to maintain the credibility of the broadcasts). There are good ones hosting daily shows around the country. While the team may not like to hear "their guy" criticize the team, they also know that he will present their perspective when needed and not just spin the story to be negative.

Ultimately, all of this comes down to credibility and integrity. Regardless of affiliations - media types with integrity, standards and a track record of fairness and honesty can be trusted. Listeners and readers can decide who to trust for their information and then form their own opinions

Major Cold
10-15-2008, 02:45 PM
Wow not too bad. But not too great either.

Not one perennial All-Star.

Kegboy
10-15-2008, 02:50 PM
Don't need to see him in college, I've seen enough of him in the NBA to know that he has NBA talent for sure and still has a chance to be a really good scorer in the league

Yes, but you also would have seen his propensity to take games off and shrink under pressure.

Hicks
10-15-2008, 02:51 PM
Wow not too bad. But not too great either.

Not one perennial All-Star.

JO?

Major Cold
10-15-2008, 02:57 PM
JO?

I guess perennially All-Star to me means making it more times than not.

Kegboy
10-15-2008, 03:00 PM
Pritchard was actually not Portland's GM during the 2006 draft. He was Assistant GM and wasn't promoted to GM until the 2007 offseason. You can't give him total credit for the 2006 draft.

Perhaps not total, but...

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/basketball/nba/03/29/pritchard.blazers/index.html



The 39-year-old had served as the assistant general manager since before the season, and has been credited for masterminding the draft day deals that landed rookies Brandon Roy (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/nba/players/4134), LaMarcus Aldridge (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/nba/players/4130) and Sergio Rodriguez (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/nba/players/4155).

Young
10-15-2008, 03:21 PM
Digging ourselves out of the 2006 draft? That draft did not put us in the hole.

Shawne was not a bad pick. Although there were some concerns about his attitude I think. So that was bad but I think Shawne can still turn into a solid player.

That draft didn't really hurt us. At least not the Shawne Williams pick. If anything it was trading for James White, a waste of time and second round picks.

Since86
10-15-2008, 03:27 PM
That draft didn't really hurt us. At least not the Shawne Williams pick. If anything it was trading for James White, a waste of time and second round picks.

Hopefully that's a sarcastic comment.

How is a 2nd round pick what hurt the team? Realistically, what's the odds that a second round pick turns any franchise around?

I bet everyday for a GM is a busy day, but I highly doubt the scouting/trading for White set the Pacers back any. I just don't understand why some get their panties in a bunch over trading 2nd round picks for White.

Would you rather them draft more Stanko's and Lorbek's, and keep them over in Europe? Is that really a better solution to trading the picks?

Atleast they took a chance on a player, who they thought would pan out and be an addition to the team, and used those picks to get him, instead of uselessly drafting a player that has zero chance of ever dressing in a Pacers uniform.

The reward was definately worth the risk, when it comes to 2nd round draft picks. Whoop-de-doo.

ChicagoJ
10-15-2008, 03:31 PM
I guess perennially All-Star to me means making it more times than not.

That is an interesting way to slice the stats. 12 seasons, six ASG appearances. And one could argue that the measley 2,400 minutes he played over four seasons in Portland don't really define his career, so that is six of the past eight seasons, along with two appearances on the national team.

OTD
10-15-2008, 04:06 PM
First of just how much did Larry have to do with the selecton of Williams remember he was still # 2 in comand. Also since when is he the first one to make a mistake on picking a player,, that turned out to be a bust?

Young
10-15-2008, 04:40 PM
Hopefully that's a sarcastic comment.

Haha yes it was sarcastic.

duke dynamite
10-15-2008, 05:09 PM
First off I really think this is a dead topic. I was listening to 1070 on my way to work, and Kravitz was whining and moaning how the Colts, more specifically did everyone wrong by lying to the fans, the league, media...etc.

He was comparing this situation to the Donaghy scandal, on how this promoted gambling and more or less Peyton should be put under league investigation.

Kravitz it a total irrational person. How this city has come to embrace him, I have no clue.

Major Cold
10-15-2008, 05:11 PM
That is an interesting way to slice the stats. 12 seasons, six ASG appearances. And one could argue that the measley 2,400 minutes he played over four seasons in Portland don't really define his career, so that is six of the past eight seasons, along with two appearances on the national team.

Actually I made a negative remark of JO to get you to respond. I wondered how long it would take. I actually believe was a perennial allstar.

DisplacedKnick
10-15-2008, 05:26 PM
Shawne Williams WAS a terrible pick that year. You had Granger and you'd just traded for Harrington. Marcus Williams was your pick that year. Yeah, he had holes but so did everyone and you needed a PG.

That said, WTF is Kravitz going on about that for NOW? Isn't there something besides ancient history to talk about?

Mr. Sobchak
10-15-2008, 05:35 PM
Shawne Williams WAS a terrible pick that year. You had Granger and you'd just traded for Harrington. Marcus Williams was your pick that year. Yeah, he had holes but so did everyone and you needed a PG.

That said, WTF is Kravitz going on about that for NOW? Isn't there something besides ancient history to talk about?


Marcus Williams has been terrible to this point. He would have been just as big of a bust as Shawne Williams is now.

ChicagoJ
10-15-2008, 05:36 PM
Actually I made a negative remark of JO to get you to respond. I wondered how long it would take. I actually believe was a perennial allstar.

Does this mean I'm getting to be predictable again? Time for me to come up with a a new, wild opinion. Or maybe I'll agree with a mainstream opinion - nobody will know what to think of that.

:chin:

count55
10-15-2008, 05:52 PM
Ok, here are the 17th picks since 1990

'08 - Hibbert
'07 - Sean Williams
'06 - Shawne Williams
'05 - Granger
'04 - Josh Smith
'03 - Zarko Cabarkapa
'02 - Juan Dixon
'01 -Michael Bradley
'00 - Desmond Mason
'99 - Cal Bowdler
'98 - Radoslav Nesterovic
'97 - Johnny Taylor
'96 - Jermaine O'Neal
'95 - Bob Sura
'94 - Aaron McKie
'93 - Greg Graham
'92 - Doug Christie
'91 - Victor Alexander
'90 - Terry Mills


Actually the 17th pick has been better than I figured over the years.

I would say 5 of those 19 are what I consider starters - JO, Mason, Smith, Granger, Christie.

We've had an abnormally high amount of experience with players who were the 17th pick.

Justin Tyme
10-15-2008, 08:12 PM
How this city has come to embrace him, I have no clue.

The city hasn't, but his employer, the Star, obviously has.

Naptown_Seth
10-15-2008, 08:26 PM
Kavitz gets two thumbs down from me on this one.

The first thumb is for speaking out of both sides of his mouth in the same article, and the second is for doing what I think others predicted he would do: Be critical about the Pacers keeping the "bad eggs", and then turn around and be critical of trading the "bad eggs".

If I had a third thumb, it would be down, too, because I think he's making more out of it than should be.
I agree. I think they should have rode out Shawne more if possible, though if he had serious commitment issues then the dump makes sense. But other than Rondo there were no other players I really had an interest in seeing the Pacers get at the time and while I think Rondo is solid he certainly wouldn't start in front of TJ Ford either.

The Pacers grabbed at 2 great talents and both had ego/effort issues it turns out. Yes Bird needs to be on top of that but at the same time that draft was far from a major failure.

Considering how he worked this year's draft I don't see why anyone would be hung up on the 2006 effort.

Bball
10-15-2008, 08:32 PM
That said, WTF is Kravitz going on about that for NOW? Isn't there something besides ancient history to talk about?

I could understand it if he was trying to paint a history of blown draft picks but Bird's tenure is too new, and the shine still on this upcoming season, to be going down that road right now. ...Unless he wants to talk about Walsh's blown draft picks :devil: ...And on a serious note, that is ancient history now too.

DisplacedKnick
10-16-2008, 06:55 AM
Marcus Williams has been terrible to this point. He would have been just as big of a bust as Shawne Williams is now.

First I disagree - Williams has shown he's capable of being a rotation player in the NBA. He has some holes but he's been a decent backup PG. That's far more than you can say about Shawne.

Second, even if I agreed, so what? You needed a PG. You absolutely did NOT need a 3rd small forward when your 2nd and 3rd best players on the team played that position.

Major Cold
10-16-2008, 09:12 AM
Sorry J. I was in a foul mood yesterday and it was JO's fault.

Shade
10-16-2008, 11:12 AM
In hindsight, you have to give Chad Ford a ton of credit:

http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/showthread.php?t=21692

He totally called it.

ChicagoJ
10-16-2008, 11:29 AM
Sorry J. I was in a foul mood yesterday and it was JO's fault.

:laugh:

Priceless. Its all good.

count55
10-16-2008, 11:29 AM
In hindsight, you have to give Chad Ford a ton of credit:

http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/showthread.php?t=21692

He totally called it.

Well, yes and no. I haven't found it yet, but I recall him changing his mind a couple of days later, primarily because he decided he was much more excited about James White.