PDA

View Full Version : Miami interested in Tinsley again



Pacerized
10-19-2008, 11:45 AM
http://www.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/54956/20081019/miami_interested_in_tinsley/

The Heat are reportedly interested in Pacers point guard Jamaal Tinsley, who has been stuck in limbo as Larry Bird tries to unload him.

Miami currently has Marcus Banks, Mario Chalmers, Chris Quinn and Shaun Livingston under contract at point guard.



Obviously not a lot of content and it makes little sense when you consider that they just signed Livingston. It does make me think that Larry wasn't lying when he said a few teams were still interested in Tinsley. I would think that Denver, GS, the Clippers and now perhaps Miami have some degree of interest that may continue to grow as the season starts.
I assume that to get any player for Tinsley that can contribute we'll have to sweeten the deal or take on a bad contract in return. The question is what do you want? Would you rather just dump Tinsely for lower impact players like the proposed Denver trade, or would you rather see the team sweeten the deal a little to obtain Haslem, Martin, Harrington, or Thomas all of who are somewhat expendable on their perspective teams?

BlueNGold
10-19-2008, 11:58 AM
Only two options make sense. Deal Tinsley for a salary cut...because all by himself we are bound to get a so-so player...something we already have many of.

Option 2 is to package Tinsley with another real asset...like Quis...to get a starting calibre PF.

imawhat
10-19-2008, 12:30 PM
http://www.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/54956/20081019/miami_interested_in_tinsley/

The Heat are reportedly interested in Pacers point guard Jamaal Tinsley, who has been stuck in limbo as Larry Bird tries to unload him.


Good. This should speed up the Denver talks, if that deal isn't dead.

Swingman
10-19-2008, 12:41 PM
Only two options make sense. Deal Tinsley for a salary cut...because all by himself we are bound to get a so-so player...something we already have many of.

Option 2 is to package Tinsley with another real asset...like Quis...to get a starting calibre PF.

I don't think adding Quis would get us much of anything. Does he really have much trade value at this point?

rexnom
10-19-2008, 12:41 PM
Looking at the Heat PGs, they lack experience on a winning franchise. They need a PG who has been through all of that. Someone like Jamaal Tinsley :signit:.

ABADays
10-19-2008, 12:44 PM
Now wouldn't South Beach be just the place for Tinsley to rehabilitate his career :rolleyes:

CableKC
10-19-2008, 12:44 PM
Looking at the Heat PGs, they lack experience on a winning franchise. They need a PG who has been through all of that. Someone like Jamaal Tinsley :signit:.
Why do you need experience when you aren't competing for a Championship?

BlueNGold
10-19-2008, 12:50 PM
Miami and Denver need to realize that the Pacers are not going to hand over a legitimate starting PG, particularly to a competitor in the Eastern Conference, unless something of substance or a nice salary cut is coming back. A bad contract attached to a player that will never see the floor is equivalent to paying off Tinsley.

This means we are better served by dealing Tinsley to Denver for a bad contract than dealing him to Miami for the same thing. ...so the price to Miami is going to be a little higher...

rexnom
10-19-2008, 12:50 PM
Why do you need experience when you aren't competing for a Championship?
I don't know what you're talking about. Miami is stacked at all positions. All they need is someone to take the ball-handling load off of Wade and they could be top four in the East this year and even higher when Chalmers comes into his own. Come on...:signit:

BlueNGold
10-19-2008, 12:55 PM
I don't think adding Quis would get us much of anything. Does he really have much trade value at this point?

I think he's a very good backup. He also has a nice sized expiring contract that has appeal.

...and maybe we could deal Rasho too (who also has a soon to expire contract) to get the player we really need at the PF position.

Mr. Sobchak
10-19-2008, 12:56 PM
Miami and Denver need to realize that the Pacers are not going to hand over a legitimate starting PG, particularly to a competitor in the Eastern Conference, unless something of substance or a nice salary cut is coming back. A bad contract attached to a player that will never see the floor is equivalent to paying off Tinsley.

This means we are better served by dealing Tinsley to Denver for a bad contract than dealing him to Miami for the same thing. ...so the price to Miami is going to be a little higher...


I hope your joking. Anything we get for Tinsley aside from a contract significantly larger than his is a good deal. We are not in position to make demands here. I think the added benefits from the casual fan base knowing that he's gone far outweighs keeping him here. I would take almost anyone at this point. Kenny Thomas, Brian Cardinal...anyone.

BlueNGold
10-19-2008, 12:58 PM
I hope your joking. Anything we get for Tinsley aside from a contract significantly larger than his is a good deal. We are not in position to make demands here. I think the added benefits from the casual fan base knowing that he's gone far outweighs keeping him here. I would take almost anyone at this point. Kenny Thomas, Brian Cardinal...anyone.

If we get a worthless player with an equivalent contract, we may as well pay off Tinsley and be done with it.

Mr. Sobchak
10-19-2008, 01:01 PM
If we get a worthless player with an equivalent contract, we may as well pay off Tinsley and be done with it.


Bird has already stated that paying him off is just not an option. It's not going to happen.

RandyWrinkles
10-19-2008, 01:08 PM
I hope your joking. Anything we get for Tinsley aside from a contract significantly larger than his is a good deal. We are not in position to make demands here. I think the added benefits from the casual fan base knowing that he's gone far outweighs keeping him here. I would take almost anyone at this point. Kenny Thomas, Brian Cardinal...anyone.

If we were in talk with only 1 team then we wouldn't be in a position to make demands, but because at least 1 other team wants him that is helping us raise his value. It makes sense that Miami should offer more than Denver being in the same conference. Hopefully Miami liked what they saw with Quis last night.

BlueNGold
10-19-2008, 01:22 PM
Bird has already stated that paying him off is just not an option. It's not going to happen.

Have you never negotiated anything? Why in the world would Bird say that was an option when he is trying to trade Tinsley?

The reality is, if Tinsley's contract gets down to one year and he is likely to get in more legal trouble, his contract WILL get paid off at that point. The problem at the present time is that his contract is longer and more money that the Pacers want to part with...and they know that some teams will take a chance on him. If GS took a chance on SJax, someone will take a chance on Tinsley. The real question is, how long will the Pacers hang onto Tinsley. Within a year and a half, I have no doubt he will be gone, even if it means paying off that last year.

Mr. Sobchak
10-19-2008, 01:26 PM
Have you never negotiated anything? Why in the world would Bird say that was an option when he is trying to trade Tinsley?

The reality is, if Tinsley's contract gets down to one year and he is likely to get in more legal trouble, his contract WILL get paid off at that point. The problem at the present time is that his contract is longer and more money that the Pacers want to part with...and they know that some teams will take a chance on him. If GS took a chance on SJax, someone will take a chance on Tinsley. The real question is, how long will the Pacers hang onto Tinsley. Within a year and a half, I have no doubt he will be gone, even if it means paying off that last year.

As a college student I must say my negotiating experience is minimal. ;)

Major Cold
10-19-2008, 01:27 PM
Why do you need experience when you aren't competing for a Championship?

I really think that Miami could reload next offseason and be a contender.

Hicks
10-19-2008, 01:45 PM
If we see a deal we like, great. If not, you don't have to buy him out. You just wait until his contract is even shorter. Eventually he'll be an expiring contract to use, if it comes to that.

Justin Tyme
10-19-2008, 02:08 PM
He also has a nice sized expiring contract that has appeal.

I'm not meaning to single you out, but I see this all the time. It's incorrect.

Daniels DOES NOT have an expiring contract folks. Posters are constantly saying this. What Daniels has is 2 years left on his contract with the first year of the 2 years left as a TEAM OPTION. If the team doesn't pick up the option then the contract is done/over/through. It has the same effect as an expiring if the team option isn't picked up, BUT it isn't an expiring contract.

Sorry about being picky about the small thing. Someone decades ago gave me this for my desk:

"He who lets the small things bind him, leaves the great undone behind him.":D

Major Cold
10-19-2008, 02:35 PM
I'm not meaning to single you out, but I see this all the time. It's incorrect.

Daniels DOES NOT have an expiring contract folks. Posters are constantly saying this. What Daniels has is 2 years left on his contract with the first year of the 2 years left as a TEAM OPTION. If the team doesn't pick up the option then the contract is done/over/through. It has the same effect as an expiring if the team option isn't picked up, BUT it isn't an expiring contract.

Sorry about being picky about the small thing. Someone decades ago gave me this for my desk:

"He who lets the small things bind him, leaves the great undone behind him.":D
Marquis Daniels is an expiring if the team so wills it?

d_c
10-19-2008, 02:36 PM
I think the situation with Miami is pretty simple:

Miami is going to absolutely insist the Pacers take back Marcus Banks or else no deal from their perspective. I don't think Pat Riley will compromise on this.

The reason: Banks makes less than Tinsley, but like Tinsley he has 3 years remaining. They want to be a player in the 2010 market, and having both Banks AND Tinsley (who play the same position) is about $11M against the cap during the summer. They can't afford that.

If they take Tinsley, they're going to want Banks going out b/c then they're only adding ~$3M to what they're commited to now for summer 2010.

BKK
10-19-2008, 02:44 PM
I'm not meaning to single you out, but I see this all the time. It's incorrect.

Daniels DOES NOT have an expiring contract folks. Posters are constantly saying this. What Daniels has is 2 years left on his contract with the first year of the 2 years left as a TEAM OPTION. If the team doesn't pick up the option then the contract is done/over/through. It has the same effect as an expiring if the team option isn't picked up, BUT it isn't an expiring contract.

Sorry about being picky about the small thing. Someone decades ago gave me this for my desk:

"He who lets the small things bind him, leaves the great undone behind him.":D

let's call it an up-to-you-expiring contract :D

Big Smooth
10-19-2008, 02:49 PM
I think he's a very good backup. He also has a nice sized expiring contract that has appeal.

...and maybe we could deal Rasho too (who also has a soon to expire contract) to get the player we really need at the PF position.

I'm sorry but Tinsley + Quis + Rasho is not going to net the Pacers a starting PF worth a damn. I mean c'mon, basically that is like offering scraps for a prime rib steak.

MrSparko
10-19-2008, 02:51 PM
Considering Rasho is a starter + expiring contract on most teams himself and Quis is a decent back-up + expiring. I would think those two by themselves would net a good if not quite very good starting power forward.

It just depends on just how much of a negative you view Tinsley has.

Big Smooth
10-19-2008, 02:56 PM
Considering Rasho is a starter + expiring contract on most teams himself and Quis is a decent back-up + expiring. I would think those two by themselves would net a good if not quite very good starting power forward.

It just depends on just how much of a negative you view Tinsley has.

Define a "very good starting PF". Give me some names.

Teams are not dying to give up a true quality PF for expiring contracts and spare parts.

Bball
10-19-2008, 02:56 PM
Why would we want to get rid of Rasho?

-Bball

Doug
10-19-2008, 03:05 PM
Tinsley is no longer on the Pacers, except on paper.

He could get caught high on coke, shooting skeet by throwing babies off the roof a a strip club with 2 transvestite hookers and it would have minimal impact on the Pacers' PR at this point.

juadam09
10-19-2008, 03:17 PM
Tinsley is no longer on the Pacers, except on paper.

He could get caught high on coke, shooting skeet by throwing babies off the roof a a strip club with 2 transvestite hookers and it would have minimal impact on the Pacers' PR at this point.

If this was any other organization I would agree with you but post 11/19 I do not. So long as the article (and ESPN and other talking heads) read "Indiana Pacers guard" then the impact will not be minimal.

Infinite MAN_force
10-19-2008, 03:20 PM
Daniels/Tinsley for Banks/Haslem works. Thats the only thing I could figure out that makes any sense, because Tinsley for Banks straight up doesen't work. Though we lose the trade salarywise (for next year, sorta break even overall), Haslem is a double double guy who plays good D. I think both sides would at least give that consideration.

Good PR. Every player who ever got in trouble here would be off the roster.

The only question would be if Rasho's expiring contract will be able to cover Danny's raise. We already extended foster, so that newfound cap room is dwindling. Losing Daniels expiring Could end up costing us Jarret Jack if we have to pay Danny.

Mourning
10-19-2008, 03:25 PM
Define a "very good starting PF". Give me some names.

Teams are not dying to give up a true quality PF for expiring contracts and spare parts.

Well... that's what we thought too when Atlanta did just basically that by sending Sheed to Detroit, effectively torpedoeing our season.

MrSparko
10-19-2008, 03:32 PM
Haslem

Good but not very good. Can be a starter. There settled. :cool:



Or Memphis Pau Gasol.

LoneGranger33
10-19-2008, 03:38 PM
Memphis would never trade Gasol for spare parts.

MrSparko
10-19-2008, 03:52 PM
That's true everyone knows that starting big men are never traded unless for better big men or all-star guards.


Logic, sensability, and honesty are used in every trade.

Justin Tyme
10-19-2008, 03:52 PM
let's call it an up-to-you-expiring contract :D


LOL!

Pacers
10-19-2008, 04:00 PM
That's true everyone knows that starting big men are never traded unless for better big men or all-star guards.


Logic, sensability, and honesty are used in every trade.

Y HELO THAR MARCUS CAMBY! Moral: Never say never.

And the Grizzlies would never trade Pau Gasol because he's no longer on their roster.

Big Smooth
10-19-2008, 04:42 PM
So basically you folks are saying the exceptions are the rule? Okay fine, we can get an All Star PF for Tinsley and Quis. :D

Also notable is that the Gasol and Sheed deals occurred mid season or later. I would think the odds of such a steal are a bit longer before the season when every team can at least pretend to be a playoff contender.

Big Smooth
10-19-2008, 04:45 PM
Haslem

Good but not very good. Can be a starter. There settled. :cool:



Or Memphis Pau Gasol.

It would be a neat trick to get Pau Gasol from the Grizzlies. ;)

Haslem......god. I guess if you want to lower the standard for a starting PF that low........sure.

croz24
10-19-2008, 05:21 PM
i say we go after one of the warriors' pfs...wright/hendrix/randolph

or we could trade granger + murphy for boozer...doubt fans on here would like that one though

RandyWrinkles
10-19-2008, 05:41 PM
or we could trade granger + murphy for boozer...doubt fans on here would like that one though

He wouldn't re-sign with us.

Pacers#1Fan
10-19-2008, 05:42 PM
It would be a neat trick to get Pau Gasol from the Grizzlies. ;)

Haslem......god. I guess if you want to lower the standard for a starting PF that low........sure.

I was waiting on someone to catch that lmao

Cherokee
10-19-2008, 05:42 PM
I'm not as sold on Granger as a lot of people are. While not near as athletic as some people say he is, he's a decent defender, a good guy, and a good player to have on any team. But if he's a great player and the face of the franchise, he needs to take the bag off his head and do a lot more than he has in the past.

Will Galen
10-19-2008, 05:45 PM
http://www.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/54956/20081019/miami_interested_in_tinsley/

The Heat are reportedly interested in Pacers point guard Jamaal Tinsley, who has been stuck in limbo as Larry Bird tries to unload him.

Miami currently has Marcus Banks, Mario Chalmers, Chris Quinn and Shaun Livingston under contract at point guard.


That rumor is from Mitch Lawrence of the Daily News, he makes up a lot of stuff.

Looking at ESPN's trade machine I concur Miami would want to get rid of Banks as someone said. They wouldn't want five point guards and Quin and Livingston can't be traded yet and they aren't going to trade Chalmers. So it would have to be Banks.

From our viewpoint the Pacers want to get rid of Tinsley and another player if they want to keep Cro, which I think they do.

I only see one possible trade meeting the above criteria. Banks and Marion, for Rasho, Daniels, and Tinsley.

Rasho's and Daniels* expiring contracts would pretty much offset Marion's expiring. It would cost Miami about $2.5 million in expiring money.

As for the trade itself, there would only be a difference of $55 thousand.

The trade would set Miami up pretty good, especially if Morning would come back.

F Beasley
F Haslem
C Rasho
G Wade
G Tinsley
Morning
James Jones (Broken arm)
Daniels
Chalmers

However, I think Miami would want a first rounder too, and I don't think Bird would give that up. Plus it would leave us with an unblanced roster.

F 6'9 Granger/
F 6'7 Marion/ 6'11 Murphy/ 6'10 Cro 6/10 McBob/ 6'10 Maceo
C 6'11 Foster/ 7'2 Hibbert
G 6'9 Dun/ 6'6 Rush/ 6'6 Graham
G 6'0 Ford/ 6'3 Jack/ 6'2 Banks/ 6'1 Diener

Of course we wouldn't have to sign Cro, but I think that's going to happen.

MrSparko
10-19-2008, 06:05 PM
Why does everyone think I don't know that Pau Gasol was traded?

That's why I put Memphis Pau Gasol.

I didn't put Miami Haslem did I?

Jeepers.

Justin Tyme
10-19-2008, 06:08 PM
or we could trade granger + murphy for boozer...doubt fans on here would like that one though


Why would Utah want another Okur(Murphy)? Not to mention Murphy's contract and having to sign Granger to a big contract when they have AK 47 at 3 years and 49 mil who plays SF.

That trade isn't even reasonable/realistic for the Jazz!

croz24
10-19-2008, 06:09 PM
^

don't want marion anywhere near the pacers, especially when he wouldn't even resign here.

kester99
10-19-2008, 06:09 PM
They just don't understand the way you're processing, sparko. One sentence is not necessarily connected to the others.

I for one welcome our new associative logic overlords.

croz24
10-19-2008, 06:10 PM
Why would Utah want another Okur(Murphy)? Not to mention Murphy's contract and having to sign Granger to a big contract when they have AK 47 at 3 years and 49 mil who plays SF.

That trade isn't even reasonable/realistic for the Jazz!

you understand boozer won't resign with the jazz right?

Justin Tyme
10-19-2008, 06:12 PM
you understand boozer won't resign with the jazz right?

What makes you think he'd re-sign with the Pacers? Then you are out Granger for what? Nothing!

Roaming Gnome
10-19-2008, 06:15 PM
Why would Utah want another Okur(Murphy)? Not to mention Murphy's contract and having to sign Granger to a big contract when they have AK 47 at 3 years and 49 mil who plays SF.

That trade isn't even reasonable/realistic for the Jazz!


I don't think he was being realistic. I think he just wanted to find another way to say trade Granger. :brokenrecord:

Pacers
10-19-2008, 06:42 PM
They just don't understand the way you're processing, sparko. One sentence is not necessarily connected to the others.

I for one welcome our new associative logic overlords.

"or" connects the two sentences. I don't know how it's our fault the structure was flawed.

croz24
10-19-2008, 06:42 PM
What makes you think he'd re-sign with the Pacers? Then you are out Granger for what? Nothing!

he probably wouldn't...this is a team that must build through the draft or by making trades based on potential. i prefer a guy like brandan wright, but pacers digest (you) is so adament about wanting established players so i threw out an idea that includes such.

MillerTime
10-19-2008, 06:44 PM
If we could do Tinsey + Dunleavy (his value isnt going to be any higher) + Rasho + 2 2nd rounders that we got from Dallas for Marion (after extention signed, or we can even let him expire) + Banks

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/features/traderesult?players=1708~598~1024~2165~510&teams=14~14~14~11~11&te=&cash=

Ford/Jack/Banks/Diener
Daniels/Rush
Granger/Graham
Marion/Foster/Baston
Murphy/Hibbert

JOB said he likes a smaller roster. This would bring our roster down but our team isnt as deep, but we are definately a better team

grace
10-19-2008, 07:00 PM
Tinsley is no longer on the Pacers, except on paper.

He could get caught high on coke, shooting skeet by throwing babies off the roof a a strip club with 2 transvestite hookers and it would have minimal impact on the Pacers' PR at this point.

I work with someone who used to have season tickets. She's so sick of her ticket rep calling her and trying to get her to get tickets again she said "Don't call me again until it's been a year since someone on the team has been arrested."

Quis
10-19-2008, 07:45 PM
Not to turn this into a trade thread, but I saw someone propose a Szczerbiak + Pavlovic for Kirilenko deal on a Jazz board. The Jazz fans didn't love it, but most were open to the idea. If Utah is shopping AK, I wouldn't mind seeing the Pacers make a move for him, as I think he'd be a nice PF in our system. I'd think Utah would have a lot of interest in a legit center like Rasho for starters.

MillerTime
10-19-2008, 07:52 PM
Not to turn this into a trade thread, but I saw someone propose a Szczerbiak + Pavlovic for Kirilenko deal on a Jazz board. The Jazz fans didn't love it, but most were open to the idea. If Utah is shopping AK, I wouldn't mind seeing the Pacers make a move for him, as I think he'd be a nice PF in our system. I'd think Utah would have a lot of interest in a legit center like Rasho for starters.

I wouldnt want to touch AK. His contract is like $15 million for the next 3 years. We still have Dunleavy and Murphy already locked into huge long term contracts. And to be honest, AK doesnt really earn the money. Hes not the player he was a few seasons back. Bird also expressed his disinterest in long term deals...I dont see AK a Pacer with that contract

GO!!!!!
10-19-2008, 08:04 PM
Maybe I have my Pink Glasses on but I'd love to have AK, he's not the same player because the system isen't the same and his confidence is down..

In the right System he still is an All Star and not yet Thirty, if we could trade DunDun even tho i like the guy for AK, i'd do it anytime..

Rather him then Marion any day of the week... Dun, Nasho and two second rounders for AK, works for me , sure does...

MillerTime
10-19-2008, 08:10 PM
Maybe I have my Pink Glasses on but I'd love to have AK, he's not the same player because the system isen't the same and his confidence is down..

In the right System he still is an All Star and not yet Thirty, if we could trade DunDun even tho i like the guy for AK, i'd do it anytime..

Rather him then Marion any day of the week... Dun, Nasho and two second rounders for AK, works for me , sure does...

Bird isnt going to be interested in his contract. As I stated before, Bird expressed his disinterest in long term contracts...We already have Murphy's contract to deal with. Correct me if Im wrong, but didnt AK have injury problems the past 2 seasons? We really dont need another key player with a huge contract go down with injuries (we've already had JO and still have Tinsley).

I think Marion would be a better option than AK. Though hes older, hes still more valuable than AK. Marion is arguably guard every position on the court (PG might be a little tough for him). But we're seen him guard the best best players in the game at almost every position. Kobe, Lebron, and Duncan have all been guarded by Marion and hes done a pretty good jb

YoSoyIndy
10-19-2008, 08:16 PM
If this was any other organization I would agree with you but post 11/19 I do not. So long as the article (and ESPN and other talking heads) read "Indiana Pacers guard" then the impact will not be minimal.

I agree. The former Pacers fans who still only read headlines would say, "There's another one."

Justin Tyme
10-19-2008, 08:19 PM
he probably wouldn't...this is a team that must build through the draft or by making trades based on potential. i prefer a guy like brandan wright, but pacers digest (you) is so adament about wanting established players so i threw out an idea that includes such.

If you like to build thru the draft you ought to switch teams to the OK Thunder. They have been disgarding their established players for youth and the draft, and they will be a top 5 pick again this year. A top 10 pick for the next # of years. Just your type of team!

Unfortunately for the Pacers and the city of Indianapolis attendance counts heavily the next few years as winning is a priority and not losing to draft in the top 5!

Big Smooth
10-19-2008, 08:26 PM
If you like to build thru the draft you ought to switch teams to the OK Thunder. They have been disgarding their established players for youth and the draft, and they will be a top 5 pick again this year. A top 10 pick for the next # of years. Just your type of team!

Unfortunately for the Pacers and the city of Indianapolis attendance counts heavily the next few years as winning is a priority and not losing to draft in the top 5!

Well I think the point he was making is that the Pacers aren't an attractive destination for top notch FA's. The franchise pretty much has built itself on the draft and trades since 1986 or so.

FA's are usually role players to plug in holes on the roster. At least here. Which is fine as long as the team is drafting well and hitting on a JO for DD type trade here and there.

croz24
10-19-2008, 08:31 PM
If you like to build thru the draft you ought to switch teams to the OK Thunder. They have been disgarding their established players for youth and the draft, and they will be a top 5 pick again this year. A top 10 pick for the next # of years. Just your type of team!

Unfortunately for the Pacers and the city of Indianapolis attendance counts heavily the next few years as winning is a priority and not losing to draft in the top 5!

explain to me how houston, new orleans, orlando, toronto, san antonio, denver, cleveland, dallas, miami, utah turn their franchises around? again if you want to continue to talk about the 4 or so teams who have made bad decisions with their draft picks over the last few years, then i'll start naming the teams who completely turned their franchises around due to a top pick.

MillerTime
10-19-2008, 08:38 PM
explain to me how houston, new orleans, orlando, toronto, san antonio, denver, cleveland, dallas, miami, utah turn their franchises around? again if you want to continue to talk about the 4 or so teams who have made bad decisions with their draft picks over the last few years, then i'll start naming the teams who completely turned their franchises around due to a top pick.

Correct me if im wrong, but it seems that some of the teams you mentioned above gained an All star player by ways of having a GREAT draft pick recently.

Houston = Yao
New Orleans = CP3
Orlando = Dwight
Cavs = James
Miami = Wade and soon to be Beasley

ABADays
10-19-2008, 08:44 PM
If this was any other organization I would agree with you but post 11/19 I do not. So long as the article (and ESPN and other talking heads) read "Indiana Pacers guard" then the impact will not be minimal.

Yes it would be minimal. The team has written him off and the fans have mentally written him off.

MrSparko
10-19-2008, 08:49 PM
Does she say the same when she talks to Colts reps?

Hicks
10-19-2008, 09:11 PM
Does she say the same when she talks to Colts reps?

I was wondering the same thing.

The lengths some people are going to just to avoid the Pacers is ridiculous.

Anthem
10-19-2008, 09:14 PM
explain to me how houston, new orleans, orlando, toronto, san antonio, denver, cleveland, dallas, miami, utah turn their franchises around? again if you want to continue to talk about the 4 or so teams who have made bad decisions with their draft picks over the last few years, then i'll start naming the teams who completely turned their franchises around due to a top pick.
Remind me of the last team to build a champion by tanking?

Doug
10-19-2008, 09:15 PM
Any publicity from any Tinsley incident at this point would be followed with 'Tinsley, who was told to stay away from the Pacers by team president Larry Bird..."

They have taken all the steps they can to distance themselves from him. As Hicks (kinda) said, the people who would hold that against the Pacers are just looking for any excuse to pile on anyway. **** them.

Tom White
10-19-2008, 09:26 PM
Only two options make sense. Deal Tinsley for a salary cut...because all by himself we are bound to get a so-so player...something we already have many of.

Option 2 is to package Tinsley with another real asset...like Quis...to get a starting calibre PF.

Besides wondering what team would pat with a starting caliber PF for those two, do you really consider Daniels a "real asset"?

GO!!!!!
10-19-2008, 09:29 PM
Bird may not want to take on Jerome James for the sake of it, but if a chance came up for AK he's be naive n silly not to consider it regardless of his contract..
I think AK may have had some slight tweaks, Lower back maybe not to sure..

Why would you want to rent Marion for one season, is he part of your future or just S&t bait..

I don't see it..

I doubt any one of the trades would happen so it's speculation, but i know i know it's a game, but in 2K9 i traded for AK and love what he brings to my team...

MillerTime
10-19-2008, 09:36 PM
Bird may not want to take on Jerome James for the sake of it, but if a chance came up for AK he's be naive n silly not to consider it regardless of his contract..
I think AK may have had some slight tweaks, Lower back maybe not to sure..

Why would you want to rent Marion for one season, is he part of your future or just S&t bait..

I don't see it..

I doubt any one of the trades would happen so it's speculation, but i know i know it's a game, but in 2K9 i traded for AK and love what he brings to my team...

I would see Marion as part of our future. I know hes 30 right now, but he still have a good 4 or 5 years in him before he slows down. Even if we dont elect to re-sign him, we could save that money and make a huge run at Boozer or even wait till 2010 and make a run at Amare

Anthem
10-19-2008, 09:42 PM
For the record, I'd be ecstatic with a Haslem/Banks for Quis/Tinsley trade.

I can't imagine getting a better deal than that, and it's even (barely) within the realm of possibility for Miami. They're not really adding much long-term salary, since they get Tinsley but lose Banks. It actually helps them, salary-wise, because we pay Haslem for two years and they only pay Quis for one. Give them the picks from the Dallas trade and get our 2009 back.

Seems like a better deal for us than Miami, but I'd sure as heck do it if they would.

Anthem
10-19-2008, 09:45 PM
I would see Marion as part of our future. I know hes 30 right now, but he still have a good 4 or 5 years in him before he slows down. Even if we dont elect to re-sign him, we could save that money and make a huge run at Boozer or even wait till 2010 and make a run at Amare
Even at my most optimistic, I can't imagine getting Marion in any trade where we give Dunleavy and Tinsley. That's just too much salary for Miami to take when their whole goal is to shed salary for the summer of 2010.

juadam09
10-19-2008, 09:52 PM
Yes it would be minimal. The team has written him off and the fans have mentally written him off.

You could be right, but I just don't think so. It does not matter what die-hard fans think as much as the average fan. Lets face it most of us that post on a Pacers message board are "die-hard" and we know Tinsley is not in the loop. The "casual" fan however, the ones who ask "Why isnt Tinsley suited up?" while attending a game this season, they will not see it as "minimal". And lets face it it is a fine and dandy to have diehard fans who show up no matter what but considering the pacers recent attendance problems I think the organization will do well to pay attention to these fans.

juadam09
10-19-2008, 09:54 PM
Any publicity from any Tinsley incident at this point would be followed with 'Tinsley, who was told to stay away from the Pacers by team president Larry Bird..."

They have taken all the steps they can to distance themselves from him. As Hicks (kinda) said, the people who would hold that against the Pacers are just looking for any excuse to pile on anyway. **** them.

To each their own.

No matter how hard you try to distance yourself I still see it as bein a talking point and not being a "small deal" or "backpage news"

grace
10-19-2008, 10:11 PM
Does she say the same when she talks to Colts reps?


I was wondering the same thing.

The lengths some people are going to just to avoid the Pacers is ridiculous.


I have no idea because we haven't talked about the Colts.

Working full time and having infant twin girls at home I think her point was she just wants to be left alone. I know my mom is getting pretty sick of Kegboy's rep calling her house thinking he still lives there.

You guys are just going to have to accept the fact that the perception (even to some former season ticket holders) is the Pacers are a mess. If the Colts were the Cincinnati Bengals I'm sure they'd be as well liked as the Pacers.

edit: Then again she's a Cubs fan so how smart can she be?

Pacers
10-19-2008, 10:12 PM
Remind me of the last team to build a champion by tanking?

San Antonio. :devil:

LoneGranger33
10-19-2008, 10:19 PM
That was accidental tanking, thus bad karma did not play a role. Don't you watch My Name is Earl? No? Me neither, but I assume somebody does.

Justin Tyme
10-19-2008, 10:26 PM
The real issue is that the "Indiana" Pacers can't afford to tank 3-5 years to get top 5 picks to rebuild if the Pacers are going to continue to be in Indiana!

The Simons are in a win now mode, make the playoffs, and rebuild the attendance. Tanking isn't going to achieve any of this. JMOAA

BlueNGold
10-19-2008, 10:28 PM
Besides wondering what team would pat with a starting caliber PF for those two, do you really consider Daniels a "real asset"?

I consider him a good backup SG who can get his own shot...which is a rarity for a backup. So, yes I do consider him to be a real asset. No, he is not a starting calibre player, but fits in the 6-10 group on a decent team. If I thought he was a good starting SG, we would just trade him straight up for a starting PF. He also has a short contract.

Packed with Tinsley, who is quite talented..and is a legit starting PG...it should be somewhat tempting to a team desperately looking for a starting PG. Yes, it will be a stretch, but there have certainly been more lopsided trades. Combine this with the fact teams like Denver and Miami don't appear to consider character, a deal has a real possibility of happening. Everyone knows Tinsley is very talented. ...and no, I'm not drinking...

avoidingtheclowns
10-19-2008, 10:31 PM
San Antonio. :devil:

they got a very nice piece in tim duncan. while we're at it there was a team much better at tanking for the #1 pick that year that totally missed out. that same team tried it a second time and had a similar result.

Pacerized
10-19-2008, 10:34 PM
Our 2 biggest weaknesses are at the 4 and the 2 with a post player being our single biggest need and a seasoned shooting guard being our second. I know Dun is listed as a 2 but I consider him a much more natural 3. All of the teams that seem to be in need of a pg happen to have a decent 4 which is somewhat expendable. Martin would be the best of the lot if he were healthy and he's also the best post player. I like Thomas from the Clips but he more of a big 3, and Harrington isn't the best post player either. Haslem falls somewhere behind a healthy Martin who did play in 71 games last year btw. None of these players are top tier power forwards but all could start. The downside is if we just get a 2cd. tier starter like this it doesn't make us a contender and it could filter down to take minutes from Hibbert depending on who was packaged with Tinsley. I also think that any of these players would make us a better team and a lock for the playoffs since we're not far from that now.
If it's possible to get a player that could really contribute by combining Tinsley with Daniels or Rasho or Murphy in a 2 for 1 that would be my first choice. I don't expect a lot of people to agree with me but I think a trade for Martin makes more sense for both teams then any other player above. He has a terrible contract ending at the same time as Tinsleys' so any player we added to the trade should make Denver happy providing the contract expired within 3 years. Adding Quis, Rasho, or Murphy to the trade works fine.

Will Galen
10-19-2008, 10:45 PM
Even at my most optimistic, I can't imagine getting Marion in any trade where we give Dunleavy and Tinsley. That's just too much salary for Miami to take when their whole goal is to shed salary for the summer of 2010.

Two reason's Dun won't be included in any possible trade for Marion. Marion has an expiring and probably wouldn't resign with the Pacers unless we gave him an extension. That won't happen since he already makes $17m plus. Thus it would be like giving Dun away for nothing but cap room.

The other reason is Miami want's cap room so if they are trading Marion they want expirings for next year (Boozer) or in two years when James and a bunch of others expire.

This is one of the reason's I included Daniels and Rahso along with Tinsley, in the trade above.

Myself, I think a trade for Marion won't happen, period.

MrSparko
10-19-2008, 11:01 PM
It's not so much that I feel I can change people's opinion its just that I like to point out horrible inaccuracies that make no sense.


Also make the Colts have another couple seasons like this one, and have NFL somehow tank in popularity all together then yes the perception might be the same.

LoneGranger33
10-19-2008, 11:08 PM
Haslem plays center now. Just remember that.

MrSparko
10-19-2008, 11:17 PM
LG33 don't argue with me in public!

Pacerized
10-19-2008, 11:19 PM
Haslem plays center now. Just remember that.


Espn has Haslem listed as a PF with Blount currently listed as the starting center. At 6'8" and 235 he would be one small nba center.

LoneGranger33
10-19-2008, 11:31 PM
I agree. But so is Al Harrington. I think he'll play time at the center position because, well, to be honest, every other tall guy on the team stinks.

Anthem
10-19-2008, 11:41 PM
San Antonio. :devil:
They didn't tank. They tried to win, but their main player went down with an injury and they won the lottery.

Pretty hard to follow that model.

Anthem
10-19-2008, 11:42 PM
Two reason's Dun won't be included in any possible trade for Marion. Marion has an expiring and probably wouldn't resign with the Pacers unless we gave him an extension. That won't happen since he already makes $17m plus. Thus it would be like giving Dun away for nothing but cap room.
Not seeing the problem, especially if Tinsley was included in the deal.


Myself, I think a trade for Marion won't happen, period.
I'd say that your odds are pretty good on that one.

CableKC
10-19-2008, 11:58 PM
I don't know what you're talking about. Miami is stacked at all positions. All they need is someone to take the ball-handling load off of Wade and they could be top four in the East this year and even higher when Chalmers comes into his own. Come on...:signit:
As Intricold has suggested.....they could reload by next offseason to be solid Playoff Contenders........but that's assuming that they make the right financial moves between now and then. Adding Tinsley doesn't do that...if anything....adding Tinsley only lessens their ability to sign any huge FA that they want over the next 2 offseasons.

Also...I don't think that the Heat are as stacked as you think they are......outside of Wade, Marion or even a rookie Beasley....IMHO.....they have a whole roster of solid Backup rotational players that are made up of Vets and young player.....but none that I would consider Starting quality players.

This season......unless they make a Laker-like Gasol trade to acquire alot more then 1 quality Starting player.......I'm guessing that ( at most ) they can become a Playoff Bubble team in the East.

CableKC
10-20-2008, 12:05 AM
I don't know if it's been mentioned......but if I had the choice between the Denver deal ( as reported ) and any deal with Miami ( which would likley end up with some combination of Banks and either Haslem...or more then likely Blount )....then I would choose the Denver deal.

The main reason is for Financial reasons. I wouldn't mind getting Haslem....but honestly.....if we have the luxury of choosing a deal that essentially gives us some Financial Flexibility and one that gives us better players ( IMHO....Haslem is the only one that I consider better players)...then I choose the deal that gives us more Financial Flexibility. Haslem maybe a very solid Low-post defending/scoring undersized PF....but I would much rather keep Rasho ( who I think Riley wants ) and ( correct me if I am wrong count55 ) have the financial Flexiblity by not taking on Banks while making some offer for some solid Backup PF like Maxiell.

Infinite MAN_force
10-20-2008, 01:34 AM
I consider him a good backup SG who can get his own shot...which is a rarity for a backup. So, yes I do consider him to be a real asset. No, he is not a starting calibre player, but fits in the 6-10 group on a decent team. If I thought he was a good starting SG, we would just trade him straight up for a starting PF. He also has a short contract.

Packed with Tinsley, who is quite talented..and is a legit starting PG...it should be somewhat tempting to a team desperately looking for a starting PG. Yes, it will be a stretch, but there have certainly been more lopsided trades. Combine this with the fact teams like Denver and Miami don't appear to consider character, a deal has a real possibility of happening. Everyone knows Tinsley is very talented. ...and no, I'm not drinking...


I think the main reason Daniel's is a real asset is that his contract is "essentially" an expiring contract... Which holds a lot of value in today's NBA. The fact that he can actually play is almost a moot point. For example, Rasho being a decent player is a nice plus to the trade, but the main point of him being in the Oneal trade is that he is an expiring, and if he was a worthless scrub I don't think anyone would really view the trade differently.

I think any sort of trade involving shawn marion is highly unrealistic. Really the only trade that makes sense with Miami is, like I said, Tinsley/Daniels for Haslem/Banks.

Haslem is a solid player at a position of need, that said, I agree with Cable. The best deal is the Denver deal that essentially gets us out of Tinsley's contract. Haslem is ok but he is not the "answer" at that position. Though, I would honestly be fairly satisfied with either scenario.

CableKC
10-20-2008, 01:50 AM
I think any sort of trade involving shawn marion is highly unrealistic. Really the only trade that makes sense with Miami is, like I said, Tinsley/Daniels for Haslem/Banks.
Although this is the preferable deal that the Pacers would want......I'm guessing that the most the Heat would want to part with is Tinsley+Rasho for Banks+Blount. Riley is looking for a real Center to man their Frontcourt for another season. Although Blount technically counts as one......given that he hasn't really lived up to his contract....I am sure that they would want to slightly upgrade to a better Center with a better contract.

At most....I'm guessing that there can be some compromise with a Tinsley+Rasho for Banks+Haslem....but I would still go for the proposed Denver deal. To expand on what I mentioned before.........if ( and this is a very big IF ) we have the luxury of choosing between any Heat deal ( which would undoubtedly include Banks ) and the proposed Nuggets deal....we have no use for a Guard like Banks that would have a long-term contract that wouldn't be any better then Marquis nor Jack and would only be standing in front of Rush in the SG rotation.

maragin
10-20-2008, 04:06 AM
I really am not a fan of Haslem's game, and would much rather see him on any other team. I'm living under the blind hope that if we do trade Tinsley with Miami, there is a mystery third team that is involved and provides us with someone else out of the deal.

Speed
10-20-2008, 07:29 AM
I really am not a fan of Haslem's game, and would much rather see him on any other team. I'm living under the blind hope that if we do trade Tinsley with Miami, there is a mystery third team that is involved and provides us with someone else out of the deal.

Me either, I wouldn't see him as the "answer" at PF, at all. Not in Obie's system.

MillerTime
10-20-2008, 07:40 AM
Me either, I wouldn't see him as the "answer" at PF, at all. Not in Obie's system.

exactly...theres no way hes going to fit JOBs system. Unless they get another team involved and move Haslem right away for someone else

Doddage
10-20-2008, 07:54 AM
I could care less about JOB's system... if we can get a player of Haslem's caliber in a deal where we don't give up too much along with Tinsley, then we do it. He'd fit pretty well either as a backup to Murph, or even a starter if the situation calls for it.

Anyway, I don't see how Haslem doesn't fit OB's system. He can fit our running game, as well as step out and hit the mid-range shot and provide defense in the post. This would actually be beneficial if we were to play him with Hibbert, as Hibbert would then be able to focus his efforts on offense which is most certainly his strong suit.

MillerTime
10-20-2008, 08:01 AM
I could care less about JOB's system... if we can get a player of Haslem's caliber in a deal where we don't give up too much along with Tinsley, then we do it. He'd fit pretty well either as a backup to Murph, or even a starter if the situation calls for it.

Anyway, I don't see how Haslem doesn't fit OB's system. He can fit our running game, as well as step out and hit the mid-range shot and provide defense in the post. This would actually be beneficial if we were to play him with Hibbert, as Hibbert would then be able to focus his efforts on offense which is most certainly his strong suit.

Theres no way Haslem fits JOBs...JOB said that his typical PF would be able to shoot 3's, which Haslmen cannot do. The typical PF for JOBs system would be Marion. Can shoot 3's, great rebounder and athletic

Doddage
10-20-2008, 09:14 AM
It's not a necessity. JOB just started Foster and Rasho together in the preseason, so it's not like he follows the scheme of having a 3-point shooter all the time. Ike wasn't a notable 3-point shooter, but JOB still played him (back when did get minutes). Really, he just prefers his players to have some kind of shooting range, and Haslem qualifies for that.

MillerTime
10-20-2008, 09:37 AM
It's not a necessity. JOB just started Foster and Rasho together in the preseason, so it's not like he follows the scheme of having a 3-point shooter all the time. Ike wasn't a notable 3-point shooter, but JOB still played him (back when did get minutes). Really, he just prefers his players to have some kind of shooting range, and Haslem qualifies for that.

That is not a necessity, I agree, but who else was he going to start at PF? Murphy wasnt available at that time, when Murphy was available he did start though (against San Antonio).

Sometimes when you bring in a player that doesnt fit a certain system, it brings down the style of play that the team needs. Look at Phx for example. They had Marion and they did fine. They were contending for the West for many year. Now Shaq came in, arguably a better player than Marion, but Shaq didnt fit the style that Phx plays. Therefore, we saw Phx losing more games than the normally would have.

What Im trying to address here is that Marion will fit our style of play, much better than Haslem will. Therefore, I think Marion would be a better candidate for PF for the Pacers than Haslem would

QuickRelease
10-20-2008, 10:00 AM
I would see Marion as part of our future. I know hes 30 right now, but he still have a good 4 or 5 years in him before he slows down. Even if we dont elect to re-sign him, we could save that money and make a huge run at Boozer or even wait till 2010 and make a run at Amare


No thanks to Mr. Sulky. And even if he comes here, I doubt that he'd settle for anything less than a max deal to resign.

QuickRelease
10-20-2008, 10:04 AM
I consider him a good backup SG who can get his own shot...which is a rarity for a backup. So, yes I do consider him to be a real asset. No, he is not a starting calibre player, but fits in the 6-10 group on a decent team. If I thought he was a good starting SG, we would just trade him straight up for a starting PF. He also has a short contract.

Packed with Tinsley, who is quite talented..and is a legit starting PG...it should be somewhat tempting to a team desperately looking for a starting PG. Yes, it will be a stretch, but there have certainly been more lopsided trades. Combine this with the fact teams like Denver and Miami don't appear to consider character, a deal has a real possibility of happening. Everyone knows Tinsley is very talented. ...and no, I'm not drinking...

I really don't get why people have soured on Daniels. Part of his struggles last year came from being played out of position. He's not a point guard, and the strength of his game isn't spot up shooting. When he goes to the basket, he has probably the best finishing ability on the team.

Roaming Gnome
10-20-2008, 10:09 AM
Bottom line, Marion is not comming here!

I don't care who your coach is, POWER Fowards are not suppose to be depended on to shoot 3's. It's a freakin gimmick. I don't think J. O'B. is as hard lined on that as some of you want to think.

Personally, give me a power forward that eats glass and can defend his area and I'd be happy. Leave the 3 shooting to the wings, not my POWER players.

If O'b is that rigid on that, he is not much of a coach and needs to be sent down the road, quickly!

QuickRelease
10-20-2008, 10:14 AM
Theres no way Haslem fits JOBs...JOB said that his typical PF would be able to shoot 3's, which Haslmen cannot do. The typical PF for JOBs system would be Marion. Can shoot 3's, great rebounder and athletic

Actually, a good fit PF would be Tim Thomas, and the Clips starting point guard looks to be out for a month or two. :signit:

Shade
10-20-2008, 10:20 AM
We need to stop getting players specifically because they fit our current coach's coaching scheme. This is a league where the players often outlast the coaches. A good coach will adapt with what he is given.

Pacerized
10-20-2008, 10:25 AM
Actually, a good fit PF would be Tim Thomas, and the Clips starting point guard looks to be out for a month or two. :signit:

I like Thomas and I'd trade J.T. for him in a heartbeat, but he doesn't bring anything that we don't already have. He's a poor rebounder and not a post player at all, he's just a big 3.
When I think about JOB's system I do worry if any post player will fit into the plan but I'd rather see us go after a post player if we can. Tinsley and Murphy for Martin works. It gives us the room to sign Cro without cutting a guaranteed salary and it keeps minutes available in the front court for Hibbert.

Roaming Gnome
10-20-2008, 10:39 AM
We need to stop getting players specifically because they fit our current coach's coaching scheme. This is a league where the players often outlast the coaches. A good coach will adapt with what he is given.

:amen:

Hicks
10-20-2008, 10:58 AM
We need to stop getting players specifically because they fit our current coach's coaching scheme. This is a league where the players often outlast the coaches. A good coach will adapt with what he is given.

I don't mind getting players that fit the coach when we're talking role players, but if it's cornerstone/star players, I agree.

Justin Tyme
10-20-2008, 11:28 AM
Bottom line, Marion is not comming here!

I don't care who your coach is, POWER Fowards are not suppose to be depended on to shoot 3's. It's a freakin gimmick. I don't think J. O'B. is as hard lined on that as some of you want to think.

Personally, give me a power forward that eats glass and can defend his area and I'd be happy. Leave the 3 shooting to the wings, not my POWER players.

If O'b is that rigid on that, he is not much of a coach and needs to be sent down the road, quickly!


BINGO! We have a winner. A post that says it the way it is!

A POWER FORWARD is just that a POWER FORWARD. I want someone that plays in the paint, can "D", rebounds, and is an inside presence. There is no reason to need a POWER FORWARD to be a 3 point shooter. Other players can do that.

MyFavMartin
10-20-2008, 12:00 PM
Marion averages 10.3 boards a game along with 1.3 blocks. Also knocks down 48% of his FGs.

He would be a major improvement at PF over what we have now.


But, then, you're going to have to pay him $16 mil.

Is he a better option that what the Pacers have at PF?

Yes.

The questions would be is Marion worth it in salary and what we would have to give up to get him?

You imagine him and Roy as our FC trying to guard a Dwight Howard or KG?

CableKC
10-20-2008, 12:31 PM
Theres no way Haslem fits JOBs...JOB said that his typical PF would be able to shoot 3's, which Haslmen cannot do. The typical PF for JOBs system would be Marion. Can shoot 3's, great rebounder and athletic
I thought that the reason why we need a low-post scoring threat in the Frontcourt is because TPTB doesn't want to be a "one song band" where teams can focus so much on shutting us down from the perimeter and not caring whether we try to feed the Low-Post.

<<< START OF RANT >>>

The truth is that we can't afford to acquire the type of player that you and most of us fans are thinking of. I would love to get a PF that can score in the Low-post, that can step out to take a 3pt shot, that is a great rebounder while being athletic and ( I assume ) can also be a great defender......the problem is that every team in the NBA is looking for the same thing. Those that have them aren't going to give them up for what we can afford to pay.

I would love to get an "end-all-be-all" type PF that can do all those things.....but I am realistic enough to expect that we can likely get ( sometime between now and the next offseason ) a PF that can do some of those things....but not all. Sure, Marion is probably a decent fit that can do most of those things....but anyone seriously believe that we have anything of value that we would want to part with to acquire him?

Given the likelihood that Murphy will be our Starting PF for the immediate future, Hibbert will hopefully be starting ( at the latest ) by the start of the 2009-2010 season and Foster will likely be the 1st ( or likely 2nd ) Big Man off the bench......I'd be happy with a Low-Post scoring PF that can rebound, provide decent to solid defense in the paint that is good enough to be a solid rotational Frontcourt Backup. Simply put.....if we are able to work out a reasonable resigning of Granger and Jack.....we can't afford anyone that will earn more then the full MLE. To me, anyone that could ( at most ) get the full MLE is likely going to be a solid rotational Backup Frontcourt player that can come off the bench and play 24+ mpg. IMHO.....if we have the financial resources next offseason, I think that we should do our best to hold onto our Financial Flexibility and try to pursue a player like Maxiell.

<<< END OF RANT >>>


Bottom line, Marion is not comming here!

I don't care who your coach is, POWER Fowards are not suppose to be depended on to shoot 3's. It's a freakin gimmick. I don't think J. O'B. is as hard lined on that as some of you want to think.

Personally, give me a power forward that eats glass and can defend his area and I'd be happy. Leave the 3 shooting to the wings, not my POWER players.

If O'b is that rigid on that, he is not much of a coach and needs to be sent down the road, quickly!

^^^ or what Gnome said. We already have a PF that can step out and take a 3pt shot....we don't need another one.

CableKC
10-20-2008, 12:37 PM
The questions would be is Marion worth it in salary and what we would have to give up to get him?
It's nice to dream of these things....but the truth is that in order to get a player like Marion...we would have to give up Hibbert or Granger in order for Riley to even consider trading him to the Pacers.

Sorry, but Marion is a pipedream for Pacer fans.

Justin Tyme
10-20-2008, 12:56 PM
pursue a player like Maxiell.


Or a Carl Landry.

I wanted the Pacers to draft Speights as JO's replacement, and I will be keeping my eye on his progress this year. He might be a young up n comer hidden behind Brand.

Major Cold
10-20-2008, 01:07 PM
That is not a necessity, I agree, but who else was he going to start at PF? Murphy wasnt available at that time, when Murphy was available he did start though (against San Antonio).

Sometimes when you bring in a player that doesnt fit a certain system, it brings down the style of play that the team needs. Look at Phx for example. They had Marion and they did fine. They were contending for the West for many year. Now Shaq came in, arguably a better player than Marion, but Shaq didnt fit the style that Phx plays. Therefore, we saw Phx losing more games than the normally would have.

What Im trying to address here is that Marion will fit our style of play, much better than Haslem will. Therefore, I think Marion would be a better candidate for PF for the Pacers than Haslem would

I really don't think the Shaq trade can be assessed until the end of this season. And even then since Shaq misses so much time during the regular season, they may never get acclimated. Add Shaq's dimishing skill due to age and the reason the trade would not work is not because of a wrong fit. It is because of the player in question. Trade Marion for Yao and I doubt there would be identical circumstances.

duke dynamite
10-20-2008, 03:50 PM
This Tinsley stuff is starting to wear me down. I would really like something to get done soon.

RamBo_Lamar
10-20-2008, 04:13 PM
This Tinsley stuff is starting to wear me down. I would really like something to get done soon.

We only have Kravitz to thank for nothing being done yet. If he hadn't
gone running his big mouth about walking to Kokomo, a deal would have
been done already.

But Bird and Company want to make sure he takes that walk, so are holding
things up until Kravitz makes good on his promise. They will pull the trigger
on a Tinsley deal immediately after Kravitz walks his 50 miles, and passes
that "Welcome to Kokomo" sign. Watch.

:devil:

Los Angeles
10-20-2008, 04:49 PM
We only have Kravitz to thank for nothing being done yet. If he hadn't
gone running his big mouth about walking to Kokomo, a deal would have
been done already.

But Bird and Company want to make sure he takes that walk, so are holding
things up until Kravitz makes good on his promise. They will pull the trigger
on a Tinsley deal immediately after Kravitz walks his 50 miles, and passes
that "Welcome to Kokomo" sign. Watch.

:devil:

I'd fly my *** all the way to Indiana to walk to Kokomo with him. Rain or shine, freezing or not.

I'm 100% serious.

Anthem
10-20-2008, 05:43 PM
I can't even describe the degree to which I don't care whether Haslem fits Obie's system. Besides Roaming Gnome's excellent point about what a PF is, there's a more fundamental level.

Haslem is an asset. Tinsley is a liability.

Any trade where you give up a liability and gain an asset is a good trade.

count55
10-20-2008, 05:47 PM
I can't even describe the degree to which I don't care whether Haslem fits Obie's system. Besides Roaming Gnome's excellent point about what a PF is, there's a more fundamental level.

Haslem is an asset. Tinsley is a liability.

Any trade where you give up a liability and gain an asset is a good trade.

I was beginning to wonder if anybody was going to remember that the point of this exercise was to get rid of Tinsley.

CableKC
10-20-2008, 06:13 PM
Or a Carl Landry.

I wanted the Pacers to draft Speights as JO's replacement, and I will be keeping my eye on his progress this year. He might be a young up n comer hidden behind Brand.
Since Landry was resigned by the Rockets, I don't know what other type of "Carl Landry" players are out there to resign.

As for Speight.....I would much rather have Hibbert. PFs like Speights can be found in any draft....but True Centers like what we have in Hibbert that actually appear to have some very solid skills ( nor are athletic busts that have no skill ) are harder to find.

Naptown_Seth
10-21-2008, 12:24 AM
We need to stop getting players specifically because they fit our current coach's coaching scheme. This is a league where the players often outlast the coaches. A good coach will adapt with what he is given.
Yep.

And I'm still in my mindset that JOB was the cheap option for a situation that appeared to be headed toward a lot of losing and an eventual coaching change, thus no need to overspend on Van Jeremy.

That's doesn't mean I don't think he deserves his shot to coach this team or that he can't work, but I sure as hell don't build the team to match a coach unless he's got hella more experience and cred than JOB does up to this point. You aren't building a team for Phil, Sloan or Riley here.


BTW, I realize it's all about Banks and might not really work with Miami, but if it does could we get Super Mario back please. Then we just need to work a deal for Kevin Love and my dream draft of 2008 is complete (well, I'd like to get Arthur and Weaver in for the bench).
:D;)

Justin Tyme
10-21-2008, 09:05 AM
Since Landry was resigned by the Rockets, I don't know what other type of "Carl Landry" players are out there to resign.

As for Speight.....I would much rather have Hibbert. PFs like Speights can be found in any draft....but True Centers like what we have in Hibbert that actually appear to have some very solid skills ( nor are athletic busts that have no skill ) are harder to find.


CARL LANDRY! Just b/c the Rockets signed him doesn't mean they won't trade him. They have multiple players at PF. Houston sabatoged him by implying he was injured thus driving his price down to what they wanted to pay.

Justin Tyme
10-21-2008, 09:37 AM
I can't even describe the degree to which I don't care whether Haslem fits Obie's system. Besides Roaming Gnome's excellent point about what a PF is, there's a more fundamental level.

Haslem is an asset. Tinsley is a liability.

Any trade where you give up a liability and gain an asset is a good trade.


Absolutely!

The Pacers are trying to get rid of Tinsley, and if they can get something that isn't a negative in return you take it! The whole idea is to get rid of Tinsley, not find something that will fit JO'B system. Posters need to realize after this season JO'B becomes a lame duck coach... in his 3rd year. Why build around a coach who isn't going to be here after next year?

Not to mention Haslem has enough postives that he can always be traded, thus making return for Tinsley look even better.

RamBo_Lamar
10-21-2008, 11:06 AM
Absolutely!

The Pacers are trying to get rid of Tinsley, and if they can get something that isn't a negative in return you take it! The whole idea is to get rid of Tinsley, not find something that will fit JO'B system. Posters need to realize after this season JO'B becomes a lame duck coach... in his 3rd year. Why build around a coach who isn't going to be here after next year?

Not to mention Haslem has enough postives that he can always be traded, thus making return for Tinsley look even better.



Have to strongly disagree with this assertion. It is way too soon to assume
JOB will not be here. If the team does well, continues to get better, and
rallies around its Coach, then why go screw up a good thing?

There is something to be said for stability, and so far I like the stability JOB
brings on several different levels.

Hicks
10-21-2008, 11:11 AM
If we do well this year and/or next, he'll probably get an extension like Rick did. Doesn't mean he won't get fired, but it means he's not a lame duck.

Anthem
10-21-2008, 11:58 AM
CARL LANDRY! Just b/c the Rockets signed him doesn't mean they won't trade him.
Yeah it does. CBA requirement. :D

MyFavMartin
10-21-2008, 12:06 PM
Paul Millsap is a FA next summer. Anyone interested?

Any other players you think the Pacers stand a chance at signing in FA?

Roaming Gnome
10-21-2008, 12:07 PM
J' Ob isn't high up on my list of coaches, but in my mind he's done enough to get an extension with the talent on hand and expectations. For the stage the Pacers are in, currently and for the next probably 2 to 3 years, I don't see them having a reason to not extend him. Don't get me wrong, when the teams talent picks up, Jimmie's performance as coach will be expected to rise to the occasion.

Roaming Gnome
10-21-2008, 12:10 PM
Paul Milsap :drool:
That's my kind of POWER forward. No nonsense, wide body, big ***, glass eater. No one is moving him out of his area.

I could give a rat's arse if he cant hit a shot outside the 3pt arc.

Justin Tyme
10-21-2008, 02:03 PM
If we do well this year and/or next, he'll probably get an extension like Rick did. Doesn't mean he won't get fired, but it means he's not a lame duck.

So you are saying Bird will go against his 3 year coaching rule again? He might have for his fishing buddy Carlisle, but JO'B? I just don't see it. JO'B is a coach who was to bring stability and to get things back on track, not one that's going to get the Pacers to the Promise Land. It's going to take a bigger name coach than JO'B and his system!

Firing a coach under contract means the Simons have to pay 2 salaries, and I'm not sure the Simons would want to do that AGAIN, especially if attendance hasn't picked up substantially.

Justin Tyme
10-21-2008, 02:07 PM
Yeah it does. CBA requirement. :D

Hum, a RFA player can't be traded in the 1st year of their new contract?

docpaul
10-21-2008, 02:18 PM
Paul Milsap :drool:
That's my kind of POWER forward. No nonsense, wide body, big ***, glass eater. No one is moving him out of his area.

I could give a rat's arse if he cant hit a shot outside the 3pt arc.

Hmm, interesting point. Utah over the long run won't be able to afford both he and Boozer. If they can hold onto Boozer (which is naturally in question a lot lately), then perhaps that opens up the opportunity to go after Milsap. He would be a better fit than Landry (the guy I longed for this offseason).

MyFavMartin
10-21-2008, 02:26 PM
I'd say go after Millsap on day 1 of FA. Utah's hands will be tied w/ Boozer.

Anthem
10-21-2008, 02:29 PM
Paul Milsap :drool:
That's my kind of POWER forward. No nonsense, wide body, big ***, glass eater. No one is moving him out of his area.

I could give a rat's arse if he cant hit a shot outside the 3pt arc.
Word. QFT. I agree. :nod:

avoidingtheclowns
10-21-2008, 02:39 PM
yup -- i approve going after millsap. i think he makes much more sense than someone like maxiell (who was mentioned earlier).

now i do love me some jason the baby-eater, but i think in a lot of ways he's reached his ceiling (my guess is that detroit, now that amir is a starting 4, agrees) and would be less effective as a starter.

Hicks
10-21-2008, 04:11 PM
So you are saying Bird will go against his 3 year coaching rule again? He might have for his fishing buddy Carlisle, but JO'B? I just don't see it. JO'B is a coach who was to bring stability and to get things back on track, not one that's going to get the Pacers to the Promise Land. It's going to take a bigger name coach than JO'B and his system!

Firing a coach under contract means the Simons have to pay 2 salaries, and I'm not sure the Simons would want to do that AGAIN, especially if attendance hasn't picked up substantially.

I think this "3 year rule" thing was and continues to be overblown. I think Bird feels that it is a good guideline, but certainly (clearly, see Rick) not a law that must be obeyed.

avoidingtheclowns
10-21-2008, 04:28 PM
I think this "3 year rule" thing was and continues to be overblown. I think Bird feels that it is a good guideline, but certainly (clearly, see Rick) not a law that must be obeyed.

i agree. bird has also changed his mind on "milk-drinkers" (although i tend to think that too was overblown) and gambling on potential (see: Williams, Shawne; White, James) over experience (see: Rush, Brandon; Hibbert, Roy). besides, since this is year one of the rebuild, last year was probably a freebie for o'brien as far as the "rule of 3" is concerned.

BillS
10-21-2008, 04:43 PM
So you are saying Bird will go against his 3 year coaching rule again? He might have for his fishing buddy Carlisle, but JO'B? I just don't see it. JO'B is a coach who was to bring stability and to get things back on track, not one that's going to get the Pacers to the Promise Land.

Bear in mind that the 3 year rule makes no sense when you completely turn over the player roster. For all practical purposes, this is JOB's first year with this particular team.

maragin
10-21-2008, 04:53 PM
The three year rule is an arbitrary timeline put forth by a coach who wanted to retire after his third year of coaching. It is as accurate as the five second rule.

Justin Tyme
10-21-2008, 06:11 PM
The one thing no one has considered in regards to JO'B's tenture is it is tied to Bird's tenture with the Pacers. Bird hired JO'B as coach, and Bird has this year and next on his contract the same as JO'B. JO'B future to a good degree is based on Bird's future in the Pacers organization. If Bird doesn't change things to the liking of the Simons, he is history as is JO'B. No extension with a new GM coming in bringing his own coach.

Personally, I believe it's too early to determine the future of both, but I do highly suspect that they need to produce at a high level to get their contracts renewed. Bird can't afford his 2 rookies not to succeed like Williams and White, and needs to draft well in the 09 draft with increases in wins and getting into the playoff his season and next to get a renewed contract. JMOAA

PacerGuy
10-23-2008, 11:24 PM
I was beginning to wonder if anybody was going to remember that the point of this exercise was to get rid of Tinsley.

Just an observation:
Miami only had 11 assist tonight - 4 by D.Wade
(Livingston w/ 3, all others were only 1 ea.)
I'm just say'n....

Will Galen
10-23-2008, 11:36 PM
So you are saying Bird will go against his 3 year coaching rule again? He might have for his fishing buddy Carlisle, but JO'B? I just don't see it.

Bird says he thinks most players tune a coach out after three years. That doesn't mean it's a rule.

As is, we got 8 new players this year, and the ones that have been here longest like Foster and Granger aren't the type to tune a coach out.

PacerGuy
10-23-2008, 11:44 PM
Bird says he thinks most players tune a coach out after three years. That doesn't mean it's a rule.

As is, we got 8 new players this year, and the ones that have been here longest like Foster and Granger aren't the type to tune a coach out.

Good point on the "new" aspect of this team. Also, I think Bird was referring more to a vet-laden team.

Also, lets remember, Rush & Hibbert were 4 yr. college guys (w/ the same coach), so satistically we should be able to assume they can make it 4 yrs w/ JOB. :)

imawhat
10-24-2008, 01:23 AM
http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5h540As4OCLBuRdgy5IhGFBSr6jZQ

Denver Nuggets waive five players, cutting roster to 14
7 hours ago
DENVER — The Denver Nuggets have waived five players, trimming their roster to 14.
The players waived Thursday are guards Mateen Cleaves and Smush Parker and forwards Nick Fazekas, James Mays and Ruben Patterson.
Parker averaged 5.3 points and 3.3 assists in four pre-season games, and Patterson averaged 7.3 points in six games.


Denver is now down to two Point Guards; Anthony Carter and Chucky Atkins.

Read between the lines. Not saying a trade is in the works, but I see Denver doing something.

MillerTime
10-24-2008, 01:26 AM
http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5h540As4OCLBuRdgy5IhGFBSr6jZQ

Denver Nuggets waive five players, cutting roster to 14
7 hours ago
DENVER The Denver Nuggets have waived five players, trimming their roster to 14.
The players waived Thursday are guards Mateen Cleaves and Smush Parker and forwards Nick Fazekas, James Mays and Ruben Patterson.
Parker averaged 5.3 points and 3.3 assists in four pre-season games, and Patterson averaged 7.3 points in six games.


Denver is now down to two Point Guards; Anthony Carter and Chucky Atkins.

Read between the lines.

Thats great news for us. Their PG situation is weak. Lets hope the Tinsley deal goes through

Will Galen
10-24-2008, 02:00 AM
http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5h540As4OCLBuRdgy5IhGFBSr6jZQ

Denver Nuggets waive five players, cutting roster to 14
7 hours ago
DENVER The Denver Nuggets have waived five players, trimming their roster to 14.
The players waived Thursday are guards Mateen Cleaves and Smush Parker and forwards Nick Fazekas, James Mays and Ruben Patterson.
Parker averaged 5.3 points and 3.3 assists in four pre-season games, and Patterson averaged 7.3 points in six games.


Denver is now down to two Point Guards; Anthony Carter and Chucky Atkins.

Read between the lines.

What am I supposed to see? Both Steven Hunter and Chucky Atkins are injured and they are the two rumor has it we are trading for Tinsley. That means if that trade goes though they will still only have two point guards.

I guess since we would have to cut a player we could release Atkins and he could resign with Denver. Or we could include Diener in the trade and then Denver would have three point guards.

However I doubt that last because it would cost Denver $1.2m, plus since they are over the tax line that would be doubled to $2.4m.

blanket
10-24-2008, 02:22 AM
What am I supposed to see? Both Steven Hunter and Chucky Atkins are injured and they are the two rumor has it we are trading for Tinsley. That means if that trade goes though they will still only have two point guards.

I guess since we would have to cut a player we could release Atkins and he could resign with Denver. Or we could include Diener in the trade and then Denver would have three point guards.

However I doubt that last because it would cost Denver $1.2m, plus since they are over the tax line that would be doubled to $2.4m.

by trimming their roster to 14, it also means that Denver could take back two players (Tins and Baston, maybe) instead of just 1. That would save us from having to waive a player with a guaranteed contract if it's a 2-for-2 deal.

Will Galen
10-24-2008, 06:03 AM
by trimming their roster to 14, it also means that Denver could take back two players (Tins and Baston, maybe) instead of just 1. That would save us from having to waive a player with a guaranteed contract if it's a 2-for-2 deal.

That's true, but I don't see anything practical when looking at ESPN's trade machine. If we were trading two for one (and including Tins) we would have to be taking back Nene, ($9.6m this year on a 4 year contract) or Kenyon Martin, ($14.4m this year on a three year contract) and both are injured a lot so I just don't see us doing that.

Nene would be the most likely if we went that way. We could include Maceo and get it done, but it would cost us down the road on our cap.

If we traded Tins for Martin, either Daniels, Dun, or Murphy would have to be included, and I think Dun and Murphy are better than Martin. I'd rather have Daniels too. I don't think there's any way we would trade for Martin.

MillerTime
10-24-2008, 07:04 AM
That's true, but I don't see anything practical when looking at ESPN's trade machine. If we were trading two for one (and including Tins) we would have to be taking back Nene, ($9.6m this year on a 4 year contract) or Kenyon Martin, ($14.4m this year on a three year contract) and both are injured a lot so I just don't see us doing that.

Nene would be the most likely if we went that way. We could include Maceo and get it done, but it would cost us down the road on our cap.

If we traded Tins for Martin, either Daniels, Dun, or Murphy would have to be included, and I think Dun and Murphy are better than Martin. I'd rather have Daniels too. I don't think there's any way we would trade for Martin.

Moving Tinsley and Murphy for K-Mart wouldnt be bad http://games.espn.go.com/nba/features/traderesult?players=1013~1024~515&teams=7~7~11&te=&cash= because all their contracts are up in 3 seasons.

Nene on the other hand is owed a little over $40 million for the next 4 seasons. Which is longer than Tinsley's, Murphy's and Dunleavy's contract.

Overall, I wouldnt be too interested in neither player because of the length of their contracts. KMart might not be that bad. He played in 72 games last season, but I wouldnt touch Nene with a 10 foot pole

HC
10-24-2008, 07:41 AM
I'm sure Vescey will let everyone know when the deal is done.

FinPacers
10-24-2008, 08:09 AM
http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5h540As4OCLBuRdgy5IhGFBSr6jZQ

Denver Nuggets waive five players, cutting roster to 14
7 hours ago
DENVER The Denver Nuggets have waived five players, trimming their roster to 14.
The players waived Thursday are guards Mateen Cleaves and Smush Parker and forwards Nick Fazekas, James Mays and Ruben Patterson.
Parker averaged 5.3 points and 3.3 assists in four pre-season games, and Patterson averaged 7.3 points in six games.


Denver is now down to two Point Guards; Anthony Carter and Chucky Atkins.

Read between the lines. Not saying a trade is in the works, but I see Denver doing something.

Sounds interesting, even promising... :)

MillerTime
10-24-2008, 08:12 AM
I'm sure Vescey will let everyone know when the deal is done.

Im sure Pacers.com would let everyone know when its done also

Speed
10-24-2008, 08:15 AM
Don't you count AI as playing at the Point Guard Position. He's not a Point guard, but I think you can give him minutes there as he has done throughout his career.

count55
10-24-2008, 08:28 AM
Don't you count AI as playing at the Point Guard Position. He's not a Point guard, but I think you can give him minutes there as he has done throughout his career.

You are correct.

I think this announcement doesn't really change the dynamics of the Denver deal. It's probably as rumored, with the sticking point surrounding cash or picks to Denver.

I think Denver would like Tinsley, but on their terms only...it's hard to blame them for that. As Will mentioned, they'd still only have two PG's (plus AI), and Jamaal injury history can't give them warm fuzzies.

Anthem
10-24-2008, 08:33 AM
Kmart? Youch. If you thought Jermaine had it rough around here...

MillerTime
10-24-2008, 08:45 AM
Kmart? Youch. If you thought Jermaine had it rough around here...

thats exactly what Ive been worried about. Another oft-injured, overpaid PF

Justin Tyme
10-24-2008, 10:21 AM
If we traded Tins for Martin, either Daniels, Dun, or Murphy would have to be included, and I think Dun and Murphy are better than Martin. I'd rather have Daniels too. I don't think there's any way we would trade for Martin.

If you are using this scenario with these 3 players, then my feeling with Denver's team salary situation that they would want Daniels and his 6.8 mil team option to shed salary for next year. Couple that with AI's 22 mil expiring and they shed 29 mil off of a 08 team salary that is paying the LT.

Justin Tyme
10-24-2008, 10:27 AM
Bird says he thinks most players tune a coach out after three years. That doesn't mean it's a rule.

As is, we got 8 new players this year, and the ones that have been here longest like Foster and Granger aren't the type to tune a coach out.

I look at JO'B as nothing more than a coach to stop the bleeding and getting things started on track again. 3 years and gone.

Roaming Gnome
10-24-2008, 10:35 AM
I look at JO'B as nothing more than a coach to stop the bleeding and getting things started on track again. 3 years and gone.

I'd agree J O'B is a filler coach, but he will get an extension at the end of this season, unless something unforseen happens. As mentioned before, that Larry Bird 3 year thing was just somthing he convieniently used to leave his coaching position here.

Naptown_Seth
10-24-2008, 10:40 AM
I think this "3 year rule" thing was and continues to be overblown. I think Bird feels that it is a good guideline, but certainly (clearly, see Rick) not a law that must be obeyed.
Not only that but as was just mentioned, don't the players actually have to be with that coach for 3 years to start tuning him out? People ran this dumb statement out as why the team was struggling with Rick despite the fact that the only players it applied to at the time were JO, Tins and Foster, and two of them were never playing.

Who in their right mind thinks Foster was tuning out Rick or would tune out any coach? And it only took Tinsley a few months to tune out JOB.

What you have is some flippant comment by Bird, one that makes zero sense when you look at where success lies. Sloan, tuned out in year 4 by Malone and Stockton. Jackson, tuned out by Mike, Pippen, Shaq and Kobe as they made title runs in year 4, or as Kobe's Lakers jumped back up into the playoffs when Phil returned.

Riley's Lakers coined the term threepeat and it wasn't because the window for success under Riley ended at year 3.

Good coaches always reach good players (mentally good). Nut jobs, brats and malcontents are always hard to reach and disruptive to the team. Bad coaches alienate players right away, or their style/strategy is such a major flop that the players lose respect for it and then tune them out.

So maybe the rule of thumb should be "an average or below average coach has about a 3 year window before the players realize this is going nowhere and a good coach can maybe hope to keep the a'hole players interested for 2-3 years max".

The goal should be a quality, respectful (ahem, Larry Brown I'm looking at you) coach paired with quality, respectful players. Somehow I think that formula might magically last more than 3-4 years.

I sure as hell don't think 3 years of 55+ wins and decent playoff runs would trigger Bird to fire the coach before it all went to ****** in year 4.


that Larry Bird 3 year thing was just somthing he convieniently used to leave his coaching position here.
Exactly. He wanted to go, success suggested he should stay, he made up a lame reason to cover for "I want to go hang out in FLA and fish".

Pacers
10-24-2008, 10:45 AM
I don't see how Denver cutting down to 14 has anything to do with a trade. If it did, they would have done it long ago.

And I don't think that this deal is getting done anyway. Again, if it were, it would have been done long ago. Especially after we got two 2nds for Shawne.

Justin Tyme
10-24-2008, 10:46 AM
but he will get an extension at the end of this season, unless something unforseen happens.

Don't see it happening.

Roaming Gnome
10-24-2008, 10:48 AM
Don't see it happening.

So, essentially he is going to be fired at the end of this season? Lame duck coaches are rare in the NBA. I'm not following enough reason or logic to fire him at the end of this season.

Naptown_Seth
10-24-2008, 10:49 AM
If we do well this year and/or next, he'll probably get an extension like Rick did. Doesn't mean he won't get fired, but it means he's not a lame duck.
A agree with that, but then it also suggests that he's been able to win with players that weren't just custom built for his style. Hibbert's speed and post game style suggested that he wasn't picked for "JOB's style". I think a good coach meets the players halfway and adjusts his strategy to fit their talent.

If JOB can only win with certain types of players it doesn't sound like he's doing that great a job.

Now bad players, injured players and players with bad attitudes are a different matter.

I think it's as I suggested still, he was a cheaper solution, brought in at the last second via phone interview because he was going to be no nonsense and had shown some modest success with iffy levels of talent. Perfect for the rebuild that was coming and a total change of offensive philosophy meant as a last ditch effort to see if the two remaining major pieces just needed a change from Rick. Turns out they didn't, they continued to be what they had been.

So now JOB's future is simply up to him. You don't get players that counter his style but you don't go out of your way to specialize the team so much that other coaches would find it very tough to be productive with the roster if JOB were dumped.

xtacy
10-24-2008, 11:01 AM
Moving Tinsley and Murphy for K-Mart wouldnt be bad

getting k-mart pls no he's JO v2.0

an overpaid mostly injured pf is the last thing this team needs

McKeyFan
10-24-2008, 11:23 AM
So, essentially he is going to be fired at the end of this season? Lame duck coaches are rare in the NBA. I'm not following enough reason or logic to fire him at the end of this season.

Don't you think it will depend on performance?

If we repeat last year's record, I think JOB could be replaced.

If we improve a bit, or make the playoffs, I think he's safe.

Roaming Gnome
10-24-2008, 11:50 AM
Personally, I think he is going to get an extension this year if the teams record doesn't slip, considerably.

As long as they show promise and improvement. O'B will get an extension considering the low expectations and new players. If we digress and have bone headed things happen to the tune of fewer then 30 wins this season. Jim is going to be in trouble.

Pacers
10-24-2008, 12:24 PM
If JOB can only win with certain types of players it doesn't sound like he's doing that great a job.

That's silly. You would honestly say after a hypothetical title, "Well, he only had players that fit his style, so he's not really that great"? Come now. Phil Jackson has turned finding players that fit his system into nine rings. Might just be something to it.

Los Angeles
10-24-2008, 01:01 PM
Why does anyone put stock in Larry Bird's "3 year rule"?

He used that excuse to retire HIMSELF, and his retirement was (in my opinion) only offered as an additional motivator to a veteran team. He made his intentions public as a hedge against being considered a lame duck, and it worked brilliantly.

Since then, Pacers fans have come to take it as some kind of Larry gospel, and while I'm sure he's repeated it or at least verified this philosophy since his retirement from coaching, I see no evidence that suggests that he follows this rule above all others and against the best interest of the team's direction.

Larry's not going to mess up a good thing just because of a nearly 10 year old soundbite.

We've seen Larry let Rick stick around while the roster changed, and we'll likely see another exception offered to Jim O'brien. Even if you give the "three year" philosophy weight, (which I think is unwise), it's still very easy to say that the three year rule only applies when the team has the same primary players from year to year.

The more the players change, the more years you can add on. If the team does well, Jim Obrien has just as much opportunity to keep his job with or without Larry.

HC
10-24-2008, 01:08 PM
Im sure Pacers.com would let everyone know when its done also

What are you talking about stalker?

Justin Tyme
10-24-2008, 01:11 PM
So, essentially he is going to be fired at the end of this season? Lame duck coaches are rare in the NBA. I'm not following enough reason or logic to fire him at the end of this season.


I never said he would be fired! The word "fired" comes from you. I stated he would NOT be given an extension/new contract. His contract will lapse and Bird will hire another coach. I don't consider that being fired.

Hicks
10-24-2008, 01:19 PM
I never said he would be fired! The word "fired" comes from you. I stated he would NOT be given an extension/new contract. His contract will lapse and Bird will hire another coach. I don't consider that being fired.

When's the last time a coach left a team in this manner? They almost always get fired ahead of their contract expiring. Plus, when a coach is allowed to become a lame duck, it usually is a distraction that entire season.

Justin Tyme
10-24-2008, 01:26 PM
How many seasons did Carlisle coach Detroit?

What was Detroit's season record the year previous to Rick taking over?

Rick had 2-50 win seasons in a row, correct?

IIRC, didn't Rick win COY award?

Justin Tyme
10-24-2008, 01:34 PM
When's the last time a coach left a team in this manner? They almost always get fired ahead of their contract expiring. Plus, when a coach is allowed to become a lame duck, it usually is a distraction that entire season.

Does that apply to lame duck GM/Pres? If so, then you are expecting Bird to get an extension this year too with only 1 year in sole control?

Roaming Gnome
10-24-2008, 01:49 PM
Bird will get an extension... Mark it!

Justin Tyme
10-24-2008, 02:00 PM
Bird will get an extension... Mark it!

I would hope the Simons would be more prudent business wise than to do it before ASB next season. It's not like they are going to have any competition from other teams for Bird's services if they don't give him an extension this season!

BKK
10-24-2008, 02:09 PM
Just an observation:
Miami only had 11 assist tonight - 4 by D.Wade
(Livingston w/ 3, all others were only 1 ea.)
I'm just say'n....

... that Jamaal could double that figure for 30 games easily? :D

PacerGuy
10-24-2008, 02:15 PM
I think w/ the roster being so new, & the fact that JO'B can likely be retained cheap, that both likely get extended to short deals (LB's could be a bit longer though.)
So much of the construction of the current is to fit a "style" that LB wanted to install, & JO'B runs that style. To let JO'B go & hire a coach w/ a different style makes no sense.
Also, the Simons will want to see improvement in the $ situation as well as on the court. Not only how we play & how fans receive the team will matter, but how we deal w/ the expiring contracts will go a long way to determining what having a "successful" season means to the Simons - esp. w/ regards to LB. For LB, it will be for what & how soon we move Tin's will be very important.
If attendance rises, even just a bit in this economy, & we improve our win total, I think its a no-brainer both return n/y. If we miss in these areas, it will be up to how much we miss in these key areas that will deside their fait.

Pacerized
10-24-2008, 08:59 PM
Moving Tinsley and Murphy for K-Mart wouldnt be bad http://games.espn.go.com/nba/features/traderesult?players=1013~1024~515&teams=7~7~11&te=&cash= because all their contracts are up in 3 seasons.


I think I brought this trade idea up early in the thread. I am not a big Kmart fan but I'd be in favor of this trade. Kmart gives us something of value for Tinsley and he's a low post player unlike some of the other trades being thrown around. Yes he has been injury prone and he isn't worth his salary but it beats paying Tinsley for nothing and he would contribute. For those who say he's another J.O. I can see that, but keep in mind that he did play 71 games last year in his return from microfracture surgery. He'll never be his old self but I think he'll show improvement this year over last. I don't think J.O. will ever play 71 games again. I don't think we could get a better player for Tinsley and moving Murphy would mean that the minutes we'd give Kmart wouldn't be taken from Hibbert.

McKeyFan
10-24-2008, 10:22 PM
I think I brought this trade idea up early in the thread. I am not a big Kmart fan but I'd be in favor of this trade. Kmart gives us something of value for Tinsley and he's a low post player unlike some of the other trades being thrown around. Yes he has been injury prone and he isn't worth his salary but it beats paying Tinsley for nothing and he would contribute. For those who say he's another J.O. I can see that, but keep in mind that he did play 71 games last year in his return from microfracture surgery. He'll never be his old self but I think he'll show improvement this year over last. I don't think J.O. will ever play 71 games again. I don't think we could get a better player for Tinsley and moving Murphy would mean that the minutes we'd give Kmart wouldn't be taken from Hibbert.

I guess posts like this make me realize I'm more attached to Murph than I thought.