PDA

View Full Version : For those of you mentioning the the word "tank" please explain to me how



Unclebuck
12-28-2008, 10:17 PM
Reading the post game thread and game threads the word tank seems to be coming up more and more. I will not discuss in this thread whether trying to get a high draft pick is worth it, but what I really want to know is what you mean by tank.

OK, so Bird and the Simon's decide tanking is the way to go. How do they go about it. Tell O'Brien to play the rookies, Josh and the other end of benchers. Do they bench Granger - tell him sorry, no allstar game for you. Do they just tell the players, hey we want to lose as many games as possible this season - thanks for your efforts thus far this season, but from now on all out effort will not be tolerated.

I mean just please lay out a scenerio where a team can tank 45 games.

Sure, maybe I've painted a few wild scenerios, but I would love to hear something less wild that would still be considered tanking

Bball
12-28-2008, 10:23 PM
UB,
All they'd have to do is tell the team and coaches to keep on doing what you're doing. It appears the losing required by 'tanking' would then take care of itself.

grace
12-28-2008, 10:25 PM
Sure, go ahead and tank. With the Pacers luck even if they're the worst team in the leauge they'll still end up getting the worst pick in the lottery.

I've never thought tanking was a good idea. The only reason the Celtics are good now is they went out and traded for KG.

d_c
12-28-2008, 10:32 PM
Sure, maybe I've painted a few wild scenerios, but I would love to hear something less wild that would still be considered tanking

Tanking in the NBA is generally done by coaches and front offices. This doesn't involve telling the players to quit or deliberately miss shots, etc...What it typically involves is controlling personnel. Basically, the team is putting out on the floor a group of players that is less than the best one they can possibly put out if the goal is to win as much as possible.

For instance, 2 years the Grizz cut Eddie Jones in the middle of the year. They didn't trade him. They waived him. Jones had helped them win a couple games at the last second. If they wanted to continue trying to win as many games as possible, they would not have cut Eddie Jones.

The year before that, Boston sat Paul Pierce at the end of the year. Minnesota sat KG. Both were healthy enough to play. Now of course people say that there wasn't anything to play for with their teams out of the playoff race, but if tanking is defined as putting something on the floor that is less than your best, then they were tanking.

Those would be a few examples of tanking.

Unclebuck
12-28-2008, 10:44 PM
Tanking in the NBA is generally done by coaches and front offices. This doesn't involve telling the players to quit or deliberately miss shots, etc...What it typically involves is controlling personnel. Basically, the team is putting out on the floor a group of players that is less than the best one they can possibly put out if the goal is to win as much as possible.

For instance, 2 years the Grizz cut Eddie Jones in the middle of the year. They didn't trade him. They waived him. Jones had helped them win a couple games at the last second. If they wanted to continue trying to win as many games as possible, they would not have cut Eddie Jones.

The year before that, Boston sat Paul Pierce at the end of the year. Minnesota sat KG. Both were healthy enough to play. Now of course people say that there wasn't anything to play for with their teams out of the playoff race, but if tanking is defined as putting something on the floor that is less than your best, then they were tanking.

Those would be a few examples of tanking.



OK, that is interesting, now take those examples and apply them to the Pacers team. Do you trade Jeff and Marquis for first round draft picks or some playr who isn't even playiing

Dr. Awesome
12-28-2008, 10:53 PM
I would hate to tank. Its a dumb way to go.

Major Cold
12-28-2008, 10:53 PM
Even if we lose the rest of our games we have a 25% chance of landing the top pick. I willing to bet that if we lose the rest of our games the percentage is greater that we lose entire franchise.

There is no lebron and there is no Kobe. Let us play and let the chips fall where they may.

YoSoyIndy
12-28-2008, 10:53 PM
I consider tanking to be a form of cheating if you're sitting players who are healthy in order to lose. I have no problem benching a top player near the end of the season if you're out of the playoffs and that player has some nagging injuries.

Tanking is a bad idea for any team that has a core of players it wants to keep. On floor experience is the best thing for any growing team, and to give up on it for a few higher slots is ridiculous.

What bothers me the most about people bashing the NBA about tanking teams is that at best the worst team only has a 25% chance at getting the first pick. The worst team in the NFL has a 100% chance of getting the first pick.

To answer your question about how the Pacers could tank, I would give more 4th quarter court time to the rookies and more on-court decision-making to Jack. It would result in incremental loses in the short-term and help to improve any issues for the long-term -- particularly w/ Jack who needs to become a better decision-maker regardless if he's playing the 1 or 2.

Unclebuck
12-28-2008, 10:55 PM
I really don't want this thread to turn into a discusion of the merits of tanking (we've had several of those and will likely be sick and tired of them by mid April), I want to stick to scenerios on how you tank

d_c
12-28-2008, 10:56 PM
OK, that is interesting, now take those examples and apply them to the Pacers team. Do you trade Jeff and Marquis for first round draft picks or some playr who isn't even playiing

First of all, I don't think Daniels (who is playing well this year) will net you a 1st round pick. Foster could probably get you one from a contending team which isn't picking very high. I wouldn't say trading Foster for a 1st is tanking, because you're getting an asset back. When the Grizz cut Eddie Jones, they did so w/o getting anything back. Moving Foster for a late 1st wouldn't be tanking, but it would be a sign that management doesn't think they're playing for much this season.

Something like trading Daniels for a 2nd (far less chance of turning into a usable asset) would probably be a lot closer to tanking. Trading Daniels for a guy who simply doesn't play would DEFINITELY be tanking, because Daniels' contract is essentially expiring and you wouldn't be trading him as a salary dump.

Doug
12-28-2008, 11:01 PM
Do you trade Jeff and Marquis for first round draft picks

Yes. In a heartbeat.

But that has nothing to do with tanking.

I don't believe in losing on purpose. Losing is contagious. We are trying to build a culture of winning, not a culture of losing.

That said, I do believe we want to develop our future players - Rush, Hibbert, McBob (?). But again, that can, and should, be done in the framework of trying to win basketball games.

YoSoyIndy
12-28-2008, 11:03 PM
Yes. In a heartbeat.

But that has nothing to do with tanking.

.

Trading away two solid contributers for nothing in the short-term would be increasing your chances of losing. Getting a first for either or both of those guys would be fantastic, so it's a bad example, but the point is still made. Its clear he's just trying to get someone to explain how we could tank as opposed to just saying it.

Doug
12-28-2008, 11:12 PM
Trading away two solid contributers for nothing in the short-term would be increasing your chances of losing. Getting a first for either or both of those guys would be fantastic, so it's a bad example, but the point is still made. Its clear he's just trying to get someone to explain how we could tank as opposed to just saying it.Oh, I understand what he is saying. Trading either of those guys for a 1st round draft pick would be a very, very positive thing for this franchise. Great value for an aging role player and a player you aren't going to keep anyway.

You wouldn't be making the trades to lose this year, but win later. That's not tanking. Losing more this year *might* be the byproduct of the trades, but not the goal. And it might not be. Trading those two would open up more minutes for McBob, Roy, and Rush. They might even be able to pick up the slack sooner than later.

Nope, that's not tanking.

Doug
12-28-2008, 11:17 PM
Trading away two solid contributers for nothing in the short-term would be increasing your chances of losing. Getting a first for either or both of those guys would be fantastic, so it's a bad example, but the point is still made. Its clear he's just trying to get someone to explain how we could tank as opposed to just saying it.And to be fair, I guess I should have been more clear with my answer to UB's original question: How do you "tank"?

My answer: You don't. So I can't really come up with any scenario's where it's possible to "throw" basketball games that is in any way good for the franchise. (I'd still like to develop our younger players with meaningful game minutes, but I've been saying that for years and think we've done somewhat of a poor job of it. (Yes, I know about Granger.))

OakMoses
12-28-2008, 11:37 PM
I suppose if I were going to do it, I'd start by firing O'Brien and bringing in an interim coach who clearly has no chance at earning a full-time gig. Then I'd tell Dunleavy to not even think about coming back this season. I'd then encourage this coach to give major minutes to Hibbert, Rush, and McRoberts. I'd try to trade Rasho, Jeff, and Marquis for smaller expirings + marginal young talent: something like 'Quis to the Raptors for Anthony Parker + Joey Graham + 2nd round pick. I'd probably also see if I could find any takers for Dun or Murphy and take back 10 cents on the dollar talent-wise just to get rid of their salaries.

Oh, and I do think that making any move that knowingly leads to more losses this season is tanking.

I might also add some silly stat-based incentives for players just to take the focus away from team goals.

Quis
12-28-2008, 11:48 PM
First of all, I don't think Daniels (who is playing well this year) will net you a 1st round pick.


Let's not be silly here. A solid starter/great sixth man who could also be used as a $7M expiring could easily net a 1st rounder. We could probably get a lottery protected 1st from Toronto out of him.

d_c
12-29-2008, 12:18 AM
Let's not be silly here. A solid starter/great sixth man who could also be used as a $7M expiring could easily net a 1st rounder. We could probably get a lottery protected 1st from Toronto out of him.

If you were take on a guy with an ugly contract that the other team is actively seeking to dump, then that's definitely possible.

FWIW, I don't see the Raptors trading Kapono and a 1st for Daniels (and that would be the most plausible scenario).

duke dynamite
12-29-2008, 12:20 AM
Tanking=bad

d_c
12-29-2008, 12:25 AM
Tanking=bad

Tanking IS bad.

It's also gotten proven results as well. It doesn't always work, but it's worked for Cleveland, Orlando, San Antonio, Miami and Portland (not even talking about the Oden year). I'm not advocating anyone to specifically tank or for the Pacers to do that this particular season, but it's foolish and ignorant to say it's never achieved any results.

vnzla81
12-29-2008, 01:13 AM
tanking would be if the pacers trade Murphy,marquis,foster,maceo,jack,rasho any of this guys for a young player and a draft pick, like I said before the pacers have not had pieces of value to trade in years, right now they have expiring contracts marquis,rasho and jack. they could use this pieces to either get draft picks and possibly get rid of JT. Another way to do this is how memphis did last year trading a good player(troy or foster) with a longer contract and get expirings plus draft picks instead.Good teams are looking for decent players like marquis, we know he is not coming back so why no trade the guy now that he has some value? we do not know when he is getting in trouble again and the pacers would have to trade him for a bag o popcorn.

Trader Joe
12-29-2008, 01:40 AM
Tanking IS bad.

It's also gotten proven results as well. It doesn't always work, but it's worked for Cleveland, Orlando, San Antonio, Miami and Portland (not even talking about the Oden year). I'm not advocating anyone to specifically tank or for the Pacers to do that this particular season, but it's foolish and ignorant to say it's never achieved any results.

San Antonio didn't "tank" David Robinson missed an entire season.

Bball
12-29-2008, 01:44 AM
San Antonio didn't "tank" David Robinson missed an entire season.


I don't remember the answer to this so I'll just throw these out there- How hard did San Antonio work to mitigate the loss of David Robinson that season? Could Robinson had returned at any point that season but the team held him out anyway?

joew8302
12-29-2008, 02:23 AM
Tanking might be too strong of a word to use, but I agree with what a lot of people are saying on here.

In all likelihood will the Pacers stand a punchers chance at the playoffs this year? No.

Even if they do make the playoffs are they set up to make a run? No.

If you can answer no to these questions why not just build for the future. There is this misconception out there that we are a young team on the verge of greatness. That is not what I see at all. Granger is a great piece. Rush, Hibbert are both question marks at this point IMO. They could turn out to be nice pieces, but they could just as easily bust. McRoberts is a utility man at best. Aside from this cast you have guys like Rasho, Foster, TJ Ford, Marquis Daniels, Mike Dunleavy etc. These guys are all vetrans and we are seeing or have seen the best from that crew. It is time to realize that this is a bad team. Are they as bad as their record indicates? Maybe, maybe not, time will tell. But is this crew ever going to make legitmate noise? My guess is no.

That said, why not use the rest of the season and get Rush/Hibbert experience. Find out what McRoberts is capable of to prepare for the future, let Granger polish up his game in certain areas and get a high lottery pick. To me, this sounds a lot more appealing than playing vetrans with no chance at winning at the expense of developing young players in what looks to be a lost season.

I call this playing it smart, others may say tanking, but I think the team needs to take this direction.

d_c
12-29-2008, 02:36 AM
I don't remember the answer to this so I'll just throw these out there- How hard did San Antonio work to mitigate the loss of David Robinson that season? Could Robinson had returned at any point that season but the team held him out anyway?

They could have played Robinson later in the year if they wanted to. The guy's foot by the end of the season was healthy enough to play on. Wisely, they didn't. As far as mitigating the loss, I don't recall any notable signings or trades they made to compensate for losing Robinson.

Peck
12-29-2008, 04:17 AM
Tanking might be too strong of a word to use, but I agree with what a lot of people are saying on here.

In all likelihood will the Pacers stand a punchers chance at the playoffs this year? No.

Even if they do make the playoffs are they set up to make a run? No.

If you can answer no to these questions why not just build for the future. There is this misconception out there that we are a young team on the verge of greatness. That is not what I see at all. Granger is a great piece. Rush, Hibbert are both question marks at this point IMO. They could turn out to be nice pieces, but they could just as easily bust. McRoberts is a utility man at best. Aside from this cast you have guys like Rasho, Foster, TJ Ford, Marquis Daniels, Mike Dunleavy etc. These guys are all vetrans and we are seeing or have seen the best from that crew. It is time to realize that this is a bad team. Are they as bad as their record indicates? Maybe, maybe not, time will tell. But is this crew ever going to make legitmate noise? My guess is no.

That said, why not use the rest of the season and get Rush/Hibbert experience. Find out what McRoberts is capable of to prepare for the future, let Granger polish up his game in certain areas and get a high lottery pick. To me, this sounds a lot more appealing than playing vetrans with no chance at winning at the expense of developing young players in what looks to be a lost season.

I call this playing it smart, others may say tanking, but I think the team needs to take this direction.

I know U.B. is not wanting to discuss the merits either for or against tanking here as he wants to know how to do it. But I have to make a small reply to your line of thinking here.

For as long as I can remember I have been of the line of thinking that the playoffs don't really mean much if you are not competing. I still hold to that to a degree.

However with our team I am going to take a break from that line of thinking.

We have players right now who need to see the playoffs, if for no other reason just to get a feel of what some kind of winning is about.

We have a lot of players who have never touched the floor during the playoffs and I would prefer that they get a feel for what it is about prior to making some form of deep playoff run.

Right now to be honest with you we need some wins. There is no savior in this draft that I have heard of so there is no golden ring out there to grab. So IMO, which is differant from my normal opinion, I think making the 8th seed this year and even getting swept would serve some purpose.

Again I want to qualify that by saying I do NOT normally believe this. In fact I always thought the fact that we went to the playoffs for so many years during the Walsh era was kind of a joke. (please let's not make this a Walsh debate) But in this case I would like to see Granger, Jack, Hibbert, Rush, Dunleavy, Murphy get some form of playoff experiance.

Trader Joe
12-29-2008, 04:25 AM
I don't really know how you compensate for losing David Robinson the way those Spurs teams were designed. Regardless, I don't think anyone would truly call what they did that season tanking.

RamBo_Lamar
12-29-2008, 04:43 AM
If I were coaching this team to tank, I would probably have them slow down the
tempo and place emphasis on being a half-court team that pounds the ball inside.
Play a style that is opposite the fast-breaking/lots of 3s type game that was
originally intended, and the team was supposedly "designed" for. There would still
be plenty of effort, but (if it worked as intended) more turnovers and less scoring.
Would also back off on trying to stress the importance of defense.

But for the record, I agree with those who say the Pacers need to stay focused on
developing a winning culture (even if they're not winning) and not even consider
tanking at this point which would be counterproductive.

Let things play out on their own for this season, try to win as many games as possible,
don't get too stressed over the losses, and countinue to identify weaknesses.

Major "tweaks" to the roster are on the horizon that could get them over the hump,
but for right now, the rebuilding is still a work in progress.

Speed
12-29-2008, 07:53 AM
If tanking means not playing Dunleavy until he's 100%, I'm for it.

If tanking means playing B Rush and Hibbert big minutes, I'm for it.

If tanking means letting the team figure out how to win at the end of a game without much structure, I HATE it and it's stupid, but if it's done with the eye to their future ability to do this in a playoff game, I'm for it.

---------

If tanking means intentionally losing to get a higher draft pick, I am completely 100% against it. This includes not playing your healthy players and trading guys that can help you win for cap relief or low draft picks.

QuickRelease
12-29-2008, 08:53 AM
Tanking is a crap shoot, and the best you could guarantee is the 4th pick if you have the worst record. Add on top of that, this isn't a great draft.

Frantz
12-29-2008, 09:03 AM
Tanking means more opportunity for Ruh, Hibbert, McRoberts, Graham, Diener and means also not playing Dunleavy until next season...in my opinion...

Brad8888
12-29-2008, 09:17 AM
Tanking would be a significant financial risk for the Simons. Right now, about 2/3 of the people in the Fieldhouse are there on VERY cheap tickets. As a full price paying full season ticket holder who witnessed a lot of games prior to the discount offers that had actual (not announced) attendances of between 3,000 and 5,000, the issue of attendance is significant to me.

Why would people take any interest in attending any games, even at prices discounted by 50% to nearly 80% if the public perception is that the team is tanking?

Even if the tanking were to succeed, the main gain would be either a high draft pick or additional flexibility for off season moves. With the economy being what it is at this time, what guarantee is there that people would come back AND be willing to pay anywhere close to full price for seats? Also, how would the franchise be able to justify such a strategy to its advertisers in the fieldhouse as well as on TV / radio broadcasts?

The financial viability of the franchise may currently be at stake anyway, but, IMHO the risks of a tanking strategy far outweigh the potential rewards due to the current economic situation.

Will Galen
12-29-2008, 10:30 AM
Fans that want to "Tank" aren't really fans of a team, they are fans of winning.

Think about it, if you want a team to tank you want them to lose. "Real Fans,' (giggle) don't ever want their team to lose.

A so called fan that wants a team to lose so the team can get better players in the draft and thus win, is more a fan of winning than of a particular team.

vnzla81
12-29-2008, 11:00 AM
Tanking might be too strong of a word to use, but I agree with what a lot of people are saying on here.

In all likelihood will the Pacers stand a punchers chance at the playoffs this year? No.

Even if they do make the playoffs are they set up to make a run? No.

If you can answer no to these questions why not just build for the future. There is this misconception out there that we are a young team on the verge of greatness. That is not what I see at all. Granger is a great piece. Rush, Hibbert are both question marks at this point IMO. They could turn out to be nice pieces, but they could just as easily bust. McRoberts is a utility man at best. Aside from this cast you have guys like Rasho, Foster, TJ Ford, Marquis Daniels, Mike Dunleavy etc. These guys are all vetrans and we are seeing or have seen the best from that crew. It is time to realize that this is a bad team. Are they as bad as their record indicates? Maybe, maybe not, time will tell. But is this crew ever going to make legitmate noise? My guess is no.

That said, why not use the rest of the season and get Rush/Hibbert experience. Find out what McRoberts is capable of to prepare for the future, let Granger polish up his game in certain areas and get a high lottery pick. To me, this sounds a lot more appealing than playing vetrans with no chance at winning at the expense of developing young players in what looks to be a lost season.

I call this playing it smart, others may say tanking, but I think the team needs to take this direction.

Agreed with all you said. The pacers need to think about the future is that means to trade rasho,marquis and the older guys to let the young guys to develop I'm all for it. Why keep wasting time with the olds guys when we already know that they are not coming back next year? This team is good but I do think that a nice high draft pick would not hurt either.

duke dynamite
12-29-2008, 11:03 AM
Agreed with all you said. The pacers need to think about the future is that means to trade rasho,marquis and the older guys to let the young guys to develop I'm all for it. Why keep wasting time with the olds guys when we already know that they are not coming back next year? This team is good but I do think that a nice high draft pick would not hurt either.
To win, my friend. To win.

joew8302
12-29-2008, 11:30 AM
I disagree with the assessment of the draft. Blake Griffin is a huge prize. Also, Brandon Jennings could give us a very talented, athletic and explosive young pg. I think their are prizes to be had, it is just the people using the reasoning "there is nothing in the draft" to justify playing veterans in a sinking ship type season.

YoSoyIndy
12-29-2008, 11:37 AM
Oh, I understand what he is saying. Trading either of those guys for a 1st round draft pick would be a very, very positive thing for this franchise. Great value for an aging role player and a player you aren't going to keep anyway.

You wouldn't be making the trades to lose this year, but win later. That's not tanking. Losing more this year *might* be the byproduct of the trades, but not the goal. And it might not be. Trading those two would open up more minutes for McBob, Roy, and Rush. They might even be able to pick up the slack sooner than later.

Nope, that's not tanking.

It is tanking if you're intentions behind making the trade include wanting to lose this season. Tanking is a matter of intentions as it doesn't guarantee losing, especially when it is tank vs. tank.

Doug
12-29-2008, 01:17 PM
It is tanking if you're intentions behind making the trade include wanting to lose this season. Tanking is a matter of intentions as it doesn't guarantee losing, especially when it is tank vs. tank.I think we are saying the same thing - tanking means losing on purpose. Those trades would make us better long term, although with the possibility of being worse short term. Therefore not tanking. They could make us worse this year, but that's not why you make the trades.

GMs should be looking long term, and shouldn't be afraid to make a trade with a short-term downside if the long-term upside is better.

A team trying to get "over the hump" is willing to look more short-term, and a team in rebuilding mode should be looking more long term.

BillS
12-29-2008, 01:46 PM
Sorry, UB, but this seems to be a sane discussion of the subject for a change...

My concern is the effect most methods of tanking have on the morale of the guys you have left and on the fan base.

The team is frustrated now by not quite reaching what they think they can. How do they react if you yank just enough away to guarantee they can't get the wins they want? These are competitive guys - do you damage their camaraderie or spirit enough to affect the locker room atmosphere in the mythical "next season when we have a big bad lottery pick"?

I have, for the first time in a long time, seen Pacer gear in prominent display at the airport and other non-sports-gear venues. I have seen people wearing Pacer hats and jerseys. I have engaged in conversation with strangers on the street (including the TSA guy at the airport check-in this weekend) who really like what they see on the floor.

A funny thing is that there is sometimes a kind of pride in almost winning, much more than in losing big. The mentality of the underdog doesn't often come from being slaughtered but by being so close to good enough that it only takes being overlooked. This is what I see in the fan base, a respect for the players and what they are putting on the court. You sacrifice such things at your peril. Considering that getting such a fan base built back up is the goal of the year, these things are not ignored by TPTB.

So, we keep doing what we are doing, with perhaps a trade before the deadline that is clearly meant to strengthen the team both now and later (no less than a first round draft pick and a role-player low-post PF). If we win out, we get some first round playoff experience and some excitement for the Pacers in the post-season. If we lose, we get that lottery pick so many people think is a magic bullet.

It's a process, not a magical transformation, and this is only the first year of it.

duke dynamite
12-29-2008, 02:16 PM
Bill, you said it well there. It sort of reminices what I said last year to all the pro-tankers.

I by no means am unhappy with the "progress" of this team. Yes, losses suck. They really do, but we are in it.

Pacemaker
12-29-2008, 03:23 PM
Agreed. Plus with a change of expectations it will be more fun, it will be easier for us, the fans, to swallow up losses thinking that by playing our rookies we invest on the future instead of this heart-wrecking finishes where we almost always come up with a loss and a heart squash.


Tanking might be too strong of a word to use, but I agree with what a lot of people are saying on here.

In all likelihood will the Pacers stand a punchers chance at the playoffs this year? No.

Even if they do make the playoffs are they set up to make a run? No.

If you can answer no to these questions why not just build for the future. There is this misconception out there that we are a young team on the verge of greatness. That is not what I see at all. Granger is a great piece. Rush, Hibbert are both question marks at this point IMO. They could turn out to be nice pieces, but they could just as easily bust. McRoberts is a utility man at best. Aside from this cast you have guys like Rasho, Foster, TJ Ford, Marquis Daniels, Mike Dunleavy etc. These guys are all vetrans and we are seeing or have seen the best from that crew. It is time to realize that this is a bad team. Are they as bad as their record indicates? Maybe, maybe not, time will tell. But is this crew ever going to make legitmate noise? My guess is no.

That said, why not use the rest of the season and get Rush/Hibbert experience. Find out what McRoberts is capable of to prepare for the future, let Granger polish up his game in certain areas and get a high lottery pick. To me, this sounds a lot more appealing than playing vetrans with no chance at winning at the expense of developing young players in what looks to be a lost season.

I call this playing it smart, others may say tanking, but I think the team needs to take this direction.

Quis
12-29-2008, 05:51 PM
I'll take whatever's best for the long-term health of the franchise. Which at this point, in my opinion, is a top-7 or so draft pick.

With Granger stepping up his game, drafting Rush and Hibbert, adding a couple of 25 year old guards, and with certain guys contracts getting a year closer to ending, I think we're in much better shape than the same time last year, but it's still not enough. We're lacking a secondary top-tier talent next to Granger. Until we get that talent I can't see us ever being any better than average, which I would hope management wouldn't settle for.

I'd have Dunleavy go ahead and get surgery and skip the rest of the season if he has to. I'd give Rush and Hibbert each 25 minutes a game and try to get McBob 10 or so. I'd also be willing to listen to offers for any of the vets on the team that (Foster, Rasho, Quis). A pick and a non-terrible salary in return and any of them could be had.

Hicks
12-29-2008, 07:06 PM
I think we may be nearing the point where we should only add one or two young guys to this team before we look to find veteran pieces to glue it together.

*twitch* I mean they. :devil:

vnzla81
12-29-2008, 07:56 PM
I'll take whatever's best for the long-term health of the franchise. Which at this point, in my opinion, is a top-7 or so draft pick.

With Granger stepping up his game, drafting Rush and Hibbert, adding a couple of 25 year old guards, and with certain guys contracts getting a year closer to ending, I think we're in much better shape than the same time last year, but it's still not enough. We're lacking a secondary top-tier talent next to Granger. Until we get that talent I can't see us ever being any better than average, which I would hope management wouldn't settle for.

I'd have Dunleavy go ahead and get surgery and skip the rest of the season if he has to. I'd give Rush and Hibbert each 25 minutes a game and try to get McBob 10 or so. I'd also be willing to listen to offers for any of the vets on the team that (Foster, Rasho, Quis). A pick and a non-terrible salary in return and any of them could be had.

agreed

Peck
12-29-2008, 07:57 PM
I think we may be nearing the point where we should only add one or two young guys to this team before we look to find veteran pieces to glue it together.

*twitch* I mean they. :devil:

No, you mean we. I read a story once about how you repented from this.:devil:

BlueNGold
12-29-2008, 08:16 PM
How to tank? Let me count the ways:

1) Tell Dunleavy to take the rest of the season off. That's already been a big help.

2) Move Rasho and Quis for draft picks or promising young talent before the Feb. deadline.

3) Play Troy Murphy 40+ minutes a game, especially against the Sixers and other athletic teams.

4) Do not even think about putting McRoberts on the floor. He's happy to be in Indy playing for the Pacers and will not complain.

5) Limit Rush and Hibbert's minutes. Gotta develop them, but don't let them get comfortable.

6) Give Graham as many minutes as possible. Call lots of plays for him on offense.

7) Put Diener and TJ in against big, strong point guards.

8) Play Jack big minutes against taller, athletic shooting guards rather than Quis or Rush.

9) Have Murphy guard centers like Yao Ming and Dwight Howard as much as possible.

10) Call lots of plays for Foster to practice his 16 foot jumper.

There you have it.

Hicks
12-29-2008, 08:29 PM
No, you mean we. I read a story once about how you repented from this.:devil:

Don't make me buy that custom #15 "Them" jersey at the giftshop. :devil:

vnzla81
12-29-2008, 08:34 PM
How to tank? Let me count the ways:

1) Tell Dunleavy to take the rest of the season off. That's already been a big help.

2) Move Rasho and Quis for draft picks or promising young talent before the Feb. deadline.

3) Play Troy Murphy 40+ minutes a game, especially against the Sixers and other athletic teams.

4) Do not even think about putting McRoberts on the floor. He's happy to be in Indy playing for the Pacers and will not complain.

5) Limit Rush and Hibbert's minutes. Gotta develop them, but don't let them get comfortable.

6) Give Graham as many minutes as possible. Call lots of plays for him on offense.

7) Put Diener and TJ in against big, strong point guards.

8) Play Jack big minutes against taller, athletic shooting guards rather than Quis or Rush.

9) Have Murphy guard centers like Yao Ming and Dwight Howard as much as possible.

10) Call lots of plays for Foster to practice his 16 foot jumper.

There you have it.

11) tell JOB not to worry that he is going to be the coach( and never play the player that is doing well and sit him on the bench for the rest of the season)

12)Leave Jack at the end of games and tell him to turn the ball over more

13) Make marquis our second point guard.

ChicagoJ
12-29-2008, 11:13 PM
I don't want the team to tank, but if they lose games while letting the young guys develop then I don't mind. THIS SEASON.

The worst case scenario is to play our lousy veteran players and still lose.

But I don't know if "our team just isn't good at all" is the same as tanking.

Starting Baston or McRoberts at C instead of Hibbert, and Stephen Graham instead of Brandon Rush. That's tanking.

Trading Foster and Daniels for a first round pick(s) next summer is not tanking, it is a process to accumulate assets.

Big Smooth
12-29-2008, 11:39 PM
Give Tank Thompson a contract for the remainder of the season and let him start at PF. :D

BRushWithDeath
12-30-2008, 03:10 AM
I don't want the team to tank, but if they lose games while letting the young guys develop then I don't mind. THIS SEASON.

The worst case scenario is to play our lousy veteran players and still lose.

But I don't know if "our team just isn't good at all" is the same as tanking.




Exactly. Brandon Rush, Roy Hibbert, and Josh McRoberts all need to play a lot. If that means the Pacers lose a few more games (personally, I think they're better when those three play) so be it. The Pacers are not going to make a playoff run this year. Even if they did improve and limped in to the playoffs it is not worth a lottery pick to get swept. Play the young guys. There will be bumps along the way but that will only help in the long run.

count55
12-30-2008, 07:50 AM
I don't want the team to tank, but if they lose games while letting the young guys develop then I don't mind. THIS SEASON.

The worst case scenario is to play our lousy veteran players and still lose.

But I don't know if "our team just isn't good at all" is the same as tanking.

Starting Baston or McRoberts at C instead of Hibbert, and Stephen Graham instead of Brandon Rush. That's tanking.

Trading Foster and Daniels for a first round pick(s) next summer is not tanking, it is a process to accumulate assets.

Foster may (possibly) draw a late first round pick, but I doubt it. Daniels, even as well as he's played, really has a primary value as an expiring contract, so we would be unlikely to be able to get a first rounder. We'd likely have to take back a longer contract, so we'd have to be pretty sure that the guy we got back was in our long term plans.

The beauty right now is that it appears that playing Rush and Hibbert actually fits both my goals: get better long term while doing your best to win games today. I also believe that McBob should start seeing some minutes, situationally, in place of Foster/Murphy. I don't think he'll be a star, but I think he can be a cheap, solid rotational player. I also think he gives some athleticism and a (relatively) decent defensive presence. It bothers me that he has not played the last two nights.

RandyWrinkles
12-30-2008, 01:32 PM
We could send Obie to go scout somewhere and have one of the assistants coach some games. Worked for Miami.

DocHolliday
12-30-2008, 04:39 PM
UB,
All they'd have to do is tell the team and coaches to keep on doing what you're doing. It appears the losing required by 'tanking' would then take care of itself.

Exactly.


Fans that want to "Tank" aren't really fans of a team, they are fans of winning.

Think about it, if you want a team to tank you want them to lose. "Real Fans,' (giggle) don't ever want their team to lose.

A so called fan that wants a team to lose so the team can get better players in the draft and thus win, is more a fan of winning than of a particular team.

So a "fan" has to be one or the other? I don't think so. I barely give it a second thought when the Pacers lose games this year. They aren't going anywhere so a loss now can help in the future. It's nice to see them scratch out a win in a close game too. It really doesn't matter to me if they win 30, 35, or 40 games--I just want to see positive growth as a team. :dance3:

Jonathan
12-30-2008, 05:01 PM
I cannot root for players that do not play to win. It cheats the game.

BlueNGold
12-30-2008, 08:15 PM
It bothers me that he has not played the last two nights.

I sincerely believe that if he's able to play and still sitting on the bench, something other than winning the basketball game is the highest priority.

We are a .333 team that is 4-2 in games where he has played 10 minutes or more. What he adds certainly does not show up in the statistics. His value is even greater in that regard because he brings something this team sorely lacks in the front court - athleticism.

Slick has already made the case. Maybe he should be coaching. I do believe he had a better coaching record...

Anyway, I fully expect McBob to get limited minutes because he plays behind a couple guys making a total of 16 million a year. Money, not basketball, is the priority.

BRushWithDeath
12-31-2008, 01:05 AM
Anyway, I fully expect McBob to get limited minutes because he plays behind a couple guys making a total of 16 million a year. Money, not basketball, is the priority.

That's got to be the reason. But it's still inexcusable.

imawhat
12-31-2008, 01:07 AM
If $ was a priority, we'd see #11 in uni.

BRushWithDeath
12-31-2008, 01:18 AM
If $ was a priority, we'd see #11 in uni.

If not money, what is a rational reason for McRoberts to get 3 straight DNP's? And I don't think it is a major coincidence that they have been in 3 straight losses.

imawhat
12-31-2008, 01:23 AM
Those are 3 games in which Troy Murphy has returned and played more minutes than McRoberts was playing in his absence. Due to O'Brien's desire to play a short rotation, he falls out (unfortunately) while others have their minutes reduced.

Shade
12-31-2008, 11:47 AM
I'm generally not a proponent of intentionally losing games, but the more we lose, the more apt I am to look at how close we are to getting a high draft pick. I just hate finishing in the middle, just outside of the playoffs but with a "meh" draft pick.

Hicks
12-31-2008, 12:20 PM
If not money, what is a rational reason for McRoberts to get 3 straight DNP's? And I don't think it is a major coincidence that they have been in 3 straight losses.

It's probably as simple as one of two things:

1) Jim doesn't want too many rookies playing at the same time on the floor.

2) In practice, he simply isn't a better player than Jeff or Troy.

WetBob
12-31-2008, 12:26 PM
It's probably as simple as one of two things:

1) Jim doesn't want too many rookies playing at the same time on the floor.

2) In practice, he simply isn't a better player than Jeff or Troy.

I tend to believe that money has something to do with it, although for a different reason then what BluenGold and BRush have said. I don't think it has anything to do with how much he is getting compensated this season in comparison to the guys who are getting to play.

I think it has more to do with next season and seasons after. It is possible that the Pacers want to keep McBob around for a while (maybe not, no way to really know) but if they play him this season and he excels, as has been the case, then his market value will be higher. By not playing him this year, they are sacrificing wins in order to sign him to a 2nd contract at a lower price. It seems obvious to me that the Pacers are better when he gets a chance to play, the win-loss numbers don't lie.

If that is the case, then it absolutely sucks for McBob and for the fans this season, but it is good for the team going forward.

Jonathan
12-31-2008, 12:40 PM
If mc roberts was so skilled and good he would have been drafted in the first round. He would not have been a throw in for a deal. Mc Roberts is not the answer. I like the way his hustles but to think he is going to come and do 'big' things is ridicoulous.
The deal is the Pacers is this we are not tough enough on the defensive side of the ball. Teams were afraid of us when we had Ronnie Artest. It is too much to ask Danny to be a shut down defender and score thirty a night.

count55
12-31-2008, 01:36 PM
Those are 3 games in which Troy Murphy has returned and played more minutes than McRoberts was playing in his absence. Due to O'Brien's desire to play a short rotation, he falls out (unfortunately) while others have their minutes reduced.


It's probably as simple as one of two things:

1) Jim doesn't want too many rookies playing at the same time on the floor.

2) In practice, he simply isn't a better player than Jeff or Troy.

These two are probably pretty close to the truth. I find both of the money motivations to be paranoid, nonsensical jabberings.

I think O'Brien is wrong in this case, because I'm amazed at how quickly Rasho has run out of steam, and I think McBob has earned some short minutes. However, it's absolutely ludicrous to think that he's checking Shamsports when he fills out his line up, or that he's being instructed to keep McBob's value down.

He is trying to win games, and he feels more comfortable playing Murphy and Foster than he does McBob. Again, I don't agree in this case, but the money angle is just silly.


If mc roberts was so skilled and good he would have been drafted in the first round. He would not have been a throw in for a deal. Mc Roberts is not the answer. I like the way his hustles but to think he is going to come and do 'big' things is ridicoulous.
The deal is the Pacers is this we are not tough enough on the defensive side of the ball. Teams were afraid of us when we had Ronnie Artest. It is too much to ask Danny to be a shut down defender and score thirty a night.

While I understand and agree that McBob's value is limited, I do think that he could've had a positive effect on one or more of the last three games. Maybe we win, maybe we don't, but I think that he contributes when he's on the floor, to the point that I'd be OK seeing him do Offense/Defense swaps with Murph down the stretch, when possible.

Hicks
12-31-2008, 02:12 PM
Jonathan,

I'm judging McRoberts on what I see now. I don't care if he was drafted #1, #30, #60, or undrafted. Ben Wallace and Brad Miller were both undrafted IIRC, and both made multiple all-star teams. Gilbert Arenas was a second rounder. Don't get me wrong, most players from the second round don't amount to anything, but the fact is that Josh has shown something and suggested he belongs in this league, and not just as a 12th man.

BlueNGold
12-31-2008, 09:11 PM
If $ was a priority, we'd see #11 in uni.

No we wouldn't. He is a PR nightmare and the costs of putting him on the floor are simply much greater than having him sit.

We lost a lot of fans not just because of the losses...and that is very costly in ticket and merchandise sales over the course of several years. Personally, if they wheeled him back out on the floor, I would take the year off as a Pacer fan.

BlueNGold
12-31-2008, 10:06 PM
He is trying to win games, and he feels more comfortable playing Murphy and Foster than he does McBob. Again, I don't agree in this case, but the money angle is just silly.


Silly? Count, you may know a whole lot more about basketball, but you clearly don't get the financial angle.

If your boss is forking over 11 million a year for an arguably equal talent at the same position, you take a huge professional risk by playing the cheaper player. If the player comes up short, it's on you, and you only. If the higher paid player comes up short, more of the blame is on the owner and management. Yes, there are internal politics and a recognized financial pecking order as in any business. Consequently, the talent difference, if there is one, often does not override playing an expensive vet over a rookie.

From a management perspective, this is encouraged. If that 11 million a year player, with 2.5 years left sits and rots, that does not help his trade value. If a younger player shows promise, you won't have money to match as his price rises. These are all factors in the NBA and why many people complain about coaches playing their vets over a promising young player.

This is the NBA. As an NBA coach you weigh all of these factors and more against winning basketball games. If this were Rucker Park, I suppose winning games would be the #1 priority. Sorry, to burst the bubble, but it's simply not a pure game...

Edit: I agree he feels more comfortable playing Murphy and Foster. I would too if my boss thought highly enough of those players to fork over that kind of money.