PDA

View Full Version : Looking Back at the Recent Portland Trade



MillerTime
12-30-2008, 06:12 PM
This summer, Bird and Morway decided to trade Bayless and Ike for Jack, McRoberts and Rush. When I first saw that trade I was kind of upset because of the talent that Bayless is supposed to possess. If you look at the trade now, it was actaully a smart and safe trade done by the Pacers. Ford has missed a few games this season which was expected. If we hadnt made this trade, our PG situation would have been Bayless (rookie) and Diener.

Now we are able to absorb the lose of Ford by starting Jack. Now that I think about this trade, Im glad Bird pulled the trigger. To me this trade was more of an insurance policy incase Ford goes down

imawhat
12-30-2008, 06:50 PM
Not sure how I feel about the trade yet. I have very high hopes for Bayless, and I don't think a team should pass up a star for a good player(s).

I think Brandon is a good player as it stands, and he was one of my favorites coming out of college, but I only see marginal improvement in his future. Not a bad thing at all, but I expect Bayless to be super.

I liked Ike, but it looks like he'll never improve on his weaknesses.

I've been really disappointed in Jarrett Jack, so far. He's really struggling defensively (1 on 1 and team) and has made some unbelievable turnovers, but his toughness is sorely needed. I think he's trying way too hard. I expect him to loosen up eventually, but I'm unsure of whether or not he'll improve his defensive awareness (gets lost way too easily), and he's shown no improvement on coughing up the ball late in the game, which he did his rookie season.

McRoberts could be the X factor in this trade, if he turns into a serviceable 6th-7th man or better. My expectations with Josh were so low without seeing him play, but he's been a huge positive so far.

duke dynamite
12-30-2008, 06:56 PM
I'm not going to say that the trade for Jack was an "insurance policy" for Ford. We needed a little more depth at the 1, or this team would continue to have serious problems at that position.

Jon Theodore
12-30-2008, 06:57 PM
Diener is a much better backup PG for this team than Jarrett Jack is. I would rather have Anthony Johnson than Jarrett Jack.

If McRoberts can become a Foster type player, then it is a good trade he is the X Factor. This team could really use the talent of bayless, if nothing else Bayless was a tradeable asset.

jeffg-body
12-30-2008, 07:46 PM
I still like the trade myself. IMHO Jack is a good back up PG that can start at times when needed. I think his inconsistency has been in part due to getting used to his new team. McRoberts has been a nice surprise to me and I would like to see him get a bit more playing time to see what we have gotten.

Anthem
12-30-2008, 07:57 PM
IMHO Jack is a good back up PG that can start at times when needed. I think his inconsistency has been in part due to getting used to his new team.
And due to the fact that we keep playing him at the 2.

BlueNGold
12-30-2008, 08:27 PM
It's very difficult to judge at this point. If a Bayless/Ike for Jack/Rush/McBob trade were offered today, I would still take it.

DGPR
12-30-2008, 08:41 PM
People were complaining that Bayless was a SG trapped in a PG's body but aren't we using Jack as a 2 quite a bit? I like Rush and McRoberts a lot, but who knows how Bayless is going to pan out. I could live with the trade either way, what's done is done.

croz24
12-30-2008, 10:25 PM
This summer, Bird and Morway decided to trade Bayless and Ike for Jack, McRoberts and Rush. When I first saw that trade I was kind of upset because of the talent that Bayless is supposed to possess. If you look at the trade now, it was actaully a smart and safe trade done by the Pacers. Ford has missed a few games this season which was expected. If we hadnt made this trade, our PG situation would have been Bayless (rookie) and Diener.

Now we are able to absorb the lose of Ford by starting Jack. Now that I think about this trade, Im glad Bird pulled the trigger. To me this trade was more of an insurance policy incase Ford goes down

you make some good points, but only if the pacers were at least a .500 ballclub. as is, the pacers are 10-21 meaning the players we do have clearly aren't good enough or talented enough to get it done.

Young
12-30-2008, 10:34 PM
Bayless was a lot of hope coming into his freshman year. He was thought to be a top 5 pick but obviously his stock fell for whatever reason.

I was excited when he did fall to us and pissed when we traded him. However once taking a step back and looking at the trade I was ok with it and think it was a good deal for us.

Who knows how good Bayless or Rush will be? I think that Bayless can be a big time scorer in this league and play the point but the question is can he do that for a top 5 team? Time will tell. Rush can a real good player, someone compared him to Eddie Jones and I like that. If both reach their potential I don't think that it's a bad deal for either side it's just a matter of what your team needs/wants.

Had Bayless not been projected to be a top 5 talent we wouldn't be having this conversation. Maybe the media just over hyped Bayless.

I like Jack and McRoberts too. Jack isn't the point guard of the future. He isn't perfect. He has his faults just like all backups do. But I think people are forgeting just how bad the point guard situation was last year. Maybe you forgot watching the Pacer's point guards from last year but I think Jack is a pretty big upgrade over what we had. With that said I still like Travis Diener and I think he can give us good minutes, just shouldn't be one of our top point guards. Perfect third stringer though.

As of late I really like what McRoberts has shown. He is a keeper. Before I thought of him as a scrub and not worth keeping around long but the way he has played when given time he is a keeper to me. Much better player than Ike Diogu has shown to be thus far.

It's still early to tell how the two rookies will turn out but as of now it doesn't look like a bad deal for the Pacers.

BillS
12-30-2008, 11:06 PM
It's very difficult to judge at this point. If a Bayless/Ike for Jack/Rush/McBob trade were offered today, I would still take it.

I hope you mean "if WE had Bayless/Ike and Portland had Jack/Rush/McBob then you'd still take the trade" ...

Shade
12-30-2008, 11:06 PM
Still too early to judge. I expect 2-3 years before Bayless shows us what he can do.

YoSoyIndy
12-31-2008, 08:55 AM
Still too early to judge. I expect 2-3 years before Bayless shows us what he can do.


I disagree. The only time you can judge is right when it happened. Anyone can judge it three years later when it's been quantified by stats and records. Trades should only be judged on what management knew at the time and what they were basing it on.

Shade
12-31-2008, 09:18 AM
I disagree. The only time you can judge is right when it happened. Anyone can judge it three years later when it's been quantified by stats and records. Trades should only be judged on what management knew at the time and what they were basing it on.

So then, the DD for JO trade was a bad deal for us? :hmm: DD was the better player at the time.

MillerTime
12-31-2008, 10:01 AM
So then, the DD for JO trade was a bad deal for us? :hmm: DD was the better player at the time.

Great point. Same with Dirk for Tractor Trailor

Shade
12-31-2008, 11:33 AM
GMs sometimes make decisions for the long term while sacrificing the short term.

YoSoyIndy
12-31-2008, 11:44 AM
So then, the DD for JO trade was a bad deal for us? :hmm: DD was the better player at the time.

I just typed a reply but it didn't post correctly, so here goes again.

I didn't think it was a bad trade at the time. We can obviously say it turned out better for us over time as JO turned into a superstar and a top Pacers player of all time.

At the time of the trade, Dale was leaving his prime and JO had been sitting on the bench because Dunleavy Sr didn't like him and JO had better players ahead of him at his position.

By giving it several years to judge the trade, you're basically saying, "If Rush and Jack are better than Bayless, then it was worth it. If Bayless turns into a superstar, then the trade was a bust." Any kid can figure that out. The tough part is judging a decision on the information that was known at the time.

For example, if the Pacers knew (or should have known) that Bender's knees were what they are, then they made a bad call. If doctors and/or training staff had no reason to believe that Bender didn't have any real knees, then you can't hold that against Donnie Walsh years later.

This is a basic logical fallacy -- outcome bias.

Unclebuck
12-31-2008, 11:48 AM
Yeah, too early to draw any conclusions. Except to say, so far so good. But in three years who knows

Shade
12-31-2008, 11:49 AM
You all know how I feel about Bayless and the trade, so I reserve the right to say "I told you so" if it doesn't pan out for us. ;)

Peck
12-31-2008, 12:16 PM
So then, the DD for JO trade was a bad deal for us? :hmm: DD was the better player at the time.

I'll say it. Yes, it was a bad deal for us.:D

Dr. Goldfoot
12-31-2008, 01:51 PM
I agree with Peck and will go one further by saying the AD for JB trade was the snowball in what has become an avalanche of poor decisions by this franchise. I'm aware that both AD & DD expressed desires to be traded etc...This team has made bad coaching choices. I say that not necessarily meaning the coaches were bad but probably not the right guys at the right time. For example Carlisle should have been the choice after Bird not Zeke. But Brown should have replaced Thomas not Carlisle. There have been drafting problems, trade problems, free agent snafu's, bad contract extentions, questionable public comments etc...They've been Donnie's, Larry's, Simon's, Morway's etc...Then the coaching staffs have made their share of poor decisions when it comes to discipline, rotations, favoritism, public comments(or lack thereof). Of course the players haven't lived up to expectations, which most of the time were conservative. Nobody expected Jamaal to be a perennial all-star or Jackson to fill the shoes of Reggie etc..but they could have at least been men.

Dr. Goldfoot
12-31-2008, 02:03 PM
The Portland trade looked bad at first. Now I'm just undecided. Jack isn't the long term solution to backup PG. We'll have to see how Rush & Bayless pan out, so far Rush has a tremendous advantage. Of course he's getting minutes on one of the worst teams in the NBA and I'm pretty sure Bayless would be seeing the court for the Pacers too.

YoSoyIndy
12-31-2008, 03:06 PM
I agree with Peck and will go one further by saying the AD for JB trade was the snowball in what has become an avalanche of poor decisions by this franchise..

So you thought it was a bad trade at the time? I don't see how. We took depth and traded it for fair market value -- that's how teams

There's no way you were down on the trade on the last game of the regular season when Bender went up for that alley oop dunk. The crowd couldn't believe the play even though he missed it. So many fans in my section made comments about Bender being the real deal.

To me, it gets old hearing people bash moves after unknown issues come out. Like I said, if the team had no way of knowing about Bender's knees, then you can't hold them accountable for that.

Dr. Goldfoot
12-31-2008, 03:11 PM
I was 23 and remember the trade announcement during the draft. Hated it. Hated it even more when Bender did nothing to get us to the finals and AD could have been a tremendous help during that series against Shaq. That trade marked the onset of the core of that team being dismantled.

YoSoyIndy
12-31-2008, 03:27 PM
I was 23 and remember the trade announcement during the draft. Hated it. Hated it even more when Bender did nothing to get us to the finals and AD could have been a tremendous help during that series against Shaq. That trade marked the onset of the core of that team being dismantled.

Come on -- Antonio was not a Shaq stopper and wouldn't have changed the outcome. No one could defend Shaq then.

How could you have expected an 18-19 year old rookie to help a team of veterans go to the Finals? Why would you expect that?

Anthem
12-31-2008, 05:20 PM
If Antonio was still playing, we wouldn't have made it past the Knicks to get into the finals. No way AD duplicates Croshere's performance.

ChicagoJ
12-31-2008, 05:48 PM
The Portland trade looked bad at first. Now I'm just undecided. Jack isn't the long term solution to backup PG. We'll have to see how Rush & Bayless pan out, so far Rush has a tremendous advantage. Of course he's getting minutes on one of the worst teams in the NBA and I'm pretty sure Bayless would be seeing the court for the Pacers too.

I think Jack is more likely to be the long-term solution at backup PG than Ford at starting PG.

:twocents:

I frankly thought Brandon Rush should have been a top-10 pick. Trading down to get him + Jack is okay with me.

Los Angeles
12-31-2008, 06:06 PM
The only reasonable argument I've heard is imawhat's statement that you don't give away a star for "good players".

But this philosophy has two very big flaws:

1) None of us are time travelers. We can't take for granted that Bayless is a star in the making. We don't know anything about him really other than that he'll be riding pine for some time to come and he has NBA promise. I can only imagine the hurling of insults on PD about how we wasted a pick on a guy that isn't producing in two years. Keep in mind, I'm a very poor judge of college talent in that I don't follow the college game. Bobby Knight cured me of that permanently. I will never go back.

2) This isn't fantasy league. This is real life. You don't combine stats and think it translates into wins. You need to consider culture, personality, maturity, social dynamics, intelligence, knowledge, athleticism, skill, work ethic, and general team zeitgeist. Mix in how things will change in the future and how your move will also alter present circumstances. Look at the Clippers and Philly. This is not fantasy basketball. There are only so many points and opportunities to go around, and building a team with stats and "talent" as your only guide can seriously backfire. Now, I don't want this to go super-crazy off topic, but look at the talent here: Artest, ONeal, Jackson, Tinsley. That's one heck of a lot of basketball "talent". Goodness gracious talent is not the only answer.

One side note on the term itself: I never really liked the word "talent". The word is obtuse and overly simple. Talent is unquantifiable, it is a ghost, it is a term used when you lack the vocabulary to truly describe in detail a person's qualities and assets. teh meaning of the word is constantly shifting. One person might use it to describe a person's untrained ability, while another might use it as an umbrella term that covers the total package. So let's not use the term too much.

- - - - -

So, all that said, I'm lukewarm about the trade. I love Rush and McRoberts seems fine, but it only took watching Jack for a couple of games before I was ready to ship him off for a future second rounder. But the trade made sense for many reasons, not the least of which is it was founded on a team philosophy that I can endorse: we want good hearted, currently capable ball players here and we have a chance to turn Ike and a couple of slots difference in the draft into THREE players that all conform to those standards.

In the end, I believe that we got back more than we gave up, so the deal was a good one in my book.

- - - - -

PS - this doesn't even consider one important aspect: I believe the deal was set in stone before Bayless fell in the draft, and renegotiating a deal after you've shaken hands on it is unforgivable in this world. Yes, Bayless fell to a pick we had already promised elsewhere. Not much you can do about it.

Quis
12-31-2008, 06:18 PM
Getting a top-5 pick in a strong draft out of Antonio Davis is a hell of a deal. The problem was who we used the pick on and the injuries which ruined his career.

count55
12-31-2008, 06:20 PM
The only reasonable argument I've heard is imawhat's statement that you don't give away a star for "good players".

But this philosophy has two very big flaws:

1) None of us are time travelers. We can't take for granted that Bayless is a star in the making. We don't know anything about him really other than that he'll be riding pine for some time to come and he has NBA promise. I can only imagine the hurling of insults on PD about how we wasted a pick on a guy that isn't producing in two years. Keep in mind, I'm a very poor judge of college talent in that I don't follow the college game. Bobby Knight cured me of that permanently. I will never go back.

2) This isn't fantasy league. This is real life. You don't combine stats and think it translates into wins. You need to consider culture, personality, maturity, social dynamics, intelligence, knowledge, athleticism, skill, work ethic, and general team zeitgeist. Mix in how things will change in the future and how your move will also alter present circumstances. Look at the Clippers and Philly. This is not fantasy basketball. There are only so many points and opportunities to go around, and building a team with stats and "talent" as your only guide can seriously backfire. Now, I don't want this to go super-crazy off topic, but look at the talent here: Artest, ONeal, Jackson, Tinsley. That's one heck of a lot of basketball "talent". Goodness gracious talent is not the only answer.

One side note on the term itself: I never really liked the word "talent". The word is obtuse and overly simple. Talent is unquantifiable, it is a ghost, it is a term used when you lack the vocabulary to truly describe in detail a person's qualities and assets. teh meaning of the word is constantly shifting. One person might use it to describe a person's untrained ability, while another might use it as an umbrella term that covers the total package. So let's not use the term too much.

- - - - -

So, all that said, I'm lukewarm about the trade. I love Rush and McRoberts seems fine, but it only took watching Jack for a couple of games before I was ready to ship him off for a future second rounder. But the trade made sense for many reasons, not the least of which is it was founded on a team philosophy that I can endorse: we want good hearted, currently capable ball players here and we have a chance to turn Ike and a couple of slots difference in the draft into THREE players that all conform to those standards.

In the end, I believe that we got back more than we gave up, so the deal was a good one in my book.

- - - - -

PS - this doesn't even consider one important aspect: I believe the deal was set in stone before Bayless fell in the draft, and renegotiating a deal after you've shaken hands on it is unforgivable in this world. Yes, Bayless fell to a pick we had already promised elsewhere. Not much you can do about it.

I'm fine with Jack, we're just using him too much. His disposition, like Haywoode's before him, is to try to do something, to make something happen. As a result, he makes a lot of mistakes. Unfortunately, he may be the only player on the team that is that assertive, which is a problem.

Regarding the bolded, I would bet money that both Portand and Indiana knew, or at least strongly suspected that Bayless would be there. There were rumbles a day or two before the draft that he could fall that far. I think Rush was the guy Bird wanted, and, had the deal not gone through, we probably would've take Rush over Bayless.

I'm not saying that's right, wrong, or indifferent, I'm just saying that's my take on the situation.

I generally agree with the rest of your post (except for the Jack part).

ChicagoJ
12-31-2008, 06:25 PM
I think Rush was the guy Bird wanted, and, had the deal not gone through, we probably would've take Rush over Bayless.

I think so, too. And I would have been okay with that. Having a superstar without being surrounded by "solid pro's" doesn't get you very far either. At this point in time, I did not trust our management's ability to even identify "solid pro's." To me, Rush, Hibbert, and Jack all qualify. They won't be your #1 option, but they can support one. And Granger just might be that #1 option anyway. I think we've seen that if Option #1A and #1B are both trying to wrestle the ball away from Legit Option #1 that it doesn't work out too well...

Naptown_Seth
01-01-2009, 06:03 AM
People were complaining that Bayless was a SG trapped in a PG's body but aren't we using Jack as a 2 quite a bit? I like Rush and McRoberts a lot, but who knows how Bayless is going to pan out. I could live with the trade either way, what's done is done.
Yes, but as Anthem pointed out it's not like we like it or that it's working. After Tinsley we were looking to get a less selfish PG to get other players involved rather than taking over. Bayless is a take-over type.

And for all the "they have so much depth" crap, give me a break. This draft class has dudes getting in all over the place and on other good teams. If freaking Courtney Lee can get run for Orlando (and Lee was a guy I loved for an early 2nd round pick) and George Hill can log big minutes for the Spurs, then a "top 4 that slipped to 11" start PG can get some time with Portland.

The dude has 85 minutes in so far, he's shot 28% and has an A/TO of 0.71.

And he's "stuck" behind Steve Blake, who apart from his strong 3pt shot this year has shown nothing other than to be serviceable when paired with talent like Roy and Aldridge, and behind Sergio Rodriguez who has done zilch in his first 2 years to demand you set aside Bayless to keep developing Sergio.

Rudy getting PT ahead of him I get, but if Bayless is a STAR talent in the making then he plays NOW. Maybe he's not AI or DWade, but let's say that he's just a notch below that based on the "you don't trade star talent for just 2 servicable guys" view. There is no way you don't immediately play a guy of that talent, of Tony Parker talent let's say.

And even more so after the guy tore up summer ball.


It's got nothing to do with Portland being good. Bayless was ranked prior to tryouts as a top 5 pick which means top-end AS expectations. Portland does not have an AS PG on their roster already, which means that Bayless would come in and play off the bench often, his talent would shine through and soon he'd be starting. By year 3 he'd be in the hunt for an AS spot.

That's how it works. He's not a HS project. This is a guy that should at least expect to come out and get Rip Hamilton's first year PT, or Billups, or Parker (Parker started nearly every game while Terry Porter came off the bench).

Think about this, Jermaine O'Neal WAS a HS project and was on a team with tons of front line depth. He was also a 17th pick. He had every reason in the world not to play and often didn't get in games. Bayless is on pace to not even come close to getting as many minutes as JO did in any of his 4 seasons in Portland.

SEAN SINGLETARY HAD MORE MINUTES IN PHOENIX than Bayless has gotten so far. Of course the Suns don't have much depth at guard. ;) Oh, and Goran Dragic also has more minutes for PHX too.

Bayless is 44th in PT so far this year. Only 9 rookies have played less minutes. Isn't it odd that teams like SA, PHX, CLE and UTH can give series run to rookies buy Portland is just swamped with depth holding Bayless down? Utah's front line is so thin that they have to give Koufos big minutes?

Remember how Piston fans kept defending the Darko pick and put aside his low PT on the coaches or part of the development plan rather than admitting the pick was a huge blunder? Unless something really drastic happens in Portland it's going to start looking very similar.


I don't know why Bayless fell in the draft or why Portland sees no reason to play him virtually at all at this point, not even in meaningless blowout time just to feel out his game and to get his feet wet, but to me their actions speak volumes about some real issue. It's much more than just a numbers game and not enough time to go around to get your future AS PG in the game.