PDA

View Full Version : Does Dunleavy have a long term role for this Pacers squad?



Trader Joe
12-31-2008, 02:59 AM
For the purposes of this thread, please assume that Dun returns at some point this season and posts solid numbers similar to what he had last year, and that his knee gives us no further problems.

In essence this could be a simple yes or no answer, but I want to know a little more, if you answer yes please also tell me...
Would he start or come off the bench?
What do we do with Brandon Rush?
What do we do with Marquis Daniels?

If you answer no please tell me...
What do you do with Dunleavy?

For some clarification, my definition of long term is do you believe Dunleavy will be on the Pacers roster come the start of the 2010-2011 season? I'm answering no for now, but I want to see what everyone has to say on this.

CableKC
12-31-2008, 03:27 AM
For this season:

Would he start or come off the bench? From the 1st QTR to the 3rd, he should be the 6th Man being the 1st Player to come off the bench. But in the 4th QTR ...he should be one of the finishers.
What do we do with Brandon Rush? He should get spot minutes behind Marquis/Granger/Dunleavy/Jack in the SG/SF rotation.
What do we do with Marquis Daniels? He should start ahead of Dunleavy but overall should get as many ( or even slightly less ) then he does where Dunleavy will do the same thing that Ginobili does for the Spurs.

For next season:

Would he start or come off the bench? Depending on whether BRush is up to the Starting spot or not where he would fill the role that Marquis fills now ( be the GF that defends the best scorer on the opposing team ), I think that Dunleavy should still fill the 6th Man role but finish the game.
What do we do with Brandon Rush? Hopefully, he will take the minutes that Marquis will vacate.
What do we do with Marquis Daniels? Depending on whether the Pacers can acquire that elite Perimeter defender ( Ariza ) or BRush is ready to fill the role that Marquis currently plays when he is on the floor with Granger ( the guy that defends the opposing Teams best wing scorer ), I suspect that his Team Option won't be picked up. But if there isn't a player out there that can help defend the perimeter AND BRush isn't ready, then I can see a small chance that Marquis' Team Option will be picked up....assuming that he isn't traded to some Half-Court team like the Spurs or the Bobcats before the trade deadline.

d_c
12-31-2008, 04:04 AM
But if there isn't a player out there that can help defend the perimeter AND BRush isn't ready, then I can see a small chance that Marquis' Team Option will be picked up....assuming that he isn't traded to some Half-Court team like the Spurs or the Bobcats before the trade deadline.

There's almost zero chance the Pacers pick up Daniels' option for $7M. They'll decline the option and probably offer him something like a 2 year, $6-7M deal. He'll most likely end up somewhere else.

The Pacers are better off giving all or part of the MLE to someone else than paying Daniels $7M.

Doddage
12-31-2008, 05:15 AM
There's almost zero chance the Pacers pick up Daniels' option for $7M. They'll decline the option and probably offer him something like a 2 year, $6-7M deal. He'll most likely end up somewhere else.

The Pacers are better off giving all or part of the MLE to someone else than paying Daniels $7M.
I wouldn't say zero chance. If we were to pick his option up, we'd have a bargaining chip for those teams that want expiring deals for 2010.

D-BONE
12-31-2008, 07:45 AM
If you assume Dunleavy returns and is effective and that Rush will be a solid player, I don't see what purpose there is having those two, Granger, Quis, and maybe even Jack, although hopefully at some point he'll be doing PG duty only.

So I'd assume Quis is gone and we're attempting to fill his spot with and acquisition of greater need (PF? Perimeter defender?, etc.)

Also think Cable KC's idea of Dunleavy as a closing-style sixth man is probably his ideal role. However, whether he'd start or not next year minus Quis would depend on Rush's development.

Of course, I want to see MDJ back with our guys to gauge where he's at physically and how he fits. I also would not rule out moving him at some point if it's for an important piece and, obviously, assuming he get's back up to "tradeable" performance.

LG33
12-31-2008, 10:12 AM
I'm not trading Marquis Daniels unless he really starts trailing off this season. The guy has really stepped up his game - or maybe it's his better health and smarter use as a SG or SF as opposed to a PG.

duke dynamite
12-31-2008, 10:20 AM
I'm not trading Marquis Daniels unless he really starts trailing off this season. The guy has really stepped up his game - or maybe it's his better health and smarter use as a SG or SF as opposed to a PG.
Agreed.

And yes, talking with Kevin Lee last night, he as well as I have no arguement that he is part of this teams future. He is here to stay.

MillerTime
12-31-2008, 11:05 AM
Agreed.

And yes, talking with Kevin Lee last night, he as well as I have no arguement that he is part of this teams future. He is here to stay.

Thats good to here. So with Granger and Quis part of Pacers long term future, whats going to happen to Dunleavy and Rush? They they also part of Pacers long term future? Thats 4 quality swingmen. I would hate to see 2 of them on the bench (especially with that kind of talent)

kester99
12-31-2008, 11:05 AM
Dunleavy starts. He was our 2nd leading scorer, and the difference between his and Danny's averages were minimal. Daniels 6th man. Rush...pretty much the same as we've been doing. We sub two to three guys usually when the first platoon gets a break. Daniels, Rush and a big off the bench. Rush may turn into a starter, but he's sure not there yet.

I don't see a thing wrong with being 2 to three deep at every position. I want 15 quality players under contract.

Money and caps and player availability? Different, more complicated, story there. Just saying what I'd like.

ChicagoJ
12-31-2008, 11:18 AM
Yes. Dunleavy will make a great sixth man.

MillerTime
12-31-2008, 11:18 AM
Dunleavy starts. He was our 2nd leading scorer, and the difference between his and Danny's averages were minimal. Daniels 6th man. Rush...pretty much the same as we've been doing. We sub two to three guys usually when the first platoon gets a break. Daniels, Rush and a big off the bench. Rush may turn into a starter, but he's sure not there yet.

I don't see a thing wrong with being 2 to three deep at every position. I want 15 quality players under contract.

Money and caps and player availability? Different, more complicated, story there. Just saying what I'd like.

What Im afraid of happening is when Dunleavy returns, we're going to have Granger defending the opposing teams best offensive player, which would most likely effect Granger's offensive preformance. Right now, Daniels guards the opposing teams best offensive player and this lets Granger have more energy for the offensive end

duke dynamite
12-31-2008, 12:25 PM
Thats good to here. So with Granger and Quis part of Pacers long term future, whats going to happen to Dunleavy and Rush? They they also part of Pacers long term future? Thats 4 quality swingmen. I would hate to see 2 of them on the bench (especially with that kind of talent)

Kevin (Lee) had a great point last night (during his Call-In Show). He said that when you draft someone in the first round you draft with hopes that particular player would work for a starting position. I agree with that to the extent of other factors could hinder that possibility.

Brandon is in a unique situation here, where when healthy, our starting "shooting guard" is a force to be reconed with.

I would think that if were to Mike continue to struggle on defense, when the game is mainly going to be in the hands of the opposing team, Rush will play a pivotal role in stopping the ball, and breaking momentum. Thus, putting a rested Dunleavy back in the game so maybe he could help with a lot of the on-court decision making late and avoiding bad plays and turnovers.

Don't expect Rush to miss out on a lot. Jim O'Brien as we all know is very picky with his rotations, and he is only going to play the guys who are playing good consistent games.

Shade
12-31-2008, 12:50 PM
Dun's role will depend strictly on how things go once he's back. If we're a signifncantly better team with him on the floor, and there's no fear of this being a long-term injury, then we'll find a place for him.

Hicks
12-31-2008, 01:23 PM
I voted no, but I suppose if he's willing to be a great bench asset, he very well could be. Hell, if he's perfectly willing to accept it, then he SHOULD be.

Dr. Awesome
12-31-2008, 02:10 PM
Honestly, the best thing to do would be get Mike back, and see if he can get his value up from being injured. If he can come back playing like he was last year, then we should trade him without hesitation for pieces that will help our future.

That being said, hes going to be an Indiana Pacer forever. Larry Bird is obsessed with tall white wings. He obviously loves Dunleavy as seen by his comments about Dunleavy being our best player. Birds decision here could be crucial to the franchise. If Bird is going to be the GM to look at his favorite players and not whats best for the team, then we will be a fringe playoff team forever.

I voted no just because I feel its the most logical thing for our team. I see some people saying if Dunleavy could play a role off the bench then we should keep him, which I kinda agree with and kinda don't. I agree that Dunleavy would be a perfect guy off the bench, a spark, a leader, and so on. However, he is making way too much money over the next 3 years to simply be a bench player. I say we trade Dunleavy to build around the future.

ChicagoJ
12-31-2008, 02:27 PM
I voted no, but I suppose if he's willing to be a great bench asset, he very well could be. Hell, if he's perfectly willing to accept it, then he SHOULD be.

Yeah, I really like him, but not over Rush, long term, at SG.

I like Granger a bit more at SF than Dunleavy.

Really, what I want is to get Dunleavy again later in his career in the Brent Barry/ Chris Mullin role. It too bad we didn't get Mullin a year or two earlier, as his decline was already underway for his time with the Pacers.

Anthem
12-31-2008, 03:36 PM
Honestly, the best thing to do would be get Mike back, and see if he can get his value up from being injured.
Fine by me. I was on that bandwagon this past summer.

d_c
12-31-2008, 05:38 PM
I wouldn't say zero chance. If we were to pick his option up, we'd have a bargaining chip for those teams that want expiring deals for 2010.

I don't see the Simons as the type of owners to keep a player around at $7M just for the CHANCE to trade him. If they were Mark Cuban, Paul Allen or the Knicks, then maybe....

pacergod2
12-31-2008, 05:53 PM
Here is what I would love to see happen. We trade Dunleavy either at the deadline or this summer. We exercise the option on Marquis' contract. That leaves us having not used our MLE (I think that's why we extended Foster last summer). This leaves us more flexibility in signing players next year in free agency. I think if we hold onto Daniels after next year he would be more of a sixth man. I think you plan your whole outlook around Rush. Make sure Rush is our sixth man next year, and then he can move into a full-fledged starter in year three.

I think we trade Dun this summer for something like an expiring and a draft pick or a smaller two year deal and a young promising player.

I think Rasho we can get rid of at this trade deadline. We possibly trade Daniels at next years deadline, only because we could get a lot for him, being as good as he is and an expiring before the Summer of 2010.

I really would love to see Dunleavy as a veteran presence on this team long term but I think he would be more valuable to the future of this franchise as trade bait.

Anthem
12-31-2008, 06:19 PM
Here is what I would love to see happen. We trade Dunleavy either at the deadline or this summer.
There's no way in Hades a team takes Dun at the deadline. Heck, we'd be lucky to have him playing by then! He certainly won't have played enough for a team to risk picking him (and his 3 year salary) up for anything worthwhile, and we're not going to trade the guy for junk.

This leaves us more flexibility in signing players next year in free agency.[/quote]
No matter what we do, the only way we sign a free agent is with the MLE. That's the reality of our salary cap situation.


I think we trade Dun this summer for something like an expiring and a draft pick or a smaller two year deal and a young promising player.
Could be. But that wouldn't help us sign anybody in 2009.


I think Rasho we can get rid of at this trade deadline.
Why would we want to get rid of Rasho? The only way we move him is if we're getting value back.

NashvilleKat
12-31-2008, 11:54 PM
We're losing close games because we don't have another reliable sharp-shooter on the floor to go with Granger. That shooter is Dunleavy. He ain't going anywhere! Remember last year, he scored 35 points 6 times...he averaged 20-pts per game. Daniels is averaging 15 right now. When Dunleavy gets back he'll average 20 with Daniels coming off the bench to score 10. 30 points is twice as much as the 15 we're getting now with Daniels starting....do the math!! Rush and Daniels will be coming off the bench next year, period. The only exception is when we go to the smaller lineup with Granger moving to PF, with Dun at SF, and Rush/Daniels sharing 2-guard.

Trader Joe
01-01-2009, 12:11 AM
We're losing close games because we don't have another reliable sharp-shooter on the floor to go with Granger. That shooter is Dunleavy. He ain't going anywhere! Remember last year, he scored 35 points 6 times...he averaged 20-pts per game. Daniels is averaging 15 right now. When Dunleavy gets back he'll average 20 with Daniels coming off the bench to score 10. 30 points is twice as much as the 15 we're getting now with Daniels starting....do the math!! Rush and Daniels will be coming off the bench next year, period. The only exception is when we go to the smaller lineup with Granger moving to PF, with Dun at SF, and Rush/Daniels sharing 2-guard.

Can I get a pass to this perfect world you live in?

BlueNGold
01-01-2009, 11:52 AM
Yes, his role is as a 6th man on a contender. He might even be good enough to start on a contender if we had a lot of other very good pieces that fit together well.

I hope he retires a Pacer, but I hope he does not remain one of our best players.

NashvilleKat
01-01-2009, 12:10 PM
Can I get a pass to this perfect world you live in?
Sure..I'll give you a pass, as long as you're not a loser or whiner.