PDA

View Full Version : SHOULD THE PACERS DRAFT BEST AVAILABLE OR NEED (PF)



vnzla81
01-20-2009, 12:26 PM
I been reading post and comments from the Members of Pacers Digest and I still trying to figure out everybody's point of view regarding the pacers in the draft. I know that every member feel that we need a PF, I also feel the same way, but what if the Pacers have a chance in drafting a good PG or Guard?
they still have another draft picks to get a PF.
Should they resign Jack? or maybe draft a PG that can be cheaper and maybe better in the future? maybe a bigger PG in the likes of Rondo or Hill, a PG that can play defense, stay healthy and still score. Is TJ the PG of the future? I don't think either one of the PG the pacers have are the ones for the future. What if the pacers draft a guy like Ricky Rubio, Stephen Curry or Jrue Holiday? like I said before they can still get a PF in the second round with the draft picks they have. What should the pacers do?

Raoul Duke
01-20-2009, 12:29 PM
Best available definitely. I'm not too impressed by anyone in this draft. A lot of wings which we dont really need.

travmil
01-20-2009, 12:30 PM
I've always felt that you should draft the best available player. I can see the arguments either way though.

Unclebuck
01-20-2009, 12:31 PM
Always, always always the best player available

OakMoses
01-20-2009, 12:35 PM
It's much more complicated than an either/or type of situation. If there are several players that you have rated equally, then you can pick on need. If there is one player that you feel is clearly the best player on the board, you have to draft him even if he's duplicates your best player.

Bball
01-20-2009, 12:36 PM
It depends on just how good the 'best available player' is and how good you project him to be. ...And of course, what you already have at that position. If you think he's the next Michael Jordan then you have to take him and be ready retool your lineup accordingly... even if it means a short term setback.

If you think he's the next Danny Granger (IOW: A player we already have) then you have to consider trading the pick to get what you need. Maybe you get a veteran that you need.... maybe you trade down AND get a veteran. Or worst case, you take the best available player at your position of need. Ideally, you don't pick a player higher than their slot though. There should be some wheeling and dealing available so you don't have to do that. Of course several players will be close so I'm not saying it will matter much if the guy goes 11th or 16th. I'm saying you don't want to pick a 20 at 5 or anything like that. If you're about to do that, you should be able to find a deal.

Unclebuck
01-20-2009, 12:44 PM
It's much more complicated than an either/or type of situation. If there are several players that you have rated equally, then you can pick on need. If there is one player that you feel is clearly the best player on the board, you have to draft him even if he's duplicates your best player.

In theory what you are saying has merit - but whenever you look back 3 or 4 years - you find that those players that were rated equally at the time of the draft are no where near being rated equally as 4 year vets.

So it is the job of the GM, scouting staff to project that Granger is going to be much better than Joey Graham - even though they were rated equally 4 years ago.

So the idea that well these two guys are rated equally - we can't go wrong with either - is a fool hearted way to draft.

For example - the problem with the Hawks draft (when they passed on Paul and Williams) wasn't that they "passed on a need" at point it was that they were negligent in not knowing that Paul and Williams were going to be star players.

Those that make the draft decisions should IMO not even know who is on the team they are drafting for - they should draft the best player.

Speed
01-20-2009, 12:46 PM
I think needs are in this order, PF, PG, defensive stopper at any position. So if you think a small forward and a player at one of those spots are close in how you have them graded, I would draft for need. Otherwise, best available.

It's a tricky draft to look at it early on. If you get a top 5 pick do you take a Ricky Rubio who you know isn't probably ever going to be a good defender? Thabeet, a potentially one dimensional shot blocker? I mean it's so early, but this sure seems like a gotcha draft where you could really come up empty. It just really sucks the one year you can get a pick in the top ten and it looks like you may not get a difference maker.

vnzla81
01-20-2009, 01:09 PM
I would say draft best available 1st and draft need later. I would like for them to get Stephen Curry not resign Jack and make Curry the second point guard in the team.
I forgot to ad in the thread another question. Should the pacers resign Jack and Marquis? are they in the pacers future plans?

Erik
01-20-2009, 01:15 PM
Take the best available and if you're overstocked at that position, make a trade.

Anthem
01-20-2009, 01:55 PM
Best available non-SF.

Position of need? Seriously? We need help at every position.

Quis
01-20-2009, 02:18 PM
Draft the best mediocre "NBA ready" player available.

Spirit
01-20-2009, 02:26 PM
It's a tricky draft to look at it early on. If you get a top 5 pick do you take a Ricky Rubio who you know isn't probably ever going to be a good defender?
Why do people keep saying this? Rubio is a good/average defender, even on the NBA level, he should be atleast average.

Spirit
01-20-2009, 02:28 PM
Best available non-SF.

Position of need? Seriously? We need help at every position.
I'm in belief that any SF should be able to turn into a SG, unless it's someone like Rashard Lewis or Hedo Turkoglu that are oversized at SF (6'10 or 6'11).

Major Cold
01-20-2009, 02:32 PM
You draft by talent top 5 and by need after that.
My order
1. Blake
2. Monroe
3. Teague
4. Jordan Hill

After that you can go by need.

Major Cold
01-20-2009, 02:36 PM
It is about time for a Overseas bust in the top 5.

croz24
01-20-2009, 02:39 PM
for where we will most likely be drafting (late lotto), give me patrick patterson or demar derozan

duke dynamite
01-20-2009, 02:45 PM
Best available based on our record.

vnzla81
01-20-2009, 02:48 PM
for where we will most likely be drafting (late lotto), give me patrick patterson or demar derozan

They are saying the same thing about Demar that they said about OJ mayo last year. I would take this guy, he can maybe be the second best after Danny

Jonathan
01-20-2009, 03:30 PM
NBA DRAFT NET
Has the Pacers taking Chase Budinger :laugh:

Justin Tyme
01-20-2009, 03:56 PM
I'm in belief that any SF should be able to turn into a SG




:eek: If a SF has a hard time guarding and playing SF's, just how are they going to against an SG. One size doesn't fit all.

Will Galen
01-20-2009, 04:02 PM
I'm an advocate of what several NBA teams are doing. What they do instead of ranking players 1 though 100 is they rank players by tiers.

Then on draft day they always choose a player from the highest tier available. If there's one or more players available in that tier, then they choose by need.

For example, if they dumped the following NBA players in a draft the tier system would look something like this.

1ST TIER
Kobe
Labron

2ND TIER
Garnett
Duncan
Wade
Howard
Paul

3RD TIER
Pierce
Bosh
Etc.

Now say the Pacers had the 5th pick, who would they take? Kobe, Labron, Garnett, and Duncan have already been picked.

So they are left with Wade, Paul, and Howard in the 2nd tier, or reaching down to the 3rd tier. What you never do is reach down when you have an available player in a tier above. So they would have the choice of Wade, Paul or Howard, and now they would go for need.

What do the Pacers really need? Well if you think post player, they go for Howard. If you think point guard, they go for Paul.

Chad Ford wrote a very good article on the tier system and you can find it here.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draft2008/insider/columns/story?columnist=ford_chad&page=Tiers-080619

Hicks
01-20-2009, 04:09 PM
I'd go for Howard no matter what.

Don't know who this "Labron" is. :-p LeBron is a nice player, though. :D

Will Galen
01-20-2009, 04:28 PM
I'd go for Howard no matter what.

Don't know who this "Labron" is. :-p LeBron is a nice player, though. :D

Oh, they are the same guy! Keep this quiet, but what I was told is Lebron was really a lab experiment by the government trying to make better soldiers. His lab name was Ron, and he was know as LabRon.

His name on his birth certificate was a mistake made by the French guy filling it out. So now's he's Lebron.

So see, I didn't really misspell his name.

Justin Tyme
01-20-2009, 05:00 PM
I'm an advocate of what several NBA teams are doing. What they do instead of ranking players 1 though 100 is they rank players by tiers.

Then on draft day they always choose a player from the highest tier available. If there's one or more players available in that tier, then they choose by need.

For example, if they dumped the following NBA players in a draft the tier system would look something like this.

1ST TIER
Kobe
Labron

2ND TIER
Garnett
Duncan
Wade
Howard
Paul

3RD TIER
Pierce
Bosh
Etc.

Now say the Pacers had the 5th pick, who would they take? Kobe, Labron, Garnett, and Duncan have already been picked.

So they are left with Wade, Paul, and Howard in the 2nd tier, or reaching down to the 3rd tier. What you never do is reach down when you have an available player in a tier above. So they would have the choice of Wade, Paul or Howard, and now they would go for need.

What do the Pacers really need? Well if you think post player, they go for Howard. If you think point guard, they go for Paul.

Chad Ford wrote a very good article on the tier system and you can find it here.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draft2008/insider/columns/story?columnist=ford_chad&page=Tiers-080619


That's really an interesting concept/system. Thanx for posting it.

QuickRelease
01-20-2009, 05:07 PM
I think it's a bad idea to head into the draft trying to force-feed a 'need' pick. Go with the best player available.

mildlysane
01-20-2009, 05:16 PM
I'm an advocate of what several NBA teams are doing. What they do instead of ranking players 1 though 100 is they rank players by tiers.

Then on draft day they always choose a player from the highest tier available. If there's one or more players available in that tier, then they choose by need.

For example, if they dumped the following NBA players in a draft the tier system would look something like this.

1ST TIER
Kobe
Labron

2ND TIER
Garnett
Duncan
Wade
Howard
Paul

3RD TIER
Pierce
Bosh
Etc.

Now say the Pacers had the 5th pick, who would they take? Kobe, Labron, Garnett, and Duncan have already been picked.

So they are left with Wade, Paul, and Howard in the 2nd tier, or reaching down to the 3rd tier. What you never do is reach down when you have an available player in a tier above. So they would have the choice of Wade, Paul or Howard, and now they would go for need.

What do the Pacers really need? Well if you think post player, they go for Howard. If you think point guard, they go for Paul.

Chad Ford wrote a very good article on the tier system and you can find it here.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draft2008/insider/columns/story?columnist=ford_chad&page=Tiers-080619

Great post!

MillerTime
01-20-2009, 05:29 PM
You should aways draft the best player available. We have done this before. We have drafted players in positions that we dont need, prime example is Granger. When we drafted Granger we already had Jax and Artest..and look how well Granger turned out for us

Its always best to draft the best player possible, and if you dont need that player, you can trade tham away after for a player that you need and more

Naptown_Seth
01-20-2009, 06:13 PM
Other.

Trade the freaking pick ASAP. Unless you really think Harangoody or Hansborough are going to impact a team more than Murph, Foster and McBob already can.

QuickRelease
01-20-2009, 06:57 PM
Other.

Trade the freaking pick ASAP. Unless you really think Harangoody or Hansborough are going to impact a team more than Murph, Foster and McBob already can.

I'm of the opinion that Hansborough can. He has more touch than Jeff, and more toughness than Foster. Plus, I think he's overall better than McBobby.

BRushWithDeath
01-20-2009, 07:03 PM
I'm of the opinion that Hansborough can. He has more touch than Jeff, and more toughness than Foster. Plus, I think he's overall better than McBobby.

Please God no. But not even Larry Bird loves white players enough to make that mistake.

Anthem
01-20-2009, 09:56 PM
I'm in belief that any SF should be able to turn into a SG, unless it's someone like Rashard Lewis or Hedo Turkoglu that are oversized at SF (6'10 or 6'11).
We already have a SF playing SG in Dunleavy. We don't need another.

If we're replacing Dunleavy at SG, it should be with a pure SG. But we'd be better off with a big or a PG, unless it's clear that the SG will be better than Dun.

SycamoreKen
01-20-2009, 11:00 PM
Best available non-SF.

Position of need? Seriously? We need help at every position.

After watching the game tonight I agree with Anthem.

Kemo
01-21-2009, 12:56 AM
If there was ANY way in hell, that we could ever draft Ricky Rubio , we take him over anyone in the draft IMO regardless of "need"

Rubio is gonna be a very very special player in the mold of a Pistol Pete/Magic Johnson type PG ..

A point guard with such skill and potential, like Rubio , IMO only comes around maybe once every 10 years ..

Sure Chris Paul is awesome, because he works very hard at it , Parker and D Will are also very very good franchise caliber pg's . But the players that end up being loked at as one of the greats to play the game , are very rare.. I think potentially Rubio could be one of them guys... I'm not saying he "IS" , just that he has a very very good chance of becoming one..

I have been keeping up with him for the last 2 years, and watched as many games as I could that he played in ...

The boy has SKILLS !!
He seemingly has eyes in the back of his head .....

SUPERB court vision.....

He can see everyone on the court and can anticipate player position nicely.
Also he is an effective and FLASHY PG who plays with an old-school (early 80's) style to his game..
I have seen him make many amazing passes to his teammates, that left me in awe ..

As good as he has been so early on in his young career, even at age 15, he was pretty damn good.. Heck he was the youngest player EVER to play in the Spanish league ..

Whoever drafts him will eventually have their franchise PG of the future ..
.
.

Kemo
01-21-2009, 01:15 AM
Also , I just looked up some info on him at wikipedia just now , and at "16 years old" , Rubio competed in the FIBA Europe Under-16 Championship Tournament.
In this tournament, he got three triple-doubles and one quadruple-double.!!

That is just NUTS ..!!

Here is an excerpt on that same page regarding that tournament...

"In the 110-106 double overtime finale victory over Russia, Rubio scored 51 points—the first player to do so in FIBA tournaments since Luol Deng—..
Rubio grabbed 24 rebounds, made 12 assists, and stole the ball seven times—a performance unprecedented in the tournament's history. He also forced the first overtime with a three-point, buzzer-beating shot from mid-court. Rubio was subsequently named the Most Valuable Player of the tournament after leading it in points, rebounds, assists and steals."


ALSO

"In 2007, Rubio played for Spain's U-18 national team at the FIBA Europe Under-18 Championship. In 28 minutes per game, he averaged 19.1 points, 5 rebounds, 4.8 assists and 4 steals per game"



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricky_Rubio

Kemo
01-21-2009, 01:20 AM
Here is a list of Ricky Rubio's accomplishments so far..
Keep in mind the kid is ONLY 18 years old, and has played international pro ball since he was 15 ..

Awards and accomplishments

Pro career

* Won 3 Catalan National Leagues (2005, 2007, 2008)
* Won the FIBA EuroCup Championship (2006)
* Led the Spanish ACB League in steals (2007)
* Won the Spanish ACB League Rising Star Award (2007)
* FIBA Europe Young Player of the Year (2007)
* Won the Spanish King's Cup (2008)
* Won the ULEB Cup Championship (2008)
* All-Spanish ACB League Team (2008)
* Voted the Spanish ACB League's Best Point Guard (2008)

Spanish national team

* Won the gold medal at the FIBA Europe Under-16 Championship (2006)
* FIBA Europe Under-16 Championship MVP (2006)
* Won the silver medal at the 2008 Olympic Basketball Tournament



.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.

Spirit
01-21-2009, 02:16 AM
Also keep in mind that Europe's assist system is different, the player can not dribble after the pass, and if they do it's not an assist. Which makes those assist numbers even more impressive.

MyFavMartin
01-21-2009, 02:31 AM
I'd love to see the Pacers get Jordan Hill in the draft, who might slip in the draft. I also like Derozan and Jennings.

Quis
01-21-2009, 03:17 AM
If we ended up with Griffin, Hill, Monroe, or Patterson I'd be happy. All three fill a major hole at power forward while also being top-10 talent.

vnzla81
01-21-2009, 06:39 AM
I would love Rubio, but I am pretty sure Larry already made a deal with the trailblazers for us to swap draft picks and them draft Hansbrough for us.:(

Justin Tyme
01-21-2009, 09:05 AM
I was thinking about this a few days ago, and I agree with Seth. If it's not a top 5 pick then trade it. I can't say I overly impressed with this draft. I can't see drafting the best mediocre player in a mediocre draft. I would rather use the pick to help acquire a better player in a trade.

The Pacers need in 07 draft was a PG. Atlanta had the Pacers pick at #11, and chose AC Law a PG. It is a wasted pick, as far as I'm concerned, so trade this years pick in a trade for something that is proven that can help immediately. This might help the Pacers acquire a good inside presence or a lockdown defender.

And to think the Pacers could have chosen Mark Gasol instead of Stanko and still left him in Europe as the Lakers/Memphis did.

BillS
01-21-2009, 09:55 AM
I'm an advocate of what several NBA teams are doing. What they do instead of ranking players 1 though 100 is they rank players by tiers.

Then on draft day they always choose a player from the highest tier available. If there's one or more players available in that tier, then they choose by need.

For example, if they dumped the following NBA players in a draft the tier system would look something like this.

1ST TIER
Kobe
Labron

2ND TIER
Garnett
Duncan
Wade
Howard
Paul

3RD TIER
Pierce
Bosh
Etc.

Now say the Pacers had the 5th pick, who would they take? Kobe, Labron, Garnett, and Duncan have already been picked.

So they are left with Wade, Paul, and Howard in the 2nd tier, or reaching down to the 3rd tier. What you never do is reach down when you have an available player in a tier above. So they would have the choice of Wade, Paul or Howard, and now they would go for need.

What do the Pacers really need? Well if you think post player, they go for Howard. If you think point guard, they go for Paul.

Chad Ford wrote a very good article on the tier system and you can find it here.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draft2008/insider/columns/story?columnist=ford_chad&page=Tiers-080619

Holy frijoles, can we please get a pick in THAT draft? It looks one hell of a lot better than any draft class I've seen in a few years :laugh:

Justin Tyme
01-21-2009, 10:14 AM
Holy frijoles, can we please get a pick in THAT draft? It looks one hell of a lot better than any draft class I've seen in a few years :laugh:


A draft even Bird couldn't pick the wrong player!

sloopjohnb
01-21-2009, 10:18 AM
I like what Will Galen mentioned about the Tiers. I think the Pacers should adopt that system, if they don't use it already. I think you should always draft the best player available, or a player that is in the best tier available without a doubt.

No matter what, the Pacers need a little luck to go along with their draft pick. Like in 2005 when we selected Granger 17th. Does anyone remember after the Pacers selected Granger, Stephen A. Smith ripped the other franchises that skipped over Granger and praised the Pacers front office calling it a move that will keep the organization afloat (or something to that matter)?

It's difficult to grade Bird's draft picks just yet because we only know of two players that Bird has selected as the single decision-maker (Hibbert and Rush). If both players are on our team in 4-5 seasons and contributing to the team regularly, then the picks will likely be deemed successful.

Yes the Pacers need a PF, but they need much more than just a PF. They need a PG for the future because I don't believe Jack or Ford are the answer. They also need another C (although a veteran C would probably be better than another draft pick because you have to show Hibbert you believe he is the future for at least another season). If Hibbert is only getting 10-15 minutes a game in two seasons then it's safe to say he's probably not working out in the NBA. We have a lot of time until then.

BRushWithDeath
01-21-2009, 10:38 AM
A draft even Bird couldn't pick the wrong player!

He'd have Lebron, Kobe, and Dwight Howard available but he'd trade down to pick Granger and Dunleavy.

Los Angeles
01-21-2009, 06:22 PM
Quick, name the power forward from the Bulls' first three-peat.










I don't know who it was either.

You get the best damn players and you coach to their strengths.

Bball
01-21-2009, 06:35 PM
Horace Grant

Justin Tyme
01-21-2009, 09:34 PM
It's difficult to grade Bird's draft picks just yet because we only know of two players that Bird has selected as the single decision-maker (Hibbert and Rush). If both players are on our team in 4-5 seasons and contributing to the team regularly, then the picks will likely be deemed successful.

Yes the Pacers need a PF, but they need much more than just a PF. They need a PG for the future because I don't believe Jack or Ford are the answer. They also need another C (although a veteran C would probably be better than another draft pick because you have to show Hibbert you believe he is the future for at least another season). If Hibbert is only getting 10-15 minutes a game in two seasons then it's safe to say he's probably not working out in the NBA. We have a lot of time until then.


Yes, last year Bird was the single man in charge, but who do you contribute drafted Williams and White in 06 if it wasn't Bird? You think Walsh drafted Alex Johnson and then traded him to Portland along with to 2nds for James White? That whole draft has Bird's fingerprints all over it.

I had really hoped the trades had solved the PG problem, but I don't view it at that way at all. As far as I'm concerned, the Pacers have the same positional needs as they did after the 07-08 season ended.... PG, Center, and SG. These needs aren't going to be addressed for next year by the draft. That's obvious from the way the NBA ready rookies, Rush and Hibbert, are playing this year.

Trading the 09 pick in a trade to up grade one of those positions has my vote. I'm just not that hung up on getting a player this year in the draft that is going to take years for their play to contribute on a constant basis.

Tony Valente
01-22-2009, 07:06 AM
Oh, they are the same guy! Keep this quiet, but what I was told is Lebron was really a lab experiment by the government trying to make better soldiers. His lab name was Ron, and he was know as LabRon.

His name on his birth certificate was a mistake made by the French guy filling it out. So now's he's Lebron.

So see, I didn't really misspell his name.

Brilliant insight! :applaud: Finally this really makes some sense. I have already started spreading the word around ... on the origins of LJ's first name. I suggest we should start using it on the PD forum from now on and watch its popularity grow.

MillerTime
01-23-2009, 03:49 AM
Quick, name the power forward from the Bulls' first three-peat.










I don't know who it was either.

You get the best damn players and you coach to their strengths.

ie. Bonner and Roger Mason Jr

spazzxb
01-23-2009, 03:59 AM
Depending on the pick I expect our pick (top 5 protected) to go out with a trade at some point. If we keep the pick I think we go best available because I expect some combination of our expiring contracts, TJ, draft pick, Marquis, Tinsley, maybe even Dunleavy to bring in a forward.

MillerTime
01-23-2009, 04:02 AM
Depending on the pick I expect our pick (top 5 protected) to go out with a trade at some point. If we keep the pick I think we go best available because I expect some combination of our expiring contracts, TJ, draft pick, Marquis, Tinsley, maybe even Dunleavy to bring in a forward.

1) Marquis is a expiring contract

2) I dont think this organization is going to trade away Dunleavy. Theyre are absolutely in love with Dunleavy.

3) If we cant get a top 5 pick in this years draft, I would trade it away. This trade isnt very deep. So I agree with you there... I still think we could send expirers (Rasho and Quis) plus picks to LA for one of their big men.

spazzxb
01-23-2009, 04:08 AM
1) Marquis is a expiring contract

2) I dont think this organization is going to trade away Dunleavy. Theyre are absolutely in love with Dunleavy.

3) If we cant get a top 5 pick in this years draft, I would trade it away. This trade isnt very deep. So I agree with you there... I still think we could send expirers (Rasho and Quis) plus picks to LA for one of their big men.

We have an option for Marquis so he is kinda a wild-card. With Dunleavy I was trying to imply it was a stretch. A talent shortage is why I am in favor of trading the Pick as well (top five protected of course).

Justin Tyme
01-23-2009, 06:46 AM
It wouldn't hurt my feelings 1 iota to package the 1st along with the 2 2nds from Denver as sweetners in a Tinsley deal.

DrFife
01-23-2009, 10:15 AM
It wouldn't hurt my feelings 1 iota to package the 1st along with the 2 2nds from Denver as sweetners in a Tinsley deal.

Man, Justin, you REALLY want to get rid of Tinsley! :-o (I do, too.)

I'm excited about the next few weeks (up to the trade deadline) because it's TPTB's next chance to address at least one of our needs ... and I really do believe something's going to happen. Reading everyone's opinions on what the team needs has been a delight; in sum, we've got persuasive arguments for:

PG -- "what's wrong with TJ" ... "JJ 'drives' me nuts"
SG -- e.g., Tbird's Trevor-Ariza-as-a-starting-wing-defender argument
PF -- "Paul Milsap is NOT another Ike Diogu"
C -- "Will Hibby be ready next year? Ever??" ... "Foster needs to go"

Making up my own mind about what I hope TPTB do next draft/summer will have to wait until after the approaching trade deadline. In essence, then, we seem to be asking (collectively), "Under what circumstances would we be supportive of TPTB including the #1 pick in an imminent trade? Must Tinsley be part of such a trade? Must it be protected? Must it bring back a starter? Would cap relief be enough?"

What say y'all?

Justin Tyme
01-23-2009, 11:25 AM
Man, Justin, you REALLY want to get rid of Tinsley! :-o (I do, too.)

I'm excited about the next few weeks (up to the trade deadline) because it's TPTB's next chance to address at least one of our needs ... and I really do believe something's going to happen. Reading everyone's opinions on what the team needs has been a delight; in sum, we've got persuasive arguments for:

PG -- "what's wrong with TJ" ... "JJ 'drives' me nuts"
SG -- e.g., Tbird's Trevor-Ariza-as-a-starting-wing-defender argument
PF -- "Paul Milsap is NOT another Ike Diogu"
C -- "Will Hibby be ready next year? Ever??" ... "Foster needs to go"

Making up my own mind about what I hope TPTB do next draft/summer will have to wait until after the approaching trade deadline. In essence, then, we seem to be asking (collectively), "Under what circumstances would we be supportive of TPTB including the #1 pick in an imminent trade? Must Tinsley be part of such a trade? Must it be protected? Must it bring back a starter? Would cap relief be enough?"

What say y'all?



I really agree about having to wait to see what Bird does regarding the trading deadline.

I really want to get rid of Tinsley enough that I wouldn't care if Bird threw all the picks I mentioned and even 1 of the rookies in a deal to be able wave good-bye to Tinsley so as to close final chapter on Tinsley. Obviously, Bird would have to get something decent back in return.

As a hugh Pacer board lurker for years, I enjoyed reading your posts at the Star. I seldom lurk over there or Realgm anymore since both have went into such a stage of demise, the Star especially. When the Star changed to pluck, they destroyed the board. I lurked at the Star early this morning for the 1st time in a long time, and it's a ghosttown with days between posts on threads. I only recognized a couple of the posters names from years ago. Either they left to post elsewhere( have no clue where), some I believe took different names that stayed at the Star, or they just quit posting all together. Whatever it is, it's just a mere remenant of what it use to be. Please accept my humble and sincere invitation to post more at PD.