PDA

View Full Version : Confirmed: No Deals Done.



duke dynamite
02-19-2009, 04:01 PM
Bird Busy not no deals done before deadline.
(Wow, c'mon Conrad. Maybe it was Bird...)

http://my.nba.com/thread.jspa?threadID=5800021097


From the outside, this looked like the quiet passing of the NBA Trade Deadline for the Pacers.

That appearance, said Larry Bird, was very deceiving.

The the Pacers did not complete a deal before Thursday's 3 p.m. deadline, it was not for lack of effort.

"We were everywhere," Bird said. "We were very, very active with a number of teams. We just didn't get anything done. It's frustrating."

A rumor surfaced Thursday morning reporting the Pacers' interest in Hornets center Tyson Chandler, who failed a physical after being dealt to Oklahoma City thus voiding the trade and sending him back to the Hornets.

New Orleans was reportedly seeking some combination of expiring contracts from the Pacers for Chandler, who reportedly earns $11 million this season and is owed nearly $13 million next year. Bird said the Pacers were interested in Chandler but a deal could not be worked out.

The only other trade rumor involving the Pacers was reported last week, involving a multi-player deal with Charlotte in which the Raymond Felton and others would've been acquired for a package including Jamaal Tinsley and possibly Jeff Foster and Brandon Rush.

Though the Pacers actively sought to move Tinsley -- Bird said two deals came close to fruition -- they weren't willing to give up either Foster or Rush, let alone both.

The Pacers do have a plethora of players in their final contract years including Rasho Nesterovic, Marquis Daniels and Maceo Baston.

trey
02-19-2009, 04:03 PM
Lol that was exciting.

Pacersfan46
02-19-2009, 04:04 PM
Expected, but .... blah.

-- Steve --

Roaming Gnome
02-19-2009, 04:04 PM
:unimpress but expected....

flox
02-19-2009, 04:05 PM
Screw bird. Get Foster out of here.

jhondog28
02-19-2009, 04:05 PM
I can understand Rush but not giving up Foster is crazy unless the deal was just terrible.

Hicks
02-19-2009, 04:05 PM
I wonder what the two deals were that almost happened with Tinsley.

Jonathan
02-19-2009, 04:06 PM
That deal with Charlotte was garbage. I am fine without making a move. I was just hoping we could. It is now time to start Rush & Hibbert and play Mc Roberts 15-20 minutes a game. I still have a few games to attend and will root for the Pacers.

Major Cold
02-19-2009, 04:08 PM
Subjective. Biased. Irrational

Jonathan
02-19-2009, 04:08 PM
Screw bird. Get Foster out of here.

Why? He is better than two scrubs and a late first rounder this year. Who should we have cut right now to bring in two worse players than we already have on our roster?

Pacemaker
02-19-2009, 04:09 PM
At least I hope we get a heavy dose our rookies which will accomplish 2 things: 1. Their development 2. A better draft pick.

xtacy
02-19-2009, 04:09 PM
awful job no matter what!

wasted year. expiring contracts when none of the free agents will sign with us, no trades and a possible useless pick at a very weak draft.

Pacersfan46
02-19-2009, 04:10 PM
Subjective. Biased. Irrational

:laugh:

-- Steve --

Hicks
02-19-2009, 04:14 PM
This part was added on to the article duke pasted (same link/author as above):


With the possibility of a substantial reduction in the NBA Salary Cap for the 2009-10 season, the Pacers are relatively well-positioned from a payroll standpoint to make moves in the offseason.

Three former Pacers were traded: Jermaine O'Neal, Brad Miller and Ike Diogu.

O'Neal was dealt – for the second time in eight months – from Toronto to Miami in a package that brought Shawn Marion to the Raptors.

Upon arrival in Miami, O'Neal called his new team "a perfect fit" and suggested the Heat has "a really good chance to do something special."

Upon his arrival in Toronto a few months ago, O'Neal said much the same thing, suggesting the Raptors had "a shot at doing some great things."

The Raptors, who won 41 games last season, have since fired Coach Sam Mitchell and stand 21-35, 14th in the Eastern Conference.

Miller returned to Chicago from Sacramento, along with John Salmons, in a trade that sent Drew Gooden and Andres Nocioni and Michael Ruffin to the Kings. Ruffin was immediately dealt to Portland for Diogu.

Miller, 33, is averaging 11.9 points and 8.0 rebounds and has one more season remaining on his contract. Diogu, who was dealt by the Pacers (along with Jerryd Bayless) to the Blazers in the deal that brought Jarrett Jack and Brandon Rush to Indiana, had played even less in Portland. He made 19 appearances, averaging 3.8 minutes and 1.4 points.


:rolleyes: @ the bold part. Yeah, Conrad, we can re-sign Jack and maybe a 10th man. Whooptie-do. Bring on "the moves".

Evan_The_Dude
02-19-2009, 04:15 PM
awful job no matter what!

wasted year. expiring contracts when none of the free agents will sign with us, no trades and a possible useless pick at a very weak draft.

We don't exactly need the players that are expiring, so I guess that's why there wasn't too much pressure on Bird to trade them. Even though we're bad, lets not forget that we don't really need much to become a better team. We really only need a scoring big man that can defend. The rest of our issue is the health of our team. I don't think we could have done much to improve our team at the deadline. It would have been making a trade for the sake of making a trade.

duke dynamite
02-19-2009, 04:16 PM
This part was added on to the article duke pasted (same link/author as above):



:rolleyes: @ the bold part. Yeah, Conrad, we can re-sign Jack and maybe a 10th man. Whooptie-do. Bring on "the moves".
I actually tried to make the bold part of my selection. All of it didn't paste.

Thanks, Hicks.

flox
02-19-2009, 04:17 PM
Subjective. Biased. Irrational

Sure I can do that too.

It makes no sense statistically to do this. For all of you who seem to want to play Hibbert more, he should have taken Foster's minutes, and if the Bobcats 1st for Foster deal went through, I sure would have applauded the team for taking proper steps to rebuild. It's not like Foster is teaching anyone on the team anything. McBob already has his teachers it's a wash IMO.

Roaming Gnome
02-19-2009, 04:21 PM
Thanks Conrad....

I needed that "sunshine" blown up my arse. No matter what is said, improvment for next season isn't as high a priority as the bottom line. That isn't a bad thing, I just don't need to be bs'ed about it.

Shade
02-19-2009, 04:31 PM
:kickcan: :sigh:

aceace
02-19-2009, 04:37 PM
I was really hoping the tin man would be gone by today. Since the deadline is gone we can as a PD family maybe agree no more posts, no mention about him and just wait till summer. He's like that wannabe friend that comes over unannounced, you lock the door, turn the tv off and hide in another room till he goes away.

duke dynamite
02-19-2009, 04:37 PM
I'm sad.

shockedandchagrined
02-19-2009, 04:39 PM
:rolleyes: @ the bold part. Yeah, Conrad, we can re-sign Jack and maybe a 10th man. Whooptie-do. Bring on "the moves".[/QUOTE]

Actually, I've been wanting to take this line of inquiry because there might be more than lip service here (at least in the case of this summer). Maybe Count can respond with some insight since he seems to have as good a handle as anyone on the cap situation.

My recollection is that if the Pacers renounce rights to all free agents (including Jack), they would be maybe a few million under the cap. Signing Jack would put them back at cap level if not a little higher, but they would still be quite a bit under the luxury tax. Wouldn't this still provide the potential to upgrade via trade by taking on more salary via the %125 rule? It seems that when a team is in a position to take on salary, even at the moderate rate of the %125 rule, there's a distinct possibility of receiving incentives from the team needing to reduce salary.

It just seems unlikely that the current economic conditions in the NBA are going to change significantly for the better in the near term (let's say 2 years), which means the current tax dilemma that many teams have are not going to go away just because the trade deadline passed this season.

I also wonder about Daniels. The Pacers could let him walk at the end of the year or they could bring him back for one more. But couldn't they also pick up his option and then trade him over the summer to a team that wants a contributing player on an expiring contract? Just a thought.

To me it still seems like the Pacers are in a good position to improve their team, but it's not going to happen until the summer.

rexnom
02-19-2009, 04:45 PM
I'm still fairly optimistic. We're in a much better position this off-season than we were last where we somehow pulled off a couple of huge deals.

Suaveness
02-19-2009, 04:53 PM
Did somebody die?

duke dynamite
02-19-2009, 04:56 PM
Did somebody die?
A part of me did.

count55
02-19-2009, 04:57 PM
:rolleyes: @ the bold part. Yeah, Conrad, we can re-sign Jack and maybe a 10th man. Whooptie-do. Bring on "the moves".

Actually, I've been wanting to take this line of inquiry because there might be more than lip service here (at least in the case of this summer). Maybe Count can respond with some insight since he seems to have as good a handle as anyone on the cap situation.

My recollection is that if the Pacers renounce rights to all free agents (including Jack), they would be maybe a few million under the cap. Signing Jack would put them back at cap level if not a little higher, but they would still be quite a bit under the luxury tax. Wouldn't this still provide the potential to upgrade via trade by taking on more salary via the %125 rule? It seems that when a team is in a position to take on salary, even at the moderate rate of the %125 rule, there's a distinct possibility of receiving incentives from the team needing to reduce salary.

It just seems unlikely that the current economic conditions in the NBA are going to change significantly for the better in the near term (let's say 2 years), which means the current tax dilemma that many teams have are not going to go away just because the trade deadline passed this season.

I also wonder about Daniels. The Pacers could let him walk at the end of the year or they could bring him back for one more. But couldn't they also pick up his option and then trade him over the summer to a team that wants a contributing player on an expiring contract? Just a thought.

To me it still seems like the Pacers are in a good position to improve their team, but it's not going to happen until the summer.

The Pacers have almost $58mm in guaranteed contracts, which will likely put them over the cap already.

They can probably afford to re-sign Jack or go after an MLE FA, but not both. They probably cannot afford to re-sign Rasho, or pick up the option on Daniels.

It is an interesting idea to pick up Daniels and trade him, but that would then commit them to at least $5-6 mm in salaries coming back, and preclude them from re-signing Jack or picking up another MLE player. It would entirely depend on what they'd get back.

The most likely scenario is that the Pacers sit quiet this summer, allowing Daniels, Baston, and Rasho to go...probably re-signing Jack for a contract starting around $3 to $3.5, add players through the draft, and move on.

They will continue to try to move Tinsley, but I'm not sure how that will resolve.

Honestly, they should keep their eyes open, but they should probably button up and try to get to the summer of 2010. They'll add draft picks from this summer and next, and try and get your payroll in order.

Fiscally, the right thing to do for the franchise right now may be to simply acknowledge that now through 2011 is going to be a down cycle. Hope your young guys (Hibbert, Rush, Granger) develop and make you marginally competitive, but know that you probably won't be able to make any kind of significant leap until you get out from under Murph, Dunleavy, Ford, Foster, and Tinsley's contracts.

It's depressing, but probably not far off what the Pacers FO and ownership are thinking right now.

indygeezer
02-19-2009, 04:58 PM
No mention of the Granger situation.

2minutes twowa
02-19-2009, 05:20 PM
I know I keep repeating myself, but this team will not be able to truly rebuild until Murph and Dun's deals are gone.

shockedandchagrined
02-19-2009, 05:26 PM
The Pacers have almost $58mm in guaranteed contracts, which will likely put them over the cap already.

They can probably afford to re-sign Jack or go after an MLE FA, but not both. They probably cannot afford to re-sign Rasho, or pick up the option on Daniels.

It is an interesting idea to pick up Daniels and trade him, but that would then commit them to at least $5-6 mm in salaries coming back, and preclude them from re-signing Jack or picking up another MLE player. It would entirely depend on what they'd get back.

The most likely scenario is that the Pacers sit quiet this summer, allowing Daniels, Baston, and Rasho to go...probably re-signing Jack for a contract starting around $3 to $3.5, add players through the draft, and move on.

They will continue to try to move Tinsley, but I'm not sure how that will resolve.

Honestly, they should keep their eyes open, but they should probably button up and try to get to the summer of 2010. They'll add draft picks from this summer and next, and try and get your payroll in order.

Fiscally, the right thing to do for the franchise right now may be to simply acknowledge that now through 2011 is going to be a down cycle. Hope your young guys (Hibbert, Rush, Granger) develop and make you marginally competitive, but know that you probably won't be able to make any kind of significant leap until you get out from under Murph, Dunleavy, Ford, Foster, and Tinsley's contracts.

It's depressing, but probably not far off what the Pacers FO and ownership are thinking right now.

So the 58mm is for the following 9 players then?

Murphy
Dunleavy
Granger
Foster
Ford
Diener
Hibbert
Rush
Tinsley

I see your point about the Pacers being able to make only one decision with respect to resigning Jack or using some portion of the MLE on someone else.

However, I still wonder about Daniels. Since the Pacers will still need a few more players to fill out the roster, I just wonder if he could be used to do that in a 2 for 1 deal, breaking his deal into two players (perhaps including a late 1st rd pick).

Any way you slice it though, the improvement will have to come from within.

ChicagoJ
02-19-2009, 05:31 PM
They expiring contracts and lower cap go hand-in-hand. The Pacers won't be looking to replace the expirinings with anything more than vet's minimum players to fill out the roster because of economics. This won't be an "increase payroll" summer for any team.

What a lousy year to be a free agent!

Pacersfan46
02-19-2009, 05:44 PM
What a lousy year to be a free agent!

Pretty much. I think with unless you're an All Star, you're not going to get much. In comparison to what you'd have gotten 3-5 years ago, anyway.

The top notch guys will still get paid, it's the middle, and lower level guys who are going to get screwed for at least the next couple years.

-- Steve --

grace
02-19-2009, 06:12 PM
I was really hoping the tin man would be gone by today. Since the deadline is gone we can as a PD family maybe agree no more posts, no mention about him and just wait till summer.

The problem is once arbitration starts it will be all over the board.

Cherokee
02-19-2009, 06:45 PM
No deal is no surprise. They have consistently said (at least when Walsh was here) that they were not fond of mid-season deals. That said, send that no-layup-making, sometimes-choose-to-play-defense-sometimes-not, cry-about-every-call Foster packing. It's a lot more fun to play 5-on-5 basketball. Thanks. I needed that. Never mind.

vnzla81
02-19-2009, 06:45 PM
For what is could hear in the radio and read on the news the Pacers did not wanted to trade Foster for any reason, I agree, keep the guy and wait for him to get better, he still in his prime and maybe next summer his value could be higher and trade him for a player in the likes of Kobe or Lebron, maybe Howard, for Foster. ..........:rolleyes:

Cherokee
02-19-2009, 06:50 PM
For what is could hear in the radio and read on the news the Pacers did not wanted to trade Foster for any reason, I agree, keep the guy and wait for him to get better, he still in his prime and maybe next summer his value could be higher and trade him for a player in the likes of Kobe or Lebron, maybe Howard, for Foster. ..........:rolleyes:

I've always admired sarcasm. Nice work.

Dr. Hibbert
02-19-2009, 06:58 PM
awful job no matter what!

wasted year. expiring contracts when none of the free agents will sign with us, no trades and a possible useless pick at a very weak draft.

I doubt it was a wasted year. This year did wonders for the growth of Danny Granger. Though you might have an argument if JOB continues to hold Hibbert and Rush back...there's really no point at this stage.

Doug
02-19-2009, 07:35 PM
I suspect that once it was confirmed that Granger was going to be out for a while, TPTB switched from 'find a good player that can help us make the playoffs' to 'trade a good, but overpaid player to a contender'.

And nobody wanted Murphy, who actually might have been a good addition to a contender. Mainly because everybody is scared to take on salary.

Nobody wanted to tie up money in Tinsley either. There was probably never much hope that some playoff team would decide that his talent was worth a gamble, but the financial situation definitely closed the door on that.

So, I'm not surprised nothing happened.

jeffg-body
02-19-2009, 08:03 PM
I wouldn't consider it a wasted year myself. We got to see Danny continue to develop into an all-star player and our rook's got some playing time and now that Danny and Dun will be shelved a while the young guns should get their looks.

pacergod2
02-19-2009, 08:04 PM
Guys... and Grace. The thing with our payroll situation is that a deal was VERY difficult to consummate while preserving ANY financial flexibility for us next NBA fiscal year (7/1/09 to 6/30/10). We are in a situation to make a substantial move this off-season because it will be less costly for teams to take on our big contracts. By doing NOTHING, we give ourselves the chance to add some players in the draft that we can build around, while still maintaining a fair distance from the LT threshold, which per the NBA League Office will be down from the 71.15M it was this year. I am hearing it will be about 69.85M.

Shocked and Chagrined had an excellent point about splitting one of our bigger contracts into two smaller salaries being ideal for us this summer. Think a $14M Tinsley contract for two role players with smaller, possibly expiring deals. This would help fill out our roster and allow us to use more of the MLE on a single player.

My thoughts on Daniels. I think if Bird can work something out with a NJ or NY who are definitely looking to reduce salary in 2010, it would then be smart for us to take the option on him, but remember that we would have to take the option before we could actually trade him. That could be risky for someone to pull out of the deal after we've declared our option and are stuck with him on our books, which would CLEARLY put us in LT territory.

My idea for the Pacers is that we are set up extremely well for the summer of 2010. The reason being is that we would have a TON of expiring contracts for a sign and trade and only Granger, Rush, and Hibbert on our books beyond that year (about $14M). The summer of 2010 could be great for the Pacers. The only problem I see is that the biggest names aren't restricted free agents, but what truly BIG names would we be able to sign anyway. I am excited about our future and am extremely happy we did nothing.

It would be nice for Tinlsey to be gone, but anything I heard had us taking on way too much salary (or giving up way too much talent), which makes less sense than just keeping him.

count55
02-19-2009, 08:28 PM
My idea for the Pacers is that we are set up extremely well for the summer of 2010. The reason being is that we would have a TON of expiring contracts for a sign and trade and only Granger, Rush, and Hibbert on our books beyond that year (about $14M). The summer of 2010 could be great for the Pacers. The only problem I see is that the biggest names aren't restricted free agents, but what truly BIG names would we be able to sign anyway. I am excited about our future and am extremely happy we did nothing.

It would be nice for Tinlsey to be gone, but anything I heard had us taking on way too much salary (or giving up way too much talent), which makes less sense than just keeping him.

I'm assuming you mean the summer of 2011, because the Pacers have like $60mm on their books during the summer of 2010. Murphleavy, Foster, Granger, Ford, Tinsley, Rush and Hibbert.

I'm not happy that we did nothing, but it was certainly the prudent thing to do.

pacergod2
02-19-2009, 09:33 PM
No I meant the summer of 2010. We have 8 players under contract for $60M like you said. Of that, we have $45.3M in expiring salaries. We have a very good shot to sign players like Tyrus Thomas or Rajon Rondo or other players from that class. I know it is a lesser class, but that puts a lot of those players in our reach and price range, because they are being overlooked for the big name free agents. We can do a SIGN-AND-TRADE with our expiring contracts for these type of players. A very nice option to have.

As you assumed, we have an assload of room if all of those players expire. There are a lot more quality free agents, in terms of volume, in 2011 as of right now. Plus, that draft class of 2007 was loaded with talent, which puts us in a great position to sign-and-trade for those free agents and we will be far under the salary cap to not have to make a 125% trade. I am excited for our future if our "prudence" has us sticking to draft picks and low-cost/low-risk free agents for the next 17 months.

DEEman
02-19-2009, 09:43 PM
I still believe in a trade!!!

Big Smooth
02-19-2009, 10:48 PM
I'm disappointed that the right trade wasn't out there. Obviously trading for the sake of trading is pointless. But I really thought we might find a good deal with our expiring contracts.

cinotimz
02-19-2009, 11:05 PM
I'm disappointed that the right trade wasn't out there. Obviously trading for the sake of trading is pointless. But I really thought we might find a good deal with our expiring contracts.

I really wonder if trading for the sake of trading wouldve been pointless in this case. The team is in transition. Its a very delicate balance with the fans. The team is primarily selling hope for the future, at this point. To continue to feed that hope, I cant help but think a deal needed to be made.

By not doing a deal, it kind of says theres nothing more we could do at this time.

Im not sure thats the message you want to send.

Even if its a relatively minor move, I think something needed to be done to continue the momentum of turning over a new leaf.

So you have a losing team that has no realistic chance of making the playoffs standing pat.

That has a bad feel to it.

D-BONE
02-19-2009, 11:16 PM
=Larry Bird From the outside, this looked like the quiet passing of the NBA Trade Deadline for the Pacers.

That appearance, said Larry Bird, was very deceiving.

The the Pacers did not complete a deal before Thursday's 3 p.m. deadline, it was not for lack of effort.

"We were everywhere," Bird said. "We were very, very active with a number of teams. We just didn't get anything done.

Call it dept. of reduncancy dept. if you must, but all I have to say is...

WELL LAH DEE FRICKIN' DAH!

I can live with it, but can we just stop all the charades now and play the rookies and McBob! (And shut down DG as long as necessary.)

Young
02-19-2009, 11:23 PM
I am glad no moves were made.

I don't care if the Pacers get nothing for Rasho or Daniels and just let them walk. It is good that this team is not making moves that just adds on to a bad salary situation. It still isn't out of the woods but it is getting there.

A lot of you should be really happy because as of now I assume Rasho/Daniels sign with another team this summer which means more time for Roy/Brandon next season.

I'm glad this team didn't get Amare or Chandler or some other play owed a lot of money. Not going to make or break the future of this team.

There have been some really good things happen this season that we all should be very happy about. Danny becoming an all star and not to mention the level of play this team showed. They beat all of the top teams this year and it will only be better next year.

CableKC
02-19-2009, 11:45 PM
This is where I think we are:


The most likely scenario is that the Pacers sit quiet this summer, allowing Daniels, Baston, and Rasho to go...probably re-signing Jack for a contract starting around $3 to $3.5, add players through the draft, and move on.


Fiscally, the right thing to do for the franchise right now may be to simply acknowledge that now through 2011 is going to be a down cycle. Hope your young guys (Hibbert, Rush, Granger) develop and make you marginally competitive, but know that you probably won't be able to make any kind of significant leap until you get out from under Murph, Dunleavy, Ford, Foster, and Tinsley's contracts.

It's depressing, but probably not far off what the Pacers FO and ownership are thinking right now.
Any chance for ANY major move passed a couple of hours as our only true trading assets that we had that could have been used were allowed to "proverbially" expire.

With the severely limited resources that we have to sign a few FA roleplayers and whatever Player we draft, I don't really see any significant changes to this Teams success.

IMHO...any real change that will occur with this Team would come when JO'B is no longer our Coach....either when his Contract expires or he is let go with this team. If there is any time for mediocrity, it's going to be in the next 2 seasons. :suicide4:

Trader Joe
02-20-2009, 12:43 AM
With Danny out for three weeks, I think we have an honest to goodness shot at a top 5 pick and THAT might be the best thing to happen to this franchise since Danny. We're looking for that last kick in the butt, and if we're financially strapped an asset like a top 5 pick could be just what we need.

Pacersfan46
02-20-2009, 01:18 AM
With Danny out for three weeks, I think we have an honest to goodness shot at a top 5 pick and THAT might be the best thing to happen to this franchise since Danny. We're looking for that last kick in the butt, and if we're financially strapped an asset like a top 5 pick could be just what we need.

Top 5 would involve getting lucky in the lottery, because to be that high, we will need to win one of the top 3 picks. Washington (12 wins), Sacramento (11 wins), Oklahoma City (13 wins), Memphis (15 wins), and the Clippers (13 wins) are all highly unlikely to reach the number of wins it would take to pass us up. Those 5 teams will more than likely have the 5 most ping pong balls on the day they pick the lottery.

Meaning at BEST, we will have the 6th most ping pong balls on lottery day. So to get in the top 5 ... we have to win one of those top 3 picks. Not impossible, but unlikely. More than likely we will pick 6-10, again.

-- Steve --

Naptown_Seth
02-20-2009, 02:15 AM
Screw bird. Get Foster out of here.
Yeah, cause that's what's holding the team back.

Maybe we have all the players line up and then ask everyone who has been an active member of an 8 man rotation to go to at least the 2nd round to step forward...then we dump everyone still on the line.

Bird's a jerk because he didn't move one of the few assets other team's actually want, a list that at this point would appear to be exactly - Jeff, Danny, Rush and Hibbert.


My question is don't you think it's a lot more telling that Dun, coming off his best year ever, and Troy, in the midst of his best, still appear to not be good enough to not need a "better" asset tagged with them to be moved, let alone being a nice trade bait piece themselves?

And what's it say that Quis is having one of his best years in an expiring and he can't be moved? Rasho has one of the tastiest expirings in the NBA and he also can't be moved.


But instead of all that, you're PO'd because Bird wouldn't sell out Jeff and Rush just to get Tinsley off the team...which he virtually already is. It's that kind of prioritizing that created the GS deal and got the team into this spot in the first place. It was that "we've got to get something" attitude that got Harrington back and cost the team an 11 pick for the priviledge along the way (plus JE's contract).

Naptown_Seth
02-20-2009, 02:26 AM
This is where I think we are:




Any chance for ANY major move passed a couple of hours as our only true trading assets that we had that could have been used were allowed to "proverbially" expire.

With the severely limited resources that we have to sign a few FA roleplayers and whatever Player we draft, I don't really see any significant changes to this Teams success.

IMHO...any real change that will occur with this Team would come when JO'B is no longer our Coach....either when his Contract expires or he is let go with this team. If there is any time for mediocrity, it's going to be in the next 2 seasons. :suicide4:
But I think what Count (and I) is getting at is that some people were pushing for this rebuild cycle to jump forward unnaturally fast. This team just made the first big overhaul in a new direction rather after caving and cobbling themselves into a real mess. That first rebuild happened with no direction, so you ended up with Ron, Jack, Peja/Al, AJ, Croshere all gone, new guys in, but no vision behind it. Change for change's sake.

This is why I said in the summer that I thought they would lose plenty and I didn't care. You accept the position and do so because finally this summer their seemed to be a series of responsible and focused set of moves.

The goal is to have a good team in place when Troy and Dun's deals finally become tradeable. Then you use them for that final homerun piece that ties it all together.

That's not to say that I wouldn't have liked to see the expirings turned into something, but it had to fit a realistic plan and that plan is 100% not a "win now" plan. That's just not sane. Now on the other hand this is why a lot of us were complaining about the rotations and huge minutes most of the season.

I wish JOB realized that after all the crap we've seen that most fans would be more than happy to ride out some structured losing, much more than they want to watch flail-in-the-water drowning. He didn't/doesn't have to win to save his job, he has to begin to develop some pieces that Bird can then work off of as a GM to touch up the team the next 2 years and that fans can start to hook onto.

d_c
02-20-2009, 02:46 AM
I'm disappointed that the right trade wasn't out there. Obviously trading for the sake of trading is pointless. But I really thought we might find a good deal with our expiring contracts.

There were definitely a lot of teams out there coveting the expiring deals that the Pacers possessed.

The main reason no deal went down is probably because the Simons coveted those expiring deals just as much, and they just preferred not to take on any contracts running past this year.

CableKC
02-20-2009, 02:56 AM
I wish JOB realized that after all the crap we've seen that most fans would be more than happy to ride out some structured losing, much more than they want to watch flail-in-the-water drowning. He didn't/doesn't have to win to save his job, he has to begin to develop some pieces that Bird can then work off of as a GM to touch up the team the next 2 years and that fans can start to hook onto.
Since we made no move, Granger and Dunleavy have been out, Foster is starting to slow down ( all of which I relate to injuries ); I have moved from the "Compete for the Playoffs at all costs" to "Compete for the Playoffs ( no matter how futile that is ) but give BRush and Hibbert the most amount of minutes that they can handle" bandwagon.

I still think that we are a pretty decent team IF everyone is healthy and JO'B actually uses players like Hibbert/Baston/McRoberts/Diener/BRush on a regular basis.....but I will likely be moving to the "Lottery while letting BRush and Hibbert start" bandwagon soon if Granger and Dunleavy are out for extended times and we fall way out of the Playoff race.

Bball
02-20-2009, 04:01 AM
B

That's not to say that I wouldn't have liked to see the expirings turned into something, but it had to fit a realistic plan and that plan is 100% not a "win now" plan. That's just not sane. Now on the other hand this is why a lot of us were complaining about the rotations and huge minutes most of the season.

I wish JOB realized that after all the crap we've seen that most fans would be more than happy to ride out some structured losing, much more than they want to watch flail-in-the-water drowning. He didn't/doesn't have to win to save his job, he has to begin to develop some pieces that Bird can then work off of as a GM to touch up the team the next 2 years and that fans can start to hook onto.

I agree. That's not to say I think we'd pack the arena with that plan... but I think the bleeding would stop and people would start paying attention again... and much of the frustration seen here would be lessened.

-Bball

BillS
02-20-2009, 09:56 AM
I agree. That's not to say I think we'd pack the arena with that plan... but I think the bleeding would stop and people would start paying attention again... and much of the frustration seen here would be lessened.

-Bball

So you really think the fans in Indianapolis will get excited about 26 games essentially like the Bobcats game Wednesday night? No Pacer stars on the floor, rookies who are growing but nowhere near effective, and journeymen being asked to carry a load that they just aren't up to carrying?

If we can't hold the line on sales with Danny & Dun & Losing By One, I don't see how the buzz <i>increases</i> with Roy & Rush & Playing Like Mush.

What will happen is that the local media will say "I told you so" and drop the Pacers like a bag of flaming dog poop. Too many in the forum will see them playing even worse than earlier in the season and present it as proof that JOB can't coach and that Bird can't select talent.

Add that to our amazing #10 draft pick in a weak and useless draft, and next year should be a real joy.

The only thing worse will be if the arbitrator forces us to put Tinsley on the bench.

Putnam
02-20-2009, 10:13 AM
If we can't hold the line on sales with Danny & Dun & Losing By One, I don't see how the buzz increases with Roy & Rush & Playing Like Mush.Bless you, sir. I was wondering why I was reading this thread and you rewarded me richly.

naptownmenace
02-20-2009, 10:33 AM
Actually, I've been wanting to take this line of inquiry because there might be more than lip service here (at least in the case of this summer). Maybe Count can respond with some insight since he seems to have as good a handle as anyone on the cap situation.

My recollection is that if the Pacers renounce rights to all free agents (including Jack), they would be maybe a few million under the cap. Signing Jack would put them back at cap level if not a little higher, but they would still be quite a bit under the luxury tax. Wouldn't this still provide the potential to upgrade via trade by taking on more salary via the %125 rule? It seems that when a team is in a position to take on salary, even at the moderate rate of the %125 rule, there's a distinct possibility of receiving incentives from the team needing to reduce salary.

It just seems unlikely that the current economic conditions in the NBA are going to change significantly for the better in the near term (let's say 2 years), which means the current tax dilemma that many teams have are not going to go away just because the trade deadline passed this season.

I also wonder about Daniels. The Pacers could let him walk at the end of the year or they could bring him back for one more. But couldn't they also pick up his option and then trade him over the summer to a team that wants a contributing player on an expiring contract? Just a thought.

To me it still seems like the Pacers are in a good position to improve their team, but it's not going to happen until the summer.

I agree with everything you said. Since Granger is hurt and going to miss at least 3 weeks who really cares about adding a player this season. This season (as far as competing for the playoffs) is over as far as I'm concerned anyway.

I think the salary flexibility will enable the Pacers to make some moves this summer. Some good Free Agent is going to fall through the cracks this summer because their team is up against the lowered luxury tax level for next season. Because teams will be looking to dump salary, the Pacers might be able to use their MLE on a player that 2 summers ago would've commanded 9-10 million dollars.

I think this was a smart move by Bird not to leverage their expiring contracts just to move Tinsley. Hopefully through arbitration they'll be able to negotiate an amortized buyout of Tinsley at an amount less than the 14 million still left on his deal.

count55
02-20-2009, 10:48 AM
But I think what Count (and I) is getting at is that some people were pushing for this rebuild cycle to jump forward unnaturally fast. This team just made the first big overhaul in a new direction rather after caving and cobbling themselves into a real mess. That first rebuild happened with no direction, so you ended up with Ron, Jack, Peja/Al, AJ, Croshere all gone, new guys in, but no vision behind it. Change for change's sake.

Pretty much. I also want to make it clear that it is also very important to the future health of the franchise that the Pacers make very sound, financially motivated decisions. They are in a unique position, with the presence of Rush, Hibbert, and Granger, along with solid, if overpaid players like Ford, Dunleavy, Murphy and Foster to make an honest effort at being competitive (though not particularly good), but still be fiscally prudent.

Unlike the Clips, who have been financially motivated as a rule, and therefore failed to ever put together a coherent basketball program, the Pacers can do both. They can pay close attention to the bottom line as best as possible the next two year, then be in good financial position in 2011 to lock up our (hopefully) good young players Rush & Hibbert, reap the benefits of two more first rounders, and perhaps, as mentioned, use the massive expirings to try to add another good piece without breaking the bank.

Or, put another way, this...

The goal is to have a good team in place when Troy and Dun's deals finally become tradeable. Then you use them for that final homerun piece that ties it all together.


That's not to say that I wouldn't have liked to see the expirings turned into something, but it had to fit a realistic plan and that plan is 100% not a "win now" plan. That's just not sane.

I think we could get almost 100% agreement on the above.



Now on the other hand this is why a lot of us were complaining about the rotations and huge minutes most of the season

I wish JOB realized that after all the crap we've seen that most fans would be more than happy to ride out some structured losing, much more than they want to watch flail-in-the-water drowning. He didn't/doesn't have to win to save his job, he has to begin to develop some pieces that Bird can then work off of as a GM to touch up the team the next 2 years and that fans can start to hook onto.

Buried deep in the Tyson Chandler thread, is an off topic ramble of mine about Obie...you'd have to read it to get the gist:

http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/showpost.php?p=853691&postcount=205

The nut of it is that I find most of the stock criticisms of O'Brien to be grossly exaggerated, somewhat baseless, and more than a little misleading and malicious.

However, you're touching on his achilles heel. He's relatively short-sighted, and he is too parsimonious with his trust. If I'm Bird, I've got Obie on a PIP (Performance Improvement Program). I tell him that there's a lot that I like (entertaining offense, good relations and good atmosphere in the locker room, surprisingly consistent effort for an NBA team, particularly one losing so many tough games, good growth of key players like Dunleavy, Murphy, and, especially, Granger), but there are troubling aspects to his performance that, if not remedied, will result in his termination. These are:

1. The defense is overengineered - It's an ill-advised scheme at best, and it has cost this team time and again this season. I would want it simplified, and I'd want to see the gaping holes it creates closed. I do not expect anything better than a mediocre-to-maybe average defensive team with this personnel. However, this team's defense is horrible at times, and I don't want to see that anymore.

2. Adjust the approach to developing the rookies - The time for yo-yoing playing time is passed. Hibbert and Rush should be given a steady diet of minutes for the balance of the season. They will make mistakes, but you will be expected to coach them through them. While I wouldn't necessarily dictate steady minutes for McBob, I would insist that he move back ahead of Baston in the rotation/activations.

3. Stop over-relying on Jack and Foster - Though many on this board can't, I can perfectly understand why an old school coach like O'Brien is so sorely tempted to lean on these guys. They basically give you exactly what you expect from them 99% of the time. Yes, they have flaws, but they're both willing and competent. They act as a touchstone on a team where, due to injuries or just performance, the production of so many (Ford, Rush, Daniels, Rasho, Murph) is so inconsistent. However, I'd tell Obie that he's chewing up these assets by over using them. Many have said that they are "put in a position to fail." This is never good, in any way, shape, or form, for the franchise.

At this point, I'd make it clear that, while I certainly will enter every game hoping for a victory, I am not concerned about that first and foremost. If I see the continuation of the good, and a marked improvement in these areas, then his job is secure. He, in fact, has more to lose by not trusting the Hibbert, Rush, and to a lesser extent, McBob, than he has by not making the playoffs.

In my opinion, it would be best for this franchise for O'Brien to modify his behavior in this regard, and finish his contract. First, it avoids paying two coaches. Second, I still think we're too far away from being good to get the coach we'd really want. Therefore, we're likely to have another transitional coach.

pacergod2
02-20-2009, 10:56 AM
I feel like I must reiterate my support for "doing nothing". Morway and Bird are an excellent team. They have a game plan and are sticking to it.

From what I have heard, we had an offer on the table for Orlando that involved taking Tinsley and it went down to the wire, but Orlando took the Alston deal, because of Alston only being guaranteed 2M next year. Tinsley's third year of his deal was the deal breaker. Orlando chose to give up a first rounder this summer over taking on the extra money in Tinsley's deal. That says something about the difficulty Bird and Morway face in getting rid of him. I would assume that the Tinsley deal included Brian Cook and another marginal salary/talent player, which wasn't much to give up for a legit PG with playoff experience.

By doing nothing, this has given us so much more flexibility to make other moves over the next 18 months.

Also, a tidbit I read said that because we have a team option on M. Daniels, we are able to trade him in May and June. This would be VERY attractive to a team looking to reduce payroll before next season starts. In essence he is one of the only available expiring contracts left. I guess I was mistaken when I thought we wouldn't have the ability to trade him.

The best thing that we get from this season is the confidence in knowing that we can compete and BEAT the best teams in the league. That is so important for a developing team to know.

pacergod2
02-20-2009, 11:01 AM
Excellent post Count55. As always, exceptionally enjoyable.

count55
02-20-2009, 11:09 AM
So you really think the fans in Indianapolis will get excited about 26 games essentially like the Bobcats game Wednesday night? No Pacer stars on the floor, rookies who are growing but nowhere near effective, and journeymen being asked to carry a load that they just aren't up to carrying?

If we can't hold the line on sales with Danny & Dun & Losing By One, I don't see how the buzz <i>increases</i> with Roy & Rush & Playing Like Mush.

What will happen is that the local media will say "I told you so" and drop the Pacers like a bag of flaming dog poop. Too many in the forum will see them playing even worse than earlier in the season and present it as proof that JOB can't coach and that Bird can't select talent.

Add that to our amazing #10 draft pick in a weak and useless draft, and next year should be a real joy.

The only thing worse will be if the arbitrator forces us to put Tinsley on the bench.


Bless you, sir. I was wondering why I was reading this thread and you rewarded me richly.

Help me out with what your point is.

The rest of this year is going to be painful, but that's just what they have to do. If this team needed to make the playoffs to keep the franchise in Indy, then this team was not going to survive in Indy.

The Pacers have made significant strides in turning themselves around. While people aren't quite ready to spend money on them, they are acknowledging the improvements made. I've been told by a lot of people that they like them, and will watch them now, despite the losses. I have several people who expressed distaste, or outright revulsion, last season when I offered them Pacer tickets, that this year, have been asking me if they can borrow mine, or come with me.

I sense that you believe the Pacers can't afford to be patient. I say, they can't afford not to. They're navigating a minefield right now. There's no guarantee that a mine won't arbitrarily go off while they're going through it, but if they try to rush or hurry through it, they're far more likely to step on one.

Skaut_Ech
02-20-2009, 11:53 AM
I sense that you believe the Pacers can't afford to be patient. I say, they can't afford not to. They're navigating a minefield right now. There's no guarantee that a mine won't arbitrarily go off while they're going through it, but if they try to rush or hurry through it, they're far more likely to step on one.

count55, I absolutely LOVE your posts. I rarely post anymore on the main board because there seem to be way too many people who attack the messenger without actually reading the message. I don't need the greif.

That being said, I agree with you whole-heartedly.

yeah, it would have been nice to dangle the expiring contracts of Rasho, Jack or the right to Stanko and Erazom to see what we could lure, but as we can see from this hyper-underwhelming trade mid-season, there weren't a lot of deals to be made.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but we're going to have QUITE a few players coming off the books at the end of the season. They can translate to some financial wiggle room.

Folks, take a look at this list of unrestricted free agents for this summer:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?page=FreeAgents-09-10


Quite a few names that jump out at you, huh?

I can be patient. Like my old avatar and saying said, I'm hungry for change, but I am also very patient with the thought that we have some great pieces in place. We just need that second star to go with Danny and I think we go a long ways towards a solid core for years to come.

Just like a house, you rush building the foundation and you get the same results as ther first two little pigs. I'm confident something will happen over the summer and it will be big.

No need to do something short-erm just to try and fil the seats to end the season when it could ultimately hurt more than help.

CableKC
02-20-2009, 12:20 PM
Folks, take a look at this list of unrestricted free agents for this summer:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?page=FreeAgents-09-10

Quite a few names that jump out at you, huh?
Despite the checkered history, I would make the best offer for Chris Anderson. He's a solid rebounder and shotblocker and has made the most out of the 19 mpg scoring 6ppg/5rpg/2bpg. Is it possible to put a termination clause if a Player has some new drug violations?

I would have to go over the list more....but he jumps out at me.

BRushWithDeath
02-20-2009, 12:42 PM
Despite the checkered history, I would make the best offer for Chris Anderson. He's a solid rebounder and shotblocker and has made the most out of the 19 mpg scoring 6ppg/5rpg/2bpg. Is it possible to put a termination clause if a Player has some new drug violations?

I would have to go over the list more....but he jumps out at me.

I think if McRoberts got the same amount of time he would put up similar or better numbers. And without the whole cocaine thing.

OakMoses
02-20-2009, 12:46 PM
Count, your criticisms of O'Brien are spot on.

I was hoping some sort of deal could have been pulled off, but I'm not upset or unhappy about standing pat. To be completely honest, my secret hopes were that Cleveland was desperate enough to find a PF that they'd have considered trading for Murphy. I don't know if expiring deals would have been enough for Bird to trade him, but I think it would have been a step forward in the rebuilding process even if it hurt us this year.

One interesting point that Chad Ford made in his review of all the trade deadline teams that didn't make a move, was that 'Quis could be very valuable around draft time due to the option on his contract. It's my understanding that the a team would still have time not to pick up his option after this year's expiring contracts have dissapeared.

Ford also critcized Orlando saying that the passed on a better PG in Tinsley and wound up with Alston. He also said that Houston should have made a move for 'Quis.

CableKC
02-20-2009, 12:46 PM
I think if McRoberts got the same amount of time he would put up similar or better numbers. And without the whole cocaine thing.
Assuming that we have the $$$, I have no problem signing BirdMan and resigning McRoberts.

CableKC
02-20-2009, 12:48 PM
One interesting point that Chad Ford made in his review of all the trade deadline teams that didn't make a move, was that 'Quis could be very valuable around draft time due to the option on his contract. It's my understanding that the a team would still have time not to pick up his option after this year's expiring contracts have dissapeared.
count55 ( or anyone else ), can you confirm whether it is still possible to trade Marquis before the end of this season or sometime during the Offseason?

BRushWithDeath
02-20-2009, 12:52 PM
count55 ( or anyone else ), can you confirm whether it is still possible to trade Marquis before the end of this season or sometime during the Offseason?

They can trade him in the offseason if they pick up his option. Thus making him an expiring again.

OakMoses
02-20-2009, 01:03 PM
count55 ( or anyone else ), can you confirm whether it is still possible to trade Marquis before the end of this season or sometime during the Offseason?

http://www.nbpa.com/cba_articles/article-XII.php

According the NBA Player's Association site, we have until July 1 to pick up 'Quis option. The draft is on June 25. The Pacers can begin making trades again on April 15, as soon as their last game of the season is over.

So, we'll have from April 15 until July first to trade 'Quis and his $7 million, possibly expiring contract.