PDA

View Full Version : "One Player Away"



Doug
03-30-2009, 09:46 PM
Warning, this may be my most optimistic post in a long time. I'll keep it short so as not send you into a diabetic coma.

PG Jack
SG Rush
SF Granger
PF TBD
C Hibbert

Next 4: Mike, TJ, Troy, Jeff

Basically, I think we are "one player away" from being a really good team. Where that player is an above average PF. Particularly an above average defender and rebounder, but at least an average scorer as well. (Peck, I'd take Dale Davis in his prime even without the scoring.)

Yes, pretty much every team is "one player away", depending on who that player is. But it seems that some of the pieces they have fit together pretty well. Put together well enough that you could plug in a young, strong PF, then give the group a year or two to come together. That could be something special.

It would be a nice year to luck into the #1 pick, eh?

Anthem
03-30-2009, 09:54 PM
It's always a nice year to luck into the #1 pick. Last year (Rose) would have been great, too.

But yeah, I'm with you.

BlueNGold
03-30-2009, 09:55 PM
I think that TBD could be adequately filled with Jeff Foster if Hibbert and Rush develop sufficiently. If those 5 start next year, we are back in the playoffs. If we push defense to the side, we will be sub .500 once again. It really is that simple.

BlueNGold
03-30-2009, 09:57 PM
Blake Griffin would solve every problem on this team except PG. Oh, if we only get lucky it would be huge.

Kaufman
03-30-2009, 09:57 PM
I would qualify that by saying that we are one good player AND one good coach away

Plax80
03-30-2009, 10:09 PM
Warning, this may be my most optimistic post in a long time. I'll keep it short so as not send you into a diabetic coma.

PG Jack
SG Rush
SF Granger
PF TBD
C Hibbert

Next 4: Mike, TJ, Troy, Jeff

Basically, I think we are "one player away" from being a really good team. Where that player is an above average PF. Particularly an above average defender and rebounder, but at least an average scorer as well. (Peck, I'd take Dale Davis in his prime even without the scoring.)

Yes, pretty much every team is "one player away", depending on who that player is. But it seems that some of the pieces they have fit together pretty well. Put together well enough that you could plug in a young, strong PF, then give the group a year or two to come together. That could be something special.

It would be a nice year to luck into the #1 pick, eh?

Yes..........his name is leBron James

Anthem
03-30-2009, 10:34 PM
Blake Griffin would solve every problem on this team except PG.
If you get Griffin, then Jack is perfectly adequate as a PG.

But we won't get Griffin. Don't even think it; you'll just be disappointed later.

vnzla81
03-30-2009, 10:39 PM
I will be o.k with getting the second round pick and drafting Ricky Rubbio

Infinite MAN_force
03-30-2009, 10:55 PM
I don't know. I think we could get by with a "solid" PF who mainly focusus on rebounding/defense who can block shots and score on a "decent" level. That is if we upgrade the PG spot, which I still see as the big priority. Jack is very solid, but on a contender I prefer him coming off the bench.

Of course I think Mcroberts could be that solid PF, maybe better... but what do I know?

I would not complain if we ended up with Blake Griffen, however. Aren't the pacers due for some lottery luck?

rexnom
03-30-2009, 11:04 PM
I don't know. I think we could get by with a "solid" PF who mainly focusus on rebounding/defense who can block shots and score on a "decent" level. That is if we upgrade the PG spot, which I still see as the big priority. Jack is very solid, but on a contender I prefer him coming off the bench.

Of course I think Mcroberts could be that solid PF, maybe better... but what do I know?

I would not complain if we ended up with Blake Griffen, however. Aren't the pacers due for some lottery luck?
What? Considering we've never had any?! Yeah, I'd say so. Of course, NBA lotteries are independent statistical events that have no bearing on each other from year to year so don't get your hopes up - even though we'll probably have about the same chance that Portland and Chicago did.

pwee31
03-30-2009, 11:10 PM
The lack of respect for Troy Murphy has baffled me. Could he be a better defender... absolutely, but here recently he's been sold short with this future PF/4... one PF away.

Murph has had a hell of season, and has definitely earned his starting position and respect.

I agree that we're probably an athletic PF away, but I don't necessarily believe they have to be a starter.

switch
03-30-2009, 11:11 PM
Yes, wouldn't it be nice if we had a 7ft power foward who averaged a double-double...?

Does nobody like Murphy at the 4 or something? I thought he has been having great season and has been very productive when healthy. He's not the greatest defender in the world, but I would't consider him the one weak link going into next season.

switch
03-30-2009, 11:12 PM
The lack of respect for Troy Murphy has baffled me. Could he be a better defender... absolutely, but here recently he's been sold short with this future PF/4... one PF away.

Murph has had a hell of season, and has definitely earned his starting position and respect.

I agree that we're probably an athletic PF away, but I don't necessarily believe they have to be a starter.

Looks like you beet me to it..

Doug
03-30-2009, 11:14 PM
I think a 'solid' PF paired with Roy is too weak to be a 'contender'. I think Roy will be 'solid', but perhaps not much over that. IMO, one of those two needs to be 'near all-star' level (assuming you don't have one of the best players in the league at the 1, 2 or 3.)

I think Jack can be an adequate PG on a contender, assuming Rush develops into an above average (near all-star) scorer AND defender.

duke dynamite
03-30-2009, 11:24 PM
I'm happy with Troy.

kester99
03-30-2009, 11:31 PM
We've seen our defense begin to gel. We've seen both Rush and Jack show they can put lots of points on the board. With Jack, Rush, Danny, Troy, TJ, and (hopefully) Mike, we could have so many valid scoring options that, coupled with a respectable team defense, we could have a real good season next year.

The 'one player' may just be continuity.

But I'd take a real good draft pick, too.

JayRedd
03-30-2009, 11:32 PM
Yes..........his name is leBron James

Was hoping I didn't have to be the one to say it first.*















* Was gonna go with Hakeem.

Roaming Gnome
03-30-2009, 11:36 PM
Troy's ok, but I'm always ready to upgrade.

Kemo
03-30-2009, 11:38 PM
EVERYTHING hinges on whether Rush and Hibbert start becoming the potentially "near all-star"... "studs" they "could be" for this team ..

I personally believe they "BOTH" will ... It's really just a matter of time and which one "gets it" first ...
Hopefully we get lucky sooner than later and they both start becoming impact players close to the same time frame...

I have faith ...
.
.
.I agree with Kester on it mostly being a continuity thing..


But I ALSO wanna add ... a trust thing , and a team cohesion ..
.
Then I think everything will all fall in place ..
.
.

pwee31
03-30-2009, 11:39 PM
I just think we need an athletic PF who can defend and keep other teams defense honest. A Leon Powe, or perhap a Paul Milsap type of player (even before Boozer went down). A guy who can come in a block shots, get rebounds, finish put backs, decent mid range jumper.

A difference maker that may not always show up in the box score

pwee31
03-30-2009, 11:47 PM
These last couple games have definitely left me optimistic going into next year, but health is still a factor, and a lot hinges on the offseason. The draft, who we resign, and I personally feel we have to get rid of Tinsley this offseason and get someone who can help somehow, even if it's only in practice

Bball
03-31-2009, 01:01 AM
Doug,
I tend to agree with you. I don't even think it'll be all that long or hard of a search because I don't think we're going to be swinging for the fences and gambling on superstar potential or anything... We just need a solid player and I think we'll do it via the draft and/or trading around in the draft like we did last season.

I'm not saying we're making a draft pick and then winning the championship or anything, just that we'll be taking a rather large step toward being a team that nobody will want to play and that fans will respect their hard work and competitiveness. We'll be a team that makes the playoffs and deserves to make the playoffs.

CableKC
03-31-2009, 01:31 AM
I just think we need an athletic PF who can defend and keep other teams defense honest. A Leon Powe, or perhap a Paul Milsap type of player (even before Boozer went down). A guy who can come in a block shots, get rebounds, finish put backs, decent mid range jumper.

A difference maker that may not always show up in the box score
I think that Powe could be had.....the problem is that it would probably cost us the same amount of $$$ that it would cost to resign Jack.

pwee31
03-31-2009, 02:33 AM
Like I posted in the Recruiting thread. I personally would trying trading our pick if we're picking between 8-12 to a team like Minnesota for their 2 mid-late 1st rounders, or at least their mid (18 right now) and there 1st 2nd rounders.

We could address multiple needs... up to 3 if we keep our 2nd rounder as well

maragin
03-31-2009, 05:42 AM
Basically, I think we are "one player away" from being a really good team.

I respect your opinion, but I don't think we'd be a really good team by just adding a player. I suppose it depends on your definition of a really good team. Unless we're adding some other team's all star, I don't see us getting to the 50 win plateau.

I'd say we're a few roster moves, a system/ philosophy change, and a couple years away from potentially being a really good team. I'd love to be wrong on this, by the way. It is my hope that we make the playoffs next year, but this season has turned out how I thought it would. Rebuilding hurts, but I think we're heading in a decent direction.

count55
03-31-2009, 07:04 AM
If you get Griffin, then Jack is perfectly adequate as a PG.

But we won't get Griffin. Don't even think it; you'll just be disappointed later.

If you get Griffin, you can't re-sign Jack.

Any pick in the top three likely prevents us from being able to sign or re-sign anyone above say $2mm because it likely puts us over the Tax Threshold.

The top pick in the draft will command $4.5 to $5.0mm to start, compared to the $2mm-ish that the 11, 12, 13 pick will get. (The third pick would get close to $4.0mm.)

I'm not saying that I don't want the top pick, I'm merely pointing out that "winning" the lottery significantly changes the financial calculations the Pacers will be facing this season.

Also, it appears that, unless the Pacers let Jack (and everyone else) walk, they will almost certainly be over the tax threshold in 2010-2011. However, that would be a one-year situation, as they have over $45mm in expiring contracts that season.

While I have generally considered the tax threshold as a bright line that the Pacers would not cross, I have come to the conclusion recently that I expect that I think they will risk it (in 2010-2011) to re-sign Jack. There will be limits, but I see only three things resulting in the Pacers letting Jack go.

The first is winning the lottery, as noted above. The second would be if another team were to offer the full MLE to Jarrett. I doubt that we'd match that as it would probably put us over the threshold for the next two years, rather than just risking 2010-2011. I consider both of these scenarios to be extremely unlikely.

A third, more realistic scenario is if we were to draft someone we considered a potential answer at the point. Tyreke Evans is the only guy who comes to mind. O'Brien acknowledged on the show that none of the three point guards is the dominant point guard that they really want.

I still think that a 4-year deal starting a $4mm for Jack is a very solid possibility. With the max raises, it could reach $18+mm over the length of the contract. The only way I see them starting with a significant higher salary is if the contract is flat or declining.

Hicks
03-31-2009, 09:27 AM
Question: Can players whose contracts are about to expire be traded on draft night, or is that only if they have an option that can be exercised?

Major Cold
03-31-2009, 09:47 AM
To be a contender we have to address more than just 1 player.

We need another wing player who can score and alleviate pressure from Danny the entire season. Rush has had some good games but I don't expect him to play like this next season for 82 games. When he hits a slump, we will need a Daniels like player just to stay above water. I think another solid to good wing player would give us a chance to go small for a short time and make the opposing team adjust their style.

Our PGs are all good to great backups, but there is no outstanding starting PG on this team. To contend we need that with the current players we have. Murphy has shown that he contributes 60% of the game. His role as a bench player would be alright. But the chance we draft a player that will knock him out of the starting lineup is downright impossible. Hibbert knocked Rasho out. Murphy is no Rasho.

count55
03-31-2009, 09:53 AM
Question: Can players whose contracts are about to expire be traded on draft night, or is that only if they have an option that can be exercised?

His option must be exercised.

A player with a Team Option, like Marquis Daniels, is considered an "expiring" contract until the option is picked up. By the same token, a player with an ETO (Early Termination Option) or a Player Option, like Travis Diener, is also considered "expiring" until the player chooses to either waive (the ETO) or exercise his option.

"Expiring" contracts are not allowed to be traded after the trade deadline of their final year.

You'll recall last year that JO's agent gave written notification to the Pacers and the league that he was not going to exercise his ETO. This allowed the Pacers to see trades prior to the June 30 deadline. (The trades were not executed until after July 1st for other salary reasons.)

MillerTime
03-31-2009, 09:54 AM
Question: Can players whose contracts are about to expire be traded on draft night, or is that only if they have an option that can be exercised?

http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/showthread.php?t=45721&page=2

ChicagoJ
03-31-2009, 11:37 AM
Doug,

I hate to be a downer here but that nine-man lineup is painfully thin at PG.

We're two players away. A rugged PF and a PG to pair with Jack.

I'm still dreaming of trading TJ and Jeff for a decent draft pick. Don't break my heart with your damn C.B.A. facts and salary cap common sense.

Anthem
03-31-2009, 11:42 AM
If you get Griffin, you can't re-sign Jack.
Somehow, I'd manage to hold back my tears if we got Griffin. :D

Major Cold
03-31-2009, 11:44 AM
With Dun out I would add another wing man to that list.

Do we expect Rush to play like the last few games the entire season next year. We won't have Daniels and Dunleavy may be out a good chunk. We need another wing on top of a true defense PG and a PF.

count55
03-31-2009, 12:18 PM
Somehow, I'd manage to hold back my tears if we got Griffin. :D

Like I said, I wasn't saying that I didn't want the top pick. It's just that a number of people were penciling Jack at the 1 with Griffin, and I don't think they realized how much more expensive the top three picks were, salary-wise.

MrSparko
03-31-2009, 12:28 PM
TJ and Griffin sounds better than Jack and Murphy to me. I know we're not going to get Griffin though so this is moot.

Infinite MAN_force
03-31-2009, 01:32 PM
If you get Griffin, you can't re-sign Jack.

Any pick in the top three likely prevents us from being able to sign or re-sign anyone above say $2mm because it likely puts us over the Tax Threshold.

The top pick in the draft will command $4.5 to $5.0mm to start, compared to the $2mm-ish that the 11, 12, 13 pick will get. (The third pick would get close to $4.0mm.)

I'm not saying that I don't want the top pick, I'm merely pointing out that "winning" the lottery significantly changes the financial calculations the Pacers will be facing this season.

Also, it appears that, unless the Pacers let Jack (and everyone else) walk, they will almost certainly be over the tax threshold in 2010-2011. However, that would be a one-year situation, as they have over $45mm in expiring contracts that season.

While I have generally considered the tax threshold as a bright line that the Pacers would not cross, I have come to the conclusion recently that I expect that I think they will risk it (in 2010-2011) to re-sign Jack. There will be limits, but I see only three things resulting in the Pacers letting Jack go.

The first is winning the lottery, as noted above. The second would be if another team were to offer the full MLE to Jarrett. I doubt that we'd match that as it would probably put us over the threshold for the next two years, rather than just risking 2010-2011. I consider both of these scenarios to be extremely unlikely.

A third, more realistic scenario is if we were to draft someone we considered a potential answer at the point. Tyreke Evans is the only guy who comes to mind. O'Brien acknowledged on the show that none of the three point guards is the dominant point guard that they really want.

I still think that a 4-year deal starting a $4mm for Jack is a very solid possibility. With the max raises, it could reach $18+mm over the length of the contract. The only way I see them starting with a significant higher salary is if the contract is flat or declining.

Wow, I was not aware we would be over the cap in two years. This to me indicates that Ford is even more likely to be traded than I thought. I would be on the lookout for a salary dump trade with TJ this offseason in order to prevent going over the tax the following year.

wintermute
03-31-2009, 02:26 PM
Also, it appears that, unless the Pacers let Jack (and everyone else) walk, they will almost certainly be over the tax threshold in 2010-2011. However, that would be a one-year situation, as they have over $45mm in expiring contracts that season.


how do you figure that? are you projecting the luxury tax threshold to be flat from next season to 2 seasons after? or are you supposing the next cba would have a stricter tax provision?

i agree that things will be tight, but even so, the difference couldn't be much. diener's contract coming off after next season will help a bit. and if we really have to, we could probably avoid the tax by trading out of the draft in either '09 or '10. not an ideal situation, to be sure.


Wow, I was not aware we would be over the cap in two years. This to me indicates that Ford is even more likely to be traded than I thought. I would be on the lookout for a salary dump trade with TJ this offseason in order to prevent going over the tax the following year.

yeah, it would be nice to have a little financial breathing space, but probably not time to panic yet. trading any one of tinsley, ford, foster, murphy, or dunleavy for a shorter contract would do for me.

Dr. Goldfoot
03-31-2009, 02:41 PM
If one makes a couple of assumptions like Jamaal Tinsley will still be on the books, Ford takes his players option, they take the team options on Rush & Hibbert and you figure the picks between now and then the Pacers will be somewhere around $65 million in '10-'11 with 5 roster spots open. That's w/o any other player signing between now and then and letting every free agent walk.

count55
03-31-2009, 03:07 PM
how do you figure that? are you projecting the luxury tax threshold to be flat from next season to 2 seasons after? or are you supposing the next cba would have a stricter tax provision?

i agree that things will be tight, but even so, the difference couldn't be much. diener's contract coming off after next season will help a bit. and if we really have to, we could probably avoid the tax by trading out of the draft in either '09 or '10. not an ideal situation, to be sure.



yeah, it would be nice to have a little financial breathing space, but probably not time to panic yet. trading any one of tinsley, ford, foster, murphy, or dunleavy for a shorter contract would do for me.

The NBA circulated a projection that showed the cap in 2009-2010 at $69.4, and declining again in 2010-2011 to $68.5.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/dailydime?page=dime-090321-22


n Feb. 18, Stern authorized the dispatch of a memo to all 30 teams projecting a drop in the salary cap from $58.7 million this season to $57.3 million in 2009-10 and a subsequent drop to $56.5 million in 2010-11, with a projected decline for the luxury-tax threshold as well: $71.2 million this season to $69.4 million in 2009-10 to $68.5 million in 2010-11.

The Pacers currently have 8 players signed for the 2010-2011 season (Murphy, Dunleavy, Ford, Granger, Foster, Tinsley, Rush, and Hibbert - I'm assuming we pick up the options on the two rooks) with a total payroll of $60.1mm. Add in about $2.0mm for this year's 1st round pick and another $2.0 for next year's 1st round pick, and you're at $64.1mm or so.

That leaves $4.4 million left to sign 5 players. If we sign Jack, his salary will almost certainly chew up most, if not all of that, leaving us at the tax threshold with four players left to sign.

However, as I said I think they'll probably go ahead and sign Jack, and plan on being able to move just enough salaries to get under the threshold. (it would probably only take about $2-3mm reduction. Also, it would only be a one-year penalty, with about $45mm (Murph, Junior, Ford, Tinsley & Foster) coming off the books the following summer.

naptownmenace
03-31-2009, 03:26 PM
I just think we need an athletic PF who can defend and keep other teams defense honest. A Leon Powe, or perhap a Paul Milsap type of player (even before Boozer went down). A guy who can come in a block shots, get rebounds, finish put backs, decent mid range jumper.

A difference maker that may not always show up in the box score

Jason Maxiel immediately came to my mind. Isn't he a FA this summer?

pwee31
03-31-2009, 03:49 PM
Jason Maxiel immediately came to my mind. Isn't he a FA this summer?

I actually came really close to typing his name out as an example as well, not sure if he's a FA or not, but I expect the Pistons to try and keep him aound

Anthem
03-31-2009, 04:30 PM
It's just that a number of people were penciling Jack at the 1 with Griffin
Which is silly, since we're not getting the #1 pick.

Doug
03-31-2009, 04:31 PM
Doug,

I hate to be a downer here but that nine-man lineup is painfully thin at PG.

We're two players away. A rugged PF and a PG to pair with Jack.

I'm still dreaming of trading TJ and Jeff for a decent draft pick. Don't break my heart with your damn C.B.A. facts and salary cap common sense.

I don't know. We're thin at starting PG, but we're pretty well stocked at backup PG.

I was assuming that TJ is an fine backup PG on a contender.

As for the additional wing scoring that somebody mentioned, I was counting Mike there. Of course, if he doesn't come back from surgery, that's out.

As good as Murphy has been, I think the pairing of Murphy and Hibbert to be too weak defensively to "contend".

count55
03-31-2009, 04:31 PM
Which is silly, since we're not getting the #1 pick.

Well, if silly things were never posted...

Trophy
03-31-2009, 05:43 PM
I'm happy with Troy.

I agree he's the better starting PF for us. I'm not just saying that because I'm a fan of him. He's a unique kind of player that gets nearly 12 rebounds a game and is a 45% 3-point shooter.

wintermute
04-01-2009, 06:16 AM
The NBA circulated a projection that showed the cap in 2009-2010 at $69.4, and declining again in 2010-2011 to $68.5.


thanks, i missed that.

wow, most teams will be caught out. a lot of free agents won't be getting more than vet minimum offers, i think.

at least it should make jack relatively easy to retain, assuming one of the few teams with more money doesn't take a liking to him.

MillerTime
04-01-2009, 07:29 AM
I agree he's the better starting PF for us. I'm not just saying that because I'm a fan of him. He's a unique kind of player that gets nearly 12 rebounds a game and is a 45% 3-point shooter.

I would still have PF that has a post game. That would lead to higher %

QuickRelease
04-01-2009, 08:38 AM
We really need a low post player to mix up our offense. Our steady diet of jumpshooting, allows other teams back into ball games frequently. It would be nice to have a player down low that our shooters could play off of. And as far as Blake Griffin goes, we don't know who will get the top pick. I like our chances, even if they are slim.

Major Cold
04-01-2009, 08:38 AM
With the forseeable reduction in cap and luxury cap, I just don't see Jack pulling down a contract higher than 3.5 million. Ben Gordon is signed a 1 year contract for the MLE because no other teams were going to invest. The market has changed and if I were FA I would push for length of contract above per year income. That alone should be to our advantage with Jack.

Also....Signing Jeff Foster to that deal might have been the supportive thing to do. But I guarantee you we would have saved some cash if we let his deal expire. Courtesy or not, that deal tightened the noose slightly on our flexibility.

count55
04-01-2009, 08:43 AM
With the forseeable reduction in cap and luxury cap, I just don't see Jack pulling down a contract higher than 3.5 million. Ben Gordon is signed a 1 year contract for the MLE because no other teams were going to invest. The market has changed and if I were FA I would push for length of contract above per year income. That alone should be to our advantage with Jack.

Also....Signing Jeff Foster to that deal might have been the supportive thing to do. But I guarantee you we would have saved some cash if we let his deal expire. Courtesy or not, that deal tightened the noose slightly on our flexibility.

Well, Gordon is actually signed to the one-year qualifying offer. He took that because he wasn't happy with the reported 6/$59 offer from Chicago (idiot), and this will allow him to become an unrestricted free agent...which will in turn basically allow him to sign an MLE deal (costing himself at least $30 million)...IMO.

Jack may command slightly more than the $3.5mm, at least on average, but it's tough to tell what will happen.

As to Foster, given the cap situation at the time of the signing, I thought it was a debatable, but reasonable move. I would've retained the flexibility, but I had assumed that, unless a trade offer that blew us away came along, we'd re-sign Jeff. However, if we knew then what we know now, I would doubt that we would have given him that extension.

ChicagoJ
04-01-2009, 11:30 AM
I don't know. We're thin at starting PG, but we're pretty well stocked at backup PG.

I was assuming that TJ is an fine backup PG on a contender.

My bad... I mis-read this originally. Okay. I don't mind TJ coming off the bench. He'll still drive me crazy but he's a nice change of pace player.

Putnam
04-01-2009, 11:57 AM
And as far as Blake Griffin goes, we don't know who will get the top pick. I like our chances, even if they are slim.


What does this mean, Quick?

count55
04-01-2009, 12:00 PM
What does this mean, Quick?

Too late

Justin Tyme
04-01-2009, 02:32 PM
that deal tightened the noose slightly on our flexibility.



SLIGHTLY?!!

It was a absolute poor poor move by Bird. He has tied his hands on having any flexibility by doing it. As you said it was supportive, but it wasn't necessary at the time. I've said numerous times he should have waited to see how the season played out b4 doing it, and the decision he made to re-sign Foster has crippled this franchise in getting a FA. There was NO reason to sign Foster at that time, he wasn't going anywhere and Bird had plenty of time to see how things would workout before making a decision. There was NO hurry to do it. Patience is a virtue, and one Bird should have followed in this instance. He has greatly limited his options by having no patience which could come back to bite the Pacers.