PDA

View Full Version : Jennings at #13



MyFavMartin
06-17-2009, 09:55 PM
If a repeat of the Bayless drop occurs with Jennings, what teams are calling and who are they offering?

Trader Joe
06-17-2009, 10:46 PM
I don't think Jennings has ever been high enough on the board to warrant the same reaction. Bayless climbed into the top 5 on some boards last year.

NashvilleKat
06-17-2009, 11:04 PM
If Jennings falls to 13 I say we keep him. Jennings, Rush, Granger, Murphy, Dunleavy, Jack, Hibbert, and McRoberts make up a strong young nucleus for our future. Trade or by free agency...whatever it takes, add an experienced power forward in the class of Carlos Boozer and we're ready to play some serious basketball in the coming years.

imawhat
06-17-2009, 11:10 PM
I don't think Jennings has ever been high enough on the board to warrant the same reaction. Bayless climbed into the top 5 on some boards last year.

Jennings spent good time @ #5 on nbadraft.net, the same site that had Bayless at 4 last year.

PR07
06-18-2009, 12:31 AM
I'd keep him.

CableKC
06-18-2009, 01:27 AM
I'm thinking Teams behind us that have a need for a Starting or Backup PG.

Suns
Sixers
TWolves ( assuming that they don't draft one at #6 )
Hawks
Mavs
Thunder ( depending on who they pick at #3 )

Also...I have no problem pulling a "Bayless" with him if we can pull off a deal where we get additional picks and some other Player that could help us out over the next 2 years.

cdash
06-18-2009, 02:09 AM
Keep him. If we did deal him, you have to get a legit guy you targeted, plus another asset or two for your trouble.

Trader Joe
06-18-2009, 08:33 AM
Jennings spent good time @ #5 on nbadraft.net, the same site that had Bayless at 4 last year.

I stand corrected, still though I feel like Bayless wasn't losing buzz as the draft approached and his drop was unexpected. Jennings has been dropping for a solid couple of weeks. I'm not a huge Jennings fan but if we got him at 13 I probably wouldn't trade him.

count55
06-18-2009, 09:03 AM
I stand corrected, still though I feel like Bayless wasn't losing buzz as the draft approached and his drop was unexpected. Jennings has been dropping for a solid couple of weeks. I'm not a huge Jennings fan but if we got him at 13 I probably wouldn't trade him.

Yeah, there were very, very small rumbles about Bayless maybe about a week before, then, I think Ford and Simmons called it on the eve of the draft...but most people thought they were full of ****...however they were right:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/draft2008/columns/story?page=DraftDebate-080624


Some interesting comments...I thought the Toronto deal was pretty much confirmed by this point:


Pick No. 11: Indiana Pacers

Bill Simmons selects: Jerryd Bayless, Arizona

I cannot in good conscience allow the Basketball Jesus to take D.J. Augustin -- a career backup, in my opinion -- with the 11th pick of the 2008 draft. I just can't. When you already have Jamaal Tinsley and his terrible contract on your team, and there's absolutely no hope of trading him, why take another undersized point guard who can't guard anyone? Really, you're winning an NBA title someday with D.J. Augustin? I can't let Him do it. My favorite player for this spot is Brandon Rush, but the Pacers don't need another swingman; if anything, they could use another rebounding/shot-blocking body for Jim O'Brien's system, especially after Jermaine O'Neal's tragic death two years ago.

(What? He's still alive? I had no idea!)

Anyway, I had either Roy Hibbert or Robin Lopez penciled into this spot, but you just made my life a helluva lot easier by leaving Bayless sitting there for me. He's not really a point guard, but he could absolutely dribble the ball upcourt and run the offense in the 40 games a year Tinsley takes off, and I personally guarantee that he has a higher ceiling than Travis Diener. Plus, there's always one top-12 team that lucks into someone it needs, right? Maybe it will be the Pacers with Bayless. Of all the guys left, he's the one with a chance to make an All-Star team someday. Well, him and Kosta Koufos.

Ford: Yeah, if Bayless is on the board, you take him and run. The Pacers need something out of their backcourt besides Mike Dunleavy taking jump shots. Bayless will penetrate, pull up for shots and even play a little point.

We keep reading Jermaine O'Neal is on the block (though I'm not feeling T.J. Ford). What is the best possible deal you can get for him? I was stunned the Heat got Shawn Marion for an overweight, 35-year-old Shaquille O'Neal. Could the Pacers do even better?

Simmons: You're baiting me again. First of all, they took Marcus Banks' awful contract in the deal, which you neglected to mention. Second, the Suns could have absolutely beaten the Spurs in Round 1 (how does that series turn out if Duncan doesn't make the Miracle 3?), and for all we know, they may have been the best team in the West -- after the El Foldo that the Lakers pulled in the Finals. Shaq at least brings some stuff to the table; Jermaine hasn't been relevant as a basketball player in three years. I can't imagine that Bryan Colangelo would be dumb enough to deal for him. I just think O'Neal is done -- he's like Antoine Walker to me, a guy who is 31 going on 45.

Ford: What? You liked the Shaq deal? Oh, that's right.

So the Suns sign Marcus Banks to a ridiculous deal and then you praise them a year later for finding someone else to take it off their hands? Even when it cost them Marion, their best defender? (Didn't you say defense wins championships?)

Shaq brought the buffet to the table, but that's it. He was done. Finished. The Suns had the best record in the West before the trade. (And they would've been in the Finals the year before if the suspensions hadn't worked against them.) I think the Suns, not the Lakers, would've been in the Finals versus the Celtics without the trade. Boston probably beats them, but they would've competed more than the Lakers. Honestly, the Suns trading away Marion for Shaq was almost as big a gift to the Lakers' title hopes as Pau Gasol.

Simmons: So you're telling me that Shawn Marion -- an enigmatic head case who was legitimately happy to leave Steve Nash and the top team in the Western Conference so he could play with Ricky Davis and Mark Blount on the worst team in the league -- now would have swung the 2008 playoffs? I'll take my chances with Shaq, thanks.

Ford: Yeah, I'm saying that. Marion can play. Shaq can't.

I'm not denying the head case charge. Nor the selfishness one. But Marion defended the other team's best player and gave the Suns a fighting chance. I know Phoenix was sick of him, but the Suns should've waited until the summer and gotten more.

Simmons: Keep this up and Shaq's next freestyle is gonna be called, "Hey, Chad, Tell Me How My A-- Tastes."

Ford: That is the sickest thing I've ever read. I can't believe you wrote that. And by the way, like candy.

Simmons: Come on, that joke was sitting there for the last 30 minutes! Plus, we needed to have at least one moment that prompted an emergency conference call with the ESPN.com editors. I have no regrets.

On Jennings, I take him to keep him, unless, as noted, we can trade back, get a guy we like (Blair, Johnson, Maynor) and a decent young vet on a par with Jack...that you can't really turn down.

Jonathan
06-18-2009, 09:07 AM
It is going to be interesting but their will be a more polished player than Jennings if the Pacers select 13th. The only for sure thing is Griffen is number 1. I would not be suprised if we have our pick of Johnson, Blair, & Clark @ 13.

Smoothdave1
06-18-2009, 09:34 AM
I think there could be a chance he is available. But if we grab him or a guy like Lawson, Teague, Maynor, Holiday, etc. I think there has to be a trade in the works with Ford.

Otherwise, we are loaded at the point with Ford, Jack, Diener, Tinsley and draft pick.

cdash
06-18-2009, 10:13 AM
It's kind of surprising how well Simmons had us pegged. He liked Brandon Rush and Roy Hibbert for us, and we obviously landed both of them with our two first round picks.

Infinite MAN_force
06-18-2009, 10:44 AM
I don't get at all why people think we should trade Jennings if he falls. Jennings is a potential top flight talent at a position of need. He is one of the few players in this draft who doesn't have gaping holes in his game.

We keep talking about this team needing a talent upgrade... hello? You want to trade down???? For who? Bench players? this draft is chock full of bench warmers.

People forget the reason bayless was traded was because he is NOT a pg, he is more like an undersized shooting guard. Jennings is a true point with star potential. Adding Jennings to the Granger-Rush-Hibbert core would be a coup!!

cdash
06-18-2009, 10:49 AM
I don't get at all why people think we should trade Jennings if he falls. Jennings is a potential top flight talent at a position of need. He is one of the few players in this draft who doesn't have gaping holes in his game.

We keep talking about this team needing a talent upgrade... hello? You want to trade down???? For who? Bench players? this draft is chock full of bench warmers.

People forget the reason bayless was traded was because he is NOT a pg, he is more like an undersized shooting guard. Jennings is a true point with star potential. Adding Jennings to the Granger-Rush-Hibbert core would be a coup!!

I agree. In general, I've never been much of a fan of trading down. I like picking the best player you can get, and generally, trading down doesn't allow for such a thing. If Jennings falls to us, take him and run.

PacerFreak31
06-18-2009, 11:04 AM
I think there could be a chance he is available. But if we grab him or a guy like Lawson, Teague, Maynor, Holiday, etc. I think there has to be a trade in the works with Ford.

Otherwise, we are loaded at the point with Ford, Jack, Diener, Tinsley and draft pick.

I posted this thought in the draft recruiting center thread and believe it is worth talking about here. Everyone on this board is under the assumption that we are going to be able to resign Jack. That is not a 100% given. What happens if Jack gets priced out of our range? We will then only have Ford and Travis..... We will not win many games next year if those are your 1 and 2 point guards. Again we can not go into a point guard heavy draft and assume we are going to resign Jack and pass on a very nice insurance policy.

Now lets say we do draft Jennings and we do resign Ford. Just about every thing I have read about Jennings says he has tons of potential but he is about two years away. Guess what..... Fords contract would be up in two years. So if Jennings is there I believe we take him and run. He would be a nice backup if we can't resign Jack or we would be ready to really take the team and run after Fords contract is up. Either way we go I do feel Jennings is whom we should take.

Infinite MAN_force
06-18-2009, 11:13 AM
I think there could be a chance he is available. But if we grab him or a guy like Lawson, Teague, Maynor, Holiday, etc. I think there has to be a trade in the works with Ford.

Otherwise, we are loaded at the point with Ford, Jack, Diener, Tinsley and draft pick.

I am hoping for Ford to be traded, I think he showed last year that he is a poor fit here and despite things obrien has been saying, they are looking to ship him out.

Anthem
06-18-2009, 11:51 AM
I am hoping for Ford to be traded, I think he showed last year that he is a poor fit here and despite things obrien has been saying, they are looking to ship him out.
I find myself agreeing with you quite a bit today.

Speed
06-18-2009, 11:58 AM
I am hoping for Ford to be traded, I think he showed last year that he is a poor fit here and despite things obrien has been saying, they are looking to ship him out.

I have felt pretty much the same way, but I've been watching games from last year while on the treadmill in the morning. TJ pretty much had the ball in his hands 85% of the time in crunch time for this team last year. It's not to say they wouldn't figure out something without him, but they HEAVILY leaned on him to create at the end of close games. Mostly, it was him getting his own shot off, but not always. Also, he was mostly effective. Not my idea of how to do it, but the results looked pretty good.

crunk-juice
06-18-2009, 04:43 PM
take this situation:

unable to move Ford, retain Jack. that means we have Ford and Jack at PG... do we still take Jennings, even if Johnson, Blair, and Clark are all available?

that is the situation i find myself in for a mock draft. could really use some help..

Hicks
06-18-2009, 04:52 PM
take this situation:

unable to move Ford, retain Jack. that means we have Ford and Jack at PG... do we still take Jennings, even if Johnson, Blair, and Clark are all available?

that is the situation i find myself in for a mock draft. could really use some help..

The smart thing would be to take Jennings for the boost in talent it gives your roster, then work it out from there.

rexnom
06-18-2009, 04:52 PM
My favorite player for this spot is Brandon Rush, but the Pacers don't need another swingman; if anything, they could use another rebounding/shot-blocking body for Jim O'Brien's system...I had either Roy Hibbert or Robin Lopez penciled into this spot.
Christ does Simmons know us well.

Barrister
06-18-2009, 04:53 PM
If you think Jennings has the best chance at NBA success of those on the board, I think you do. Ford only has one year left on his contract with a player option at $8.5M the following year, which he is unlikely to exercise (Ford will be looking for a long-term deal).

If the Pacers don't like Ford as the solution at starting PG (i.e., we won't re-sign him to a long-term deal after this contract), this gives Jennings a much needed year to learn on the bench, and hopefully take over the sparting spot from Jack over time as his skills and experience increase.

The tougher question for me is whether Jennings will be the best player available when we pick.

pwee31
06-18-2009, 07:12 PM
Jennings has star potential, so it's definitely someone you have to look at. If you keep him, you can bring him along slowly behind Ford or Jack. He's also possible that a Bayless deal could be done b/c young PGs are always a hot commodity, so a team drafting behind us may be willing to add a little incentive to a deal, as well as a team selecting before us they may have filled another need, but might be willing to add some veteran talent and another pick.

I think the best thing about there last two years is that the Pacers have options. It's been hard some years to improve through the draft or draft trades, b/c we simply didn't have a pick, but having a pick... even in a slightly unpopular draft, is a nice thing to have