PDA

View Full Version : Pacers need to tank this season!



Pacergeek
12-31-2009, 09:24 AM
As much as I hate watching my beloved Pacers lose, what we need to do is throw in the towel for one reason: losing gives us a chance to draft John Wall. The Pacers need to get lucky and land a legitimate franchise player. I am a big Granger fan, but he will never be the top guy on a championship team. Wall is the best prospect, who will be drafted number one, since Lebron.

If you disagree, lets look at the past few No. 1 draft picks:

2009- Blake Griffin- Wall would have been number one in this draft if the eligibility rule wasn't in place.

2008- Derrick Rose- Wall is quicker, more athletic/explosive version of Rose.

2007- Greg Oden- over-hyped since high school. Will never be healthy enough to be the dominant big man he was supposed to be.

2006- Andrea Bargniani- At best could be the third best player on a contending team

2005- Andrew Bogut- Getting better, but will never be a franchise player for a contender

2004- Dwight Howard- The best player of this group, but not sure if he will continue to contend for a title every year. The Magic were pretty loaded with talent around him last season, but it still wasn't enough to win a ring. He needs great players to be around him. Howard is the only player in the group in which you could argue is better than Wall.

2003- Lebron James- could be one of the best ever.

A player like Wall only comes around once every 6 or 7 years, so the Pacers need to put themselves in the best possibe position to be able to draft him which would be losing as many games as possible.

Unclebuck
12-31-2009, 09:26 AM
What do you mean by "tank"

littlerichard54
12-31-2009, 09:28 AM
As much as I hate watching my beloved Pacers lose, we need to do throw in the towel for one reason: losing gives us a chance to draft John Wall. The Pacers need to get lucky and land a legitimate franchise player. I am a big Granger fan, but he will never be the top guy on a championship team. Wall is the best prospect, who will be drafted number one, since Lebron.

If you disagree, lets look at the past few No. 1 draft picks:

2009- Blake Griffin- Wall would have been number one in this draft if the eligibility rule wasn't in place.

2008- Derrick Rose- Wall is quicker, more athletic/explosive version of Rose.

2007- Greg Oden- over-hyped since high school. Will never be healthy enough to be the dominant big man he was supposed to be.

2006- Andrea Bargniani- At best could be the third best player on a contending team

2005- Andrew Bogut- Getting better, but will never be a franchise player for a contender

2004- Dwight Howard- The best player of this group, but not sure if he will continue to contend for a title every year. The Magic were pretty loaded with talent around him last season, but it still wasn't enough to win a ring. He needs great players to be around him. Howard is the only player in the group in which you could argue is better than Wall.

2003- Lebron James- could be one of the best ever.

In conclusion, a player like Wall only comes around once every 6 or 7 years, so the Pacers need to put themselves in the best possibe position to be able to draft him which would be losing as many games as possible.


If they aren't tanking now, how would you suggest they go about it. I think they are on the right path.

Pacergeek
12-31-2009, 09:29 AM
by "tanking" I mean to continue losing like we have been. I don't want to see the Pacers resemble last years team, which was at least competitive.

Speed
12-31-2009, 09:42 AM
Intentionally losing-never

Understanding the benefit of an influx of talent via having a high draft pick-absolutely

Unclebuck
12-31-2009, 09:56 AM
by "tanking" I mean to continue losing like we have been. I don't want to see the Pacers resemble last years team, which was at least competitive.

OK, but how do you insure they continue losing. Should they only play certain players, do they instruct the players to try and lose games. How do you do it

Speed
12-31-2009, 10:25 AM
Like I said yesterday, if you can't give me Ws as a fan, give me hope.

Develop the young guys and let the chips fall where they may, imo.

Pacergeek
12-31-2009, 10:27 AM
"OK, but how do you insure they continue losing. Should they only play certain players, do they instruct the players to try and lose games. How do you do it"

Do nothing. Make no changes. JOB is clearly ensuring that they lose with his inconsistent line-up. Minutes need to be earned in practice not given simply because of your contract. If they keep Murphy and Dunleavy in the line-up for more minutes than they deserve, they will continue to lose. There are an abundance of losers on this team, starting at the top on down. As another coach once said, "i need winners." Clearly what has been assembled is not a group of winners. Blame whomever, Bird, Simon, JOB for not knowing how to turn these losers into winners, or the losers themselves. This is not a team, rather its poorly assembled collection of malcontents and losers, whose best player would be at best the third option on a contending team. that's not a knock on granger or his game, simply the reality of the situation.

Also, giving mcroberts 30+ minutes a game should guarantee tanking games.

Will Galen
12-31-2009, 11:09 AM
Tanking? Continue to play the guys that have been losing will obviously do it.

I'm not for tanking. I always want the Pacers to win. However, now I'm not a bit upset when they lose.

I took some visiting relatives on the Mystery-Dinner-Train ride last night and missed the game. I did record it, but I haven't watched it yet. However, when I got home I got online to check the score. Then immediately checked the standings and was GLAD to see we are now tied for third in ping pong balls if the lottery happened today.

I don't want the Pacers to try to tank, but right now losing is the best thing that can happen to this team. I really want a top three pick this year.

So, as has been said, I want the Pacers to play the young guys and see what happens, but not until after the trade deadline. We need to trade one of our 4 big contracts so we can avoid the lux tax next year. Benching a guy is not the way to get the most value for him.

Consaquently, I think Bird has us going in the perfect direction right now. If we keep JOB through his contract and things continue the same, in a year and a half we will have some large expiring contracts that can be used to get us a nice player or two, plus we will have a couple really nice draft picks.

Losing sucks, but looking at the big picture, if we stay the course Bird has us on right now, coach and all, we should really have something in a year and a half.

judicata
12-31-2009, 11:30 AM
Your list of #1 picks isn't all that encouraging. It looks like drafting first is still a coin flip at best.

BillS
12-31-2009, 11:41 AM
Hoping a single high draft pick will save the future is a poor strategy. If it happens it is great, but lightning just doesn't strike that often (and very seldom strikes where it was expected to strike).

Kegboy
12-31-2009, 11:43 AM
We've lost 8 in a row. There's no need to advocate "tanking" at such a point. It'd be like Nets fans saying the same thing, it's redundant.

Justin Tyme
12-31-2009, 11:55 AM
We've lost 8 in a row. There's no need to advocate "tanking" at such a point. It'd be like Nets fans saying the same thing, it's redundant.


The Nets beat the Knicks last night. It couldn't have happened to a better team. I'm not a fan of Dolan, Walsh, or their coach. The Nets are only 6 wins behind the Pacers now, and I'm hoping they go on a winning streak as a belated X-mas gift from Santa. So is the T'Wolves.

count55
12-31-2009, 12:02 PM
Hoping a single high draft pick will save the future is a poor strategy. If it happens it is great, but lightning just doesn't strike that often (and very seldom strikes where it was expected to strike).

57% of the 12-17 Chicago Bulls' minutes have come from Top 10 draft picks this year. They have 5 on their roster.

BillS
12-31-2009, 12:06 PM
57% of the 12-17 Chicago Bulls' minutes have come from Top 10 draft picks this year. They have 5 on their roster.

You mean 5 years worth of being extremely bad would have won us 3 more games? Now <i>there's</i> success for you.

odeez
12-31-2009, 12:12 PM
I was wondering when a thread like this would come along and here it is. I agree you can never intentionally lose games, but if you continue to play the players we have then you have a good shot at the "tanking". Problem is when Granger comes back do you think we will continue losing? I too have become use to losing, in fact I expect it now. It is still early n the season. So I also wouldn't be surprised to see us win enough games to get a pick around 13 or 14 again. We currently have he 4th worst record inthe NBA and we are still only 3 1/2 games out of the 8th seed playoffs. That is just ridiculous, we should be at least 10 games out, but in the East the door is always open.

count55
12-31-2009, 12:26 PM
You mean 5 years worth of being extremely bad would have won us 3 more games? Now <i>there's</i> success for you.

Detroit, at 11-20, has 5 as well, though none of them were their picks.

Chris Wilcox #8 Clips
Villanueva # 7 Raps
Hamilton #7 Wiz
Gordon #3 Bulls
Kwame Brown #1 Wiz

New Jersey, at 3-29, has 5 as well, though most were someone else's:

Battie #5
Dooling #10
Devin Harris #5
Yi #6
Lopez #10

This serves to illustrate the somewhat variable value of high draft picks, not as a specific criticism of any of the teams mentioned.

cinotimz
12-31-2009, 12:35 PM
OK, but how do you insure they continue losing. Should they only play certain players, do they instruct the players to try and lose games. How do you do it

Easy.

Dont fire JOB and dont make any trades.

The rest should take care of itself.

Kstat
12-31-2009, 12:35 PM
I love How John Wall, after a handful of early-season college games, is now a better player than a handful of seasoned NBA veterans.

Because 2 months into Greg Oden's career, we were all saying how he would never make it in the NBA...it's always crystal clear which player is going to be a guaranteed star.

duke dynamite
12-31-2009, 12:51 PM
:picard:

Naptown_Seth
12-31-2009, 12:56 PM
Detroit, at 11-20, has 5 as well, though none of them were their picks.

Chris Wilcox #8 Clips
Villanueva # 7 Raps
Hamilton #7 Wiz
Gordon #3 Bulls
Kwame Brown #1 Wiz

New Jersey, at 3-29, has 5 as well, though most were someone else's:

Battie #5
Dooling #10
Devin Harris #5
Yi #6
Lopez #10

This serves to illustrate the somewhat variable value of high draft picks, not as a specific criticism of any of the teams mentioned.
Well the Pacers don't need their top 5 pick, they already have Mike Dunleavy so mission accomplished. Thank god for top 5 picks that save the world.


So does this magical tank for a 25% (or worse) shot at the #1 pick also mean not playing Granger if he returns and is healthy? Great message to the team. "Dear losers, since you suck we ask that you play poorly this year so that some/all of you can be replaced next year. Please don't let this affect morale or your feelings about the team long term as we might not be able to move all of you. Also Dahntay, don't let this upset you because we want you to come back even though you already hate the lack of effort by some players."

I mean sure that all sounds good on paper....

Pacergeek
12-31-2009, 01:01 PM
"Your list of #1 picks isn't all that encouraging. It looks like drafting first is still a coin flip at best"

I think some of you may be mistaken of the nature of the post. I DO NOT want just a "high" draft pick. The draft, proven by history every single year, is hit or miss. I want just the top pick so we can get Wall. Though it isn't a guarantee that he will be a franchise player, from what I have seen so far, he is the best prospect since Lebron James. Feel free to disagree with me, but I am confident that Wall is the real deal in this draft. Wall is not Andrew Bogut or even Derrick Rose. As I said before, certain franchise players only come around every 6-7 years. To further prove my point, I will continue where i left off regarding number one selections following 2003 wich was Lebron.

2002- Yao Ming- when healthy he is one of the top centers in the game, but his teams have never advanced far into the playoffs. He has been playing long enough that it is safe to say that he is not good enough to lead a team to a title.

2001- Kwame Brown- a disaster for a number one pick

2000- Kenyon Martin- a solid rotation guy, but never even close to a franchise player. His career may have been different if he didn't break his leg his senior year in college

1999- Elton Brand- Consistent all star throughout his career, but has only won one playoff series in his career. Could be the second best player on a contender.

1998- Michael Olowakandi- coin flip over who was worse between him and Kwame Brown.

1997- Tim Duncan- possibly the best player of his era. 4 championships. Special player.

So we have 1997- Tim Duncan, 2003- Lebron, and 2010 - John Wall. Greatness doesn't come around very often.

90'sNBARocked
12-31-2009, 01:10 PM
:picard:

Duke,
I love those pics, might you have one with the captain having a "WTF" look?

Thanks

cinotimz
12-31-2009, 01:14 PM
Well the Pacers don't need their top 5 pick, they already have Mike Dunleavy so mission accomplished. Thank god for top 5 picks that save the world.


So does this magical tank for a 25% (or worse) shot at the #1 pick also mean not playing Granger if he returns and is healthy? Great message to the team. "Dear losers, since you suck we ask that you play poorly this year so that some/all of you can be replaced next year. Please don't let this affect morale or your feelings about the team long term as we might not be able to move all of you. Also Dahntay, don't let this upset you because we want you to come back even though you already hate the lack of effort by some players."

I mean sure that all sounds good on paper....

I certainly wouldnt play him till he is absolutely 100 percent healthy. No rushing him back as we have often done to the detriment of the player and team.

dohman
12-31-2009, 01:25 PM
I am no way what so every wanting the pacers to lose.

But as far as records and top picks go. Look at the Thunder.... Doing very well this season and will be a VERY good team in a year or 2.

The blazers also come to mind. They drafted very well.


I would rather see this team sign Free agents and be compeititve then rely on rookies though. If we continue to rely on rookies we will be BAD for a long time. It takes a few years before they impact the game so why not just sign then after their rookie contracts are over and not go through the heartbreat.

The simons just have to be willing to spend and realize that our guys are NOT gold and stop over paying them.

vnzla81
12-31-2009, 01:42 PM
You mean 5 years worth of being extremely bad would have won us 3 more games? Now <i>there's</i> success for you.


we been bad for almost the same time and don't have much to show for(not even a first round playoff run), the Bulls have flexibility, good young players an a future all star for years to come in Rose, at this moment I rather be in the Bulls place.

Hicks
12-31-2009, 02:14 PM
Every GM just needs a poster of Spock in their offices reading "Draft well and prosper."

Sometimes a 5-10 pick is as valuable as you hope a #1 will be.

BillS
12-31-2009, 02:49 PM
we been bad for almost the same time and don't have much to show for(not even a first round playoff run), the Bulls have flexibility, good young players an a future all star for years to come in Rose, at this moment I rather be in the Bulls place.

No, we've been mediocre. We haven't been 25-games-or-less bad.

You want to see an empty Fieldhouse, try justifying 5 years of 60-loss seasons.

Like I said, sacrifice is one thing, but I'm not willing to sacrifice so a future owner and future city can have a great team.

Pacemaker
12-31-2009, 04:14 PM
You mean 5 years worth of being extremely bad would have won us 3 more games? Now <i>there's</i> success for you.

Are u guys forgetting the recent Bulls vs Celtics playoffs series ??? The Bulls self-imploded themselves when they traded Gordon.

Unclebuck
12-31-2009, 04:24 PM
Not sure why i'm entering into the discussion but here is the Bulls records starting in 1999 (year after MJ)

I'm just going to list the number of wins

'99 - 13
'00 - 17
'01 - 15
'02 - 21
'03 - 30
'04 - 23
'05 - 47
'06 - 41
'07 - 49
'08 - 33
'09 - 41

Pacers never went through a stretch like the Bulls did from '99 through '02. The Buills have started, stopped and started about 4 different re-builds from 1999 through now

vnzla81
12-31-2009, 04:40 PM
Not sure why i'm entering into the discussion but here is the Bulls records starting in 1999 (year after MJ)


Pacers never went through a stretch like the Bulls did from '99 through '02. The Buills have started, stopped and started about 4 different re-builds from 1999 through now

I think that the pacers still have two or three more years of sucking(I hope not), this means 5 to 7 years, that is pretty close to what the bulls have done. Is not an issue of not getting nice draft picks is more about the way managment did not know what to do with it, just like the time they had a chance to get either gasol or garnett and they decided to stay put.

Lance George
12-31-2009, 05:11 PM
The key is to draft well. That's the whole point - it's a lot easier to draft well at the top of the draft where the more promising talent will be had.

If you spend top-5 picks on 6'2" SGs that are allergic to defense, or 6'8" PFs with no offensive skills of which to speak, of course you're gonna be stuck in mediocrity. For the complete opposite of the Bulls mediocre drafting, take a look at the Thunder.

d_c
12-31-2009, 05:45 PM
Are u guys forgetting the recent Bulls vs Celtics playoffs series ??? The Bulls self-imploded themselves when they traded Gordon.

The Bulls didn't trade Gordon. They let him walk for nothing in return.

Peck
12-31-2009, 05:52 PM
Not sure why i'm entering into the discussion but here is the Bulls records starting in 1999 (year after MJ)

I'm just going to list the number of wins

'99 - 13
'00 - 17
'01 - 15
'02 - 21
'03 - 30
'04 - 23
'05 - 47
'06 - 41
'07 - 49
'08 - 33
'09 - 41

Pacers never went through a stretch like the Bulls did from '99 through '02. The Buills have started, stopped and started about 4 different re-builds from 1999 through now

To me the Bulls are the example of how not to do this which does not only include having the # 1 overall pick twice in that time frame but also a year where they had more cap space than anyone and all they could get to come there was Eddie Robinson.

I've said this before and I will say it again, there is no sure fire guaranteed way to succeed in the NBA. If there was every single team would do the same thing.

It takes skill, patience, a great eye for talent and chemistry and a good amount of luck.

You can't even say having the best overall player in basketball is the answer as it is easily argued that Garnett for years in Min. was the best overall player and mostly his teams sucked.

# 1 picks are great but even then to turn your franchise around you have to get lucky and have a special # 1 type player fall in your lap.

We have already probably gotten our luck in the draft with Danny so now we are going to have to be smart and trade smart as well.

Squirrelz
12-31-2009, 05:55 PM
I honestly hope we finish 20-62... God I feel like a dolt right now just saying it.

But I want the best possible chance at getting Wall.

Please God please God please God please God.

http://www.dnforum.com/images/smilies/pray2.gif

imawhat
12-31-2009, 05:59 PM
I don't care who's on the board. You don't tank for a 25% chance at something.

quailman
12-31-2009, 06:08 PM
There's no need to tank intentionally when you're perfectly capable of letting it happen on its own. A good chance at Wall is a positive byproduct of that, as is a chance at Turner, and other good draft picks. Sure its nice to get a potential franchise player, but good smart drafting with the mixture of the right free agents can get the Pacers back on top. The chips will fall in as long as the right coaching and front office is in place. When its not, you need more luck, having a chance at a top 3 pick this year is the kind of luck that is needed right now.

Pacergeek
12-31-2009, 07:07 PM
I am getting a little sick and tired of reading all of these messages regarding improving the Pacers via free agency. When was the last time the Pacers signed anybody who wasn't a marginal rotation player through free agency? The answer is never. Do you actually think the Pacers have a chance to sign any franchise player who is a free agent? I'm sorry, but no elite NBA star wants to play here in Indy. We have no shot at Bosh, Wade, Durant in a few seasons, etc. Sorry, i love Indianapolis, but these guys want to play in a bigger town that gets more attention. Sure, we can sign fringe players like Dahntay Jones, Travis Diener, Earl Watson, and even Sam Perkins from a decade ago. If you seriously think that once all the bad contracts come off the books, that stars will flock here, then you aren't living in reality. Free agency will help us land quality role players, but it won't lead us to title contenders.

The only way that the Pacers will start winning again, and by winning I mean contend for a championship, is if they get lucky in the draft, particularly by landing John Wall in this years draft. He is a can't miss prospect.

Why is everyone comparing us to the Bulls? They haven't even come close to being a contender since MJ retired. Sure they had a great series with the Celtics, but they still lost IN THE FIRST ROUND with Boston not having thier best player, KG.

We should look at how the Spurs became contenders, and to use that model for winning. They drafted Duncan, one of the greatest players of all time, number one in 1997. He, like wall, was a "can't miss" prospect. Duncan paired with David Robinson, who was a little past his prime but still effective, and the Spurs instantly became contenders. Imagine pairing John Wall with a healthy Granger. Throw in solid role players like Hansbrough, Dahntay, Hibbert, and we could instantly contend in the East.

quailman
12-31-2009, 07:23 PM
Not one single person, at least that I know of, has said they expect a big free agent to come here. You say it yourself in your post, free agency can net us quality role players. So who are you ranting against?

cinotimz
12-31-2009, 09:13 PM
Good news. With Philly's recent mini-run only two teams have a worse record than the Pacers' 9-22. Minny is not far off at 7-26 and New Jersey edged closer with their recent win putting them at 3-29.

Cmon John Wall.

BlueNGold
12-31-2009, 09:26 PM
I wouldn't discount the draft.

The draft brought us Reggie Miller, Rik Smits and Dale Davis...the core of the best NBA team we have seen.

Now, there's a lot of risk involved with picking in the top 5...which at the moment we are tied for #3.

Assuming we pick at #3, here are the last 10 years. I think you have a 50% chance at getting an all-star level talent. I consider those very good odds.

2009 - James Harden
2008 - OJ Mayo
2007 - Al Horford
2006 - Adam Morrison
2005 - Deron Williams
2004 - Ben Gordon
2003 - Carmello Anthony
2002 - Mike Dunleavy
2001 - Pau Gasol
2000 - Darius Miles
1999 - Baron Davis.

Justin Tyme
12-31-2009, 09:31 PM
Every GM just needs a poster of Spock in their offices reading "Draft well and prosper."

Sometimes a 5-10 pick is as valuable as you hope a #1 will be.


Absolutely, the 2 best playing rookies at the present time is Evens at #7 and Jennings at #10. I'd love to have either one as a Pacer.

joew8302
12-31-2009, 09:34 PM
Absolutely, the 2 best playing rookies at the present time is Evens at #7 and Jennings at #10. I'd love to have either one as a Pacer.

I believe Evans was 4 and Jennings was 9

Cherokee
12-31-2009, 11:16 PM
IMO teams rarely get better simply by getting a #1 draft pick or two (unless it is Jabbar, Duncan, or someone of that stature). I'm sure there are a few guards (the only ones I can think of offhand are Oscar and Magic) who made huge differences, but that is very rare. A Paul or the kid at Chicago are good, but they haven't remade their franchises, either. About the only way to get better is to either (a.) trade your way to it (but what do you have that other teams want?), or, (b.) develop a player within your existing roster (the P's have no candidates -- IMO -- and that includes Granger, who while a good player is not a superstar), or (c.) show some promise and lure a star-type player whose ego is big enough that he thinks he can draw other stars to the team. Sadly, I'm not sure we have the franchise to do that last choice.

PacersHomer
01-01-2010, 02:22 AM
Don't compare number one picks to previous years. Wall is a sure thing. He's amazing. Bogut and Bargnani were awful picks in mediocre drafts.

PacersHomer
01-01-2010, 02:22 AM
And this is random, but why did my profile go back in time? I lost a bunch of posts and my avatar was of Roy Hibbert?

count55
01-01-2010, 08:25 AM
And this is random, but why did my profile go back in time? I lost a bunch of posts and my avatar was of Roy Hibbert?

A server problem resulted in the loss of about three months of data.

Mourning
01-01-2010, 08:48 AM
Not one single person, at least that I know of, has said they expect a big free agent to come here. You say it yourself in your post, free agency can net us quality role players. So who are you ranting against?

He thinks, and I second that actually, that a quality role player won't be nearly enough for this team to start an upward trend that would see our team making the playoffs and progressing deep into them.

I just want us to play the veterans less. IF that means we lose more or less games, so be it. I think we are LONG overdue for a high lottery pick. FA hopefully will help complete our supporting cast later on.

PaceBalls
01-01-2010, 09:16 AM
Playing the vets less is only going to win us more games not less. If the goal is really to tank then the Pacers should just keep starting Murph Hibbert and Dun together every game.

That is not their goal though, they aren't trying to tank. Jim, ironically, thinks that these players are the best he can play together

It is so hard for me to want them to tank, I want to see the team compete and win games. I think that is why my frustration with Jim is so high right now, he just doesn't seem to have a clue... I wish I could be there behind the scenes in the lockerroom or at practices to see what in the wide world of sports he is thinking and trying to accomplish. Cause it makes 0 sense to me, and I refuse to believe Jim and Larry are in tank mode. I don't think they would tank intentionally even in April, but that seems to be the only logical explanation.

Justin Tyme
01-01-2010, 11:02 AM
I believe Evans was 4 and Jennings was 9


OOPS!! My mistake on Evans for he was a 4th pick, but Jennings was the 10th pick by Milwaukee. DeRozen was the 9th pick by Toronto. I tend to be a record keeper and in my records I pulled the info on a May 1 Realgm pre-draft which had them as the 7th & 10th picks. Thank you for pointing out my error.

Interesting to see Realgm had Jennings being picked at 10 by Milwaukee when this pre-draft had all the rest of the top 10 wrong except Griffin.

Kemo
01-01-2010, 11:32 AM
There are an abundance of losers on this team, starting at the top on down. As another coach once said, "i need winners." Clearly what has been assembled is not a group of winners. Blame whomever, Bird, Simon, JOB for not knowing how to turn these losers into winners, or the losers themselves. This is not a team, rather its poorly assembled collection of malcontents and losers, whose best player would be at best the third option on a contending team. that's not a knock on granger or his game, simply the reality of the situation.

Also, giving Mcroberts 30+ minutes a game should guarantee tanking games.




I REALLY wish that the webmaster here at P.D. could install a "THUMBS DOWN button right next to the "THUMBS UP ...THANKS" button ..


I am dead serious..
Can we make this happen mods?


But anyways..... I STRONGLY disagree with your assessment of McRoberts , and calling our guys "losers and malcontents" ... What will they be next month? thugs again? lol

bhaas .. I am not trying to pick on you... just the comments...

Which in all honesty, (while I again)....... strongly disagree
it's your opinion to have I suppose..

lol..

My problem is..

I get my post on another thread edited out, . and the comment was all in fun not being hurtful ...

Yet quite a few on here can totally sh:censored:t on our players (not literally..lolz)... over and over on a daily basis, and it is allowed as the "norm".. and deemed acceptable..

what happened to this credo ? (c&p from my post) -------------------------------------->


Positive comments or nothing on PD, all. Thanks!

speakout4
01-01-2010, 12:15 PM
To me the Bulls are the example of how not to do this which does not only include having the # 1 overall pick twice in that time frame but also a year where they had more cap space than anyone and all they could get to come there was Eddie Robinson.

I've said this before and I will say it again, there is no sure fire guaranteed way to succeed in the NBA. If there was every single team would do the same thing.

It takes skill, patience, a great eye for talent and chemistry and a good amount of luck.

You can't even say having the best overall player in basketball is the answer as it is easily argued that Garnett for years in Min. was the best overall player and mostly his teams sucked.

# 1 picks are great but even then to turn your franchise around you have to get lucky and have a special # 1 type player fall in your lap.

We have already probably gotten our luck in the draft with Danny so now we are going to have to be smart and trade smart as well.
The only way to trade smart is to give away somebody who is really good now for a young kid or two who has great potential. Who exactly do we have that fits that description--Granger? So perhaps we can get 2-3 kids (one of whom may be really good) and a future draft pick for Granger. Guys who make really dumb trades generally don't keep their jobs for long.
Clearly getting a James, Durant, or Howard does not derive from having an astute team of coaches, GMs, or owners but the exact opposite which is to have a team of admins that mirrors the team on the floor. What separates the teams that pick great players from just good players is simply luck that you stunk in a very good year and were able to pick Howard and not Beasley. Portland is about the best right now in stockpiling good players and is a small market team that probably also can't attract big time free agents. Having Oden hurt has set them back but the Bayless trade will probably pay big dividends in the next few years(;)).

cinotimz
01-01-2010, 12:30 PM
Critical game in the John Wall sweepstakes coming up with our playing the Twolves. If we would happen to come out on the short end, we would only be one win up in the win column.

Justin Tyme
01-01-2010, 12:42 PM
Critical game in the John Wall sweepstakes coming up with our playing the Twolves. If we would happen to come out on the short end, we would only be one win up in the win column.



The Pacers play the T'Wolves twice in the next 4 games, and I see them as games that can potentially shape the Pacers draft.

Thesterovic
01-01-2010, 01:23 PM
To: speakout4 (Quotes messed up)

Granger for Westbrook, Harden, 1st, and Green!!

Yeah, its impossible I know. But OKC is looking to do that. They want to trade several of their young players for a superstar.

mrknowname
01-01-2010, 01:39 PM
we don't need high draft picks to turn this team around. kenny anderson (2nd overall) and bender (5th overall) were the highest drafted players on the 61 win team. everybody else was outside of the top ten i believe

if JO can be the best player on a 61 win team, i don't see why granger can't be either. just have to put the right players around him and get the right coach

Kid Minneapolis
01-01-2010, 08:57 PM
Absolutely, the 2 best playing rookies at the present time is Evens at #7 and Jennings at #10. I'd love to have either one as a Pacer.

True now. However, revisit that thought in 4-5 years and let's see if those 2 players are still the top 2 performing players from this draft... the landscape changes so much, and often-times the "top" players underwhelm initially and grow into something much more special down the road.

jeffg-body
01-02-2010, 12:45 AM
I wouldn't say tank the season per se, but play the young guys extended minutes consistently the rest of the year to see what we have in our young core of guys. Hell, play them until they foul out.

Bball
01-02-2010, 06:09 AM
Keeping Jim O'Brien on the bench IS tanking at this point. He gives us our best chance at continuing to lose based on a flawed system that the players totally understand to be flawed and his reluctance to address that in any meaningful way. The team no longer buys into the system and it's creating issues that stand in the way of maximizing what talent we do have.

I only hope that is why Bird gave him a vote of confidence because I'd hate to think Bird/Morway et al doesn't see his expiration date came and went some time ago.

If Jim O'Brien style basketball is what Bird sees as the future of Pacer basketball, I've got better things to do than wait for that period to end.

thefeistyone
01-02-2010, 07:29 AM
I don't think tanking is needed, they don't need much help at this point. I do think they should give the young players all the minutes that they can handle. I don't care if Hibbert fouls out every game...Him, rush, price, hans, even mcroberts should be seeing a lot of minutes. One thing most of us know is that our future doesn't include Ford, Murphy, Foster, or Dunleavy. They aren't getting the job done, why not invest some PT in the players that will be with us for the long haul.

So losing on purpose would be a no, but giving young players increased minutes would be a huge yes. Also let JOB finish out the season, he was a lame duck coach from the start, switching coaches mid season is kind of worthless at this point.

BlueNGold
01-02-2010, 10:12 AM
Keeping Jim O'Brien on the bench IS tanking at this point. He gives us our best chance at continuing to lose based on a flawed system that the players totally understand to be flawed and his reluctance to address that in any meaningful way. The team no longer buys into the system and it's creating issues that stand in the way of maximizing what talent we do have.

I only hope that is why Bird gave him a vote of confidence because I'd hate to think Bird/Morway et al doesn't see his expiration date came and went some time ago.

If Jim O'Brien style basketball is what Bird sees as the future of Pacer basketball, I've got better things to do than wait for that period to end.

The only risk is that over time (like last year), he will discover what the problem is. Remember, the man benched TJ and started playing Jack last year. So, don't get your hopes up on a top 5 pick. ....but I cannot imagine him not going with Murphy the whole season. Love is blind.

McKeyFan
01-02-2010, 10:55 AM
The only risk is that over time (like last year), he will discover what the problem is. Remember, the man benched TJ and started playing Jack last year. So, don't get your hopes up on a top 5 pick. ....but I cannot imagine him not going with Murphy the whole season. Love is blind.

It's part love. But it's mostly stubbornness.

Bball
01-02-2010, 01:11 PM
The only risk is that over time (like last year), he will discover what the problem is. Remember, the man benched TJ and started playing Jack last year. So, don't get your hopes up on a top 5 pick. ....but I cannot imagine him not going with Murphy the whole season. Love is blind.

No, the real problem is the apathy and general malaise that is being created with a team going nowhere soon and a coach that should not have been extended. Knowing what we know now of the internals (or think we know) he should've been replaced this summer. While from the outside looking in it could've been argued that he'd done just enough to retain his job for this season, there were also signs making the opposite true as well. Now we're hearing there was player discontent, and IMHO clearly O'Brien's system isn't one with a long term future here, so his return AND (untimely and unneeded) extension did not send the best of signals to the public for a team that has seen the wheels come off.

This is still a team whose very continued existence in Indiana is uncertain.

Bird's vote of confidence for O'Brien the other day IMHO was a red flag and mistake all at the same time as far as I'm concerned. He could've said nothing. He could've said "It doesn't matter who the coach is, the players are expected to play hard and do their part for him". But he went further and it has me wondering if he's really behind O'Brien as anything more than an interim coach (which I think the majority thought O'Brien was all along).

What Bird did was not a shot in the arm for anyone, especially the PR dept of the Pacers because I don't think Jimmy Chitwood is going to come thru the door and change public sentiment that O'Brien has to go. Nor do I think O'Brien is going to change public sentiment either. I keep using this phrase because I think it's true: O'Brien's expiration date has passed.

The problem now is, will the team's expiration date pass too?

Justin Tyme
01-02-2010, 01:19 PM
I don't think tanking is needed, they don't need much help at this point. I do think they should give the young players all the minutes that they can handle. I don't care if Hibbert fouls out every game...Him, rush, price, hans, even mcroberts should be seeing a lot of minutes. One thing most of us know is that our future doesn't include Ford, Murphy, Foster, or Dunleavy. They aren't getting the job done, why not invest some PT in the players that will be with us for the long haul.

So losing on purpose would be a no, but giving young players increased minutes would be a huge yes. Also let JOB finish out the season, he was a lame duck coach from the start, switching coaches mid season is kind of worthless at this point.


I couldn't agree more, especially with the 2nd paragraph. I've gotten to the point I don't expect to win a game. I'm just wanting the players to play as a team as they did in the 5 game win streak, and be competitive each game.