PDA

View Full Version : Source tells ESPN.com that Pacers have been trying to trade Ford for years.



HC
01-04-2010, 08:18 AM
Written by Chris Sheridan for espn.com's daily dime.

http://espn.go.com/nba/dailydime/_/page/dime-100103/daily-dime






Probably not too surprising, but interesting nonetheless.

Unclebuck
01-04-2010, 08:25 AM
Yes, not surprising. he doesn't fit in here,

jhondog28
01-04-2010, 08:27 AM
So why trade for him in the first place. If they have been trying to trade him for years that means it must not have been soon after they got him which makes you think...DOH! What were they thinking.

McKeyFan
01-04-2010, 08:27 AM
JOB is saying things in that article that I've been hearing a bunch of members here say for six weeks.

nerveghost
01-04-2010, 08:28 AM
"T.J is struggling in some areas, we're not spacing the court with him, he's only made one 3-pointer (in 28 attempts), and Earl, just in my mind, is the best option at the starting position," O'Brien said. "My job is to win basketball games now and build young guys, and I can't build a young guy like A.J. Price having him sit on the bench and watch. It's not like we're a .500 basketball team. We have some key guys hurt, Earl is on a one-year contract, and it's a time to see what A.J. can give us because we have to know by the end of the season exactly who A.J. Price is, how solid he is as an NBA guard."

Despite the team's performance, OBrien is starting to say and do all the right things in regards to the long term future of the franchise. (i.e. play/support the young guys)

Bball
01-04-2010, 08:35 AM
So why trade for him in the first place. If they have been trying to trade him for years that means it must not have been soon after they got him which makes you think...DOH! What were they thinking.


Because we had to get rid of JO and takers were slim. We at least broke down JO's stupid salary into more manageable bites and then jettisoned some it.

The Pacers probably never saw Ford as an ultimate answer at PG but assumed they'd eventually be able to move him in a trade. Apparently his contract, injury history, and ultimately risk/reward for what you get on the court couldn't entice anyone.

It's not so much Ford's fault... IMHO.... It's still part of the problem we were left with by hitching our wagons to the likes of JO and Tinsley and opening the vault for them like we did. You don't just climb out from under those kind of mistakes in this NBA with its guaranteed contracts hamstringing a franchise for years.

ksuttonjr76
01-04-2010, 08:38 AM
Chirst...is seems like the only time that anyone wants to trade with Indiana is when one of our players is demanding a trade and/or our backs are against the wall. What's ironic that when next season comes, they'll be beating down Bird's door to get Dunleavy's, Foster's, Murphy's (if he's not traded to a contender this year), and Ford's contracts. If I was Bird, I would give the other GMs the finger, and spend the money in the summer of 2011 myself. Season be d*mned.

Unclebuck
01-04-2010, 08:40 AM
So why trade for him in the first place. If they have been trying to trade him for years that means it must not have been soon after they got him which makes you think...DOH! What were they thinking.

We wanted to get rid of JO and get salary cap flexibility and this was the best trade out there for JO.

And some of you were acting like JOB loved Ford about 10 days ago

ksuttonjr76
01-04-2010, 08:43 AM
"T.J is struggling in some areas, we're not spacing the court with him, he's only made one 3-pointer (in 28 attempts), and Earl, just in my mind, is the best option at the starting position," O'Brien said. "My job is to win basketball games now and build young guys, and I can't build a young guy like A.J. Price having him sit on the bench and watch. It's not like we're a .500 basketball team. We have some key guys hurt, Earl is on a one-year contract, and it's a time to see what A.J. can give us because we have to know by the end of the season exactly who A.J. Price is, how solid he is as an NBA guard."

Despite the team's performance, OBrien is starting to say and do all the right things in regards to the long term future of the franchise. (i.e. play/support the young guys)

O'Brien suppose to have BEEN building the young guys. Personally, I like Ford's game, but he doesn't fit the current "offensive" scheme. Of course, I think Ford and Indiana in general would be a better team under a different coach.

Speed
01-04-2010, 08:45 AM
So why trade for him in the first place. If they have been trying to trade him for years that means it must not have been soon after they got him which makes you think...DOH! What were they thinking.

Get out from under the other 12 million that JO is being paid right now. I mean when we got TJ, it would be hard to predict he'd be in as bad a place is he is right now.

What I don't understand is, if you knew you don't like TJ at all, why not keep Jack, who you did really like?

I mean I get the length of contract and not wanting to lose finacial flexibility and the not going over the luxury tax, but still.

I mean, they knowingly went into the season, without a starting caliber Point Guard. Maybe this is a tank season.

Even if you signed Jack to that same contract as Toronto did, you just know if they got a better point guard down the line, Jack would step aside as the starter and actually help the new guy.

It just seems to me, that they really didn't have a plan for the Point Guard position and now that is bearing fruit.

Think about it, they knew they didn't like TJ. They knew Deiner was hurt and not the answer at starter, anyway. They knew AJ wasn't a starter, right now, or even a back up, during the summer. They knew Head was a combo guy. They knew Earl Watson was a career back up, who got benched last year on a (not good yet) Okla City team.

I know it's easy for me to sit here, after the start they've had and be critical, but going back to July and August, I still don't get the plan for this year.

Side Note: the quotes from Obie and Bird saying how they expect a big year from TJ this year, makes more sense now. Shows you that you can't believe hardly anything they say, it was all posturing to increase his trade value. Weak attempt at that, for sure.

Side Note-part II- TJ knows they are shopping him hard, remember the weird Tweet around draft day about him potentially being traded?

Speed
01-04-2010, 08:48 AM
Because we had to get rid of JO and takers were slim. We at least broke down JO's stupid salary into more manageable bites and then jettisoned some it.

The Pacers probably never saw Ford as an ultimate answer at PG but assumed they'd eventually be able to move him in a trade. Apparently his contract, injury history, and ultimately risk/reward for what you get on the court couldn't entice anyone.

It's not so much Ford's fault... IMHO.... It's still part of the problem we were left with by hitching our wagons to the likes of JO and Tinsley and opening the vault for them like we did. You don't just climb out from under those kind of mistakes in this NBA with its guaranteed contracts hamstringing a franchise for years.


The Tinsley, JO, S. Jackson, legacy lives on. My God, I can't wait until all of these contracts are gone.

Unclebuck
01-04-2010, 08:49 AM
We all know that the plan over this past summer was to trade Ford and re-sign Jack. But when it became evident that no one really wanted Ford and Jack got a little bigger contract than I think the Pacers expected - they decided to let Jack go and keep Ford for now. I'm sure O'Brien was none-too-happy

ksuttonjr76
01-04-2010, 08:55 AM
Get out from under the other 12 million that JO is being paid right now. I mean when we got TJ, it would be hard to predict he'd be in as bad a place is he is right now.

What I don't understand is, if you knew you don't like TJ at all, why not keep Jack, who you did really like?

I mean I get the length of contract and not wanting to lose finacial flexibility and the not going over the luxury tax, but still.

I mean, they knowingly went into the season, without a starting caliber Point Guard. Maybe this is a tank season.

Even if you signed Jack to that same contract as Toronto did, you just know if they got a better point guard down the line, Jack would step aside as the starter and actually help the new guy.

It just seems to me, that they really didn't have a plan for the Point Guard position and now that is bearing fruit.

Think about it, they knew they didn't like TJ. They knew Deiner was hurt and not the answer at starter, anyway. They knew AJ wasn't a starter, right now, or even a back up, during the summer. They knew Head was a combo guy. They knew Earl Watson was a career back up, who got benched last year on a (not good yet) Okla City team.

I know it's easy for me to sit here, after the start they've had and be critical, but going back to July and August, I still don't get the plan for this year.

Side Note: the quotes from Obie and Bird saying how they expect a big year from TJ this year, makes more sense now. Shows you that you can't believe hardly anything they say, it was all posturing to increase his trade value. Weak attempt at that, for sure.

Side Note-part II- TJ knows they are shopping him hard, remember the weird Tweet around draft day about him potentially being traded?

It's not like they didn't try...there were just no takers.

cinotimz
01-04-2010, 08:56 AM
They made the trade because it saved them over 20 million over the final 2 years of JOs contract-this for a guy they were desperate to be rid of.

And they did have a plan this year for pg. His name is Earl Watson-like it or not. Given the situation and financial position it was the best they could do. Then they have Diener-a player many on here were clamoring to start last season. And then they added Price-which most like.

ksuttonjr76
01-04-2010, 09:09 AM
They made the trade because it saved them over 20 million over the final 2 years of JOs contract-this for a guy they were desperate to be rid of.

And they did have a plan this year for pg. His name is Earl Watson-like it or not. Given the situation and financial position it was the best they could do. Then they have Diener-a player many on here were clamoring to start last season. And then they added Price-which most like.

Plus we got Roy Hibbert out of the deal with the 17th pick...

Eindar
01-04-2010, 10:04 AM
So I'm guessing the rumor that we shot down a Felton for Ford swap were pure hogwash?

McKeyFan
01-04-2010, 10:07 AM
Chirst...is seems like the only time that anyone wants to trade with Indiana is when one of our players is demanding a trade and/or our backs are against the wall. What's ironic that when next season comes, they'll be beating down Bird's door to get Dunleavy's, Foster's, Murphy's (if he's not traded to a contender this year), and Ford's contracts. If I was Bird, I would give the other GMs the finger, and spend the money in the summer of 2011 myself. Season be d*mned.

Allah, Buddha, Mohammed, Oprah. . . That's a great idea.

McKeyFan
01-04-2010, 10:08 AM
We wanted to get rid of JO and get salary cap flexibility and this was the best trade out there for JO.

And some of you were acting like JOB loved Ford about 10 days ago

Then why did JOB play him so much for so long?

This is why I ran those polls asking how many believed he was played for his trade value. Do you still believe that has not been a factor at all?

ChicagoJ
01-04-2010, 10:31 AM
We wanted to get rid of JO and get salary cap flexibility and this was the best trade out there for JO.

And some of you were acting like JOB loved Ford about 10 days ago

The problem wasn't trading JO for Ford's contract, an expiring contract and a draft pick. The trade was a good trade.

The problem was holding onto the player associated with Ford's contract and putting him on the court.

I really wish they could have moved him along before last season began. His contract was a bargaining chip.

Unclebuck
01-04-2010, 10:32 AM
Then why did JOB play him so much for so long?

This is why I ran those polls asking how many believed he was played for his trade value. Do you still believe that has not been a factor at all?

Trade value - maybe a slight factor. I think JOB knows that Ford is the most talented point guard on the roster, so he wanted to give him more than a fair chance to be the starting and finishing point guard. And to be fair 25 games is a reasonable length of time. No one can argue that he wasn't given a fair chance this season to keep his starting position. JOB put a happy face on it just like he did for 2 and a half months with Tinsley two season ago.

PaceBalls
01-04-2010, 10:37 AM
We all know that the plan over this past summer was to trade Ford and re-sign Jack. But when it became evident that no one really wanted Ford and Jack got a little bigger contract than I think the Pacers expected - they decided to let Jack go and keep Ford for now. I'm sure O'Brien was none-too-happy

Yes indeed. Who really knows the impact Jack would've had this year? But, I for one was very disheartened they didn't match Toronto. I wanted him to be our starting PG for the next 5 years. I thought he was that good, and would get better. I would really liked to have seen Jack and Dahntay together (I know, not feasible), but those 2 would've been great to see toghether.

All this talk of how they couldn't afford it etc... I wonder what they think of that now? The team is the laughingstock of the NBA, hardly anyone shows up to the games. Would they have put up the extra 4 mill for Jack in hindsight?

ChicagoJ
01-04-2010, 10:40 AM
No one can argue that he wasn't given a fair chance this season to keep his starting position. JOB put a happy face on it just like he did for 2 and a half months with Tinsley two season ago.

And that's what it has always boiled down to. Ford was only an upgrade over Tinsley because he would allegedly be available for more games. The mindset here (and probably also in the Pacers front office) was "not a good PG, but at least we can count on him to not be very good in 70+ games per season and that's better than a revolving door."

Keep that in mind. We weren't improving the level of play at that position, we were trying to eliminate the volatility at that position.

And Ford has done that, right? Right? Anyone? HELLO!?!?

MikeDC
01-04-2010, 10:52 AM
They made the trade because it saved them over 20 million over the final 2 years of JOs contract-this for a guy they were desperate to be rid of.

And they did have a plan this year for pg. His name is Earl Watson-like it or not. Given the situation and financial position it was the best they could do. Then they have Diener-a player many on here were clamoring to start last season. And then they added Price-which most like.

Well sure, but the Raptors turned around and flipped JO for Shawn Marion, whose contract expired last year.

That's the big kicker to me. If the Pacers had managed the situation better, they could have had a deal that put them in an even better position.

count55
01-04-2010, 11:00 AM
Kinda hard to have been trying to trade Ford for "years," when you've only had the guy for 18 months.

BRushWithDeath
01-04-2010, 11:04 AM
I don't think we'll see Ford in a Pacer game again.

Tinsley 2.0.

Sounds like what I said in the game thread was correct.

wintermute
01-04-2010, 11:17 AM
Well sure, but the Raptors turned around and flipped JO for Shawn Marion, whose contract expired last year.

That's the big kicker to me. If the Pacers had managed the situation better, they could have had a deal that put them in an even better position.

the toronto-miami deal was actually jo + moon + pick for marion and banks. contrast that with what we got for jo = tj + rasho (expiring) + pick. so toronto actually spent 2 first round picks in flipping j.o. for marion. considering marion was a half season rental, that's not exactly great value.

so obie played tj basically to showcase him. how long before we find that troy is being showcased too? i mean both players are at the absolute bottom in plus-minus, which we know obie values. if sitting tj gives the team "the best chance to win", wouldn't that be true for benching troy as well?

Dr. Awesome
01-04-2010, 11:52 AM
Get out from under the other 12 million that JO is being paid right now. I mean when we got TJ, it would be hard to predict he'd be in as bad a place is he is right now.

What I don't understand is, if you knew you don't like TJ at all, why not keep Jack, who you did really like?

I mean I get the length of contract and not wanting to lose finacial flexibility and the not going over the luxury tax, but still.

I mean, they knowingly went into the season, without a starting caliber Point Guard. Maybe this is a tank season.

Even if you signed Jack to that same contract as Toronto did, you just know if they got a better point guard down the line, Jack would step aside as the starter and actually help the new guy.

It just seems to me, that they really didn't have a plan for the Point Guard position and now that is bearing fruit.

Think about it, they knew they didn't like TJ. They knew Deiner was hurt and not the answer at starter, anyway. They knew AJ wasn't a starter, right now, or even a back up, during the summer. They knew Head was a combo guy. They knew Earl Watson was a career back up, who got benched last year on a (not good yet) Okla City team.

I know it's easy for me to sit here, after the start they've had and be critical, but going back to July and August, I still don't get the plan for this year.

Side Note: the quotes from Obie and Bird saying how they expect a big year from TJ this year, makes more sense now. Shows you that you can't believe hardly anything they say, it was all posturing to increase his trade value. Weak attempt at that, for sure.

Side Note-part II- TJ knows they are shopping him hard, remember the weird Tweet around draft day about him potentially being traded?

To add to that, why didn't they draft a PG in possibly the strongest PG draft ever? I mean, I didn't do research, but you have Jennings, Flynn, Rubio, Lawson, Maynor, Evans, Mills, Teague, ect.

I've said all along, I'm a big Hansbrough fan, but it didn't make sense to draft a PF this year. This year had a strong PG class, next year has a strong PF class. Now we are stuck without a PG and very little hope of getting one, as there won't be a solid option at our pick - where there will be about 5 possible PF's. Now we have Hansbrough and getting a PF doesn't make as much sense. :confused:

se7en
01-04-2010, 11:58 AM
To add to that, why didn't they draft a PG in possibly the strongest PG draft ever? I mean, I didn't do research, but you have Jennings, Flynn, Rubio, Lawson, Maynor, Evans, Mills, Teague, ect.

I've said all along, I'm a big Hansbrough fan, but it didn't make sense to draft a PF this year. This year had a strong PG class, next year has a strong PF class. Now we are stuck without a PG and very little hope of getting one, as there won't be a solid option at our pick - where there will be about 5 possible PF's. Now we have Hansbrough and getting a PF doesn't make as much sense. :confused:

I'm with you on that. I don't understand a single thing our franchise does. I really don't. If you look at any other team in the league, I can tell you where they are going and who they are building around. Our youth is what we're suppose to be building around, and while Roy has done well, so has Brook Lopez in New Jersey, and while Lopez is a good player my point is your progression when you're on a bad team can be somewhat inflated.

I think TPTB look at whoever is in the draft, and Larry Bird picks the player that he likes the most. May sound good, but instead of picking a player that fits what the team needs, he picks someone that he likes on a personal level. Personal relationships are what has made Jim O'Brien so entrenched here.

CableKC
01-04-2010, 12:25 PM
I LOL at this part:


Indiana has been trying to trade Ford for "years," an NBA source told ESPN.com on Sunday night as Ford sat out the entire 48 minutes and Indiana was steamrolled 132-89 by the New York Knicks. "Not weeks. Not months. Years," the source said.

I know it's not great to laugh at our misfortune....but the way it was said is very funny :laugh:....if not telling and depressing :suicide4:

CableKC
01-04-2010, 12:48 PM
"T.J is struggling in some areas," O'Brien said. "We're not spacing the court with him, he's only made one 3-pointer [in 28 attempts],
Note to JO'B from Captain Obvious:

Ford has never been a good 3pt shooter....he never was one when he was with the Bucks...the Raptors and certainly not one as a Pacer.

This is one thing I do not like about JO'Bs insistance about taking the 3pt shot.....it doesn't matter that Players aren't a good 3pt shooter....he'd much rather the team as a whole ( as evidenced by Inferno, Ford and McRoberts....none of which are remotely good at taking 3pt shots ) take a bad 3pt jumpshot then take any other shot that the Player is good at taking.

A friend of mine that follows the Warriors told me about a story with Nellie and Monta. Nellie ( another Coach fond of the 3pt shot ) saw that Monta was struggling with the 3pt shot...which Monta never had any real problem with in High School. Nellie eventually figured out that although Monta had no problem with taking a 3pt shot from the High School level....he didn't have much as much range to take and hit it from the NBA 3pt line on a consistent basis. So, what did Nellie do? instead of forcing Monta to continually take a bad 3pt shot....he simply told Monta to take a 3pt shot ONLY if he had an absolute open look. If he didn't, then Nellie told him to take a step closer to the basket and take the type of shot that he was comfortable hitting. Sure, it was a 2pt attempt...but Nellie would prefer that his Players take shots that they are comfortable and good at taking ( and therefore have a higher chance of hitting ) then take a bad shot in the first place.

The moral of the story here? Sometimes it's better to adjust your style of Coaching rather then have a Player do something that they are simply not good at doing. To me, this means that when it comes to players that simply aren't good at ( nor should be ) taking 3pt shots.....tell them not to take any 3pt shots. If we had the caliber of Players that are good enough that can learn and adjust to JO'Bs style of play...then I'd be okay with what JO'B insists that we do on the offensive end. But since we don't.....I feel that there has to be a certain level of flexibility on the Coaching end to adjust to the strengths and weaknesses of our roster. We simply do not have enough talent to go with a "My Way or the Highway" mentality when it comes to Coaching.

Justin Tyme
01-04-2010, 01:50 PM
Kinda hard to have been trying to trade Ford for "years," when you've only had the guy for 18 months.


For years??:confused: My 1st thought this morning reading this on Realgm was does the writer not know Ford came here the summer of 08!! Apparrently not.

McKeyFan
01-04-2010, 01:55 PM
For years??:confused: My 1st thought this morning reading this on Realgm was does the writer not know Ford came here the summer of 08!! Apparrently not.

You guys need to rise above the technicalities.

We've been trying to trade him for a long time. As long as we've had him. Maybe you have something to contribute toward the spirit of the comment.

odeez
01-04-2010, 02:04 PM
This all just highlights how important the point guard position is to a teams success. I pray this franchise can get a sold point guard who can stabilize our team for years going forward. Is Price that guy?

It is interesting that no one wants TJ, his contract and his reputation for causing chemistry problems are making it hard on us to move him. You would think someone would want him, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Back to the mindset of waiting for the end of the 2011 season. Any changes sooner would be a blessing, but I am not expecting anything. And you know he (Ford) is going pick-up that player option as well for next season, no one is giving him 8 million a year going forward, so he will take it.

The problem for us is that we just can't have him on the bench and not play him. We already sat on a point guard (TINS) for a year and continue to have his money on our books. I think you have to find a way to play him and show his value. Is it really wise to leave him on the bench at 8 million? I know a lot say yes, so that we can play the young guys, and I tend to agree. But you have to at least get some value from him. Maybe we would rather wait it out and not play him, but that just seems like bad business to me.

count55
01-04-2010, 02:09 PM
Note to JO'B from Captain Obvious:

Ford has never been a good 3pt shooter....he never was one when he was with the Bucks...the Raptors and certainly not one as a Pacer.

This is one thing I do not like about JO'Bs insistance abour taking the 3pt shot.....it doesn't matter that Players aren't a good 3pt shooter....he'd much rather the team as a whole ( as evidenced by Inferno, Ford and McRoberts....none of which are remotely good at taking 3pt shots ) take a bad 3pt jumpshot then take any other shot that the Player is comfortable with.

A friend of mine that follows the Warriors told me about a story with Nellie and Monta. Nellie ( another Coach fond of the 3pt shot ) saw that Monta was struggling with the 3pt shot...which Monta never had any real problem with in High School. Nellie eventually figured out that although Monta had no problem with taking a 3pt shot from the High School level....he didn't have much as much range to take and hit it from the NBA 3pt line on a consistent basis. So, what did Nellie do? instead of forcing Monta to continually take a bad 3pt shot....he simply told Monta to take a 3pt shot ONLY if he had an absolute open look. If he didn't, then Nellie told him to take a step closer to the basket and take the type of shot that he was comfortable hitting. Sure, it was a 2pt attempt...but Nellie would prefer that his Players take shots that they are comfortable and good at taking ( and therefore have a higher chance of hitting ) then take a bad shot in the first place.

The moral of the story here? Sometimes it's better to adjust your style of Coaching rather then have a Player do something that they are simply not good at doing. To me, this means that when it comes to players that simply aren't good at ( nor should be ) taking 3pt shots.....tell them not to take any 3pt shots. If we had the caliber of Players that are good enough that can learn and adjust to JO'Bs style of play...then I'd be okay with what JO'B insists that we do on the offensive end. But since we don't.....I feel that there has to be a certain level of flexibility on the Coaching end to adjust to the strengths and weaknesses of our roster. We simply do not have enough talent to go with a "My Way or the Highway" mentality when it comes to Coaching.

O'Brien has said time and again that he wants TJ attacking on the break and focusing on the pull up jump shot that is his most effective weapon.

This season, Ford has taken 28 of his 264 shots have been 3-pters, or about 10.6%. He's only taken more than one 3PA in 8 of 31 games. In his tenure under O'Brien, 132 of his 1177 shots, or 11.2% have been threes. Prior to coming here, 245 of his 2,613 career shots were from beyond the arc, or about 9.4%. The difference between his historic 9.4 and his 11.2 here would equate to 22 more threes, or one extra attempt in every five games played.

This is in a league where 22% of all FGA's are threes.

O'Brien has also mentioned the problems created by the fact that the guys who can shoot the three (Danny, Mike, Brandon, Luther, Earl, and early on, Troy) but are not hitting at a high enough rate. The defenses will continue to sag back in as long as we remain towards the bottom of the league in eFG% and 3pt%.

The two players whose games are most damaged by the team's inability to space the floor are Roy Hibbert and TJ Ford.

Hibbert suffers because the defense can sag into his lap, cutting off passing lanes into the post and providing easy double teams and digs. Ford suffers because there's no room for him to get inside the defense and take the shots he wants to take (and O'Brien wants him to take.) Ford, in some ways, has become the canary in the coal mine on this offense. When the shooting gets toxic, his game falls over dead.

O'Brien is not saying that Ford is being benched, because he can't hit threes. He's commenting on the fact that a guy who last year shot a marginal, but acceptable .337 from long range has only made a ridiculously bad 1 in 28 tries. Jeff Foster has made 6 in 50 attempts, and you know most of those were desperation heaves.

Therefore, if his teammates can't help him by creating space, and he can't help himself, then what's the point of having him out there? Further, if the defense can simply watch TJ dribble the ball on the perimeter, and TJ is prone to just dribbling the ball on the perimeter, then his presence on the floor becomes gangrenous to the rest of the offense. The ball stops moving, and the players stop moving, and the Pacers stop scoring.

This has nothing to do with trying to force a player (TJ) to take shots he's doesn't like or can't hit because of some dogmatic approach. This is entirely about the fact that TJ can't get to where he's effective, Obie and his teammates can't get TJ to where he's effective, and the repeated attempts have done more harm than good.

Anthem
01-04-2010, 02:27 PM
So I'm guessing the rumor that we shot down a Felton for Ford swap were pure hogwash?
If we believe the source. But...

Kinda hard to have been trying to trade Ford for "years," when you've only had the guy for 18 months.
... makes me wonder if the source confused Ford for Tinsley or something.

Regardless, if this is true, I'd feel better about the franchise. If Bird's really been trying to move him this whole time, then maybe I do trust his judgment a bit.

MikeDC
01-04-2010, 02:41 PM
the toronto-miami deal was actually jo + moon + pick for marion and banks. contrast that with what we got for jo = tj + rasho (expiring) + pick. so toronto actually spent 2 first round picks in flipping j.o. for marion. considering marion was a half season rental, that's not exactly great value.

I don't care whether Toronto made a bad deal, I care whether the Pacers did.

That's sort of dubious accounting to include both picks. They traded a pick to get O'Neal, then one to get rid of him. Bad moves by the Raptors, but at the end of the day, the choice could basically be summed up as:

1. O'Neal
2. Hibbert, Ford, Baston, Rasho
3. Marion, Banks, $3M cash and sending a lottery protected pick (through 2015) back to the Heat.

I'd happily give up the heavily protected pick and Hibbert to get a year of Marion (which could have been fun) and an extra $11M or so in savings (which is the net difference between the Ford package and the Marion/Banks/Cash package that was traded for O'Neal.

I understand it's not a great choice either way, but this team needs to be very prudent with its money, and I think the reality of the situation is they could have gotten more savings but actually believed Ford would be useful to them.

They were wrong. That's about all there is to say about it.


so obie played tj basically to showcase him. how long before we find that troy is being showcased too? i mean both players are at the absolute bottom in plus-minus, which we know obie values. if sitting tj gives the team "the best chance to win", wouldn't that be true for benching troy as well?

Probably not so much after the Knicks game.

MikeDC
01-04-2010, 02:50 PM
You guys need to rise above the technicalities.

We've been trying to trade him for a long time. As long as we've had him. Maybe you have something to contribute toward the spirit of the comment.

I've been mulling over ways to get rid of Ford, and the only sort of useful thing I can come up with is that perhaps they could trade him to the Knicks for Eddy Curry.

The reasoning is that the Knicks want to get rid of Curry to create more cap space this summer. And because he's terrible. But they supposedly want to be rid of him so badly that they'll include some of their young players to do so. A trade of something like Curry, Jordan Hill and Tony Douglas for Ford, Diener and one of our minimum salary guys would create an extra $6.5M in cap space for them.

For us, we'd get two rookie prospects for that extra $6.5M. Perhaps we could get the Knicks to throw in some cash to sweeten the deal.

Even if the Knicks would be willing, we'd still face the problem that we can't add $6.5M to next year's salary. We're already projected to be a $1M or so over the estimated luxury tax. So a pre-cursor to a deal like this would be figuring out how to unload Murphy for an expiring contract. Unless we do that, we couldn't take back more money for Ford (or anyone else).

Dr. Awesome
01-04-2010, 02:50 PM
I don't care whether Toronto made a bad deal, I care whether the Pacers did.

That's sort of dubious accounting to include both picks. They traded a pick to get O'Neal, then one to get rid of him. Bad moves by the Raptors, but at the end of the day, the choice could basically be summed up as:

1. O'Neal
2. Hibbert, Ford, Baston, Rasho
3. Marion, Banks, $3M cash and sending a lottery protected pick (through 2015) back to the Heat.

I'd happily give up the heavily protected pick and Hibbert to get a year of Marion (which could have been fun) and an extra $11M or so in savings (which is the net difference between the Ford package and the Marion/Banks/Cash package that was traded for O'Neal.

I understand it's not a great choice either way, but this team needs to be very prudent with its money, and I think the reality of the situation is they could have gotten more savings but actually believed Ford would be useful to them.

They were wrong. That's about all there is to say about it.



Probably not so much after the Knicks game.

I wouldn't trade Hibbert alone for any of those packages.

se7en
01-04-2010, 02:53 PM
We all know that the plan over this past summer was to trade Ford and re-sign Jack. But when it became evident that no one really wanted Ford and Jack got a little bigger contract than I think the Pacers expected - they decided to let Jack go and keep Ford for now. I'm sure O'Brien was none-too-happy

Yes! And thats the story of the Pacers. Rag-tad grouping of players nobody else would pay for.

CableKC
01-04-2010, 02:56 PM
I'm commenting more about Ford ( in general ) as opposed to any reasons as to why he was benched ( which I know is not because of his horrendous 3pt shooting ). If his 3ptA in Indy is on par with what his career average is...and the reason why he's taking any 3pt shots at all is because of the Player as opposed to the Coach....then I'd hope that JO'B would discourage this as much as he can ( which I guess he's doing ). I guess my whole point is that I'm suggesting that Ford ( much less any other player that isn't good at it ) shouldn't take any 3pt shots at all.

Any comments from JO'B regarding Ford "scoring woes" would have made more sense if he said the very things that you mention in your post:


This is entirely about the fact that TJ can't get to where he's effective, Obie and his teammates can't get TJ to where he's effective, and the repeated attempts have done more harm than good.
As opposed to this specific comment about his 3pt shooting, your comments makes far more sense to explain the difference in Ford's performance this season as opposed to the last.

Justin Tyme
01-04-2010, 03:00 PM
You guys need to rise above the technicalities.


AND the writer needs to show credibility in his writing by having his facts straight.

Speed
01-04-2010, 03:08 PM
I've been mulling over ways to get rid of Ford, and the only sort of useful thing I can come up with is that perhaps they could trade him to the Knicks for Eddy Curry.

The reasoning is that the Knicks want to get rid of Curry to create more cap space this summer. And because he's terrible. But they supposedly want to be rid of him so badly that they'll include some of their young players to do so. A trade of something like Curry, Jordan Hill and Tony Douglas for Ford, Diener and one of our minimum salary guys would create an extra $6.5M in cap space for them.

For us, we'd get two rookie prospects for that extra $6.5M. Perhaps we could get the Knicks to throw in some cash to sweeten the deal.

Even if the Knicks would be willing, we'd still face the problem that we can't add $6.5M to next year's salary. We're already projected to be a $1M or so over the estimated luxury tax. So a pre-cursor to a deal like this would be figuring out how to unload Murphy for an expiring contract. Unless we do that, we couldn't take back more money for Ford (or anyone else).


I like the idea, in theory, but I'm ready to ride out the salary crap legacy, unless there is something better available. I guess if you thought any of those youngsters could be the answer here, you'd entertain it. Mostly, though I want any remnant of those previously poison contracts gone.

ChicagoJ
01-04-2010, 03:22 PM
How many years is 18 months?

I think its two, with a little bit of "rounding."

That is plurar, isn't it? They learnt me English at Greenwood, so I aint the bestest at it. But I don't see the problem.

PS - who's to say that they weren't shopping him in advance of trading for him in the first place with the understanding that the Toronto deal was the best they could get for JO?

Speed
01-04-2010, 03:26 PM
How many years is 18 months?

I think its two, with a little bit of "rounding."

That is plurar, isn't it? They learnt me English at Greenwood, so I aint the bestest at it. But I don't see the problem.

PS - who's to say that they weren't shopping him in advance of trading for him in the first place with the understanding that the Toronto deal was the best they could get for JO?

It sure seems like years.

tonygreathouse
01-04-2010, 03:34 PM
trade ford???? who would want him? and what could we get for him? another ****ty point gaurd? pacers are shooting for wall i guess. the same way cleveland did for lebron...

it is the only scenario that makes sense. otherwise larry would be biting at the bit to fire JOB. he doesnt like failure. when it cuts to his face during games it looks like he is bout to slap the taste outta JOB's mouth.

Unclebuck
01-04-2010, 03:45 PM
Who would want him? Not sure, maybe a really good team who has a really good starting point guard, but no back-up. Of course if they are a really good team, they probably won't want to pay Ford's salary - unless they have a couple of bad contracts they want to dump.

Magic? Seems like Nelson gets injured often. Is Ford better than Williams>
Celtics?
Cavs - No
Hawks - No

Nugs - No
Lakers - no - he doesn't fit that offense
Spurs - I doubt it

Speed
01-04-2010, 03:54 PM
Who would want him? Not sure, maybe a really good team who has a really good starting point guard, but no back-up. Of course if they are a really good team, they probably won't want to pay Ford's salary - unless they have a couple of bad contracts they want to dump.

Magic? Seems like Nelson gets injured often. Is Ford better than Williams>
Celtics?
Cavs - No
Hawks - No

Nugs - No
Lakers - no - he doesn't fit that offense
Spurs - I doubt it

The Magic last year was the first team I thought of. Bird almost unloaded Tinsley to them for Reddick at the deadline and then they got Skip to my Lou, instead.

So, I mean it's possible, just depends on what you get back.

Again, I'd rather ride out the salary legacy than make a bad trade, but continuing to try to move him and actually moving him is possible.

I'd say if like what happening recently in Portland with their Centers, happened with someone's point guards, you could do something pretty nice.

I'd also suspect TJ will be back playing soon. I hope not at AJ's expense, but TJ not playing isn't actually working either. Obie's gotta keep trying to throw stuff out there at this point.

Anthem
01-04-2010, 04:07 PM
PS - who's to say that they weren't shopping him in advance of trading for him in the first place with the understanding that the Toronto deal was the best they could get for JO?
So you don't buy the "Pacers turned down TJ for Felton" story.

MikeDC
01-04-2010, 04:30 PM
The Pacers need to look around for some way to save a bit of money for some team.

This is along the same lines as my idea with the Knicks.

Last week the Hornets tried to offload Devin Brown on the TWolves to save themselves $1.4M bucks. They're over the cap by about $3M, so that would have saved them $1.4M in tax payments plus the salary savings.

So how's about this:
Hornets send MoPete, Songaila, Hilton Armstrong
Pacers send Ford, Jones, Head

This saves $1.3M for the Hornets in team salary. If they dump Luther Head by January 10, it saves them $2.15M. Since they're over the cap, that's $2.15M they don't have to pay the league. It gets them a step closer to being completely under the tax too.

For us, the actual cost in extra salary is approx $800k I think. Which sort of sucks, but it has several benefits
1. It gets rid of TJ, who is going to be a problem if he sits around not playing.
2. It gets us out of the last two years of D. Jones' ill conceived deal.
3. I think it mildly helps on the court if we consider Songaila and MoPete might be mildly useful.
4. MoPete's herpes comes free of charge.
5. The cap ramifications for next year are pretty much nil. We pay slightly less (100k) than we were before.

avoidingtheclowns
01-04-2010, 04:33 PM
Who would want him? Not sure, maybe a really good team who has a really good starting point guard, but no back-up. Of course if they are a really good team, they probably won't want to pay Ford's salary - unless they have a couple of bad contracts they want to dump.

Magic? Seems like Nelson gets injured often. Is Ford better than Williams>
Celtics?
Cavs - No
Hawks - No

Nugs - No
Lakers - no - he doesn't fit that offense
Spurs - I doubt it

How happy is Miami with a PG rotation of a struggling (and benched) Chalmers, Arroyo and Quinn? I know the ball is in Wade's hands quite a bit but they might want that type of offensive spark off the bench for a playoff run. TJ for QRich might work and make sense -- we're one team he's never been traded to before.

Naptown_Seth
01-04-2010, 04:57 PM
JOB is saying things in that article that I've been hearing a bunch of members here say for six weeks.
No s***

and I can't build a young guy like A.J. Price having him sit on the bench and watch. (edit - take note Bill ;) ) It's not like we're a .500 basketball team. We have some key guys hurt, Earl is on a one-year contract, and it's a time to see what A.J. can give us because we have to know by the end of the season exactly who A.J. Price is, how solid he is as an NBA guard."
If he makes good on this it's about time. It also might be a good move to save his own job. I think he can get more productive basketball by trusting some of these fundamentals style players to run a true system, to back off shooting threes other than to maintain space integrity, and to work better with more than just 1 other guy.

It hasn't been a choice between winning now or developing youth and a bunch of us have said so. Guys like Price and Josh actually give you a better chance to win now AND develop at the same time.

The weird outward message we've had for the last 2 years is pretty confusing and for the most part the choices and actions haven't reflected the kind of attitude we see here, but if it's finally going that way then good for both us and JOB.


Even if Price, Josh, Tyler, Brandon and Roy all stink, wouldn't it be nice to know ASAP. I'd like to not only know how good they are but also their areas of strength and weakness in order to better assemble the remaining squad in the next 2 years.




BTW, TPTB are going to get jack squat for Ford at this point. Teams have seen his game. And if they win the lottery to get Wall it's only going to be worse.

At least they turned JO's huge deal into Ford's much smaller deal.

Naptown_Seth
01-04-2010, 05:06 PM
To add to that, why didn't they draft a PG in possibly the strongest PG draft ever? I mean, I didn't do research, but you have Jennings, Flynn, Rubio, Lawson, Maynor, Evans, Mills, Teague, ect.

I've said all along, I'm a big Hansbrough fan, but it didn't make sense to draft a PF this year. This year had a strong PG class, next year has a strong PF class. Now we are stuck without a PG and very little hope of getting one, as there won't be a solid option at our pick - where there will be about 5 possible PF's. Now we have Hansbrough and getting a PF doesn't make as much sense. :confused:
I'm not a Hans (his game) fan but I did scout at lot of these guys, including hard to find Maynor games, and IMO AJ Price was a better choice than Lawson, Mills, Maynor and Teague. I felt that way going into draft night.

Evans, Jennings and Rubio were gone before their pick. Holliday was the only maybe, and he's young and raw and still risky. I would have been happy with him as the pick, but I think you are looking at a 60-40 chance on Jrue vs Price final upside. It's not a big miss.


Personally I was the trade down or out of the draft guy. I would have chased 4 guys into the 2nd round - Young, Blair, Budinger and Price. They got one of those 4 so I can't complain.

Doddage
01-04-2010, 05:10 PM
How happy is Miami with a PG rotation of a struggling (and benched) Chalmers, Arroyo and Quinn? I know the ball is in Wade's hands quite a bit but they might want that type of offensive spark off the bench for a playoff run. TJ for QRich might work and make sense -- we're one team he's never been traded to before.
Miami wants max cap space for 2010, and trading for Ford (assuming he picks up his option) would go against that plan.

ChicagoJ
01-04-2010, 05:18 PM
So you don't buy the "Pacers turned down TJ for Felton" story.

Shopping him could be, "Hey, Ford is available for the right price. We were thinking about Carmello..." Click.

Whether folks around here want to admit it or not, Artest was always being shopped but the asking price was too high.

There is a reason we don't get many trades done, but I'm not sure its because our players have been as "untradeable" as their PD legend grows to. They're untradeable because of unreasonable asking prices.

We're not looking for equal value in a trade. If we can't take advantage of somebody, we're not willing to make the trade because maybe some time down the road we COULD take advantage of them and its better to wait.

HOOPFANATIC
01-04-2010, 06:14 PM
I still think that we have one of the most poorly run front office's in the league right now.

Why make a public statement to ESPN, no less, about this T.J situation.

If there was even a hint of interest, I would imagine it is gone now, and I simply don't understand how alienating players helps your organization.

Why would someone want to come play here with the chance of having your reputation and career ruined publicly. Yeah the money and the contract is one thing, but contracts only last so long and then it's like starting all over with an albatross.

I can't stand T.J's game, but I don't see him as our only problem that he needed to be the media's fall guy. I mean he is not the only player that has been disappointing, as a matter of fact he is pretty much (no improvement from last season) which I kinda expected anyway. Why draw attention to it.

There are a multitude of players on other teams who are disappointing this year as well probably with far more expectations but they are NOT getting press releases about thier benching.

joew8302
01-04-2010, 06:36 PM
I still think that we have one of the most poorly run front office's in the league right now.

Why make a public statement to ESPN, no less, about this T.J situation.

If there was even a hint of interest, I would imagine it is gone now, and I simply don't understand how alienating players helps your organization.

Why would someone want to come play here with the chance of having your reputation and career ruined publicly. Yeah the money and the contract is one thing, but contracts only last so long and then it's like starting all over with an albatross.

I can't stand T.J's game, but I don't see him as our only problem that he needed to be the media's fall guy. I mean he is not the only player that has been disappointing, as a matter of fact he is pretty much (no improvement from last season) which I kinda expected anyway. Why draw attention to it.

There are a multitude of players on other teams who are disappointing this year as well probably with far more expectations but they are NOT getting press releases about thier benching.

All excellent points, really good post which I agree with 100%. This front office is failing miserably.

Anthem
01-04-2010, 07:01 PM
Shopping him could be, "Hey, Ford is available for the right price. We were thinking about Carmello..." Click.

Whether folks around here want to admit it or not, Artest was always being shopped but the asking price was too high.

There is a reason we don't get many trades done, but I'm not sure its because our players have been as "untradeable" as their PD legend grows to. They're untradeable because of unreasonable asking prices.

We're not looking for equal value in a trade. If we can't take advantage of somebody, we're not willing to make the trade because maybe some time down the road we COULD take advantage of them and its better to wait.
Yeah, I think that's the case. We could have moved him if we'd wanted, but we've only been looking for trades where we came out ahead.

Hicks
01-04-2010, 07:29 PM
Why make a public statement to ESPN, no less, about this T.J situation.

What public statement?

gummy
01-04-2010, 07:30 PM
AND the writer needs to show credibility in his writing by having his facts straight.

If the Pacers have been trying to trade Ford basically since they acquired him, 18 months is probably close enough to two years to be able to say "years."

But more importantly, it should be noted that the sentence in question is a direct quote from an NBA source. It is not an assertion of fact that the reporter made. So it's the source that has the somewhat fuzzy sense of time, not the writer.

count55
01-04-2010, 07:40 PM
Shopping him could be, "Hey, Ford is available for the right price. We were thinking about Carmello..." Click.

Whether folks around here want to admit it or not, Artest was always being shopped but the asking price was too high.

There is a reason we don't get many trades done, but I'm not sure its because our players have been as "untradeable" as their PD legend grows to. They're untradeable because of unreasonable asking prices.

We're not looking for equal value in a trade. If we can't take advantage of somebody, we're not willing to make the trade because maybe some time down the road we COULD take advantage of them and its better to wait.

And you can prove this how?

count55
01-04-2010, 07:43 PM
What public statement?

There was no public statement. I'm guessing most of the quotes came from either pre-game or post-game interviews/press conferences, and were answers to questions asked specifically.

I would guess that they're pool quotes, but I haven't been able to find the source.

The extra/ESPN attention probably is simply a result of the game being played in New York.

pacergod2
01-04-2010, 08:46 PM
I still think that we have one of the most poorly run front office's in the league right now.

Why make a public statement to ESPN, no less, about this T.J situation.

If there was even a hint of interest, I would imagine it is gone now, and I simply don't understand how alienating players helps your organization.

Why would someone want to come play here with the chance of having your reputation and career ruined publicly. Yeah the money and the contract is one thing, but contracts only last so long and then it's like starting all over with an albatross.

I can't stand T.J's game, but I don't see him as our only problem that he needed to be the media's fall guy. I mean he is not the only player that has been disappointing, as a matter of fact he is pretty much (no improvement from last season) which I kinda expected anyway. Why draw attention to it.

There are a multitude of players on other teams who are disappointing this year as well probably with far more expectations but they are NOT getting press releases about thier benching.

It has been mentioned that it is an NBA Executive. Don't you think it might be an executive that has been trying to get Ford from us for next to nothing and he is just putting the press out there that the guy has no value to drive his price down?

NBA people aren't dumb. They see these players night in and night out. They know who has talent and who doesn't. I don't doubt that we are struggling to trade Ford, but to take this quote in earnest truth is naive. His contract is heavy for what he is, and that's the issue, but it doesn't mean he's a terrible player. He just looks terrible on this team, as do most of our players, and the byproduct is that none of our guys have much value.

MillerTime
01-04-2010, 08:53 PM
It has been mentioned that it is an NBA Executive. Don't you think it might be an executive that has been trying to get Ford from us for next to nothing and he is just putting the press out there that the guy has no value to drive his price down?

NBA people aren't dumb. They see these players night in and night out. They know who has talent and who doesn't. I don't doubt that we are struggling to trade Ford, but to take this quote in earnest truth is naive. His contract is heavy for what he is, and that's the issue, but it doesn't mean he's a terrible player. He just looks terrible on this team, as do most of our players, and the byproduct is that none of our guys have much value.
Im sure if we wanted, we could trade Granger in a heartbeat

Justin Tyme
01-04-2010, 08:58 PM
That is plurar, isn't it? They learnt me English at Greenwood, so I aint the bestest at it. But I don't see the problem.


This is twice you have brought up Woodman High, so you bragg'n or complain'n?

pacergod2
01-04-2010, 09:19 PM
Im sure if we wanted, we could trade Granger in a heartbeat

Yeah... we could trade a hurt Granger, who has less value now than when healthy obviously. Think of this year's team like the year that Miami lost DWade forever and ended up with the number 2 pick. Let him sit, let the young guys grow, and figure out what you have. You don't trade Granger, unless somebody is willing to PONY UP some serious assets. But we would be better off keeping him, letting him rehab, and moving forward with him. But I think you knew that and were just proving a point. :D

jhondog28
01-04-2010, 10:06 PM
Yeah... we could trade a hurt Granger, who has less value now than when healthy obviously. Think of this year's team like the year that Miami lost DWade forever and ended up with the number 2 pick. Let him sit, let the young guys grow, and figure out what you have. You don't trade Granger, unless somebody is willing to PONY UP some serious assets. But we would be better off keeping him, letting him rehab, and moving forward with him. But I think you knew that and were just proving a point. :D

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:VIeiRben3FmcPM:http://api.ning.com/files/hxCIwF9bu1N1L2W2vfsHH9Y6QkOPOUnE8aZpaN4RieqYJOnrP6 UzfnrwaFAVo1aJHjz595GvSzbaMKU4RpwfGTRfbNy-bQPY/more_cowbell.jpg

ksuttonjr76
01-04-2010, 11:10 PM
At this point, whatever trade value or interest TJ Ford had is gone now. Other GMs now know that we're very eager to trade Ford, and will probably throw peanuts at Bird. Kinda like the Artest/Tinsley situation....sometimes it's better to keep your mouth shut, and let other teams know that they've been fooled AFTER the trade is completed.

HOOPFANATIC
01-04-2010, 11:41 PM
What public statement?

The ESPN article is directly quoting JOB as saying how bad T.J is struggling with the three,(which he always has), and that he is taking his benching like a man.

Even Dantoni has been vague in most of the comments I've read about his benching of Robinson, Hughes and his two year benching of Curry.

I don't know, IMHO I think it would behoove them to keep quiet about the benching and just do it. When the media asked, JOB should have just told them what he's been saying all year about trying to put together the right combo of players to get the victory, and keep saying it until they stop asking it.

cdash
01-04-2010, 11:46 PM
The ESPN article is directly quoting JOB as saying how bad T.J is struggling with the three,(which he always has), and that he is taking his benching like a man.

Even Dantoni has been vague in most of the comments I've read about his benching of Robinson, Hughes and his two year benching of Curry.

I don't know, IMHO I think it would behoove them to keep quiet about the benching and just do it. When the media asked, JOB should have just told them what he's been saying all year about trying to put together the right combo of players to get the victory, and keep saying it until they stop asking it.

So he should dodge questions about it and let the media speculate? I don't have a problem with Obie's comments. Actually, I thought he handled it pretty well.

CableKC
01-04-2010, 11:52 PM
Shopping him could be, "Hey, Ford is available for the right price. We were thinking about Carmello..." Click.

Whether folks around here want to admit it or not, Artest was always being shopped but the asking price was too high.

There is a reason we don't get many trades done, but I'm not sure its because our players have been as "untradeable" as their PD legend grows to. They're untradeable because of unreasonable asking prices.

We're not looking for equal value in a trade. If we can't take advantage of somebody, we're not willing to make the trade because maybe some time down the road we COULD take advantage of them and its better to wait.
It's the job of the GM to get the best sale price for their trading assets to maximize their return.

In the days of DW, I can believe that the "asking price" for many of our Players were likely high and remained high throughout any negotiation process. The problem is that I really believed that DW overvalued the Players he drafted/signed/traded for.

With Bird, although he'd likely start high when it comes to asking price.....but my hunch ( and it's a total guess of mine ) is that he's far more realistic about the trading value of all the Players that he's tried to deal over the last year ( I'm guessing that Ford is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to moving any of the 4 remaining long-term contracts ). Although we are not stuck with Ford....I still think that we got good value for JONeal by getting a 1st round pick for him.

On a side note.... I remember reading somewhere here that other GMs didn't like to deal with Larry Legend....and went to someone else in the Pacers FO when it came to trade offers.

Kuq_e_Zi91
01-05-2010, 01:24 AM
I'd keep tabs on the Arenas situation if I'm Bird and Morway. If the Wizards void Gil's contract, or even if he's suspended for a significant amount of time, I'd look to see if they would be interested in Ford for Mike Miller. I think he would be a good fit here in O'Brien's system and it doesn't hurt that he's on the last year of his contract.

The question, though, is would the Wizards be interested? I'd think they could find a better deal than Ford, especially if they include Butler or Jamison.

CableKC
01-05-2010, 03:36 AM
I'd keep tabs on the Arenas situation if I'm Bird and Morway. If the Wizards void Gil's contract, or even if he's suspended for a significant amount of time, I'd look to see if they would be interested in Ford for Mike Miller. I think he would be a good fit here in O'Brien's system and it doesn't hurt that he's on the last year of his contract.

The question, though, is would the Wizards be interested? I'd think they could find a better deal than Ford, especially if they include Butler or Jamison.
Although one can hope....I seriously doubt that there will be anything more then a financial "slap on the hand" along with a suspension that won't be long enough to jeopardize the Wizards season.

Bball
01-05-2010, 04:40 AM
On a side note.... I remember reading somewhere here that other GMs didn't like to deal with Larry Legend....and went to someone else in the Pacers FO when it came to trade offers.

IIRC the deal was that Larry didn't have final say so dealing with Bird just meant he had to run everything by others....

cordobes
01-05-2010, 07:49 AM
It's not going to be easy to trade Ford for smaller/shorter contracts without adding anything else. Maybe if a contending team is hit by injuries at the PG position.

Bball
01-05-2010, 08:06 AM
Maybe this is a tactic to get teams calling the Pacers and making offers... any offers?

IOW... Teams see Ford is out of the Pacer plans and MAYBE someone thinks they can throw a deal together to get him on the sly... And it just so happens the Pacers would be willing to take one of those deals.

wintermute
01-05-2010, 08:39 AM
chris sheridan added a few more details in an espn chat

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/30156/nba-with-chris-sheridan



Russell (Cary, NC)

Chris, explain the "fall" from grace (figuratively, not literally) that TJ Ford's had with the Pacers. "Wha' happen?"

Chris Sheridan (1:34 PM)

First, Russell, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to plug today's culmun on T.J. Ford, which is in today's Daily Dime. Plz go and have a read, y'all. In a nutshell, there have been three things: His 3-point shooting (1-for-28), his plus0-minus numbers vs. Watson's, and his poor decision-making in late game situations. from taking with Pacers folks yesterday, they're pretty much throwing up their hands on him, which is surprising given how much they have intested in him ($17M this season and next). But it also goes to show how hard it is to move money in today's trade market, and Indiana is having as hard a time finding a taker for him as they did with Tinsley last season. My T.J. Ford prediction is that he'll rack up a string of at least 20 DNPs and take a buyout over the summer.


buyout? just when tj's contract becomes a potentially useful expiring? or is that our luxury tax plan?

Kuq_e_Zi91
01-05-2010, 08:45 AM
I think by buyout Sheridan means TJ won't exercise his player option? Because I'm with you, I don't think it would be smart to agree to buy him out when he's an expiring, unless we're in serious financial troubles and need to save any amount of money we can.

PaceBalls
01-05-2010, 09:57 AM
Why is TJ getting the Tinsley treatment when we hear nadda on Murph? There seems to be two different measuring sticks being used in player evaluation by Jim and TPTB if they are having a say in this. I can only hope they end up being fair about the performance with all our players, not just pick on TJ...

Tom White
01-05-2010, 10:18 AM
The reasoning is that the Knicks want to get rid of Curry to create more cap space this summer.

Ford having a player option for next year sort of flies in the face of this reasoning, doesn't it?

ChicagoJ
01-05-2010, 10:19 AM
This is twice you have brought up Woodman High, so you bragg'n or complain'n?

Just making a joke about our English Department. ;)

Unclebuck
01-05-2010, 10:22 AM
Why is TJ getting the Tinsley treatment when we hear nadda on Murph? There seems to be two different measuring sticks being used in player evaluation by Jim and TPTB if they are having a say in this. I can only hope they end up being fair about the performance with all our players, not just pick on TJ...

There is one big difference. Murphy fits into what O'Brien is wanting to do - he likes having a power forward who can shoot the three, Murphy fits well in this offense. Ford does not.

Murphy played a number of pretty good games before getting injured. Plus he is probably our best shooter with Granger out.

Justin Tyme
01-05-2010, 10:24 AM
On a side note.... I remember reading somewhere here that other GMs didn't like to deal with Larry Legend....and went to someone else in the Pacers FO when it came to trade offers.


We both read the samething. It doesn't bode well for a franchise when the man in charge isn't a person his peers want to deal with. IIRC, it had to do with his being short with unfriendly attitude. One can't afford to ruffle the feathers of the people you have to deal on a regular basis. Vinegar never catches flies.

Justin Tyme
01-05-2010, 10:28 AM
IIRC the deal was that Larry didn't have final say so dealing with Bird just meant he had to run everything by others....


I don't recall that at all, but when the 2 headed monster was in existence I could see that. I wouldn't believe that is the way it is today.

ChicagoJ
01-05-2010, 10:34 AM
There is one big difference. Murphy fits into what O'Brien is wanting to do - he likes having a power forward who can shoot the three, Murphy fits well in this offense. Ford does not.

Murphy played a number of pretty good games before getting injured. Plus he is probably our best shooter with Granger out.

In spite of all the negativity toward Murphy (mine included), this is a good point. I don't care to have a soft three-point shooting PF, but Jim O'Brien likes it.

Ford is a problem at both ends of the court. I don't think it has anything to do with "the system" although I understand that some of you think that Ford is not permanently undersized and will magically get better at court vision and finishing dribble penetration and trying to play defense in another (Magic?) system. Murphy is only a problem at one end of the court.

And with injuries and inconsistent youth, O'Brien doesn't have many alternatives.

Naptown_Seth
01-05-2010, 11:38 AM
So he should dodge questions about it and let the media speculate? I don't have a problem with Obie's comments. Actually, I thought he handled it pretty well.
I agree. I don't want to see Ford thrown under the bus, but I also don't want to hear a bunch of vague BS that everyone knows is BS. If we know it then every GM knows it.

I like this much better than "AJ is great" followed by no AJ playing time, or even the "Rush isn't playing good defense, that's why he sits". Come on already, we aren't dumb.

If anything it could be that publicly benching TJ will spark MORE interest as teams take note that he's obviously available. Of course if they've been shopping him like crazy then they all know already and this is old news that is only relevent to the fans.

Dr. Awesome
01-05-2010, 12:20 PM
I'm not a Hans (his game) fan but I did scout at lot of these guys, including hard to find Maynor games, and IMO AJ Price was a better choice than Lawson, Mills, Maynor and Teague. I felt that way going into draft night.

Evans, Jennings and Rubio were gone before their pick. Holliday was the only maybe, and he's young and raw and still risky. I would have been happy with him as the pick, but I think you are looking at a 60-40 chance on Jrue vs Price final upside. It's not a big miss.


Personally I was the trade down or out of the draft guy. I would have chased 4 guys into the 2nd round - Young, Blair, Budinger and Price. They got one of those 4 so I can't complain.

I wanted either Holiday or Lawson. I was always defending Lawson on the forums and now he is beasting it. 46/18 in his last two games.

Sookie
01-05-2010, 12:37 PM
There is one big difference. Murphy fits into what O'Brien is wanting to do - he likes having a power forward who can shoot the three, Murphy fits well in this offense. Ford does not.

Murphy played a number of pretty good games before getting injured. Plus he is probably our best shooter with Granger out.

Also, people may still have interest in Murphy. If you bench Murphy, is cleveland still interested? Doubt it.

Anyway. I think the TJ benching is for a lot of reasons.
1. They figured out they weren't going to trade him, so make him sit and maybe he'll opt out of his player option.
2. His teammates (Dahntay) don't want to play with him anymore.
3. He's really bad.

OakMoses
01-05-2010, 12:53 PM
Is it even remotely legal for us to pay him to decline his option?

Speed
01-05-2010, 12:55 PM
Is it even remotely legal for us to pay him to decline his option?

What is TJ Ford worth on the open market? Asking to see what the difference would be between the 8.5 he's owed next year.

duke dynamite
01-05-2010, 01:02 PM
The term, "years" kind of confuses me...

count55
01-05-2010, 01:27 PM
In spite of all the negativity toward Murphy (mine included), this is a good point. I don't care to have a soft three-point shooting PF, but Jim O'Brien likes it.

Ford is a problem at both ends of the court. I don't think it has anything to do with "the system" although I understand that some of you think that Ford is not magically undersized and will magically get better at court vision and finishing dribble penetration and trying to play defense in another (Magic?) system. Murphy is only a problem at one end of the court.

And with injuries and inconsistent youth, O'Brien doesn't have many alternatives.

No, O'Brien doesn't. He would prefer a more athletic power forward with good range. If you want an exemplar for O'Brien's ideal Power Forward, it would probably be Kevin Garnett. Hell, he probably likes Buckaroo's game better than Troy's. However, Murphy is who he has. Much like TJ, I'm sure that O'Brien doesn't like Murphy's game, though he'd consider his shooting a redeeming quality.

O'Brien continued to play both Murph and Ford, because he needed them to play at the level they demonstrated last year for this team to be competitive. Ford has only shown occasional flashes, but has mostly fallen well short of expectation.

Murphy did struggle early this season, but has at least approximated last year's performance over the month of December. Murph's averaging 16 & 9 on 51% shooting, while Ford is averaging 9 & 4 (ast) on 44% shooting.

For some reason, Murph has become the root of all evil around here. I find this to be a mindless point of view. Troy is what he is. If there's a reason that O'Brien likes him, it's because he knows what he's going to get out of him. This is a quality that no one else on the roster has at this point in time.

Murph can shoot, and he can rebound, so he does those things. He does work within the team defense, but is far from a positive influence on that end. The basic problem is that it's reached the point that it doesn't particularly matter what he does. The rest of the team is so bad, he doesn't have much impact one way or the other.

I didn't have the pleasure of seeing the first half of the Minnesota game, and I didn't bother to watch most of the second half of the Knicks game. Therefore, the last 48 minutes of Pacer basketball I've seen has been a 150-91 shellacking. Neither Troy nor TJ were involved in that, at all.

To me, the Minny game looks a lot like the losses to Orlando, Boston, and San Antonio. Get a big lead with some good play, then stop doing what we did to be successful (if we knew what that was in the first place) and the lead evaporates. Yes, we won the Minny game and lost the others, but it seems that difference can be attributed to playing a bad team on your own floor as opposed to playing good teams on their floor.

count55
01-05-2010, 01:29 PM
Is it even remotely legal for us to pay him to decline his option?

No.

We could buy him out at a discounted rate, and reduce our cap hit next year, but he would still be on the payroll, for whatever the buyout was.

He'd have to gamble on what he thought he could get from another team, and I can't see any huge reason for him to give us a break.

Hicks
01-05-2010, 01:33 PM
I still think you should watch the 1st half of the Minny game if you can.

As for Murphy, it's the defensive issues that really turn me off, and it almost offends me when I see him get some of his boards by swooping in to grab them when his teammate has position and the ball is about to go right to the other Pacer.

My main rub is defensively having him out there for so many minutes. He's not just bad himself, he makes it harder on his teammates to play defense.

Speed
01-05-2010, 01:48 PM
About the Point Guard position. Eddie White was saying yesterday that the Pacers will have 14 million tied up in TJ Ford and Jamaal Tinsley....... next year.

That's crazy, just think what kind of Point Guard you are supposed to be able to have for 14 million.

Management has their work cut out for them, dealing with that kind of issue.

ChicagoJ
01-05-2010, 01:57 PM
No, O'Brien doesn't. He would prefer a more athletic power forward with good range.

Like Antionne Walker?

Pass.

Bball
01-05-2010, 02:06 PM
About the Point Guard position. Eddie White was saying yesterday that the Pacers will have 14 million tied up in TJ Ford and Jamaal Tinsley....... next year.

That's crazy, just think what kind of Point Guard you are supposed to be able to have for 14 million.

Management has their work cut out for them, dealing with that kind of issue.

That's what we're paying a couple of PG's but the reality is over half that is the remainder of JO's contract...

But no matter how you slice it that is some payroll purgatory we have going on. Thanks Donnie Walsh!

CableKC
01-05-2010, 02:08 PM
To be fair, I don't think that Ford is as bad as everyone says he is......despite moving from Team to Team since the start of his career......if he was really all that bad....his career would have ended years ago.

I think that at worst, he's a capable scoring "slashing to the basket while kicking it out to the perimeter" scoring backup PG on a very good Team....and at best....an acceptable Starting PG for a very bad Team.

Although one would think that he would be a decent Starting PG for a very bad Team like the Pacers ( something that I'm guessing Bird was hoping for when we traded for him )....it's obvious that he doesn't fit the current Coaches offensive style. This, coupled with the rest of the Team struggling with their shooting since the start of the season......greatly exposes the flaws in his game.

Like any other Player, you'd have to wonder how he'd respond to a different Coach and a different Offensive system that is run.

Speed
01-05-2010, 02:11 PM
To be fair, I don't think that Ford is as bad as everyone says he is......despite moving from Team to Team since the start of his career......if he was really all that bad....his career would have ended years ago.

I think that at worst, he's a capable scoring "slashing to the basket while kicking it out to the perimeter" scoring backup PG on a very good Team....and at best....an acceptable Starting PG for a very bad Team.

Although one would think that he would be a decent Starting PG for a very bad Team like the Pacers ( something that I'm guessing Bird was hoping for when we traded for him )....it's obvious that he doesn't fit the current Coaches offensive style. This, coupled with the rest of the Team struggling with their shooting since the start of the season......greatly exposes the flaws in his game.

Like any other Player, you'd have to wonder how he'd respond to a different Coach and a different Offensive system that is run.

Don Nelson could help him put up big time numbers, I bet. What the Pacers run most of the time, is easily the very worst possible set up for him. Ball not in his hands, motion off the ball, spot up jumpers without any rhythm dribbles, not surrounded by great athletes who can play a high flying full court helter skelter fast break style. I mean I don't know how he put as good of numbers as he did last year.

TJ needs to picking and rolling. Hook him up with David West or someone like that.

Sookie
01-05-2010, 02:11 PM
To be fair, I don't think that Ford is as bad as everyone says he is......despite moving from Team to Team since the start of his career......if he was really all that bad....his career would have ended years ago.

I think that at worst, he's a capable scoring "slashing to the basket while kicking it out to the perimeter" scoring backup PG on a very good Team....and at best....an acceptable Starting PG for a very bad Team.

Although one would think that he would be a decent Starting PG for a very bad Team like the Pacers ( something that I'm guessing Bird was hoping for when we traded for him )....it's obvious that he doesn't fit the current Coaches offensive style. This, coupled with the rest of the Team struggling with their shooting since the start of the season......greatly exposes the flaws in his game.

Like any other Player, you'd have to wonder how he'd respond to a different Coach and a different Offensive system that is run.

I think ford has a few problems.

First being that he hasn't figured out he's not a starting caliber point guard.

Second, he's not really a point guard either. If you let him do what he wants, he can score. He'll make that foul line jump shot often. And he's fast. Scoring guard off the bunch in spurts is what TJ is capable of. When he's cold, sit him before he kills the team. But he can certainly be a little bit of a spark off the bench for someone. He's just terrible at running an offense.

PaceBalls
01-05-2010, 02:24 PM
I have always seen TJ valuable as a Jason Terry style player, 6th man off the bench scoring guard. But you guys are right about our coach's style being terrible for TJ, but I think our coach's offense is terrible for everyone on the roster... except, as you guys have said, Murphy. Who the hell tailors their offense around Troy Murphy? Not just that, but at the detriment to the rest of the players skills. :banghead:
You can say the offense is good for Granger too, but Danny would be good in any offense.

Unclebuck
01-05-2010, 02:35 PM
I have always seen TJ valuable as a Jason Terry style player, 6th man off the bench scoring guard. But you guys are right about our coach's style being terrible for TJ, but I think our coach's offense is terrible for everyone on the roster... except, as you guys have said, Murphy. Who the hell tailors their offense around Troy Murphy? Not just that, but at the detriment to the rest of the players skills. :banghead:
You can say the offense is good for Granger too, but Danny would be good in any offense.

It is good for Danny, excellent for Dunleavy, good for Troy. Seems fine for Earl, D.Jones. I think the high post passing that is required of the big guys is pretty good for Jeff, Roy, Josh, not bad for Troy, terrible for Solo. Overall I think this offense was excellent for the team last year, less so this year.

HOOPFANATIC
01-05-2010, 02:47 PM
I agree. I don't want to see Ford thrown under the bus, but I also don't want to hear a bunch of vague BS that everyone knows is BS. If we know it then every GM knows it.

I like this much better than "AJ is great" followed by no AJ playing time, or even the "Rush isn't playing good defense, that's why he sits". Come on already, we aren't dumb.

If anything it could be that publicly benching TJ will spark MORE interest as teams take note that he's obviously available. Of course if they've been shopping him like crazy then they all know already and this is old news that is only relevent to the fans.

I could go with that if we didn't already go this route last year.

This negative publicity, plus embarassment, to the player could have been avoided by some vague B.S.

Instead it has become a continuing story and a poll on the ESPN NBA site highlighting our futility

I mean really T.J is just being what you get with T.J a 5-11 defensive liablity that attacks the basket.

Is it his fault that most teams don't have to gaurd our shooters, making his game worthless to us, because teams can collapse in the paint.

It seems to me that JOB's system needs him instead to shoot the three and apparently T.J is refusing because he has not taken more than 3 in any game this year. In the 5 game winning streak he only took 2. Earl, however has taken 18 in the last five games hitting 3. Hence the switch.

IMO TPTB should call it like it is, "We are trying to find the right mix of players to fit our type of play." I know it sound like Vague B.S but it doesn't single a player out as if he hasn't contributed this year.

T.J contributions in our 10 wins (was 0-3 in all four combined from 3pt land mind you.)
Washington: 18pts 10rebs 4ast
Ny scored 8 of his 16points to clinch the game
NJ 10pts 3stls 5ast
Charlotte 15pts 13ast

McKeyFan
01-05-2010, 02:49 PM
Murph can shoot, and he can rebound, so he does those things. He does work within the team defense, but is far from a positive influence on that end. The basic problem is that it's reached the point that it doesn't particularly matter what he does. The rest of the team is so bad, he doesn't have much impact one way or the other.


I just have to scratch my head here.

I mean, a bunch of us see what we see when Murph plays and doesn't play. The team doesn't seem to play as well.

Then there's the plus minus. Isn't Troy's one of the worst on the team?

Then there's the record. I don't have the numbers handy, but aren't we like .900 percent with Troy injured?

ChicagoJ
01-05-2010, 02:49 PM
Don Nelson could help him put up big time numbers, I bet. What the Pacers run most of the time, is easily the very worst possible set up for him. Ball not in his hands, motion off the ball, spot up jumpers without any rhythm dribbles, not surrounded by great athletes who can play a high flying full court helter skelter fast break style. I mean I don't know how he put as good of numbers as he did last year.

TJ needs to picking and rolling. Hook him up with David West or someone like that.

I'm a big fan of pick and roll basketball. I don't think TJ Ford would be very good at running that. That relies on his ability to either finish on a drive to the basket (he's not particuarly good at that) or find the open man/ seam when the defense collapses on him (and he's even worse at that.)

That's my biggest hangup with Ford. I don't really like O'Brien's perimeter offense and I don't like Ford. But changing to an offense I like better would be even worse for Ford. :twocents:

count55
01-05-2010, 03:04 PM
Like Antionne Walker?

Pass.

No, like Kevin Garnett.

I probably should have said something like that. I must not have, because I can't imagine that you would intentionally clip my words for a cheapie.

cdash
01-05-2010, 03:08 PM
No, like Kevin Garnett.

I probably should have said something like that. I must not have, because I can't imagine that you would intentionally clip my words for a cheapie.

Yeah, but it's so easy to throw out Kevin Garnett as an ideal power forward for any coach. He's one of the best players in the game.

Can you give an example of someone that is not an elite player? I'm interested to see who you think would be a good fit.

Speed
01-05-2010, 03:08 PM
No where else to put this, but From Chad Fords chat today:

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/30208

I've read a little about Jamison, but what else might the Cavs be able to acquire with Big Z's expiring contract? While it probably makes us better, I hate the idea of letting Z go and not having him around for a possible NBA title.

<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comhttp://www.pacersdigest.com/ /><st1:country-region w:st=</st1:country-region>Chad</ST1:p Ford

I think we're all thinking the Cavs will be among the league's biggest players at the trade deadline. They had a lot of interest in Jamison last year, but Abe Pollin vetoed a deal, believing that the Wizards would be a contender in 2010-11. Pollin has now passed away and the Wizards are awful .. so he's in play along with every player on the roster. The other guy to pay close attention to is Troy Murphy. Cavs have liked him for years.<O:p</O:p

Speed
01-05-2010, 03:13 PM
and...

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/30208

J (Indy)
<O:p
Any hope in sight for the Pacers? Trades or firings?

<O:p<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comhttp://www.pacersdigest.com/ /><st1:country-region w:st=</st1:country-region>Chad</ST1:p Ford <O:p</O:p

No one is getting fired. However, I do think you'll see them be very active. The benching of TJ Ford was a signal, I believe, that they are going to start giving their young guys more time and look to sell of some vets for a combination of cap relief, draft picks and young players. Troy Murphy and Jeff Foster are the two guys on their roster that a lot of GMs have interest in. I suspect both will be gone by the trade deadline. They both have a lot of value to contenders -- Murphy for his ability to spread the floor and to rebound. Foster as a mobile big who can defend players like Pau Gasol. I've talked to several GMs who have shown a lot of interest ... so there's hope.<O:p</O:p

Anthem
01-05-2010, 03:25 PM
No, O'Brien doesn't. He would prefer a more athletic power forward with good range. If you want an exemplar for O'Brien's ideal Power Forward, it would probably be Kevin Garnett. Hell, he probably likes Buckaroo's game better than Troy's.
Then why was Troy leading the team in minutes?

Speed
01-05-2010, 03:32 PM
and....

Jeff VanderVeen

Foster would look good as the Nuggets 3rd big. Do they have the assets to go after him?

<O:p<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comhttp://www.pacersdigest.com/ /><st1:country-region w:st=Chad</ST1:p</st1:country-region> Ford <O:p</O:p

They like him a lot, but they're going to need a third team to get involved unless they're willing to give the Pacers Ty Lawson. The Pacers were down to Lawson and Hansbrough on draft night. They went with <st1:City w:st="on"><ST1:pTyler</ST1:p</st1:City> and would love to get their hands on Lawson too. I just don't think the Nuggets would do it.<O:p</O:p

CableKC
01-05-2010, 03:36 PM
and...

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/30208

J (Indy)
<O:p
Any hope in sight for the Pacers? Trades or firings?

<O:p<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comhttp://www.pacersdigest.com/ /><st1:country-region w:st=</st1:country-region>Chad</ST1:p Ford <O:p</O:p

No one is getting fired. However, I do think you'll see them be very active. The benching of TJ Ford was a signal, I believe, that they are going to start giving their young guys more time and look to sell of some vets for a combination of cap relief, draft picks and young players. Troy Murphy and Jeff Foster are the two guys on their roster that a lot of GMs have interest in. I suspect both will be gone by the trade deadline. They both have a lot of value to contenders -- Murphy for his ability to spread the floor and to rebound. Foster as a mobile big who can defend players like Pau Gasol. I've talked to several GMs who have shown a lot of interest ... so there's hope.<O:p</O:p
I guess we'll be seeing more of Murphy+Foster over the next couple of weeks. Say goodbye to McRoberts and Solo's minutes until the Trade Deadline. Oh well, it's for a good cause.

I'm pretty sure that Foster will be gone to a Western Confernce Playoff bound Team.....hmmm....gotta browse through the Western Conference rosters to see which have Expiring Contracts.

CableKC
01-05-2010, 03:38 PM
Then why was Troy leading the team in minutes?
Cuz he's the best scoring PF on the Team?

MagicRat
01-05-2010, 03:40 PM
Then why was Troy leading the team in minutes?

Because Kevin Garnett's not walking through that door?

CableKC
01-05-2010, 03:40 PM
and....

Jeff VanderVeen

Foster would look good as the Nuggets 3rd big. Do they have the assets to go after him?

<O:p<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comhttp://www.pacersdigest.com/ /><st1:country-region w:st=Chad</ST1:p</st1:country-region> Ford <O:p</O:p

They like him a lot, but they're going to need a third team to get involved unless they're willing to give the Pacers Ty Lawson. The Pacers were down to Lawson and Hansbrough on draft night. They went with <st1:City w:st="on"><ST1:pTyler</ST1:p</st1:City> and would love to get their hands on Lawson too. I just don't think the Nuggets would do it.<O:p</O:p
We have a suitable scoring PG that can backfill for Billups if they give up Lawson :signit:

OakMoses
01-05-2010, 03:49 PM
Yeah, but it's so easy to throw out Kevin Garnett as an ideal power forward for any coach. He's one of the best players in the game.

Can you give an example of someone that is not an elite player? I'm interested to see who you think would be a good fit.

Former players like Donyell Marshall and Robert Horry would have been good fits.

Kenyon Martin, Andrei Kirilenko, Marvin Williams, Boris Diaw - Those guys seem like better fits than Troy.

Hicks
01-05-2010, 03:50 PM
Like Antionne Walker?

Pass.

Actually, no, I believe he specified Kevin Garnett when asked this question on his radio show sometime in the past year or two.

And maybe I'm just ignorant, but when was Walker ever all that athletic?

OakMoses
01-05-2010, 03:53 PM
I was never on the trade Foster to Denver bandwagon like many people were last year. However, didn't we turn down the offer of the 1st rounder that they used on Lawson for Foster?

McKeyFan
01-05-2010, 03:59 PM
Actually, no, I believe he specified Kevin Garnett when asked this question on his radio show sometime in the past year or two.

And maybe I'm just ignorant, but when was Walker ever all that athletic?

Doesn't Garnett shoot inside the arc? Seems like JOB would prefer the three.

count55
01-05-2010, 04:00 PM
Yeah, but it's so easy to throw out Kevin Garnett as an ideal power forward for any coach. He's one of the best players in the game.

Can you give an example of someone that is not an elite player? I'm interested to see who you think would be a good fit.

True, Garnett is a no-brainer because of the talent, but the game that he brings: athleticism, range, passing, tough perimeter defense, and rebounding is the best combination.

Off the top of my head, he'd probably like guys with skill sets like Odom and maybe LaMarcus Aldridge. He doesn't need the three point shot, but he needs to be extremely good from 15-18 feet. He would like Walker better than Murphy, but, like Murphy, I don't think he'd go out of his way to get him.

Looking at some Pacers history, he'd probably like Detlef a lot. A healthy Jermaine O'Neal would make a very nice fit, and Obie's style probably would have kept JO from trying to bulk up, perhaps changing his injury record. oing a slightly different way, a guy like Charles Oakley would be very useful at both ends for what O'Brien would want to do. Also on a different tack, I've heard him say on more than one occasion that he thinks a guy like Nene would be an ideal (or very good) pairing with Roy.

He would very much like someone who can protect the rim, so guys like Camby would be good.

Perhaps another way to put it is, that the design of Orlando's roster: 1 dominating big surrounded by athletic shooters, good depth off the bench would be as close to O'Brien's ideal as you might find in the league today. In fact, you wouldn't see huge stylistic changes between the way SVG coaches that team and the way O'Brien would. He might speed it up a little, but he'd be perfectly comfortable getting Howard lots and lots of touches.

Hell, he's probably choose a vintage 2004 Jeff Foster over Troy.

The basic point is that if O'Brien got to rank the PF's in the league in order of who he'd like to have on this team, I believe it's extremely unlikely that Troy would even make the top half.

O'Brien is not a great coach (though I think he's pretty decent), nor is he one who has ever been in great demand. In Boston, Philly, and here, he more or less inherited rosters. Basically, he's just making due. Some of the stuff he runs here is from his core philosophy, and some of it's simply because he believes it's the best way to get the most wins out of the roster he has.

And it's extremely clear that his first priority, as directed by Bird and almost certainly Simon, is to get as many wins as he can.

BTW...he also knows that the style and tactics that he feels necessary to get this roster (over the last two+ years) competitive right now is not a style that will go deep in the playoffs.

count55
01-05-2010, 04:04 PM
Then why was Troy leading the team in minutes?

This year?

Because, with Danny out, and Dunleavy ineffective, he's the best player on the team.

Others are more likable, and we have to hope that guys like Buckaroo, Roy, and Brandon all become better than he is, but today, he's the best player on the team.

It's perhaps the most articulate statement on exactly how poor this roster is currently.

Since86
01-05-2010, 04:09 PM
Am I the only one that thinks JOb would prefer Garnett as a C, than as a PF? A combination of Troy and KG would be a lot more appealing to Jim than a combo of KG and Roy.

I honestly don't think JOb has any desire to have a center position, but fill C and PF with oversized SF.

McKeyFan
01-05-2010, 04:10 PM
Because, with Danny out, and Dunleavy ineffective, he's the best player on the team.


This is clearly the point of contention.

Do stats or wins make you the best player?

Naptown_Seth
01-05-2010, 04:18 PM
On the "his type of player" discussion, Count did come back with a more elaborate answer, but I'd still like to see a change toward this type of debate in the future, including how coaches answer the question "your type of player".

Instead of giving us the list of all the great qualities a player should have I'd rather start with "super player" who can do everything and ask the coach (or fan) to start listing the traits they give up first, and insist on dumping at least 3-4 core abilities (if you have 8 let's say).

Anyone can say they want a guy that does X, Y, Z. I want to know what they are willing to sacrifice in a player, because in nearly every case you must give up something.

If Troy is the wrong type, then what parts are you taking off his game and where are you applying roughly EQUAL ability of the removed parts to other aspects? Okay, so he no longer can shoot 45% from 3, but he can make the long 2pt jumper at 43%. Then you make it so he can defend the low block OR you make it so he's quick in the lateral defense for PnR type stuff, but you don't get both still.

Otherwise the answer is just "I want a guy who does what my guy does plus a lot more", which is detailed in the little known "no s***" chapter of The Art of War. ;)

PaceBalls
01-05-2010, 04:28 PM
This is clearly the point of contention.

Do stats or wins make you the best player?

I think I with you when I say the latter. Everyone knows we don't like Murph, but it isn't irrational dislike. We've got STATS to prove it!! plus the 5 game win streak :-p

count55
01-05-2010, 04:33 PM
I was never on the trade Foster to Denver bandwagon like many people were last year. However, didn't we turn down the offer of the 1st rounder that they used on Lawson for Foster?

No, the first was a heavily protected first that they got from Charlotte in the Ajinca trade. It would not have been available to us last season, and I think it's either Top 10 or 12 protected this coming season.

Peck
01-05-2010, 04:36 PM
Actually, no, I believe he specified Kevin Garnett when asked this question on his radio show sometime in the past year or two.

And maybe I'm just ignorant, but when was Walker ever all that athletic?

I could be wrong here but I think that Jay was not disputing Kevin Garnett I think he was using Walker as an example of what we have seen O'Brien use before.

Saying Kevin Garnett would be the ideal forward for Jim is like saying Michael Jordan would probably fit in his idea of a guard who can both drive and shoot the three.

PaceBalls
01-05-2010, 04:38 PM
I could be wrong here but I think that Jay was not disputing Kevin Garnett I think he was using Walker as an example of what we have seen O'Brien use before.

Saying Kevin Garnett would be the ideal forward for Jim is like saying Michael Jordan would probably fit in his idea of a guard who can both drive and shoot the three.

I remember Jim saying how his offense would run great if only they had a Kobe Bryant type SG last year in one of the podcasts. I got a kick out of that one. Anyone else remember that?

ChicagoJ
01-05-2010, 04:51 PM
Actually, no, I believe he specified Kevin Garnett when asked this question on his radio show sometime in the past year or two.

And maybe I'm just ignorant, but when was Walker ever all that athletic?

When was Murphy all that athletic?

He can give lip service to wanting somebody like Garnett all he wants.

If he had Garnett, he'd probably be reduced to shooting spot-up threes like Murphy and Walker were.

Walker was a helluva lot more versatile than O'Brien allowed him be. I'm not saying that is also true for Troy, but Troy is certainly playing the Walker role right now and until O'Brien actually demonstrates otherwise, I'd expect him to use Garnett or Duncan or Karl Malone in the same way he's used those two PFs.

Besides, I've always considered Garnett to be an oversized "2/3" since he spent his first dozen years being such a ***** about going into the paint.

EDIT, Thanks Peck for doing a better job of making my point than I did.

Second edit, is the swear-word filter turned off? I had to edit that manually.

d_c
01-05-2010, 05:01 PM
Besides, I've always considered Garnett to be an oversized "2/3" since he spent his first dozen years being such a pussy about going into the paint.

Had Garnett spent all that time in the paint, he'd probably have been injured way more than he's been in what has been a very durable career considering the mileage he's put in. He doesn't have the lower body bulk like Tim Duncan to consistently play in the paint.

It's probably a big reason Tyson Chandler is and has been banged up so often since the beginning of his career. He was asked to play in the paint from the word go, even when he was young and frail. Mostly it's because he had zero perimeter game to speak of.

Peck
01-05-2010, 05:04 PM
Actually my belief is that Murphy is playing the Walter McCarty role, not the Walker role. For all of his problems and issues Walker could be a very physical defender when he wanted to be. He completely abused J.O. on defense (which I admit is not really that great of an example to use).

Troy is not a physical defender.

BillS
01-05-2010, 05:07 PM
and....

Chad Ford

They like him a lot, but they're going to need a third team to get involved unless they're willing to give the Pacers Ty Lawson. The Pacers were down to Lawson and Hansbrough on draft night. They went withTyler and would love to get their hands on Lawson too. I just don't think the Nuggets would do it.

Gotta think if this happened someone in the Pacers' FO would be lauded as supertrader.

Hicks
01-05-2010, 05:08 PM
When was Murphy all that athletic?

He can give lip service to wanting somebody like Garnett all he wants.

If he had Garnett, he'd probably be reduced to shooting spot-up threes like Murphy and Walker were.

I call BS.


Walker was a helluva lot more versatile than O'Brien allowed him be.

Could you elaborate?


I'm not saying that is also true for Troy, but Troy is certainly playing the Walker role right now and until O'Brien actually demonstrates otherwise, I'd expect him to use Garnett or Duncan or Karl Malone in the same way he's used those two PFs.

Unless you can convince me he truly limited Walker's game, I don't think you can look back and demonstrate where he "ruined" a PF by making him into essentially Troy Murphy.

But, on the contrary, while I don't have a citation here in front of me, I seem to recall the beginning of his friction with Chris Webber starting when Jim wanted him posting people up and Webber wanted to shoot jumpers.

ChicagoJ
01-05-2010, 05:13 PM
Jim always has "one" post player - its a single post not a true doughnut.

However,


I seem to recall the beginning of his friction with Chris Webber starting when Jim wanted him posting people up and Webber wanted to shoot jumpers.

When I first read this, I thought you were referring to Don Nelson, circa 1994.

Back on track...

He's not making Hibbert shoot 3's. (Thank God.)

I happen to think Walker was a good interior scorer that could also step out and shoot the three. But if you let him, he was quite willing to shoot the 3 instead of work for a good shot. (Just like Webber. And apparently, Al Harrington, too.)

ChicagoJ
01-05-2010, 05:17 PM
Had Garnett spent all that time in the paint, he'd probably have been injured way more than he's been in what has been a very durable career considering the mileage he's put in. He doesn't have the lower body bulk like Tim Duncan to consistently play in the paint

That's the counterargument, but it is not persuasive. Would you rather have a long, soft career where you don't get a championship until you're teamed with two other, great SGs... or spend time banged up like Duncan and JO. At least in Duncan's case he won championships. In Garnett's case he could easily have been JO 1.0, or perhaps there could be a couple of banners in the Target Center.

Garnett had a choice about bulking up (McHale originally wanted him to all those years ago) but he whined about it and wasn't willing to do that for his team.

d_c
01-05-2010, 05:23 PM
That's the counterargument, but it is not persuasive. Would you rather have a long, soft career where you don't get a championship until you're teamed with two other, great SGs... or spend time banged up like Duncan and JO. At least in Duncan's case he won championships. In Garnett's case he could easily have been JO 1.0, or perhaps there could be a couple of banners in the Target Center.

Garnett had a choice about bulking up (McHale originally wanted him to all those years ago) but he whined about it and wasn't willing to do that for his team.

You'd be asking Garnett to do something that he wouldn't be able to do well. Duncan has the inherent lower body strength in his butt, hips, thighs that allows to make a living down in the paint. Had it since he was 18 years old. Garnett doesn't.

Reggie Miller making a living shooting 3s (instead of driving to the hoop) and coasting through most of the regular season is a big reason he played effectively into his late 30s as a guard.

ChicagoJ
01-05-2010, 05:33 PM
The Pacers asked JO to do something he wasn't able to do well. And he tried to do it.

JO and Pacers: zero championships.
KG and T'Wolves: zero championships.

Yet KG is universally admired (not by me, as you can see from this post) for being durable and JO is ridiculed for being injury-prone.

If I were a T'Wolves fan, I'd be even more disappointed in Garnett than Pacers fans are disappointed in JO. At least JO tried to do what his team needed, even if it failed. Garnett didn't try so of course he failed and claims of his false "durability" really irk me.

Dr. Awesome
01-05-2010, 05:51 PM
The Pacers asked JO to do something he wasn't able to do well. And he tried to do it.

JO and Pacers: zero championships.
KG and T'Wolves: zero championships.

Yet KG is universally admired (not by me, as you can see from this post) for being durable and JO is ridiculed for being injury-prone.

If I were a T'Wolves fan, I'd be even more disappointed in Garnett than Pacers fans are disappointed in JO. At least JO tried to do what his team needed, even if it failed. Garnett didn't try so of course he failed and claims of his false "durability" really irk me.

KG didn't try?

I'm not a KG fan by any means, I don't like players with huge egos and he fits that category, but the guy always played with passion when I watched.

gummy
01-05-2010, 05:51 PM
The Pacers asked JO to do something he wasn't able to do well. And he tried to do it.

JO and Pacers: zero championships.
KG and T'Wolves: zero championships.

Yet KG is universally admired (not by me, as you can see from this post) for being durable and JO is ridiculed for being injury-prone.

If I were a T'Wolves fan, I'd be even more disappointed in Garnett than Pacers fans are disappointed in JO. At least JO tried to do what his team needed, even if it failed. Garnett didn't try so of course he failed and claims of his false "durability" really irk me.

This is an interesting point. However, I think it's a better argument for cutting JO some slack in this area and a better argument against asking players whose body types are not suitable for carrying the extra weight to bulk up than it is a good argument for viewing Garnett with any kind of scorn because he resisted doing something he knew would cut his career short and reduce his effectiveness. Given his body type and skill set I'd say Garnett was right to resist pressure to bulk up and bang down low on a regular basis. If we follow your line of reasoning Garnett's durability was intentionally cultivated. It was not false - it was planned and it happened. I guess you can call that being a pussy. I call knowing your strengths/limitations and taking actions within those parameters smart decision making. And I am not a fan of Mr. Garnett at all.

I wish all coaches, training staffs, and players were more honest about the strengths and limitations of each player. It might make it easier to define roles and put together a team that will work.

Anthem
01-05-2010, 06:14 PM
This year?

Because, with Danny out, and Dunleavy ineffective, he's the best player on the team.
Before Danny went out, Troy was still leading the team in minutes.

Dr. Awesome
01-05-2010, 06:17 PM
Before Danny went out, Troy was still leading the team in minutes.

...hence the losses.

cordobes
01-05-2010, 06:27 PM
I think no other NBA coach made more of Walker's skill-set than O'Brien. Especially on the defensive end, where he was able to make the usually horrific Walker an averaged defender. Walker had lots of coaches and roles and was never able to improve his efficiency or shot selection. And his biggest asset, in my view, was his ability to play the point-forward role, his ball-handling&passing&vision skills. As an inside player, Walker was pedestrian. Pierce was always a much better post player.

I think O'Brien always had a soft spot for Walker and thoroughly appreciated what he could bring to the game, but he was always very aware of Toine's (drastic) limitations, especially his awful shot-selection (which importance was aggravated in JOB's system in Boston... considering the lack of scoring options besides Pierce and Walker) and that you can't win with a player like Walker in a prominent role. I think this article from JOB on Walker is very telling:


Walker: From wiggle to wink (http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=2445498&name=nba)
by: Jim O'Brien


After knocking down yet another 3-pointer against the New Jersey Nets, Antoine Walker trotted up court and winked at a teammate.

A wink? That's a long way from the wiggle that used to accompany big shots from Walker.

You either love Walker or hate him. Rarely is there any middle ground when it comes to someone's feelings about him. Whatever your viewpoint, you do not want to be on the other bench when he gets on a roll.

I first saw Walker play in the summer between his junior and senior years in high school at one of those recruiting camps. He put on a first-half display that was absolutely stunning. He dominated the game at a level that was eye opening. He rebounded, led the break, passed and sank 3s that had all the coaches in the gym shaking their heads in amazement. And, he never shut up for one second.

To me, it was the most entertaining half of basketball I had ever seen during the summer.

His second half that day was as bad as his first half was good. The 3s that had gone down 20 minutes earlier were now off target, and the great passes had become dangerous -- spectators had to be alert lest they got hit in the head with a no-look bullet. And, he never shut up for one second.

I can recall the comments and the looks of the coaches in the stands as we observed Walker's play and antics. Let's just say they were not favorable.

Personally? I was thinking how great it would be to have him on my side.

Be careful what you wish for, right?

He was "scary good" before those two words had ever been used together in a sentence. He had size, skill and agility at a spectacular level. And, he loved to tell you about it.

First and foremost, he was a tremendous weapon. In addition, I found out later when he came to the University of Kentucky that he was smart and wanted to win.

We won the national championship in his sophomore year and he was one of the main reasons why.

Rick Pitino had great talent on that team and everyone was wondering if it could be blended into a cohesive unit. I remember, despite a rocky start to his college career, Walker's getting up during a volatile team meeting and telling the team that he had never won anything in his life. He acknowledged that he had a lot to do with our struggles at the time. He then went on to say he would do anything in his power to sacrifice his individualism to win. He did, and was one of the main reasons for our run to the title.

We all hooked up again with the Boston Celtics and we were together for six more years. During that time he saw his team go from a 15-game winner to an Eastern Conference finalist. He was a captain and our vocal leader for that turnaround.

As a fan he either drove you nuts with his celebratory wiggle (very un-Bird like), his nonstop monologue or his shot selection.

Or, you loved his competiveness and desire to win.

In my mind, the turnaround in the Celtics' fortunes happened when Walker consciously took a back seat to Paul Pierce as our go-to guy. Walker became Pierce's biggest fan and recognized the considerable abilities of his new teammate. Walker was still our vocal leader but he did what was necessary to get us to the next level.

People still did not like his playing the perimeter and it did not help his popularity. When asked why he shot so many 3-pointers, he responded, "because there are no 4-point shots."

It did not surprise me when Pat Riley signed him in Miami.

Riley said after the Game 4 victory Sunday: "Antoine is there to be a psychological threat, teams feel he might go on a run." This after Walker had back-to-back games in which he shot 12-for-22 from the 3-point line.

Walker is a very good weapon to accompany Shaquille O'Neal and Dwyane Wade. Almost 60 percent of Walker's shots in the playoffs have come from behind the arc. I am sure he feels like he has died and gone to heaven.

He does not even have to waste his energy talking, now that he has Gary Payton as one of his running mates.

If he could only throw in the wiggle for old times' sakes.

The underlying theme of the article is "whenever Walker was surrounded by better players, he was willing to accept a smaller role.... and teams won more the smaller his role was".

So, no surprise that O'Brien pushed for the Walker trade (http://mobile.celticsblog.com/2007/4/22/642400/ainge-accepts-blame), even if everything he was getting back was Raef LaFrentz's bad knees. On the other hand, when Ainge traded hard-nosed veterans and O'Brien favourites Eric Williams and Battie for the selfish shooter Ricky Davis, JOB quit the job.

I think O'Brien sees Murphy more or less in the same way he used to see Walker. It sucks he has to rely on him so much and he'd gladly trade him for someone better, 3 pt shooting be damned. But when he's one of your best players, you have to play him.

ChicagoJ
01-05-2010, 06:33 PM
KG didn't try?

I'm not a KG fan by any means, I don't like players with huge egos and he fits that category, but the guy always played with passion when I watched.

Sure. He was thrilled to be out along the perimeter with the little guys instead of doing the dirty work with the other seven-footers in the paint. I'd look like I was playing with passion, too.

I'm not saying he didn't play hard. I'm saying he did not try to do what his team needed him to do. Now, he may have failed just like JO failed. Maybe he could not reasonably fulfill the need just as JO really needed Brad Miller to be the "more physical" player and struggled with injuries thereafter. I'm tired of hearing that "KG played with passion" but JO was a bum because he couldn't handle the extra bulk.

ChicagoJ
01-05-2010, 06:39 PM
This is an interesting point. However, I think it's a better argument for cutting JO some slack in this area and a better argument against asking players whose body types are not suitable for carrying the extra weight to bulk up than it is a good argument for viewing Garnett with any kind of scorn because he resisted doing something he knew would cut his career short and reduce his effectiveness. Given his body type and skill set I'd say Garnett was right to resist pressure to bulk up and bang down low on a regular basis. If we follow your line of reasoning Garnett's durability was intentionally cultivated. It was not false - it was planned and it happened. I guess you can call that being a pussy. I call knowing your strengths/limitations and taking actions within those parameters smart decision making. And I am not a fan of Mr. Garnett at all.

I wish all coaches, training staffs, and players were more honest about the strengths and limitations of each player. It might make it easier to define roles and put together a team that will work.

Depends on who you are asking. I understand why the player is more interested in a healthier, longer career ($$$,$$$,$$$,$$$,$$$.00) than to make sacrifices for the team. But let's call it what it was. Garnett decided the longevity of his career was more important to him than doing what his team needed.

Yes it was intentional, but it was his decision as he resisted what McHale originally asked him to do. Later, McHale tried to build a team around Garnett at SF. They had some success. But not that much.

The biggest reason (and perhaps the only reason) there isn't a banner hanging in the Target Center is because Garnett played out of position.

And how do we know that he couldn't handle the bulk if he never tried to bulk up? He wanted to face the basket and shoot long jump shots because in the mid-90s, that is what all the "stars" that weren't named Shaq did.

cordobes
01-05-2010, 06:49 PM
The biggest reason (and perhaps the only reason) there isn't a banner hanging in the Target Center is because Garnett played out of position.

What was the position Garnett should be playing?

I think he needed way better teammates, difficult to envision Garnett winning a title with the kind of players he had alongside him. There were some big differences between Garnett and O'Neal: with this or that shot-selection, Garnett was still way more efficient than O'Neal as a scorer; he was also a much better rebounder - actually he was the better rebounder in the league during his prime. What would the Wolves have accomplished for playing Garnett in a different position?

count55
01-05-2010, 06:54 PM
Before Danny went out, Troy was still leading the team in minutes.

Danny went out in the 18th game of the season. To that point, Danny had played in 17 games, and Troy had played in 12. Danny had averaged 36.5 minutes a night, and Troy had averaged 30.3 minutes.

Danny had led the team in minutes played 10 times, was second 5 times, and was third once. Danny left Game 18 (against the Clips) with only 19 minutes, and finished 8th.

Troy had led the team in minutes 3 times (including the Clippers' game when Danny got hurt), and was second 5 times.

ChicagoJ
01-05-2010, 07:13 PM
What was the position Garnett should be playing?

I think he needed way better teammates, difficult to envision Garnett winning a title with the kind of players he had alongside him. There were some big differences between Garnett and O'Neal: with this or that shot-selection, Garnett was still way more efficient than O'Neal as a scorer; he was also a much better rebounder - actually he was the better rebounder in the league during his prime. What would the Wolves have accomplished for playing Garnett in a different position?

Power Forward. And yes, he was the upgrade that the team needed to make over Joe Smith or Gary Trent or whomever else was playing PF while he ran around on the perimeter. I'm not saying he needed to replace Rasho/ Kandiman/ Johnson as the C.

There were many ways they could have addressed a need at SF and a SF-PF combo of TBD-Garnett was better than Garnett-Smith, Garnett-Trent or any other combo like that.

When Trenton Hassell of all people came along and played SG, they finally tried a Sprewell-Garnett forward combination and won a playoff series (or two!).

Yes, his surrounding cast stunk. Part of the problem was that they could not find a better PF than the guy they had playing SF.

gummy
01-05-2010, 07:31 PM
Depends on who you are asking. I understand why the player is more interested in a healthier, longer career ($$$,$$$,$$$,$$$,$$$.00) than to make sacrifices for the team. But let's call it what it was. Garnett decided the longevity of his career was more important to him than doing what his team needed.

And how do we know that he couldn't handle the bulk if he never tried to bulk up? He wanted to face the basket and shoot long jump shots because in the mid-90s, that is what all the "stars" that weren't named Shaq did.

Yes, it does indeed depend on who you are asking. To my mind I don't call it "what it is," because I suspect that the team (by which I mean management) was asking Garnett to do something he would not have excelled at and which may in fact have turned into a string of injuries. Thus it would not have been in his own personal best interest nor would it have benefited the team in the long-run.

As for how we know whether or not Garnett could have handled bulking up and banging down low? We don't of course because it didn't happen. However, you seem to be pretty certain that if he had there would probably be banners in the Target Center. I am a sports massage therapist. I know a good deal about anatomy and physiology from a sports' perspective. I look at Garnett's body type, I examine the way he moves and think that bulking up would likely not serve him.

But I realize that is not the same as working with him and his team of physical therapists, trainers, etc. and making a more comprehensive evaluation. Nor is that process the same as actually trying to do it and seeing what happens. Experts aren't always right, as I am sure we all know. So we both have opinions that are at least partly based on conjecture and might have been's. I don't think mine is much more or less valid than yours. I just wanted to throw out an alternative perspective.

ChicagoJ
01-05-2010, 11:53 PM
I'm reasonably confident he would have suffered the same fate as JO. I think we agree.

That's why I get irritated at the "Look how hard KG plays, and JO is fragile" bull$h!t.

In both cases, it was management's fault the surrounding cast was never good enough. End of story.

JO did what he thought was in the best interest of the team and failed. Garnett did what he thought was in his best interest and succeeded individually even though the team failed.

Garnett was clearly "smarter" by being selfish about it. I'm not disputing that Garnett was "right" to not bulk up. But let's call it what it was - a selfish act of career preservation. KG was probably just as fragile, just clever enough that he didn't prove it.

Either way - assuming you're more interested in the team's success than the individual player's success - you lose. I'm pretty sure we agree on that.

Sookie
01-05-2010, 11:54 PM
I'm reasonably confident he would have suffered the same fate as JO. I think we agree.

That's why I get irritated at the "Look how hard KG plays, and JO is fragile" bull$h!t.

In both cases, it was management's fault the surrounding cast was never good enough. End of story.

JO did what he thought was in the best interest of the team and failed. Garnett did what he thought was in his best interest and succeeded individually even though the team failed.

Garnett was clearly "smarter" by being selfish about it. I'm not disputing that Garnett was "right" to not bulk up. But let's call it what it was - a selfish act of career preservation. KG was probably just as fragile, just clever enough that he didn't prove it.

Either way - assuming you're more interested in the team's success than the individual player's success - you lose. I'm pretty sure we agree on that.

I don't think it's a selfish act though.

We're talking about a guy's body. I don't like KG..but you can't ask him to hurt himself and hurt his future. It's selfish of the team to do that.

gummy
01-06-2010, 12:15 AM
I'm reasonably confident he would have suffered the same fate as JO. I think we agree.

That's why I get irritated at the "Look how hard KG plays, and JO is fragile" bull$h!t.

In both cases, it was management's fault the surrounding cast was never good enough. End of story.

JO did what he thought was in the best interest of the team and failed. Garnett did what he thought was in his best interest and succeeded individually even though the team failed.

Garnett was clearly "smarter" by being selfish about it. I'm not disputing that Garnett was "right" to not bulk up. But let's call it what it was - a selfish act of career preservation. KG was probably just as fragile, just clever enough that he didn't prove it.

Either way - assuming you're more interested in the team's success than the individual player's success - you lose. I'm pretty sure we agree on that.

I definitely see your point about the unfair comparison to JO, who tried to take one for the team. I appreciate that JO tried to do what the team wanted even though I wish he hadn't (I bet he does too by now).

I also see your point about individual vs. team success but honestly if we are both right about the fact that KG might have become injury prone upon bulking up there wasn't going to be much more team success with KG sitting out games due to injury. So what exactly would he have been making the sacrifice for?

I guess I see it as more selfish and/or shortsighted that MN asked Garnett to bulk up than it was for Garnett to make the case that it wasn't a good idea.

Man, I can't believe I am defending KG, he really gets on my last nerve. :blush: Anyway, I think I'm starting to repeat myself and we are somewhat in agreement anyway so we can agree to disagree on the smaller points I guess.

ChicagoJ
01-06-2010, 01:01 AM
It's selfish of the team to do that.

There's a lot of money at stake, and it drives every decision. How much more would the T-Wolves be worth today if KG had successfully bulked up and they did win something?

Does anybody actually think the decisions being made aren't based entirely on $$$? Teams and players inherently have conflicting interests. 100% of the time.

Even in Division I, with alleged "student-athletes" (ha.) that are "playing for the love the game" (HA!) and are portrayed as the beacons of teamwork (hee-hee), the decisions are entirely about the money.

imawhat
01-06-2010, 01:59 AM
I think O'Brien sees Murphy more or less in the same way he used to see Walker.

As a psychological threat to other teams and an unselfish player willing to do anything for his team? Hope not.

Great article though; thanks for posting it. As a Celts fan, was it clear/well known that Antoine played that role?

Kemo
01-06-2010, 02:27 AM
I really hate how this thread has turned into a Murphy/KG thread the last page and a half..

imawhat
01-06-2010, 02:57 AM
Much like TJ, I'm sure that O'Brien doesn't like Murphy's game, though he'd consider his shooting a redeeming quality.

O'Brien continued to play both Murph and Ford, because he needed them to play at the level they demonstrated last year for this team to be competitive.

It's interesting that you recall O'Brien's thoughts on Kevin Garnett but forget every interview or quote he's given about how much he likes Murphy's game, including the countless references to Murphy "spreading the floor" and even instances where he's referred to Murphy playing great defense.

He loves Murphy, which also brings up another thing: I'm pretty sure his player preferences and what he considers winning qualities are mutually exclusive. It's the only thing that can explain the way he divides minutes, in my opinion.


....For some reason, Murph has become the root of all evil around here. I find this to be a mindless point of view.....

Troy Murphy just had a statistical season matched by no other player in NBA history.

Most everyone here knows that and still dislikes him, which shows that most are forming their opinions in consideration of the statistics, which in turn shows that most value a deeper, more introspective level of basketball that goes beyond statistics in their point of view.

In my opinion, no other topic has reflected more thought and introspection since I've joined the board. There has been plenty of discourse on why people not only dislike Troy Murphy, but consider him to be a main cause to our problem. I know you've read it, so I'm not sure where you came up with the idea that most of us have a mindless point of view.

MikeDC
01-06-2010, 08:51 PM
Ford having a player option for next year sort of flies in the face of this reasoning, doesn't it?

No.

Both Ford and Curry have player options that they will certainly exercise.

However, Curry costs more than Ford, and the rookies we'd also be getting cost more. So the net effect of the sort of trade I propose would be $5-6M in additional cap space for the Knicks.

Plus, in the grand scheme of things, Ford is a potentially useful player and curry is not.