PDA

View Full Version : Mike Wells officially sanctions the "tank for Walls" debate



Kegboy
01-15-2010, 11:05 AM
I'm a bit flabergasted by this. It's one thing to talk about this in his blog (which I'm guessing he has), but it's quite another to write an article that discusses (though certainly does not endorse) the notion of tanking for the chance to get the #1 pick. In January. Before we've even played 41 games.

Wherever you fall in the debate, it's certainly not out of bounds to talk (and surely obsess) about it now.

http://www.indystar.com/article/20100115/SPORTS04/1150323/1004/SPORTS/John-Wall-the-ultimate-consolation-Prize




John Wall: the ultimate consolation Prize

The Indiana Pacers might end up with a shot at Kentucky freshman John Wall, but lying down against bad teams like New Jersey is not the plan.

By Mike Wells
mike.wells@indystar.com

The prize is sitting there to be picked up.

He stands 6-4. Jumps like Dwyane Wade. Passes like Steve Nash.

John Wall, Kentucky's ultra-quick, playmaking point guard, is considered the consensus No. 1 pick in the June NBA draft if he decides to leave school early.

Whichever team wins the draft lottery could pick Wall and be set at that position for years.

The New Jersey Nets have the league's worst record, but the worst team is by no means a lock to win the lottery. The Indiana Pacers are in the mix. The teams play tonight in New Jersey.

Pacers fans are torn. Many celebrate victories and hope for the playoffs. Others realize every loss helps their lottery odds. They would rather see the Pacers tank than sneak into the playoffs or, worse, just miss like the three previous seasons, and land another draft pick in the mid-teens.

As tempting and franchise-altering as winning the lottery and first shot at Wall might be, those associated with the team -- from president Larry Bird on down -- are chasing another prize: the playoffs.

"I'm near the top of the list of players that have never made it. I want to get there," said forward Troy Murphy, who has played 577 games without a playoff appearance.

The Pacers certainly are playing like they hope to delay summer vacation.
They came from 23 points down against Toronto and 24 down against Phoenix to win their previous two games.

"It's coming together, but we still need a complete team effort where we get everyone involved," point guard Earl Watson said. "We have to find a way to get everyone going offensively and defensively. We have to be aggressive, be edgy, get deflections, block shots, transition points and create tempo."

The Pacers have two things going against them in trying to secure their second three-game winning streak this season.

They have dropped nine consecutive road games and 15 of their past 16. They also have a bad habit of following impressive victories with uninspiring losses.

"We can't lose to New Jersey," forward Danny Granger said. "We haven't taken advantage of these types of opportunities in the past. It's a game we absolutely cannot lose because we've got a little bit of momentum."

The Pacers have recently started playing -- offensively at least -- the way they envisioned.

Coach Jim O'Brien is playing at least four shooters as much as possible to try to keep the opponent's defense honest. He said his best lineup has only one big man -- Troy Murphy or Roy Hibbert.

The Pacers scored 70 points and shot nearly 57 percent in the second half of Wednesday night's 122-114 victory against the Suns.

Granger and Mike Dunleavy, who both missed an extended amount of time early in the season, combined for 63 points and nine 3-pointers in the game.

"This team was built with certain ingredients," O'Brien said. "When you play most of the season without those ingredients, it has a traumatic effect on you. When they come back and start to get acclimated to each other again, you're going to see a much better brand of basketball."

Hibbert continues to show signs of complementing shooters on the perimeter. He is averaging 15 points and 6.2 rebounds in the past nine games.

"When you have a guy that can score inside with the effectiveness of Roy, then you have guys that have shot over 40 percent from the 3 and aggressive point guards and you're healthy, you can see where you are and how the plan is coming together," O'Brien said. "The fact of the matter is we have Danny, Mike and Troy all healthy at the same time and you have a developing center."

Additional Facts
Pacers at New Jersey Nets
Tipoff: 8 p.m. today, Izod Center.
TV: Fox Sports Indiana.
Radio: WFNI-1070 AM.
Pregame MVP: Granger is averaging 25 points since returning from a foot injury. He had 33 points and eight rebounds against Phoenix on Wednesday.
Prediction: Pacers by 12. They'll avoid playing down to the level of their competition and win three games in a row for just the second time this season.
Injury update: Jeff Foster (back) is out.
Charity game Sunday: Earl Watson is hosting "Annesha's Angels Celebrity Basketball Game" at 3 p.m. Sunday at Lawrence Central High School to raise money for an Indianapolis family, whose 5-year-old daughter, Annesha Wilson, died in a July fire. Tickets are $10.

-- Mike Wells

Justin Tyme
01-15-2010, 11:34 AM
I have to admit I'm torn between hoping the team gets a 4-8 pick and the team winning the rest of the season. My delimma is if the Pacers had NOT been losing like they have been the 1st have of the season, I would want to finish strong, but they have a opportunity to get a really nice pick if they continue as they have played the previous 36 games. Compound that with the fact that even winning 25 of the next 44 games with a record of 38-44 doesn't guarantee a playoff berth, but it does guarantee another mid-teen pick that spells another mediocre rotational player to me. I'm tired of getting mid-teen picks. I'm tired of losing too. At this point in the season, I know what my preferrence has to be.

Unclebuck
01-15-2010, 11:39 AM
It is not out of bounds, but hasn't the topic been discussed to death over the years. it just bores me anymore

Bball
01-15-2010, 11:44 AM
Considering we reasonably can assume several players are not part of the future, and considering how much I'd prefer to see a new coach and this current direction come to an end, and considering we'd have almost 0% chance of advancing in the playoffs... those are all good reasons to shoot for a high draft pick now. Try and make something of a lost season to give the fans and franchise something look forward to in the future besides at best an early playoff loss as a team that was not bad enough to finish worse than some other bad teams in a weak conference.

The downside is we've been losing for so long, and turned off so many fans in the aftermath of the brawl with the players we were left with after Reggie's retirement, and failed to already utilize those prior lost seasons to shoot for a better draft pick rather than going for an outside crack at the playoffs... that we're in a no-man's land as far as the stability of the franchise in Indpls itself.

Hicks
01-15-2010, 11:46 AM
There's not a lot of drama here because it's 100% clear which way the franchise leans on this, from Bird, to O'Brien, to the players, they want to go for the playoffs, and if the last two games suggest things to come, they're going to have a shot in this terrible conference.

Everyone who wants to wish for tanking is just exercising futility.

Speed
01-15-2010, 11:46 AM
For me, it's heart vs. head.

trey
01-15-2010, 11:48 AM
Sorry guys but if you're really looking towards the future, a 25% chance of drafting a guy who will make you a contender and fill the stands compared to a 0% chance of winning in the playoffs this season seems like the better choice to me.

Bball
01-15-2010, 11:50 AM
There's not a lot of drama here because it's 100% clear which way the franchise leans on this, from Bird, to O'Brien, to the players, they want to go for the playoffs, and if the last two games suggest things to come, they're going to have a shot in this terrible conference.

Everyone who wants to wish for tanking is just exercising futility.

As long as O'Brien is coach... We've got a shot... at the lottery...

Just gotta keep spreading the defense at all 5 positions....

Lance George
01-15-2010, 11:51 AM
I'd much rather have 25 wins and a top-5 pick with a legit shot at #1, rather than 35 wins and a pick between 9-12 with close to zero shot at #1 (or even the top-3).

BillS
01-15-2010, 11:54 AM
I don't read anything in the article "sanctioning" the move, either as Wells' opinion or from the team or front office. Did I miss something?

It also begs a question - if the East sucks so bad and we have a record poor enough to "just miss" the playoffs, wouldn't we end up with a better position than in previous years? The teams that miss the playoffs are ranked by record against each other for the lottery position, not by finish in their conference.

kester99
01-15-2010, 11:54 AM
We can discuss it all we want, but no one in the Pacers organization is going to take the tank option.

The plan has been talked about a lot here also....two-fold goals: 1) Make the play-offs. 2) Continue to develop the younger players. That's not going to change anytime soon.

The infusion of top talent that folks are wishing for is going to have to come from within by player development, or as a result of more funds being available in 2011 / 2012 to acquire proven talent.

Bball
01-15-2010, 12:02 PM
I don't read anything in the article "sanctioning" the move, either as Wells' opinion or from the team or front office. Did I miss something?


Wells didn't 'sanction the move'... he simply broached the subject officially in his writing at the Star thus implicitly sanctioning the discussion or the topic itself.

-Bball

Naptown_Seth
01-15-2010, 12:04 PM
It's been debated and I've yet to read anything close to a compelling argument for doing so. The evidence of the futility of it goes on and on...


I just ran through the Celtics and how they rebuilt, 3 of their 4 players came from picks 10, 15 and 21. Only Jeff Green, the #5 pick, got them Ray Allen, and the cost was tanking so bad they were the 2nd worst team in a draft where the #2 player was Durant. So Ray is nice, but was Ray a make or break guy? He's not the same as getting Durant, so they lost big time when they played that lottery.

The Lakers got Kobe with Vlade, and Kobe was not a top 10 pick. They got a #1 pick by clearing tons of cap space for Shaq, but they didn't have to tank to do that and had been moderately competitive in the years leading up to it. FACT - Kobe and Shaq only improved the Lakers by 3 wins, going from 53 the year before (and 48 before that) to 56. OTHER FACT - They couldn't reach the Finals despite being one of the top West teams for 3 straight seasons, then brought in Phil Jackson and won 3 straight.

Meanwhile the Magic, who had TWO top 3 picks, got 1 Finals appearance and then jack squat as they watched Shaq leave. They tried to pull the same stunt and loaded up on cap space only to see Duncan give them (and the Bulls) the cold shoulder and Grant Hill go down with injury not long after they signed him.

The Spurs did lottery into Duncan thanks to Robinson's season ending injury, but they drafted Parker at 30th and Manu at 57th.

The Pacers sat stuck at .500 with Bob Hill for 3 straight years, all first round exits. Then they went to the ECF 2 years in a row, and then without significant additions they returned to 3 straight ECFs and the Finals. Of the top 10 picks the Pacers did earn, Person, McCloud, Tisdale and Smits, only Rik contributed significantly. And that team didn't start winning till the other non elite picks came on board.

The idea that tanking turns you around isn't just iffy, in many many cases it's actually wrong. The Lakers and Pistons won titles without tanking.

The Cavs stunk and still don't have a title. Ditto post-Jordan Bulls, and they are sporting multiple elite picks including #1 Rose now in year 2. Clips, nice. Warriors, sure. Oh, Bobcats, loaded with top picks right from the day they were created.

The Sixers got the #1 pick, Iverson. It got them one 4-1 beatdown in the Finals after winning perhaps the weakest East of the last 30 years. Not only that, but they spent the first few years continuing on as doormats despite Iverson being there. In this era that's just the right timing for a team with cap space to lure him away for money and a better supporting cast (ahem, Lebron scenario).

People cite the Blazers as a model, or the Bulls from the Skiles era. "That's the way you do it"...except the Bulls flopped and stunk so bad they got Rose, basically a 2nd tank rebuild on top of the last one.

The Heat got Wade, so there you go. But then they stunk again, so it's not that simple. Then they get another top pick and still not that great.

Did the TWolves not have KG for years? #1 of titles = 0




Bird will do more to improve this team with picking right at #17 (Granger, all-star, Roy with promise), or in the 2nd round (Price), trading well (say, Troy for cap space), and signing smart FAs (Watson or Jones).

The single most damaging deal or move the team did the last decade in terms of the bottom line - WINS - was trading for Dun and Troy. Not only has Dun, a top 5 pick, not led them to a title, but the contracts of those 2 have hindered their ability to make other moves or trades.

I like the draft, you do get lots of help there, but trading is critical and avoiding foolishly high spending in the FA market is too (including resigns, see Arenas).

NuffSaid
01-15-2010, 12:14 PM
I've never been one for tanking a season. Frankly, I think it's bad sportmanship for any team to do that. However, clearly some teams have tried and apparently have successed in doing it (i.e., the Cavs by recent accounts in drafting LeBron (http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthread.php?t=49955)). Still, I think the risk for acquiring that one player through the draft in such a fashion is just too great. I mean, what if you do tank but don't get the #1 pick? Now what?

I think you play your best and you play to win and let the lottery ball fall where it may. If you are "fortunate" enough to be a losing team and you get the #1 pick or any pick 2-5, great! If the selection helps move your team forward, outstanding! But all one has to do is look at the Rubio situation and realize that sometimes even when you win (a high draft pick), you lose ('cause Rubio won't be playing in the NBA any time soon). In fact, of the top 10 2009 draftees only one seems to have panned out - Brandon Jennings for the Bucks at #10. In fact, other than Jennings, the only other draft pick from 1-15 I see who has made a significant impact for their team is Tyler Hansborough.

If that doesn't show you how crazy and risky the draft can be, nothing will!

BillS
01-15-2010, 12:19 PM
Wells didn't 'sanction the move'... he simply broached the subject officially in his writing at the Star thus implicitly sanctioning the discussion or the topic itself.

-Bball

Ahh, OK, I missed the word "debate" in the topic.

The debate doesn't need sanctioning, it exists and it would be a poor reporter who didn't recognize it.

Naptown_Seth
01-15-2010, 12:27 PM
#1 picks since 1990 with titles where they were close to a significant member of the team
Duncan and Shaq

#1 picks that were critical to teams that made the Finals
Howard, James, Kenyon Martin, Iverson, Larry Johnson...only KMart has more than one Finals appearance at this point

The guys that haven't made it or weren't critical if the team did:
Rose
Oden
Bargnani
Bogut
Ming
Kwame Brown
Brand
Kandi (claim to fame, Kandi-tazered in Indy)
Joe Smith
Big Dog
Webber
Coleman

Naptown_Seth
01-15-2010, 12:36 PM
Let's say you trade your pick at, say, 5th to the Bobcats for Henderson and their pick, say 9th.

Then you flip the 9th and Dun to Minny for the rights to Rubio and a deal longer than Duns by 1-2 years, not crazy if Flynn continues to make them happy. Not sure who you take back to improve their cap, but not critical on our end.

Rubio, Henderson, Granger, Tyler, Roy with Price, Rush, McBob, DJones at backup. There you go, not that big a stretch. Rubio takes a year so you go empty one more season, but then that's part of the reason Minny is giving him to you. Is Rubio better to have than Wall?


There are ways to trade into things that you would have had to tank to get previously. To me tanking is one of the most short-sighted strategies out there.

I do advocate player development. I want Price and Roy and Rush and McBob to play because I want to improve my product, the overall team talent. Frankly I think that gets you more wins now, but even if it doesn't you aren't tanking you are trying to improve the talent you already have.

vnzla81
01-15-2010, 12:41 PM
#1 picks since 1990 with titles where they were close to a significant member of the team
Duncan and Shaq

#1 picks that were critical to teams that made the Finals
Howard, James, Kenyon Martin, Iverson, Larry Johnson...only KMart has more than one Finals appearance at this point

The guys that haven't made it or weren't critical if the team did:
Rose
Oden
Bargnani
Bogut
Ming
Kwame Brown
Brand
Kandi (claim to fame, Kandi-tazered in Indy)
Joe Smith
Big Dog
Webber
Coleman

you guys are missing the point here, the guys who advocate for this team to "tank" or lose while developing your young players are talking about getting a top 10pick, maybe a top 5 and if we are lucky enough a number one pick.

duke dynamite
01-15-2010, 12:49 PM
you guys are missing the point here, the guys who advocate for this team to "tank" or lose while developing your young players are talking about getting a top 10pick, maybe a top 5 and if we are lucky enough a number one pick.
I think this ambiguation of the word "tank" does mean rock bottom.

Trophy
01-15-2010, 12:55 PM
You can't go wrong with either one. At least if you make the playoffs, you know you're getting somewhere and you know who's effecting the team. You make a statement to the rest of the team that you have what it takes to matchup with the league's best.

If you decide to settle on a draft selection, then you're taking your chances. The reason is because you aren't too sure on how the newly drafted player will do on your team.

I am for Bird's decision on making the playoffs and I'm sure many others would agree. It shows that the whole season/previous offseason didn't go to waste and the key players on the team aren't a waste.

I hope this made sense.

vnzla81
01-15-2010, 12:56 PM
I think this ambiguation of the word "tank" does mean rock bottom.

ok so what word should we use? tank could mean many things(I think)

Eindar
01-15-2010, 01:10 PM
Seems like we're starting to right the ship a bit. If Larry wants us to have a legit shot a John Wall, he has the ability to kick the legs out from underneath the team by doing some salary shedding moves, such as trading Murphy for Z. He can claim it's a cost cutting move, which it would be, while simultaneously making us a worse basketball team.

Whether he'll exercise that option or not, or even if he does for the purpose of tanking, is another matter entirely.

duke dynamite
01-15-2010, 01:10 PM
ok so what word should we use? tank could mean many things(I think)
"Strategic Lottery Placement"?

By all means I wasn't trying to be sarcastic while explaining what tanking meant. I think that's what it means, because everyone is talking about #1.

Sparhawk
01-15-2010, 01:16 PM
I can see why the Cavs tanked to get Lebron. He is a franchise player that can single handedly get a team to the championship.

John Wall is good, but I'm still not completely sold that he is a legit franchise worth tanking games for.

Granted, I don't think the Pacers should focus on winning but rather focus on a combination of things like trades to improve the team either through some young players or preferably picks, focus on getting and remaining healthy (hopefully not playing Granger 40 minutes a night) and continuing to work on chemistry.

I don't understand why the Pacers have blinders on and are so focused on winning when they need to focus on putting together a competitive team that will do something in the playoffs. Remaining in constant mediocrity isn't going to bring fans back.

duke dynamite
01-15-2010, 01:20 PM
I don't understand why the Pacers have blinders on and are so focused on winning when they need to focus on putting together a competitive team that will do something in the playoffs. Remaining in constant mediocrity isn't going to bring fans back.
It's the same reason why the Nets' players are still dressing for every game. They want to play to win as much as possible, even if the realm of success is dim.

Fans aside, getting a high draft pick now or winning and breaking into the last playoff spot is not going to peak much more interest. Right now let's just worry about the state of the players.

the jaddler
01-15-2010, 01:33 PM
I would have to say part of the reason that I am a Pacers fan is because no matter what the odds are we always and I do mean always try to win it all. Always set our sights high. Yes we could do the "stratigic lottery placement" but why. First off we dont even know for a fact that Wall will enter the draft. Second what if we totally get screwed in the lottery and we think we get a great pick, get a great player and end up with a injured non playing Greg Oden.

I say we trade and devolop our players to get the team we all want and need to win a championship......oh and a new coach would be nice...

PacerDude
01-15-2010, 01:37 PM
To tank or not to tank ....................

What I wouldn't mind seeing is a commitment to developing our younger players.

1) Get rid of Murphy. Be sure to get a pick/prospect in the package. Troy simply isn't going to be a part of the Pacers future, so why not get something while the getting is good ??

2) Get rid of Foster. There's interest out there. Again - pick/prospect in return.

3) Get rid of Ford. Sorry - I got carried away. Nobody wants him.

4) Play Roy, Rush, AJ, McBob, Solo ............ play the young kids. See what they've got. There might be some good things that happen, there might not be. There's only one way to find out.

If by doing that, the Pacers wind up with a bad enough record to get in the lottery, the so be it. If they produce and make the playoffs, well, good.

Make the future now. If you want to call that tanking, then go right ahead. This charade of trying to make something out of this current group when we all know it's not the future of the team fools nobody. Well, maybe a few.

duke dynamite
01-15-2010, 01:46 PM
To tank or not to tank ....................

What I wouldn't mind seeing is a commitment to developing our younger players.

I don't see any problem in the burn our guys are getting right now. AJ is getting ample minutes, Roy and Brandon are either starting or getting good minutes, Solo is backing up Roy on most occasions and Tyler is getting back into the swing of things. The odd man out is Josh.

That is a very good ratio of young players getting time. Even with Murphy on the roster!

Justin Tyme
01-15-2010, 02:17 PM
"Strategic Lottery Placement"?

By all means I wasn't trying to be sarcastic while explaining what tanking meant. I think that's what it means, because everyone is talking about #1.


I'm not "everyone"!! The odds of the Pacers getting John Wall is extremely slim, but getting a 4-8 pick that can be a really good player to put with Granger in order to move forward is realistic.

I have hit bottom with this teams performance the 1st 36 games, and since they have been loosing anyway my feeling is just let it continue. They weren't tanking the 1st 36 games, so just allow JOS to continue his madness. To me if the team turns around and starts winning, like I wish the had to begin with, thus ending up short of the playoffs AGAIN with a 13-19 pick what good is it? They didn't make the playoffs as many want, no playoff experience for the younger players as many want, limited development of some of the younger players, and they end up with a mediocre 1st pick. What has that really accomplished?

Stop and think, this is exactly what happened last season. Start slowly, and win last part of the season. No playoffs, no playoff experience for players, and mediocre pick. I don't want a 07-08 and 08-09 redeux. Been there done it, for what? Are the Pacers sold out each game? Are the Pacers one of the leading teams in attendance this season? What is the "big benefit" of winning only to fall short AGAIN?

Justin Tyme
01-15-2010, 02:31 PM
[QUOTE=duke dynamite;945606]

It's the same reason why the Nets' players are still dressing for every game. /QUOTE]


They do it the for the same reason you go to work everyday, they get paid to do it! If they weren't getting paid, do you think they'd be doing it?

rexnom
01-15-2010, 02:33 PM
I'd much rather have 25 wins and a top-5 pick with a legit shot at #1, rather than 35 wins and a pick between 9-12 with close to zero shot at #1 (or even the top-3).
This is a great point. If it's playoffs or tank, I'll pick playoffs but if it's mediocrity or a chance at the top picks, I'd rather have the latter.

Trophy
01-15-2010, 02:45 PM
I don't see any problem in the burn our guys are getting right now. AJ is getting ample minutes, Roy and Brandon are either starting or getting good minutes, Solo is backing up Roy on most occasions and Tyler is getting back into the swing of things. The odd man out is Josh.

That is a very good ratio of young players getting time. Even with Murphy on the roster!

I agree and I would like to add on to this. We can't play on all of our young players and expect them to take over and know what to do.

As rookies and 2nd year players, they're all getting fair minutes. They all know their roles and are still getting comfortable in the NBA and on the Pacers.

We can't expect Tyler to be able to play all of Troy's minutes plus his own at PF and we can't rely on Josh to always be a consistent backup. If that was the case, we probably would be doing worse than we are now.

We're still finding core players so there's no absolute need for a trade involving key players during this season.

Lance George
01-15-2010, 03:25 PM
It's been debated and I've yet to read anything close to a compelling argument for doing so. The evidence of the futility of it goes on and on...

Your problem is you're arguing from an exaggerated, strawman version of what the pro-draft people are saying. We're not saying that drafting in the top-five means automatically landing a perennial all-star nor are we saying that drafting outside of the top-10 means you can't find an impact player. We simply recognize that you need talent to win and the easiest way to acquire talent, especially for a team low on trading assets and with no cap space, is through great drafting. That's a lot easier to accomplish when you're at or near the top of the draft and are given the 'pick of the litter'.

It's also not a situation of "#1 or bust" - John Wall would be great, obviously, but there's still Derrick Favors, Evan Turner, and Ed Davis, amongst others.

duke dynamite
01-15-2010, 03:53 PM
They do it the for the same reason you go to work everyday, they get paid to do it! If they weren't getting paid, do you think they'd be doing it?
Yeah, the money is there. But some of those guys want a check later on down the road, too. If they just decide to say, "**** it" and hang it up for the year, the franchise and other teams will look at it as a lack of work ethic.

jhondog28
01-15-2010, 05:12 PM
I just want us to win. If we are a team that is not good and we get the great pick then that is good by me because we played as hard as we could but we were not just that good. However if the team tanks I would never root for the team again. You play to win, do dont play to lose. The teams that play to lose will give up way to soon when things dont go their way.

MLB007
01-15-2010, 05:44 PM
This is a pointless discussion. This team will win enough games to stay out of the lottery. You may not like that, but we are finally getting healthy.
And this team is NOT as bad as they have looked at times.
No lottery pick this year.

vnzla81
01-15-2010, 06:00 PM
I'm not "everyone"!! The odds of the Pacers getting John Wall is extremely slim, but getting a 4-8 pick that can be a really good player to put with Granger in order to move forward is realistic.

I have hit bottom with this teams performance the 1st 36 games, and since they have been loosing anyway my feeling is just let it continue. They weren't tanking the 1st 36 games, so just allow JOS to continue his madness. To me if the team turns around and starts winning, like I wish the had to begin with, thus ending up short of the playoffs AGAIN with a 13-19 pick what good is it? They didn't make the playoffs as many want, no playoff experience for the younger players as many want, limited development of some of the younger players, and they end up with a mediocre 1st pick. What has that really accomplished?

Stop and think, this is exactly what happened last season. Start slowly, and win last part of the season. No playoffs, no playoff experience for players, and mediocre pick. I don't want a 07-08 and 08-09 redeux. Been there done it, for what? Are the Pacers sold out each game? Are the Pacers one of the leading teams in attendance this season? What is the "big benefit" of winning only to fall short AGAIN?

good post man.:bowdown:

Justin Tyme
01-15-2010, 06:02 PM
This team will win enough games to stay out of the lottery. You may not like that, but we are finally getting healthy. No lottery pick this year.


Unfortunately, I believe you are correct. No 1-10 pick and no playoffs. Just more of the last 2 years. I'm so excited I could just .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .......................................... scream.

Gamble1
01-15-2010, 06:09 PM
Your problem is you're arguing from an exaggerated, strawman version of what the pro-draft people are saying. We're not saying that drafting in the top-five means automatically landing a perennial all-star nor are we saying that drafting outside of the top-10 means you can't find an impact player. We simply recognize that you need talent to win and the easiest way to acquire talent, especially for a team low on trading assets and with no cap space, is through great drafting. That's a lot easier to accomplish when you're at or near the top of the draft and are given the 'pick of the litter'.

It's also not a situation of "#1 or bust" - John Wall would be great, obviously, but there's still Derrick Favors, Evan Turner, and Ed Davis, amongst others.

I just read this thread but I argued a similar point to what Seth posted in a different thread. The letting the season slip makes short term sense but in the long term its almost corporate suicide. You think the people that pay for the high price seats would keep purchasing them if that was the approach. Seriously whats next years slogan. "We sucked for this 5th pick" Come see what he can do on this sucky team".

Did the lack of effort put forth by the Colts teach you guys anything? Even a team that won the most regular season games this decade couldn't get a "pass" with these fans. What makes you think a bad Pacer team is going to get a pass?

vnzla81
01-15-2010, 06:27 PM
I just read this thread but I argued a similar point to what Seth posted in a different thread. The letting the season slip makes short term sense but in the long term its almost corporate suicide. You think the people that pay for the high price seats would keep purchasing them if that was the approach. Seriously whats next years slogan. "We sucked for this 5th pick" Come see what he can do on this sucky team".

Did the lack of effort put forth by the Colts teach you guys anything? Even a team that won the most regular season games this decade couldn't get a "pass" with these fans. What makes you think a bad Pacer team is going to get a pass?

I don't know if you know this, but this team is bad, real bad and at this moment they are losing fans because fans are not stupid and they don't want to see more of the same, good enough to be out of the 10th pick and bad enough not to go to the playoffs.

BillS
01-15-2010, 07:10 PM
I don't know if you know this, but this team is bad, real bad and at this moment they are losing fans because fans are not stupid and they don't want to see more of the same, good enough to be out of the 10th pick and bad enough not to go to the playoffs.

No, most of them don't really look ahead enoughto see the pick or the future. They aren't saying, "Hey, let's go see the Pacers lose so we can cheer them on to a lottery pick!", they are saying "Let's not go see the Pacers, they are going to lose". Losing on purpose doesn't fix that, ESPECIALLY if that pick you were after turns out to get a multiple-year injury or isn't as good as everyone expected. Then, you just have ANOTHER year of losing.

You absolutely have to go for the wins. If the chips fall so the team is bad, then that's the consolation prize, as Mike said. In no way do you start encouraging an attitude of, "Oh, crap, we've started to win now, we need to stop it immediately."

QuickRelease
01-15-2010, 08:11 PM
To tank or not to tank ....................

What I wouldn't mind seeing is a commitment to developing our younger players.

1) Get rid of Murphy. Be sure to get a pick/prospect in the package. Troy simply isn't going to be a part of the Pacers future, so why not get something while the getting is good ??

2) Get rid of Foster. There's interest out there. Again - pick/prospect in return.

3) Get rid of Ford. Sorry - I got carried away. Nobody wants him.

4) Play Roy, Rush, AJ, McBob, Solo ............ play the young kids. See what they've got. There might be some good things that happen, there might not be. There's only one way to find out.

If by doing that, the Pacers wind up with a bad enough record to get in the lottery, the so be it. If they produce and make the playoffs, well, good.

Make the future now. If you want to call that tanking, then go right ahead. This charade of trying to make something out of this current group when we all know it's not the future of the team fools nobody. Well, maybe a few.

But their trade value is greatly increased starting this offseason, and especially at next year's trade deadline. I wouldn't mind a trade this year, but I also don't want to be impatient and diminish what we could potentially have coming in next year.

MLB007
01-16-2010, 10:36 PM
I just read this thread but I argued a similar point to what Seth posted in a different thread. The letting the season slip makes short term sense but in the long term its almost corporate suicide. You think the people that pay for the high price seats would keep purchasing them if that was the approach. Seriously whats next years slogan. "We sucked for this 5th pick" Come see what he can do on this sucky team".

Did the lack of effort put forth by the Colts teach you guys anything? Even a team that won the most regular season games this decade couldn't get a "pass" with these fans. What makes you think a bad Pacer team is going to get a pass?


While somewhat understandable in their frustration, guys suggesting the team "tank" have NO grasp of the business end of this equation.
OR of the precarious nature of the Pacers in Indy at this point in time.

GO!!!!!
01-17-2010, 03:21 AM
I darfted Walls in NBA 2K10 and he's a All Star Point Guard and on track on my pacer team for ROY as well..

He's a Bona fide GUN and worth tanking for....

PaceBalls
01-17-2010, 04:19 AM
I darfted Walls in NBA 2K10 and he's a All Star Point Guard and on track on my pacer team for ROY as well..

He's a Bona fide GUN and worth tanking for....


lol where is the green? that was sarcasm right?

cinotimz
01-17-2010, 04:36 AM
While somewhat understandable in their frustration, guys suggesting the team "tank" have NO grasp of the business end of this equation.
OR of the precarious nature of the Pacers in Indy at this point in time.

Actually its the other way around regarding who has no grasp of the business end of the equation.

The precarious position the Pacers are in is directly related to the continual mediocre results they have been producing for some time.

Now while they have managed to purge themselves of most of the bad apples, they are at the point where they need a serious injection of major talent. And given their situation, theres no better way to get that injection than with a top draft choice in a draft that most are saying should be very good.

There should be a great level of excitement surrounding the team if they manage to get a top 5 draft choice-whether it be wondering what player they might draft or if they might package it in a trade-either way there would be a much higher level of excitement and opportunities surrounding a top 5 pick versus drafting 12-18 again.

You then couple that with the expirings they will have and the moves they likely will make with those and you are talking about a much different state of mind for most fans in less than 7 or 8 months from now.

And its not like they will have to do anything significantly different right now. Theyre only a couple of games away from the 3rd worst record in the league-a position they held only about a week ago.

MLB007
01-17-2010, 05:40 AM
Actually its the other way around regarding who has no grasp of the business end of the equation.

The precarious position the Pacers are in is directly related to the continual mediocre results they have been producing for some time.

Now while they have managed to purge themselves of most of the bad apples, they are at the point where they need a serious injection of major talent. And given their situation, theres no better way to get that injection than with a top draft choice in a draft that most are saying should be very good.

There should be a great level of excitement surrounding the team if they manage to get a top 5 draft choice-whether it be wondering what player they might draft or if they might package it in a trade-either way there would be a much higher level of excitement and opportunities surrounding a top 5 pick versus drafting 12-18 again.

You then couple that with the expirings they will have and the moves they likely will make with those and you are talking about a much different state of mind for most fans in less than 7 or 8 months from now.

And its not like they will have to do anything significantly different right now. Theyre only a couple of games away from the 3rd worst record in the league-a position they held only about a week ago.

I could go on for a few pages with the particulars of how wrong you are, ;)
Small market teams are so fringe in the NBA right now that even winning, we "might" be in trouble.

*removed*

Mourning
01-17-2010, 08:56 AM
To tank or not to tank ....................

What I wouldn't mind seeing is a commitment to developing our younger players.

1) Get rid of Murphy. Be sure to get a pick/prospect in the package. Troy simply isn't going to be a part of the Pacers future, so why not get something while the getting is good ??

2) Get rid of Foster. There's interest out there. Again - pick/prospect in return.

3) Get rid of Ford. Sorry - I got carried away. Nobody wants him.

4) Play Roy, Rush, AJ, McBob, Solo ............ play the young kids. See what they've got. There might be some good things that happen, there might not be. There's only one way to find out.

If by doing that, the Pacers wind up with a bad enough record to get in the lottery, the so be it. If they produce and make the playoffs, well, good.

Make the future now. If you want to call that tanking, then go right ahead. This charade of trying to make something out of this current group when we all know it's not the future of the team fools nobody. Well, maybe a few.

THIS! This is exactly what I want to see happen. I hate the word "tanking" or losing on purpose and that's not what I want us to do either. I want us to develop our current players and that will by effect probably mean losing some games we might have otherwise lost. Too bad then.

One thing though. I prefer to keep Foster around if possible as pretty much the only veteran frontcourt specialist, a great proffesional and an advertisement board to a part of the fanbase.

Dr. Awesome
01-17-2010, 12:39 PM
It is not out of bounds, but hasn't the topic been discussed to death over the years. it just bores me anymore

It will continue to be discussed as long as we are missing the playoffs by a few games and getting a late lottery pick every year.

DaveP63
01-17-2010, 02:09 PM
We are stuck in a time warp. We cant suck bad enough to get a high pick and we can't be good enough to get past the first round.

Lance George
01-18-2010, 09:35 PM
I just read this thread but I argued a similar point to what Seth posted in a different thread. The letting the season slip makes short term sense but in the long term its almost corporate suicide. You think the people that pay for the high price seats would keep purchasing them if that was the approach. Seriously whats next years slogan. "We sucked for this 5th pick" Come see what he can do on this sucky team".
You act like we're choosing between being a good, relevant team or being a bad, irrelevant team. In reality, we're choosing between being a bad, irrelevant team with a slim chance of landing a great prospect (#10-15) vs. being a really bad, irrelevant team with a good chance at drafting a great prospect (top-five).

The later is most certainly better for the franchise long term, and I'd argue for the short term as well. After all, the upcoming draft will draw far more fan interest if we're picking in an elite position rather than our usual ho-hum position.

Cinotimz already addressed corporate side of things, so I wont bother with that.



Did the lack of effort put forth by the Colts teach you guys anything? Even a team that won the most regular season games this decade couldn't get a "pass" with these fans. What makes you think a bad Pacer team is going to get a pass?

The only thing the Colts have taught me regarding this subject is that it's really nice to have high draft picks. Since 1994 the Colts have had three top-five picks. Those ended up being Marshall Faulk (#2, '94), Peyton Manning (#1 in '98), and Edgerrin James (#4 in '99). This being the NFL, which has a far higher rate of top-five picks being busts than does the NBA.

cdash
01-18-2010, 09:40 PM
This being the NFL, which has a far higher rate of top-five picks being busts than does the NBA.

I don't think that's accurate at all. The NBA Draft is much more of a crapshoot than the NFL draft.

MyFavMartin
01-18-2010, 10:10 PM
Steve Emtman, Jeff George, Quentin Coryatt, Trev Alberts, Art Schlicter...

cdash
01-18-2010, 10:28 PM
Steve Emtman, Jeff George, Quentin Coryatt, Trev Alberts, Art Schlicter...

Michael Olowokandi, Darko Milicic, Nikoloz Tskitishvili, Kwame Brown, Stromile Swift, Jonathan Bender...we can play this game all day.

Lance George
01-19-2010, 12:31 AM
JaMarcus Russell, David Carr, Joey Harrington, Tim Couch, Akili Smith, Charles Rogers, Courtney Brown, Peter Warrick, Gaines Adams, Mike Williams, Robert Gallery, Cadillac Williams, Darren McFadden, Dewayne Robertson, Gerard Warren...

Naptown_Seth
01-19-2010, 12:59 AM
You act like we're choosing between being a good, relevant team or being a bad, irrelevant team. In reality, we're choosing between being a bad, irrelevant team with a slim chance of landing a great prospect (#10-15) vs. being a really bad, irrelevant team with a good chance at drafting a great prospect (top-five).You act like the only way to get better is to get worse.

Of all the teams to follow and have that opinion, you pick the Indy .500 who lingered in the middle TWICE and then went to the ECF. Bob Hill's boys were "stuck" and that core group (with only Smits from long before the .500 days being a top 10 guy) went to FIVE ECFs in 7 years. FIVE IN SEVEN, including a Finals.

They didn't tank. By your definition they were screwed without tanking to get a top pick.

I mean this debate being held on PACERS Digest given the team's own history is just a joke. The ONLY time they have been title contenders was following several years of mediocrity and no high draft picks.

The one time they traded for one it became Bender, which actually hurt them since it cost them Tony when he still had AS seasons left in him.


Here's the proof, we play an actual game:

On this side you get McCloud, Person, Kellogg, Stipo, Smits

We get Jackson (not a top 10 even for Knicks), Reggie, Detlef (traded for an aging, not young Herb), Dale, Tony (2nd round pick no less).

Should be a close one. :rolleyes: I'll throw in Dunleavy for you (yep, top 5 guy), but I get Granger at #17.

Naptown_Seth
01-19-2010, 01:04 AM
I don't see any problem in the burn our guys are getting right now. AJ is getting ample minutes, Roy and Brandon are either starting or getting good minutes, Solo is backing up Roy on most occasions and Tyler is getting back into the swing of things. The odd man out is Josh.

That is a very good ratio of young players getting time. Even with Murphy on the roster!
I agree. I'd play Josh more right now and Solo/Tyler less, but if you get the Troy/Z deal done then Z gets less time than Troy and that frees up more for those 3 anyway. I'd hope Josh would play then.

Otherwise it's not too shabby a rotation lately. Head fell out with injury but as long as he returns to only modest minutes unless he's scorching then that should be okay too.

Naptown_Seth
01-19-2010, 01:16 AM
Your problem is you're arguing from an exaggerated, strawman version of what the pro-draft people are saying. We're not saying that drafting in the top-five means automatically landing a perennial all-star nor are we saying that drafting outside of the top-10 means you can't find an impact player. We simply recognize that you need talent to win and the easiest way to acquire talent, especially for a team low on trading assets and with no cap space, is through great drafting. That's a lot easier to accomplish when you're at or near the top of the draft and are given the 'pick of the litter'.

It's also not a situation of "#1 or bust" - John Wall would be great, obviously, but there's still Derrick Favors, Evan Turner, and Ed Davis, amongst others.
I just showed that you DON'T get great talent by drafting, it's NOT the easiest way to do it. The Celtics have 4 great players, only 1 was acquired with a top 9 draft pick. Jefferson, the key to the KG trade was NOT a top 10. You didn't need a top 10 to get the talent to trade for KG.

Please directly address the Celtics issue and the Lakers getting Shaq/Kobe without a top 10 pick and WITHOUT TANKING.

The Celts and Lakers have titles, the Cavs and Nugs do not. Miami got one but they are back to struggling a bit while the Lakers and Celts are poised to head to the Finals again. So you've got 3 teams that lost enough to get high picks, and 2 teams that got most/all of their talent without top picks.

The Pacers got a huge bump by drafting great outside the top 10 - Reggie, Dale, Tony. And by trading well - Herb for Det, Dampier for Mullin, Jax for finished vets.

Pistons top picks? Well there was Darko. But TRADES and signing a middle of the road FA like Billups was at the time had the huge impact. Prince was helpful, not the main key, and not a top 10 pick anyway. Getting Sheed for free helped a ton, didn't require a top 5 pick.


Give me the list of teams that won by tanking? You think it's the Spurs, but here's my counter. Manu and Parker were both just as critical as Duncan and neither were anywhere close to a top 10 pick.

I don't see any team that just tanked and that did the trick. I see A LOT OF TEAMS that tried this and still haven't got up off the floor.


Go ahead and run the team like the Warriors, Clippers, Bobcats, Bulls, TWolves, Kings, Bucks...

Heck, the Kitties are getting off this list but here's the joke on your draft theory - the key to the turnaround wasn't top pick Gerald Henderson who's been benched almost all year. The key was TRADING for Jackson.

Naptown_Seth
01-19-2010, 01:22 AM
One more thing. We need a top 5 or whatever pick to help out who? Granger. And Roy.

So it sounds like another #17 pick should do the trick. Or just take one in the 2nd round and get another Price.

You do improve in the draft, but history shows you don't need to stink during the year, you just need to not stink with your scouting. There will be impact guys outside the top 10 this year, and there will be some non-impact guys that go inside the top 10 to help make that happen. And at least some of us will know this on draft night, not 5 years later.

Lance George
01-19-2010, 04:17 AM
Celtics (3) - Larry Bird (6th, '78), Kevin McHale (3rd, '80)
Lakers (5) - Magic Johnson (1st, '79), James Worthy (1st, '82)
Pistons (2) - Isiah Thomas (2nd, '81)
Bulls (6) - Michael Jordan (3rd, '84), Pippen (5th, '87)
Rockets (2) - Hakeem Olajuwon (1st, '84),
Spurs (4) - Tim Duncan (1st, '97)
Heat (1) - Dwyane Wade (5th, '03)

'80 - Lakers
'81 - Celtics
'82 - Lakers
'83 - 76ers
'84 - Celtics
'85 - Lakers
'86 - Celtics
'87 - Lakers
'88 - Lakers
'89 - Pistons
'90 - Pistons
'91 - Bulls
'92 - Bulls
'93 - Bulls
'94 - Rockets
'95 - Rockets
'96 - Bulls
'97 - Bulls
'98 - Bulls
'99 - Spurs
'00 - Lakers
'01 - Lakers
'02 - Lakers
'03 - Spurs
'04 - Pistons
'05 - Spurs
'06 - Heat
'07 - Spurs
'08 - Celtics
'09 - Lakers

There's 23 of the past 30 champions being lead by their own top-six draft pick(s). What's interesting is that even the championship teams that didn't win with their own high draft picks (top-6) won with other teams'. The Lakers had Shaq (1st, '92) for the first three and Pau Gasol (3rd, '01) and Lamar Odom (4th, '99) for the fourth. The Celtics last title had Garnett (5th, '95) and Ray Allen (5th, '96). The Pistons had Billups (3rd, '97) and Sheed (4th, '95). The last team to win an NBA championship without a top-six NBA draft pick playing a major role would be the 82-83 76ers. Even then you had Moses Malone, who was picked #5 in the ABA dispersal draft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_NBA_Draft#ABA_Dispersal_Draft) and Andrew Toney (8th, '80).

There's no question, the best of the best, the true megastars and NBA champions are almost always drafted near or at the top of the draft. The next generation of champions will likely be led by Dwight Howard and LeBron James, with Kevin Durant, Chris Paul, Dwyane Wade, and a few other guys (Melo, Wall, etc.) maybe getting in on the action - all top-five picks.


That's championships and championship talent aka legends. If we're just looking at All-Star level talent, here's the list of 2009 All-Stars...

Original Team
Dwyane Wade, Miami Heat
LeBron James, Cleveland Cavaliers
Dwight Howard, Orlando Magic
Danny Granger, Indiana Pacers
Paul Pierce, Boston Celtics
Chris Bosh, Toronto Raptors
Chris Paul, New Orleans Hornets
Kobe Bryant, Los Angeles Lakers
Amar'e Stoudemire, Phoenix Suns
Tim Duncan, San Antonio Spurs
Yao Ming, Houston Rockets
Tony Parker, San Antonio Spurs
Brandon Roy, Portland Trail Blazers
Dirk Nowitzki, Dallas Mavericks
David West, New Orleans Hornets

New Team
Allen Iverson, Detroit Pistons
Kevin Garnett, Boston Celtics
Ray Allen, Boston Celtics
Devin Harris, New Jersey Nets
Joe Johnson, Atlanta Hawks
Jameer Nelson, Orlando Magic
Chauncey Billups, Denver Nuggets
Mo Williams, Cleveland Cavaliers
Rashard Lewis, Orlando Magic
Pau Gasol, Los Angeles Lakers
Shaquille O'Neal, Phoenix Suns

That's 15 '09 All-Stars still with their original team and 11 with new teams (including Steve Nash, who actually ended up back where he started in Phoenix). Not only does the 'original team' group have more players, they have higher caliber players. They're full of young superstars, whereas the 'new team' group is almost entirely guys who are clearly lesser talents or are well past their prime. Only Joe Johnson, Pau Gasol and (if we're feeling generous) Rashard Lewis are at least second-tier and not past their prime.

This is just late-night rambling on my part, with no real point. One thing it does seem to illustrate is that if you want a great talent in their prime, it's through the draft. Yes, you can trade for and/or sign old guys and third wheel-level guys, but if you want greatness, in its prime, you'll get it through the draft. Teams just aren't willing to let those type of guys go, and rightfully so. Also, eight of the 15 original teamers were top-six picks, and 11 of the 15 went top-10. The four that didn't? A high schooler (Kobe, 13th), foreigner (Parker, 28th) and Granger (17th) and West (18th). Another Kobe situation is highly unlikely, not with the one-year rule. If Kobe had been forced to go to college for a season, my guess is he would've went #2 in '97, behind Tim Duncan (not a bad 1/2).

To make a long story short... give me the top draft pick (even if it's not #1) over a 1st round drubbing any day of the week.

If we lucked into Wall, I honestly believe he and Granger (along with a strong supporting cast) could be a championship-level duo in time.

cinotimz
01-19-2010, 07:13 AM
One more thing. We need a top 5 or whatever pick to help out who? Granger. And Roy.

So it sounds like another #17 pick should do the trick. Or just take one in the 2nd round and get another Price.

You do improve in the draft, but history shows you don't need to stink during the year, you just need to not stink with your scouting. There will be impact guys outside the top 10 this year, and there will be some non-impact guys that go inside the top 10 to help make that happen. And at least some of us will know this on draft night, not 5 years later.

But Seth, lets not lose sight of the forest for the trees.

You are absolutely correct-in the end it will come down to the scouting. Whether we are picking at #4 or at #15 it comes down to one thing-scouting. The ability to identify who will become great and who wont-and that works two ways: The more teams that dont get it right-in other words make bum selections before you do-as well as once it is finally our turn, no matter what the spot is, making the right selection.

But lets be fair. The fewer teams drafting ahead of you the much better the odds.

If our scouts identify 5 guys that can really make an impact then we are left to hope those guys dont get taken before we pick. Basically like what happened with Granger. But lets face it, thats much more about teams screwing it up in front of us.

If we are near the top, you dont have to get as lucky. You dont have to rely on others screwing it up, you only have to get it right. The later you draft, you need both. You need to get it right and you need to get lucky-lucky meaning have other teams screw it up.

I mean cmon, this talk of tanking is a bit silly. There are currently 4 teams that have worse records in the whole league than us.

4.

We dont have to tank anything. We just have to avoid screwing it up. In other words going on some sort of half season run that ends up with us drafting 15th instead of 5th or whatever.

This losing needs to serve a purpose. If you arent part of the future then you should be seated on the bench watching the young guys who MIGHT be. You take the rest of the year to truly assess these young guys to see what you have and hopefully accelerate their development. Then hopefully you get a stud in the top 5 and turn the expirings into some more quality players and away we go.

But in the end you are going to struggle to not admit that the odds of getting a very good player are much greater drafting in the top 5 versus drafting 15th.

And point is what is really to be gained by not doing so? So a number of veterans that wont likely be here much longer feel better about themselves?

Screw that.

Let Danny, Roy, Brandon, AJ, McBob, S. Jones, Dahntay and Tyler get a ton of run between now and the end of the season. By the end of the season you should know exactly what each one of them can bring and they should have developed a fair amount of chemistry with one another. If they win alot, then so be it. But more than likely they will lose a lions share of the games, however we will have answered alot of questions, developed players, and have a lot better feel for exactly wht is needed on a go forward basis.

jhondog28
01-19-2010, 08:35 AM
OK I actually know what is going to happen. Both New Jersey and Minnesota have point guards right now that are young and explosive at times. Devin Harris and Johnny Flynn would not be happy to play second fiddle to John Wall. So my quesiton is this. Lets say Minnesota gets the number one pick. Do you think they may be willing to take on an expiring contract and Indiana's first round pick for Johnny Flynn and Al Jefferson next year or maybe find a way to trade for Devin Harris going into next season? I actually think Devin Haris woud be a huge improvement for this team.

Hicks
01-19-2010, 11:39 AM
Yeah, that's 22 champions, but keep in mind we're also talking about only 5 teams and referring to 5 top talents (Magic, Bird, Thomas, Jordan, and Duncan).

Oh, and then I shouldn't leave out the 2006 Heat, who likely never see the Finals without TRADING for Shaq that summer.

On that subject, those Lakers teams didn't draft Kareem, I believe McHale, Parish, or both were acquired in a trade (either directly or trading for the pick; not tanking for the pick). I thought Worthy was taken by the Lakers after they acquired that pick in a TRADE.

Even if you want to lay all the credit at the top picks' feet, the odds of landing someone that good is ridiculously slim, even if you have multiple shots at the #1 pick.

Tanking until you find one feels like shooting a 3 pointer EVERY time because SOMEDAY you're going to blow out the other team with that strategy, if only you have just enough shooters (ping pong balls) on your team.

I'd rather try something else.

chrisjacobs7
01-19-2010, 12:10 PM
Tanking until you find one feels like shooting a 3 pointer EVERY time because SOMEDAY you're going to blow out the other team with that strategy, if only you have just enough shooters (ping pong balls) on your team.

Isn't that what this team currently does on the court? :confused:

vnzla81
01-19-2010, 12:15 PM
I'd rather try something else.

Like what? suck next year, get another 10th 15th draft pick and have the same discussion next year?:confused:

Naptown_Seth
01-19-2010, 12:29 PM
Yeah, that's 22 champions, but keep in mind we're also talking about only 5 teams and referring to 5 top talents (Magic, Bird, Thomas, Jordan, and Duncan).

Oh, and then I shouldn't leave out the 2006 Heat, who likely never see the Finals without TRADING for Shaq that summer.

On that subject, those Lakers teams didn't draft Kareem, I believe McHale, Parish, or both were acquired in a trade (either directly or trading for the pick; not tanking for the pick). I thought Worthy was taken by the Lakers after they acquired that pick in a TRADE.

Even if you want to lay all the credit at the top picks' feet, the odds of landing someone that good is ridiculously slim, even if you have multiple shots at the #1 pick.

Tanking until you find one feels like shooting a 3 pointer EVERY time because SOMEDAY you're going to blow out the other team with that strategy, if only you have just enough shooters (ping pong balls) on your team.

I'd rather try something else.
McHale pick is a trade. In fact it is 100% on my side here, that you win with smart trades. Imagine the Warriors don't go chasing Boston's #1 pick and instead opt to keep both Robert Parrish AND Kevin McHale. You think Bird just carries the Celts on his own to all those titles?

In that case both teams had high picks, but the Celts turned a top pick plus a later #1 into 2 elite players. It was the deal that made it come together. And that top pick - it wasn't originally theirs anyway, it was Detroit's.


I don't care where the current Celtics players or Shaq ORIGINALLY went, because otherwise you are taking an epic fail on this whole debate thanks to one Mr. MIKE DUNLEAVY.

So it's self-fullfilling. If the Pacers win a title this year it's all because they had Dunleavy. Problem solved. We don't need to tank, we just need to get Dun the help he needs, just like Jordan.

Tell me that if Mike is simply playing like he did two years ago that he wouldn't be one of the key guys on the team. So if Price and Roy got a lot better and the team ended up winning, it would be "because of Mike", and not because of some brilliant #17 or later picks.


I dealt with this issue several times the last few years and here is the key - ALL TEAMS HAVE A TOP 5 PLAYER. ALL OF THEM (there might be exceptions at times, but the spread is close, and some losing teams actually have a lot more than some winning teams).

No matter what teams win, including the current Pacers, they will have been led by a top 5 guy.

This is due to the fact that top 5 guys tend to have a longer lifespan than lower draft picks and end up spread around. What this ends up meaning is that a top 5 guy stops making the difference. The difference comes from the other guys.

Jordan is Jordan because he won titles. That's why you don't have Nique (#3), Koncak (#5) and the Hawks on your list.

Gary Payton, 2nd pick, Sam Perkins #4, McKey #9, and crappy old Kemp who was a worthless #17. This is why Seattle is missing.

Yes, the years of unflinching dominance by Atlanta and Seattle do prove your point.

And would you really take a pass on Stockton/Malone because neither were a top 5 pick. Was their not being a top 5 pick really why they didn't win, and if they had beat Jordan would it mean Jordan wasn't that good or that suddenly top 5 picks meant less.

Or is it simply that when the greatest players meet one of them must lose.



So I make my point yet again, it's EASIER TO BUILD BY TRADES AND FAs than by tanking. Just trade for the top 5 pick. Boston and many other teams prove you don't need your own top 5 pick to do so. Again, Kobe, not a top 5 pick and acquired via trade for Vlade Divac. Shaq, no tank required to get the cap space to sign him.


The Pacers traded for a top 5 pick. They used mid-2nd rounder Antonio Davis to get it. Thank god for the title runs Bender led them to.



PS - like the Lakers the Bulls didn't take off with Jordan. They spent 3 more years under .500. Collins made them better but not champs. Pippen also helped, but once again it was Phil Jackson who took them to the top.

BTW, in more proof that you win by TRADING rather than tank drafting, the Bulls used the 8th pick Olden Polynice to acquire Pippen. They didn't draft him themselves.

Say they don't get that trade, you make the point to me that DOUG COLLINS and Polynice would be enough for Jordan to win 6 titles, because that's what "just get a top 5 pick" would have been. Without trading and getting a better coach they were stuck.


This debate isn't about top 5 picks, it's about how you get them.

You don't tank. You acquire talent, but deals are how teams really improve. Teams that tank and get a top guy tend to go nowhere. And as shown there are a lot of elite guys that go outside the top 10 (like MVPs Kobe and Nash).

Naptown_Seth
01-19-2010, 12:36 PM
Like what? suck next year, get another 10th 15th draft pick and have the same discussion next year?:confused:
1993 called and wants it's massively incorrect whine back.
1996 is on call waiting
2002 is instant messaging.

But other than those crazy examples, the point is solid. If you are stuck at 8th and quickly out or even 9-10 and sub-500, you are pretty much not going to get better the next year.

Maybe it's because I lived through all those and maybe some of you guys didn't, but people just like you guys said the same exact s*** right before the Pacers went to their first ECF. 6 months prior it was time to blow it up and get rid of Reggie, and get a center who didn't suck and a PF more like Malone than Dale, and a bunch of other issues.

Heck, the reason they chased Pooh Richardson was to "solve the PG issue" and get a star scorer to help bump them out of .500 or worse.

vnzla81
01-19-2010, 12:55 PM
Hey Seth why are you trying to compare this team with the Celtics, Lakers, San Antonio, Miami?:confused:, I think you are missing the point here, the problem here is also that we don't have a number one player, Danny is good but he is not that kind of guy, the pacers need to get a guy like that and that could only come trought the draft unless somebody is willing to trade a Lebron or Melo anytime soon.

Hicks
01-19-2010, 01:06 PM
Like what? suck next year, get another 10th 15th draft pick and have the same discussion next year?:confused:

I believe this team has about 41-41 talent on it when healthy and with things relatively "going their way."

I believe next year's team, barring any major shakeups, will probably have similar chances/talent at the start of the season.

I believe we will make a trade either by this summer or by February '11 that will improve our talent to where we could be a 2nd round team.

I believe we will make another move (probably trade, maybe FA) by summer '11 that will again improve our talent to where we could be an ECF team.

From there, it depends on how much our youth has improved (Roy, Rush, Tyler, Price, '10 pick, '11 pick) and if we make any other trades.

Look, nothing's certain. We all know that. Granger could tear his ACL tomorrow, or Dunleavy's knee could give out, or something else terrible could happen. Conversely, we could go into next season with a full, relatively healthy roster (for a change) and actually play over .500 ball.

I just think there's a solid chance things will start to improve from here so long as "rotten luck" stays out of it.

I see a light at the end of the tunnel. I can only hope it's not a train.

pacergod2
01-19-2010, 02:45 PM
Let Danny, Roy, Brandon, AJ, McBob, S. Jones, Dahntay and Tyler get a ton of run between now and the end of the season. By the end of the season you should know exactly what each one of them can bring and they should have developed a fair amount of chemistry with one another. If they win alot, then so be it. But more than likely they will lose a lions share of the games, however we will have answered alot of questions, developed players, and have a lot better feel for exactly wht is needed on a go forward basis.

This. This right here. We have another month before the trade deadline. We will know the exact direction of our franchise by then and if for some reason those players aren't getting the bulk of the minutes I will be upset.

This discussion should be less about "tanking" versus "trading", it should be more inclusive of finding talent and developing that talent. It is easier to find talent at the top of the draft. I will concede that, but so much more than talent is work ethic. Look at the downfall of a lot of the top players... it is their lack of developed work ethic. The greatest players have the greatest work ethic. I want players who will work hard. I want to see our team take the direction of giving the guys that work the hardest the most playing time. That is accountability of the players and of the franchise. That is what I want to see. I feel like our young guys are working their asses off and not getting the appropriate playing time. It may be a larger issue with the team, i.e. showcasing veterans for trades, etc. I want to know which of our young guys has the work ethic to get better by giving them the minutes to find out what they need to work on. That is NOT happening the way I would like to see it yet. However, the team needs another month to figure out a trade or two to set the roster in full motion going forward.

90'sNBARocked
01-19-2010, 02:47 PM
[QUOTE=Hicks;947418]I believe this team has about 41-41 talent on it when healthy and with things relatively "going their way."


I agree , which is why the Pacers have been mediocore at best the last three years

It doesnt matter if we aquire talent through the draft, trade for talent, sign a FA, or develop our own

The point is without new above average talent then we will be lucky to bring the never ending cycle of mediocrity to an abrubt end

Hicks
01-19-2010, 03:16 PM
That's the point: It's NOT a never ending cycle.

90'sNBARocked
01-19-2010, 03:44 PM
That's the point: It's NOT a never ending cycle.

Agreed ,

Poor choice of words

It is though, a redundant cycle that appears staggnant

The bottom line is we have been the same or worse for the last three years. We have mixed and matched different lineups, brought in different free agents etc.

The results though have been the same

same record, same excuses, same lottery selection

I , for one, can not go through more of "the same" in 2011

jhondog28
01-19-2010, 04:21 PM
Agreed ,

Poor choice of words

It is though, a redundant cycle that appears staggnant

The bottom line is we have been the same or worse for the last three years. We have mixed and matched different lineups, brought in different free agents etc.

The results though have been the same

same record, same excuses, same lottery selection

I , for one, can not go through more of "the same" in 2011

Here are the two ways to get big time players to play on a team that does not have market appeal such as LA or NY or have attractive features such as oceanside (Miami):

1) You trade for them

and

2) You throw a crap load of money at them

The biggest misconception is you get a star player just by having the number 1 or 2 picks. I.E Jay Williams, Olowakandi, Thabeet, etc... This is not a guarantee of star power just by tanking or getting top picks.

The problem with Indiana is they do not have the money to throw around until at least 2011 so the only way for them to acquire stars to play on this team is through trade. If you have to do rent a players and at least bring a winning atmosphere to the arena then you do it. Thats how you bring fans back in to watch.

pacergod2
01-19-2010, 04:26 PM
I can. I love the Pacers. If this mediocrity happens through 2012-2013 I will be ok. I just want to see our financial position get better before this deadline and through the summer of 2011. That way our front office has the flexibility to make moves to improve our roster. I think we have the talent and I don't expect us to truly compete until at least a season after we have cap room. So I fully am anticipating mediocrity until then. A playoff berth or two would be nice but we aren't even close to being fully competitive.

AJ Price/2011 first rounder
Brandon Rush/djones/2010 second rounder
Danny Granger/McRoberts
2010 first rounder/Hansborough/2010 second rounder
Hibbert/sjones/2011 second rounder

This is how I look at our team as of now.

Hicks
01-19-2010, 04:43 PM
Agreed ,

Poor choice of words

It is though, a redundant cycle that appears staggnant

The bottom line is we have been the same or worse for the last three years. We have mixed and matched different lineups, brought in different free agents etc.

The results though have been the same

same record, same excuses, same lottery selection

I , for one, can not go through more of "the same" in 2011

You talk as if we've seen the same script for 10 years or something.

2007-08 we tried one more time to make the Tinsley/O'Neal team work with a fresh coach and a different style.

2008-09 we were largely without Mike, and when he played he wasn't the same Mike we knew the year prior.

This year Rush is stagnant, Ford went from "meh" to 3rd string/4th string, Mike's still not 100%, and Danny missed a month.

This is all about getting out from under our old big contracts as we add new pieces and then go for bigger pieces later. It's not like there wasn't at least a general plan in place centered around that idea for years now.

I just sense a lot of needless complaining about all of this from some of you and I wonder if you keep it in perspective or not.

The last era never died until we shelved Tinsley and traded JO. We are only on year two A.J.O. (After Jermaine O'Neal). It was going to take three years to recover due to contracts like Murphy, Tinsley, Dunleavy, and now Ford can be thrown in as well. Nothing significant was going to happen any sooner than it might start happening next month.

The only reason to be up in arms is if we re-sign Troy and Mike at anything near what they make now. THEN and ONLY then are we truly "stuck" "forever".

Gamble1
01-19-2010, 05:04 PM
Agreed ,

Poor choice of words

It is though, a redundant cycle that appears staggnant

The bottom line is we have been the same or worse for the last three years. We have mixed and matched different lineups, brought in different free agents etc.

The results though have been the same

same record, same excuses, same lottery selection

I , for one, can not go through more of "the same" in 2011

I appreciate your honesty. What helps me is this: The Pacers redundant cycle came about because of poor choices in FA, trades and draft picks. I am talking about the Tinsley, Williams, Artest, jax, etc etc. Although the Pacers are still feeling the aftermath of such poor decisions they are not "repeating the cycle". That is encouraging and I give kudos to us for making the changes necessary for a quality team that the fans can get behind.

Yes we have changed lineups/players but the quality of players we have is growing, IMO. ITs just unfortunately not growing fast enough for us "fan"atics but that is to expected.

Lastly a 3 year plan takes 3 years. Not 2 or 1 but 3.

BillS
01-20-2010, 10:43 AM
What people also need to remember was that getting Artest and Jax and even JO was an attempt to do something different to break the cycle of teams that could not get over the top.

You can cry and blame and disagree about the decisions and how they turned out and how the correction attempts put us in this position, but the fact of the matter is that risks were taken.

I lived in Atlanta for 25 years. You want to see an organization that seemed mired in the same old repeated loop for 10 years without really doing anything different? Finally they get lucky and make one good move and they are the poster child for how to do things, yet for most of the last decade they really were falling apart.