PDA

View Full Version : Something I keep thinking about



Sollozzo
08-22-2004, 03:10 PM
I just cannot get over the fact that we could have just signed Stephen Jackson, and used Al Harringotn in another trade. I know we have been told this is because of "financial reasons", but I really think we could have dropped some salary had we played our cards right. Erik Dampier wants to play for a winning team and wants money, I think he would have come here.

The Hawks wanted Al Harrington. We could have worked something with them in which they signed Dampier and we could have made a trade with them.

We could have traded Harrington, Foster, and Croshere for Dampier and another player if we wanted one, and dropped 4 million dollars salary. It would have basically just been Foster and Croshere for Dampier and another player, because we ended up trading Harrington for a player we could have signed.

I know some of you dont want to give Dampier a big contract, but if we could have gotten rid of Croshere's, it would have been worth it.

Instead of getting Jackson for Harrington, I really think we could have gotten Dampier, Jackson, and other player and dumped Harrington, Croshere and Foster.

starting lineup

Dampier, O'Neal, Artest, Jackson, Tinsley

MSA2CF
08-22-2004, 03:12 PM
The Pacers won 61 regular season games in 2003-2004 NBA season. The Pacers, had they won games 6 and 7 of the 2003-2004 Eastern Conference Finals, would have been in the NBA Finals.

Sollozzo
08-22-2004, 03:23 PM
And that relates to what I said how?

No one seems to get that 61 games mean absolutely nothing. It's all about the playoffs, and in a series, the Pistons are a better team than us. We havent done much to get better this offseason.

Great. We have 61 wins and a Central Division title. That means absolutely nothing when a team in our division won less games but has an NBA championship banner hanging up.

So since we won 61 games in 2003-2004, we shouldn't do everything possible to improve our team for 04-05? We could have signed Jackson and used Harrington in a trade for Dampier, it's as simple as that.

MSA2CF
08-22-2004, 03:25 PM
I'm a firm believer of the "Don't fix what ain't broken" philosophy...

edit: You don't change your team just to beat a particular team, at least in my opinion you don't...What if the Pacers had changed the team so they can dominate the Pistons in the playoffs, but end up being slaughtered by another team because the changes made them weak against that team? It doesn't make sense to me to make changes to such a good team.

edit: Too many/drastic changes...
More Esplaining to do!

Sollozzo
08-22-2004, 03:32 PM
How could adding Dampier hurt this team? Having Dampier over Jeff Foster would be better against every team. I'm not saying make any drastic changes, getting Erik Dampier could have only made us better and wouldn't have been a risk.

I love the fact that we got Stephen Jackson. We have a replacement in line for Reggie Miller. I just think we could have gotten him and a little more had we played things differently.

Hicks
08-22-2004, 03:33 PM
I don't think we would ever have traded Al for Dampier, for a variety of reasons, the bottom line being it's just not realistic.

I would have prefered to just sign Stephen out-right, but team salary was already pretty high, and they simply weren't going to add even more. So, take that information, combine it with Al wanting to be traded somewhere that he could start, and you get what actually happened. Makes sense.

Sollozzo
08-22-2004, 03:36 PM
Hicks, if we wouldnt have been able to package Harrington for Dampier, I'm 100 percent convinced we could have traded Harrington for someone of value, being that Harrington is such a young talent that many teams would like to have.

Hicks
08-22-2004, 03:41 PM
True, but if you do that, you're taking salary back, and once again not going to sign Stephen Jackson. Since Stephen fills a clear need on this team, it made sense to get him this way. We traded a glut to fill a hole.

ChicagoJ
08-23-2004, 02:39 PM
I'm a firm believer of the "Don't fix what ain't broken" philosophy...


We know :cool:, but many times you sound like you're happy with a fine regular season and a deep playoff run.

Since we didn't win a meaningful championship last season, I have a hard time believing that it ain't "broken".

And I have an even harder time thinking that it ain't broken when the champs, who play in our division, aren't content with their team and are trying to impove - because they're concerned about beating the Spurs, Heat, Pacers, etc.

I know injuries were a factor in last season's playoffs. But the Pacers had other problems that generally fit into three broad buckets:

- lack of quality backcourt play (allegedly addressed by acquiring Stephen Jackson and signing Eddie Gill),

- lack of sufficient size in the paint - with basketball skills, Pollard doesn't count (which became a somewhat bigger concern by trading Harrington for a guard, although Harrison might be able to address this concern at some time in the future),

- and selfish play and potential chemistry problems (who knows?)

Its not beyond the realm of reasonable to state that perhaps JO's body would have held up better in last season's playoffs if we had one more big, physical post player (again, this definition excluses a stiff like Pollard, a fairly skinny guy like Foster, and a perimeter-oriented PF like Croshere) to absorb the abuse the Miami in particular, and also Detroit, put on his lower body. Sounds to me like it might broken.

EDIT/ADD:
Since I was mostly out of the loop last week, can somebody tell me if Dampier to the Mavs is official?

Sollozzo
08-23-2004, 03:10 PM
Jay, good post, and I don't think the Dampier deal is official as of right now, but I think it could become official later today.

I would agree with MCA2CF's "Don't fix what aint broken" philosophy only if the Pacers made it to the finals or won the championship. How can you say that there is nothing broken when we didn't get to the finals? If you don't get to the NBA finals, you should do everything you can to try to improve.

Again, 61 wins means absolutely nothing if you don't back it up with a championship, or atleast a finals appearance.

NewType
08-23-2004, 03:22 PM
Its not beyond the realm of reasonable to state that perhaps JO's body would have held up better in last season's playoffs if we had one more big, physical post player (again, this definition excluses a stiff like Pollard, a fairly skinny guy like Foster, and a perimeter-oriented PF like Croshere) to absorb the abuse the Miami in particular, and also Detroit, put on his lower body. Sounds to me like it might broken.


I think this may be a little off base. It's true that another big body would definitely help. However, there is no evident that JO's injury has anything related to the abuse that he took. He sprained his knee when he landed awkwardly (or was undercut) after going for the rebound. Better condition or not wouldn't really help in that situation.

Shade
08-23-2004, 03:35 PM
But if we had just signed SJax, we wouldn't have been able to use half our MLE on AJ. :rolleyes:

ChicagoJ
08-23-2004, 03:50 PM
Its not beyond the realm of reasonable to state that perhaps JO's body would have held up better in last season's playoffs if we had one more big, physical post player (again, this definition excluses a stiff like Pollard, a fairly skinny guy like Foster, and a perimeter-oriented PF like Croshere) to absorb the abuse the Miami in particular, and also Detroit, put on his lower body. Sounds to me like it might broken.


I think this may be a little off base. It's true that another big body would definitely help. However, there is no evident that JO's injury has anything related to the abuse that he took. He sprained his knee when he landed awkwardly (or was undercut) after going for the rebound. Better condition or not wouldn't really help in that situation.




Yes, he was undercut. But basketball players (especially centers) get undercut all the time.

That's why I said "its not beyond the realm of reasonable."

Clearly you're right, there is no case-specific evidence (in the public domain) either way. But there is sufficient medical research to link this type of sprain to fatigue. The fatigue could either be the result of exerting his leg muscles, tendons and ligaments during the game in question (making his leg tired), or weeks and months of wear and tear leading up to it (making his leg weak).

JO even said something similar when 'recruiting' Dampier.

NewType
08-23-2004, 04:22 PM
Its not beyond the realm of reasonable to state that perhaps JO's body would have held up better in last season's playoffs if we had one more big, physical post player (again, this definition excluses a stiff like Pollard, a fairly skinny guy like Foster, and a perimeter-oriented PF like Croshere) to absorb the abuse the Miami in particular, and also Detroit, put on his lower body. Sounds to me like it might broken.


I think this may be a little off base. It's true that another big body would definitely help. However, there is no evident that JO's injury has anything related to the abuse that he took. He sprained his knee when he landed awkwardly (or was undercut) after going for the rebound. Better condition or not wouldn't really help in that situation.




Yes, he was undercut. But basketball players (especially centers) get undercut all the time.

That's why I said "its not beyond the realm of reasonable."

Clearly you're right, there is no case-specific evidence (in the public domain) either way. But there is sufficient medical research to link this type of sprain to fatigue. The fatigue could either be the result of exerting his leg muscles, tendons and ligaments during the game in question (making his leg tired), or weeks and months of wear and tear leading up to it (making his leg weak).

JO even said something similar when 'recruiting' Dampier.

Good point.

MSA2CF
08-23-2004, 10:35 PM
I would agree with MCA2CF's "Don't fix what aint broken" philosophy only if the Pacers made it to the finals or won the championship. How can you say that there is nothing broken when we didn't get to the finals? If you don't get to the NBA finals, you should do everything you can to try to improve.

Again, 61 wins means absolutely nothing if you don't back it up with a championship, or atleast a finals appearance.

Sixty-one wins means a heck of a lot to me. I don't believe there was anything broken moreso than the roster had some minor aches that needed adjusted, such as Al Harrington.

Making too many moves or making drastic ones to a roster won't improve a team; it will set it back.

Just because the team didn't make the Finals doesn't mean the team needs to be dramatically altered. That's why I think the Pistons won't fair too well this season because of the number/nature of the moves the team has made this off-season.

Sollozzo
08-23-2004, 10:46 PM
The team doesn't need to be "dramatically altered"

Getting Dampier could have only helped the team.

Kstat
08-23-2004, 10:57 PM
I would agree with MCA2CF's "Don't fix what aint broken" philosophy only if the Pacers made it to the finals or won the championship. How can you say that there is nothing broken when we didn't get to the finals? If you don't get to the NBA finals, you should do everything you can to try to improve.

Again, 61 wins means absolutely nothing if you don't back it up with a championship, or atleast a finals appearance.

Sixty-one wins means a heck of a lot to me. I don't believe there was anything broken moreso than the roster had some minor aches that needed adjusted, such as Al Harrington.

Making too many moves or making drastic ones to a roster won't improve a team; it will set it back.

Just because the team didn't make the Finals doesn't mean the team needs to be dramatically altered. That's why I think the Pistons won't fair too well this season because of the number/nature of the moves the team has made this off-season.


.....so if the Pistons wont fare too well because of their roster moves, the Pacers must be lottry-bound, right? After all, at least THEY changed their starting lineup, and their 3rd leading scorer....:rolleyes:

MSA2CF
08-24-2004, 08:59 PM
Getting Dampier could have only helped the team.

MSA2CF
08-24-2004, 09:01 PM
.....so if the Pistons wont fare too well because of their roster moves, the Pacers must be lottry-bound, right? After all, at least THEY changed their starting lineup, and their 3rd leading scorer....:rolleyes:

The Pacers changed the starting lineup? Let's see: Jeff at C, Jermaine at PF, Ron at SF, Reggie at SG, Jamaal at PG...:confused:

I don't think the Pacers are lottery-bound as of now.

Hicks
08-24-2004, 09:07 PM
MSA2CF, if Stephen Jackson becomes the starting SG, will that make you feel like the Pacers will be worse?

Sollozzo
08-24-2004, 09:08 PM
Well, the move the Pacers did in getting Jackson is a move that would change the lineup on most teams. But of course, we have Reggie Miller, and if he was 80 they would let him start.

SoupIsGood
08-24-2004, 09:10 PM
The colts need to trade for Steven Jackson, then we would ahve both Indy teams with a SJax waiting to start because the player ahead of him is only there for one more year.

Sollozzo
08-24-2004, 09:15 PM
Reggie Miller should not be ahead of SJAX......It's a travesty if Reggie is the starter, and sadly, I think he will be.

MSA2CF
08-24-2004, 09:22 PM
MSA2CF, if Stephen Jackson becomes the starting SG, will that make you feel like the Pacers will be worse?

Before the season, I will be nervous because I do not remember the last time Reggie came off the bench. I'm not 100% confident he can fill the bench role. I mean, I think he can, but how he would deliver would concern me because he'd be playing out of his role, but then again, he's been playing out of his "role" for about 3 years now. :laugh: I guess as a basketball analyst/fan in general, Reggie probably should come off the bench, but as a Pacers fan, I feel starting is his place. There are valid reasons why he should continue to start, but that topic has been debated over and over again.

To answer your question, no.

Sollozzo
08-24-2004, 09:39 PM
It really doesn't matter what Reggie does, he won't contribute much. The team would be fine with out him, we have a SG that is clearly better than him. We would have SJAX and Fred as our SG's if Reggie was gone.

You shouldn't get a starting spot based on what you've done in the past years(just like you shouldn't get a contract based on the past). You have to earn a starting spot by your current play, and Stephen Jackson is clearly a better player than Reggie MIller at this point.

MSA2CF
08-24-2004, 09:51 PM
It really doesn't matter what Reggie does, he won't contribute much. The team would be fine with out him...
You shouldn't get a starting spot based on what you've done in the past years (just like you shouldn't get a contract based on the past). You have to earn a starting spot by your current play...

:lol2:

SycamoreKen
08-25-2004, 06:23 AM
If Dampier had ever shown 1/4 the heart Foster at any time n his career then maybe he would have been worth pursuing. There is no way he is worth what the Mavs are paying him.