PDA

View Full Version : New Red Meat to chew on from Kravitz



Pages : [1] 2

Peck
06-22-2011, 03:05 AM
I think there will be some gnashing of teeth by some when they realize that Bird is opening the door to another 3 year plan.:D Take it for what it's worth though he does say could be right away or take 2-3 years. But I know some of you and this should be fun.

http://www.indystar.com/article/20110622/SPORTS15/106220320/If-Bird-gets-right-improvement-may-come-fast

Bob Kravitz is a columnist for The Indianapolis Star.

After years of scrimping and saving and losing, after years of wandering NBA purgatory as one of the least compelling teams in the league, the Indiana Pacers now embark on their most important summer since 1993.

Finally, there is hope.

Finally, there is a young core of promising young players.

Finally, there is salary cap flexibility, something Pacers bosses Larry Bird and David Morway worked diligently to acquire.

Now comes the Pacers' summer of reckoning, a chance to change the face and alter the direction of this bedeviled franchise.

"We've got to take a step forward; we can't stay the same," team president Bird said. "Thirty-seven (wins) ain't enough. These next two, three years, we can't spend all (the available money) unless something great happens, but these next two, three years, this thing ought to be at a level where we want it. It all depends on the development of the young guys. If they get better, we add pieces through free agency and have good drafts, it might not take two or three years, it might take one."
It all begins with Thursday night's draft, in which the Pacers are scheduled to pick 15th.

What will happen?

We know what won't happen.

There was a rumor that the Pacers talked with the Minnesota Timberwolves about a deal that would send center Roy Hibbert and the No. 15 pick to Minnesota for the No. 2 pick -- likely Arizona's Derrick Williams. Tuesday, though, Bird shot that down. (Although I'm not buying that Bird wouldn't trade Hibbert for the right price. You can't coach size, but you can't coach meanness, either.)

That doesn't mean the Pacers will stay at No. 15. Bird said he has his eye on four players and expects at least two of them to be available when the Pacers select, but draft-day deals are definitely in play for a franchise that is under the salary cap. If they can package their pick and add a player, they will without hesitation.

If they don't move and stay at No. 15, my money (roughly $1.50) is on Jimmer Fredette or Marshon Brooks. An educated guess, at best.

At first glance, Bird's draft history is hit-and-miss, but if you look closer, the truth is he has done a pretty good job given the fact he has selected in the middle of the first round every summer.

He took David Harrison at No. 29 in 2004. The big man never quite panned out, but the best guys selected behind him were Anderson Varejao and Trevor Ariza. So he didn't miss out on any stars.

He took Danny Granger 17th in 2005.

Of course, you, me and my cat could have made the call when Granger fell all that way.

In 2006, well, that's a draft to forget. Shawne Williams had the talent, but not the maturity. It hurts to think that Rajon Rondo was chosen behind him. And James White, the second rounder, never got out of training camp.

In 2008, Bird found a way to dump Jermaine O'Neal's salary and drafted Brandon Rush at No. 13 and Hibbert at No. 17. Rush hasn't developed the way anybody had hoped, but none of the players chosen behind him or Hibbert really turned into big-time players. Marreese Speights? Serge Ibaka? The best of that group was probably IUPUI's George Hill.

In 2009, Bird chose Tyler Hansbrough, a selection that raised some eyebrows. But the kid has turned into a player. The Pacers passed up on several good point guards in that draft, but eventually dealt for Darren Collison at a bargain-basement price.

And in 2010, he got the draft's best value in Paul George at No. 10.

The best players chosen behind him? Greivis Vasquez and Landry Fields. A home run.

(Bird also took a chance on Lance Stephenson in the second round, saying Tuesday, "He's our best player." Really, Larry? Really?)

This draft, though, isn't going to be the thing that turns the Pacers into a perennial playoff team.

That's going to happen later this summer -- assuming there is a basketball summer -- through trades and, to a lesser extent, free agency.

The Pacers are one of the few teams in the league under the salary cap, which will allow them to make one-sided deals where they can take on far more salary than they give. It's likely the cap will decrease this summer, meaning cap-strapped teams will become even more desperate to shed salary.

Free agency is an interesting option, but it's not the primary reason the Pacers positioned themselves for this summer. Still, there are some names, notably New Orleans' David West and Dallas' Tyson Chandler.

So the summer of reckoning begins Thursday night. Soon thereafter interim coach Frank Vogel will get the official word on his hiring. (Don't stress over the fact Vogel isn't a big part of the draft; NBA coaches pay almost no attention to college players.) Then they will start looking at free agency and trades and . . . the lockout.

The Pacers are done taking their lumps.

Now it's time to administer some.

pacer4ever
06-22-2011, 03:22 AM
it will take at least 3 more years to be contenders IMO.(and that's if everything goes perfect like getting a really good free agent and a few one sided trades)

Kstat
06-22-2011, 03:56 AM
That's why I love 3-year plans. If it rains tomorrow, it's because I said it would. If it doesn't, I'll come up with a reason why it will rain the next day.

Merz
06-22-2011, 04:14 AM
As long as there is an obvious direction to winning and being a contender to more than the back end of the playoffs, I'm fine with another 3 years. Another 3 years of mediocrity and no hope for improvement is what gets me down.

CooperManning
06-22-2011, 04:25 AM
I think the three year plan worked. Bird got rid of our bad contracts, filled the team with young, mostly high character players, and made the playoffs. Squeaked in, but playoffs nonetheless.

This was our roster going into the summer of "the 3-year plan":

http://i.imgur.com/TKqiM.png

3 years later we have a few young pieces with decent trade value - Granger, Hibbert, Hansbrough, Collison, George, a couple prospects - Lance and #15, a handful of role players - Price, Rush, Dahntay, an expiring contract - Posey, and the 2nd most cap room in the league. Not gonna win a ring next year, but as somebody who used to stare at a roster filled with Ike Diogu, Shawne Williams, Troy Murphy, Jamal Tinsley, and Jermaine O'Neal's corpse -- I'll take it.

Will Galen
06-22-2011, 04:35 AM
My take was Bird was talking about 3 years before he would have a team that would contend. Meaning the third year we would be contending.

That's more or less what everyone expects, so I don't see any reason to get grumpy about him saying it.

CooperManning
06-22-2011, 04:44 AM
Ha, just noticed this.



In 2008, Bird found a way to dump Jermaine O'Neal's salary and drafted Brandon Rush at No. 13 and Hibbert at No. 17. Rush hasn't developed the way anybody had hoped, but none of the players chosen behind him or Hibbert really turned into big-time players. Marreese Speights? Serge Ibaka? The best of that group was probably IUPUI's George Hill.

Kravitz being oblivious to how good Ibaka is shows how much he follows the NBA.

vnzla81
06-22-2011, 07:05 AM
So instead of a 3 years plan is becoming a 6 years plan? And pleople thought I was crazy when I didn't want Larry to come back as the GM.

By the way, Larry didn't got rid of the expiring contracts,he just let them expire.

pacersgroningen
06-22-2011, 07:44 AM
3 years to get back to respectability and put us in the position to become contenders

vnzla81
06-22-2011, 07:49 AM
Larry is starting to sound to me like the crazy guy who thought the world was going to end two months ago, he keeps changing the date until it becomes reality.

Pacer Fan
06-22-2011, 08:20 AM
By the way, Larry didn't got rid of the expiring contracts,he just let them expire.

Not true, The only ones he let expire was the later, Ford, Dunleavey, Foster. He tried to trade Ford, Dunleavey would have been impossible and Foster...I think most would like Foster back on the cheap. I give LB props for being patient this last 2 years and not trade into other bad contracts to get rid of bad contracts. So many GM would've been impatient and gotten theirselves in deeper and LB refrained from this. And don't use Posey cause he came with DC on the cheap.

duke dynamite
06-22-2011, 08:24 AM
I think the three year plan worked. Bird got rid of our bad contracts, filled the team with young, mostly high character players, and made the playoffs. Squeaked in, but playoffs nonetheless.

This was our roster going into the summer of "the 3-year plan":

http://i.imgur.com/TKqiM.png

3 years later we have a few young pieces with decent trade value - Granger, Hibbert, Hansbrough, Collison, George, a couple prospects - Lance and #15, a handful of role players - Price, Rush, Dahntay, an expiring contract - Posey, and the 2nd most cap room in the league. Not gonna win a ring next year, but as somebody who used to stare at a roster filled with Ike Diogu, Shawne Williams, Troy Murphy, Jamal Tinsley, and Jermaine O'Neal's corpse -- I'll take it.
You have to just sit back and laugh seeing that injured designation next to Jamaal Tinsley's name.

graphic-er
06-22-2011, 08:30 AM
Not true, The only ones he let expire was the later, Ford, Dunleavey, Foster. He tried to trade Ford, Dunleavey would have been impossible and Foster...I think most would like Foster back on the cheap. I give LB props for being patient this last 2 years and not trade into other bad contracts to get rid of bad contracts. So many GM would've been impatient and gotten theirselves in deeper and LB refrained from this. And don't use Posey cause he came with DC on the cheap.

LOL! Trying is not accomplishment!

Hicks
06-22-2011, 08:36 AM
Anyone who isn't happy with or otherwise doesn't like Bird will use this (and anything else, frankly) as an excuse to knock him, but I realize that the 3 year plan we just got through was never about winning a title, it was about getting out from the ****** situation we'd been in, ready to finally get back into "win now" mode.

From here on, it's no longer about pursuing financial stability and a roster free of albatrosses. Now it's about winning; the sooner, the better. Realistically it's true it could be 2-3 years before we're a serious contender; I think most of us realize and understand that's probably accurate.

But you never know; it could work out faster, or it could never work out. That's the NBA unless your name is the Los Angeles Lakers.

Day-V
06-22-2011, 08:40 AM
Anyone who isn't happy with or otherwise doesn't like Bird will use this (and anything else, frankly) as an excuse to knock him, but I realize that the 3 year plan we just got through was never about winning a title, it was about getting out from the ****** situation we'd been in, ready to finally get back into "win now" mode.

From here on, it's no longer about pursuing financial stability and a roster free of albatrosses. Now it's about winning; the sooner, the better. Realistically it's true it could be 2-3 years before we're a serious contender; I think most of us realize and understand that's probably accurate.

But you never know; it could work out faster, or it could never work out. That's the NBA unless your name is the Los Angeles Lakers.

Finally, Thank you. Some sanity.

vnzla81
06-22-2011, 08:43 AM
LOL! Trying is not accomplishment!

Yeah but at least he tried :laugh:

PR07
06-22-2011, 08:45 AM
Now might be one of the most pivotal times in the franchise's history because we can't afford to screw up in trades or free agency where big $$$ are at stake.

Day-V
06-22-2011, 08:47 AM
By the way, Larry didn't got rid of the expiring contracts,he just let them expire.

He practically stole Darren Collison with one of them. Although, I'm sure you'll just reply back that DC somehow magically showed up thanks in no part to Larry.

Trader Joe
06-22-2011, 08:47 AM
So instead of a 3 years plan is becoming a 6 years plan? And pleople thought I was crazy when I didn't want Larry to come back as the GM.

By the way, Larry didn't got rid of the expiring contracts,he just let them expire.

Um, Troy Murphy?

Blink
06-22-2011, 08:53 AM
This was our roster going into the summer of "the 3-year plan":

http://i.imgur.com/TKqiM.png



:puke:

vnzla81
06-22-2011, 08:54 AM
Um, Troy Murphy?

Yeah a 4team trade that almost every single report showed that NO was the architect of the whole trade, either way I'll give Larry some points for saying yes to a non brainer, bravo Larry........

Trader Joe
06-22-2011, 08:54 AM
Also, that roster is hideous. It almost makes me feel bad for JOB.

Trader Joe
06-22-2011, 08:55 AM
Yeah a 4team trade that almost every single report showed that NO was the architect of the whole trade, either way I'll give Larry some points for saying yes to a non brainer, bravo Larry........

You still said he did nothing but let them flat out expire, which is just wrong.

Pacerized
06-22-2011, 08:58 AM
I never once thought the 3 year plan meant that we'd be title contenders in 3 years. Did anyone else really think this?
I like the patience Bird shows in saying "we can't spend all the available money unless something great happens". If the right trade to take on a big contract is there I think he'd do it. I still hope we go after a few available free agents as soon as we can, but I don't think Nene, or Gasol makes us an immediate contender. I think he's just saying that he won't spend the money on bad contracts. I'm happy with where we are right now and hopefull that Bird can pull his magic as soon as we have a new cba.

vnzla81
06-22-2011, 09:01 AM
You still said he did nothing but let them flat out expire, which is just wrong.

Ok my bad then, he traded ONE EXPIRING and let the rest of the guys expire, bravo .....

Trader Joe
06-22-2011, 09:02 AM
Ok my bad then, he traded ONE EXPIRING and let the rest of the guys expire, bravo .....

So you think it's easy to do then?

Day-V
06-22-2011, 09:06 AM
Ok my bad then, he traded ONE EXPIRING and let the rest of the guys expire, bravo .....


You say that like it's a bad thing. Granted, most would've liked to see one more trade, but getting DC and clearing a ****-load of cap while still maintaining a talented young core for this summer is still a pretty ****ing good situation.


I think someone needs a bottle and a nap.

Major Cold
06-22-2011, 09:09 AM
Worked diligently to get rid out of bad contracts? They waited them out. We got out of JO's contract, but had to endure half of it for an extra year in Ford.

And now half of Murphy's contract is with us another year in Posey. Dunleavy? Waited on. Foster? Waited on through dampening injuries. Ford? See above. Tinsley? The buyout was a good deal...but he has not played for the team, yet he gets paid?

Granger? Good deal...we did not overpay.Extending Rush? We shall see if that was a good move if we can trade him.

I think drafting Bird/Morway has done above average. Contract wise...average at best.

We waited out the contracts to get cap relief in the middle of a CBA that may lessen the value of our cap space.

BUT....I don't think we had any other option.

NapTonius Monk
06-22-2011, 09:13 AM
So instead of a 3 years plan is becoming a 6 years plan? And pleople thought I was crazy when I didn't want Larry to come back as the GM.

By the way, Larry didn't got rid of the expiring contracts,he just let them expire.
So, you expected to be hoisting the Larry O'brien trophy this year?

Tom White
06-22-2011, 09:13 AM
Anyone who isn't happy with or otherwise doesn't like Bird will use this (and anything else, frankly) as an excuse to knock him, but I realize that the 3 year plan we just got through was never about winning a title, it was about getting out from the ****** situation we'd been in, ready to finally get back into "win now" mode.

From here on, it's no longer about pursuing financial stability and a roster free of albatrosses. Now it's about winning; the sooner, the better. Realistically it's true it could be 2-3 years before we're a serious contender; I think most of us realize and understand that's probably accurate.

But you never know; it could work out faster, or it could never work out. That's the NBA unless your name is the Los Angeles Lakers.

Absolutely.

The disclaimer is right there in the article. So much of it depends on how well and how quickly the younger talent improves. The stage is well set. Most of it now depends on the players.

NapTonius Monk
06-22-2011, 09:19 AM
Tinsley? The buyout was a good deal...but he has not played for the team, yet he gets paid?
So, now it's Larry's fault the way buyouts are structured? You can't just make that money disappear.

NapTonius Monk
06-22-2011, 09:24 AM
Yeah a 4team trade that almost every single report showed that NO was the architect of the whole trade, either way I'll give Larry some points for saying yes to a non brainer, bravo Larry........
Maybe you'd prefer the Joe Dumars approach. Let's take all of our newfound flexibility (which was so easy to acquire) and dump it on a couple of middle of the road free agents, and hamstring ourselves all over again. That should only take one offseason.

DocHolliday
06-22-2011, 09:31 AM
I should've logged in BEFORE reading the responses. Back to the ignore list you go.

Major Cold
06-22-2011, 09:35 AM
So, now it's Larry's fault the way buyouts are structured? You can't just make that money disappear.


I don't blame Larry. He tried to unload. Tinsley's trade value was not saved...it might not have ever had a chance.

The reality is that Bird did nothing more than any other GM would have. Maybe he got a good deal on the buyout, better than the Knicks got with Starbury.

But that is it. An A+ job is unloading it for a Fransico Garcia veteran, with one less year on the deal. We pay the player and get the buyout so to speak.

vnzla81
06-22-2011, 09:35 AM
Maybe you'd prefer the Joe Dumars approach. Let's take all of our newfound flexibility (which was so easy to acquire) and dump it on a couple of middle of the road free agents, and hamstring ourselves all over again. That should only take one offseason.

The "Joe Dumars approach" gave the city of Detroit one championships and multiple eastern conference finals this decade, yes he made a mistake and hopefully Larry learns from those mistakes and doesn't make the next 2 or 3 year plan another 2 or 3 years plan.

vnzla81
06-22-2011, 09:36 AM
I don't blame Larry. He tried to unload. Tinsley's trade value was not saved...it might not have ever had a chance.

The reality is that Bird did nothing more than any other GM would have. Maybe he got a good deal on the buyout, better than the Knicks got with Starbury.

But that is it. An A+ job is unloading it for a Fransico Garcia veteran, with one less year on the deal. We pay the player and get the buyout so to speak.

Exactly.

Major Cold
06-22-2011, 09:37 AM
Maybe you'd prefer the Joe Dumars approach. Let's take all of our newfound flexibility (which was so easy to acquire) and dump it on a couple of middle of the road free agents, and hamstring ourselves all over again. That should only take one offseason.


We just got the relief. We could still do this. Although I don't think that will happen. But Dumars is a below average GM at this juncture. If excellence is measured by being better than Dumars, then 37 wins is an excellent season.

Since86
06-22-2011, 09:37 AM
Some of you need to get a freaking grip on reality, and go read a history book.

Every freaking team in the league have plans. When one expire you make a new one. That's how plans work....

The goal of the original 3 year plan was to change over the ****** talent that was being overpaid with better talent that isn't overpaid. And he accomplished exactly that.

A franchise without a plan is like a rudderless ship just going in circles. This "new" 3 year plan is simply starting where the old one left off and then giving a set of goals with a time deadline.

And then there's this little tidbit from Bill Simmons' new website.



Last month, just in time for the NBA draft, the Golden State Warriors added Jerry West to their executive board. The two-time NBA executive of the year is a legendary talent evaluator, so it wasn't surprising that he began scouting for the Warriors within days of his hiring. But even West tells his protegés that they should pride themselves in being right about 51 percent of their front-office decisions.

Boston Celtics assistant GM Mike Zarren offered a similar estimate at the MIT conference. “The worst thing," Zarren said, "is that if you’re taking something with a 60 percent chance of succeeding, that means you've got a 40 percent chance of it not succeeding. You have a 16 percent chance of it not succeeding twice — which isn’t ridiculously small. But if you screw up two drafts in a row, you’re not making a third draft.”

This entire conversation was the result of a harmless question about how advanced stats could improve a team's draft results. There aren’t many people in the world with a better grasp on basketball analytics than Zarren, but somehow, a face in the crowd had stumped the experts. Zarren sighed: “It’s just a really hard question to answer.”

http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/292/what-gms-dont-know-about-the-nba-draft

Some of you seem to think that running a team is about as easy as going out and picking some dasies out from under your bedroom window.

Why does everything have to be met with "Oh great, now Larry (or whoever would be in charge) is gonna screw it up...?"

I point this out because some of you will be calling for Larry's head, still, if the Pacers aren't title winners after the 3rd year.

BillS
06-22-2011, 09:42 AM
My concern about the article is that it totally ignores the possible effect of the new CBA. For example, if the new CBA is structured such that cap space is pretty well worthless for the next couple of years due to grandfather clauses and increased trade mismatches allowed for teams over the cap, then Bird will be able to do nothing with this. Which, of course, will be all Bird's fault and Kravitz will happily beat him up over it while saying "I told you so."


The "Joe Dumars approach" gave the city of Detroit one championships and multiple eastern conference finals this decade, yes he made a mistake and hopefully Larry learns from those mistakes and doesn't make the next 2 or 3 year plan another 2 or 3 years plan.

The "Donnie Walsh" approach gave the Pacers a Finals and multiple ECF appearances within a decade, including AFTER a partial rebuild, but he is vilified by many as someone who wasn't good enough for the franchise and in fact left them in a horrible mess.

You're only as good as your last move around here.

Major Cold
06-22-2011, 09:42 AM
Some of you need to get a freaking grip on reality, and go read a history book.

Every freaking team in the league have plans. When one expire you make a new one. That's how plans work....

The goal of the original 3 year plan was to change over the ****** talent that was being overpaid with better talent that isn't overpaid. And he accomplished exactly that.

A franchise without a plan is like a rudderless ship just going in circles. This "new" 3 year plan is simply starting where the old one left off and then giving a set of goals with a time deadline.

And then there's this little tidbit from Bill Simmons' new website.


http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/292/what-gms-dont-know-about-the-nba-draft

Some of you seem to think that running a team is about as easy as going out and picking some dasies out from under your bedroom window.

Why does everything have to be met with "Oh great, now Larry (or whoever would be in charge) is gonna screw it up...?"

I point this out because some of you will be calling for Larry's head, still, if the Pacers aren't title winners after the 3rd year.


I am not calling for his head. I simply think that saying he has done an incredible job as a GM is a little homerish. He had no choice to wait out some of the contracts. He made deals to get players like Hibbert, Rush, and Collison. But he has yet to do something that puts him above the threshold of a stellar GM like West, Riley, and others.

The next two years will tell if he is excellent. He is in position to do it. But he has not done it.

Since86
06-22-2011, 09:43 AM
But that is it. An A+ job is unloading it for a Fransico Garcia veteran, with one less year on the deal. We pay the player and get the buyout so to speak.

And there's a reason why it would be considered an A+..... If it was the norm, or easy to do, it would be a graded a C.

aaronb
06-22-2011, 09:45 AM
3 years to get back to respectability and put us in the position to become contenders


Only without any elite level talents? Granger is the only guy on this roster who is even pushing top 50.

Major Cold
06-22-2011, 09:46 AM
My big concern is the fact that Bird and others keep saying Lance is the best player.

Does this kid need a bigger head? Is this not his problem? Just shut up about him. Yeah we get it. He is talented and could be special if his attitude was in check. Is telling the media and the team that he is the best player going to help his egotistical attitude?

Since86
06-22-2011, 09:46 AM
I am not calling for his head. I simply think that saying he has done an incredible job as a GM is a little homerish. He had no choice to wait out some of the contracts. He made deals to get players like Hibbert, Rush, and Collison. But he has yet to do something that puts him above the threshold of a stellar GM like West, Riley, and others.

The next two years will tell if he is excellent. He is in position to do it. But he has not done it.

I think you're underrating having patience. We could have easily tried to trade contracts like Dunleavy and sent out players like PG in the process. Or draft picks.

Just because it's "easy" to do doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do.

NapTonius Monk
06-22-2011, 09:46 AM
The "Joe Dumars approach" gave the city of Detroit one championships and multiple eastern conference finals this decade, yes he made a mistake and hopefully Larry learns from those mistakes and doesn't make the next 2 or 3 year plan another 2 or 3 years plan.That seems to have been an exception to the rule. His moves of late have been head scratchers. All the money he paid to Ben Gordon and Charlie V is questionable at best. It also goes to show that putting a contender together is not necessarily a plug n' play process. He caught lightning in a bottle with the first group. Can't take that away from him. But trying to duplicate that success has been difficult.

Major Cold
06-22-2011, 09:47 AM
And there's a reason why it would be considered an A+..... If it was the norm, or easy to do, it would be a graded a C.


I would give Larry a B on the Tinsley deal. The buyout was a great deal.

NapTonius Monk
06-22-2011, 09:53 AM
We just got the relief. We could still do this. Although I don't think that will happen. But Dumars is a below average GM at this juncture. If excellence is measured by being better than Dumars, then 37 wins is an excellent season.Which is why Larry shouldn't be slammed for saying he wouldn't do it. "I can't see us spending all our money this year. We want to get the right players in here to move the franchise forward." And for this, he's catching grief about another three year plan; which isn't really what he said anyway. I'm not a Larry Bird apologist, and I think he's made some mistakes as a GM. But he said himself, you learn from your mistakes along the way. Having an itchy trigger finger is the way back to the hole we just climbed out of. Errr...the hole that just evaporated over time (forgot, that just happened on its' own).

NapTonius Monk
06-22-2011, 09:59 AM
I don't blame Larry. He tried to unload. Tinsley's trade value was not saved...it might not have ever had a chance.

The reality is that Bird did nothing more than any other GM would have. Maybe he got a good deal on the buyout, better than the Knicks got with Starbury.

But that is it. An A+ job is unloading it for a Fransico Garcia veteran, with one less year on the deal. We pay the player and get the buyout so to speak.It wasn't like Larry was turning down offers to ship out Tinsely for usable players. I think the buyout was all they could do with JT.

Justin Tyme
06-22-2011, 10:04 AM
I never once thought the 3 year plan meant that we'd be title contenders in 3 years. Did anyone else really think this?
I like the patience Bird shows in saying "we can't spend all the available money unless something great happens". If the right trade to take on a big contract is there I think he'd do it. I still hope we go after a few available free agents as soon as we can, but I don't think Nene, or Gasol makes us an immediate contender. I think he's just saying that he won't spend the money on bad contracts. I'm happy with where we are right now and hopefull that Bird can pull his magic as soon as we have a new cba.



That's how I interpreted the 3 year plan. Not saying a title winner, but being able to compete in that regards. My feeling is year 2 & 3 was a disappointment to him, b/c the Pacers didn't make the playoffs as he expected. I truly feel he thought the Pacers would be further advanced in years 3-4. years 1-4 years are under Jimmy, so if the 3 year plan started in year 2 then the 3 year plan ended with the 10-11 season.

W/o a doubt in my mind this team would have been further advanced and had a better record this past season if Bird hadn't picked up Jimmy's 4th year team option. If Bird's pride and stuborness doesn't get in his way, he'd admit the samething.

I've said for over the last year plus I feel Herb Simon is going to sell the Pacers. Herb, IMO, has been working a plan to get the Pacers into a good position to sell the Pacers over the last few years. Bird made the statement asking if Herb was willing to spend money. I took that as "Herb are you willing to spend money while you are trying to get the Pacers in position to sell." I'll
be the 1st to say Bird has been under restrictions from ownership over the years. I'm more upset with Bird's blunders than I am at where this team is at the end of year 3. This draft and off season is a defining time in Bird the FO person. We'll see whether Bird is as great as many feel he is, or if he's been a mistake from the day Walsh hired him. Your on the clock now Larry, the ball is in your court. DON'T DROP THE BALL THE PACERS CAN'T AFFORD IT!

Justin Tyme
06-22-2011, 10:11 AM
That seems to have been an exception to the rule. His moves of late have been head scratchers. All the money he paid to Ben Gordon and Charlie V is questionable at best. It also goes to show that putting a contender together is not necessarily a plug n' play process. He caught lightning in a bottle with the first group. Can't take that away from him. But trying to duplicate that success has been difficult.


I relate Dumars to Bob Knight. They both had some success, but as time went along their abilities faded.

Major Cold
06-22-2011, 10:11 AM
And when you wait on your contracts you get cap space. Cap Space in a Craptastic new CBA where you lose value of the saved space.

Waiting does not make you a great GM. Going Isaiah Thomas with money is horrible. Dealing, drafting, and signing for a more competitive team is a stellar job.

I do not think we had the options that Portland, Memphis, or Atlanta had. They all had top 5 picks in the last 5-6 years. Houston is the only similar team in our situation of drafting and salary constraints. The got Martin and dealt TMac for some pieces. We never got someone to bite on JO like they did with TMAC. They also got out from underneath Ariza's new overpriced contract. They dealt Brooks (a Tinsley cancer) instead of extending him. They acquired Lowry.

All in all I think we are on the same track. But we have a better salary situation going into a mystery of the CBA. I would rather have assets under a harder cap than space. I would rather have Terrence Williams, Thabeet, Courtney Lee, Dragic, and Jordan Hill, rather than 34 million in space (which after the new CBA could be worth 20 million).

I would not want Miller's contract. Or even Scola's for that matter. But we are in a similar situation that is for sure.

Major Cold
06-22-2011, 10:13 AM
It wasn't like Larry was turning down offers to ship out Tinsely for usable players. I think the buyout was all they could do with JT.



I would give Larry a B on the Tinsley deal. The buyout was a great deal.

I agree.

Kid Minneapolis
06-22-2011, 10:21 AM
I don't blame Larry. He tried to unload. Tinsley's trade value was not saved...it might not have ever had a chance.

The reality is that Bird did nothing more than any other GM would have. Maybe he got a good deal on the buyout, better than the Knicks got with Starbury.

But that is it. An A+ job is unloading it for a Fransico Garcia veteran, with one less year on the deal. We pay the player and get the buyout so to speak.

That's not reality. There's many avenues a GM could go down in any number of situations. He could've pulled an Isiah and continued to drive us deeper into debt and poor contracts and bad talent. He could be David Kahn. He could run the Pacers like the Clippers have been run.

It takes balls and patience to sit back, look at a situation and say, "Dammit, I have no chips to play with... as painful as this is going to be, our best option is to just do this the ol' fashioned American way --- work hard, take small steps, do things the right way, and take our lumps."

That's what Bird did. All of you saying, "ya, that's all he did, he let them expire, he sat there..." like it was no big deal --- what did you expect him to do with that roster and those contracts? Turn it into LeBron and DWade?

And we're talking about reality here? How can you judge a GM who was handed a ****-pile and within 3 years has positioned himself to finally be able to make some real moves? That's a serious lack of "big picture".

NapTonius Monk
06-22-2011, 10:22 AM
And when you wait on your contracts you get cap space. Cap Space in a Craptastic new CBA where you lose value of the saved space.

Waiting does not make you a great GM. Going Isaiah Thomas with money is horrible. Dealing, drafting, and signing for a more competitive team is a stellar job.

I do not think we had the options that Portland, Memphis, or Atlanta had. They all had top 5 picks in the last 5-6 years. Houston is the only similar team in our situation of drafting and salary constraints. The got Martin and dealt TMac for some pieces. We never got someone to bite on JO like they did with TMAC. They also got out from underneath Ariza's new overpriced contract. They dealt Brooks (a Tinsley cancer) instead of extending him. They acquired Lowry.

All in all I think we are on the same track. But we have a better salary situation going into a mystery of the CBA. I would rather have assets under a harder cap than space. I would rather have Terrence Williams, Thabeet, Courtney Lee, Dragic, and Jordan Hill, rather than 34 million in space (which after the new CBA could be worth 20 million).

I would not want Miller's contract. Or even Scola's for that matter. But we are in a similar situation that is for sure.We have assets AND the space. Roy>Thabeet...P George v C Lee is a tossup, but George has the higher ceiling IMHO...T Will hasn't done much thus far...I'd throw Hansbrough in there with Jordan Hamilton, with the nod going to Hamilton. All to say, we have all our draft picks, cap space, and a young nucleus/assets. I just don't want to see us mess it up with hasty decisions, just for the sake of appearing to do something. Keep climbing the mountain at a steady pace (unless a helicopter appears to get you there quicker).

aaronb
06-22-2011, 10:22 AM
I do not think we had the options that Portland, Memphis, or Atlanta had. They all had top 5 picks in the last 5-6 years.

This is the biggest problem I have with the Bird apologist crowd (not calling you that).

Why should Larry get credit for us NOT having a top 5 pick? Everyone with any sense at all, knew we weren't good enough to win over the last 5 years. Why on earth have we been shooting for mid 30's wins?

We could have dealt guys like Foster, Dunleavy, Ford etc. and gotten some picks and minor assets.

We could have bottomed out (like we should have) and started this rebuild process much earlier.

Some are trying to congratulate Bird for getting us to this zero point. However a GOOD front office would have gotten us to this point 2 or 3 years ago.

Since86
06-22-2011, 10:27 AM
Yeah, that's right. A good front office would constructed a team that won 20 games, instead of a poor front office that constructed a team that won 37.

That makes zero sense.

Kid Minneapolis
06-22-2011, 10:28 AM
This is the biggest problem I have with the Bird apologist crowd (not calling you that).

Why should Larry get credit for us NOT having a top 5 pick? Everyone with any sense at all, knew we weren't good enough to win over the last 5 years. Why on earth have we been shooting for mid 30's wins?

We could have dealt guys like Foster, Dunleavy, Ford etc. and gotten some picks and minor assets.

We could have bottomed out (like we should have) and started this rebuild process much earlier.

Some are trying to congratulate Bird for getting us to this zero point. However a GOOD front office would have gotten us to this point 2 or 3 years ago.

Hilarious. Let's tank. Let's get top-5 picks for Foster, Dunleavy, Ford.... this is assinine!

Major Cold
06-22-2011, 10:32 AM
That's not reality. There's many avenues a GM could go down in any number of situations. He could've pulled an Isiah and continued to drive us deeper into debt and poor contracts and bad talent. He could be David Kahn. He could run the Pacers like the Clippers have been run.

"big picture".


Okay if Thomas, Kahn, and Dumars made by choices with their money...that would make them bad Gms.

If the Heat (The THREE), Spurs (Veteran helpers like Dyess), Celtics (The three), Grizzlies (Conley and Randolph), and Thunder (Perkins) made exceptional choices with their money...their GMs are great.

Bird has done neither. He is average...with the potential to do great. HE HAS NOT YET DONE IT.

aaronb
06-22-2011, 10:33 AM
Yeah, that's right. A good front office would constructed a team that won 20 games, instead of a poor front office that constructed a team that won 37.

That makes zero sense.



What team is in better shape? An OKC who realized they weren't good. Dealt the vets on the roster. And now has Durant, Westbrook, Harden, Ibaka, Perkins, Maynor, etc

Or us? Who built around mid late 1st rounders and have nobody in the top 40 of NBA players?


I'd say OKC did a better job with their "3-6 year plan".

Major Cold
06-22-2011, 10:33 AM
I am not in favor of tanking. We cannot afford the fan base to tank. Would you guys renew your season tickets or even upgrade if your team tanked? My dad would not.

aaronb
06-22-2011, 10:35 AM
Hilarious. Let's tank. Let's get top-5 picks for Foster, Dunleavy, Ford.... this is assinine!


That's not what I said. I said we shouldn't have held onto vets.

Denver reportedly offered a 1st rounder for Foster

Charlotte offered assets for TJ Ford

Dunleavy had value once upon a time.


Bird didn't hold onto assets because he's a svengali of patience. He held on to them because he hoped he could cobble together a playoff team of dreck.

Congrats! He eventually did!!!

Since86
06-22-2011, 10:36 AM
Okay if Thomas, Kahn, and Dumars made by choices with their money...that would make them bad Gms.

If the Heat (The THREE), Spurs (Veteran helpers like Dyess), Celtics (The three), Grizzlies (Conley and Randolph), and Thunder (Perkins) made exceptional choices with their money...their GMs are great.

Bird has done neither. He is average...with the potential to do great. HE HAS NOT YET DONE IT.

And yet no one is singing Larry's praises. Instead we're defending him from the extremists in the other direction....

I don't think giving Larry credit for doing exactly what he said he was going to do is saying he's a top tier GM. It's merely giving him credit for doing what he said he was going to do, and nothing more.

aaronb
06-22-2011, 10:37 AM
I am not in favor of tanking. We cannot afford the fan base to tank. Would you guys renew your season tickets or even upgrade if your team tanked? My dad would not.


People in Memphis and OKC are angry that those teams bottomed out. They played that playoff series in front of empty stadiums.

Since86
06-22-2011, 10:39 AM
What team is in better shape? An OKC who realized they weren't good. Dealt the vets on the roster. And now has Durant, Westbrook, Harden, Ibaka, Perkins, Maynor, etc

Or us? Who built around mid late 1st rounders and have nobody in the top 40 of NBA players?


I'd say OKC did a better job with their "3-6 year plan".

And the only reason they got Durant was because Portland took Oden. If Portland takes Durant instead, history is changed forever.

That's called LUCK. But it's something that you routinely overlook to push your wild, over-the-top stance on the Devil that is Larry Bird.

Major Cold
06-22-2011, 10:39 AM
People in Memphis and OKC are angry that those teams bottomed out. They played that playoff series in front of empty stadiums.


Both teams recently moved to their cities. Please see Atlanta as prove.

Intentional tanking gives you very little certainty. We simply cannot afford to do so. If we tank...we have the Seattle Pacers.

Since86
06-22-2011, 10:41 AM
That's not what I said. I said we shouldn't have held onto vets.

Denver reportedly offered a 1st rounder for Foster

Charlotte offered assets for TJ Ford

Dunleavy had value once upon a time.


Bird didn't hold onto assets because he's a svengali of patience. He held on to them because he hoped he could cobble together a playoff team of dreck.

Congrats! He eventually did!!!

Yay, making trades just to make trades!!!

What a winning solution. :unimpressed:

Major Cold
06-22-2011, 10:41 AM
And yet no one is singing Larry's praises. Instead we're defending him from the extremists in the other direction....

I don't think giving Larry credit for doing exactly what he said he was going to do is saying he's a top tier GM. It's merely giving him credit for doing what he said he was going to do, and nothing more.


I do not think Bird is the devil. I do not think he is the savior to Pacer basketball. He can right this ship. I think he is on path. But I will not say he is there. And the new CBA maybe his demise.

aaronb
06-22-2011, 10:44 AM
Yay, making trades just to make trades!!!

What a winning solution. :unimpressed:


What? That makes absolutely no sense at all? If you can trade a guy with no Pacers future for any kind of asset. You do it.

What purpose did keeping those guys serve?

Kid Minneapolis
06-22-2011, 10:45 AM
Okay if Thomas, Kahn, and Dumars made by choices with their money...that would make them bad Gms.

If the Heat (The THREE), Spurs (Veteran helpers like Dyess), Celtics (The three), Grizzlies (Conley and Randolph), and Thunder (Perkins) made exceptional choices with their money...their GMs are great.

Bird has done neither. He is average...with the potential to do great. HE HAS NOT YET DONE IT.



The Heat drafted Dwyane Wade at #5 a year after they were one of the worst teams in the league. The obtained Pat Riley. They have one of the most attractive free agent markets in the league. They won a championship just a few years ago.

The Spurs have won multiple championships, have been a perennial playoff contender for over a decade, have the best coach in the league, a spat of Hall of Famers --- of course they can make great decisions now. It took them years to put themselves in that position!

The Grizzlies made some nice moves, what do you want me to say? The Pacers sucked because the Grizzlies made some nice moves? Teams are allowed to make nice moves. The Grizzlies could suck in 2 years and then what would you say?

The Thunder RELOCATED. They were AWFUL, and drafted extremely high and obtained two of the better players in the league.

What in the nine hells do these teams have to do with the Pacers, and how are they even close to being in the same situation?

BillS
06-22-2011, 10:46 AM
What team is in better shape? An OKC who realized they weren't good. Dealt the vets on the roster. And now has Durant, Westbrook, Harden, Ibaka, Perkins, Maynor, etc

Or us? Who built around mid late 1st rounders and have nobody in the top 40 of NBA players?


I'd say OKC did a better job with their "3-6 year plan".

A <b><i>SEATTLE</i></b> who lost into the low lottery and moved to OKC. I don't particularly want to follow a plan that builds a contending team for Las Vegas.

This thread is going to once again turn into the unresolvable discussion between the "everyone is OK with losing if it means you get a top draft pick" vs. "losing doesn't guarantee anything in the future so you have to do everything you can to win with what you have". You know what side I'm on.

aaronb
06-22-2011, 10:46 AM
Both teams recently moved to their cities. Please see Atlanta as prove.

Intentional tanking gives you very little certainty. We simply cannot afford to do so. If we tank...we have the Seattle Pacers.


Atlanta bottomed out and improved their situation as well. Horford, Josh Smith, Joe Johnson, Marvin Williams, Jeff Teague.

Thats a young team with some really good players.

Kid Minneapolis
06-22-2011, 10:50 AM
That's not what I said. I said we shouldn't have held onto vets.

Denver reportedly offered a 1st rounder for Foster

Charlotte offered assets for TJ Ford

Dunleavy had value once upon a time.


Bird didn't hold onto assets because he's a svengali of patience. He held on to them because he hoped he could cobble together a playoff team of dreck.

Congrats! He eventually did!!!

You remind me of one of those guys who stands around knowing it all about politics and yet has no desire to get up and do something about it. If you have this figured out so well --- go interview for the job and fix this thing. Let me know how it goes when half of this forum blows up in your face at your ineptitude. Because no matter how well you do, there's always going to be haters.

BillS
06-22-2011, 10:50 AM
Atlanta bottomed out and improved their situation as well. Horford, Josh Smith, Joe Johnson, Marvin Williams, Jeff Teague.

Thats a young team with some really good players.

Yep. Took 'em 8 years to do it. Not a year or two of stinking and suddenly getting a great draft pick.

And, believe me, you don't want 8 years of Atlanta's attendance. That kind of thing causes ownership changes to dysfunctional ownership groups.

Kid Minneapolis
06-22-2011, 10:51 AM
Atlanta bottomed out and improved their situation as well. Horford, Josh Smith, Joe Johnson, Marvin Williams, Jeff Teague.

Thats a young team with some really good players.

So you're getting around calling it "tanking" by rephrasing it to "bottoming out". Okay.

aaronb
06-22-2011, 10:52 AM
You remind me of one of those guys who stands around knowing it all about politics and yet has no desire to get up and do something about it. If you have this figured out so well --- go interview for the job and fix this thing. Let me know how it goes when half of this forum blows up in your face at your ineptitude. Because no matter how well you do, there's always going to be haters.


I'm no hater. I'm just not a fanboy apologist.

When Bird actually accomplishes something other than standing pat, I'll give him his due.

I'm not going to congratulate dude for sitting on his *** and collecting a check.

Major Cold
06-22-2011, 10:52 AM
The Heat drafted Dwyane Wade at #5 a year after they were one of the worst teams in the league. The obtained Pat Riley. They have one of the most attractive free agent markets in the league. They won a championship just a few years ago.

The Spurs have won multiple championships, have been a perennial playoff contender for over a decade, have the best coach in the league, a spat of Hall of Famers --- of course they can make great decisions now. It took them years to put themselves in that position!

The Grizzlies made some nice moves, what do you want me to say? The Pacers sucked because the Grizzlies made some nice moves? Teams are allowed to make nice moves. The Grizzlies could suck in 2 years and then what would you say?

The Thunder RELOCATED. They were AWFUL, and drafted extremely high and obtained two of the better players in the league.

What in the nine hells do these teams have to do with the Pacers, and how are they even close to being in the same situation?


You are right it is not the same situation. We sat on JO till his value hit a low that it would never rebound from. We signed and drafted players that never understood team like the Mavs do. We never had the same situation because of past mistakes.

The deals that we make are not home run deals. That is all. Maybe the DC deal. But everyone wants to crown Bird as the savior of PAcerdom, but we are no better record wise than when he started. And we have youth, but we do not have certainity that the cap relief will be that worth while under the new CBA.

Why is everyone making it so black and white. Larry Bird is a shade of gray that could be white in the ying yang of GMs. BUT HE IS NOT THERE YET.

Major Cold
06-22-2011, 10:55 AM
I think Bird's grade overall is an Incomplete until we see what we do with the cap space.

Kid Minneapolis
06-22-2011, 10:56 AM
Who is saying he's "there" yet, dude? All we're saying is that since he took over, he's taken a team that was in massive disarray and refilled our talent, got us out of our financial hole, and put us back in the playoffs. You absolutely cannot dispute those facts. He put together a 3-year plan to do exactly that, and he met the goals. He never said he was going to win a championship in 3 years, he said he was going to get the ship back up above water.

We're not calling him the greatest thing ever. We're just saying that he's not done too bad in his short tenure as president of basketball operations and he should be able to further prove that he can take this franchise further.

aaronb
06-22-2011, 10:57 AM
Yep. Took 'em 8 years to do it. Not a year or two of stinking and suddenly getting a great draft pick.

And, believe me, you don't want 8 years of Atlanta's attendance. That kind of thing causes ownership changes to dysfunctional ownership groups.


Pacers have been bad for 6 years now. Weren't we last in attendance over the last 3 years?

Since86
06-22-2011, 10:58 AM
What? That makes absolutely no sense at all? If you can trade a guy with no Pacers future for any kind of asset. You do it.

What purpose did keeping those guys serve?

Because you actually get pieces in return. You don't trade Ford and get the cap space, you have to take something back.

Trade Ford to Charolette and get what back exactly? If the pieces they're offering for Ford isn't what you want, then you pass on the deal, like Larry did.

Saying that Larry failed as GM because he didn't trade Ford when the Bobcats made an offer is dumb.

Major Cold
06-22-2011, 10:59 AM
And to say that we are in a better situation than before is highly subjective to the new CBA. That is all I am saying.

If we lose value on this cap space, then we should have shipped out contracts to have players. But if the hard cap hampers our space, we could just stay at the same spot.

We could even get that coveted top 5 pick.

colts19
06-22-2011, 10:59 AM
This is the biggest problem I have with the Bird apologist crowd (not calling you that).

Why should Larry get credit for us NOT having a top 5 pick? Everyone with any sense at all, knew we weren't good enough to win over the last 5 years. Why on earth have we been shooting for mid 30's wins?

We could have dealt guys like Foster, Dunleavy, Ford etc. and gotten some picks and minor assets.

We could have bottomed out (like we should have) and started this rebuild process much earlier.

Some are trying to congratulate Bird for getting us to this zero point. However a GOOD front office would have gotten us to this point 2 or 3 years ago.


You play to win the game. Old School, its simple if your Old School. This is not rocket science. You Play To Win The Game.

Kid Minneapolis
06-22-2011, 10:59 AM
I'm no hater. I'm just not a fanboy apologist.

When Bird actually accomplishes something other than standing pat, I'll give him his due.

I'm not going to congratulate dude for sitting on his *** and collecting a check.

Ahhh fanboy apologist. Good ol' internet slang. It's a lame day-and-age that we live in when nobody can approve of someone without being called a fanboy apologist. I guess the only cool thing to do anymore is disapprove of everything. That makes me "real".

aaronb
06-22-2011, 11:00 AM
You play to win the game. Old School, its simple if your Old School. This is not rocket science. You Play To Win The Game.


You play the game that gives you the best chance at success. NBA CBA makes it such that being mediocre just perpetuates mediocrity.

I didn't design those rules. However I'd play according to them if it meant improving my franchise's lot.

Major Cold
06-22-2011, 11:01 AM
Wasn't the deal:

Rush, Ford for Nazr (=Foster at best), Henderson (=Rush), and Augustine (<dc)
< Collison)
And the Denver deal was:
Foster for Kleiza (=the next Nocioni)

To me not worth it.</dc)

vnzla81
06-22-2011, 11:01 AM
Yep. Took 'em 8 years to do it. Not a year or two of stinking and suddenly getting a great draft pick.

And, believe me, you don't want 8 years of Atlanta's attendance. That kind of thing causes ownership changes to dysfunctional ownership groups.

We are like two years away to match that record ;)

Since86
06-22-2011, 11:03 AM
Pacers have been bad for 6 years now. Weren't we last in attendance over the last 3 years?

You're right. Think about how bad attendance would be if the team performed anyworse.

Being last in attendance, and still winning 35+ games, doesn't help your argument to lose even more. It actually HURTS your argument.

aaronb
06-22-2011, 11:03 AM
Because you actually get pieces in return. You don't trade Ford and get the cap space, you have to take something back.

Trade Ford to Charolette and get what back exactly? If the pieces they're offering for Ford isn't what you want, then you pass on the deal, like Larry did.

Saying that Larry failed as GM because he didn't trade Ford when the Bobcats made an offer is dumb.


The trade was reportedly Ford and Rush for Augustin and Henderson

Denver offered a 1st (ended up being Ty Lawson) for Foster


A better GM would have closed those deals. Along with the Mayo trade.

Kid Minneapolis
06-22-2011, 11:03 AM
And to say that we are in a better situation than before is highly subjective to the new CBA. That is all I am saying.

If we lose value on this cap space, then we should have shipped out contracts to have players. But if the hard cap hampers our space, we could just stay at the same spot.

We could even get that coveted top 5 pick.

Improvement is improvement, man, lol... how that is subjective is subjective. I'd rather be in the situation we're in now than the one we were in 3 years ago. No matter what happens in the CBA, the position we're in is not a bad one at all.

colts19
06-22-2011, 11:04 AM
That's not what I said. I said we shouldn't have held onto vets.

Denver reportedly offered a 1st rounder for Foster

Charlotte offered assets for TJ Ford

Dunleavy had value once upon a time.


Bird didn't hold onto assets because he's a svengali of patience. He held on to them because he hoped he could cobble together a playoff team of dreck.

Congrats! He eventually did!!!

What year did denver offer a 1st round pic and who did that pick turn into. Would you trade Foster for that player. There are a lot of 1st round picks in the last few years that I would trade Foster for.

Kid Minneapolis
06-22-2011, 11:04 AM
The trade was reportedly Ford and Rush for Augustin and Henderson

Denver offered a 1st (ended up being Ty Lawson) for Foster


A better GM would have closed those deals. Along with the Mayo trade.

Like I said, Bird would love for you to take over.

Since86
06-22-2011, 11:04 AM
And to say that we are in a better situation than before is highly subjective to the new CBA. That is all I am saying.

If we lose value on this cap space, then we should have shipped out contracts to have players. But if the hard cap hampers our space, we could just stay at the same spot.

We could even get that coveted top 5 pick.

You have to play within the rules that are in place. No one knows how the CBA is going to turn out today, which means no one could have predicted how it is going to turn out 3 years ago.

Complaining about the team direction, that started 3 years ago, because of how the CBA MIGHT change is a stretch.

aaronb
06-22-2011, 11:04 AM
You're right. Think about how bad attendance would be if the team performed anyworse.

Being last in attendance, and still winning 35+ games, doesn't help your argument to lose even more. It actually HURTS your argument.



How?

What is going to bring people back to the fieldhouse? Another 37 win team, or a 50+ win team and a deep playoff run?

Why prolong the rebuild? Bottom out, get high end pieces.

Since86
06-22-2011, 11:08 AM
The trade was reportedly Ford and Rush for Augustin and Henderson

You do realize that salaries have to match?? Nazr Mohammed was part of the deal as well. The Pacers would have taken on the same amout of salary (or close to it) over a longer period of time, and gotten less talent.

I say less talent because if Augustine comes over, then you don't trade for Darren Collison.

Kid Minneapolis
06-22-2011, 11:09 AM
How?

What is going to bring people back to the fieldhouse? Another 37 win team, or a 50+ win team and a deep playoff run?

Why prolong the rebuild? Bottom out, get high end pieces.

I think what will bring people back is a good, hard-earned 12-win season. Maybe a couple in a row, so we can grab a couple of really good draft picks. And then Las Vegas would have a nice young team of future superstars to look forward to years of championship runs!

Lol, you're not going to gain much traction with the tanking theory, we've all been there and done that argument.

Since86
06-22-2011, 11:09 AM
How?

What is going to bring people back to the fieldhouse? Another 37 win team, or a 50+ win team and a deep playoff run?

Why prolong the rebuild? Bottom out, get high end pieces.

Let me make it a little more simple.

More losing=less fans.

The Pacers were last in the league while winning 37 games. Do you think that number would go up, or down, if they lost more?

My bet is that the attendance would actually drop further, setting up a scenario for the Pacers to move.

Which BillS has already pointed out. Multiple times over multiple discussions, and yet you bring up this freaking point EVERY FREAKING TIME.

The Sleeze
06-22-2011, 11:10 AM
I've got the solution to all of this:

GM Bot!
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR8PaIz3OEkKpOiWdHsZPZDIG8r9oTz0 eofKv-59iYks4wic6fB&t=1

He makes all perfect trades and closes every deal. All of his drafts are spectacular. Guaranteed to win you a championship in one season or less!

aaronb
06-22-2011, 11:15 AM
Let me make it a little more simple.

More losing=less fans.

The Pacers were last in the league while winning 37 games. Do you think that number would go up, or down, if they lost more?

My bet is that the attendance would actually drop further, setting up a scenario for the Pacers to move.

Which BillS has already pointed out. Multiple times over multiple discussions, and yet you bring up this freaking point EVERY FREAKING TIME.


My plan wasn't to bottom out and stay bad from now to eternity.

The plan is to get bad. Have access to some star level players. THEN BECOME GOOD AND BECOME COMPETITIVE!!!!!!!

It ain't rocket surgery. It's the same path that EVERY other team has taken to change their fortunes.

Tom White
06-22-2011, 11:16 AM
Why should Larry get credit for us NOT having a top 5 pick? Everyone with any sense at all, knew we weren't good enough to win over the last 5 years. Why on earth have we been shooting for mid 30's wins?

We could have dealt guys like Foster, Dunleavy, Ford etc. and gotten some picks and minor assets.

We could have bottomed out (like we should have) and started this rebuild process much earlier.

Some are trying to congratulate Bird for getting us to this zero point. However a GOOD front office would have gotten us to this point 2 or 3 years ago.

Ah, now I get it. You're unhappy that the Pacers did not lose even MORE games than the team did.

OK, you get voted the one to talk to the players before the game and tell them "OK guys, let's go out and lose one today!".

:hmm:

Larry Staverman
06-22-2011, 11:16 AM
The trade was reportedly Ford and Rush for Augustin and Henderson

Denver offered a 1st (ended up being Ty Lawson) for Foster


A better GM would have closed those deals. Along with the Mayo trade.

I guess its like when your mom says why didn't you marry that super model.
She is hot, she is rich and everyone admires her.

You say but mom I'm ugly, fat and broke and the sight of me repulses her and she threatened to call the cops if I got near her.

Then your mom says if you were a real man you would have closed the deal.

Kid Minneapolis
06-22-2011, 11:16 AM
This is hilarious... "Selective Sucking: The New Plan For Success - by aaronb". Final chapter --- "Okay, turn off suck mode and collect championship rings." When is the book signing?

aaronb
06-22-2011, 11:17 AM
You do realize that salaries have to match?? Nazr Mohammed was part of the deal as well. The Pacers would have taken on the same amout of salary (or close to it) over a longer period of time, and gotten less talent.

I say less talent because if Augustine comes over, then you don't trade for Darren Collison.


Why don't you? No reason those 2 guys couldn't compete for the job?

Even if none of those guys worked out, its still the type of moves you make. The more picks and young assets you have. The greater chance that some of them pan out.

vnzla81
06-22-2011, 11:19 AM
Let me make it a little more simple.

More losing=less fans.

The Pacers were last in the league while winning 37 games. Do you think that number would go up, or down, if they lost more?

My bet is that the attendance would actually drop further, setting up a scenario for the Pacers to move.

Which BillS has already pointed out. Multiple times over multiple discussions, and yet you bring up this freaking point EVERY FREAKING TIME.

Worse attendance than now? Like what? Maybe 1000 less? I'm sorry but I don't see this amazing drop in attendance, we didn't tank and the team was still last.

DieHard
06-22-2011, 11:20 AM
The trade was reportedly Ford and Rush for Augustin and Henderson

Denver offered a 1st (ended up being Ty Lawson) for Foster


A better GM would have closed those deals. Along with the Mayo trade.

So Denver offered us Minni's pick?

imawhat
06-22-2011, 11:21 AM
YES I'M SHOUTING. Did that get your attention?

Not one person has commented on the bold text in Peck's post, which is the biggest news of this thread. It sounds like there's a possibility of something big happening soon. Larry thinks enough to say our change could happen within one year.

Tom White
06-22-2011, 11:22 AM
That's not what I said. I said we shouldn't have held onto vets.

Denver reportedly offered a 1st rounder for Foster

Key word = "reportedly"


Charlotte offered assets for TJ Ford

Then the 'Cats backed out of the deal, just like they have done to other teams.


Dunleavy had value once upon a time.

Then he got injured a couple times. Obviously Bird's fault.

mb221
06-22-2011, 11:25 AM
My plan wasn't to bottom out and stay bad from now to eternity.

The plan is to get bad. Have access to some star level players. THEN BECOME GOOD AND BECOME COMPETITIVE!!!!!!!

It ain't rocket surgery. It's the same path that EVERY other team has taken to change their fortunes.

So you "bottom out", get lucky and hit the #1 pick in the lottery, and bam this physical specimen of a big man named Greg Oden is available. But wait, there is a pretty sensational scorer named Kevin Durant also available. Well, big guys dont grow on trees and you can always get another scorer.. gotta go with Oden. So you just tanked an entire season to draft a guy that could possibly not even make any impact on your franchise. Not worth it. Tanking does not guarantee success.

Since86
06-22-2011, 11:31 AM
Worse attendance than now? Like what? Maybe 1000 less? I'm sorry but I don't see this amazing drop in attendance, we didn't tank and the team was still last.

A 1000 less fans, when the average ticket price is $30 a peice, means that the Pacers lose $30,000 dollars a night. Times that by 42 games a year and you've lost an additional 1.26 MILLION dollars, just in ticket revenue. That's not even thinking about concession stand sells/memorabilia.

But yeah, it would only be 1,000 less people a night. Just a drop in the bucket.....

imawhat
06-22-2011, 11:35 AM
I really wish people would do some research around the league before making solid opinions on Bird's job. It's sorely needed for some.

Ozwalt72
06-22-2011, 11:39 AM
YES I'M SHOUTING. Did that get your attention?

Not one person has commented on the bold text in Peck's post, which is the biggest news of this thread. It sounds like there's a possibility of something big happening soon. Larry thinks enough to say our change could happen within one year.

That's an odd interpretation. Try reading it WITHOUT the bold.

"We've got to take a step forward; we can't stay the same," team president Bird said. "Thirty-seven (wins) ain't enough. These next two, three years, we can't spend all (the available money) unless something great happens, but these next two, three years, this thing ought to be at a level where we want it. It all depends on the development of the young guys. If they get better, we add pieces through free agency and have good drafts, it might not take two or three years, it might take one."

He's not saying something big may happen. He's saying that if the players progress, they draft well tomorrow, and make some key FA signings that we could be contenders in a year.

Edit: And for the majority of this thread, I don't see this as evidence of a "new" three year plan. I see it as Bird is saying he expects us to be a contender WITHIN the next 2-3 years with a chance sooner.

vnzla81
06-22-2011, 11:50 AM
A 1000 less fans, when the average ticket price is $30 a peice, means that the Pacers lose $30,000 dollars a night. Times that by 42 games a year and you've lost an additional 1.26 MILLION dollars, just in ticket revenue. That's not even thinking about concession stand sells/memorabilia.

But yeah, it would only be 1,000 less people a night. Just a drop in the bucket.....

So that 1 mil extra a year is keeping this team for leaving to Seatle? :bs:

imawhat
06-22-2011, 11:53 AM
I guess I don't see any combination of player development, players available at 15 in this draft and available free agents that could leap us into contention in one year. I think it has to be something more.

The key thing is Larry saying "unless something great happens" he won't spend all of the money, which implies that something must "happen", rather than a regular free agent signing.

Then he mentions having good "drafts", which I think should be looked at with a wider lens. It's possible that having a good draft involves making significant moves, much like we did in the 2008 draft.

Since86
06-22-2011, 11:53 AM
They're alreay losing 15mil per year. How much do you think the Simons will lose before they say enough is enough?

20 million per year? 25 million? 30 million?

It's pretty easy to sit back and say the Simons should eat a 1.26million shortfall, on top of another 15million, when it's not your money.

vnzla81
06-22-2011, 11:58 AM
They're alreay losing 15mil per year. How much do you think the Simons will lose before they say enough is enough?

20 million per year? 25 million? 30 million?

It's pretty easy to sit back and say the Simons should eat a 1.26million shortfall, on top of another 15million, when it's not your money.

So they are losing 15mil without tanking but someway somehow the team is staying because they are not losing 20mil? I'm sorry man but I don't buy it, winning 30+ games a year haven't kept the Pacers here, the city of Indy and their money is the one keeping them here.

BillS
06-22-2011, 12:05 PM
Pacers have been bad for 6 years now. Weren't we last in attendance over the last 3 years?

We're now at the level it took the Hawks 8 years to reach (that would be where the Hawks were 2 years ago, this year is 10 years after they went "boom") - and, aside from an exciting almost-upset in the first round and finally making it to the second round (where they won exactly one more game against the Bulls than the Pacers did), where are the Hawks in this championship contention you're expecting from Bird in 2 more years?

I think anyone being fair also has to cut some slack due to this little economic problem we've gone through recently, and perhaps also factor in the type of implosion that alienated fans more than simply losing normally would have. All points people argue/ignore/advocate depending on their positions, but all very different from Atlanta's situation.

vapacersfan
06-22-2011, 12:05 PM
My plan wasn't to bottom out and stay bad from now to eternity.

The plan is to get bad. Have access to some star level players. THEN BECOME GOOD AND BECOME COMPETITIVE!!!!!!!

It ain't rocket surgery. It's the same path that EVERY other team has taken to change their fortunes.

So basically tank and then pray you get the #1 pick, and that the pick works out immidiatly.

If it was that easy everyone would do it.

Also, if the Pacers tanked and sucked the next year, I guarentee you they would consider moving, 3 years of single digit - 20 wins and I bet they are gone.

But hey, if your plan is so foolproof you should write a book....I bet every NBA GM would die to hear of this theory that no one else has ever came up with

Since86
06-22-2011, 12:09 PM
So they are losing 15mil without tanking but someway somehow the team is staying because they are not losing 20mil? I'm sorry man but I don't buy it, winning 30+ games a year haven't kept the Pacers here, the city of Indy and their money is the one keeping them here.

With that logic, they will stay if they're using 100 million per year.

The line HAS to be drawn somewhere.

EDIT: The money direction has to change. They can't keep losing money year after year, and then start losing even more at a faster pace.

Eventually you either run out of money, or you run out of patience.

We can't expect the Simons to continue to lose 15+million dollars a year with other cities waving a hand in their face and saying "Come here and you will MAKE money."

The only thing that is keeping the Simons in Indy is loyalty, and nothing more.

BillS
06-22-2011, 12:13 PM
With that logic, they will stay if they're using 100 million per year.

The line HAS to be drawn somewhere.

One might think that the line isn't just absed on losing money, it is based on losing money AND the attitude of the city toward the team.

You might be willing to lose money on a team that the fans are excited about.

You might not be willing to continue losing money on a team that is a joke. Not just mid-level (mediocre, if some people insist), but a real bottom feeder for multiple years.

aaronb
06-22-2011, 12:19 PM
One might think that the line isn't just absed on losing money, it is based on losing money AND the attitude of the city toward the team.

You might be willing to lose money on a team that the fans are excited about.

You might not be willing to continue losing money on a team that is a joke. Not just mid-level (mediocre, if some people insist), but a real bottom feeder for multiple years.


If done correctly it wouldn't have taken that long. Look at OKC and Memphis as prime examples.

OKC/Seattle Made playoffs in 2004-2005 season, then returned to playoffs 2009-2010 season.

Memphis made playoffs 2005-2006 season, and returned 2010-2011

Pacers made playoffs 2005-2006 season returned this 2010-2011




Both of those teams bottomed out, and now have high level players on those rosters. The turnaround those places were really no longer than the purgatory we've been in.

will567
06-22-2011, 12:23 PM
The Pacers have to do what the Colts did and get the basketball version of Peyton Manning. The Colts were bad until then and the Colts had high draft picks to do it. The city needs a team they can rally around and players that bring excitement. This group we have now is average at best and people know it. People will not come back until we do that. The Pacers have made a big mistake in not starting this process earlier and need to start ASAP. Winning 35 games is not working and losing 10 more games a year will not matter if people have hope things will get better. Now people have no hope and that is what is killing the pacers!

Since86
06-22-2011, 12:28 PM
If done correctly it wouldn't have taken that long. Look at OKC and Memphis as prime examples.

Imagine that. In less than 2 hours you've went back to forgetting that the only reason OKC turned it around was because Portland had the top pick and took Oden instead.

vnzla81
06-22-2011, 12:30 PM
With that logic, they will stay if they're using 100 million per year.

The line HAS to be drawn somewhere.

EDIT: The money direction has to change. They can't keep losing money year after year, and then start losing even more at a faster pace.

Eventually you either run out of money, or you run out of patience.

We can't expect the Simons to continue to lose 15+million dollars a year with other cities waving a hand in their face and saying "Come here and you will MAKE money."

The only thing that is keeping the Simons in Indy is loyalty, and nothing more.

Don't get me wrong I don't want the Pacers to tank now, I think is too late to do that after having so many years of misery, my point is that instead of letting the clown coach a bunch of old guys, they should have done what other teams do and rebuild with high picks, we had a chance to get EJ at one time but the "clown" winning mode at the end of the season destroyed that.

aaronb
06-22-2011, 12:30 PM
Imagine that. In less than 2 hours you've went back to forgetting that the only reason OKC turned it around was because Portland had the top pick and took Oden instead.


Did you watch them in the playoffs? Harden, Westbrook and Ibaka are pretty nice players. Kendrick Perkins is pretty good too.

travmil
06-22-2011, 12:30 PM
You act like every draft has a Kevin Durant in it. So, if a world changer like KD is NOT available during the two or three years you tank (or bottom out as you seem to prefer) you did it for nothing and then get to watch another city enjoy your team. Good plan.

imawhat
06-22-2011, 12:32 PM
Don't take the bait!

travmil
06-22-2011, 12:34 PM
Did you watch them in the playoffs? Harden, Westbrook and Ibaka are pretty nice players. Kendrick Perkins is pretty good too.

You're right. They're pretty good, even without Durant. But they're 8th seed lose in the first round good. Kind of like another team I know.

vnzla81
06-22-2011, 12:36 PM
One might think that the line isn't just absed on losing money, it is based on losing money AND the attitude of the city toward the team.

You might be willing to lose money on a team that the fans are excited about.

You might not be willing to continue losing money on a team that is a joke. Not just mid-level (mediocre, if some people insist), but a real bottom feeder for multiple years.

So we haven't been a joke all this time? Man I wonder what team I was watching :confused:

troyc11a
06-22-2011, 12:36 PM
The Pacers have to do what the Colts did and get the basketball version of Peyton Manning. The Colts were bad until then and the Colts had high draft picks to do it. The city needs a team they can rally around and players that bring excitement. This group we have now is average at best and people know it. People will not come back until we do that. The Pacers have made a big mistake in not starting this process earlier and need to start ASAP. Winning 35 games is not working and losing 10 more games a year will not matter if people have hope things will get better. Now people have no hope and that is what is killing the pacers!

How soon you forget. The Colts were one pass away from the Super Bowl 3 years before Manning and went to the playoffs the next year. How often do real superstars come around anymore? People who are wanting the Pacers to tank should go to another forum and root for another team.

vnzla81
06-22-2011, 12:38 PM
Imagine that. In less than 2 hours you've went back to forgetting that the only reason OKC turned it around was because Portland had the top pick and took Oden instead.

Take Durant out of the picture and they still have two players that are better than anybody on the Pacers.

Edit: Westbrook and Harden were supposed to be later picks and OKC did their due diligence and scouted the guys and made the right picks.

The Sleeze
06-22-2011, 12:39 PM
How soon you forget. The Colts were one obvious foot out of bounds before the catch no-call from the Super Bowl 3 years before Manning and went to the playoffs the next year. How often do real superstars come around anymore? People who are wanting the Pacers to tank should go to another forum and root for another team.

Fixed

That still pisses me off :mad:

righteouscool
06-22-2011, 12:45 PM
Take Durant out of the picture and they still have two players that are better than anybody on the Pacers.

Edit: Westbrook and Harden were supposed to be later picks and OKC did their due diligence and scouted the guys and made the right picks.

i know you have some weird hatred for danny, but harden isn't better. westbrook is, but he killed his team in the playoffs.

Since86
06-22-2011, 12:46 PM
Take Durant out of the picture and they still have two players that are better than anybody on the Pacers.

Edit: Westbrook and Harden were supposed to be later picks and OKC did their due diligence and scouted the guys and made the right picks.

So James Harden is better than Danny? There's no point in even continuing the discussion if it's going to be this absurd.

vnzla81
06-22-2011, 12:49 PM
So James Harden is better than Danny? There's no point in even continuing the discussion if it's going to be this absurd.

I don't think he is right now but I think he will.

graphic-er
06-22-2011, 12:50 PM
I think you all are forgetting that when we made the JOB hire, TPTB believed that just alittle tweaking was needed, a different kind of offense.. we played the playoffs the year before in Rick's last season. Then JOB happened. JOB really did ruin this franchise in his tenure here. I mean its just so sad.

Since86
06-22-2011, 12:57 PM
I don't think he is right now but I think he will.

If we're going to base player evaluations on what we think will happen then I see you're James Harden and I raise you Paul George.

Anyways..... take KD off of the Thunder and OKC is in exactly the same position that the Pacers are in. A nice little squad with complimentary pieces and no super-star.

And let's not forget that Seattle had to complete gut their team, move to OKC, and then win 20 games afterwards.

Trading an up-and-coming Rashard Lewis and Ray Allen for picks/young talent is still a hell of a lot easier to do than trading away the albatross contracts of Troy Murphy, Mike Dunleavy, TJ Ford, Jamaal Tinsley, Jermaine O'Neal, Stephen Jackson and the bat-**** crazy Ron Artest.

What OKC did was the EXCEPTION, not the rule.

Slick Pinkham
06-22-2011, 12:58 PM
My big concern is the fact that Bird and others keep saying Lance is the best player.

With the Celtics as a player, Bird said on many oocasions that Dennis Johnson was the best player he ever played with. Was he? Was he better than McHale or Parrish? No way.

For some reason, Bird felt that D.J. needed to hear that, though. Maybe it served to motivate him somehow, I don't know. It certainly wasn't a true statement.

What Bird is saying about Lance isn't true either, but maybe the untruth has some purpose behind it.

aaronb
06-22-2011, 01:02 PM
Anyways..... take KD off of the Thunder and OKC is in exactly the same position that the Pacers are in. A nice little squad with complimentary pieces and no super-star.


Even if they got the 3rd,4th or 5th pick that year. Horford, Noah or Conley would have still improved that lot.

It wasn't just dumb luck. They had an excellent plan, and executed it properly.

vnzla81
06-22-2011, 01:04 PM
[/QUOTE]What OKC did was the EXCEPTION, not the rule.[/QUOTE]

I disagree with that, teams like Chicago,Clippers,Blazers,Memphis, OKC and now Cleveland are making it the rule.

The Sleeze
06-22-2011, 01:14 PM
It seems to me what's done is done. There is no turning back the clock and we are where we are. I think pretty much everyone is in agreeance that we shouldn't tank this year, so all of this arguing seems to be a moot point.

Ownagedood
06-22-2011, 01:16 PM
I understand this plan.. Its not so much a we will be a solid team in three years like our usual plan.. But its a we will be contender plan.. Its so hard to be a contender in the NBA now, you almost have to have at least one superstar. Teams are stacked now, multiple teams with multiple superstars and it will likely only get worse if there isn't a big cap rule put in place.

I'd be quite pleased to be a contender again, let alone within the next three years. Indiana just isn't a popular market to bring in a big time name.

Pacer Fan
06-22-2011, 01:17 PM
WoW! :eek:

Since86
06-22-2011, 01:18 PM
Even if they got the 3rd,4th or 5th pick that year. Horford, Noah or Conley would have still improved that lot.

It wasn't just dumb luck. They had an excellent plan, and executed it properly.

They did have the 5th pick, and they took Jeff Green. Or they could have ended up with Yi Jianlian, Corey Brewer, or Spencer Hawes. All 3 were taken in the top 10.

And yeah, they take Conley and then pass on Westbrook. That really makes them a better team. :rolleyes:

aaronb
06-22-2011, 01:21 PM
They did have the 5th pick, and they took Jeff Green. Or they could have ended up with Yi Jianlian, Corey Brewer, or Spencer Hawes. All 3 were taken in the top 10.

And yeah, they take Conley and then pass on Westbrook. That really makes them a better team. :rolleyes:


Then they would have drafted Kevin Love or Eric Gordon.


You just have so many better options when you are picking through the elite.

The Sleeze
06-22-2011, 01:22 PM
Alright, there is only one way to settle this:

http://msande277.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/rockem-sockem-robots-game.jpg

Since86 on one side, aaronb on the other, lets do this!

Since86
06-22-2011, 01:25 PM
I disagree with that, teams like Chicago,Clippers,Blazers,Memphis, OKC and now Cleveland are making it the rule.

The Clippers have had the most #1 draft picks in the history of the NBA and you've got new found hope that they've righted the ship? I fondly remember Brand, Miles, QRich, and Odom trotting up and down the floor and people exclaiming that the Clips were going to be good. That turned out great for them...

Blazers? They just pretty much lost their star player in Brandon Roy, and the only reason they have Aldridge is because Chicago traded him for Tyrus Thomas and a poo-poo platter. Which brings me to the next team....

Chicago could have very easily taken Michael Beasley and then history is changed. Or they could have held on to Aldridge and never have been in that position to draft him.

And memphis didn't even build through the draft. Mayo was a bench player, Henry didn't play, Zbo was brought in, Gasol was traded for. Thabeet was traded away. Battier was a trade. Mike Conley is your evidence?

We've already discussed OKC, so we're left with Cleveland.

Really? Cleveland????? :hmm:

EDIT: And not only that there are multiple teams that are on the opposite side of the spectrum like the Bobcats. Did you know that they've had a lottery pick 6 out of their 7 years they've been a franchise?

With all those lottery picks they should have a dynasty ready any day now.

will567
06-22-2011, 01:29 PM
How soon you forget. The Colts were one pass away from the Super Bowl 3 years before Manning and went to the playoffs the next year. How often do real superstars come around anymore? People who are wanting the Pacers to tank should go to another forum and root for another team.

How soon you forget. Before that they where a bad team with a high draft pick to pick a star running back in Faulk. My point was that we need a fondation to build on and we do not have a soild one now. Even if you do not get a superstar you need talent and assets to make trades and we do not have that now. I also am not saying we tank but rebuild. Tanking you do during the season on purpose and what I am saying is we rebuild.

Since86
06-22-2011, 01:31 PM
Then they would have drafted Kevin Love or Eric Gordon.


You just have so many better options when you are picking through the elite.

Or Galinari. Or Joe Alexander.

We can come up with thousands upon thousands of "what if's." You're missing the point. The point is that even lottery picks are risky and that just because you have a top 10 pick doesn't mean you're going to get a superstar, or even a bench player.

There's still TONS of risk.

Obviously you didn't read the article I've already linked.

http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/292/what-gms-dont-know-about-the-nba-draft

aaronb
06-22-2011, 01:33 PM
Or Galinari. Or Joe Alexander.

We can come up with thousands upon thousands of "what if's." You're missing the point. The point is that even lottery picks are risky and that just because you have a top 10 pick doesn't mean you're going to get a superstar, or even a bench player.

There's still TONS of risk.

Obviously you didn't read the article I've already linked.

http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/292/what-gms-dont-know-about-the-nba-draft


That's the difference between a good front office and a bad front office. A good front office picks the winners. A bad one picks losers or in our case, doesn't even play the game.

BillS
06-22-2011, 01:34 PM
Memphis made playoffs 2005-2006 season, and returned 2010-2011

So which of Memphis' moves that were facilitated by a high draft pick due to sucking was the one that got them back into the playoffs? A 2009 #2 pick who went to the D-league? A 2008 #5 pick traded to the T-Wolves for a group of players probably all together worse than the original pick and only one of whom is still on the team? A 2007 #4 pick who has been somewhat less than superstar level?

You can make the argument that Memphis made moves early that got them back in the playoffs, but arguing that tanking facilitated it because of the value of their draft picks is stretching it. Only Love could have made a major difference and I think they wasted him - Mayo in no way makes up for him, nor is Battier really what you would have chosen to use a #2 pick on.

With all of that, they had to have 3 CONSECUTIVE TOP 5 PICKS to just get back to a point of being knocked out of the first round. Yeah, that's a successful tanking strategy.


So we haven't been a joke all this time? Man I wonder what team I was watching :confused:

Having been a joke initially due to character and not due to losing, wouldn't you think that would be a good reason not to be a joke on purpose? Or are we in the argument that Indiana would have been just fine with players who partied/shot up the place all night and fought in the locker room because neither of those have any effect on how they play basketball together?

aaronb
06-22-2011, 01:37 PM
The Clippers have had the most #1 draft picks in the history of the NBA and you've got new found hope that they've righted the ship? I fondly remember Brand, Miles, QRich, and Odom trotting up and down the floor and people exclaiming that the Clips were going to be good. That turned out great for them...

Blazers? They just pretty much lost their star player in Brandon Roy, and the only reason they have Aldridge is because Chicago traded him for Tyrus Thomas and a poo-poo platter. Which brings me to the next team....

Chicago could have very easily taken Michael Beasley and then history is changed. Or they could have held on to Aldridge and never have been in that position to draft him.

And memphis didn't even build through the draft. Mayo was a bench player, Henry didn't play, Zbo was brought in, Gasol was traded for. Thabeet was traded away. Battier was a trade. Mike Conley is your evidence?

We've already discussed OKC, so we're left with Cleveland.

Really? Cleveland????? :hmm:

EDIT: And not only that there are multiple teams that are on the opposite side of the spectrum like the Bobcats. Did you know that they've had a lottery pick 6 out of their 7 years they've been a franchise?

With all those lottery picks they should have a dynasty ready any day now.



Conley, Gay, Mayo, Sam Young, Vasquez were all rotation guys for the Grizz. It takes more than just draft picks though. They were built by smart moves. They missed on several guys also. They could arguably be better than they are now.

aaronb
06-22-2011, 01:41 PM
So which of Memphis' moves that were facilitated by a high draft pick due to sucking was the one that got them back into the playoffs? A 2009 #2 pick who went to the D-league? A 2008 #5 pick traded to the T-Wolves for a group of players probably all together worse than the original pick and only one of whom is still on the team? A 2007 #4 pick who has been somewhat less than superstar level?

You can make the argument that Memphis made moves early that got them back in the playoffs, but arguing that tanking facilitated it because of the value of their draft picks is stretching it. Only Love could have made a major difference and I think they wasted him - Mayo in no way makes up for him, nor is Battier really what you would have chosen to use a #2 pick on.



Remember how everyone piled on them for trading Pau Gasol? That was them basically deciding to tank. In that trade they got

Marc Gasol
Javaris Crittendon (who they traded to Washington for a 1st rounder)
2 other 1st round picks
Kwame Brown (expiring contract)

They then got high picks to take

Mike Conley
OJ Mayo

Then they used the Cap Space created by trading Gasol and got Zach Randolph for empty cap space.


As I said, its more than just empty drafting. It's about putting the franchise in a position to bring in difference makers.

Hicks
06-22-2011, 01:43 PM
Morway told me years ago now that they knew the other choice was to (not his words) 'tank', but they (presumably he, Larry, and Herb) felt that this market just wouldn't/couldn't support that, so the only alternative that made sense was what they've just done: Collect mid-round picks, shed or wait on expiring salary, conservative moves, and try to make that work into a bottom seed playoff team to help season your young core.

So no matter how much you want to stomp your feet or bang your head against the wall or cry or scream or type furiously about it, tanking was never considered an option for Indiana due to the nature of its fanbase (especially said fanbase coming off the heals of the brawl, Ron demanding a trade, and the negative news stories around guys like Tinsley and Stephen Jackson). To them there was only ever one sensible choice, whether you like it or hate it, and the only reasonable thing to do is acknowledge it.

I don't think it's gone as well as it could, but it hasn't been terrible from that point of view. I really don't. That's by no means an apology, that's simple telling it how I see it.

As for expiring contracts, I keep reading this sentiment that Larry "sat and did nothing."

If by "sat and did nothing" you mean he only traded one, and the others expired, I agree, though I find the terminology very poor.

But if by "sat and did nothing" you mean he didn't even want to trade the others, and furthermore did not try to trade one or more of them (besides Troy Murphy), that is factually incorrect and should cease as a discussion point as it is a complete falsehood.

We know he tried to trade Tinsley and TJ Ford. I recall vaguely something about Dunleavy coming up in talks at least once the past couple of years, and I thought talks about him were at least activate right before he broke his thumb this winter.

I think potentially all of them could have been traded, but it just didn't work out. Sometimes a deal was reached, only to have a team pull out at the last second. At least once (with Tinsley) we had a deal worked out, only the other team got an even better offer at the last second by a third team and that trade happened instead (Orlando took Rafer Alston from Houston, IIRC, for less than they were about to give us for Jamaal).

I refuse to get into another argument over how that's allegedly egg on Bird's face for not "sealing the deal" because I have nothing to say other than you don't make a bad trade just to make a trade, so I applaud him for not becoming a weakling and offering too much just to get something done.

Hicks
06-22-2011, 01:46 PM
This is hilarious... "Selective Sucking: The New Plan For Success - by aaronb". Final chapter --- "Okay, turn off suck mode and collect championship rings." When is the book signing?

Now, let's rise above this and be fair and reasonable: He's not saying that. He's saying when your run is over, recognize it, tank (get cheap, get picks, let that cause you to slide into the 20's), draft high for a few years to give yourself the best shot at premium talent (with admittedly no promises), then if you catch a big fish, you start actively spending to help supplement your primary talent base and hopefully as the talent develops and grows, your moves keep improving the rest of the roster, and you hope the end result is good enough to topple whichever teams have the Kobe/LeBron/Shaq/Duncan of the era.

He's not crazy for suggesting that strategy. I don't think a single poster here refuses to admit it could fail, either.

Hicks
06-22-2011, 01:48 PM
YES I'M SHOUTING. Did that get your attention?

Not one person has commented on the bold text in Peck's post, which is the biggest news of this thread. It sounds like there's a possibility of something big happening soon. Larry thinks enough to say our change could happen within one year.

You could read it that way, as obviously you have. I just took it to be more of a general comment about how once you get to this point, things can happen quickly (though they very well may not, either).

BillS
06-22-2011, 01:48 PM
Remember how everyone piled on them for trading Pau Gasol? That was them basically deciding to tank. In that trade they got

Marc Gasol
Javaris Crittendon (who they traded to Washington for a 1st rounder)
2 other 1st round picks
Kwame Brown (expiring contract)

They then got high picks to take

Mike Conley
OJ Mayo

Then they used the Cap Space created by trading Gasol and got Zach Randolph for empty cap space.


As I said, its more than just empty drafting. It's about putting the franchise in a position to bring in difference makers.

They took Kevin Love and <i>traded</i> for OJ Mayo.

All these stellar moves got them to the first round, but is the team as constructed REALLY somehow a WCF or NBA Finals contender? Who on the current roster is the bait they use to get a superstar - they were going to trade Mayo for McRoberts, for crying out loud.

You said it yourself, they parlayed their tanking into a bunch of rotation players. This is a far cry from getting a superstar and only needing to be in the top of the lottery for a year or two.

We managed to get our rotation players without tanking. We have tons of cap space if getting a difference maker comes outside the draft (or are you saying Memphis is now in a position to tank for 2-3 more years to get that difference maker?). It took 2 years longer for various reasons, which many of us don't apply solely to Bird's supposed incompetence, but we got there with a different path.

aaronb
06-22-2011, 01:48 PM
So no matter how much you want to stomp your feet or bang your head against the wall or cry or scream or type furiously about it, tanking was never considered an option for Indiana due to the nature of its fanbase (especially said fanbase coming off the heals of the brawl, Ron demanding a trade, and the negative news stories around guys like Tinsley and Stephen Jackson). To them there was only ever one sensible choice, whether you like it or hate it.

I

The argument isn't "What direction did the team decide to take"? The argument is "What was the correct way to turn around the franchise"?


Just because Morway, Bird and Simon decided they didn't want to rebuild, doesn't mean rebuilding wasn't the correct move?

Since86
06-22-2011, 01:50 PM
Remember how everyone piled on them for trading Pau Gasol? That was them basically deciding to tank. In that trade they got

Yeah, they decided to tank when they realized that a team built around Pau Gasol wasn't going to work. You know Pau, the guy who was taken as the 3rd overall pick.....

So basically they tried building on a high lottery pick and failed and then started the process over.

And once again, this is your example of a successful rebuild?

aaronb
06-22-2011, 01:50 PM
They took Kevin Love and <i>traded</i> for OJ Mayo.

All these stellar moves got them to the first round, but is the team as constructed REALLY somehow a WCF or NBA Finals contender? Who on the current roster is the bait they use to get a superstar - they were going to trade Mayo for McRoberts, for crying out loud.



They made it to game 7 of the 2nd round. They have 2 guys better than anyone on our roster. They have 4 guys better than anyone other than Granger.

That's a 3rd or 4th seed in the Eastern Conference. So yes.... I do think they are in better shape than us.

aaronb
06-22-2011, 01:51 PM
Yeah, they decided to tank when they realized that a team built around Pau Gasol wasn't going to work. You know Pau, the guy who was taken as the 3rd overall pick.....

So basically they tried building on a high lottery pick and failed and then started the process over.

And once again, this is your example of a successful rebuild?



Which brings it back around to "Is a team built around Danny Granger good enough to win anything?"

Hicks
06-22-2011, 01:53 PM
A 1000 less fans, when the average ticket price is $30 a peice, means that the Pacers lose $30,000 dollars a night. Times that by 42 games a year and you've lost an additional 1.26 MILLION dollars, just in ticket revenue. That's not even thinking about concession stand sells/memorabilia.

But yeah, it would only be 1,000 less people a night. Just a drop in the bucket.....

And even that's not half of it. What seems to be getting forgotten too easily by all is how bad the "good will" towards this franchise was in 2006/2007. The JO/Artest team was never loved like the Reggie/Jackson teams were, but then you had the brawl, EDIT: And Reggie Miller retired, Ron's trade demand, the other players getting in trouble with the law repeatedly, all combined with now a losing team, and it got U-G-L-Y with regards to the team and this larger community. Very, very ugly.

So much so, that I think that they combined the current state of events with the long-term outlook of how fairweather this population is with regards to the NBA, and they felt (quite legitimately, as far as I'm concerned) that tanking would just be a horrible idea to pile on top of the already God-awful mentality most people had towards this franchise at the time.

They very understandably felt that it was better to try to remain entertaining and pseudo-competitive during these lean years to ride out the bad contracts and to give the community something positive (if even barely) on the floor to go along with the effort to remove all of the "problem children" that had turned so many people off.

But yet so many just forget all of that and want to cry tank, tank, tank.

Since86
06-22-2011, 01:54 PM
They made it to game 7 of the 2nd round. They have 2 guys better than anyone on our roster. They have 4 guys better than anyone other than Granger.

That's a 3rd or 4th seed in the Eastern Conference. So yes.... I do think they are in better shape than us.

No they didn't. They got swept all 3 years they made it to the playoffs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Memphis_Grizzlies_seasons

aaronb
06-22-2011, 01:55 PM
Now, let's rise above this and be fair and reasonable: He's not saying that. He's saying when your run is over, recognize it, tank (get cheap, get picks, let that cause you to slide into the 20's), draft high for a few years to give yourself the best shot at premium talent (with admittedly no promises), then if you catch a big fish, you start actively spending to help supplement your primary talent base and hopefully as the talent develops and grows, your moves keep improving the rest of the roster, and you hope the end result is good enough to topple whichever teams have the Kobe/LeBron/Shaq/Duncan of the era.

He's not crazy for suggesting that strategy. I don't think a single poster here refuses to admit it could fail, either.


Thanks Hicks, you summed up my opinion exactly!

Since86
06-22-2011, 01:55 PM
Which brings it back around to "Is a team built around Danny Granger good enough to win anything?"

No it doesn't, because no one is saying that it is good enough.

aaronb
06-22-2011, 01:56 PM
No they didn't. They got swept all 3 years they made it to the playoffs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Memphis_Grizzlies_seasons



What? No they played to game 7 with OKC in round 2 THIS year.

aaronb
06-22-2011, 01:57 PM
No it doesn't, because no one is saying that it is good enough.



That is exactly what we've built!!!!!!! Where is the superstar coming from? Are we getting him at 15 this year?

Hicks
06-22-2011, 01:57 PM
I guess I don't see any combination of player development, players available at 15 in this draft and available free agents that could leap us into contention in one year. I think it has to be something more.

The key thing is Larry saying "unless something great happens" he won't spend all of the money, which implies that something must "happen", rather than a regular free agent signing.

Then he mentions having good "drafts", which I think should be looked at with a wider lens. It's possible that having a good draft involves making significant moves, much like we did in the 2008 draft.

:shrug: Maybe. It'd certainly make for a fun draft night if we do. 2008 was a blast in that respect.

Well, assuming I like the moves in question. ;)

Since86
06-22-2011, 01:58 PM
I assume one of your 4 guys is OJ Mayo? If he's so freaking good then why in the hell did Memphis want to trade him for Josh McRoberts?

Since86
06-22-2011, 01:59 PM
That is exactly what we've built!!!!!!! Where is the superstar coming from? Are we getting him at 15 this year?

I guess I missed the new rule that says you can't sign FA or make trades.

EDIT: I guess I shouldn't have expected you to value cap space.

BillS
06-22-2011, 01:59 PM
Now, let's rise above this and be fair and reasonable: He's not saying that. He's saying when your run is over, recognize it, tank (get cheap, get picks, let that cause you to slide into the 20's), draft high for a few years to give yourself the best shot at premium talent (with admittedly no promises), then if you catch a big fish, you start actively spending to help supplement your primary talent base and hopefully as the talent develops and grows, your moves keep improving the rest of the roster, and you hope the end result is good enough to topple whichever teams have the Kobe/LeBron/Shaq/Duncan of the era.

He's not crazy for suggesting that strategy. I don't think a single poster here refuses to admit it could fail, either.

Sure, it's a strategy. I happen to think it is the strategy with the least possibility of success, not one that Bird and the FO should be lambasted for failing to follow.

It's like working a normal job and deciding to be successful you want to be a millionaire. You could work your way into slightly higher paying jobs and invest your extra pay each time into savings or investments, or you can work a low-paying job with lots of free time and spend all your spare money and time at the casino trying to win a jackpot at the roulette table. You certainly could fail doing the first one, and you might succeed doing the second one, but your odds are so much greater with the first course of action that the second should only be an option if you somehow find yourself in that position anyway.

Trader Joe
06-22-2011, 02:00 PM
I wonder what teams like the Raptors, Clippers, Kings, Knicks, Bucks, Bobcats etc. would say about this "bottom out" and then magically become competitive plan.

Hicks
06-22-2011, 02:02 PM
If done correctly it wouldn't have taken that long. Look at OKC and Memphis as prime examples.

OKC/Seattle Made playoffs in 2004-2005 season, then returned to playoffs 2009-2010 season.

Memphis made playoffs 2005-2006 season, and returned 2010-2011

Pacers made playoffs 2005-2006 season returned this 2010-2011




Both of those teams bottomed out, and now have high level players on those rosters. The turnaround those places were really no longer than the purgatory we've been in.

First of all, do you acknowledge how fortunate Seattle was to get Durant and not Greg Oden?

Secondly, to go along with that, do you acknowledge how badly a similar scenario turned out for Portland, who DID get Oden?

Thirdly, how do you think Memphis acquired its best players? By tanking and drafting them all in the upper lottery? Gasol? No. Randolph? No. Gay? No. Their highest pick was Mayo, at best their 4th best player.

aaronb
06-22-2011, 02:02 PM
I guess I missed the new rule that says you can't sign FA or make trades.


Here is why bottoming out would have been important. What Superstar free agent is going to come to Indy? Better yet, what superstar player will take LESS money to come here?

The only way an Indy, Cleveland, Detroit, Utah is getting a star is by drafting them.

When you don't bottom out, you take that opportunity off the table. And by doing it, Bird and Co. basically installed a glass ceiling over this current Pacers incarnation.

Since86
06-22-2011, 02:02 PM
I wonder what teams liek the Raptors, Clippers, etc. would say about this "bottom out" and then magically become competitive plan.

You must have missed it buried in the 7 pages, but I'll enlighten you.

The Clippers are now considered a success story.:eek:

Trader Joe
06-22-2011, 02:03 PM
You must have missed it buried in the 7 pages, but I'll enlighten you.

The Clippers are now considered a success story.:eek:

I skipped pages 4-6 :shrug:

Since86
06-22-2011, 02:04 PM
Here is why bottoming out would have been important. What Superstar free agent is going to come to Indy? Better yet, what superstar player will take LESS money to come here?

The only way an Indy, Cleveland, Detroit, Utah is getting a star is by drafting them.

When you don't bottom out, you take that opportunity off the table. And by doing it, Bird and Co. basically installed a glass ceiling over this current Pacers incarnation.

What superstar is going to re-sign with the Pacers then? They're only going to have a superstar for their first 3 years in the league if Indy is such a bad place to play/live.

But you're only addressing half of what I said. You missed the word "trade."

Hicks
06-22-2011, 02:04 PM
You act like every draft has a Kevin Durant in it. So, if a world changer like KD is NOT available during the two or three years you tank (or bottom out as you seem to prefer) you did it for nothing and then get to watch another city enjoy your team. Good plan.

Exactly. For every draft where the #2 pick can get you Durant, there's at least one other draft where the #2 pick gets you Derrick Williams.

Trader Joe
06-22-2011, 02:05 PM
Also, the Timberwolves.

aaronb
06-22-2011, 02:06 PM
First of all, do you acknowledge how fortunate Seattle was to get Durant and not Greg Oden?

Secondly, to go along with that, do you acknowledge how badly a similar scenario turned out for Portland, who DID get Oden?

Thirdly, how do you think Memphis acquired its best players? By tanking and drafting them all in the upper lottery? Gasol? No. Randolph? No. Gay? No. Their highest pick was Mayo, at best their 4th best player.


Gay was a lotto pick they got in a trade for Battier (another lotto pick of theirs)
Randolph was a special case of a character issue (similar to how we got Artest cheaply). Gasol came in a trade for Pau Gasol who was the #3 pick in his draft.


It's not fool proof obviously. It's just that the examples of teams rebuilding through high picks are WAY more plentiful than success stories of people rebuilding with picks 13-25. Especially teams in markets like INDY.

Hicks
06-22-2011, 02:07 PM
So we haven't been a joke all this time? Man I wonder what team I was watching :confused:

In the broader picture, a joke is the Los Angeles Clippers.

A team which, by the way, has had a TON of high lottery picks over the years. It's easy to point to Blake Griffin, but let's not talk about Michael Olowakandi, or the fact that more often than not they're not even close to making the playoffs, let along contending for a title.

I realize there's more to it than that, but I won't admit it until you guys do the same with Indiana's situation.

The Sleeze
06-22-2011, 02:07 PM
Alright, I see Rock'em Sock'em didn't work. What about this:

http://www.greenpointtoys.com/images/hungry%20hungry%20hippo.jpg

Since86 on one side, aaronb on the other, let's do this again!

These game jokes doing anything for you?

Since86
06-22-2011, 02:08 PM
Also, the Timberwolves.

Or the Washington Wizards, who had 4 lottery picks in the 2000's and ended up with Jared Jeffries, Jarvis Hayes, Devin Harris, and Kwame Brown to show for it.

aaronb
06-22-2011, 02:08 PM
What superstar is going to re-sign with the Pacers then? They're only going to have a superstar for their first 3 years in the league if Indy is such a bad place to play/live.

But you're only addressing half of what I said. You missed the word "trade."


Who are we going to trade for a superstar? Brandon Rush? Solomon Jones?

Hicks
06-22-2011, 02:08 PM
Conley, Gay, Mayo, Sam Young, Vasquez were all rotation guys for the Grizz. It takes more than just draft picks though. They were built by smart moves. They missed on several guys also. They could arguably be better than they are now.

Forgot about Conley.

However, until this season, so did most everyone else because he hadn't been living up to expectations.

aaronb
06-22-2011, 02:08 PM
Alright, I see Rock'em Sock'em didn't work. What about this:

http://www.greenpointtoys.com/images/hungry%20hungry%20hippo.jpg

Since86 on one side, aaronb on the other, let's do this again!

These game jokes doing anything for you?



I like em! We have a WAR card game gif?

Kid Minneapolis
06-22-2011, 02:09 PM
The argument isn't "What direction did the team decide to take"? The argument is "What was the correct way to turn around the franchise"?


Just because Morway, Bird and Simon decided they didn't want to rebuild, doesn't mean rebuilding wasn't the correct move?

Okay, here's the question I always ask the "tank supporters": Do you really believe those teams "tank" on purpose as a part of their "rebuild design", or maybe, just maybe, they suck in earnest during the natural course of just having a bad stretch and the high pick ends up being theirs?

Is it an assumption that a team going through a bad year is doing it on purpose as part of "their plans for rebuilding"?

That's sort of the way you make it sound. That the Spurs sucked on purpose to land Tim Duncan. That the Bulls weren't even that bad (mediocre) and luckily landed the 1st pick as part of their design for rebuilding.

I personally don't buy it. I honestly don't believe that "tanking" happens by design. I think it's the natural order of things that if you have winning franchises --- someone has to lose. It's the design of the league to bring parity and force change and avoid stagnancy. I think it has more to do with that "design" than teams specifically "tanking" to rebuild themselves.

Are there examples of a team maybe helping themselves down the stretch of a bad season by not giving forth 100% effort? I'm sure you could point to some examples. But it is highly hard to believe that they set out *before* the season started with the "plan" that they were going to win 1 game and then lose the next 8, and repeat that cycle all year long, for the specific purpose of having a system design of rebuilding themselves by positioning themselves for a high pick.

And let's not forget that having the worst record by no means guarantees you get the highest picks. Ask Chicago how they got Derrick Rose. Ask Minnesota how their worst record worked out for them this year.

And therefore, the entire "tank" theory isn't an actual *practiced*, valid redesign plan. That's just my honest opinion.

Since86
06-22-2011, 02:10 PM
Who are we going to trade for a superstar? Brandon Rush? Solomon Jones?

10+ million dollars in cap space is a pretty big bargaining chip.

But I forgot, letting those contracts fall off and not trading them was a mistake too.....

aaronb
06-22-2011, 02:11 PM
Forgot about Conley.

However, until this season, so did most everyone else because he hadn't been living up to expectations.



It's obviously not fool proof. Wallace and Heisley have made MANY mistakes. (Curry would be great on that team).

However they knew they didn't have enough to be competitive until last year. So they didn't try to falsely inflate where they were.

Once the foundation was laid. Then they started adding the Battier and Tony Allen types of vets.

We skipped the foundation part of our rebuild.

Hicks
06-22-2011, 02:11 PM
With the Celtics as a player, Bird said on many oocasions that Dennis Johnson was the best player he ever played with. Was he? Was he better than McHale or Parrish? No way.

For some reason, Bird felt that D.J. needed to hear that, though. Maybe it served to motivate him somehow, I don't know. It certainly wasn't a true statement.

What Bird is saying about Lance isn't true either, but maybe the untruth has some purpose behind it.

That would make sense if it weren't for the (I believe) fact that Lance has an enormous ego with regards to his basketball ability.

The Sleeze
06-22-2011, 02:12 PM
I like em! We have a WAR card game gif?

http://a5.mzstatic.com/us/r1000/005/Purple/55/27/17/mzl.gkqjmnlg.320x480-75.jpg

aaronb
06-22-2011, 02:12 PM
10+ million dollars in cap space is a pretty big bargaining chip.

But I forgot, letting those contracts fall off and not trading them was a mistake too.....



If there wasn't trades to make, then letting them expire is a good move. You can do plenty with cap space. It's just likely going to be a distressed asset.

Since86
06-22-2011, 02:13 PM
We skipped the foundation part of our rebuild.

Danny, DC, Roy, Tyler Hansborough, PG??

Yeah, they all are just garbage.

Since86
06-22-2011, 02:14 PM
If there wasn't trades to make, then letting them expire is a good move. You can do plenty with cap space. It's just likely going to be a distressed asset.

Except you think that DJ Augustine+Nazr Mohammed+Gerald Henderson for TJ Ford and Brandon Rush is a trade that should have happened.....

:puke:

aaronb
06-22-2011, 02:14 PM
Danny, DC, Roy, Tyler Hansborough, PG??

Yeah, they all are just garbage.



Not saying that. All of them are role players of some value. Who leads that group though? Danny is probably the 3rd option on a contender. Rest of those guys are fringe starters on good teams.

Hicks
06-22-2011, 02:16 PM
What OKC did was the EXCEPTION, not the rule.[/QUOTE]

I disagree with that, teams like Chicago,Clippers,Blazers,Memphis, OKC and now Cleveland are making it the rule.[/QUOTE]

Wooooah, there. Chicago? The team with the NINTH highest chance of winning the lottery after already rebuilding previously and had just fallen out of the playoffs?

Clippers = Too soon to be sure. Call me when they've won even more games than we did this season with that group.

Cleveland = Wayyyyyyyy too soon, and in a draft where the #1 pick is the equivalent to most years' #4 pick

Blazers = Have you watched them lately? Oden was a disaster, Andre's getting old, Camby is getting older than that, Roy is a shell of his former self, and you're left with one Danny-level power forward in Aldridge along with a few nice players. I thought this thread was over complaints about how to be a title contender?

Memphis = Looking good this post season, for sure, but let's not forget how unexpected it was and again, let's see them repeat it or build on it before we declare anything special about them.

OKC, already addressed.

aaronb
06-22-2011, 02:17 PM
Except you think that DJ Augustine+Nazr Mohammed+Gerald Henderson for TJ Ford and Brandon Rush is a trade that should have happened.....

:puke:


Yes! I do think we should have made that trade.

I think we should have dealt Foster to Denver as well.

Hicks
06-22-2011, 02:17 PM
Alright, there is only one way to settle this:

http://msande277.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/rockem-sockem-robots-game.jpg

Since86 on one side, aaronb on the other, lets do this!

Hugh Jackman will star in the film adaptation!

Since86
06-22-2011, 02:17 PM
Not saying that. All of them are role players of some value. Who leads that group though? Danny is probably the 3rd option on a contender. Rest of those guys are fringe starters on good teams.

Dallas just won with Jason Terry as their second option, and you're going to try and say that Danny is only good enough to be a third?

Since86
06-22-2011, 02:19 PM
Yes! I do think we should have made that trade.

I think we should have dealt Foster to Denver as well.

For another PG in Lawson....

You must like PGs more than Kahn.

aaronb
06-22-2011, 02:19 PM
Dallas just won with Jason Terry as their second option, and you're going to try and say that Danny is only good enough to be a third?


Jason Kidd, Tyson Chandler, and injured Caron Butler are all top 50-60ish NBA players.

Hicks
06-22-2011, 02:20 PM
Thabeet was traded away.

Oh, boy! How could I forget about that disaster of a pick!

"Alright! We got the 2nd pick in the draft; awesome!"

*Selects Thabeet*

*Two years later* "............................" *gun shot to the head*

The Sleeze
06-22-2011, 02:21 PM
Hugh Jackman will star in the film adaptation!

I know, that movie looks horrible. it couldn't possibly be as bad as Viva Laughlin - I think it lasted like 3 episodes(and yes, all the episodes were musicals with the actual songs being played behind them).

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/AqmS7c1xii8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

vnzla81
06-22-2011, 02:24 PM
Dallas just won with Jason Terry as their second option, and you're going to try and say that Danny is only good enough to be a third?

JT is a good player in fact he is a better closer than Danny, let's not act like he is some kind of scrub, "the matrix", Jkidd and Chandler are not that bad either.

Hicks
06-22-2011, 02:27 PM
They took Kevin Love and <i>traded</i> for OJ Mayo.

All these stellar moves got them to the first round, but is the team as constructed REALLY somehow a WCF or NBA Finals contender? Who on the current roster is the bait they use to get a superstar - they were going to trade Mayo for McRoberts, for crying out loud.

You said it yourself, they parlayed their tanking into a bunch of rotation players. This is a far cry from getting a superstar and only needing to be in the top of the lottery for a year or two.

We managed to get our rotation players without tanking. We have tons of cap space if getting a difference maker comes outside the draft (or are you saying Memphis is now in a position to tank for 2-3 more years to get that difference maker?). It took 2 years longer for various reasons, which many of us don't apply solely to Bird's supposed incompetence, but we got there with a different path.

And if we're being completely honest, despite Randolph's brilliance this post-season and the play of this teammates, we're likely not even having this discussion if they weren't fortunate enough to match up with the 2011 Spurs.

aaronb
06-22-2011, 02:28 PM
Oh, boy! How could I forget about that disaster of a pick!

"Alright! We got the 2nd pick in the draft; awesome!"

*Selects Thabeet*

*Two years later* "............................" *gun shot to the head*



Terrible pick, no arguing. Funny thing is local radio was all abuzz in trying to talk Memphis outta the Thabeet pick. Thabeet was ownership over ruling the basketball guys. Wallace wanted Curry. Tony Barone wanted Harden. Local sentiment was Rubio and Tyreke Evans. There was a ton of good players there for the taking.



Even with high picks you have to choose correctly. Just more talent to choose from at 2 than at 15.

Hicks
06-22-2011, 02:28 PM
The argument isn't "What direction did the team decide to take"? The argument is "What was the correct way to turn around the franchise"?


Just because Morway, Bird and Simon decided they didn't want to rebuild, doesn't mean rebuilding wasn't the correct move?

This was 2006 Indiana, not 20XX other franchise. You can't ignore the circumstances they were facing with regards to the fanbase and their finances. You just can't. Tanking was never a serious option for them. They very justifiably believed doing so could have led to the END of the Indiana Pacers!

Hicks
06-22-2011, 02:29 PM
Which brings it back around to "Is a team built around Danny Granger good enough to win anything?"

It's not built around him. It's being built with him. There's a significant difference.

We didn't build our last best teams AROUND Reggie Miller, either.

vnzla81
06-22-2011, 02:33 PM
This was 2006 Indiana, not 20XX other franchise. You can't ignore the circumstances they were facing with regards to the fanbase and their finances. You just can't. Tanking was never a serious option for them. They very justifiably believed doing so could have led to the END of the Indiana Pacers!

How so? Like I said before we are still in the bottom in attendance, are the likes of Troy Murphy, TJ Ford, Mike Dunleavy and the rest of the scrubs keeping this team afloat? I don't think so.

aaronb
06-22-2011, 02:33 PM
It's not built around him. It's being built with him. There's a significant difference.

We didn't build our last best teams AROUND Reggie Miller, either.


Difference is that we had 2 legitimate stars in JO and Artest on those squads. Reggie Miller at that point was the 4th or 5th best player on the roster.

Hicks
06-22-2011, 02:36 PM
Who are we going to trade for a superstar? Brandon Rush? Solomon Jones?

Don't be stupid.




Solomon Jones is a free agent. ;)

ilive4sports
06-22-2011, 02:36 PM
It's not built around him. It's being built with him. There's a significant difference.

We didn't build our last best teams AROUND Reggie Miller, either.

If only people would understand this.

Since86
06-22-2011, 02:37 PM
Difference is that we had 2 legitimate stars in JO and Artest on those squads. Reggie Miller at that point was the 4th or 5th best player on the roster.

He's not talking about JO/Ron, he's talking about the 2000 Finals team.

aaronb
06-22-2011, 02:37 PM
This was 2006 Indiana, not 20XX other franchise. You can't ignore the circumstances they were facing with regards to the fanbase and their finances. You just can't. Tanking was never a serious option for them. They very justifiably believed doing so could have led to the END of the Indiana Pacers!


It just sounds like Management making excuses for their ineptitude. Would this franchise have just folded up? Would the city not have made the payments to keep them?

More likely is that not tanking just gave Bird and Morway a built in excuse.

"We can't get free agents to Indianapolis"

"We can't get stars picking in the middle of round 1"

"We couldn't bring this guy here because we couldn't afford it"

Hicks
06-22-2011, 02:38 PM
It's obviously not fool proof. Wallace and Heisley have made MANY mistakes. (Curry would be great on that team).

However they knew they didn't have enough to be competitive until last year. So they didn't try to falsely inflate where they were.

Once the foundation was laid. Then they started adding the Battier and Tony Allen types of vets.

We skipped the foundation part of our rebuild.

Do you think that group ever wins a title?

Since86
06-22-2011, 02:38 PM
How so? Like I said before we are still in the bottom in attendance, are the likes of Troy Murphy, TJ Ford, Mike Dunleavy and the rest of the scrubs keeping this team afloat? I don't think so.

So we've come full circle and now started back in about attendance.

I applaud your ability to go 4hrs before reverting back, instead of the 2hrs it took aaron.

Hicks
06-22-2011, 02:39 PM
Danny, DC, Roy, Tyler Hansborough, PG??

Yeah, they all are just garbage.

This is where the divide really is around here. Your opinion of the above players is a major factor in how well you think of Bird, I think.

ilive4sports
06-22-2011, 02:39 PM
Difference is that we had 2 legitimate stars in JO and Artest on those squads. Reggie Miller at that point was the 4th or 5th best player on the roster.

Its pretty clear that Hicks is talking about the Pacers that went to the finals.

aaronb
06-22-2011, 02:39 PM
He's not talking about JO/Ron, he's talking about the 2000 Finals team.


Smits
Mark Jackson
Jalen Rose (Best Player)
Chris Mullin
Dale Davis

Reggie was still the 2nd best guy at that point. He was a alpha dog and still a hell of a closer.



Walsh really did a hell of a job rebuilding on the fly with those guys.

Hicks
06-22-2011, 02:41 PM
Yes! I do think we should have made that trade.

I think we should have dealt Foster to Denver as well.

The Foster/DEN one always did bother me a bit. I think that would have been a good move.

Probably would have meant we never made the playoffs, though. Surely not having Jeff would have cost us at least one or two games this season... right?

Since86
06-22-2011, 02:41 PM
This is where the divide really is around here. Your opinion of the above players is a major factor in how well you think of Bird, I think.

I agree with you, but I don't understand why people have a problem with it.

They managed to make the playoffs, even with half a season under Jim, with that roster. That's evidence of them being pretty good team, if they could get a legit #1, and not the other way around.

But then again, I don't understand why we need to explain why the Pacers couldn't afford a couple of 20 win seasons either.

Hicks
06-22-2011, 02:42 PM
Jason Kidd, Tyson Chandler, and injured Caron Butler are all top 50-60ish NBA players.

Butler sure pushed them over the top in Miami....

And Chandler's a top 50 player? There must not be that many good players, then.

vnzla81
06-22-2011, 02:43 PM
I'm sorry but I don't think you can use the Reggie Miller team example, I think is obvious what kind of player Reggie was and Danny is just Danny, not even close.

aaronb
06-22-2011, 02:43 PM
Do you think that group ever wins a title?


To me, the definition of a contender is a top 8 NBA team. Top 4 in each conference. I think they absolutely fit that criteria.

Do I think they 100% win? No

Do I think they have a 10% chance? Yes

It's just a matter of getting lucky at the right time. I didn't peg Dallas as a title team 6 months ago either?

Hicks
06-22-2011, 02:44 PM
How so? Like I said before we are still in the bottom in attendance, are the likes of Troy Murphy, TJ Ford, Mike Dunleavy and the rest of the scrubs keeping this team afloat? I don't think so.

Hasn't this been explained many times over already?

"How so?" "HOW SO?"

:giveup:

Hicks
06-22-2011, 02:44 PM
Difference is that we had 2 legitimate stars in JO and Artest on those squads. Reggie Miller at that point was the 4th or 5th best player on the roster.

I'm talking about Reggie's heyday, not 2004.

Hicks
06-22-2011, 02:45 PM
It just sounds like Management making excuses for their ineptitude.

REALITY is not a ****ing excuse!

"Mom, I can't go out and play right now, there's a tornado!"

"Stop making excuses, sweety."

*child is blown away*

Trader Joe
06-22-2011, 02:46 PM
All around the mulberry bush, the monkey chased the weasel...

aaronb
06-22-2011, 02:47 PM
Butler sure pushed them over the top in Miami....

And Chandler's a top 50 player? There must not be that many good players, then.


What tier do you put Chandler in? I'd say he is quite comfortably in a higher tier than Hibbert for example.

Other than Howard and Camby, I'd say Chandler is the best defensive post guy in the NBA?

Hicks
06-22-2011, 02:47 PM
Smits
Mark Jackson
Jalen Rose (Best Player)
Chris Mullin
Dale Davis

Reggie was still the 2nd best guy at that point. He was a alpha dog and still a hell of a closer.



Walsh really did a hell of a job rebuilding on the fly with those guys.

But you're missing the point: That was a collection of good players, not a couple of stars with a bunch of Eddie Houses. None of them came close to a Kobe or LeBron or Durant.

Danny can be "one of those good players" for us. That's where we're heading.

Since86
06-22-2011, 02:47 PM
I'm sorry but I don't think you can use the Reggie Miller team example, I think is obvious what kind of player Reggie was and Danny is just Danny, not even close.

Yeah, Reggie was an 18pt/game scorer on 44.8fg% and 40.8 3pt% while Danny is a 20pt/game scorer on 42.5fg% and 38.6 3pt%.

But Reggie is good enough to be the second option on a Finals team, and Danny is only good enough to be a 3rd. :rolleyes:

Hicks
06-22-2011, 02:49 PM
What tier do you put Chandler in? I'd say he is quite comfortably in a higher tier than Hibbert for example.

Other than Howard and Camby, I'd say Chandler is the best defensive post guy in the NBA?

End of the season Roy, sure, but not November Roy.

Hicks
06-22-2011, 02:51 PM
Yeah, Reggie was an 18pt/game scorer on 44.8fg% and 40.8 3pt% while Danny is a 20pt/game scorer on 42.5fg% and 38.6 3pt%.

But Reggie is good enough to be the second option on a Finals team, and Danny is only good enough to be a 3rd. :rolleyes:

He's probably saying it because Reggie was known for being super-clutch (even though he very much was not every single time, as those of us who watched can recall), and Danny has been pegged as anti-clutch (even though he's had big buckets himself, as those of us who watched can recall).

aaronb
06-22-2011, 02:52 PM
Yeah, Reggie was an 18pt/game scorer on 44.8fg% and 40.8 3pt% while Danny is a 20pt/game scorer on 42.5fg% and 38.6 3pt%.

But Reggie is good enough to be the second option on a Finals team, and Danny is only good enough to be a 3rd. :rolleyes:


Reggie was a killer though. Nobody other than prime MJ who you'd rather have shooting down the stretch of a game.

I'm not saying you CAN'T win with Granger as your 2nd best player. Just saying he's best as a 3.

Granger, Jordan and Rodman/Horace Grant still wins titles in Chicago. Granger and Derrick Rose doesn't win a title in Chicago now.

vnzla81
06-22-2011, 02:52 PM
Yeah, Reggie was an 18pt/game scorer on 44.8fg% and 40.8 3pt% while Danny is a 20pt/game scorer on 42.5fg% and 38.6 3pt%.

But Reggie is good enough to be the second option on a Finals team, and Danny is only good enough to be a 3rd. :rolleyes:

Yep absurd argument :rolleyes:

Trader Joe
06-22-2011, 02:53 PM
Reggie was a killer though. Nobody other than prime MJ who you'd rather have shooting down the stretch of a game.

I'm not saying you CAN'T win with Granger as your best player. Just saying he's best as a 3.

Granger, Jordan and Rodman/Horace Grant still wins titles in Chicago. Granger and Derrick Rose doesn't win a title in Chicago now.

You'd rather have Reggie shooting down the stretch than Larry Bird?

Since86
06-22-2011, 02:54 PM
Granger, Jordan and Rodman/Horace Grant still wins titles in Chicago. Granger and Derrick Rose doesn't win a title in Chicago now.

LeBron and DWade don't win a title right now either, but Dirk/Jason Terry does.

aaronb
06-22-2011, 02:55 PM
But you're missing the point: That was a collection of good players, not a couple of stars with a bunch of Eddie Houses. None of them came close to a Kobe or LeBron or Durant.

Danny can be "one of those good players" for us. That's where we're heading.


I absolutely agree that Danny can be "one of those players". I think I've been consistent in saying that Danny can be a 3rd banana on an NBA contender.

My problem is where exactly options #1 and #2 coming from? We ain't finding those guys at 15.

rabid
06-22-2011, 02:56 PM
But everyone wants to crown Bird as the savior of PAcerdom.

Oh really. Who in this thread is saying that? Name names please. All I'm reading from the other side in this thread is that given few good options, Larry did the best he could, and accomplished most of what he said he was setting out to do 3 years ago. No one is calling him a "savior" or "genius" or anything like that.

I don't think Larry has done an amazing job necessarily but I do think he deserves some credit. Now he's publicly talking about what he hopes to see in the next 2-3 years. Honestly reading this thread it's hard to even know what the argument is about...

aaronb
06-22-2011, 02:56 PM
You'd rather have Reggie shooting down the stretch than Larry Bird?


Close call

I'd still say Reggie though. He did it longer and with lesser supporting casts.

Trader Joe
06-22-2011, 02:57 PM
Close call

I'd still say Reggie though. He did it longer and with lesser supporting casts.

That's beyond absurd then. I'm sorry. Reggie was never the focus of defenses in the same way that Bird was.

Hicks
06-22-2011, 02:58 PM
I absolutely agree that Danny can be "one of those players". I think I've been consistent in saying that Danny can be a 3rd banana on an NBA contender.

My problem is where exactly options #1 and #2 coming from? We ain't finding those guys at 15.

Well, you have to keep in mind that with the kind of team we're trying to assemble, #1 and #2 don't need to be better than Danny, they just need to be the same tier as Danny. Paul George may already be one in waiting. So could Roy. Maybe even Collison.

And if not, getting a Danny level player can't be as hard as getting a highest-tier kind of player. It's just a matter of getting more of them to go with the one we already have.

aaronb
06-22-2011, 02:59 PM
Honestly reading this thread it's hard to even know what the argument is about...


Its about the state of the franchise. Are we in better shape now as is, or would we have been better suited to bottom out like Memphis and OKC did?

At least that's the question I was posing?

Trader Joe
06-22-2011, 03:01 PM
So the two success stories of bottoming out are Memphis and OKC apparently. Meanwhile you have, Toronto, Sacramento, Charlotte, and Minnesota at the very least still wandering the desert looking for this savior. The percentages actually seem to suggest that "bottoming out" is a terrible idea.

aaronb
06-22-2011, 03:02 PM
Well, you have to keep in mind that with the kind of team we're trying to assemble, #1 and #2 don't need to be better than Danny, they just need to be the same tier as Danny. Paul George may already be one in waiting. So could Roy. Maybe even Collison.

And if not, getting a Danny level player can't be as hard as getting a highest-tier kind of player. It's just a matter of getting more of them to go with the one we already have.


You are certainly more hopeful than I am.


I think you need at least 2 guys on Danny's level to be any kind of a reasonable contender. Then you need a few solid role players.

Collison
Roy
Hansboro

Might fit the role players part. Still gotta find 2-3 guys better than any of them to be a contender though. Hard to find those guys at 15.

Since86
06-22-2011, 03:02 PM
Yep absurd argument :rolleyes:

Trying to argue that Danny couldn't be a #2 on a championship team IS absurd. The guy is two seasons removed from being a top 10 scorer. Outside of Miami, any team in the league would love to have a 22pt 44fg% 7reb player as their #2.

You know how many times Pau Gasol averaged more than 20? TWICE!! But I guess he's not #2 material either.

Since86
06-22-2011, 03:04 PM
Its about the state of the franchise. Are we in better shape now as is, or would we have been better suited to bottom out like Memphis and OKC did?

At least that's the question I was posing?

And bottoming out brings a big possibility that the name Indiana is no longe associated with the name Pacers.

For some reason, you cannot grasp the reality that the Pacers couldn't afford to tank! We discussed this on page 2.

Since86
06-22-2011, 03:05 PM
So the two success stories of bottoming out are Memphis and OKC apparently. Meanwhile you have, Toronto, Sacramento, Charlotte, and Minnesota at the very least still wandering the desert looking for this savior. The percentages actually seem to suggest that "bottoming out" is a terrible idea.
http://images.hollywood.com/site/lloyd_christmas.jpgBut you're saying there's a chance!

aaronb
06-22-2011, 03:06 PM
So the two success stories of bottoming out are Memphis and OKC apparently. Meanwhile you have, Toronto, Sacramento, Charlotte, and Minnesota at the very least still wandering the desert looking for this savior. The percentages actually seem to suggest that "bottoming out" is a terrible idea.


Charlotte has always been in "win now" mode. They are the closest comp to the Pacers to be completely honest.

Sacramento has 2 EXTREMELY high level prospects. However they've been undone by poor management and ownership $ issues.

Toronto was hamstrung because their best player bolted free agency.

Minnesota is in a tough conference. However looking at that roster they have a ton of young talent. Just poorly meshing talent and an awful coach.


As I said, picking high doesn't guarantee success. It just gives you more opportunity to get that franchise level talent.

Trader Joe
06-22-2011, 03:07 PM
Oh I get it, all these other teams that bottom out and fail get to make excuses, but Bird can't. That makes sense. I mean the Clippers being a success story and all. I mean they won what 30 games last year? Time to throw a party.

aaronb
06-22-2011, 03:10 PM
Trying to argue that Danny couldn't be a #2 on a championship team IS absurd. The guy is two seasons removed from being a top 10 scorer. Outside of Miami, any team in the league would love to have a 22pt 44fg% 7reb player as their #2.

You know how many times Pau Gasol averaged more than 20? TWICE!! But I guess he's not #2 material either.


He was a chucker on a terrible team. Doesn't mean a whole heck of alot. Tony Campbell,Terry Catledge and Fat Lever put up similar numbers on similar bad teams.

Granger is a nice player. A top 50ish player. Not a franchise cornerstone.

Trader Joe
06-22-2011, 03:10 PM
Oh and how could I go all this time forgetting the Golden State Warriors!