PDA

View Full Version : The 3 biggest Pacers fan fallacies (that I want to end ASAP)



Naptown_Seth
06-27-2012, 01:36 PM
I started this in a Walsh thread based on "DW won't spend" and then tadscout's reply (which I agree with). But since it annoys me every 2-3 weeks in some thread I figured I'd just go ahead and make it it's own discussion point.

How often did we have cap room?

Also, wasn't that the role he did with the Knicks?
The Pacers NEVER EVER EVER had serious cap room until this last summer.

Considering the team ALWAYS lived over the cap and often near the tax limit, I'd say Donnie/Herb have a history of OVERspending, not being cheap. It's so much BS, I just don't get how people are Pacers fans and say any of the following:

LIE 1) Team/owner/Walsh won't spend or make deals....except to spend on Reggie, Dale, Rik, Tony, Jax, B Scott, Perkins...or to deal Tony for a #5 HS prospect, All-Star Detlef for McKey, Herb for Detlef, fan fav Jax for Rose, Pierce/etc for Jax that very same season, fan fave Dale for a young, unproven JO, Rose/Best for Artest/Brad Miller, Dampier for Mullin

I mean other than those FEW things, when have they ever spent or made deals on Donnie's watch? Other than 5 ECFs in 7 years when were they ever competitive (no NBA team had as many CFs during that span).

You build a good team and just maintain it, you don't need to panic and chase insta-fixes that end up destroying your team instead. If anything the GSW deal was the biggest insta-fix meant to fix the team's off-court rep, and all it did was make the fanbase tune out totally when they struggled with salary/lack of talent.


LIE 2) Free Agents won't come to Indy: the team has NEVER had the chance to spend on players or make a competitive offer. NO PLAYER HAS EVER SAID NO to a competitive offer because it meant coming to Indy.

Guys like Scott, Perkins and even Saras did choose Indy money over similar teams, and West chose Indy over very competitive Boston despite similar money (extra year in Boston, a bit more per year in Indy).

Indy never signed Jordan because NO ONE DID (except WSH when they shouldn't have). Indy never signed Shaq because they didn't have a spare $20m on the cap.

The Bulls whiffed on both Hill and Duncan, and the Magic only got Hill. Ironic because Orlando was the team Shaq left to go to a "good" market, and yet with enough money Orlando was magically a "good" enough market for Hill. And turned out to be good enough for Lewis a decade later (thanks to overpaying) when he left higher profile Seattle for Orlando.

Duncan could have gone to Chicago but stayed in San Antonio. And more recently Durant basically said that he wanted to build a team in OKC rather than leaping to another market or trying to "buy" a title.

People forget every FA that doesn't go to LA, NY, CHI, MIA, DAL, BOS (which by the way is a pretty healthy chunk of the NBA teams already, meaning they are bound to get some of the FAs). When Rubio agrees to join Minny you don't hear a single "I guess I'm an idiot" from anyone that said he'd never agree to play in that small town market. They just go back to waiting for the next proof of their 100% correct theory.


LIE 3) You can't get good (sometimes swapped for "title competitive") without tanking - Pacers sat at .500 for years, including the Bob Hill years, drafting mid-first round guys like Dale...or Haskins even, and yet went to 2 ECF straight. Then after a 1st round loss and then no playoffs, they changed coaches again and went right back to 3 straight ECFs, ie they didn't use a magic draft pick from 97 to create the 1998 team.

And then they lost Jax, Rik and traded Dale for JO as part of 3 years of more .500 ball, only to instantly go to the ECF by swapping Isiah for Rick. They had the #1 record in the NBA and were it not for the BS deal that gave Detroit Rasheed for "free" the Pacers likely would have won the title that year...without tanking to get a top pick or even drafting particularly well.

The Pacers picks that led to the ECF runs, the picks that helped Reggie/Rik get over the hump:
McCloud (7) - meh, had nothing to do with the +14 wins the next year

Antonio Davis (45)
Kenny Williams (46) - the Pacers tanked into no first round pick and clearly you can only get an AS PF in the top 5... or at pick 45

Dale Davis (13) - not a top 10, not from tanking, and a major factor in the ECF teams

Malik Sealy (14) - nice kid, minimal impact on ECF runs

Haskin (14) - injury, non factor

Piatowski (15) - traded, non factor

Best (23) - add to Dale and Tony as another ECF factor that didn't require tanking

Dampier (10) - not from tanking but from the Jax for Rose deal, ie we RENTED Jax for Rose and Mullin on the 2nd run of ECF teams.

Croshere (12) - actually hurt more than helped thanks to salary, but did have big impact on 2000 Finals.


Also note the only picks from non-playoff teams prior to the JOB years were McCloud and Croshere.


And if 2.5 non-tank improvements weren't enough, now we have a team built around two #17 picks (Granger, Hibbert) with a variety of other not-top 5 guys in the mix as well. Tyler is a higher draft pick than Collison, Hill, Granger, Hibbert and West.

Talent evaluation, smart drafting and really smart trades are what builds a winner. Not just getting horrible and praying for the right draft star. For every Duncan you have a Kwame, and often the team that benefits from the high pick ends up being a team that trades or FAs them later (see Paul, Lebron, Bosh, Kidd, Melo, etc), a team usually run by a guy with a good eye for talent/value.

Trader Joe
06-27-2012, 01:47 PM
Amen, brother, amen.

vnzla81
06-27-2012, 01:57 PM
. NO PLAYER HAS EVER SAID NO

Crawford and Nene last year?

Trader Joe
06-27-2012, 02:04 PM
Crawford said no because we were telling him to wait on us finding out about Mayo.

As far as Nene, we don't know exactly what happened there, but I think West was our number 1 front court target.

tadscout
06-27-2012, 02:08 PM
Crawford and Nene last year?

We had a smart limit so we wouldn't overpay. They both took more money elsewhere. Actually Crawford ended up taking about the same as we offered, but was offended we didn't offer more of our capsace to him - ie we had cap, and he wanted as much as he could get. - and really who could complain we didn't pay either more?

Also what TJ said about Crawford got impatient and wouldn't even give us 24 hours.

Lance George
06-27-2012, 02:19 PM
LIE 3) You can't get good (sometimes swapped for "title competitive") without tanking

This is a bit of a straw-man argument. I can't recall anyone saying high-lottery picks (which is what you mean by tanking) is the only way to acquire a competitive talent level, only that it's typically the easiest way. Bird and company did a fantastic job putting together this team without bottoming-out, but I stand by that claim.

vnzla81
06-27-2012, 02:22 PM
Crawford said no because we were telling him to wait on us finding out about Mayo.

As far as Nene, we don't know exactly what happened there, but I think West was our number 1 front court target.

Yep but they still gave the Pacers a big NO, or we forgot the reported reason why Morway was fired?

PR07
06-27-2012, 02:25 PM
I think not everything is so black and white with both camps. Yes, some free agents would be willing to come to Indiana and good ones too, but would guys like Dwight Howard or Deron Williams? Probably not.

tadscout
06-27-2012, 02:29 PM
Yep but they still gave the Pacers a big NO, or we forgot the reported reason why Morway was fired?

Read what he said-

Free Agents won't come to Indy: the team has NEVER had the chance to spend on players or make a competitive offer. NO PLAYER HAS EVER SAID NO to a competitive offer because it meant coming to Indy.

If the most money is what meant most to those 2, then our offer wasn't competitive.

Why be upset because we didn't overpay to be competitive to get them.

I know you have a man-crush on Nene, still doesn't mean it would have been right to overpay him, and give him a 4 year deal with the injury past he has... and especially since we were able to get a great deal on West (big difference between 2 and 4 years).

BillS
06-27-2012, 03:46 PM
Yep but they still gave the Pacers a big NO, or we forgot the reported reason why Morway was fired?

:confused: I thought the reported reason was the screw-up with the Mayo trade.

Eddie Gill
06-27-2012, 04:11 PM
This is one of the most informed, sensible posts I've read this week.

will567
06-27-2012, 04:32 PM
Those .500 teams were built by high draft picks! Smits was #2 Person was #4 Miller at 11 and Davis at 13 all loto picks that made up 3 of your 5 starters. Draft picks help and picking Smits at 2 really helped set the table for the Finals run. So lets not act like those teams were all mid round picks.

vnzla81
06-27-2012, 08:25 PM
:confused: I thought the reported reason was the screw-up with the Mayo trade.

... Yep and after that they said NO THANKS to the Pacers.

Dr. Awesome
06-27-2012, 08:37 PM
I don't know. These are all very good points, however I still don't think they trump the idea that Eric Gordon will sell his testicles to join the Pacers and that the Hornets will either not match our offer or give us a discount because Eric Gordon is from Indiana.

xBulletproof
06-27-2012, 09:10 PM
... Yep and after that they said NO THANKS to the Pacers.

Not how it went down. Crawford cut us out of his list of teams before the Mayo trade was screwed up. So he said no because we weren't all in on him, not because he didn't want to come here.

Either way, you're arguing a tiny unimportant detail. In the case of Crawford he went to Portland to go home. That's where he's from. Which is understandable, and has nothing to do with avoiding Indiana like it's a plague.

vnzla81
06-27-2012, 09:18 PM
Not how it went down. Crawford cut us out of his list of teams before the Mayo trade was screwed up. So he said no because we weren't all in on him, not because he didn't want to come here.

Either way, you're arguing a tiny unimportant detail. In the case of Crawford he went to Portland to go home. That's where he's from. Which is understandable, and has nothing to do with avoiding Indiana like it's a plague.

And who is saying that "he avoided Indiana like is the plague"? All I'm saying is that he said NO, I don't care if you tell me that his mom got sick, he still said NO to the Pacers, many others players have done the same thing.

Rogco
06-27-2012, 10:25 PM
I believe I have one of the three biggest Pacer's fans Phalluses

tadscout
06-27-2012, 11:15 PM
And who is saying that "he avoided Indiana like is the plague"? All I'm saying is that he said NO, I don't care if you tell me that his mom got sick, he still said NO to the Pacers, many others players have done the same thing.

Again Seth said -

NO PLAYER HAS EVER SAID NO to a competitive offer because it meant coming to Indy.

You are completely ignoring the part after the caps.

rm1369
06-27-2012, 11:34 PM
Seems like some strawmen here:

1) hasn't the argument been that the team will overpay there own and appear content to just be a good playoff team instead of taking a risk to try to win it all? Yet your rebuttal seems to suggest they do (or should do) exactly that.

2) I don't think anyone believes that no FAs will come to Indy, just that the top FAs won't come to Indy. Let's say guys like Derron Williams perhaps? We weren't on Lebrons short list. Not on Shaqs, either. Howard's? No. Stoudamire's? No. Anthony's? No. Bosh? No. The last upper echelon player that I remember listing Indy was Barkley. But the Pacers passed - see "myth" #1. I guess they didn't want to break up a championship team?

3) as someone else pointed out, i like how you conveniently forget that the pacers two best players were lottery picks. But besides that, the goal is to win a title - not just be really good (see myth#1). Detroit is the only championship team built in the last 25 years whose top players were not acquired by lottery picks or FA acquisition by destination cities (LA & Miami - see myth #2). It doesn't seem smart to me to use the exception as your blueprint.

Bball
06-27-2012, 11:41 PM
Why overpay to get the attention of some FA, or to go after a RFA whose team decides it isn't in their best interests to match your number, when you can overpay your own players and put yourself into cap-hell that way?

wintermute
06-28-2012, 05:40 AM
I think Seth has a lot of valid points. That said, I think Seth's post misses the main thrust of the criticism.

#1) I agree that historically, Pacers never had a problem with spending, within limits. We've always maintained a higher than average payroll, but rarely exceeding the tax. It's not just from paying (or overpaying) our own guys either, as we routinely do trades that add salary (Quis for Cro's expiring for example) and we're also frequently mentioned as adding cash in deals (we paid NO cash to get the Peja TPE, we used cash to move up to draft James White, etc).

So we're willing to pay, in general. What we're not willing to do, is go over the tax line. I think the argument is that the Pacers can be a winning team without going over the tax, and I'd agree with that. The question is, can the Pacers be a CHAMPIONSHIP team without going over the tax? It's been done before (2004 Pistons, Spurs a couple of times, I think) but it's generally not the case, as our own count55 pointed out in this <a href="http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/2011/05/simon-willing-to-spend-but-is-he-willing-to-spend-enough/">article</a>.

Sidenote: the upcoming harsher luxury tax penalties might level the playing field somewhat by making even fewer teams willing to spend above the tax. Or it might just give greater advantage to those few teams (Lakers, Knicks) who are *still* willing to spend.

#2) I agree that free agents will come to Indy, if we're willing to pay them enough. David West just last year is a shining example of FA success (without severely overpaying at that).

The problem, as pointed out by others, are the elite guys, the likes of LeBron, Chris Paul, Dwight Howard. These guys will be underpaid wherever they go, so money is less of a factor to them. In fact, LBJ, Wade, and Bosh all took (somewhat) less money to go to Miami.

Can the FO turn Indy into a premier FA destination? To some extent I think. The Spurs for example get some FA interest despite having much the same local disadvantages as Indy. So there's hope that a winning culture and smart management can become attractive to major FAs. But it's still a big handicap, and one that the team should keep in mind when making FA plans.

#3) Sure, we can build a decent team with relatively low picks, if everything develops as planned, if the right player falls to us, etc. But it doesn't take a great understanding of statistics to realize that the odds are against you in building this way. And more importantly, the truly elite guys are never available as low picks. I think it's safe to say that the current Pacers roster has already beaten the odds, but even then how much further do you think they can go? Is being a winning team enough?

And that's the crux of it isn't it, if you're happy with the Pacers being a perennial playoff team with a very slim chance to advance, then you'd think these problems aren't too much to overcome. The 2004 Pistons did it after all without needing a high payroll, elite FA, or high draft pick, so it can happen. If on the other hand, you think the Pacers' odds to compete for a championship improve greatly with an elite player, then one or more of these problems will need to be overcome: either get very bad and then very lucky in the draft, or take a chance on a star-potential FA that no one else would touch (someone like Eric Gordon and his injuries for example). And then when you're ready to contend, maintain a very high payroll full of expensive role players throughout your championship window (i.e. the Dallas model). That's a model that works too, but would require the Pacers to do things very differently than from the past.

vapacersfan
06-28-2012, 07:01 AM
Seems like some strawmen here:

1) hasn't the argument been that the team will overpay there own and appear content to just be a good playoff team instead of taking a risk to try to win it all? Yet your rebuttal seems to suggest they do (or should do) exactly that.

2) I don't think anyone believes that no FAs will come to Indy, just that the top FAs won't come to Indy. Let's say guys like Derron Williams perhaps? We weren't on Lebrons short list. Not on Shaqs, either. Howard's? No. Stoudamire's? No. Anthony's? No. Bosh? No. The last upper echelon player that I remember listing Indy was Barkley. But the Pacers passed - see "myth" #1. I guess they didn't want to break up a championship team?

3) as someone else pointed out, i like how you conveniently forget that the pacers two best players were lottery picks. But besides that, the goal is to win a title - not just be really good (see myth#1). Detroit is the only championship team built in the last 25 years whose top players were not acquired by lottery picks or FA acquisition by destination cities (LA & Miami - see myth #2). It doesn't seem smart to me to use the exception as your blueprint.

It was mentioned the other day, but Artest was a HUGE risk, we just got all the risk and none of the reward of that deal

Bball
06-28-2012, 08:17 AM
Artest- We didn't target Artest as a key to anything. Rose was grumbling. Best refused to enter a game. The wheels were coming off and Walsh couldn't ignore it any longer. So we made what he thought was the best deal available at the time.

When I hear the FO took a gamble that's not what I think of. I think of a FO actually targeting someone and going after them, even if it means moving a popular player. Not taking what seems like the best deal available to address a situation that has soured and festered to the point something has to be done.... immediately.

vapacersfan
06-28-2012, 08:29 AM
Artest- We didn't target Artest as a key to anything. Rose was grumbling. Best refused to enter a game. The wheels were coming off and Walsh couldn't ignore it any longer. So we made what he thought was the best deal available at the time.

When I hear the FO took a gamble that's not what I think of. I think of a FO actually targeting someone and going after them, even if it means moving a popular player. Not taking what seems like the best deal available to address a situation that has soured and festered to the point something has to be done.... immediately.

I didnt post here then, I only read on Pacers.com and Indy Star, so I did not know a lot of behind the scenes stuff (such as Best refusing to enter a game)

I disagree with you, as I thought it was common knoweldge that Ron was a hot mess (Jay@section222 warned us all, and if a randon guy in Chicago heard the stories sure other GM/CEO's heard the stories) and that he had a bit of a "crazy" streak.

Did Donny think he could reign him in and control him? Probably, and that was ultimatly his downfall. But IMO that was the risk, and FWIW Rose was a popular player, though I remember checking Pacers.com every 30 minutes because I knew a trade was needed.

I agree the Pacers have not taken as many risks as they could (or should) have, but the one risk they did take (and IMO Artest was a huge risk) backfired miserable, so its understandable (but still annoying)

Pacerized
06-28-2012, 08:35 AM
I agree, especially with #2 but you'll never convince the nay sayers. I hope this years free agency combined with bringing in West last year proves them wrong.

Trader Joe
06-28-2012, 08:52 AM
... Yep and after that they said NO THANKS to the Pacers.

If West was our first choice though, how do we know for sure Nene said no to us?

vnzla81
06-28-2012, 11:08 AM
If West was our first choice though, how do we know for sure Nene said no to us?

I don't know where are you getting that West was our first choice? Do You remember who was the player the whole Pacers staff when to visit as soon as free agency opened? yes the answer is Nene...... and nope I don't think it was an "smoke screen so we had a chance to get our big fish in West".

Trader Joe
06-28-2012, 11:10 AM
So that automatically proves we preferred Nene? Not to me.

Hicks
06-28-2012, 11:24 AM
My understanding is we wanted Nene and West both.

ChicagoJ
06-28-2012, 05:45 PM
... I thought it was common knoweldge that Ron was a hot mess (Jay@section222 warned us all, and if a randon guy in Chicago heard the stories sure other GM/CEO's heard the stories) and that he had a bit of a "crazy" streak.

Random guy? :kickcan:

:D

We wanted Oakley, according to the SunTimes at that time. Krause told us that we'd take Artest or keep Rose/Best. This was a trade within his division, so he was trying to stick us with his problems in order to take our problems.

The problem wasn't the trade per se. It was that we didn't have exit plan for Artest until after the flagrant foul crime spree happened, until after Rick and Artest had their predictable near-immediate disagreements (although Brent Berry wouldn't have destroyed the franchise... just sayin'), didn't have an exit plan after the MIA/DET playoff meltdowns, and didn't have an exit plan after the brawl. We didn't have an exit plan until he went public with a trade demand. W.T.F.?

The Bulls were so horrifically unpopular during the Tim Floyd years that Krause could say whatever he wanted about his own team, and Sam Smith could write whatever he wanted, and nobody paid attention. Appearently, including Donnie Walsh and Isiah Thomas. As a recovering ex-NBA fan, I'd go to games so I wanted to know what was going on, and why this guy that seemed to have some talent was such a trainwreck mentally.

Bball
06-28-2012, 08:46 PM
I disagree with you, as I thought it was common knoweldge that Ron was a hot mess (Jay@section222 warned us all, and if a randon guy in Chicago heard the stories sure other GM/CEO's heard the stories) and that he had a bit of a "crazy" streak.

Did Donny think he could reign him in and control him? Probably, and that was ultimatly his downfall. But IMO that was the risk, and FWIW Rose was a popular player, though I remember checking Pacers.com every 30 minutes because I knew a trade was needed.

I agree the Pacers have not taken as many risks as they could (or should) have, but the one risk they did take (and IMO Artest was a huge risk) backfired miserable, so its understandable (but still annoying)

But Donnie Walsh didn't have Artest's name circled on a chalkboard as the missing piece of the Pacers. He had Rose and Best with question marks beside them because things had deteriorated into a dysfunctional mess and something had to be done.

Walsh was dealing from a position of weakness because his team's own problems had gotten so bad that he couldn't ignore it any longer. I don't know what other deals he had from other teams, I don't even know if he thought Artest would amount to anything in the trade or not. I assume he knew Artest brought some baggage but who knows what insiders had told him. But whether he thought he could corral Artest or not is beside the point because he didn't actively seek to make Artest a member of the team. Artest was just who was being inserted into the trade because Chicago wanted to wash their hands of him, and Walsh needed to complete a deal to move Rose and Best.

Clearly getting and keeping Artest was a risk... But it's different than the FO targeting a player they want and going after them using team assets that otherwise would still be Pacers. The whole thing began with the Pacers needing/having to trade Best and Rose due to dysfunction and them being unhappy campers... and ended with the Artest package (Miller and Mercer) being the best DW apparently felt he was going to get.

And then as Chicago J says... They had no exit plan for when he went crazy or no willingness to move him once they got him and apparently liked what they saw.

vapacersfan
06-28-2012, 09:29 PM
Fair enough.

Where you and I differ is I always thought Donnie saw Ron and JO as batman and robin and I really thought he saw those two as taking us far (maybe even to a NBA finals)

Though I will say I agree we needed to dump Rose/Best, and maybe that was the best deal. I guess my question is did Donnie see Ron as a huge piece or did he just want to move Rose and Best that bad?...... IF so, that means he "fell is love with talent" after trade, not before. I always assumed it was the other way around. He thought he was the missing piece, and that is why he he so reluctant to move him. Maybe I am totally wrong......wouldnt be the first time.

Bball
06-28-2012, 09:50 PM
IF so, that means he "fell is love with talent" after trade, not before.

Yip... That's the way it went down.

able
06-29-2012, 09:50 AM
After the CF meltdown they were ready to shred the team and get rid of Ron, a contingent of players than pleaded with Larry to keep them together (Source SI interview LB) and LB agreed and defended that plan with DW.

Donnie never said HE fell in love with talent, he just stated a generic "we fell in love with tatlent" when explaining why they held on so long, LB was the man responsible for personelle.

Naptown_Seth
06-29-2012, 06:35 PM
This is a bit of a straw-man argument. I can't recall anyone saying high-lottery picks (which is what you mean by tanking) is the only way to acquire a competitive talent level, only that it's typically the easiest way. Bird and company did a fantastic job putting together this team without bottoming-out, but I stand by that claim.
No, this is a very explicitly stated argument, and not just at PD. All sorts of NBA pundits will rattle off this "critical" stage of the rebuilding process. Often teams that make moves that keep them in the hunt for 6-8th seeds will be criticized for not knowing when to get bad so they can blow it up and get the high draft picks they need to get better. Someone will look at an OKC roster and say "that's how it has to be done" even though it fails miserably as a plan most of the time.

Even the Spurs will catch that kind of flak, someone will start talking about how they need to know when to move Parker and Manu and just rebuild from the ground up. The Suns were "fools" to hang on to Nash and linger in the middling range rather than dumping him and just going full-on tank so they can start fresh.


To me it's not even the best way of a set of many ways. The best way is just to enable the players you have to be part of the team, develop an environment of responsibility and expected dedication to the team, and avoid any risky overspending. You have to be willing to be wrong on some players and ride out those mistakes rather than hurrying to fix them with a panic move.


And you know it's not just the Pacers. The Lakers had the Late Show in the mid-90s that were very competitive but then by trading Vlade for the not top 10 Kobe pick and clearing enough space to bring in Shaq they re-tooled...and then couldn't get to the Finals anyway. It took adding Phil to go that last step, but none of involved a high pick.

Naptown_Seth
06-29-2012, 06:41 PM
Yep but they still gave the Pacers a big NO, or we forgot the reported reason why Morway was fired?
But you are actually proving my point. They were WILLING TO SIGN WITH INDY by your own admission. Crawford didn't say "I don't want to play there, find me a beach or top 5 city".

He said no because of MONEY or how the team dealt with him, not because it was Indiana, not because of location or market size.




As for the point that location or team makeup or ownership being a factor, I DO agree with that. But that means that if Indy has a good FO or a player is from the region then Indy might even have an advantage in a deal, not some automatic handicap. The Celts, Lakers, Knicks and Bulls have an IMAGE advantage because players grew up watching Bird, Magic, Jordan and MSG/Spike Lee. But 15 years from now some kid is going to want to play for OKC because of the college-style atmosphere and becoming a fan of Durant and Westbrook as a kid.


Players have the money to go to Fiji or Hawaii on a goof, they can spend all off season in Miami or LA. And during the season there is a ton of travel to the point that you are hardly in your home city half the season.

Naptown_Seth
06-29-2012, 07:24 PM
Seems like some strawmen here:

1) hasn't the argument been that the team will overpay there own and appear content to just be a good playoff team instead of taking a risk to try to win it all? Yet your rebuttal seems to suggest they do (or should do) exactly that.

2) I don't think anyone believes that no FAs will come to Indy, just that the top FAs won't come to Indy. Let's say guys like Derron Williams perhaps? We weren't on Lebrons short list. Not on Shaqs, either. Howard's? No. Stoudamire's? No. Anthony's? No. Bosh? No. The last upper echelon player that I remember listing Indy was Barkley. But the Pacers passed - see "myth" #1. I guess they didn't want to break up a championship team?

3) as someone else pointed out, i like how you conveniently forget that the pacers two best players were lottery picks. But besides that, the goal is to win a title - not just be really good (see myth#1). Detroit is the only championship team built in the last 25 years whose top players were not acquired by lottery picks or FA acquisition by destination cities (LA & Miami - see myth #2). It doesn't seem smart to me to use the exception as your blueprint.

1) So the Spurs and OKC were "satisfied" with just being good when they paid to resign Duncan and Durant? 5 ECF in 7 years isn't "satisfied with being good". That's what "you made it" looks like, minus the moment or break it takes to win it all. This is part of another problem I have, the BINARY logic. Either you win it all or it was a total disaster. 98, 99, 2000 were not teams "just willing to be okay". They were the cream of the crop. They didn't need a big move any more than Utah or Seattle did when they lost to the Bulls.


2) The Pacers aren't on "short lists" because they aren't on the list at all. They aren't making a pitch, they don't have the cap space. Obviously the one year they did have money they were on the short list of an all-star PF and top 5 FA options. Considering that Crawford also had interest it appears they were on the list of 2 of the top available guys.

But I 100% believe that if the Pacers had Dwight cash and were presenting a team that would be him replacing Roy basically, then they'd be on the short list.
Lebron said NO to CHICAGO and NEW YORK, so I guess they just aren't desirable locations. But of course they are, it's just a case where at some point a choice will be made among many close options. And in the cases where a guy is literally saying "my basketball career hinges on being near beaches and bars" is that really the guy to hinge your team around? Seems very risky.

Present a quality environment, FO support, solid facilities and staff, and good teammates and you can have any FA worth having if you have the cap space.



3) I didn't ignore Rik. How many years did Rik and Reggie sit at .500? 4 straight years. Not a couple, not getting a bit better each year. 4 straight years. So by the "you've got to no when to give up" standard this is the CLASSIC CASE. You go .500 over and over till you literally have the nickname the Indy 500. You aren't a lottery team, you are IN THE PLAYOFFS all those seasons.

And my point isn't not being in the lottery anyway because the argument is that you can't chase #8 and then fall short - you need more than the virtual no chance of getting into the top 3 of the lottery that you get with #9 or #10 in the conference.

Rik and Reggie had to be RESIGNED before they went to the ECF which goes against the retool rule. The "stuck at .500" rule means trade both of them for picks, let the team flop to the bottom to get yet another high (top 3) pick so you can get the next Jordan or Magic, surround them with other #5 to #14 picks and then win it all.


Rik and McCloud show you what the Pacers got by being really bad. Nowhere special. NO FANS would tolerate 4 years of .500 ball. Isiah got fired for 3 years of .500 ball and who was lamenting that? This is not to say that Rik wasn't a key piece, but he wasn't a classic #2 talent, he wasn't the star, he wasn't a multi-time AS like Ewing or Hakeem just waiting to have the roster filled out around him. Before the ECF runs Rik Smits was a BAD #2 PICK by historical views. He still isn't considered Wade, Melo, or Bosh. The two guys the team got in that era for being bad were McCloud and a solid Robin-ish level player. That was the first pick, nearly a decade before the team hit it's prime stride, and toward the end he may have been behind Reggie, Dale (All-Star) and Jackson in terms of contribution. I loved the guy, but those teams were classic balanced style teams that didn't require a high pick to build (Hibbert at 17 flirts with being Smits caliber statistically already).



If the 1998 team was the best Pacers team ever, what did they do that made them better than the 1990 team? Rik and Reggie were already there and they not only didn't win the lottery, they actually kept going to the playoffs and getting crushed in round 1 (except the epic 5 game Boston series).

Naptown_Seth
06-29-2012, 07:31 PM
I don't know where are you getting that West was our first choice? Do You remember who was the player the whole Pacers staff when to visit as soon as free agency opened? yes the answer is Nene...... and nope I don't think it was an "smoke screen so we had a chance to get our big fish in West".

Yes, let's add Denver to another of those party/beach/major metropolis cities that we can't compete with.

At some point the list of "small, undesirable" NBA cities gets smaller than the "elite big markets" which kinda contradicts the whole elite angle.

rm1369
06-29-2012, 08:25 PM
Seth, I honestly don't understand what you are arguing. At one point, you use Shaq and Kobe to prove your point - two guys that ended up in LA because ..... it's LA!. Shaq went as a FA (he didn't end up in Cleveland) and Kobe forced his way there by threatening to play in Italy. And IIRC, the Pacers had a pick that could have been used to draft him, but surprisingly he wasn't forcing his way to the Pacers. You also mention LAs trading an all star center for the rights to a high school kid. That doesnt seem aggressive to you? That wasnt risky? Then you use Duncan and Durant as examples - a #1 pick (whos team tanked once Robinson was hurt!) and a #2 pick (who's team has also been accused of tanking). I must not understand your argument very well because I have taken it to be that: 1) you don't need high picks to win, 2) big markets don't have an advantage in acquiring the very upper echelon FAs, 3) you don't have to be aggressive or take some risks to win a title. Yet the examples you give of actual championship teams seems to contradict one or more of these statements. And your other examples are of teams that didn't win championships.

vnzla81
07-04-2012, 10:35 PM
So Nash doesn't count? :unimpress

WhoLovesYaBaby?
07-05-2012, 06:57 AM
Interesting analysis. And I suspect a lot of truth in it. You are right that the Pacers have spent money and that whole criticism is inaccurate. We were tied up with contracts for years that disproved that no spending arguement.

I always keep in mind that none of us actually KNOW anything for a fact because we are not in a position to know. None of us work for the team and never will. Anything we say is speculation. Some accurate and some not.

graphic-er
07-05-2012, 08:51 AM
Pacers biggest mistake during the Walsh era was letting Brad Miller go.