PDA

View Full Version : Remember when the Pacers didn't want to trade our first round pick for Kaman?



vnzla81
07-02-2012, 11:36 PM
Hicks reminded me about this in his twitter account, what do you guys think about this decision now? we ended up picking up Plumlee with that pick at the end.

Pacersalltheway10
07-02-2012, 11:41 PM
And it was still the right choice to hold onto the pick.

vnzla81
07-02-2012, 11:41 PM
@MikeWellsNBA: The Pacers didn't get Kaman at the deadline because Larry Bird wasn't giving up a 1st rd pick to New Orleans for a 2-month rental on Kaman.

ECKrueger
07-02-2012, 11:53 PM
Man, I love/hate the offseason. I love all the commotion, but there are 11 threads about Hibbert, 3 for Kaman, several on Gordon, and Hill too.

I know news is kind of slow otherwise, and the thread get long, but every idea, thought, or tweet doesn't need a new thread.

Nothing against you personally, just the latest thread and a mini-rant.

Peck
07-03-2012, 01:41 AM
:suicide:

wintermute
07-03-2012, 05:00 AM
So if we had made the trade last season, we'd have no first round pick, Hibbert would be a RFA with a max offer sheet, and Kaman would be a UFA.

Since we didn't make that trade, we ended up keeping our first round pick, Hibbert is a RFA with a max offer sheet, and Kaman is a UFA. Am I missing something? Seems like having first round pick > no first round pick to me.



Man, I love/hate the offseason. I love all the commotion, but there are 11 threads about Hibbert, 3 for Kaman, several on Gordon, and Hill too.

I know news is kind of slow otherwise, and the thread get long, but every idea, thought, or tweet doesn't need a new thread.


I dunno, we don't have enough Miles Plumlee threads :D

cdash
07-03-2012, 07:13 AM
Revisionist history. Would we have beaten the Heat with Kaman? What if the Hornets would have taken Perry Jones at pick #26 and we lost both Hibbert and Kaman in free agency? Then we would be even more up in arms than we already are.

Aw Heck
07-03-2012, 07:56 AM
Unless Chris Kaman could get the ball into Hibbert over the fronting Heat defense, he wouldn't have made much difference for the Pacers.

Inca Street
07-03-2012, 08:23 AM
Sure do......and I am still glad he did not trade for Kaman.

Major Cold
07-03-2012, 10:24 AM
Why make that trade if we can't pass into the post anyway?

Hicks
07-03-2012, 10:25 AM
Revisionist history. Would we have beaten the Heat with Kaman? What if the Hornets would have taken Perry Jones at pick #26 and we lost both Hibbert and Kaman in free agency? Then we would be even more up in arms than we already are.

Goes both ways, and obviously all of it is speculative.

For my part, I wouldn't have batted an eye at trading the pick if I could have magically known it was going to be used on a reach like Plumlee. I'm in the camp that thinks having Kaman makes us more likely to beat Miami while they were vulnerable. I won't argue, but I believe we really could have finished them off with 48 minutes of size and scoring at the 5.

ballism
07-03-2012, 10:32 AM
That's assuming we get the #3 seed without Barbosa and with Kaman missing a number of games.
I think more likely we'd be playing the Celtics in round 1.

DrFife
07-03-2012, 10:34 AM
Goes both ways, and obviously all of it is speculative.

For my part, I wouldn't have batted an eye at trading the pick if I could have magically known it was going to be used on a reach like Plumlee. I'm in the camp that thinks having Kaman makes us more likely to beat Miami while they were vulnerable. I won't argue, but I believe we really could have finished them off with 48 minutes of size and scoring at the 5.

Which points to my daydreaming (in another thread) about still signing Kaman (instead of, say, Brandon Bass) AND re-signing Hibbert ... and using Plumlee's athleticism at back-up PF. Early in the finals, the Thunder's bigs (and Durant) were doing a great job of stopping the Heat's penetration. Size with athleticism--and maintaining an inside-out game--seems to be our only hope.

Ace E.Anderson
07-03-2012, 10:38 AM
Which points to my daydreaming (in another thread) about still signing Kaman (instead of, say, Brandon Bass) AND re-signing Hibbert ... and using Plumlee's athleticism at back-up PF. Early in the finals, the Thunder's bigs (and Durant) were doing a great job of stopping the Heat's penetration. Size with athleticism--and maintaining an inside-out game--seems to be our only hope.

That's not a terrible idea whatsoever. In fact, if we could get some more consistent/efficient scoring from our wings(a Mayo-type of player would help), Plumlee would be a good fit defensively next to both Roy and Kaman.

MyFavMartin
07-03-2012, 10:38 AM
We wont lose Roy unless we choose not to match.

Hicks
07-03-2012, 10:40 AM
That's assuming we get the #3 seed without Barbosa and with Kaman missing a number of games.
I think more likely we'd be playing the Celtics in round 1.

Who says we wouldn't have Barbosa? I think it would have been both.

ballism
07-03-2012, 10:53 AM
Who says we wouldn't have Barbosa? I think it would have been both.

he had a 14 mil contract, we had 14 mil cap before the Barbosa deal. Both deals wouldn't have worked.

Nuntius
07-06-2012, 04:14 AM
@MikeWellsNBA: The Pacers didn't get Kaman at the deadline because Larry Bird wasn't giving up a 1st rd pick to New Orleans for a 2-month rental on Kaman.

Personally, I think it was the correct decision. Kaman wouldn't be with the team in the 12-13 season. Plumlee will be.

OlBlu
07-06-2012, 09:40 AM
Hicks reminded me about this in his twitter account, what do you guys think about this decision now? we ended up picking up Plumlee with that pick at the end.

Great decision by the Pacers. Kanan would have been a two month rental for that pick. :cool:

PR07
07-06-2012, 11:18 AM
I still think we ultimately lose that series against the Heat. We needed a passing point guard, not a backup center.

funnyguy1105
07-06-2012, 11:31 AM
I still think we ultimately lose that series against the Heat. We needed a passing point guard, not a backup center.

We needed any semblance of scoring from the bench and someone to clog up the middle the 15ish minutes that Roy was on the bench. You're probably right but I wouldn't be the farm on it...

Hicks
07-06-2012, 12:09 PM
If Plumlee looks like a worthy backup C over the next 1-3 years, it worked out well that we didn't trade the pick.

Speed
07-06-2012, 12:49 PM
If Plumlee is just a really good practice player/insurance policy its okay, also you have to think you beat the heat with Kaman, which you wouldn't have. So ya, 2 month rental of Kaman is not greater than #1 pick.

Hicks
07-06-2012, 01:56 PM
Depends on if you thought Kaman helps to beat Miami. I think he might have.

flox
07-06-2012, 03:08 PM
lets put it this way: we would have bird rights on kaman so we would probably be able to beat any offer that kaman gets on the market, have insurance for Roy, have the best size in the eastern conference last year, had a more mobile option at center, and etc etc. i was for getting kaman back then and i still stand by it.

Hicks
07-06-2012, 03:24 PM
lets put it this way: we would have bird rights on kaman so we would probably be able to beat any offer that kaman gets on the market, have insurance for Roy, have the best size in the eastern conference last year, had a more mobile option at center, and etc etc. i was for getting kaman back then and i still stand by it.

Kaman is an unrestricted free agent. He would have only been here for part of one season. What makes you think we would have had Bird rights?

Naptown_Seth
07-06-2012, 03:24 PM
So if we had made the trade last season, we'd have no first round pick, Hibbert would be a RFA with a max offer sheet, and Kaman would be a UFA.

Since we didn't make that trade, we ended up keeping our first round pick, Hibbert is a RFA with a max offer sheet, and Kaman is a UFA. Am I missing something? Seems like having first round pick > no first round pick to me.




I dunno, we don't have enough Miles Plumlee threads :D
The point is simple, you are up 2-1 on Miami. Would you at that moment (retro in all game prior to that point too) swap Plumlee now to have Kaman then?

How is the answer not yes to this? Kaman potentially could have put Indy facing Boston in the ECF, could have been that one extra piece. Does anyone think that Plumlee is going to be that one extra piece in any of the Pacers critical moments over the next 5 seasons? You had no bench offense from Tyler or Barbosa, Kaman puts in 8 gimmie points near the rim on rebounds or posts or mid-jumpers. You win by 3 instead of losing by 5. The story is "if only they had Bosh healthy".


Plus your rental period helps on your UFA decisions now. Giving up Plumlee for a "free" look at Kaman seems like a pretty good deal to me.

Cubs231721
07-06-2012, 03:30 PM
lets put it this way: we would have bird rights on kaman so we would probably be able to beat any offer that kaman gets on the market, have insurance for Roy, have the best size in the eastern conference last year, had a more mobile option at center, and etc etc. i was for getting kaman back then and i still stand by it.

Retaining Kaman's Bird rights would have also meant having a 15.5 million cap hold put on the Pacers. That would have meant the Pacers would have only had the mid-level exception to use from the beginning instead of having cap space to sign players like they do now.

wintermute
07-06-2012, 04:21 PM
The point is simple, you are up 2-1 on Miami. Would you at that moment (retro in all game prior to that point too) swap Plumlee now to have Kaman then?

How is the answer not yes to this? Kaman potentially could have put Indy facing Boston in the ECF, could have been that one extra piece. Does anyone think that Plumlee is going to be that one extra piece in any of the Pacers critical moments over the next 5 seasons? You had no bench offense from Tyler or Barbosa, Kaman puts in 8 gimmie points near the rim on rebounds or posts or mid-jumpers. You win by 3 instead of losing by 5. The story is "if only they had Bosh healthy".


Plus your rental period helps on your UFA decisions now. Giving up Plumlee for a "free" look at Kaman seems like a pretty good deal to me.

Would you feel differently if we picked someone other than Plumlee? Seems to me that your argument would be valid no matter who we drafted.

Naptown_Seth
07-06-2012, 04:38 PM
Would you feel differently if we picked someone other than Plumlee? Seems to me that your argument would be valid no matter who we drafted.
Yes, this isn't really about Plumlee. I was very upset that they didn't push for Kaman or Nash at the deadline. And for all the "no Nash deal was there", it's tough for me to buy given where PHX and Nash have gone with things since that point. It would have cost a player, a pick and maybe more, but it would have been interesting. Oh well.

To me you had a real shot last year. Not that I think next year is a dud, just that I don't buy into the "just wait till next year" view because nothing is certain. This isn't to say that I don't like good planning because most of what I'm saying is that planning is key.

But there is a risk of not seizing a moment, not recognizing when things are lining up just right. Just like there is a risk when you try to force them to line up when they really don't, like signing an FA just because you feel like you need to do "something".


I will say that the choice of Plumlee helped drive home the point about late first round pick value. It really depends on the draft class and your FO's ability to spot talent.



Also, I'm not 100% loving the acquisition of Kaman due to injuries and inconsistency paired with cost, but I do know that if we'd seen him last year we'd have a better idea of how he fit now. This is where you see Barbosa probably not being resigned after the early love-fest. Nice guy, okay player, but probably not the answer the team needed. I think we know that better thanks to having with the team in the playoffs.

vnzla81
07-06-2012, 04:47 PM
And also don't forget the rumor where Larry said no to Boston because they wanted Tyler+pick for Allen, his answer was something around the lines of "I don't like to trade first round picks" or something like that.

cdash
07-07-2012, 02:21 AM
And also don't forget the rumor where Larry said no to Boston because they wanted Tyler+pick for Allen, his answer was something around the lines of "I don't like to trade first round picks" or something like that.

I think under the right circumstances he would have traded a first round pick. For a rental of Ray Allen (who was not going to push us over the edge)...probably not.

flox
07-07-2012, 02:31 AM
Kaman is an unrestricted free agent. He would have only been here for part of one season. What makes you think we would have had Bird rights?
bird rights are retained when a contract is traded to the other team. hence, we would have his bird rights. we have barbosa's bird rights.


Retaining Kaman's Bird rights would have also meant having a 15.5 million cap hold put on the Pacers. That would have meant the Pacers would have only had the mid-level exception to use from the beginning instead of having cap space to sign players like they do now.
as far as i know, that is only an issue if we were actually going to sign anyone this offseason. in addition, if it became a problem we could have just renounced his rights. iirc we haven't renounced barbosa's rights yet right?

Hicks
07-07-2012, 10:22 AM
I didn't think veteran players had the same bird rights as players off of rookie contracts?

xIndyFan
07-07-2012, 11:30 AM
I didn't think veteran players had the same bird rights as players off of rookie contracts?

yes, they do. IF they play for 3 years with the same team. or sign a 3+ yr contract and get traded. Their bird rights [or years counting towards bird rights] go with them in a trade.

ballism
07-07-2012, 12:15 PM
We would have Bird rights, but they would be useless. Unless you want to (A) sign and trade Kaman, or (B) sign him to a huge deal that starts significantly above 10 mil for the first year.
Outside of those two situations, Kaman's Bird rights would have no benefit for us.

Hicks
07-07-2012, 12:16 PM
So a guy could get signed by one team to a three year contract, traded a year later, then traded the year after that, and the third team still has Bird rights that following summer?

ballism
07-07-2012, 12:17 PM
So a guy could get signed by one team to a three year contract, traded a year later, then traded the year after that, and the third team still has Bird rights that following summer?
yes. and amnestied as well. Bird rights get transferred.