PDA

View Full Version : Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years



Pages : [1] 2

mattie
08-16-2012, 07:45 AM
What you see is what you get. The Pacers will remain for the most part with the players you see now for the next 5 years and they will not compete for a championship. They have a ceiling below championship contention, and the Pacers front office doesn’t have the foresight to see our Pacers’ limited potential.

Quick note- I don’t intend this as a negative outlook on the Pacers future. Believe it or not, I’m relatively happy with the Pacers’ offseason moves and I look forward to watching some of our young guys develop into real good players. However, that doesn’t keep me from seeing the cold hard truth, and that is this team’s talent level is not on a championship level.

So just hear me out. No matter what I say in the following, I can promise you the next 5 years are going to be some of the most exciting times in the Pacers’ history and it will be a whole lot of fun to watch.

It would be hard to look at all the improvement in the Indiana organization over just the last 3 years and come up with a conclusion that this team cannot or won’t compete for a title. But like most things, proper perspective can give us real insight into where this organization is heading.

It all starts at the top. I don’t necessarily believe the Pacers’ brass aren’t intending on winning as much as possible. I think they very much so are doing everything they can to win. Kevin Pritchard has made some smart moves this offseason drastically improving the bench. It has nothing to do with desire, or a lack of an ability in our team’s front office. They simply don’t realize this team is severely lacking in some areas and unless they make drastic moves at some point in the next few years they’ll never truly compete.

I’ve never really had a problem with how a front office operates. Whether they’re aggressive, conservative or maybe opportunistic. Whatever you want to call it. As long as they have an understanding of what it takes for a team to beat the absolute best, and the complete understanding that they cannot “sit back and evaluate” until they truly have a team that rivals the absolute best.

But that’s what our front office has said. Kevin said the following:


“Coach Vogel wants to keep this team together and see them grow,” Pritchard said. “We’ll look for deals and be opportunistic, but it’s not like we have to do something right now.
“It’s never done,” he added, “but it’s time to sit back and evaluate where we are.


I believe there are only three teams in the NBA that truly should simply be happy with the teams they have fielded. OKC, MIA, and LAL. Those three teams are stacked and are looking at an NBA Finals appearance. While OKC, MIA and LAL have different small issues they will be actively looking to fix if the right deals are coming along, all know they’re fielding top tier talent and until some glaring issues become apparent, no moves need to be made.

This is obviously not the case with the Pacers and even the most positive thinking fellow on this board would agree this team isn’t where they need to be. But there lies the problem. Other than minor upgrades to the bench, the Pacers front office hasn’t made an attempt, or at least welcomed the idea that improvements need to be made for this team to compete.

Many would argue that we have to allow the team to grow, and when the opportunity arises moves will be made. But again, the brass has clearly stated the starting five will stay as is for the forseeable future.

This team’s starting five does NOT have a high ceiling. If we were the most positive and optimistic about this team’s future than this is the best we’ll see out of this team:

George Hill could improve to a very solid starting point guard. Let’s say best case scenario Hill is a top 15 point guard. I mean that’s being honest. He’s not going to be handing out assists like Nash, and he’s not going to be exploding to the basket like Westbrook. He is who he is. A a solid defender, and a solid, reliable offensive player.

Paul George could progress to a top 15 player, the second best two guard in the league. Again, that is probably overly optimistic. But let’s imagine he does. 20ppg, and top tier defense is a fair ceiling for PG.

Granger simply cannot get better than he is now. He’s above average on offense and above average on defense. A real good player.

This is West no matter how optimistic you are on his future: Average defense at best, poor rebounding and absolutely no shotblocking or protecting the rim. Let’s so he’s very good on offense. (that’s just absolutely inaccurate but we’ll throw him a bone)

Hibbert is a shotblocker, protects the rim, plays solid defense and is a real good rebounder. He’s average on offense at best.

That’s your team folks. That is the following, a real strong offense, a strong defense, and average rebounding. That’s pretty good. But bigger teams will out rebound us. Team’s with slashers will exploit our lack of an ability to protect the rim. Great offenses with all world superstars will simply beat our strong but not great defense. That is our team of the future. BEST CASE.

Now compare that to any of the top three. Let’s go with LAL: They have twin towers protecting the rim, they have probably the best rebounding in the NBA, and they have Nash to help an offense that consists of Kobe, Pau and Howard.

The only thing the Lakers lack is depth, and a perimeter defense that is probably not a problem considering Howard’s defensive prowess.

Say what you want about the Lakers good fortune, or good market - whatever it may be, but the real problem is we have a front office that doesn’t at least want to TRY to beat that. No attempt at all.

The funny thing is this has nothing to do with, as I alluded to before, our front offices general manner of doing business. Whether you refer to that as an aggressive or conservative office. It has everything to do with knowing who they are and the willingness to change it.

Say what you want about Bird, who is considered much more conservative compared to Kevin Pritchard but Bird had the same idea each year: “Our team isn’t good enough as constructed, so we’ll do what we need to do to fix that.” Do you see how important that is? This could mean Bird, had he still been in charge, ends up making absolutely no big moves this offseason. This has nothing to do with doing a move, to do a move. This has everything to do with our front office recognizing a lack of talent and making it clear they will work to improve that until they can be happy with the talent level.

I don’t believe it is impossible to compete with LAL, MIA, and OKC. I don’t. I think if you get creative with building a team you can come up with a team that could theoretically beat them. That doesn’t mean they actually end up doing it. But if you can at least field a team that can exploit weakness on those prior teams than you have a chance.

I’m merely asking our office to have a goal they will work to achieve even if it never happens. I understand because of our market, because of luck or any other possible reasons that may be an impossible goal. Doesn’t matter. Aim for the sky, if you don’t meet it than so be it.

I just don’t want to be told that the team I’m seeing has a chance to beat Miami, or OKC or LAL. Because they don’t. Plain and simple. And they won’t next year, or the year after, no matter how good Paul George gets. they don’t have that high of a ceiling.

For those that don’t believe moves can be made to compete with the best, I’ll give you a fictional example of what I think could compete with every team in the NBA. I will not continue to trumpet this idea as if it is the only way to go, or as if this is the best possible example. This is nothing more than a vision I have, for a team that could be formed that would rival any other team in the NBA. Once again the point I’m trying to drive home is not, “Kevin Pritchard should listen to mattie, dumbass drunk boarder on PacersDigest.” It is, Kevin Pritchard should have visions of different scenarios in which a Pacers team could be fielded that can beat anyone.

Here’s my simple thought- While gathering superstar talent went out of the wayside when the Pacers made no attempt to sign Deron Williams in the offseason, I could see how the Pacers could form an all defensive team that could matchup on any front with any team. A a team that could out rebound any team, protect the rim and make life miserable for guys like Wade and LBJ who’d like a nice free ride to the rim.

I know the Pacers do have in place at least part of that puzzle. George Hill is a long physical defender at the PG position. Once Paul George puts on a little strength he’ll be an all world, long defender at the two. He’ll truly have the physical capacity to give any two guard in the league fits. Danny Granger is a very physical defender capable of forcing LBJ to settle for jumpshots just because of his strength and good footwork. Roy Hibbert is a strong rebounder and shotblocker able to protect the rim better than just about every NBA player except Ibaka and Dwight Howard.

That’s a real core there. David West however is a major flaw in that plan. He cannot protect the rim, rebound or play anything above average defense. If David West’s valuable expiring contract is packaged with draft picks and or particular appealing bench players, he could bring back a starting caliber powerforward that could fullfill that necessary role.

Forget David West’s supposed leadership. Focus what it would take for this team to keep Pau and Dwight Howard off the offensive boards. Imagine if this team had two frontcourt players that kept Russell Westbrook and James Harden from having easy layups and dunks. What would happen if Indiana faced Miami in the post season, and they left Shane Battier on our starting 4, and we beat them so bad on the boards Miami would have to play LBJ at the 4 allowing Granger to score at will?

That fictional concept of a team could conceivably play against anyone. (In before ******* quotes the prior sentence and ignores everything else I said.)

My idea as I’ve stated multiple times in various threads is since the rebuilding Hawks have lost out on the Dwight sweepstakes, offer them a package for either one of their 4’s, either Horford or Smith. Obviously Smith would be the best case scenario, but Horford would be amazing as well.

The sheer size and athleticism and defensive ability displayed by our Pacers would allow us to truly play with any team in the NBA. That’d truly make them like the Pistons before. What people forget is that Pistons team was so great because they could defend ANYONE. They were that great. They didn’t have a superstar that could drop 40, but they could stop anyone, outrebound anyone and one year they were fortunate enough to outscore everyone because of all world defensive play.

So I’d like to say one last time, I’m not really upset with how things are going. Watching the Pacers make it to the second round is going to be exciting. I think in the next few years Paul George is going to be a really good player. I think he’ll be an allstar. But that’s the teams ceiling.

Next year when David West is a FA, he’ll be resigned and all of our starting five will be undercontract. DJ will be replaced by another backup point guard. Maybe a slightly superior one, maybe not. Lance could become an important contributor that is fun to watch, or he could go the way of Brandon Rush. You’ll see other various moves that change up the bench from year to year. But as said before, this is our team of the future and they aren’t getting much better.

That is all.


*Cliff notes

The Pacers front office will not make any moves in the next 5 years to change the current starting lineup. The current starting lineup will never be good enough to beat the top teams in the NBA.

PGisthefuture
08-16-2012, 08:00 AM
You never know, we could make a big move if it presents itself in the next 5 years. I mean look at what Philly just did, I could see us do something similar at some point in the next 5 years if the team doesn't improve. Also, there is still a chance Larry comes back after this year sometime. Another thing is that you never know if one of the major teams in the league could lose a star player due to injury kind of like the Bulls this year. Heck, we don't even know if Dwight will be a Laker next year.

mattie
08-16-2012, 08:02 AM
Again, I'll I'd ever ask for, and people who agree with me would ask for is some sort of vision. As an example the Colts in 99 2000 realized they have the QB of the future. Forgetting how lucky that is, they could have done very little and allowed Manning to have a Dan Marino like career. They didn't though. They fired their coach and hired the best defensive coach in the NFL. They had a vision. It worked. They were lucky. The point was they tried.

The Pacers could make the same effort, and if we never win, that's life. But at least an effort is made.

mattie
08-16-2012, 08:04 AM
You never know, we could make a big move if it presents itself in the next 5 years. I mean look at what Philly just did, I could see us do something similar at some point in the next 5 years if the team doesn't improve. Also, there is still a chance Larry comes back after this year sometime. Another thing is that you never know if one of the major teams in the league could lose a star player due to injury kind of like the Bulls this year. Heck, we don't even know if Dwight will be a Laker next year.

True. I'm hoping I'm wrong, and we try something. Point is, based off of Donnie's expressed goal for the future. The team is staying as is.

yoadknux
08-16-2012, 08:06 AM
The FO/ownership are fine with being good and not excellent. Most of the rumors about the departure of Bird say that our owner didn't want to spend. So I guess someone up there just wants us to make the playoffs and do what we can.

I understand that you're not happy us being pretenders, but you can't have a "contend or bust" attitude. After sucking for so long, you just wanna build a team that would make the playoffs, give the state a show, and go home.

You also have to understand that sometimes there are just no good moves out there. Maybe we did try to get Nash. Maybe we were working on a trade to get some point guard, but it fell apart. You can't know for sure.

Taking the next step from here though, I don't think it's possible anymore. We don't have the cap space for it. I think we should have traded for a point guard, but instead we gave Hill his dream contract. The Smith/Horford deal you suggested isn't practical because 1) We don't have the money for it and 2) There's no real way to get them for free next to the other 4 starters.

You just have to see how the current team goes. They probably won't contend, but hey, I'd take the #3/#4 seed over our #9-11 recent history.

mattie
08-16-2012, 08:11 AM
The FO/ownership are fine with being good and not excellent. Most of the rumors about the departure of Bird say that our owner didn't want to spend. So I guess someone up there just wants us to make the playoffs and do what we can.

I understand that you're not happy us being pretenders, but you can't have a "contend or bust" attitude. After sucking for so long, you just wanna build a team that would make the playoffs, give the state a show, and go home.

You also have to understand that sometimes there are just no good moves out there. Maybe we did try to get Nash. Maybe we were working on a trade to get some point guard, but it fell apart. You can't know for sure.

Taking the next step from here though, I don't think it's possible anymore. We don't have the cap space for it. I think we should have traded for a point guard, but instead we gave Hill his dream contract. The Smith/Horford deal you suggested isn't practical because 1) We don't have the money for it and 2) There's no real way to get them for free next to the other 4 starters.

You just have to see how the current team goes. They probably won't contend, but hey, I'd take the #3/#4 seed over our #9-11 recent history.

The difference between Horford or Smith's contract and West is 2million. As long as their plan is load up draft picks and get rid of one of their redundant 4's, it'd be quite easy to make the salaries matchup. If they wanted another expiring and lots of draft picks they could dump Horford on us and refuse to resign West in the offseason. It's possible.

Rogco
08-16-2012, 08:17 AM
Interesting post, and in many ways I agree with you. The big problem is that there are a lot of teams in the league, and very few have the chance to get good enough to compete for the title. Defense may be the way to go, but I think the Pacers need to ensure they have flexibility to be able to morph parts of the team. Two things happened this off-season I didn't like because they seem to cement us to mediocrity: drafting Plumlee (who could end up being a good value pick and contributor, but the pick also doesn't have the chance to seriously improve the team. We picked a guy we think will be our third string center for the next FOUR years.) and signing Hill (have no problem signing him, don't even really mind overpaying him, but wish the contract was not five years. that's to much money tied up for too long.)

Pacer Fan
08-16-2012, 08:38 AM
This team can do it and I feel sorry for you because you don't believe in our team.

Go Pacers

Dr. Awesome
08-16-2012, 08:42 AM
You know who else won't win a Championship in the next 5 years? At least 27 other teams, potentially/probably less.

mattie
08-16-2012, 08:47 AM
You know who else won't win a Championship in the next 5 years? At least 27 other teams, potentially/probably less.

I said compete. not win. Compete. There is a huge difference. Considering how close the Pacers are, if they had the right mindset they could compete. We've already seen the Pacers in the last 15 years compete for three championships. That Doctor, was awesome.

Unclebuck
08-16-2012, 08:48 AM
My first reaction is to say 5 years is a long, long time to predict anything. And I'd be shocked if the pacers or any other NBA team has almost the same starting lineup 5 years from now as they do today. Go back 5 years ago and tell me any team that has the same exact starting 5. How about 4 out of 5 same starters. I doubt more than a couple teams have 3 of the same starters.

Unclebuck
08-16-2012, 08:49 AM
I said compete. not win. Compete. There is a huge difference. Considering how close the Pacers are, if they had the right mindset they could compete. We've already seen the Pacers in the last 15 years compete for three championships. That Doctor, was awesome.

I am curious to know what you see as competing for a championship. What threes years did the pacers compete for one? what do you have to do to be in the classification as competing for a championship

Trader Joe
08-16-2012, 08:50 AM
My first reaction is to say 5 years is a long, long time to predict anything. And I'd be shocked if the pacers or any other NBA team has almost the same starting lineup 5 years from now as they do today. Go back 5 years ago and tell me any team that has the same exact starting 5. How about 4 out of 5 same starters. I doubt more than a couple teams have 3 of the same starters.

Last year was Boston's 5th year with Rondo, KG, Allen, Pierce at their core. I know exception to the rule but it does happen.

mattie
08-16-2012, 08:51 AM
By the way I'll list people who fielded teams JUST last year who could have conceivably won: Memphis, Chicago, San Antonio, LAL, Miami, and OKC. That's just last year. Every team I listed had something they brought to the table that could exploit any other team. Memphis had defense and a dominate front court. LA had three superstars, OKC and Miami both had their big three, San Antonio had one of the most explosive offenses ever. Chicago had defense and Rose.

Dr. Awesome
08-16-2012, 08:58 AM
And if you want me to be really honest, the Pacers will probably never win a Championship. Why? Because we are now playing in a league where if you aren't a big market team no one cares. Mix that with the fact that our front office refuses to lose(which is good and bad) and we don't have a shot. Even if we did luck out and land a superstar in a draft(which wouldn't be for a while if ever), he probably would just pull a LeBron, Dwight, Deron, Paul, ect who couldn't win Championships with their original teams.

So why am I a Pacers fan? Because I have some masochist type of loyalty to the teams I love and I love the Indiana Pacers. And if that day ever comes, where we by some miracle and against all odds do win the Championship, it will be that much sweeter. To say we stuck with them through everything only to finally see them come out on top. That's the dream, hopefully we all get it someday. Realistically, I don't see it happening though.

mattie
08-16-2012, 09:01 AM
I am curious to know what you see as competing for a championship. What threes years did the pacers compete for one? what do you have to do to be in the classification as competing for a championship

I stated above one possible example of how the Pacers could remain almost as is and compete for a championship.

I'm sure my definition of "competing" would differ with many people on this board. Obviously that's not the type of the thing that everyone can agree on. But I think we can all agree that we'll know it when we see it.

97-98 was the year I'd say the Pacers were the closest to a championship. They had offensive fire power. They could go to an all defensive lineup that could shut down anyone. They had rebounders, scorers, defenders. They were stacked really. They didn't win but I think very few historians would say they didn't have a shot at a title.

Kid Minneapolis
08-16-2012, 09:06 AM
Everyone is entitled to opinions, I just don't agree with most of them. :)

adamscb
08-16-2012, 09:06 AM
I agree with you mattie, this team is likely not a championship contender. However, I don't think the activity of the front office (or lack thereof) is to blame. Becoming a true contender in this league is very difficult to do, especially in a small/medium market and with the development of super-teams over the last half decade. Look at the current super teams: OKC, LAL, and MIA.

OKC: The Thunder's rise to the top is the most interesting of the three, in my opinion. They're a small-market team (arguably smaller than Indiana), and Oklahoma City doesn't have the draw of say Los Angeles or Miami. How the Thunder became a great team was having great success through the draft. They were absolutely terrible for three years in a row, and thus drafted Durant, Harden, and Westbrook. Players like these don't come around every year, yet the Thunder snatched three of them. The Pacers' problem was they were only mediocre, not bad enough to get a great draft pick, but not good enough to make the playoffs.

LAL: Let's face it, the main advantage the Lakers have is the draw of Los Angeles, and the market size. Oh yeah, and that one guy named Kobe Bryant, one of the best if not the best two guard in NBA history. No Kobe Bryant, no Dwight Howard or Steve Nash. The combination of the Black Mamba and the city of L.A. make the Lakers very hard to pass up if you're a big-time free agent. The city of Indianapolis doesn't have the draw of Los Angeles, or one of the best players in NBA history that makes free agents say, "I want to play with him". City markets in the NBA matter more than in any other sport.

MIA: How the Heat and Lakers became super-teams is almost identical. Miami definitely has the draw to bring in big-name players. A huge factor that has been overlooked, though, is the friendship that Lebron and Dwayne formed before King James made "The Decision". This was a huge factor in making Lebron come to Miami. One of the problems with the Pacers is that our players don't have the experience of playing on Team USA and forming friendships with other NBA superstars.

You can't really blame our front office for a lack of effort. You mention we didn't even make an effort to usher in Deron Williams. I'm almost certain we did, it just wasn't on the front page of ESPN. Our front office wants us to win a championship just as much as everyone here on PD.

BRushWithDeath
08-16-2012, 09:11 AM
Last year was Boston's 5th year with Rondo, KG, Allen, Pierce at their core. I know exception to the rule but it does happen.

How many consecutive years did Atlanta trot out Joe Johnson, Marvin Williams, Josh Smith, and Al Horford? Since 2007 when Horford entered the league right?

It is uncommon but certainly not unprecedented and does seem to be the path we're heading towards.

mattie
08-16-2012, 09:13 AM
I agree with you mattie, this team is likely not a championship contender. However, I don't think the activity of the front office (or lack thereof) is to blame. Becoming a true contender in this league is very difficult to do, especially in a small/medium market and with the development of super-teams over the last half decade. Look at the current super teams: OKC, LAL, and MIA.

OKC: The Thunder's rise to the top is the most interesting of the three, in my opinion. They're a small-market team (arguably smaller than Indiana), and Oklahoma City doesn't have the draw of say Los Angeles or Miami. How the Thunder became a great team was having great success through the draft. They were absolutely terrible for three years in a row, and thus drafted Durant, Harden, and Westbrook. Players like these don't come around every year, yet the Thunder snatched three of them. The Pacers' problem was they were only mediocre, not bad enough to get a great draft pick, but not good enough to make the playoffs.

LAL: Let's face it, the main advantage the Lakers have is the draw of Los Angeles, and the market size. Oh yeah, and that one guy named Kobe Bryant, one of the best if not the best two guard in NBA history. No Kobe Bryant, no Dwight Howard or Steve Nash. The combination of the Black Mamba and the city of L.A. make the Lakers very hard to pass up if you're a big-time free agent. The city of Indianapolis doesn't have the draw of Los Angeles, or one of the best players in NBA history that makes free agents say, "I want to play with him". City markets in the NBA matter more than in any other sport.

MIA: How the Heat and Lakers became super-teams is almost identical. Miami definitely has the draw to bring in big-name players. A huge factor that has been overlooked, though, is the friendship that Lebron and Dwayne formed before King James made "The Decision". This was a huge factor in making Lebron come to Miami. One of the problems with the Pacers is that our players don't have the experience of playing on Team USA and forming friendships with other NBA superstars.

You can't really blame our front office for a lack of effort. You mention we didn't even make an effort to usher in Deron Williams. I'm almost certain we did, it just wasn't on the front page of ESPN. Our front office wants us to win a championship just as much as everyone here on PD.

Great post. Not really disagreeing with you but I did want to express what my complaints are against the front office. I see a marked difference between Donnie and Bird. Bird clearly had a problem with the teams talent level.

If Donnie came out tomorrow and said we have issues that need to be addressed at some point, I'd forget it once and for all. I personally believe, and I could be wrong, that our front office thinks the starting five going forward is good enough to beat Miami and that is just wrong.

I know it is extremely difficult to field a true title contender. I just want that to be the goal is all. I think our front office believes that once Roy, Hill and Paul hit their peaks that will happen. I disagree. I don't think we'll be much better in three years than we are now. There isn't much room for this to peak is all.

mildlysane
08-16-2012, 09:18 AM
Oh ye of little faith...optimism is a lifestyle, not just a mindset (:)). However, I can see your point very clearly. Alot of things have to go right for us to compete for a Championship. But, you never know. The right injury can propel a number of teams into Title contention. Synergy could come into play and trump star power. Maybe person growth of individual players/coaches can do it. There are a lot of variables to consider. Catching lightning in a bottle, although very difficult and therefore very unlikely, can happen and has happened in the past.

mattie
08-16-2012, 09:30 AM
By the way I don't buy for a second the Pacers can't make moves. They can. The hard part about making moves when your team isn't very good is you don't have assets. Well when your team is very good you of course do have assets, which means you don't necessarily have to gut your team to obtain a different player.

Look at the Lakers. The Lakers essentially traded Bynum for Howard. Howard is a MUCH greater player than Bynum. But they got it done. And that's not an example of LA being LA. Howard didn't ask to go to LA. It was LA offering their asset until a deal was done, and frankly they offered the best deal out of everyone.

There are assets on the Pacers that can be offered for various players around the league. A deal can be done. The answer can't be "well West isn't as good as so and so, they would never do that." Bynum wasn't as good as Howard but the trade was done wasn't it??

West and Green? West and DJ? Add picks to either of those deals? You can land talent. I keep mentioning Atlanta because I think it's obvious. Atlanta has two players playing the same position and they're in rebuilding mode. They have to do something. We have a valuable 10m expiring contract, and we have picks that we can dump right and left considering any move we make *could* theoretically put us into title contention.

A deal can be made.

The Pacers should shoot to be a team like Memphis really. Memphis is no where near the favorites but they have a team that might be able to win. Even now. They have a PF that when healthy can seemingly dominate anyone. They have defense and rebounding at every other position. They certainly would like to make trades to make their team better, but seriously they *could* win it. (Funny, despite all that they still put Gay on the market)

Since86
08-16-2012, 09:32 AM
By the way I'll list people who fielded teams JUST last year who could have conceivably won: Memphis, Chicago, San Antonio, LAL, Miami, and OKC. That's just last year. Every team I listed had something they brought to the table that could exploit any other team. Memphis had defense and a dominate front court. LA had three superstars, OKC and Miami both had their big three, San Antonio had one of the most explosive offenses ever. Chicago had defense and Rose.

So a team that lost in the first round is a championship contender, but the Pacers are not? I'm just trying to figure out how you define what a "contender" is, because there's something a little off with this.

billbradley
08-16-2012, 09:35 AM
We have a valuable 10m expiring contract, and we have picks that we can dump right and left considering any move we make *could* theoretically put us into title contention.

A deal can be made.

Are you assuming a deal won't be made?
But if we hit the trade deadline first in our division and 2nd in the East, why would we make a deal?

I think West, Hibbert and PG could come back better and we can compete next year. The only hole I see is Tyler.

Unclebuck
08-16-2012, 09:40 AM
By the way I'll list people who fielded teams JUST last year who could have conceivably won: Memphis, Chicago, San Antonio, LAL, Miami, and OKC. That's just last year. Every team I listed had something they brought to the table that could exploit any other team. Memphis had defense and a dominate front court. LA had three superstars, OKC and Miami both had their big three, San Antonio had one of the most explosive offenses ever. Chicago had defense and Rose.


Memphis? The same team that lost in the first round? I would not put them in the category as a team that could have won a championship.

mattie
08-16-2012, 09:42 AM
So a team that lost in the first round is a championship contender, but the Pacers are not? I'm just trying to figure out how you define what a "contender" is, because there's something a little off with this.

Are you nitpicking my argument or do you really want to know? Obviously Chicago was a contender. Until last years MVP was injured. I shouldn't have to repeat that.


Are you assuming a deal won't be made?
But if we hit the trade deadline first in our division and 2nd in the East, why would we make a deal?

I think West, Hibbert and PG could come back better and we can compete next year. The only hole I see is Tyler.

For the record, at the trade deadline I believe we will be second in the east. ****, if Wade has some nagging injury we could be number one in the east! That doesn't mean we have the talent to actually win though. As I've stated before, this team cannot protect the rim, it will not win the rebound battle, and they don't have the superstars to make up for our deficiencies rebounding and defending.

I don't think you necessarily judge a team on how many wins they have. I mean that's a huge part of it, but you can evaluate the talent on whether they're good enough to actually beat a great team in a playoff series. No matter what this teams record is come the trade deadline? It absolutely will not change what will happen when they play Miami in the playoffs. They'll lose.

So yes I'd make a trade at the deadline if you could land someone else. Boston did it remember? Didn't necessarily work but they had a plan and went with it. They didn't feel they were good enough to win so they said screw our record we're going to try to make a move that can raise our teams potential.

mattie
08-16-2012, 09:43 AM
Memphis? The same team that lost in the first round? I would not put them in the category as a team that could have won a championship.

Why do I have to say anything? Did we forget their best players injury kept him playing on the bench 1 week before the playoffs?

Since86
08-16-2012, 09:45 AM
Are you nitpicking my argument or do you really want to know? Obviously Chicago was a contender. Until last years MVP was injured. I shouldn't have to repeat that.

Waht does Chicago have to do with you thinking that Memphis, who lost in the first round, is a title contender?

Cubs231721
08-16-2012, 09:45 AM
I have a couple quibbles with your best case scenarios.

For example, Hibbert. You mentioned he's average at offense at best as a best case scenario. I would contend that he is already well above average offensively. He was 55th in the NBA in points per game last year which is a little above average. And he's efficient with that scoring. He was tied for 20th in FG percentage (and there were several players who scored less than he did above him). He shoots a pretty good free throw percentage for a big man with 71 percent last year.

And from a scouting perspective on Hibbert, he draws double teams frequently. Teams have been known to gameplan against stopping Hibbert first. That sort of attention isn't garnered on players who are barely average on the offensive end.

And for a team thing, you mentioned the team's best case scenario is an average rebounding team. But they were 9th in the NBA in rebounding margin just last year (even better in total rebounds, but that was mostly influenced by the Pacers style). Certainly their best case scenario is at least the same and maybe even a little better than they did just last year. Even with the same starting 5, they certainly have room to improve the bench's rebounding capability.

So the Pacers in best case are a bottom of the top 5 offense, bottom of the top 5 defense, and top 10 rebounding sort of team. I think that's the other area on where we differ. I don't think a team necessarily has to have a specialized skill to win a title. In that scenario, as you said, some teams could break down the Pacers defense, others could defend the Pacers well, and others could outrebound them. But the Pacers would still be contenders in that scenario because it's rare for a team to be that well balanced, and so the Pacers would have advantages over each of those teams who have that one elite skill.

Now there still is the thorny question of how likely it is that the Pacers hit that ceiling. The Pacers could easily not be true title contenders over the next 5 years. But their ceiling IMO is true title contention. I don't think the Pacers as currently constructed could ever be considered hands down the best team in the league even if they hit their ceiling, but they definitely could be in the mix.

mattie
08-16-2012, 09:51 AM
I have a couple quibbles with your best case scenarios.

For example, Hibbert. You mentioned he's average at offense at best as a best case scenario. I would contend that he is already well above average offensively. He was 55th in the NBA in points per game last year which is a little above average. And he's efficient with that scoring. He was tied for 20th in FG percentage (and there were several players who scored less than he did above him). He shoots a pretty good free throw percentage for a big man with 71 percent last year.

And from a scouting perspective on Hibbert, he draws double teams frequently. Teams have been known to gameplan against stopping Hibbert first. That sort of attention isn't garnered on players who are barely average on the offensive end.

And for a team thing, you mentioned the team's best case scenario is an average rebounding team. But they were 9th in the NBA in rebounding margin just last year (even better in total rebounds, but that was mostly influenced by the Pacers style). Certainly their best case scenario is at least the same and maybe even a little better than they did just last year. Even with the same starting 5, they certainly have room to improve the bench's rebounding capability.

So the Pacers in best case are a bottom of the top 5 offense, bottom of the top 5 defense, and top 10 rebounding sort of team. I think that's the other area on where we differ. I don't think a team necessarily has to have a specialized skill to win a title. In that scenario, as you said, some teams could break down the Pacers defense, others could defend the Pacers well, and others could outrebound them. But the Pacers would still be contenders in that scenario because it's rare for a team to be that well balanced, and so the Pacers would have advantages over each of those teams who have that one elite skill.

Now there still is the thorny question of how likely it is that the Pacers hit that ceiling. The Pacers could easily not be true title contenders over the next 5 years. But their ceiling IMO is true title contention. I don't think the Pacers as currently constructed could ever be considered hands down the best team in the league even if they hit their ceiling, but they definitely could be in the mix.

I can see that.

I guess as you said, I'm suggesting we need to have some sort of strength to rely on where as you're saying the Pacers strength in every area would make them be able to adapt to each opponent. Not sure I agree that would work, but I understand the reasoning.

Great post. Thanks.

Edit - That's a really great perspective and could explain why our office really has no intention of changing the starting five. The idea that a solid team from all angles could contend.

(I don't believe that'll work. I think a team like that just simply gets flat out beat. But I'm just trying to see it from a different angle)

BillS
08-16-2012, 10:13 AM
This is well written and I thanked it, but (as you might expect) I disagree with a number of points:

- I think we will have at least one if not 2 new starters within 2 years.

- I think we're only taking some time to see where this team develops with a full training camp and season behind it - making moves before you know what you really have is at some point just guesswork.

- We see the message coming from Pritchard and Vogel, not just Donnie, but of course it is always "Donnie's express goal"

- I fail to understand how, when the quality of our bench definitely affected our ability to hold leads in the playoffs and therefore we made some moves to improve the bench, that is not addressing something we needed to do to make the team better. Why is it only changes to the starting lineup that make the team better?

I still feel like much of the idea that we won't make any more moves comes from three places: Donnie's reputation for not making moves, the team not making moves this summer for various fan favorite FAs or trade targets, and the assumption that Herb Simon won't spend money.

Toward the first point - please remember that Donnie's reputation was really NOT that he made NO moves, it was that he got the team to a certain point AS A CONTENDER and then failed to make the final big move. He made lots of moves - many of them very unexpected and involving major components of the team - prior to the point when the Pacers were in the ECFs nearly every year. He was then criticized for tweaking things rather than trying for one big thing that would put the team over the top. After the Finals year, the next bold moves blew up in his face, but he MADE them. He was hoist with his own lingering concept of how things should work between teams and players, but it was NOT that he made NO major moves involving starters.

The second point is purely my opinion, there's not much to base it on other than the fact that people claim we really did nothing this offseason when we did a lot - just not what they wanted.

The third point seems a bit overwrought. We're going to be over the cap and up toward the LT. If Herb wanted to be Donald Sterling I think we wouldn't be spending anywhere near that much. Herb doesn't strike me as a wishy-washy guy - if he wanted to not spend money we would not spend it, period. We spent the money, we just didn't spend it in a way some people felt was advantageous.

OlBlu
08-16-2012, 10:23 AM
A well reasoned post and it would explain most small market teams who are not fortunate enough to have a super star fall into their lap ala OKC........:cool:

OlBlu
08-16-2012, 10:27 AM
Are you assuming a deal won't be made?
But if we hit the trade deadline first in our division and 2nd in the East, why would we make a deal?

I think West, Hibbert and PG could come back better and we can compete next year. The only hole I see is Tyler.

Tyler is of no significan consequence. Many people keep thinking that everyone will come back better. The only one who may be slightly better is PG. The rest of them you see what you are going to get. That is why I think they will slip a notch or two or three because the stood pat with their starters while others in the East improved..... I think they will be fighting for the sixth seed barring major injuries to the teams above them and the Pacers themselves. Last year was magic and it is not likely to be duplicated.....:cool:

vnzla81
08-16-2012, 10:27 AM
That was not a hard prediction to do, good post though, as we know the Pacers are known for keeping their players until they are so hurt that they can't move so I expect West to be re-signed for 3 or 4 more years and then the year after that I expect Danny to be re-signed for another 3 or 4 years, Hill and Hibbert have 5 years left in their contracts and Paul George will get an extension for sure, so like you said I don't expect the Pacers to win anything in the next five years.

mattie
08-16-2012, 10:29 AM
This is well written and I thanked it, but (as you might expect) I disagree with a number of points:

- I think we will have at least one if not 2 new starters within 2 years.

- I think we're only taking some time to see where this team develops with a full training camp and season behind it - making moves before you know what you really have is at some point just guesswork.

- We see the message coming from Pritchard and Vogel, not just Donnie, but of course it is always "Donnie's express goal"

- I fail to understand how, when the quality of our bench definitely affected our ability to hold leads in the playoffs and therefore we made some moves to improve the bench, that is not addressing something we needed to do to make the team better. Why is it only changes to the starting lineup that make the team better?

I still feel like much of the idea that we won't make any more moves comes from three places: Donnie's reputation for not making moves, the team not making moves this summer for various fan favorite FAs or trade targets, and the assumption that Herb Simon won't spend money.

Toward the first point - please remember that Donnie's reputation was really NOT that he made NO moves, it was that he got the team to a certain point AS A CONTENDER and then failed to make the final big move. He made lots of moves - many of them very unexpected and involving major components of the team - prior to the point when the Pacers were in the ECFs nearly every year. He was then criticized for tweaking things rather than trying for one big thing that would put the team over the top. After the Finals year, the next bold moves blew up in his face, but he MADE them. He was hoist with his own lingering concept of how things should work between teams and players, but it was NOT that he made NO major moves involving starters.

The second point is purely my opinion, there's not much to base it on other than the fact that people claim we really did nothing this offseason when we did a lot - just not what they wanted.

The third point seems a bit overwrought. We're going to be over the cap and up toward the LT. If Herb wanted to be Donald Sterling I think we wouldn't be spending anywhere near that much. Herb doesn't strike me as a wishy-washy guy - if he wanted to not spend money we would not spend it, period. We spent the money, we just didn't spend it in a way some people felt was advantageous.

Honestly my prediction on what Kevin and Donnie plan to do is based on what they have said in the media. Obviously you have gotten a completely different perspective on what they want to do. It makes a lot of sense and has me doubting my thoughts on the whole matter. (The fact that you predict possibly two new starters absolutely blows my mind. I guess I could have completely misread Kevin and Donnie)

I mean, based on history I know Donnie's made moves. He traded for Derrick McKey, he landed Mark Jackson twice, he got Mullin, he traded Antonio Davis (at his request) etc.

What has me worried, and maybe I've completely read the wrong, is I think they believe the bench is all that needs improving. It's not that I believe the "only way you can improve" is by changing the starting lineup, it's just I feel that starting lineup is flawed in such a way that no bench can overcompensate for the starting lineups errors. If that makes sense.

I love the moves this offseason by the way. Love the pickup of Green, love the pickup of DJ and Mahinmi.

OlBlu
08-16-2012, 10:29 AM
And if you want me to be really honest, the Pacers will probably never win a Championship. Why? Because we are now playing in a league where if you aren't a big market team no one cares. Mix that with the fact that our front office refuses to lose(which is good and bad) and we don't have a shot. Even if we did luck out and land a superstar in a draft(which wouldn't be for a while if ever), he probably would just pull a LeBron, Dwight, Deron, Paul, ect who couldn't win Championships with their original teams.

So why am I a Pacers fan? Because I have some masochist type of loyalty to the teams I love and I love the Indiana Pacers. And if that day ever comes, where we by some miracle and against all odds do win the Championship, it will be that much sweeter. To say we stuck with them through everything only to finally see them come out on top. That's the dream, hopefully we all get it someday. Realistically, I don't see it happening though.


Bingo!!! The small market teams are nothing but a minor league feeder system for the big market teams. The Pacers only made on run to the finals in their history. It is not likely to happen again....:cool:

Banta
08-16-2012, 10:41 AM
I don't care if the Pacers win a Championship. So many people refer to the team as "we" but if they win, I don't get a share of the money or a trophy or any credit for the victories. I'm a basketball fan and the Pacers are the pro franchise in my city, which is great because it means I get to see pro hoops a lot. To that end, what I need the Pacers to do in exchange for my money is present a good product. The 2011/2012 team was a good product and it looks like a good product should be on the court for several years to come. I'm going to enjoy that while I can.

Kid Minneapolis
08-16-2012, 10:43 AM
"Not likely to happen again", lol.... your perspective continues to make me chuckle internally, Blu. Your optimism springs eternal.

BillS
08-16-2012, 10:49 AM
(The fact that you predict possibly two new starters absolutely blows my mind. I guess I could have completely misread Kevin and Donnie)

I did say within 2 years. I don't think we'll have a new starter this year, but I could definitely see not retaining West or trading either West or Hill. I really don't think anyone sees Hill as the permanent PG, just as the one for THIS season.


What has me worried, and maybe I've completely read the wrong, is I think they believe the bench is all that needs improving. It's not that I believe the "only way you can improve" is by changing the starting lineup, it's just I feel that starting lineup is flawed in such a way that no bench can overcompensate for the starting lineups errors. If that makes sense.

I think people get impatient and believe that if the priority was to improve the bench FIRST it somehow means that the ONLY priority was to improve the bench. To be honest, you get a lot more bang for the buck improving the bench - you'll end up overpaying a starter anyway so you'd better have a real good idea that the starter is exactly who you need. After all, if you get a top level starter and still go in the toilet every time he sits you aren't going to do much better than you did without him.

billbradley
08-16-2012, 10:53 AM
I mean, based on history I know Donnie's made moves. He traded for Derrick McKey, he landed Mark Jackson twice, he got Mullin, he traded Antonio Davis (at his request) etc.

What about acquiring Jalen Rose, Ron Artest, Brad Miller?

BillS
08-16-2012, 10:54 AM
Bingo!!! The small market teams are nothing but a minor league feeder system for the big market teams. The Pacers only made on run to the finals in their history. It is not likely to happen again....:cool:

Really? Wow. That'll prove to be about as accurate as the people in the 80's saying the Pacers would never be anything but a bottom feeder in the NBA.

mattie
08-16-2012, 11:01 AM
I did say within 2 years. I don't think we'll have a new starter this year, but I could definitely see not retaining West or trading either West or Hill. I really don't think anyone sees Hill as the permanent PG, just as the one for THIS season.



I think people get impatient and believe that if the priority was to improve the bench FIRST it somehow means that the ONLY priority was to improve the bench. To be honest, you get a lot more bang for the buck improving the bench - you'll end up overpaying a starter anyway so you'd better have a real good idea that the starter is exactly who you need. After all, if you get a top level starter and still go in the toilet every time he sits you aren't going to do much better than you did without him.

True.

They could definitely pull the trigger on Horford, and then hypothetically he ends up marginally better than West only we're stuck with his contract.

And you're definitely right. Some of it is based on what they have said in the media, but definitely there is some impatience thinking they have no intentions on making any other moves. As I said before, I wouldn't say a word or be worried a bit if I had some indication they want to make necessary improvements.

I'll tell you this much: If I heard tomorrow "sources" heard Kevin was talking to Atlanta, I wouldn't say another word. That'd be enough for me.

Edit - I never doubted Larry by the way. He always seemed to be clear about the future of the team so it was easy for me to buy in to what he's doing. I'm not even saying he did a good job either way. I just completely bought into his competency I guess you could say.

Kid Minneapolis
08-16-2012, 11:06 AM
What is the point of posts like this? Just curious. To establish what? You ultimately feel there is no hope? Okay, whatev. Why root for a team if you honestly feel this way? This is along the same lines as reading most of OlBlu's posts... just no hope at all.

Pacers: "We've improved drastically over the last two years, we have new management, young promising talent, a stud young coach --- therefore, I have substantial reason to believe we've plateau'd and we'll never change or improve beyond our current state at all and it's basically downhill from here."
Colts: "We just spent a decade being awesome, our old regime wore out, our new regime looks really promising, we're cleaning out the bad contracts, we just landed the single most highly rated player in history, and surrounded him with amazing young talents --- therefore, I have substantial reason to believe we're going to suck bad not only this year, but at least a decade hereafter."

Logical.

mattie
08-16-2012, 11:11 AM
What is the point of posts like this? Just curious. To establish what? You ultimately feel there is no hope? Okay, whatev. Why root for a team if you honestly feel this way? This is the same lines as reading most of OlBlu's post... just no hope at all.

Pacers: "We've improved drastically over the last two years, we have new management --- therefore, I have substantial reason to believe we've plateau'd and we'll never change or improve beyond our current state at all and it's basically downhill from here."
Colts: "We just spent a decade being awesome, our old regime wore out, our new regime looks really promising, we're cleaning out the bad contracts, we just landed the single most highly rated player in history, and surrounded him with amazing young talents --- therefore, I have substantial reason to believe we're going to suck bad not only this year, but at least a decade hereafter."

Logical.

I thought I was clear in the original post. I'm very happy and excited about the coming seasons. I'm not down or disappointed. I was just suggesting, and predicting, based off of our front offices comments what I felt the direction of the franchise was.

4 years ago Larry gave us a clear plan. I could be completely wrong, but I felt Donnie gave us a plan that suggested little improvement.

Every year that Larry said "we need to improve" was all I ever needed. That's it. I guess I'm wrong, but I gathered Kevin/Donnie want minor improvements to the bench.

The point of the thread? For everyone to prove how wrong I am so I can get excited about future moves.

billbradley
08-16-2012, 11:18 AM
How many consecutive years did Atlanta trot out Joe Johnson, Marvin Williams, Josh Smith, and Al Horford? Since 2007 when Horford entered the league right?

It is uncommon but certainly not unprecedented and does seem to be the path we're heading towards.

Why does it seem the Pacers have chosen that path? Our starting 5 has changed every year for the past 3 years including this upcoming season.

With our two best players, Granger is locked in for two more seasons, West one. The Hawks were committed to JJ and Smith for almost 30 million a year when they started their playoff runs.

It's just not the same situation as the Hawks.

adamscb
08-16-2012, 11:31 AM
Great post. Not really disagreeing with you but I did want to express what my complaints are against the front office. I see a marked difference between Donnie and Bird. Bird clearly had a problem with the teams talent level.

If Donnie came out tomorrow and said we have issues that need to be addressed at some point, I'd forget it once and for all. I personally believe, and I could be wrong, that our front office thinks the starting five going forward is good enough to beat Miami and that is just wrong.

I know it is extremely difficult to field a true title contender. I just want that to be the goal is all. I think our front office believes that once Roy, Hill and Paul hit their peaks that will happen. I disagree. I don't think we'll be much better in three years than we are now. There isn't much room for this to peak is all.

The Pacers only issue is that they're not Miami. It's a good possibility we'll be 2nd in the East: our group is solid. I'm not trying to attack your viewpoint here, but let me say this: many people are looking at how quickly Miami and Los Angeles became super teams and think we can do it too. We can't. The best way for us to win a championship is with a slow and steady approach, which is exactly what we're doing.

brownjake43
08-16-2012, 11:32 AM
I like what the Pacers did this year. If Hibbert makes some improvements to his game, and adds a bit more endurance we can beat the Heat. And if you beat the Heat in the East then you have a shot at winning the East. As we all know with Hibbert on the floor we outscored Miami in the playoffs. Adding Manhimi and Plumlee to foul/block LeBron and Wade when they take it to the hoop when Hibbert is out of the game also helps. Also, while the Heat has a star in his prime and another star on the decline. We have Granger in his prime, West maybe on a bit of a decline but solid leadership, and every other player on our roster will only get better with time. Who on Miami besides LeBron is showing that they will be able to play at the same level or better for years to come. Maybe Chalmers?

By the way anyone who says Sixers, Knicks, and Nets are better than the Pacers are just doubters. Even Vegas odds has the low market Pacers as the third most likely team to come out of the East after Miami and Chicago.

BillS
08-16-2012, 11:38 AM
What is the point of posts like this?

I think it was a very cogent statement representing the sentiments of a lot of people on the forum, done in a way that set forth the arguments in a matter-of-fact fashion without any unnecessary "sky is falling" platitudes or (not-so-)subtle digs at the competency of the FO or ownership.

A very pleasant thread even if I completely disagree with the conclusion.

vnzla81
08-16-2012, 11:38 AM
I don't care if the Pacers win a Championship. So many people refer to the team as "we" but if they win, I don't get a share of the money or a trophy or any credit for the victories. I'm a basketball fan and the Pacers are the pro franchise in my city, which is great because it means I get to see pro hoops a lot. To that end, what I need the Pacers to do in exchange for my money is present a good product. The 2011/2012 team was a good product and it looks like a good product should be on the court for several years to come. I'm going to enjoy that while I can.

Quoting this post to prove the point I was trying to make yesterday on the other thread, some people are just happy to "compete".

McKeyFan
08-16-2012, 11:43 AM
Your theory that West's defensive and rebounding weaknesses is our key problem in getting past Miami is certainly plausible. But that's not where I am.

I think our key problem has been a stagnant offense. Granger, Hill, and PG are all similar type players: Good defenders, long, good perimeter shooters, okay to questionable on driving to the hole, and, at the end of the day, unable to create their own shot. Neither can any of them feed the post that well. Three starters. That's a problem.

If it weren't for David West, our offense would really stagnate.

Had we fixed the point guard problem this summer, or if Lance breaks out, then I could see ideas for trading West to beef up the front line to improve defense and rebounding.

I don't have the answer, but I don't think yours is an answer either. An Ibaka for West type trade screws our offense. An Ibake type player who has West's offensive skills is a superstar we could not obtain.

Kid Minneapolis
08-16-2012, 11:54 AM
I think it was a very cogent statement representing the sentiments of a lot of people on the forum, done in a way that set forth the arguments in a matter-of-fact fashion without any unnecessary "sky is falling" platitudes or (not-so-)subtle digs at the competency of the FO or ownership.

A very pleasant thread even if I completely disagree with the conclusion.

Oh, it was well-structured and written, but ultimately, I disagree with it, and I still stand by my question. What's the point? There's nothing out there saying we're going to remain static and plateau at this exact same spot. During the Vogel era, we've done nothing but improve every month, and Walsh and Pritchard are proven to be active improvers.... long-term and recent history indicates the exact opposite of this post. There's just no reason to think this way, and what good does it do.

BillS
08-16-2012, 11:59 AM
Quoting this post to prove the point I was trying to make yesterday on the other thread, some people are just happy to "compete".

OK, nobody said folks like that don't exist. The implication has been that it is the stand of the majority (if not the VAST majority) of fans (and of the owner and FO).

Extreme positions exist on everything; their mere existence isn't proof of their commonality.

15th parallel
08-16-2012, 12:15 PM
Well in basketball, you really never know until the season unfolds.

At the end of it all, only one team for each conference will compete for the championship. While there were sure winners like Miami, there were surprises like Dallas two seasons ago. So for the Pacers, they just need to continue going up as their core is one of the strongest as a collective group.

WhoLovesYaBaby?
08-16-2012, 12:29 PM
The OP demonstates that he know little about sports or NBA basketball.

Why did I even look at this thread?

Peck
08-16-2012, 12:29 PM
The only fair way to judge Donnie Walsh is by his entire body of work with the franchise.

Some people are to fast to blame him for what occurred after 2000 & some are to fast to forget that his tenure with Indiana did not start with the 93/94 season.

He was not given the name Donnie Do Nothing in 1999 he was given that name in 1989.

I have said all along he is a good manager (whatever title you want to give him) of basketball talent, however whenever you are dealing with Walsh Warriors that is never good enough. Every move he made is the not only the only move that was available at the time it was the exact perfect thing to do.

It's very hard to combat that type of thinking.

It's already happening again in this day and age. Look at how many people are running to defend this off season by saying what was done were the only options available and even though they were the only options available they were great if not perfect decisions.

Now mind you just like BillS is pointing out that not everybody is content to be competitive I'm stating that not everybody is of the mind set of Walsh Warriors but just like those who are content these types also exists.

I will counter all of the "look who Donnie traded for" and state that we need to go look at his trade record from 1985 to 1994 and then again from 1994 to 2000 and then 2000 till Larry took over. I think when you look at it like that you will see there were times he was very active to times where you wondered if we weren't just on cruise control.

spazzxb
08-16-2012, 12:37 PM
[QUOTE=mattie;1493879]Quick note- I don’t intend this as a negative outlook on the Pacers future.
/QUOTE]

Your title certainly does. I think people who complain about the front office should at least give examples of things we could have done and didn't. The people pissed because the team was never as bad as they would hope shouldn't bother responding,I have no respect for their viewpoint. We offered Nash a contract and I really don't want the team adding old players. This was never a short term project.

Eddie Gill
08-16-2012, 12:42 PM
While I'm really enjoying the discussion in this thread, I do disagree with some of your logic, mattie.

You cite the 97-98 Pacers as an example of a Pacers team that could legitimately compete for a title. While that team was no doubt one of the best this franchise has ever assembled, it was only good for the 5th best record in the league that year.


Here's a quick look around the league in 1998:
-MJ and Pippen making one final run in Chicago
-Stockton & Malone leading a dominant Utah team
-New York - while not as good as years past - still had Ewing averaging a double-double, Allan Houston, LJ, Oakley, and Starks and upset a very good Miami team in the playoffs
-Gary Payton, Schrempf, and Vin Baker (yes, Vin Baker was pretty good once upon a time) leading Seattle to 61 wins
-A Shaq-led Lakers team that was only a Kobe away from dominating the next 5 years, but still good enough to win 61 games


Now, let's re-examine the league in 2012:
-Miami finally clicked, has the best player in the world coming off one of the best years a basketball player has ever had. Add Ray Allen to the mix, no reason not to expect them not to dominate.
-OKC is young, but loaded with talent. A trip to the NBA Finals and Olympics (for most of the core players anyway) should serve as a great learning experience. Will only get better.
-LAL will start Nash, Kobe, Artest, Gasol, and Howard. Granted, they're on the older side, but it is still one of the most impressive lineups in recent NBA history.
-Boston returns a core that is no doubt old, but very experienced, well-coached, and hungry. Let's not forget how close they came to beating Miami this year.

I just fail to see how 2012 is a markedly different environment than 1998. The team that pushed Jordan to Game 7 in 98 and finally reached the Finals in 2000 had largely the same core for 6 or 7 years. The 2000 Finals represented the proverbial ceiling for that group. You can argue the 98 team was better and may find a sympathetic ear or two. But what can't be argued is they lost to two better teams. Jordan and the Bulls and the beginning of a Lakers dynasty.

If getting to a couple Conference Finals and an NBA Finals in the 90s is considered competing for a championship, the same standard must be applied today. Looking around the league - especially the Eastern Conference - I have every reason to believe the Pacers can compete for a championship just like those 90s teams.

Peck
08-16-2012, 12:42 PM
[QUOTE=mattie;1493879]Quick note- I don’t intend this as a negative outlook on the Pacers future.
/QUOTE]

Your title certainly does. I think people who complain about the front office should at least give examples of things we could have done and didn't. The people pissed because the team was never as bad as they would hope shouldn't bother responding,I have no respect for your viewpoint. We offered Nash a contract and I really don't want the team adding old players. This was never a short term project.

This was proven to be a myth. I don't have time right now but someone will provide us the link to the article showing that Nash went directly to the Lakers and the Pacers (nor any other team) made an offer.

Trader Joe
08-16-2012, 12:46 PM
Doesn't this offseason make some more sense though if we operate under the theory that Donnie is just keeping shop for a year while Bird rests?

Anyway, I'm firmly somewhere in the middle on this. I think we can compete for a title, but I definitely don't think we can win one. To me competing means, could you see a way where your team finds itself in the conference finals, my answer is yes, but right now I don't really see a way where we would find a way to win the whole damn thing unless Paul makes a gigantic leap offensively. I'm not content with just competing forever, but I do think it is a good spot to be heading into this particular season, I would have never even believed I would have those kind of hopes last summer.

Nuntius
08-16-2012, 01:47 PM
By the way I'll list people who fielded teams JUST last year who could have conceivably won: Memphis, Chicago, San Antonio, LAL, Miami, and OKC. That's just last year. Every team I listed had something they brought to the table that could exploit any other team. Memphis had defense and a dominate front court. LA had three superstars, OKC and Miami both had their big three, San Antonio had one of the most explosive offenses ever. Chicago had defense and Rose.

There's nothing that Memphis has that the Pacers don't.

vnzla81
08-16-2012, 02:19 PM
There's nothing that Memphis has that the Pacers don't.

If by "nothing" you mean every other position but shooting guard I guess you are right........

vnzla81
08-16-2012, 02:21 PM
This was proven to be a myth. I don't have time right now but someone will provide us the link to the article showing that Nash went directly to the Lakers and the Pacers (nor any other team) made an offer.

The Pacers offer was a myth created by some kid who had a bunch of followers on twitter and regarding the offers to Nash, Toronto offered him a bunch of money and he turned them down so there is one team and NY was also trying to get him but didn't have the money.

vnzla81
08-16-2012, 02:29 PM
OK, nobody said folks like that don't exist. The implication has been that it is the stand of the majority (if not the VAST majority) of fans (and of the owner and FO).

Extreme positions exist on everything; their mere existence isn't proof of their commonality.

I'm not going to say the majority but I think a big part of Pacers fans agree with that line of thinking, now I'm starting to understand why so many here are so quick to judge guys like me because I'm not happy to be mediocre.

Trader Joe
08-16-2012, 02:40 PM
If by "nothing" you mean every other position but shooting guard I guess you are right........

How did we win more games than them and make it farther in the playoffs then? Maybe Vogel is just that good.

That being said Gay vs. Granger is a lot closer than most people would say. Randolph vs. West this year was pretty much a wash. I'll take Roy over Marc Gasol....Maybe there's not a huge difference, but I would take our rosters over Memphis. To act like the rest of their starting 5 is clearly superior to ours other than shooting guard is just not true IMO

Trader Joe
08-16-2012, 02:41 PM
I'm not going to say the majority but I think a big part of Pacers fans agree with that line of thinking, now I'm starting to understand why so many here are so quick to judge guys like me because I'm not happy to be mediocre.

Do you really believe that though? I think we are all here to hopefully watch the Pacers win a title...or we're just a bunch of masochists :eyebrow:

J7F
08-16-2012, 02:44 PM
I have said all along he is a good manager (whatever title you want to give him) of basketball talent, however whenever you are dealing with Walsh Warriors that is never good enough. Every move he made is the not only the only move that was available at the time it was the exact perfect thing to do.

It's very hard to combat that type of thinking.

It's already happening again in this day and age. Look at how many people are running to defend this off season by saying what was done were the only options available and even though they were the only options available they were great.

I don't know if you are lumping me into this group or not... But my main point is that none of us on either side KNOW what all went on inside the summer war rooms... None of us KNOW the intentions of management or ownership... We all just make assumptions based on either our pessimistic or optimistic tendencies... I try very hard to distinguish between something I know to be a fact and something I believe to be true that is usually based on optimism... What drives me crazy about VNZL and sometimes OlBlu and others is that they state their negative opinions as facts instead of beliefs... And then when facts do come in that contradict their beliefs they refuse to change their minds and simply ignore the new facts presented to them and avoid the topic from then on...

And I don't consider myself a Walsh Warrior... Like most human beings he has had some success and some failings... But whoever is sitting in our head chair will get support from me until I find out for certain that they had a chance to do something and completely wiffed... And I have seen absolutely no valid proof of the shortcomings the dark siders claim go on in our front office... Other than the outcome that they wanted didn't happen... They have no idea what lead us to that outcome... They just make assumptions that the FO made no attempt to do anything...

Peck
08-16-2012, 02:57 PM
I don't know if you are lumping me into this group or not... But my main point is that none of us on either side KNOW what all went on inside the summer war rooms... None of us KNOW the intentions of management or ownership... We all just make assumptions based on either our pessimistic or optimistic tendencies... I try very hard to distinguish between something I know to be a fact and something I believe to be true that is usually based on optimism... What drives me crazy about VNZL and sometimes OlBlu and others is that they state their negative opinions as facts instead of beliefs... And then when facts do come in that contradict their beliefs they refuse to change their minds and simply ignore the new facts presented to them and avoid the topic from then on...

And I don't consider myself a Walsh Warrior... Like most human beings he has had some success and some failings... But whoever is sitting in our head chair will get support from me until I find out for certain that they had a chance to do something and completely wiffed... And I have seen absolutely no valid proof of the shortcomings the dark siders claim go on in our front office... Other than the outcome that they wanted didn't happen... They have no idea what lead us to that outcome... They just make assumptions that the FO made no attempt to do anything...

Nope, you were not being lumped in the Walsh Warrior group. They know who they are. :)

J7F
08-16-2012, 02:58 PM
Do you really believe that though? I think we are all here to hopefully watch the Pacers win a title...or we're just a bunch of masochists :eyebrow:

Yup... It's just that some people don't think the sky is constantly falling like VNLZ... Do I think we have a shot at winning a championship in the next 5 years... Yes we have a shot... Albeit a small percentage of a shot... We are still in a much better position to do it than 90% of the league... And that is just not good enough for VNLZ... And I understand his line of thinking... I just don't think it is realistic for anyone to expect a championship... Whether you support the Lakers or the Pacers... Nothing is guaranteed to you... You just have to put yourself in a position to do the best you can... And I believe our front office does that...

Trader Joe
08-16-2012, 03:01 PM
We all know for Vnzla stands by now, until we have a lineup of Chris Paul, Monta Ellis (;)), Lebron, Kevin Love, and Dwight Howard, we are just not trying hard enough. ;)

I don't agree with him, but I definitely understand where he's coming from on that end. I've accepted by now that for the Pacers to win a title they either need to have a miracle drop into their laps on draft day or they need to follow the Pistons plan which remember did include fleecing someone at the trade deadline for an all star type player (Rasheed), so right now I think we're one move like that away from competing for a title in that route. That's just not the route Vnzla would like to use.

spazzxb
08-16-2012, 03:07 PM
[QUOTE=spazzxb;1493964]

This was proven to be a myth. I don't have time right now but someone will provide us the link to the article showing that Nash went directly to the Lakers and the Pacers (nor any other team) made an offer.

Thanks, I believe you.

McKeyFan
08-16-2012, 03:08 PM
I have no respect for your viewpoint.
This is an opinion board. He expressed his quite well. You should respect that, even if you strongly disagree with him.


The OP demonstates that he know little about sports or NBA basketball.

Why did I even look at this thread?
I feel the same way about your post. Get a life.

Ace E.Anderson
08-16-2012, 03:28 PM
[QUOTE=spazzxb;1493964]

This was proven to be a myth. I don't have time right now but someone will provide us the link to the article showing that Nash went directly to the Lakers and the Pacers (nor any other team) made an offer.

Here: http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/8143205/nba-how-steve-nash-los-angeles-lakers-happened

I'm not 100% sure if this is what you meant, but this was the article that came to mind. It chronicles Nash's path to the Lakers and how he wasn't going to realistically think of any team that took him too far away from his twin daughters.

beast23
08-16-2012, 03:31 PM
Mattie -

You're absolutely killing me. You are sucking the air right out of my room. You see, I'm 60 years old and I have very few remaining on my bucket list. One of the most important for me, one that I have absolutely no control over, is seeing the Pacers win an NBA championship before my days are done.

First off, you've given us an extremely well written position. I've understood your position for some time, but this serves very well to summarize your viewpoint. However, I don't agree with the lack of faith that you have in TPTB.

The reason I say this is that I can understand and can certainly accept their rationale for making the moves that they have made this summer. I could easily join in with those that feel we may have overpaid for some of the deals that were made, but I really don't take exception with the personnel retained or acquired, or the reasoning behind it.

I break a game into about 3 components. Game initiation/start, mid-game (perhaps further broken into Q2 and Q3/early Q4) and end-game situations.

Quite frankly, once the move was change was made to start Hill (with Collison's injury) and to stick with him (even after Collison returned), I don't believe that anyone can reasonably argue the point that our starting lineup was not capable of playing with anyone in the league in game start (Q1) situations. I think the scoreboard has proven that point.

Our early leads were often lost in late Q1/early Q2 when there were usually 3-4 bench players on the floor along with one starter. It was then not uncommon to see the starting unit either rebuild a lead or play back to even by halftime once they were re-inserted into the game in Q2. Starting the second half, our starters sometimes built leads or held their own.

The only time that I can sometimes take exception to the performance of our starters would be in end-game situations (last 5 minutes) against the best of the best. The better teams have more talented star players that focus better in end-game situations. And, I cannot disagree when the top players of the best teams are playing more focused, they more often than not can get the better of even our starting players.

So, I see the challenges for the Pacers being the strength of their bench and what they provide as a unit when the starters are out of the game in late Q1 and late Q3 situations, and the performance of even our best players in late game situations.

I honestly believe that that TPTB believes that they have addressed both needs. Is it unreasonable to believe that the overall performance of this team would be improved by improving the talent and capabilities of the bench players that come onto the floor in late Q1/late Q3? Is it really unreasonable to believe that Hibbert and George will continue to improve or that West will perform better as he further heals, thereby perhaps providing even more cushion to help the subs maintain leads that our starters have built? I believe this is where the TPTB took a position as one solution and that I really can't argue against the position that they took. It is reasonable and was probably the easiest solution to execute.

I believe that by retaining our starters, we have a unit that will perform no worse than they performed late last year. And, if George, Hibbert and West do improve, the starting unit building comfortable Q1 leads will be the norm. A better bench that can maintain those leads will eventually lead to opponents starters having to play more minutes in an attempt to overcome those leads.

That takes us to late-game situations. Hopefully the extra minutes players by the opponents starters will help our starters in their attempt to perform better in the final minutes of games against the leagues best players. If not, then I believe that definite needs will reveal themselves to TPTB. You could be very correct in that the Pacers will need to replace West with a player that is better suited to defend the paint in late game situations. If that is the case, then I hope by then that someone else becomes much better at providing scoring in end game situations, because right now I believe that West is the most consistent scorer we have in those situations.

As for our starting unit being as is for 5 years, I just don't see it. Even with a top-performing team like we had in the late 90s, that has never been the case. I don't see it now. First off, West will be a free agent and I don't see the Pacers paying him the type of money that it might take to retain him, which is probably about what he is making now. The only way would be if West will give us a break due to an enjoyment he has in playing with this team or due to some new-found loyalty he might have. But playing him his present dollars would only set us up for team salary difficulties when have to renegotiate with Granger and George.

I believe that this season is put up or shut up time for Paul George. If he does not elevate his game quite a bit this year, the Pacers might even go a different direction at SG. Who knows.... maybe by acquiring a new PG and moving Hill to SG. But at any rate, if tinkering with the roster through rebuilding the bench is not the answer, I don't believe TPTB will hesitate for a moment to look at attempting to bring in a new starter or two.

Rogco
08-16-2012, 03:49 PM
Oh ye of little faith...optimism is a lifestyle, not just a mindset (:)). However, I can see your point very clearly. Alot of things have to go right for us to compete for a Championship. But, you never know. The right injury can propel a number of teams into Title contention. .

Oddly enough, I really agree with you. If Lebron blows out his knee halfway through the upcoming season, I think the Pacers would have a definite shot of making it to the final, and a slim chance of beating any team from the West (to me the Heat are by far the best team, followed by LA, then trailing a ways behind SA and Okc.)

Does this mean that I have to not just cheer for the Pacers, but for someone (Delonte West for examplem, on Wednesday January 2, 2013) to take out Lebron's knee? Feel kind of bad hoping it happens. Not so bad if it happened to Wade, but I think Miami could still beat us without Wade if they had James...

xIndyFan
08-16-2012, 03:52 PM
. . . I believe that this season is put up or shut up time for Paul George. If he does not elevate his game quite a bit this year, the Pacers might even go a different direction at SG. Who knows.... maybe by acquiring a new PG and moving Hill to SG. But at any rate, if tinkering with the roster through rebuilding the bench is not the answer, I don't believe TPTB will hesitate for a moment to look at attempting to bring in a new starter or two.

:amen: to this. and lance, tyler, jeff and roy. time to grow up and play like men.

adamscb
08-16-2012, 03:59 PM
:amen: to this. and lance, tyler, jeff and roy. time to grow up and play like men.

green? at least on roy's name

spazzxb
08-16-2012, 04:03 PM
This is an opinion board. He expressed his quite well. You should respect that, even if you strongly disagree with him.


I feel the same way about your post. Get a life.

You must have read really fast if you didn't see that the comment your ranting on was directed at the "We weren't bad enough" train of thought. It wasn't directed at the poster. The only negative I directed at the OP was in reference to the title of this thread. I made a somewhat abrasive comment because if someone doesn't want the team to be good we wouldn't even having the same conversation. If we don't share the same goal then there is no valuable dialog to be had. Your the one making things personal.

p.s I changed a word in my post to make it more clear.

xIndyFan
08-16-2012, 04:11 PM
green? at least on roy's name

no, not really. roy's a max player. time to play like one. he needs to be the guy he wants to become.

vnzla81
08-16-2012, 04:20 PM
Do you really believe that though? I think we are all here to hopefully watch the Pacers win a title...or we're just a bunch of masochists :eyebrow:

We are a bunch of masochists.

AesopRockOn
08-16-2012, 04:27 PM
The arguing over big market versus small market seems odd when two of the three teams that mattie describes as Finals-set are not big market.

NapTonius Monk
08-16-2012, 05:36 PM
Interesting post, and in many ways I agree with you. The big problem is that there are a lot of teams in the league, and very few have the chance to get good enough to compete for the title. Defense may be the way to go, but I think the Pacers need to ensure they have flexibility to be able to morph parts of the team. Two things happened this off-season I didn't like because they seem to cement us to mediocrity: drafting Plumlee (who could end up being a good value pick and contributor, but the pick also doesn't have the chance to seriously improve the team. We picked a guy we think will be our third string center for the next FOUR years.) and signing Hill (have no problem signing him, don't even really mind overpaying him, but wish the contract was not five years. that's to much money tied up for too long.)Who had star upside after the Plumlee? Moultrie maybe? PJ3? I don't see any franchise altering players we should have taken instead of Plumlee. There may be better players than him, but none that catapult us out of mediocrity. I like the George Hill signing, and doubt it anchors the team in a bad place.

vnzla81
08-16-2012, 05:44 PM
How did we win more games than them and make it farther in the playoffs then? Maybe Vogel is just that good.

That being said Gay vs. Granger is a lot closer than most people would say. Randolph vs. West this year was pretty much a wash. I'll take Roy over Marc Gasol....Maybe there's not a huge difference, but I would take our rosters over Memphis. To act like the rest of their starting 5 is clearly superior to ours other than shooting guard is just not true IMO

Gay is better than Danny, Zbo is way better than West, he is also a better rebounder(great rebounder to be be out of shape), Gasol is better than Roy, he is bigger and stronger, doesn't get push around like Roy, his offensive arsenal is also pretty damn good, Roy is better at blocking shots, Conley is a better point guard than Hill, I'm not a big fan of him and I love Hill but I give the point guard edge to Conley because he knows how to control an offense and makes better passes, I guess the only position the Pacers are better than Memphis is shooting guard, they are also younger compared to the Pacers.

BlueNGold
08-16-2012, 06:02 PM
We've only been to the finals once and that was more than a decade ago...and we had the JO era with excellent talent....and it never made it. So, sure, I would be surprised if this team made it to the finals in the next 5 years. However, I seriously doubt that Kevin Pritchard is going to sit with this lineup for 5 years. That's less likely than the Pacers winning the championship.

With that said, the east is weak and Miami is the only obstacle I think stops the Pacers cold at the moment. The Pacers are capable of beating most other teams in the conference and Boston will soon be a non-factor. Other teams will rise up though, so it's going to be tough. IMO, unless Paul George blows up in a good way, we aren't sniffing the finals for a long, long time. We need a great player who can get to Reggie Miller level under pressure...or better...and we need a really solid group to get there...because there will always be really good teams with superstars that will beat us. So, no, we are not there yet but I wouldn't rule out this group. At least one guy is going to have to really step up his game and I think the only guy even capable is Paul.

PacersHomer
08-16-2012, 06:16 PM
Thank God for this thread. If I had one complaint about PD it would be the rampant optimism.

mattie
08-16-2012, 07:12 PM
How did we win more games than them and make it farther in the playoffs then? Maybe Vogel is just that good.

That being said Gay vs. Granger is a lot closer than most people would say. Randolph vs. West this year was pretty much a wash. I'll take Roy over Marc Gasol....Maybe there's not a huge difference, but I would take our rosters over Memphis. To act like the rest of their starting 5 is clearly superior to ours other than shooting guard is just not true IMO

Memphis dealt with a title ending injury to their best player. That's why they lost. Their title hopes went up in smoke before Randolph was injured. Before that, everyone in league considered them title contenders.

You gotta a remember Memphis almost beat OKC and that was without Gay. Now with Gay back on the roster for 2011-12 season, they really had good reasons for believing they could. They also offered this: They could beat any team on the boards. And they did. LA's front line at the time was no match for Memphis despite having Gasol and Bynum.

Gay was additional scorer to Zach and Marc. Memphis has much more low post scoring compared to us. Their back court I'd argue is a wash compared to ours. I mean as good LAL is, I would not be surprised if it the coming post season Z-Bo and Marc beat Howard and Pau like rented mules. It's conceivable. It really is.

mattie
08-16-2012, 07:39 PM
Mattie -

You're absolutely killing me. You are sucking the air right out of my room. You see, I'm 60 years old and I have very few remaining on my bucket list. One of the most important for me, one that I have absolutely no control over, is seeing the Pacers win an NBA championship before my days are done.

First off, you've given us an extremely well written position. I've understood your position for some time, but this serves very well to summarize your viewpoint. However, I don't agree with the lack of faith that you have in TPTB.

The reason I say this is that I can understand and can certainly accept their rationale for making the moves that they have made this summer. I could easily join in with those that feel we may have overpaid for some of the deals that were made, but I really don't take exception with the personnel retained or acquired, or the reasoning behind it.

I break a game into about 3 components. Game initiation/start, mid-game (perhaps further broken into Q2 and Q3/early Q4) and end-game situations.

Quite frankly, once the move was change was made to start Hill (with Collison's injury) and to stick with him (even after Collison returned), I don't believe that anyone can reasonably argue the point that our starting lineup was not capable of playing with anyone in the league in game start (Q1) situations. I think the scoreboard has proven that point.

Our early leads were often lost in late Q1/early Q2 when there were usually 3-4 bench players on the floor along with one starter. It was then not uncommon to see the starting unit either rebuild a lead or play back to even by halftime once they were re-inserted into the game in Q2. Starting the second half, our starters sometimes built leads or held their own.

The only time that I can sometimes take exception to the performance of our starters would be in end-game situations (last 5 minutes) against the best of the best. The better teams have more talented star players that focus better in end-game situations. And, I cannot disagree when the top players of the best teams are playing more focused, they more often than not can get the better of even our starting players.

So, I see the challenges for the Pacers being the strength of their bench and what they provide as a unit when the starters are out of the game in late Q1 and late Q3 situations, and the performance of even our best players in late game situations.

I honestly believe that that TPTB believes that they have addressed both needs. Is it unreasonable to believe that the overall performance of this team would be improved by improving the talent and capabilities of the bench players that come onto the floor in late Q1/late Q3? Is it really unreasonable to believe that Hibbert and George will continue to improve or that West will perform better as he further heals, thereby perhaps providing even more cushion to help the subs maintain leads that our starters have built? I believe this is where the TPTB took a position as one solution and that I really can't argue against the position that they took. It is reasonable and was probably the easiest solution to execute.

I believe that by retaining our starters, we have a unit that will perform no worse than they performed late last year. And, if George, Hibbert and West do improve, the starting unit building comfortable Q1 leads will be the norm. A better bench that can maintain those leads will eventually lead to opponents starters having to play more minutes in an attempt to overcome those leads.

That takes us to late-game situations. Hopefully the extra minutes players by the opponents starters will help our starters in their attempt to perform better in the final minutes of games against the leagues best players. If not, then I believe that definite needs will reveal themselves to TPTB. You could be very correct in that the Pacers will need to replace West with a player that is better suited to defend the paint in late game situations. If that is the case, then I hope by then that someone else becomes much better at providing scoring in end game situations, because right now I believe that West is the most consistent scorer we have in those situations.

As for our starting unit being as is for 5 years, I just don't see it. Even with a top-performing team like we had in the late 90s, that has never been the case. I don't see it now. First off, West will be a free agent and I don't see the Pacers paying him the type of money that it might take to retain him, which is probably about what he is making now. The only way would be if West will give us a break due to an enjoyment he has in playing with this team or due to some new-found loyalty he might have. But playing him his present dollars would only set us up for team salary difficulties when have to renegotiate with Granger and George.

I believe that this season is put up or shut up time for Paul George. If he does not elevate his game quite a bit this year, the Pacers might even go a different direction at SG. Who knows.... maybe by acquiring a new PG and moving Hill to SG. But at any rate, if tinkering with the roster through rebuilding the bench is not the answer, I don't believe TPTB will hesitate for a moment to look at attempting to bring in a new starter or two.

Thanks, great read. I always enjoy your boarding as you know.


Anywho, I completely agree with this being a make or break year for Paul George. He really needs to prove that he's going to be a major part of this teams future, or they'll have to start considering other directions. I think he'll prove that quite easily.

Getting back to my complaints of the starters, I wanted to address why I thought they didn't play the best in the playoffs despite building leads against Miami.

Miami was clearly not at full strength without Chris Bosh in the series which clearly changed the tone of the series. It is one big reason why we got an early 2-1 lead. While in general all season our starters were building leads and the bench was losing them. I believe Miami at full strength would have been able to do a better job against our starters.

While Indiana has definitely gotten better this offseason, so has Miami. So instead of simply hoping Indiana's young talent in Roy, Paul and Hill make up the difference because of their growth, I'd rather see TPTB make a concerted effort to improve possible weaknesses the team has. More to the point, even if the Pacers young talent could be predicted to make this team that much better, it still doesn't change the fact that Pacers do have particular weaknesses that could be addressed immediately. If all three young players made vast improvements AND we addressed our weakness at the 4 for instance, how great would Indiana be then?

I'll concede however, that we are going to see a very good Indiana team and their is a possibility they can take us to the next level. I have my doubts, but that is why we play the season.

P.S. Here's a silver lining to my somewhat bleak forecast of the future: (take heart! haha) Many people in the Pacers organization will read this thread, and it'll give them an idea on why at least a group of Pacers fans don't entirely buy into Donnie's plan. (not suggesting I personally have any influence, I'm suggesting the Pacers are very in tune to what fans in general are thinking)

So at the very least if what I say is momentarily true, maybe it motivates the TPTB to prove us wrong? Or re-evaluate their thinking? I'm grasping here!

OlBlu
08-16-2012, 07:50 PM
Thank God for this thread. If I had one complaint about PD it would be the rampant optimism.

Amen. And when you comment on it with a rational well thought out post, you get called a troll.... It does get old....:cool:

hoosierguy
08-16-2012, 07:56 PM
Way to go out on a limb there sport. What's next, proclaiming that the Cubs won't win a World Series in the next five years?

TMJ31
08-16-2012, 08:00 PM
I am more than content to continue my minority position as resident "I honestly feel we can beat the Heat, Lakers, whoever you throw at us" guy.

Last season we had early success against Miami, and when they came back swinging we had no answer. We shirked the challenge instead of rising to it.

I think we learned from that and will be hungry to avenge our loss.

Yes, the Heat are a very, VERY good BOUGHT team. The Pacers are a very, VERY good TEAM of players who fit and complement each other.

I still like our chances. Remember the super human games LeWade had to put up to eliminate us. Anytime you force opposing players to play at THAT high a level to simply beat you by a few points, you are in a much better position than you think. It does not take 3-4 "Bad" games from LeWade to make the Heat vulnerable. It simply takes a few games where they aren't absolutely superhuman, scoring 80+ points by themselves.

Could they do that to us again? Sure. It could happen. But at some point we are going to slow them down JUST enough to let our superior depth win the series.

Just my 2c.

mildlysane
08-16-2012, 08:21 PM
I am more than content to continue my minority position as resident "I honestly feel we can beat the Heat, Lakers, whoever you throw at us" guy.

Last season we had early success against Miami, and when they came back swinging we had no answer. We shirked the challenge instead of rising to it.

I think we learned from that and will be hungry to avenge our loss.

Yes, the Heat are a very, VERY good BOUGHT team. The Pacers are a very, VERY good TEAM of players who fit and complement each other.

I still like our chances. Remember the super human games LeWade had to put up to eliminate us. Anytime you force opposing players to play at THAT high a level to simply beat you by a few points, you are in a much better position than you think. It does not take 3-4 "Bad" games from LeWade to make the Heat vulnerable. It simply takes a few games where they aren't absolutely superhuman, scoring 80+ points by themselves.

Could they do that to us again? Sure. It could happen. But at some point we are going to slow them down JUST enough to let our superior depth win the series.

Just my 2c.

I'll keep ridin' with ya!

BlueNGold
08-16-2012, 08:23 PM
...and I'm thankful for posters like TMJ31. Without them, y'all might be taking prozac.

With that said, I don't think we make it to the finals with this group. The talent has started to converge into very few hands again around the league. A handful of great players are beginning to control their own destinies and that means more championships on the coasts and warm weather cities. Let's face it. When your best player isn't any better than Shawn Marion, you aren't going to load up on rings.

OlBlu
08-16-2012, 08:36 PM
I am more than content to continue my minority position as resident "I honestly feel we can beat the Heat, Lakers, whoever you throw at us" guy.

Last season we had early success against Miami, and when they came back swinging we had no answer. We shirked the challenge instead of rising to it.

I think we learned from that and will be hungry to avenge our loss.

Yes, the Heat are a very, VERY good BOUGHT team. The Pacers are a very, VERY good TEAM of players who fit and complement each other.

I still like our chances. Remember the super human games LeWade had to put up to eliminate us. Anytime you force opposing players to play at THAT high a level to simply beat you by a few points, you are in a much better position than you think. It does not take 3-4 "Bad" games from LeWade to make the Heat vulnerable. It simply takes a few games where they aren't absolutely superhuman, scoring 80+ points by themselves.

Could they do that to us again? Sure. It could happen. But at some point we are going to slow them down JUST enough to let our superior depth win the series.

Just my 2c.


Silliness. Stars win championships not good teams with midlevel players. As soon as you realize that you will see how hopeless the Pacer situation really is. The Pacers lost ground to several teams this off season. They will have to fight to be as high as a sixth seed from what I see. They have NO chance against Miami or Boston. None. You can believe anything you want but that is just homerism.....:cool:

Eleazar
08-16-2012, 08:47 PM
Silliness. Stars win championships not good teams with midlevel players. As soon as you realize that you will see how hopeless the Pacer situation really is. The Pacers lost ground to several teams this off season. They will have to fight to be as high as a sixth seed from what I see. They have NO chance against Miami or Boston. None. You can believe anything you want but that is just homerism.....:cool:

Good thing we have three stars, and someone most people believe is a future star, possibly even a superstar.

mattie
08-16-2012, 08:55 PM
Way to go out on a limb there sport. What's next, proclaiming that the Cubs won't win a World Series in the next five years?

Yeah sport. yeah.

http://d3agyjohwahf00.cloudfront.net/images/fail91-480x381.jpg

BlueNGold
08-16-2012, 09:14 PM
Silliness. Stars win championships not good teams with midlevel players. As soon as you realize that you will see how hopeless the Pacer situation really is. The Pacers lost ground to several teams this off season. They will have to fight to be as high as a sixth seed from what I see. They have NO chance against Miami or Boston. None. You can believe anything you want but that is just homerism.....:cool:

It's not that bad. Boston is done. Jason Terry isn't going to help change the fact that Pierce and Garnett have already aged well past their primes. Every day that passes is a day they weaken and the Pacers get stronger.

Other teams like Chicago and Miami still are the favorites. There will probably be 3 or 4 other teams contending with the Pacers for positions 3 through 7. That may include Boston, but again, the Pacers have more than a chance against them.

Edit: I predict a 4 seed. Just dropping Collison and picking up Green, Augustin and Mahimini is probably worth a couple games. Every minute Collison is on the floor is a minute Hill is out of position...and Hill is the better player. Tack on the fact we have a creator in Green on the second unit and a well rounded backup PG in Augustin....and an improving Paul George, Roy Hibbert and Lance Stephenson...its not hard to see this team should be stronger this coming year.

OlBlu
08-16-2012, 09:26 PM
Good thing we have three stars, and someone most people believe is a future star, possibly even a superstar.

We have NO stars and we do not have anyone who will ever be a superstar.... You are living in lala land....:cool:

OlBlu
08-16-2012, 09:27 PM
It's not that bad. Boston is done. Jason Terry isn't going to help change the fact that Pierce and Garnett have already aged well past their primes. Every day that passes is a day they weaken and the Pacers get stronger.

Other teams like Chicago and Miami still are the favorites. There will probably be 3 or 4 other teams contending with the Pacers for positions 3 through 7. That may include Boston, but again, the Pacers have more than a chance against them.

Edit: I predict a 4 seed. Just dropping Collison and picking up Green, Augustin and Mahimini is probably worth a couple games. Every minute Collison is on the floor is a minute Hill is out of position...and Hill is the better player. Tack on the fact we have a creator in Green on the second unit and a well rounded backup PG in Augustin....and an improving Paul George, Roy Hibbert and Lance Stephenson...its not hard to see this team should be stronger this coming year.

I think most people see Boston as being much improved with additions and injured players returning. The Pacers might not win a game against them in a playoff series....:cool:

mildlysane
08-16-2012, 09:53 PM
It's not that bad. Boston is done. Jason Terry isn't going to help change the fact that Pierce and Garnett have already aged well past their primes. Every day that passes is a day they weaken and the Pacers get stronger.

Other teams like Chicago and Miami still are the favorites. There will probably be 3 or 4 other teams contending with the Pacers for positions 3 through 7. That may include Boston, but again, the Pacers have more than a chance against them.

Edit: I predict a 4 seed. Just dropping Collison and picking up Green, Augustin and Mahimini is probably worth a couple games. Every minute Collison is on the floor is a minute Hill is out of position...and Hill is the better player. Tack on the fact we have a creator in Green on the second unit and a well rounded backup PG in Augustin....and an improving Paul George, Roy Hibbert and Lance Stephenson...its not hard to see this team should be stronger this coming year.

A very fair assessment. However, with DRose possibly out til March, I think the 2nd seed is up for grabs as well. And I believe the Pacers will be in the mix. Our bench was our weak link last year, not our starters, and we made several strides in the positive in regards to it. Good post!

OlBlu
08-16-2012, 10:06 PM
A very fair assessment. However, with DRose possibly out til March, I think the 2nd seed is up for grabs as well. And I believe the Pacers will be in the mix. Our bench was our weak link last year, not our starters, and we made several strides in the positive in regards to it. Good post!

Well, lets see. Paul Pierce better than any player the Pacers have, KG better than any player the Pacers have, Jason Terry better than any player the Pacers have and Rondo, WAY better than any player the Pacers have. They are also deeper with the draft, players returning from injury and other aquisitions. If it was a playoff series, I pick the Celtics in four games.....:cool:

If any one here sets homerism aside, they will easily see the same thing. You are not going to get enough improvement in PG, Hibbert and Lance to make up for that. :cool:

NapTonius Monk
08-16-2012, 10:11 PM
I think most people see Boston as being much improved with additions and injured players returning. The Pacers might not win a game against them in a playoff series....:cool::pillow:

BlueNGold
08-16-2012, 10:15 PM
Well, lets see. Paul Pierce better than any player the Pacers have, KG better than any player the Pacers have, Jason Terry better than any player the Pacers have and Rondo, WAY better than any player the Pacers have. They are also deeper with the draft, players returning from injury and other aquisitions. If it was a playoff series, I pick the Celtics in four games.....:cool:

If any one here sets homerism aside, they will easily see the same thing. You are not going to get enough improvement in PG, Hibbert and Lance to make up for that. :cool:

Hmmm. Maybe we should trade Hibbert or Granger for Jason Terry. Of course, the Celtics wouldn't do that, right? That's too funny.

This isn't 1998 OlBlu. That green on those Celtic jersey is mold. You are about to witness a changing of the guard and if it doesn't happen this year, it will next. The fact the Pacers may not contend for a championship anytime soon doesn't mean the Celtics are either. The Sixers about shot them down. The Heat let up on the gas when it became apparent in the first quarter of that series that the Celtics were finished. The rest was WWF and at no time should anyone have thought Boston could beat Miami. Miami knew after the Pacers series and after the first 10 minutes against Boston that they were headed to the finals and you could see it on LeBron's face.

mildlysane
08-16-2012, 10:20 PM
:pillow:

That's funny! I keep captioning it in my head..."NO, Pacers!....NO, Boston!....NO, Pacers!...NO, Boston!..." :laugh::laugh:

OlBlu
08-16-2012, 10:25 PM
Hmmm. Maybe we should trade Hibbert or Granger for Jason Terry. Of course, the Celtics wouldn't do that, right? That's too funny.

This isn't 1998 OlBlu. That green on those Celtic jersey is mold. You are about to witness a changing of the guard and if it doesn't happen this year, it will next. The fact the Pacers may not contend for a championship anytime soon doesn't mean the Celtics are either. The Sixers about shot them down. The Heat let up on the gas when it became apparent in the first quarter of that series that the Celtics were finished. The rest was WWF and at no time should anyone have thought Boston could beat Miami. Miami knew after the Pacers series and after the first 10 minutes against Boston that they were headed to the finals and you could see it on LeBron's face.

No, I don't think Boston makes that deal, those two players, especially granger are way overpaid and they already have better players at those positions. They would not trade him for Hill either for the same reason. Now, they might consider PG but probably not. Terry is a star the Pacers players are not....:cool:

vnzla81
08-16-2012, 10:26 PM
Good thing we have three stars, and someone most people believe is a future star, possibly even a superstar.

Are you talking about the Pacers or the Lakers :confused:

graphic-er
08-16-2012, 10:33 PM
In my opinion,Bostons entire future depends on how Jeff Green comes back from his heart condition.

OlBlu
08-16-2012, 10:37 PM
In my opinion,Bostons entire future depends on how Jeff Green comes back from his heart condition.

I don't think it makes any difference but if does come back strong, they be even better......:cool:

Peck
08-16-2012, 11:38 PM
Silliness. Stars win championships not good teams with midlevel players. As soon as you realize that you will see how hopeless the Pacer situation really is. The Pacers lost ground to several teams this off season. They will have to fight to be as high as a sixth seed from what I see. They have NO chance against Miami or Boston. None. You can believe anything you want but that is just homerism.....:cool:

Smash you will see that mostly I agree with where you are coming from. Like you I also believe that this off season has been anything but a success.

However calling people who think they have a chance against the Heat or Boston homers is not only wrong it is insulting.

First and foremost you vastly over rate the Celtics. Are they better than us? Probably but to say they would take us in a sweep is implying that they are better than the Bulls were two seasons ago and better than the Heat were this year. Neither of those teams could sweep us. Now did we have a chance against either team? Not really but they couldn't sweep us.

The Celtics, even as well coached as they are, are not that much better than us. Yes Rondo's better, yes Pierce is still better for the most part & yes K.G. can be better but none of them are LeBron James better than us.

The Heat are just on another level & believe me I take no pleasure in saying that if I learned any one thing from these playoffs it is that a team of good players can not beat superstar players. They could have beaten a team with stars but LeBron & Wade are just not in the same level of player.

If you pay close attention you will see that I'm not really any different from you & Vnzla81 in the thinking for the off season it's just that I don't insult everyone else here with my differing opinion.

It was a great year by the team and hey who's to say something couldn't happen to make things go the Pacers way so that is why I'm not on here night in and night out giving everyone the stink eye for being optimistic when I feel like (for lack of a better analogy) we are shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic. That's really not a good analogy at all because this is not a sinking ship but you get my point, we did IMO useless movements to the backups when IMO this would have been the time to use that cap space, make a bold move and try & get a top tier player or even two upper tier players.

Someone is going to say who & I'm going to reply that I don't know for sure but I do know that trades can be made when you have assets & space (at least that's what you all kept telling me when I used to ask why cap space was so important) and the Pacers had both.

I say all of that to say this, stop telling anyone who disagrees with you that they are a homer. You don't like it whenever anyone calls you a troll and yes we have told a few of them to stop but if you are going to fire off the homer insult then I feel a lot less compelled to say anything to someone who chooses to call you a troll or other names.

Sollozzo
08-16-2012, 11:40 PM
It's not that bad. Boston is done. Jason Terry isn't going to help change the fact that Pierce and Garnett have already aged well past their primes. Every day that passes is a day they weaken and the Pacers get stronger.



Haven't people been beating the "Boston is done" drum since like 2009? Yet they keep winning and going on deep playoff runs. They had the opportunity to play a game 6 at home that would have put them in the NBA Finals had they won. Unfortunately for them, one of the greatest players of all time played what was probably the greatest game of his career. Then in game 7 on the road, they led for a good chunk of the game before finally wearing out in the fourth.

Post-All Star break Boston was a better team than the Pacers last year because they had three players who were better than any single player on the Pacers with Rondo, KG, and Pierce. I don't see how you can be better than a team that has three players that are better than anyone on your roster. Pierce often looked sluggish against Miami, but that was mostly because chasing Lebron around wore him out. There is no player on the Pacers who would come close to exhausting him like that, which means that he would light us up on the offensive end.

It all comes down to KG and Pierce. If age causes them to take a significant step backward, then the Pacers are probably a better team. But if those two can come close to equaling their production of last year then they are an even better team than the one that was a hair away from the Finals. Jason Terry is better than Ray Allen at this point and is two years younger. Bradley was a huge contributor down the stretch for them last season and stole Ray's spot, but he missed the Miami series. If Jeff Green can give them something then that will be a very nice addition. Plus they drafted well.

Charcoal Filtered
08-17-2012, 12:29 AM
Are the Pacers going to be favored like Miami and the Lakers are this year to win a title anytime in the next five years?

Without Paul George having a miraculous breakout along with an unlikely blossom of Hibbert, no.

Could the Pacers take advantage of a down year where injuries and luxury tax takeout some of the teams led by superstars?

Yes.

Hypnotiq
08-17-2012, 12:52 AM
IMO we will never ever see a ring it's just way to hard to win one if you are small market one bad move and it could set you back years. I think i will just enjoy winning for winning seems to be the way to go for me

OlBlu
08-17-2012, 07:37 AM
IMO we will never ever see a ring it's just way to hard to win one if you are small market one bad move and it could set you back years. I think i will just enjoy winning for winning seems to be the way to go for me

That is they way I look at it too and if they got to the Eastern Finals or the Championship game, I would be very excited indeed. We might get the chance to play the "spoiler" role against a good team once in a great while.......:cool:

vnzla81
08-17-2012, 09:25 AM
Anytime somebody uses the "small market bs" as an excuse somebody in the Pacers front office smiles, they have done a good job in making people believe that.

The more People believe that bs the less pressure the Pacers FO has to deliver a championship.

Trader Joe
08-17-2012, 10:36 AM
The small market excuse is definitely BS, I agree with you there Vnzla, that is not a reason for why you cannot win a title.

iogyhufi
08-17-2012, 11:09 AM
Haven't people been beating the "Boston is done" drum since like 2009? Yet they keep winning and going on deep playoff runs. They had the opportunity to play a game 6 at home that would have put them in the NBA Finals had they won. Unfortunately for them, one of the greatest players of all time played what was probably the greatest game of his career. Then in game 7 on the road, they led for a good chunk of the game before finally wearing out in the fourth.

Post-All Star break Boston was a better team than the Pacers last year because they had three players who were better than any single player on the Pacers with Rondo, KG, and Pierce. I don't see how you can be better than a team that has three players that are better than anyone on your roster. Pierce often looked sluggish against Miami, but that was mostly because chasing Lebron around wore him out. There is no player on the Pacers who would come close to exhausting him like that, which means that he would light us up on the offensive end.

It all comes down to KG and Pierce. If age causes them to take a significant step backward, then the Pacers are probably a better team. But if those two can come close to equaling their production of last year then they are an even better team than the one that was a hair away from the Finals. Jason Terry is better than Ray Allen at this point and is two years younger. Bradley was a huge contributor down the stretch for them last season and stole Ray's spot, but he missed the Miami series. If Jeff Green can give them something then that will be a very nice addition. Plus they drafted well.

I'm on that bandwagon, but now I just feel like Peter Vecsey. If I keep saying it, eventually I'll be right.

Kid Minneapolis
08-17-2012, 11:27 AM
Smash you will see that mostly I agree with where you are coming from. Like you I also believe that this off season has been anything but a success.

However calling people who think they have a chance against the Heat or Boston homers is not only wrong it is insulting.

First and foremost you vastly over rate the Celtics. Are they better than us? Probably but to say they would take us in a sweep is implying that they are better than the Bulls were two seasons ago and better than the Heat were this year. Neither of those teams could sweep us. Now did we have a chance against either team? Not really but they couldn't sweep us.

The Celtics, even as well coached as they are, are not that much better than us. Yes Rondo's better, yes Pierce is still better for the most part & yes K.G. can be better but none of them are LeBron James better than us.

The Heat are just on another level & believe me I take no pleasure in saying that if I learned any one thing from these playoffs it is that a team of good players can not beat superstar players. They could have beaten a team with stars but LeBron & Wade are just not in the same level of player.

If you pay close attention you will see that I'm not really any different from you & Vnzla81 in the thinking for the off season it's just that I don't insult everyone else here with my differing opinion.

It was a great year by the team and hey who's to say something couldn't happen to make things go the Pacers way so that is why I'm not on here night in and night out giving everyone the stink eye for being optimistic when I feel like (for lack of a better analogy) we are shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic. That's really not a good analogy at all because this is not a sinking ship but you get my point, we did IMO useless movements to the backups when IMO this would have been the time to use that cap space, make a bold move and try & get a top tier player or even two upper tier players.

Someone is going to say who & I'm going to reply that I don't know for sure but I do know that trades can be made when you have assets & space (at least that's what you all kept telling me when I used to ask why cap space was so important) and the Pacers had both.

I say all of that to say this, stop telling anyone who disagrees with you that they are a homer. You don't like it whenever anyone calls you a troll and yes we have told a few of them to stop but if you are going to fire off the homer insult then I feel a lot less compelled to say anything to someone who chooses to call you a troll or other names.

His favorite teams are the Colts and Pacers, he hates them with a passion.

Kid Minneapolis
08-17-2012, 11:29 AM
The small market excuse is definitely BS, I agree with you there Vnzla, that is not a reason for why you cannot win a title.

This was all you heard on the Colts boards about 10 years ago also.... small market blah blah blah, and then the Colts went on a decade-long domination of the entire league and a Super Bowl and yea.

Trader Joe
08-17-2012, 11:38 AM
I mean even without the Colts the San Antonio Spurs have pretty much murdered that excuse for the past 15 years.

Since86
08-17-2012, 11:42 AM
When people bring up the small market, it's not that it's impossible, but rather that it's a lot harder to do. Which is completely 100% true.

Ace E.Anderson
08-17-2012, 02:09 PM
I mean even without the Colts the San Antonio Spurs have pretty much murdered that excuse for the past 15 years.

Can you name 3 other small market teams from the last 15 years that have won a championship though? No it's not IMPOSSIBLE, but it's definitely unlikely if not improbable. You can't argue with the history of the NBA over the past 15-20 years or so and the fact that the championship has mostly gone to teams within a larger market. Obviously there are a variety of factors that go into these numbers, but I don't think its a total coincidence that most times the teams from the larger markets win championships.

pacersgroningen
08-17-2012, 02:39 PM
In NBA 2k I traded Darren Collison and future picks for Al Horford. Even then I managed to just win a championship, it was only because of my godgiven talented gameplay. Al Horford is not the solution. Sometimes the best move, is to make no move at all.

1984
08-17-2012, 02:42 PM
Troll.

TinManJoshua
08-17-2012, 02:46 PM
Far be it from me to tell others how to be a fan, but I would never devote so much time to something that I only focused on the negatives. Sports are great, but unless you enjoy taking the wind out of others' sails and being "right" with the abject failure of your favorite team I'd recommend additional hobbies.

Trader Joe
08-17-2012, 02:57 PM
Can you name 3 other small market teams from the last 15 years that have won a championship though? No it's not IMPOSSIBLE, but it's definitely unlikely if not improbable. You can't argue with the history of the NBA over the past 15-20 years or so and the fact that the championship has mostly gone to teams within a larger market. Obviously there are a variety of factors that go into these numbers, but I don't think its a total coincidence that most times the teams from the larger markets win championships.

The Colts, Green Bay, Tampa Bay Bucaneers, the Florida Marlins, yes the NBA has been rewarding big markets lately, but by the same token it's a bit of a chicken or an egg scenario can't you also just say the big market teams have been well run?

Let's look at some of the small market NBA teams that have been successful, the Pacers of the 90's, the Nets of the early 2000s, the Utah Jazz of the 80s and 90s, the Oklahoma City Thunder currently, the Spurs for the last 15 years. Yes, the Spurs are the only team that won a title but all of those squads made the finals. Making the finals is a pretty good start to winning a title.

At what point do we accept that the Lakers are in a good market, but maybe, just maybe they have also been very well run? If being in a big market was all it took how do you explain New York, the Bulls from 1998 to 2008, the Clippers forever, the Warriors (they have Oakland AND San Francisco to draw from), Toronto (a HUGE market), being in a big market might mean something but it definitely doesn't mean everything. Management matters and whether anyone here wants to admit it or not, the Lakers, the Celtics, the Heat, all these teams have been very well run to get where they have been recently. Look at the Celtics specifically KG didn't even WANT to go there until Ainge made the move to bring Ray Allen in, it's not like KG was like ZOMG ZOMG THE CELTICS WANT ME AND I'M STUCK IN MINNY I MUST GO NOW. No, until they got Ray, KG was like, Boston is a cool city, but you know what I'm all good in Minnesota unless they get better.

vnzla81
08-17-2012, 03:05 PM
When people bring up the small market, it's not that it's impossible, but rather that it's a lot harder to do. Which is completely 100% true.

I kind of agree with this but at the same time I see San Antonio winning multiple Championships, I see teams like Cleveland and Orlando making it to the finals at least one time(like the Pacers in 30 years?), Utah in their time at least made it to the finals twice, Seattle made it one time.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that many posters in PD and fans in general love to give the Pacers front office the longest leash available, anytime something doesn't happen it's because "we are an small market team", or "we couldn't get X player because we are an small market team", that's when I feel that the excuse is overuse, people try to make themself feel better by repeating the same BS over and over again.

To me having a competent front office and good ownership triumphs over some fake "small market team complex", to me players are not signing with Indy for other reasons than just been "an small market team" and nope I'm not talking about the weather either.

vnzla81
08-17-2012, 03:11 PM
The Colts, Green Bay, Tampa Bay Bucaneers, the Florida Marlins, yes the NBA has been rewarding big markets lately, but by the same token it's a bit of a chicken or an egg scenario can't you also just say the big market teams have been well run?

Let's look at some of the small market NBA teams that have been successful, the Pacers of the 90's, the Nets of the early 2000s, the Utah Jazz of the 80s and 90s, the Oklahoma City Thunder currently, the Spurs for the last 15 years. Yes, the Spurs are the only team that won a title but all of those squads made the finals. Making the finals is a pretty good start to winning a title.

At what point do we accept that the Lakers are in a good market, but maybe, just maybe they have also been very well run? If being in a big market was all it took how do you explain New York, the Bulls from 1998 to 2008, the Clippers forever, the Warriors (they have Oakland AND San Francisco to draw from), Toronto (a HUGE market), being in a big market might mean something but it definitely doesn't mean everything. Management matters and whether anyone here wants to admit it or not, the Lakers, the Celtics, the Heat, all these teams have been very well run to get where they have been recently. Look at the Celtics specifically KG didn't even WANT to go there until Ainge made the move to bring Ray Allen in, it's not like KG was like ZOMG ZOMG THE CELTICS WANT ME AND I'M STUCK IN MINNY I MUST GO NOW. No, until they got Ray, KG was like, Boston is a cool city, but you know what I'm all good in Minnesota unless they get better.

Funny that I was typing something similar at the same time, yep a lot of people don't want to admit that well run franchises like the Lakers attract players because they are "well run franchises" the same thing happens in SA, Boston, Miami, etc, you can have the biggest market in the world(see NY) but if you don't have an smart owner and a good FO you are screwed.

Ace E.Anderson
08-17-2012, 03:34 PM
The Colts, Green Bay, Tampa Bay Bucaneers, the Florida Marlins, yes the NBA has been rewarding big markets lately, but by the same token it's a bit of a chicken or an egg scenario can't you also just say the big market teams have been well run?

Let's look at some of the small market NBA teams that have been successful, the Pacers of the 90's, the Nets of the early 2000s, the Utah Jazz of the 80s and 90s, the Oklahoma City Thunder currently, the Spurs for the last 15 years. Yes, the Spurs are the only team that won a title but all of those squads made the finals. Making the finals is a pretty good start to winning a title.

At what point do we accept that the Lakers are in a good market, but maybe, just maybe they have also been very well run? If being in a big market was all it took how do you explain New York, the Bulls from 1998 to 2008, the Clippers forever, the Warriors (they have Oakland AND San Francisco to draw from), Toronto (a HUGE market), being in a big market might mean something but it definitely doesn't mean everything. Management matters and whether anyone here wants to admit it or not, the Lakers, the Celtics, the Heat, all these teams have been very well run to get where they have been recently. Look at the Celtics specifically KG didn't even WANT to go there until Ainge made the move to bring Ray Allen in, it's not like KG was like ZOMG ZOMG THE CELTICS WANT ME AND I'M STUCK IN MINNY I MUST GO NOW. No, until they got Ray, KG was like, Boston is a cool city, but you know what I'm all good in Minnesota unless they get better.

Well when I mentioned the larger markets I only meant in the NBA. The NFL has long shattered the idea that only large markets work well. Also, the Nets are in a fairly large market, obviously not NY or LA but much bigger than a lot of other markets.

However, I actually agree with you on a lot of your post. I've always felt that teams like the Lakers are ran VERY well. I'm a big believer that you make your own luck, and the Lakers have definitely done that over the past 30 years or so. They get the very best when it comes to their FO, as well as their coaching staff. When you add those factors to the fact that they also are VERY aggressive, they easily make their own success.

With that said, it makes it a lot easier to do these things when 1. your television market helps the money flowing in, and 2. your owner is willing to go well over the luxury tax threshold and will spend inordinate amounts of cash in order to keep your team in championship contention. These are the only true advantage I see a bigger market team has over a smaller market team.

mildlysane
08-17-2012, 03:37 PM
How are we defining small market? Tampa Bay area has 4 million+ people in/around it and Orlando is only an hour or so away with another 2 million+. The Miami Marlins are in the Miami area with 4 million+ in the area. What is the dividing line?

Hoop
08-17-2012, 04:01 PM
Nice well thought out post mattie. I agree with a great deal of it, and some I'd don't agree, I still have some optimism left.

It's just nice to read a real discussion, except for a few that has to constantly make ridiculous hyperbole statements saying how bad player X is and how every other playoff team in the league has a better roster than us.

Trader Joe
08-17-2012, 04:04 PM
Well when I mentioned the larger markets I only meant in the NBA. The NFL has long shattered the idea that only large markets work well. Also, the Nets are in a fairly large market, obviously not NY or LA but much bigger than a lot of other markets.

However, I actually agree with you on a lot of your post. I've always felt that teams like the Lakers are ran VERY well. I'm a big believer that you make your own luck, and the Lakers have definitely done that over the past 30 years or so. They get the very best when it comes to their FO, as well as their coaching staff. When you add those factors to the fact that they also are VERY aggressive, they easily make their own success.

With that said, it makes it a lot easier to do these things when 1. your television market helps the money flowing in, and 2. your owner is willing to go well over the luxury tax threshold and will spend inordinate amounts of cash in order to keep your team in championship contention. These are the only true advantage I see a bigger market team has over a smaller market team.

Ok well the Simons have plenty of money to spend and showed throughout the 90s and early 2000s that they are more than willing to spend on players to win, so I don't think that is a disadvantage you could say the Pacers have

Trader Joe
08-17-2012, 04:06 PM
How are we defining small market? Tampa Bay area has 4 million+ people in/around it and Orlando is only an hour or so away with another 2 million+. The Miami Marlins are in the Miami area with 4 million+ in the area. What is the dividing line?

I don't know that it has ever been defined. I mean in all reality when you consider how easy it is for suburbs and the metro area around Indy to get downtown the Pacers actually have a pretty large market to pull from.

I mean the Colts and Jax are largely regarded as the two smallest markets in the NFL other than Green Bay, but in terms of incorporated cities in the US they are 11th and 12th on that list, bigger than a place like San Francisco, but SF has more surrounding population. Within Indy's "city limits" there are more people than within the "city limits" of SF, Boston, Charlotte, Detroit, Memphis, Seattle, Denver, Baltimore.

I think more than big market, you're dealing with things like team history, management, weather... how many people a city has doesn't really matter IMO. If the Timberwolves had won 16 NBA championships and were still well run like the Lakers are lots of players would want to play for them too.

In a lot of ways, just like kids playing college ball want to play at UK, KU, UNC, Duke, IU, UCLA, etc. the average basketball player is probably going to be influenced to want to play for the Lakers, Celtics, etc. heck even Bynum is pretty pumped to be with the 76ers. Certain franchise names are worth more and that has little to do with market and a lot more to do with past success, but it's not impossible to build a team even with no history behind the franchise.

vapacersfan
08-17-2012, 04:19 PM
I don't know that it has ever been defined. I mean in all reality when you consider how easy it is for suburbs and the metro area around Indy to get downtown the Pacers actually have a pretty large market to pull from.

I mean the Colts and Jax are largely regarded as the two smallest markets in the NFL other than Green Bay, but in terms of incorporated cities in the US they are 11th and 12th on that list, bigger than a place like San Francisco, but SF has more surrounding population. Within Indy's "city limits" there are more people than within the "city limits" of SF, Boston, Charlotte, Detroit, Memphis, Seattle, Denver, Baltimore.

I think more than big market, you're dealing with things like team history, management, weather... how many people a city has doesn't really matter IMO. If the Timberwolves had won 16 NBA championships and were still well run like the Lakers are lots of players would want to play for them too.

In a lot of ways, just like kids playing college ball want to play at UK, KU, UNC, Duke, IU, UCLA, etc. the average basketball player is probably going to be influenced to want to play for the Lakers, Celtics, etc. heck even Bynum is pretty pumped to be with the 76ers. Certain franchise names are worth more and that has little to do with market and a lot more to do with past success, but it's not impossible to build a team even with no history behind the franchise.

Random thought from someone who lives 2 minutes from jaguars stadium: Jacksonville is a huge city that is hard core spread out (at one time I heard it was the largest square footage city in the nation, and driving from one side to the other could take hours.....dont know if that is true or not). That said, one thing I do know is the jags sucked at attracting fans to come to games, people just did not want to drive.

Of course, part of that could have nothing to do with "market size" and everything to do with "college football is a religion" down there. Hell, Florida - Georgia was one huge block party, and possible just as large a game (if not bigger) then Dallas - Washington from the local area.


Random thought from a Redskins fan: Large market or not, IMO a competent front office (and a little bit of luck) is more important then location.

vnzla81
08-17-2012, 04:25 PM
Random thought from a Redskins fan: Large market or not, IMO a competent front office (and a little bit of luck) is more important then location.

No doubt, at this moment I'm waiting for SA to start the rebuilding process to see how they school "small market teams" in how to rebuild the right way.

Trader Joe
08-17-2012, 04:32 PM
No doubt, at this moment I'm waiting for SA to start the rebuilding process to see how they school "small market teams" in how to rebuild the right way.

Heh, I think the part where you and I differ is I don't think things are going too poorly with how we're being run. Granted this summer was not up to last year's, but I still could see some logic behind it. I'm kind of waiting to the trade deadline of this season to reserve judgement.

McKeyFan
08-17-2012, 04:36 PM
I don't think you can lump Orlando and Tampa in the same market in any kind of way. Almost no one is driving from one city to the other to watch a game. I've lived in Orlando.

There may be other markets where this applies, but not Orlando/Tampa.

NapTonius Monk
08-17-2012, 04:36 PM
Anytime somebody uses the "small market bs" as an excuse somebody in the Pacers front office smiles, they have done a good job in making people believe that.

The more People believe that bs the less pressure the Pacers FO has to deliver a championship.
Especially since San Antonio completely obliterates that excuse.

Since86
08-17-2012, 04:39 PM
Especially since San Antonio completely obliterates that excuse.

It's pretty weird that one team "obliterates" the excuse. I would think that you'd need a lot more examples to "obliterate" it. It's about as equivalant of saying that Candace Parker obliterates the notion that women can't jump. One example, or even 2, doesn't make a case.

Since86
08-17-2012, 04:40 PM
No doubt, at this moment I'm waiting for SA to start the rebuilding process to see how they school "small market teams" in how to rebuild the right way.

By landing a consensus top pick is how you rebuild the right way. If you don't get one, you're behind the 8-ball.

Since86
08-17-2012, 04:44 PM
Large markets are just more attractive for star players. IT allows them to grow their brand. Being in a large market also gives management more wiggle room on taking risks, because the financial risk is much smaller when you can fall backwards into money.

If the Pacers had the cash flow that the Knicks/Lakers do, then I'd agree that market size doesn't matter much. But the Pacers take a flier on a team, and get burnt, and it can cost the city the Pacers. The Knicks can afford to flush money down the toilet, and their financial situation stays pretty solid.

Talent evaluation is only a small piece of the pie when it comes to being able to run a quality NBA franchise.

It's all interconnected.

vnzla81
08-17-2012, 04:55 PM
By landing a consensus top pick is how you rebuild the right way. If you don't get one, you're behind the 8-ball.

Some "small market teams" have had an opportunity to try to get a top pick but they rather "stay afloat" and pick in the middle of the pack ala Pacers, having a good FO also helps to be successful when you are picking in the top of the pack so you don't pull a Memphis or Minny.

vnzla81
08-17-2012, 05:04 PM
Heh, I think the part where you and I differ is I don't think things are going too poorly with how we're being run. Granted this summer was not up to last year's, but I still could see some logic behind it. I'm kind of waiting to the trade deadline of this season to reserve judgement.

I don't think things are run poorly either, I just think that the Pacers FO are satisfied to be OK and as competitive person I hate that, they also sold us into the idea of a "better future" five years ago(the famous 3 years plan) and now after five years and another wasted summer where they also wasted their cap space, I just don't see the light of the tunnel of a championship that we were promised few years ago all I see is a second round contending team nothing else.

mildlysane
08-17-2012, 05:19 PM
I don't think you can lump Orlando and Tampa in the same market in any kind of way. Almost no one is driving from one city to the other to watch a game. I've lived in Orlando.

There may be other markets where this applies, but not Orlando/Tampa.

I agree, however the airwaves /advertising make the trip (I assume). I live halfway between Ft Myers and Tampa and get both sets of affiliates. Kind of annoying really, because Comcast makes it seem like you get a lot of channels, but in reality, you get a lot of duplicates. I see your point, though.

Major Cold
08-17-2012, 05:29 PM
Folks San Antonio is the exception to the rule that big market runs the NBA. They are an anomaly that had the best PF to ever play. Plus they scouted overseas in a way that no other team had thought of. The revolutionized the foreign market scouting.

TMJ31
08-17-2012, 06:12 PM
The other thing you have to consider when doing the whole "What is a small market" argument is this:

The Green Bay Packers (my hometown team) are most certainly in a small market. But I would not really classify them as a "small market" team because of the simple fact that our fan base is one of the most wide spread of any professional sporting team. You can go anywhere in the country (nearly) and encounter good numbers of Packers fans. I see TONS of Packers gear and fan stuff out here in Southern California for example. So while their LOCAL market may be small, their 'effective market' (invented term just now) is HUGE.

Just throwing that out there.

vapacersfan
08-17-2012, 06:37 PM
The other thing you have to consider when doing the whole "What is a small market" argument is this:

The Green Bay Packers (my hometown team) are most certainly in a small market. But I would not really classify them as a "small market" team because of the simple fact that our fan base is one of the most wide spread of any professional sporting team. You can go anywhere in the country (nearly) and encounter good numbers of Packers fans. I see TONS of Packers gear and fan stuff out here in Southern California for example. So while their LOCAL market may be small, their 'effective market' (invented term just now) is HUGE.

Just throwing that out there.


Good point.

Off topic, but how do fans travel for the Packers? I know at one time it was hard to get season tickets unless it was in the family, is that the same for individual? Or has stubhub et al changed that

Back on topic, I wonder what the Pacers fan base is nationwide? We have a lot of fans here that are from other nations, but I have seen my share of Pacers jerseys in Washington DC and VA (not so much Florida when I lived there).

Though to be 100% fair some also choose to sport hats/jerseys/etc for fashion reasons.

TMJ31
08-17-2012, 06:50 PM
Good point.

Off topic, but how do fans travel for the Packers? I know at one time it was hard to get season tickets unless it was in the family, is that the same for individual? Or has stubhub et al changed that

Back on topic, I wonder what the Pacers fan base is nationwide? We have a lot of fans here that are from other nations, but I have seen my share of Pacers jerseys in Washington DC and VA (not so much Florida when I lived there).

Though to be 100% fair some also choose to sport hats/jerseys/etc for fashion reasons.

Season tickets have a massive waiting list, your spot on which you can actually bequeath to your children in your will (it's that crazy)
http://www.packers.com/tickets/season-tickets.html

But yes, Packers fans travel very well indeed.

hoosierguy
08-17-2012, 08:10 PM
Market size is irrelevant in the NFL. The hard salary cap, equal revenue sharing, and non-existence of a draft lottery keeps the playing field just about equal for every team.

Hypnotiq
08-17-2012, 08:29 PM
^^ Yup to compare the two is deadset laughable

TMJ31
08-17-2012, 09:06 PM
^^ Yup to compare the two is deadset laughable

I wasn't comparing the two in the sense of fair play or chances of being successful.

Merely trying to put a new spin on the whole "what defines a small market" debate.

I agree, NBA/NFL = Apples/Oranges.

BlueNGold
08-17-2012, 10:06 PM
I don't think you can lump Orlando and Tampa in the same market in any kind of way. Almost no one is driving from one city to the other to watch a game. I've lived in Orlando.

There may be other markets where this applies, but not Orlando/Tampa.

I believe this. I have made that drive and I recall it being awful. Lots of stop and go and heavy traffic for miles.

BlueNGold
08-17-2012, 11:27 PM
Folks San Antonio is the exception to the rule that big market runs the NBA. They are an anomaly that had the best PF to ever play. Plus they scouted overseas in a way that no other team had thought of. The revolutionized the foreign market scouting.

Good point, but nobody seems to focus on the fact they had the #1 picks in both 1987 and 1997...both years where HOF franchise centers were obvious #1 picks. Not bad luck.

Also, the Spurs didn't really become a dynasty until Duncan came along. They had never been to the NBA finals until Robinson and Duncan took them in 1999. I recall them talking about Robinson the way they talked about Barkley. Great player but no rings.

So, sure, San Antonio is a well run franchise, Popovich is a great coach and they were early adopters to overseas talent. But some of this was good fortune. Had Duncan, for example, been Kwame Brown or Jonathan Bender things would be very different these days in San Antonio.

King Tuts Tomb
08-18-2012, 12:10 AM
What teams qualify as small market? I usually see Minnesota listed as a small market team, but I've been there and that's a big area. Oakland as well. What criteria are we using?

I googled around but couldn't find anything too definitive. I'd be interested in seeing where exactly we split the lines between big/medium/small markets.

vnzla81
08-18-2012, 12:26 AM
Good point, but nobody seems to focus on the fact they had the #1 picks in both 1987 and 1997...both years where HOF franchise centers were obvious #1 picks. Not bad luck.

Also, the Spurs didn't really become a dynasty until Duncan came along. They had never been to the NBA finals until Robinson and Duncan took them in 1999. I recall them talking about Robinson the way they talked about Barkley. Great player but no rings.

So, sure, San Antonio is a well run franchise, Popovich is a great coach and they were early adopters to overseas talent. But some of this was good fortune. Had Duncan, for example, been Kwame Brown or Jonathan Bender things would be very different these days in San Antonio.

SA got Duncan because they decided to tank to get him, they didn't say "hey less stay in the middle for a long time to see what happens" they were also pretty good at picking good players later in the draft.

Heisenberg
08-18-2012, 01:22 AM
What teams qualify as small market? I usually see Minnesota listed as a small market team, but I've been there and that's a big area. Oakland as well. What criteria are we using?

I googled around but couldn't find anything too definitive. I'd be interested in seeing where exactly we split the lines between big/medium/small markets.It's more about perception than anything really. By any numerical measure we're unquestionably a small market, 35th biggest metro area nationally and 24th in the NBA. But it's more than that, Phoenix, Detroit, Minnesota (and Seattle) are all top 20 national markets but I don't think you'll ever see anyone call any of them anything but small markets. Maybe not Detroit, but obviously Detroit's got other problems going on right now unfortunately that hold them back.

It's about where it's "cool" to live for really rich athletes in their 20s where the majority have grown up in major urban centers. I mean, let's be real here, you can have your pick of places to live in that scenario, why WOULDN'T you pick somewhere like Miami or LA or NYC over Indianapolis or Sacramento or Denver assuming the money's the same regardless of the choice? You can say West picked us over Boston, but West is a different type of cat. 30+, married, kids, and not interested in the limelight, there're always exceptions to the rules. There are obviously a good number of pro athletes that prefer the lessened pressure that comes with playing in a small market, but not a lot. Even Reggie wasn't too pumped about coming here until we made him a God.

Anyway, as for the premise of the thread, I pretty much agree. This is a good team, but it's not winning a title w/o some large changes. No that's not good enough. Yes I sometimes question why I still care so much while that's the case. Never have come up with an answer. Because I wouldn't know what to do in the winter w/o the Pacers I suppose. I realize that's stupid, but it is what it is. I'm not going to just stop watching the Pacers, it's part of me, it really is.

King Tuts Tomb
08-18-2012, 02:59 AM
It's more about perception than anything really.

If that's true and it is about perception, then isn't that a good thing? Perception seems like the one factor, unlike market size and media access, that can be changed and improved. I don't remember Miami being all that desirable of an NBA location until the mid 2000s. I'm sure players liked the beach and all but I don't remember players dying to play there.

Heisenberg
08-18-2012, 03:27 AM
If that's true and it is about perception, then isn't that a good thing? Perception seems like the one factor, unlike market size and media access, that can be changed and improved. I don't remember Miami being all that desirable of an NBA location until the mid 2000s. I'm sure players liked the beach and all but I don't remember players dying to play there.

I suppose it's easier to make a market "sexy" than it is to quintuple the population of the greater Indy area, sure. But really not by much. We're not among the greatest NBA franchises ever, but it's not like we're a bunch of bums either, I'd have to look up number and dictate some guidelines but results wise we're in the top ten or so of NBA history. I mean as far as an NBA player'd be concerned what more could the franchise do? We've got a long history of paying our own (the main reason of that now being in charge again), standing by idiots until literally forced not to, I honestly cannot think of a player that's left Indy that didn't have positive things to say about the way the franchise handled him. That could easily be wrong but off the top of my head I really can't think of one.

But you play in Indy you're behind the eight ball. Reverse the Starks/Reggie roles, Reggie plays in NYC he's a superstar to end all superstars with all the drama and big plays he made. And Starks is just some dude that no one remembers at all. Same as Roy and Chandler. Both bring entirely different skillsets but they're absolutely on the same tier of player. Roy makes an ASG and it's surprising and "undeserved." Flip the two and Roy's getting multiple ESPN headlines a week and Chandler keeps his rep of being a journeyman.

Being in a small market is NOT an excuse to settle, from a fan perspective anyway. But it's just dumb for people to try and act like it doesn't make things significantly higher.

BlueNGold
08-18-2012, 08:09 AM
SA got Duncan because they decided to tank to get him, they didn't say "hey less stay in the middle for a long time to see what happens" they were also pretty good at picking good players later in the draft.

Yes. They are also a lesson in tanking to get a high pick whether or not that was intentional. Tankers pick superstars and superstars win championships. This doesn't mean tankers win championships necessarily, but they do win then more often than teams like the Pacers who try to build a team the "right way".

McKeyFan
08-18-2012, 08:29 AM
SA got Duncan because they decided to tank to get him, they didn't say "hey less stay in the middle for a long time to see what happens" they were also pretty good at picking good players later in the draft.
You're right, we need to do like San Antonio and conspire with our best player to break his own leg for the season.

Pacerized
08-18-2012, 08:50 AM
SA got Duncan because they decided to tank to get him, they didn't say "hey less stay in the middle for a long time to see what happens" they were also pretty good at picking good players later in the draft.

They kept Robinson out and played the end of their bench for the last 15-20 games in the most obvious tank job in recent nba history. Then Pop fired Hill to take over and become the hero. He is a good coach but if you're going to give the orders to shut it down you should Hill should have been given a chance to win.

vnzla81
08-18-2012, 09:56 AM
You're right, we need to do like San Antonio and conspire with our best player to break his own leg for the season.

I remember the year the Pacers had a chance to shut Danny and Dunleavy out and instead they decided to play them until the last game and ended up winning a bunch of meaningless games.

I also remember the great game against the Bucks at the end of the season moving the Pacers up in the draft.

McKeyFan
08-18-2012, 10:19 AM
I remember the year the Pacers had a chance to shut Danny and Dunleavy out and instead they decided to play them until the last game and ended up winning a bunch of meaningless games.

I also remember the great game against the Bucks at the end of the season moving the Pacers up in the draft.
Noted. I can see some better choices that would have moved us from middle of the draft to maybe 7 or 8. But apart from Danny breaking his leg as well, it would be hard to replicate SA's tank job.

Hicks
08-18-2012, 10:33 AM
Noted. I can see some better choices that would have moved us from middle of the draft to maybe 7 or 8. But apart from Danny breaking his leg as well, it would be hard to replicate SA's tank job.

And on top of that, you have to hope you win the draft lottery.

And on top of that, you have to hope it's the next Tim Duncan waiting for you.

J7F
08-18-2012, 10:45 AM
I remember the year the Pacers had a chance to shut Danny and Dunleavy out and instead they decided to play them until the last game and ended up winning a bunch of meaningless games.

I also remember the great game against the Bucks at the end of the season moving the Pacers up in the draft.

I definitely see the value in tanking... I just don't feel right about it...

spazzxb
08-18-2012, 11:26 AM
Yes. They are also a lesson in tanking to get a high pick whether or not that was intentional. Tankers pick superstars and superstars win championships. This doesn't mean tankers win championships necessarily, but they do win then more often than teams like the Pacers who try to build a team the "right way".

You conveniently forget the teams that are horrible for multiple years without winning the lottery. Typically there are only 1 maybe 2 game changers in a draft and you can go years being the worst team in the league without getting one. Building the right way gave us the 5th best record in the league and an improving team. I prefer that to assembling a crappy team and praying for divine intervention. Then again a lot of people do prefer to have crap to complain about around here. There are 32 teams, fans should appreciate more than just the one with the trophy.

mb221
08-18-2012, 12:02 PM
And if San Antonio doesn't win the lottery and have Duncan fall into their laps, and say have to pick #2? They get Keith Van Horn and how many titles?

pogi
08-18-2012, 12:09 PM
Yes. They are also a lesson in tanking to get a high pick whether or not that was intentional. Tankers pick superstars and superstars win championships. This doesn't mean tankers win championships necessarily, but they do win then more often than teams like the Pacers who try to build a team the "right way".

I disagree with tanking being a solution to our championship woes. If this is such a sure-fire way, why aren't teams like Washington, Sacramento, Toronto, and other perennial lottery teams hardly ever....ever....ever in contention for a championship? Cleveland had James d@mn-near a decade with no rings to show for it.

And ask Barkley, Karl Malone, Stockton, Reggie, Ewing, Webber, and many others if being a superstar is what all it takes for winning a championship. It takes alot of luck. It takes alot of scouting. It takes alot of collective compromise. Everything has to come together almost perfectly. If you tank, get the #1 pick, and he ends up being a Kwame or Olowakandi, what are you gonna do? Tank again? I just disagree with you and vnzla81 that tanking is a be-all end-all solution. I'd rather see a team with fight and lose, than a team or front office tank in HOPES that a lottery pick will pan out and win us a ring. To me that's a coward's mentality.

Ace E.Anderson
08-18-2012, 12:48 PM
If you don't have a competent FO that can not only draft talent, but that can draft players that fit well together, a coaching staff that can utilize the talent, then tanking is useless. Thats why the annual bottom feeders stay where they are, and the Spurs and such remain where they are.

I will say that a team that is run as well as the Spurs for such a long period of time is an anomaly, especially in the NBA. Nomally EVERY team has a few down years (even the Lakers were bad for 2 yeas or so) but the Spurs are an exception to the rule.

vnzla81
08-18-2012, 01:11 PM
[QUOTE=Hicks;1494342]And on top of that, you have to hope you win the draft lottery.

You don't need to win the draft lottery that's the missing point of people here, for example that year the Pacers went into the famous late season run they were placed 7th/8th in the draft and guess who was there at that position?(EJ) you don't think the Pacers are in a better position with EJ instead of Tyler? what has that last season run done to the Pacers for the present? my guess is nothing.


And on top of that, you have to hope it's the next Tim Duncan waiting for you.

It doesn't have to be Duncan to be a successful pick.

vnzla81
08-18-2012, 01:14 PM
And if San Antonio doesn't win the lottery and have Duncan fall into their laps, and say have to pick #2? They get Keith Van Horn and how many titles?

They are still smart enough to build a competent team, they are just that good.

Peck
08-18-2012, 02:08 PM
They are still smart enough to build a competent team, they are just that good.

But in truth there is just no way to know that. Everybody acts like the Spurs have been a super team for all of their tenure in the NBA and nothing could be further from the truth. They have been a super team in the NBA since they drafted what is now widely considered the greatest power forward to ever play. Think about that for a min, they have the greatest player to ever play his position and on top of that in all honesty he is one of the greatest big men to ever play.

It sure makes it a lot easier to put pieces around that than say journeymen big men.

No, to me the Spurs are like the Thunder are now, they are not the examples that small market teams can compete on a fair scale. They are the examples that if you strike gold twice in the draft you can compete.

BTW, I'm not disagreeing that high lottery picks are the way to go but I'm just saying I think the Spurs get a little to much credit as an org. for being a great team without enough of a caveat being said about them landing two top 50 players of all time with the # 1 overall pick.

vnzla81
08-18-2012, 02:30 PM
But in truth there is just no way to know that. Everybody acts like the Spurs have been a super team for all of their tenure in the NBA and nothing could be further from the truth. They have been a super team in the NBA since they drafted what is now widely considered the greatest power forward to ever play. Think about that for a min, they have the greatest player to ever play his position and on top of that in all honesty he is one of the greatest big men to ever play.

It sure makes it a lot easier to put pieces around that than say journeymen big men.

No, to me the Spurs are like the Thunder are now, they are not the examples that small market teams can compete on a fair scale. They are the examples that if you strike gold twice in the draft you can compete.

BTW, I'm not disagreeing that high lottery picks are the way to go but I'm just saying I think the Spurs get a little to much credit as an org. for being a great team without enough of a caveat being said about them landing two top 50 players of all time with the # 1 overall pick.

Many teams have drafted all time players and haven't been able to do what the Spurs have been able to do, recent examples Cleveland and Orlando, old examples, Minny and Phoenix, acting like the Spurs just got "lucky" and because of that they became the Spurs is not accurate they were also pretty good at drafting or trading for players that complements that great player they have on their team.

The part that grinds my gears with people and Pacers fans in general is that as always they use excuses to protect the Pacers front office, they couldn't get Nash, "that is because we are an small market team", we couldn't make trades, "that's because they were not trades available and our FO just doesn't make trades to make trades because they are just too smart", regarding tanking people love to make the excuse that "we don't tank because if we don't get the number one pick we are doomed" or the "if we tank we better get ready to see the Pacers in Vegas or Seattle".

At the end of the day the Pacers didn't tank and they are still missing pieces to ever compete for a Championship, again what good has those last season runs done to the Pacers? and please don't tell me that winning those last games has created some kind of "winning attitude" that has carry on to the present because it hasn't.

Sollozzo
08-18-2012, 02:49 PM
I don't think things are run poorly either, I just think that the Pacers FO are satisfied to be OK and as competitive person I hate that, they also sold us into the idea of a "better future" five years ago(the famous 3 years plan) and now after five years and another wasted summer where they also wasted their cap space, I just don't see the light of the tunnel of a championship that we were promised few years ago all I see is a second round contending team nothing else.


I disagreed with much of your front office criticisms in recent years, but I agree 100% that this was a giant snoozer of an off-season for the Pacers. We had the opportunity to at least *attempt* to make a splash, but the only improvements we made were changing up the bench a bit. Maybe we succeed in bringing a big name here, maybe we don't. But it would have been nice to have *tried*. This was the year to do it as we won't have that opportunity with cap space in the near future.

It cannot be denied that several good teams in the East made better improvements to their teams than the Pacers. The world champs got Ray Allen and Rashard Lewis who you know will come in handy with some buckets in the playoffs. The Knicks lost Lin, but Felton, Kidd, and Camby aren't exactly scraps. That team is much more talented than the Pacers. Their only question is chemistry. Boston also made some very nice improvements to their team and if they are healthy, they will be an even better team than the one that almost went to the Finals. The Nets got better with the Johnson deal and if Lopez is healthy all year then they will be tough. The Sixers added freaking Bynum in a steal of a trade. God only knows how deadly he'll be as the focal point of an offense.

Teams all over the East made far better improvements to their teams than the Pacers did. We will have a tough time winning a playoff series.

Larry Staverman
08-18-2012, 03:03 PM
It's about where it's "cool" to live for really rich athletes in their 20s where the majority have grown up in major urban centers. I mean, let's be real here, you can have your pick of places to live in that scenario, why WOULDN'T you pick somewhere like Miami or LA or NYC over Indianapolis or Sacramento or Denver assuming the money's the same regardless of the choice?


You can probably take LA off that list in about 10 years when California's finances catch up with Greece. When players realize that along with the sunshine and hot women they have to pay 50% of their income in state taxes alone Indiana might start looking better.

Peck
08-18-2012, 03:19 PM
Many teams have drafted all time players and haven't been able to do what the Spurs have been able to do, recent examples Cleveland and Orlando, old examples, Minny and Phoenix, acting like the Spurs just got "lucky" and because of that they became the Spurs is not accurate they were also pretty good at drafting or trading for players that complements that great player they have on their team.

The part that grinds my gears with people and Pacers fans in general is that as always they use excuses to protect the Pacers front office, they couldn't get Nash, "that is because we are an small market team", we couldn't make trades, "that's because they were not trades available and our FO just doesn't make trades to make trades because they are just too smart", regarding tanking people love to make the excuse that "we don't tank because if we don't get the number one pick we are doomed" or the "if we tank we better get ready to see the Pacers in Vegas or Seattle".

At the end of the day the Pacers didn't tank and they are still missing pieces to ever compete for a Championship, again what good has those last season runs done to the Pacers? and please don't tell me that winning those last games has created some kind of "winning attitude" that has carry on to the present because it hasn't.

Maybe you didn't understand what I wrote.

Tim Duncan is almost universally considered the greatest power forward to ever play the game. While Garnett is an all time great player he is not even considered the 2nd or 3rd best to play the 4 (Malone, Barkley). Same goes with Orlando, Dwight is the greates of this generation he probably is not even considered top 5 in Centers. LeBron has played both the 2 & 3 spot so depending on where you want to put him he may be the 3rd best shooting guards of all time (Jordan, Bryant) and I'm not sure where he would rank at the 3.

Not to mention the Spurs did this after already having Robinson on the team.

There is no need for a lot of back and forth here because for the most part I agree with you, but I'm just saying you can't discount the fact that they did have Duncan and prior to having Duncan they were never anything other than a very good team (Like the Pacers). As someone said draft Kieth Van Horn and I don't think the Spurs win one title let alone have the decade of excellent play that they have.

Trader Joe
08-18-2012, 03:39 PM
Lebron is probably the greatest small forward of all time right this second.

Peck
08-18-2012, 04:13 PM
Lebron is probably the greatest small forward of all time right this second.

Probably, I'm just going over in my head who are the great 3's of all time. Bird is one of them but probably for both ends of the floor you would have to say LeBron is already.

vnzla81
08-18-2012, 04:19 PM
Maybe you didn't understand what I wrote.

Tim Duncan is almost universally considered the greatest power forward to ever play the game. While Garnett is an all time great player he is not even considered the 2nd or 3rd best to play the 4 (Malone, Barkley). Same goes with Orlando, Dwight is the greates of this generation he probably is not even considered top 5 in Centers. LeBron has played both the 2 & 3 spot so depending on where you want to put him he may be the 3rd best shooting guards of all time (Jordan, Bryant) and I'm not sure where he would rank at the 3.

Not to mention the Spurs did this after already having Robinson on the team.

There is no need for a lot of back and forth here because for the most part I agree with you, but I'm just saying you can't discount the fact that they did have Duncan and prior to having Duncan they were never anything other than a very good team (Like the Pacers). As someone said draft Kieth Van Horn and I don't think the Spurs win one title let alone have the decade of excellent play that they have.

Yeah but do you think Duncan without all those rings gets to get called "the best power forward of all times"? if SA doesn't put a great team around him I don't think he gets called that.

I also expect Howard and Lebron to be at least top five of all times in something.

Peck
08-18-2012, 05:01 PM
Yeah but do you think Duncan without all those rings gets to get called "the best power forward of all times"? if SA doesn't put a great team around him I don't think he gets called that.

I also expect Howard and Lebron to be at least top five of all times in something.

LeBron for sure but it's going to be very hard for Dwight to get up there.

Wilt
Shaq
Hakeem
Russell
Robinson
Ewing

That's six right there that I don't think he will be better than.

Jose Slaughter
08-18-2012, 05:11 PM
LeBron for sure but it's going to be very hard for Dwight to get up there.

Wilt
Shaq
Hakeem
Russell
Robinson
Jabbar
Ewing

That's right 7 there that I don't think he will be better than.

Fixed

daschysta
08-18-2012, 05:28 PM
I disagreed with much of your front office criticisms in recent years, but I agree 100% that this was a giant snoozer of an off-season for the Pacers. We had the opportunity to at least *attempt* to make a splash, but the only improvements we made were changing up the bench a bit. Maybe we succeed in bringing a big name here, maybe we don't. But it would have been nice to have *tried*. This was the year to do it as we won't have that opportunity with cap space in the near future.

It cannot be denied that several good teams in the East made better improvements to their teams than the Pacers. The world champs got Ray Allen and Rashard Lewis who you know will come in handy with some buckets in the playoffs. The Knicks lost Lin, but Felton, Kidd, and Camby aren't exactly scraps. That team is much more talented than the Pacers. Their only question is chemistry. Boston also made some very nice improvements to their team and if they are healthy, they will be an even better team than the one that almost went to the Finals. The Nets got better with the Johnson deal and if Lopez is healthy all year then they will be tough. The Sixers added freaking Bynum in a steal of a trade. God only knows how deadly he'll be as the focal point of an offense.

Teams all over the East made far better improvements to their teams than the Pacers did. We will have a tough time winning a playoff series.

I don't see New Yorks moves as an improvement. Lin is much more effective than Kidd or Felton (who was incredibly terrible last season) and though Camby is a good backup center he's pushing 40.

Philly improved, but they did lose their leading scorer and best defender and playmaker, alot rides on huge improvements to Holiday and Turner.

Boston is better, no doubt, but they have questions too regarding age. Nets will be a decent team, we'll see how good in the long run, they don't have a very good front court, especially defensively, but improved for sure.

The East has improved, but the Pacers should be better on the bench and due to West being healthy all year long, not to mention refinements and leaps in PG and Hibberts games. Though the East is better, it isn't like we've been leapfrogged imo. What was true last season is still true. Miami is better than we are, and i'd take Boston over us, for at least next season. Anyone else in the East though? I think we can give a series to, and, stand at least a 50/50 chance of beating in the playoffs.

Ace E.Anderson
08-18-2012, 06:20 PM
I disagreed with much of your front office criticisms in recent years, but I agree 100% that this was a giant snoozer of an off-season for the Pacers. We had the opportunity to at least *attempt* to make a splash, but the only improvements we made were changing up the bench a bit. Maybe we succeed in bringing a big name here, maybe we don't. But it would have been nice to have *tried*. This was the year to do it as we won't have that opportunity with cap space in the near future.

It cannot be denied that several good teams in the East made better improvements to their teams than the Pacers. The world champs got Ray Allen and Rashard Lewis who you know will come in handy with some buckets in the playoffs. The Knicks lost Lin, but Felton, Kidd, and Camby aren't exactly scraps. That team is much more talented than the Pacers. Their only question is chemistry. Boston also made some very nice improvements to their team and if they are healthy, they will be an even better team than the one that almost went to the Finals. The Nets got better with the Johnson deal and if Lopez is healthy all year then they will be tough. The Sixers added freaking Bynum in a steal of a trade. God only knows how deadly he'll be as the focal point of an offense.

Teams all over the East made far better improvements to their teams than the Pacers did. We will have a tough time winning a playoff series.

What makes certain posters so certain that the Pacers didbt Try to make a big splash? There were countless number of FA who we were linked to being interested in. But even so, just because something isn't made public doesn't mean we didn't necessarily make an attempt to sign someone.

vnzla81
08-18-2012, 06:24 PM
What makes certain posters so certain that the Pacers didbt Try to make a big splash? There were countless number of FA who we were linked to being interested in. But even so, just because something isn't made public doesn't mean we didn't necessarily make an attempt to sign someone.

Saying that they just wanted to keep the starters and fix the bench doesn't tell me that they someway somehow wanted to make a "big splash".

Peck
08-18-2012, 06:45 PM
Fixed

<iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/g6GuEswXOXo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Ace E.Anderson
08-18-2012, 06:56 PM
Saying that they just wanted to keep the starters and fix the bench doesn't tell me that they someway somehow wanted to make a "big splash".

Touché. I guess what I was trying to say was, if a realistic opportunity to improve our team presented itself, idk why the Pacers or any other team would decide to not make that move. It's just not logical I guess.

McKeyFan
08-18-2012, 08:12 PM
Saying that they just wanted to keep the starters and fix the bench doesn't tell me that they someway somehow wanted to make a "big splash".
Isn't it possible they attempted it and failed, but the smart PR move is to say they only tried to fix the bench.?

RLeWorm
08-18-2012, 08:30 PM
i keep trying to believe that we can be the 2004 pistons who won with out no real star, but damn the super teams are too crazy! lol

BlueNGold
08-18-2012, 08:33 PM
You conveniently forget the teams that are horrible for multiple years without winning the lottery. Typically there are only 1 maybe 2 game changers in a draft and you can go years being the worst team in the league without getting one. Building the right way gave us the 5th best record in the league and an improving team. I prefer that to assembling a crappy team and praying for divine intervention. Then again a lot of people do prefer to have crap to complain about around here. There are 32 teams, fans should appreciate more than just the one with the trophy.

This all comes down to whether you are satisfied with good teams that compete ok in the playoffs vs having a dynasty with multiple championships. To win championships you have little chance unless you pick in the top 5 slots...or you are a destination city. It's just about impossible otherwise. The Bulls dynasty was MJ who was picked #3. San Antonio's was Duncan picked at #1. Houston won two titles with Olajuwon picked #1. LA has won 5 largely because they are LA and guys like Shaq (who was a #1 pick) decide to make their home there.

I think a few here misunderstand. I'm not saying it's the answer to avoiding mediocrity. I am saying that if you want an NBA championship EVER...EVER...you almost have to tank to get the pick in a small market like Indy.

Pacerized
08-18-2012, 08:41 PM
There are enough fans frustrated over this off season that I think the F.O. should be open about what they tried to do if they did try to go after any impact players or big names. It would be nice to know if they really tried and then you could be a little more understanding. If what we ended up with was the plan all along then all I can say is that's poor management by our F.O.
If we weren't going to go after the top 2 pg's then I wish we would have put an offer on the table to the 3rd. best player available which was Kaman. Kaman had already shown interest in meeting with the team and I think he could have been added before signing Hill and Hibbert. The additional money spent on Kaman would have won more games for us, and I don't think the bench changes we've made will win more games for us then last year. Ian, DJ and Green just aren't that much of an improvement over Lou, DC, and Barbosa.

BlueNGold
08-18-2012, 08:42 PM
i keep trying to believe that we can be the 2004 pistons who won with out no real star, but damn the super teams are too crazy! lol

Think about this for a moment. The Pistons supposedly had no real star, but look where their best players (except Big Ben) were picked:

Derrick Colemen - #1
Rasheed Wallace - #2
Antonio McDyess - #2
Chauncey Billups - #3
Rip Hamilton - #7

Those are good picks and very good all-star calibre players. Still, I agree they won as a team because they had no MJ, Kobe, Shaq or LeBron type of dominant superstar. Yet it still shows just how important those high picks are to acquire. Can we make the right trades to get this done in Indy? I suppose it's possible.

BlueNGold
08-18-2012, 09:45 PM
Haven't people been beating the "Boston is done" drum since like 2009? Yet they keep winning and going on deep playoff runs. They had the opportunity to play a game 6 at home that would have put them in the NBA Finals had they won. Unfortunately for them, one of the greatest players of all time played what was probably the greatest game of his career. Then in game 7 on the road, they led for a good chunk of the game before finally wearing out in the fourth.

Post-All Star break Boston was a better team than the Pacers last year because they had three players who were better than any single player on the Pacers with Rondo, KG, and Pierce. I don't see how you can be better than a team that has three players that are better than anyone on your roster. Pierce often looked sluggish against Miami, but that was mostly because chasing Lebron around wore him out. There is no player on the Pacers who would come close to exhausting him like that, which means that he would light us up on the offensive end.

It all comes down to KG and Pierce. If age causes them to take a significant step backward, then the Pacers are probably a better team. But if those two can come close to equaling their production of last year then they are an even better team than the one that was a hair away from the Finals. Jason Terry is better than Ray Allen at this point and is two years younger. Bradley was a huge contributor down the stretch for them last season and stole Ray's spot, but he missed the Miami series. If Jeff Green can give them something then that will be a very nice addition. Plus they drafted well.

Pierce isn't going to light up the Pacers. We have guys who can slow his old legs down. Garnett scares nobody. Jason Terry's shooting percentages are horrible compared to Ray Allen's. The only reason he scored 15ppg to Allen's 14ppg is because he shoots more...and Terry is getting old too. 35 year old SG's who are 6'2" become pretty easy to guard, pretty quickly. Combine that with his defense which will be even worse...Terry is going to be a liability soon.

The fact is...Boston is old and getting very old. Retirement old, ok? The Pacers split with them last year and will be a year better. Boston will be worse. Boston barely got by Atlanta and the Sixers took them 7 games and almost out of the playoffs. Will they be a threat to the Pacers? Sure. Will many people consider them favorites over the Pacers? Yes, but they aren't going to be as good. I will admit that Rondo is better than any Pacer including Hibbert. But they are sliding and I don't think they have another year where they are better than the Pacers. That tank is empty...

RLeWorm
08-18-2012, 10:07 PM
Pierce isn't going to light up the Pacers. We have guys who can slow his old legs down. Garnett scares nobody. Jason Terry's shooting percentages are horrible compared to Ray Allen's. The only reason he scored 15ppg to Allen's 14ppg is because he shoots more...and Terry is getting old too. 35 year old SG's who are 6'2" become pretty easy to guard, pretty quickly. Combine that with his defense which will be even worse...Terry is going to be a liability soon.

The fact is...Boston is old and getting very old. Retirement old, ok? The Pacers split with them last year and will be a year better. Boston will be worse. Boston barely got by Atlanta and the Sixers took them 7 games and almost out of the playoffs. Will they be a threat to the Pacers? Sure. Will many people consider them favorites over the Pacers? Yes, but they aren't going to be as good. I will admit that Rondo is better than any Pacer including Hibbert. But they are sliding and I don't think they have another year where they are better than the Pacers. That tank is empty...

agree! Still don't know why analysts think the Celtics are still threats and they are even ranked higher than us in some peoples mind. The Celtics don't scare me one bit! They are too old and not enough fire power. They will finish 5-8 in the Eastern Conference. Boston's window has been closed for the past 2 years.

mildlysane
08-19-2012, 12:14 AM
You can probably take LA off that list in about 10 years when California's finances catch up with Greece. When players realize that along with the sunshine and hot women they have to pay 50% of their income in state taxes alone Indiana might start looking better.

Hasn't helped Orlando THAT much (no State taxes). Maybe Miami, but I doubt LJames and Bosh go there without Wade being there. Helps me, though. Loves me some No State Tax!

Heisenberg
08-19-2012, 01:17 AM
Of all the gripes about the offseason that are brought up I'm surprised Hill's signing isn't a bigger one. It's my biggest problem with the summer by far. It's nothing against Hill, I like him a good bit as a player, but he was obviously restricted. Let him sign an offer sheet somewhere. We were comfortable doing it with Roy knowing (they HAD to know) he'd get a max offer, but not Hill? Instead you willingly give him too long of a deal for too much money while having an immediate replacement in house at the time that had ample experience with a year left on his piddly cheap rookie deal.

I don't think it was done solely to justify trading for him (and giving up too much in the process), but I do think it absolutely played a role in the decision.

Pacerized
08-19-2012, 06:50 AM
Of all the gripes about the offseason that are brought up I'm surprised Hill's signing isn't a bigger one. It's my biggest problem with the summer by far. It's nothing against Hill, I like him a good bit as a player, but he was obviously restricted. Let him sign an offer sheet somewhere. We were comfortable doing it with Roy knowing (they HAD to know) he'd get a max offer, but not Hill? Instead you willingly give him too long of a deal for too much money while having an immediate replacement in house at the time that had ample experience with a year left on his piddly cheap rookie deal.

I don't think it was done solely to justify trading for him (and giving up too much in the process), but I do think it absolutely played a role in the decision.

I couldn't agree more. There was no way he was getting more then an MLE type offer from any other team, so the Pacers shouldn't have offered more then that. It would have been better to wait and match. The cap space saved by waiting would have left us open to go after amnestied players as well.

Peck
08-19-2012, 07:00 AM
I couldn't agree more. There was no way he was getting more then an MLE type offer from any other team, so the Pacers shouldn't have offered more then that. It would have been better to wait and match. The cap space saved by waiting would have left us open to go after amnestied players as well.

To me I think that is the single most frustrating thing about this off season. One day, one lousy day and we could have had Elton Brand for a little more than 2 million dollars or if we would have waited about a week we could have had Louis Scola for even less. Either of them would have been better than either of the backups we have now.

Can you imagine Roy going to the bench and coming in with Brand & West? I know they are both getting long in the tooth but Brand still has game. He certainly has more game than Tyler & I can only assume he still has more than Ian & Plumlee.

That is the one thing I just can't understand why did they have to sign both of them on that day and not wait till the amnestied players could be had on the cheap.

Heck you could make a real argument that Scola might have pushed West for starters min. if not the starting position.

McKeyFan
08-19-2012, 09:22 AM
To me I think that is the single most frustrating thing about this off season. One day, one lousy day and we could have had Elton Brand for a little more than 2 million dollars or if we would have waited about a week we could have had Louis Scola for even less. Either of them would have been better than either of the backups we have now.

Can you imagine Roy going to the bench and coming in with Brand & West? I know they are both getting long in the tooth but Brand still has game. He certainly has more game than Tyler & I can only assume he still has more than Ian & Plumlee.

That is the one thing I just can't understand why did they have to sign both of them on that day and not wait till the amnestied players could be had on the cheap.

Heck you could make a real argument that Scola might have pushed West for starters min. if not the starting position.
This is the white elephant in the room for the summer. Why hasn't Wells written an article on this—to either confirm or dispel the concerns?

King Tuts Tomb
08-19-2012, 09:41 AM
To me I think that is the single most frustrating thing about this off season. One day, one lousy day and we could have had Elton Brand for a little more than 2 million dollars or if we would have waited about a week we could have had Louis Scola for even less. Either of them would have been better than either of the backups we have now.

Can you imagine Roy going to the bench and coming in with Brand & West? I know they are both getting long in the tooth but Brand still has game. He certainly has more game than Tyler & I can only assume he still has more than Ian & Plumlee.

That is the one thing I just can't understand why did they have to sign both of them on that day and not wait till the amnestied players could be had on the cheap.

Heck you could make a real argument that Scola might have pushed West for starters min. if not the starting position.

Scola's contract is around $4.5 million per year at three years. He's already 32 and plays below the rim. Brand is 33. We already have maybe the slowest starting front court in the league, I just don't see how the Pacers match up with anyone adding another crafty slow guy. I don't love everything about Ian's game, and Scola and Brand are right now absolutely better players. But it's not about collecting good players, it's about getting guys that fit.

vnzla81
08-19-2012, 09:46 AM
To me even if they had traded Tyler and pick for Scola I would have been happy, not even waiting to see if they could have got him out of the amnesty pool is going to **** me off for a long time.

Why create all that cap space to "get into deals" and "get players that are getting amnesty" if your plan is not to get either, they never helped in a deal to get a free player and didn't get into amnesty players.

xIndyFan
08-19-2012, 10:17 AM
Scola's contract is around $4.5 million per year at three years. He's already 32 and plays below the rim. Brand is 33. We already have maybe the slowest starting front court in the league, I just don't see how the Pacers match up with anyone adding another crafty slow guy. I don't love everything about Ian's game, and Scola and Brand are right now absolutely better players. But it's not about collecting good players, it's about getting guys that fit.

Basically :iagree:

Not getting Brand doesn't bother me at all. Stick a fork in him, he looks done.

Not as sure about Scola. All last year I kept reading reports that he has slowed down. If so, then it is a 50/50 call on him. If he has not, then I would love to have him.

Wasn't the problem with Scola that the Pacers had already signed Roy and Hill? If so, then they couldn't sign them, then they couldn't sign them. :shrug:

Ace E.Anderson
08-19-2012, 10:25 AM
Why would Roy and Hill's agent wait any longer to be signed though? Yeah itd be nice to put off signing them for as long as possible so that we can try and make other deals, but this is a biz and they probably wanted to get signed ASAP. Hell they already waited a week into FA before signing with other teams. The pacers let it be known that they has till Friday to make their other moves before they needed to sign Roy and Hill back.

Also, how are people going to make gripes about the Pacers only looking toninpeove their bench, and then be mad because they didn't get old, slow, amnestied players that would have played off the bench. Neither Brand nor Scola would be too much of a fit for our team defensively Our frontline is already slow and unathletic as it is, why add another shorter, slower PF that can only play C against certain teams. The pacers are trying to get younger and more athletic, signing either of these guys would have only been the opposite.

vnzla81
08-19-2012, 10:42 AM
Ace E.Anderson;1494449]Why would Roy and Hill's agent wait any longer to be signed though? Yeah itd be nice to put off signing them for as long as possible so that we can try and make other deals, but this is a biz and they probably wanted to get signed ASAP. Hell they already waited a week into FA before signing with other teams. The pacers let it be known that they has till Friday to make their other moves before they needed to sign Roy and Hill back.

All they had to do was wait another day and get either player for free, I would also like to point out that many here were giving those who were "desperate" crap because "the Pacers had the whole summer to make something happen".



Also, how are people going to make gripes about the Pacers only looking toninpeove their bench, and then be mad because they didn't get old, slow, amnestied players that would have played off the bench. Neither Brand nor Scola would be too much of a fit for our team defensively Our frontline is already slow and unathletic as it is, why add another shorter, slower PF that can only play C against certain teams. The pacers are trying to get younger and more athletic, signing either of these guys would have only been the opposite.

If you have an opportunity to ad high quality players to your team for free you do it not matter what.

Don't trade for Ian and give him that long contract, don't sign Green, keep DJ/DC/Barbosa and only sign Scola and Brand and the bench would have been better than the new bench.

DC,Barbosa,DJ,Scola and Brand >> DJ,Lance,Green,Tyler,Ian in my opinion.

boombaby1987
08-19-2012, 10:47 AM
Why would Roy and Hill's agent wait any longer to be signed though? Yeah itd be nice to put off signing them for as long as possible so that we can try and make other deals, but this is a biz and they probably wanted to get signed ASAP. Hell they already waited a week into FA before signing with other teams. The pacers let it be known that they has till Friday to make their other moves before they needed to sign Roy and Hill back.

Also, how are people going to make gripes about the Pacers only looking toninpeove their bench, and then be mad because they didn't get old, slow, amnestied players that would have played off the bench. Neither Brand nor Scola would be too much of a fit for our team defensively Our frontline is already slow and unathletic as it is, why add another shorter, slower PF that can only play C against certain teams. The pacers are trying to get younger and more athletic, signing either of these guys would have only been the opposite.


Sorry, but I dont understand the first part of your argument at all. It just sounds like your making non-exisitent excuses for why we signed Hill so soon. Why would the team want them signed ASAP, when Hibbert was going to get a max deal, and there was no significant interest for Hill, not to mention, they were both restricted, so there was really no hurry.

Second part of your argument sounds like you think any player over 30 is horrible. "We dont want Scola and Brand because their old, and because they are old, they can't contribute anything whatsoever. Thats just incorrect. Also, its important to know that very few championship teams win with younger players. The vast majority of championship teams have mostly veteran players.

Ace E.Anderson
08-19-2012, 10:59 AM
Sorry, but I dont understand the first part of your argument at all. It just sounds like your making non-exisitent excuses for why we signed Hill so soon. Why would the team want them signed ASAP, when Hibbert was going to get a max deal, and there was no significant interest for Hill, not to mention, they were both restricted, so there was really no hurry.

Second part of your argument sounds like you think any player over 30 is horrible. "We dont want Scola and Brand because their old, and because they are old, they can't contribute anything whatsoever. Thats just incorrect. Also, its important to know that very few championship teams win with younger players. The vast majority of championship teams have mostly veteran players.

Whether you like it or not, Hill was a top priority for the franchise. They wanted to get him signed. If one wants to argue whether that was smart or not, I'd understand but it's not something I "made up" by any means.

I didn't say we shouldn't get them because they're old. I said they shouldn't get them because they don't fill a particular need on this team, and simply adds to a weakness (slow, unathletic frontcourt) that we already had. The fact that they're over 30, and are on the decline only adds to reasons why we may not have attempted to sign them, but it's not the ONLY reason.

And yes veteran teams normall win in the playoffs, but adding these players do not make us championship contenders regardless so that quells that argument. If we are going to get an older player, it should be someone that's going to come in and improve our starting 5 the way West did. If not then I don't have a problem with adding younger and more athletic guys to a bench when the team lacks athletes.

Ace E.Anderson
08-19-2012, 11:02 AM
All they had to do was wait another day and get either player for free, I would also like to point out that many here were giving those who were "desperate" crap because "the Pacers had the whole summer to make something happen".


VERY good point and I honestly didn't think about that lol.

If you have an opportunity to ad high quality players to your team for free you do it not matter what.

Don't trade for Ian and give him that long contract, don't sign Green, keep DJ/DC/Barbosa and only sign Scola and Brand and the bench would have been better than the new bench.

DC,Barbosa,DJ,Scola and Brand >> DJ,Lance,Green,Tyler,Ian in my opinion.

The only thing about the above bench is its lack of size and athleticism. Pretty darn good bench offensively, but only 2 of those players are average defensive players

mildlysane
08-19-2012, 11:09 AM
We can only speculate, but maybe Roy and GHill wanted to sign when they did or they were going to sign somewhere else (for MAYBE more money), thus making us match whatever team signed them (and/or jump through hoops). It would seem a bit greedy, but during free agency (and restricted free agency) it is acceptable and expected that a player be greedy to "get his." I know we think that GHill had no other suitors, but do we know that for certain? I guess what I am saying is that perhaps the front office felt like that if they didn't sign them when they did, they may have risked costing themselves more or losing out on the players altogether. Again, all speculation on my part. Could be that our billionaire owner sat on his wallet so that he could "get his."

Pacerized
08-19-2012, 11:29 AM
We can only speculate, but maybe Roy and GHill wanted to sign when they did or they were going to sign somewhere else (for MAYBE more money), thus making us match whatever team signed them (and/or jump through hoops). It would seem a bit greedy, but during free agency (and restricted free agency) it is acceptable and expected that a player be greedy to "get his." I know we think that GHill had no other suitors, but do we know that for certain? I guess what I am saying is that perhaps the front office felt like that if they didn't sign them when they did, they may have risked costing themselves more or losing out on the players altogether. Again, all speculation on my part. Could be that our billionaire owner sat on his wallet so that he could "get his."


The fact that we can only speculate is a real problem. Mavs fans don't have to speculate, they know that Cuban made a run for Williams and failed. They have nothing to complain about.
Our F.O. needs to be more transparent with what they're doing for the fans sakes.

Regarding Wells, why don't we all send him a request to get us some answers as to why the team didn't wait on Hill and Hibbert. You can't argue that Scola wasn't available to bid on. He was amnestied before the signings of Hill and Hibbert so they had the money if they just chose to wait a few days on the signings. If the reason was due to Hill and Hibbert wanting to sign earlier I guess we'd have to live with that but it's hard to believe that they wouldn't want to wait a few days to sign for their guaranteed money if it meant returning to a better team.
My experience with asking Wells anything that might appear negative is that he blows it off. I've posted on his blog several times looking for a response and he won't respond.

xIndyFan
08-19-2012, 11:29 AM
IIRC, the deal with getting Roy to sign with the Pacers directly instead of going to Portland and having the Pacers match was the agreement to sign Roy to the exact same contract terms as Portland. That seems to indicate that the Pacers were on the clock with Roy and didn't have the opportunity to delay the signing.

Don't think there was any news released on the Hill signing one way or the other. and not sure if the Pacers had cap space if they signed Roy and not Hill.


We can only speculate, but maybe Roy and GHill wanted to sign when they did or they were going to sign somewhere else (for MAYBE more money), thus making us match whatever team signed them (and/or jump through hoops). It would seem a bit greedy, but during free agency (and restricted free agency) it is acceptable and expected that a player be greedy to "get his." I know we think that GHill had no other suitors, but do we know that for certain? I guess what I am saying is that perhaps the front office felt like that if they didn't sign them when they did, they may have risked costing themselves more or losing out on the players altogether. Again, all speculation on my part. Could be that our billionaire owner sat on his wallet so that he could "get his."

BlueNGold
08-19-2012, 12:37 PM
What teams qualify as small market? I usually see Minnesota listed as a small market team, but I've been there and that's a big area. Oakland as well. What criteria are we using?

I googled around but couldn't find anything too definitive. I'd be interested in seeing where exactly we split the lines between big/medium/small markets.

Big market isn't the same as big population. It's about exposure/fame/endorsements. For example, Toronto is huge but it's not a place players go to get more exposure. Same with Houston, which is enormous and has won NBA championships. It's tucked away in Texas and just not a place players flock to for exposure. They do kind of flock to San Antonio, but that's out of respect for the franchise and the chance to win.

BillS
08-19-2012, 12:56 PM
To me I think that is the single most frustrating thing about this off season. One day, one lousy day and we could have had Elton Brand for a little more than 2 million dollars or if we would have waited about a week we could have had Louis Scola for even less. Either of them would have been better than either of the backups we have now.
:
:
That is the one thing I just can't understand why did they have to sign both of them on that day and not wait till the amnestied players could be had on the cheap.

I agree with some of this because of the way it is stated here vs. saying we CHOSE SPECIFICALLY NOT to get Scola.

The mistake seems to have been in not scheduling the signing of Hill and Roy for after the amnesty period was complete. I suspect EITHER a lot of consensus from the owners was that no one big was going to be amnestied (everyone was pretty surprised about Scola) - which really isn't a very good excuse, they should have waited just for prudence sake - OR there was some pretty heavy pressure from Falk regarding the signing date for Roy - which might be more of a reason than we give it credit for.

OlBlu
08-19-2012, 01:12 PM
One of the main reasons the Pacers will not compete for a championship has been left out of this conversation. Their coach simply is not experience or good enough to lead them there........ I like Vogel but he is with the only team in the NBA who would consider using him as a head coach. Yes, I am rooting for a slow start so that he can be replaced by a coach who can win. The one sitting right next to him will do fine....:cool: ...

xIndyFan
08-19-2012, 02:09 PM
. . . there was some pretty heavy pressure from Falk regarding the signing date for Roy - which might be more of a reason than we give it credit for.

:amen:

This seems so obvious an answer. Didn't the Pacers agree to the terms and timeline of the Portland deal to get Roy to sign directly with Indy? Thought I read something like that. Has anyone seen anything different?

shags
08-19-2012, 04:52 PM
Question for Pacer fans.

If the Pacers lose in the Eastern Conference Finals in 6 games to Miami, do you consider the Pacers as having contended for the championship?

I don't consider this a completely unlikely scenario this season.

mildlysane
08-19-2012, 07:32 PM
Question for Pacer fans.

If the Pacers lose in the Eastern Conference Finals in 6 games to Miami, do you consider the Pacers as having contended for the championship?

I don't consider this a completely unlikely scenario this season.
Yes and I agree that this is very possible. I think you could say that we competed for a Championship last year as well, as we performed pretty well verses the eventual Champs as well as how we did during the regular season.

McKeyFan
08-19-2012, 09:43 PM
Question for Pacer fans.

If the Pacers lose in the Eastern Conference Finals in 6 games to Miami, do you consider the Pacers as having contended for the championship?

I don't consider this a completely unlikely scenario this season.
That's a good question, and I think we were close to contending.

But I wouldn't call it contending until it looks less like Lebron and DWade were playing cat and mouse with us and simply turned on the jets when they decided to make toys of us.

Major Cold
08-20-2012, 09:25 AM
SA got Duncan because they decided to tank to get him, they didn't say "hey less stay in the middle for a long time to see what happens" they were also pretty good at picking good players later in the draft.
Boston also tanked to get him and they got Billups (who took years to develop).

It is mostly about the luck of the draw....unless you can over something to FA. Like Miami, LA, NY, or even Dallas.

Pacerized
08-20-2012, 10:34 AM
This is off the topic, but it irks me a little when I see the recognition given to the Spurs as a class organization. Yes, they are extremely well ran but it's like everyone forgets the tank job they did to land Duncan. Of course luck played a factor but Robinson could have returned and Elliot may have been ready as well late in the season. The foundation of everything they've built has been on a tank job. I won't lie, I'd be o.k. if we had 4 championships built on a tank job but their would be a small asterisks beside them.

Major Cold
08-20-2012, 10:43 AM
I think for the most part the taste of 4 championships would wipe the bitterness of tanking. It is a rarity in that the "ends justify the means".

vnzla81
08-20-2012, 11:24 AM
This is off the topic, but it irks me a little when I see the recognition given to the Spurs as a class organization. Yes, they are extremely well ran but it's like everyone forgets the tank job they did to land Duncan. Of course luck played a factor but Robinson could have returned and Elliot may have been ready as well late in the season. The foundation of everything they've built has been on a tank job. I won't lie, I'd be o.k. if we had 4 championships built on a tank job but their would be a small asterisks beside them.

Yes they tanked and yes they are a class organization, just because they tanked doesn't put an asterisk next to their championships, that's the way the NBA system is, if you tank you have a possibility to get the highest pick and they were smart enough to tank.

As an example the Colts tanked for Luck last year, does that make them less of an organization compared to other teams? nope, as soon as they start winning SB's nobody would even care to talk about the tanking year.

Major Cold
08-20-2012, 11:31 AM
As an example the Colts tanked for Luck last year, does that make them less of an organization compared to other teams? nope, as soon as they start winning SB's nobody would even care to talk about the tanking year.
Kerry Collins=JOB

:cheers:

Ace E.Anderson
08-20-2012, 11:58 AM
Yes they tanked and yes they are a class organization, just because they tanked doesn't put an asterisk next to their championships, that's the way the NBA system is, if you tank you have a possibility to get the highest pick and they were smart enough to tank.

what happens when you tank, but don't end up with the first pick in the draft? Yes the Spurs were lucky enough to get Duncan, but the Celtics who also tanked, ended up with Billups. Big difference in caliber of player there. If you tank and don't end up with the right pick, you're not going to get that franchise altering player.

BillS
08-20-2012, 12:15 PM
what happens when you tank, but don't end up with the first pick in the draft? Yes the Spurs were lucky enough to get Duncan, but the Celtics who also tanked, ended up with Billups. Big difference in caliber of player there. If you tank and don't end up with the right pick, you're not going to get that franchise altering player.

This.

The other thing is that probably the most recent franchise player to prove out, Derrick Rose, was gotten by Chicago moving up from a non-tank lottery position. Never mind that they didn't score as good a player in years they did much worse, imagine if THAT had been the year the Pacers tanked and then got leapfrogged by #10.

Before clearing the decks and playing for a draft pick becomes anything even close to an option (as opposed to a gamble), the forecast of the actual pick needs to be easier to determine. The other side of the coin from making the first pick harder to get with a single-season tank would also be that teams would know pretty much exactly where they were going to fall and could plan accordingly.

vnzla81
08-20-2012, 12:17 PM
=Ace E.Anderson;1494627]what happens when you tank, but don't end up with the first pick in the draft?

Nothing, you just pick the best player available and keep rebuilding, an smart FO could find ways to get multiple picks and players if they don't like their position, just because you don't get the number one pick doesn't mind that you have failed, every year multiple good players are drafted after the number one pick.


Yes the Spurs were lucky enough to get Duncan, but the Celtics who also tanked, ended up with Billups. Big difference in caliber of player there. If you tank and don't end up with the right pick, you're not going to get that franchise altering player.

Or if you don't tank and you are an "small market team" you don't get that franchise altering player either, tanking gives you a better chance to get that player that staying in mediocrity waiting for a player to come here or the front office to try to get that player.

vnzla81
08-20-2012, 12:20 PM
This.

The other thing is that probably the most recent franchise player to prove out, Derrick Rose, was gotten by Chicago moving up from a non-tank lottery position. Never mind that they didn't score as good a player in years they did much worse, imagine if THAT had been the year the Pacers tanked and then got leapfrogged by #10.

Before clearing the decks and playing for a draft pick becomes anything even close to an option (as opposed to a gamble), the forecast of the actual pick needs to be easier to determine. The other side of the coin from making the first pick harder to get with a single-season tank would also be that teams would know pretty much exactly where they were going to fall and could plan accordingly.

Chicago was pretty good at drafting before Rose they just didn't know what to do with the pieces, they are still pretty good without Rose, they got the best record in the east without him for most of the season.

PacersHomer
08-20-2012, 12:27 PM
ITT: A lot of people who are clearly smarter than every NBA GM but for some reason don't have a FO job.

vnzla81
08-20-2012, 12:29 PM
ITT: A lot of people who are clearly smarter than every NBA GM but for some reason don't have a FO job.

And then Orlando's front office destroys this thinking.........

BRushWithDeath
08-20-2012, 12:44 PM
:amen:

This seems so obvious an answer. Didn't the Pacers agree to the terms and timeline of the Portland deal to get Roy to sign directly with Indy? Thought I read something like that. Has anyone seen anything different?

Why were we so worried about Hibbert or Hill signing on offer sheet? What is the harm in it? We were already paying at market price for Hibbert and probably above market price for Hill. They were restricted free agents. If re-signing both of them was our priority, which clearly it was, their choosing to sign with another team would not effect that one iota. If the timeline got to the point that Hibbert and Hill were tired of waiting, which is certainly their right, them signing an offer sheet just gives us three days to decide to match.

Which, unless my understanding of the situation is completely wrong, is also three additional days of huge cap flexibility which could have been used to actually improve the team rather than just alter it.

Since86
08-20-2012, 12:44 PM
What does it take to get just an interview? If rebuilding is so easy, and it would result in such a better ran franchise, then we need to do all we can to get Vnlza to Simons so we can start rooting for a winner.

I have a hard time believing it's such a simple plan to execute, when teams routinely stay horrible after getting lottery pick after lottery pick. If it really is this easy, then it's like they try to be so bad at their jobs.

BillS
08-20-2012, 12:54 PM
If it really is this easy, then it's like they try to be so bad at their jobs.

Well, the current theory seems to be that you can make more money being consistently bad so it is better to get your fans to "buy in" to the concept. :shrug:

vnzla81
08-20-2012, 01:15 PM
What does it take to get just an interview? If rebuilding is so easy, and it would result in such a better ran franchise, then we need to do all we can to get Vnlza to Simons so we can start rooting for a winner.

I have a hard time believing it's such a simple plan to execute, when teams routinely stay horrible after getting lottery pick after lottery pick. If it really is this easy, then it's like they try to be so bad at their jobs.

And nobody is saying that is easy and yes a lot of GM's are bad at their jobs.

vnzla81
08-20-2012, 01:18 PM
Well, the current theory seems to be that you can make more money being consistently bad so it is better to get your fans to "buy in" to the concept. :shrug:

Consistently bad? no, consistently mediocre? yes, win 40/45 games a year and get to the second round every year while getting a percentage of the money teams like NY, Lakers, etc are expending = good business.

BillS
08-20-2012, 01:24 PM
Consistent bad? no, consistent mediocre? yes, win 40/45 games a year and get to the second round every year while getting a percentage of the money teams like NY, Lakers, etc are expending = good business.

So let me ask you in all seriousness - given that not everyone spending NY/Lakers money wins a championship or gets to the finals, how many years of spending that kind of crazy money without winning a championship does it take before someone can believe that an owner/franchise really wants to win? When does it then become that the owner/franchise is incompetent because they obviously spent the money on the wrong people (because spending that kind of money otherwise would bring a championship)?

Remember, it has not been that long ago that the Pacers had a contending (ECF and Finals appearances) team with a salary well over the cap (before the LT), and the Simons spent all kinds of money - and yet the argument was STILL that they weren't doing enough to win a championship.

It seems to become the "there is no try" argument again - the only way to prove you are trying to win a championship is to win one. No one who made it to a high level (and by that I mean conference finals or higher) but got beat actually tried to win, since they didn't win.

Since86
08-20-2012, 01:26 PM
And nobody is saying that is easy and yes a lot of GM's are bad at their jobs.

Easy is a relative term. You're arguing that it's easier to rebuild by tanking than it is by "staying mediocore."

I just find it funny that you keep hanging your verberal hat on San Antonio, while ignoring the other 90% of cases where it doesn't work out that way. Teams try to tank to rebuild all the time, or they just happen to be in the lottery all the time so if whether or not it's on purpose is moot, and they still can't manage to follow your blueprint to success.

If tanking is an easier path to rebuilding, then more teams would do it, and more teams would jump from the bottom to the top. And yet they don't. Theories sound good on paper, but are much harder to execute once you actually try to put them into practice.

BillS
08-20-2012, 01:32 PM
Consistently bad? no, consistently mediocre? yes, win 40/45 games a year and get to the second round every year while getting a percentage of the money teams like NY, Lakers, etc are expending = good business.

And another thing - we've gone from defining constantly being in the second round as "not contending" to defining it as "mediocre", pretty much meaning that of 30 teams only 4 of them aren't mediocre. The former I argument I can at least accept as valid even if I don't agree with it necessarily. The latter is rather ludicrous.

vnzla81
08-20-2012, 01:33 PM
So let me ask you in all seriousness - given that not everyone spending NY/Lakers money wins a championship or gets to the finals, how many years of spending that kind of crazy money without winning a championship does it take before someone can believe that an owner/franchise really wants to win? When does it then become that the owner/franchise is incompetent because they obviously spent the money on the wrong people (because spending that kind of money otherwise would bring a championship)?

Remember, it has not been that long ago that the Pacers had a contending (ECF and Finals appearances) team with a salary well over the cap (before the LT), and the Simons spent all kinds of money - and yet the argument was STILL that they weren't doing enough to win a championship.

It seems to become the "there is no try" argument again - the only way to prove you are trying to win a championship is to win one. No one who made it to a high level (and by that I mean conference finals or higher) but got beat actually tried to win, since they didn't win.

I think the Simons were willing to go over the cap in the previous CBA, I don't think they are willing to do the same in the new CBA because of the penalties plus the money the will lose if they go over the tax line, so not only they have to pay the penalties but they also lose the "free money" they were going to get from the tax paying teams.

By the way I don't think you have to overspend the same way teams like NY or LA do, my point is that at some point if you want to win a championship you have to get over the tax line, how many teams over the past 15 years that won a championship were under the tax line? my guess is 0.

vnzla81
08-20-2012, 01:38 PM
Easy is a relative term. You're arguing that it's easier to rebuild by tanking than it is by "staying mediocore."

I just find it funny that you keep hanging your verberal hat on San Antonio, while ignoring the other 90% of cases where it doesn't work out that way. Teams try to tank to rebuild all the time, or they just happen to be in the lottery all the time so if whether or not it's on purpose is moot, and they still can't manage to follow your blueprint to success.

If tanking is an easier path to rebuilding, then more teams would do it, and more teams would jump from the bottom to the top. And yet they don't. Theories sound good on paper, but are much harder to execute once you actually try to put them into practice.

It's easier if you have a competent front office, just because other teams with crappy front offices have failed doesn't mean that your team is also going to fail, I guess you guys don't trust the Pacers front office the same way I do even though I'm the one criticizing them for their failures.

Since86
08-20-2012, 01:41 PM
It's easier if you have a competent front office, just because other teams with crappy front offices have failed doesn't mean that your team is also going to fail, I guess you guys don't trust the Pacers front office the same way I do even though I'm the one criticizing them for their failures.

You sure can come up with some doozies.

vnzla81
08-20-2012, 01:45 PM
And another thing - we've gone from defining constantly being in the second round as "not contending" to defining it as "mediocre", pretty much meaning that of 30 teams only 4 of them aren't mediocre. The former I argument I can at least accept as valid even if I don't agree with it necessarily. The latter is rather ludicrous.

A team that is constantly staying in the same place year after year even if they get to the second round is "mediocre" in my book, the Hawks are "mediocre", Milwaukee trying to get to 8th place every year is "mediocre", maybe a difference qualification of "mediocre" but they are still competing to be in purgatory.

BillS
08-20-2012, 01:57 PM
I think the Simons were willing to go over the cap in the previous CBA, I don't think they are willing to do the same in the new CBA because of the penalties plus the money the will lose if they go over the tax line, so not only they have to pay the penalties but they also lose the "free money" they were going to get from the tax paying teams.

My understanding of the current CBA is that you actually lose LESS by going over the LT level than you did in the previous CBA - am I not remembering correctly that the LT level is tiered and that as long as you are below a certain tier in the tax you still receive money from teams paying more tax than you - so it isn't a complete "all or nothing" at the LT line like it used to be.

I also don't quite understand the penalties you seem to be talking about for being over the CAP. Do you mean the drastic escalation if you are over the TAX, or is there some cap penalty I can't remember besides just trade issues and restrictions to using exceptions?

BillS
08-20-2012, 01:59 PM
A team that is constantly staying in the same place year after year even if they get to the second round is "mediocre" in my book, the Hawks are "mediocre", Milwaukee trying to get to 8th place every year is "mediocre", maybe a difference qualification of "mediocre" but they are still competing to be in purgatory.

OK. Not any definition of "mediocre" I've ever heard of, as it tends to carry connotations of being below average not just failing to improve from an already good position. I might define the Bucks in your scenario as "mediocre", likely not the Hawks - I'd define them as "having reached their limit" or something similar rather than applying a term that means they are actually doing poorly as well.

vnzla81
08-20-2012, 02:01 PM
My understanding of the current CBA is that you actually lose LESS by going over the LT level than you did in the previous CBA - am I not remembering correctly that the LT level is tiered and that as long as you are below a certain tier in the tax you still receive money from teams paying more tax than you - so it isn't a complete "all or nothing" at the LT line like it used to be.

I also don't quite understand the penalties you seem to be talking about for being over the CAP. Do you mean the drastic escalation if you are over the TAX, or is there some cap penalty I can't remember besides just trade issues and restrictions to using exceptions?

The 1.50 per every dollar teams pay now instead of the 1 for every dollar penalty. (not sure if it's 1.50 or 1.25)

Pacerized
08-20-2012, 04:00 PM
Yes they tanked and yes they are a class organization, just because they tanked doesn't put an asterisk next to their championships, that's the way the NBA system is, if you tank you have a possibility to get the highest pick and they were smart enough to tank.

As an example the Colts tanked for Luck last year, does that make them less of an organization compared to other teams? nope, as soon as they start winning SB's nobody would even care to talk about the tanking year.

How does that compare them to the Pacers who refuse to tank even though we were sitting at a possible 4th. worse record just a few years ago and ending with something like 10th.

mildlysane
08-20-2012, 04:17 PM
Tanking is for losers...we play to win!

ChicagoJ
08-20-2012, 06:53 PM
This is off the topic, but it irks me a little when I see the recognition given to the Spurs as a class organization. Yes, they are extremely well ran but it's like everyone forgets the tank job they did to land Duncan. Of course luck played a factor but Robinson could have returned and Elliot may have been ready as well late in the season. The foundation of everything they've built has been on a tank job. I won't lie, I'd be o.k. if we had 4 championships built on a tank job but their would be a small asterisks beside them.

David Robinson's injury (missed 76 games, last game was December 23) wasn't tanking.

They fired Bo Hill right before Robinson's season debut in mid-December, and went 3-3 when David was healthy enough to play.

Sean Elliott's injury (missed 43 games, last game was Feb. 5) wasn't tanking.

Charles Smith's injury (missed 63 games between November 5 and March 15) wasn't tanking.

Charles Smith even returned to the lineup when the team was 16-47 to play the remainder of the season. Bringing your starting PF back when you're 31 games under 0.500 isn't tanking.

So that covers their starting front court, of 246 possible games, they played 64.

Then you add in their sixth-man, Chuck Person, who missed all 82 games after back surgery. (And spent most of the season at his home in Indianapolis and paid for Roger Brown's funeral that season.)

So their four main front court players missed 264 of 328 games due to injury that season. Its no wonder they were 20-62 that season right after Bo Hill led them to 62 wins (and the WCFs) and 59 wins in the two preceding years.

Calling this a tank job is one of the most outlandish attempts at revisionist history I've ever seen on PD. And we're pretty good at revisionist history around here.

:sorry:,

:bs:

xBulletproof
08-20-2012, 07:44 PM
Thank you ChicagoJ. I've debated this point several times here and I've just given up on it. I've begun to wonder how many people saying it even remember it, and how many are just repeating what they heard someone else say.

BlueNGold
08-20-2012, 08:19 PM
It call comes down to odds. If you want a championship, do the Indiana Pacers have a better chance of having a soft landing rebuild and snag Paul George at #9....or a hard landing and snag Kyrie Irving, John Wall or Blake Griffin?

A soft landing is a relatively easy thing to do for a decent rebuild where you have a team good enough to make he playoffs and possibly contend for the ECF.

But the question remains...do you want a championship? The point isn't that tanking leads to a championship necessarily. The point is...what are the odds and do you really want it bad enough?

Were the Reggie Miller years completely satisfying?...losing to the Lakers in the finals? Keep in mind, that we are attempting to do pretty much the same thing....but in this case we didn't even have a #2 pick with Smits. Our current studs were both picked at #17.

I just find our recipe extremely unlikely to ever lead to an NBA championship...

beast23
08-20-2012, 08:36 PM
To correct one minor point, when we are speaking of the past, it is correct to refer to the owners as the "Simons". However, in the present, all owner decisions are being made by the "Simon"... and that would be Herb.

Pacerized
08-20-2012, 09:45 PM
David Robinson's injury (missed 76 games, last game was December 23) wasn't tanking.

They fired Bo Hill right before Robinson's season debut in mid-December, and went 3-3 when David was healthy enough to play.

Sean Elliott's injury (missed 43 games, last game was Feb. 5) wasn't tanking.

Charles Smith's injury (missed 63 games between November 5 and March 15) wasn't tanking.

Charles Smith even returned to the lineup when the team was 16-47 to play the remainder of the season. Bringing your starting PF back when you're 31 games under 0.500 isn't tanking.

So that covers their starting front court, of 246 possible games, they played 64.

Then you add in their sixth-man, Chuck Person, who missed all 82 games after back surgery. (And spent most of the season at his home in Indianapolis and paid for Roger Brown's funeral that season.)

So their four main front court players missed 264 of 328 games due to injury that season. Its no wonder they were 20-62 that season right after Bo Hill led them to 62 wins (and the WCFs) and 59 wins in the two preceding years.

Calling this a tank job is one of the most outlandish attempts at revisionist history I've ever seen on PD. And we're pretty good at revisionist history around here.

:sorry:,

:bs:

I have no way of proving it but it was common knowledge that Robinson could have returned that season. If they let him then they win more games and not playing your best players if they can play is tanking. I remember Barkley accusing them of it that season. It's listed as one of the biggest tanking jobs in the nba on many articles.

ChicagoJ
08-20-2012, 09:49 PM
When Bo Hill and Rifleman arrived in San Antonio, I began tuning into their games on the League Pass quite regularly. I won't say that I cheer for the Spurs, but they are the team I've watched the second-most amount of times over the past 18 years of subscribing to the League Pass. Getting Duncan and then Manu helped me stay tuned in after Rifleman and Bo Hill moved on...

There was discussion in real-time that the Celtics were trying for the #1 pick, and wouldn't it be justice if Tim Duncan didn't go to Boston but landed in San Antonio. Pop was frustrated that injuries to D-Rob, Elliot, Rifleman and Smith took them out of championship contention when they had a top-five team at the time. For crying out loud, they brought Dominique Wilkins out of the old folks home and he was their leading scorer. That's not tanking. You don't bring in Dominique to tank. You let Carl Herrera and Cory Alexander have all the minutes if you're tanking. They played, but out of necessity not out of "Tank" strategy.

ChicagoJ
08-20-2012, 10:01 PM
I have no way of proving it but it was common knowledge that Robinson could have returned that season. If they let him then they win more games and not playing your best players if they can play is tanking. I remember Barkley accusing them of it that season. It's listed as one of the biggest tanking jobs in the nba on many articles.

They were already eliminated from playoff contention when David Robinson might have been able to return from his broken foot. It was "iffy" If they were in the playoff picture they could have rushed him back sooner and had him on the court at less than 100%. What happened to Bill Walton's foot when he tried to come back too soon? There is a history of big men never really recovering from broken feet. Sam Bowie? Can't blame the Spurs for not wanting to share this cursed history with the Blazers.

What sane GM allows an MVP candidate on the court at less than 100% while recovering from a broken foot, and with risk to re-injury or setback, when his team is mathematically eliminated from the playoffs? Only Jim O'Brien would be that shortsighted.

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/spursnation/2011/10/17/spurs-memory-20-pop-replaces-hill-after-injury-riddled-3-15-start/

ChicagoJ
08-20-2012, 10:17 PM
They were already eliminated from playoff contention when David Robinson might have been able to return from his broken foot. It was "iffy" If they were in the playoff picture they could have rushed him back sooner and had him on the court at less than 100%. What happened to Bill Walton's foot when he tried to come back too soon? There is a history of big men never really recovering from broken feet. Sam Bowie? Can't blame the Spurs for not wanting to share this cursed history with the Blazers.

What sane GM allows an MVP candidate on the court at less than 100% while recovering from a broken foot, and with risk to re-injury or setback, when his team is mathematically eliminated from the playoffs? Only Jim O'Brien would be that shortsighted.

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/spursnation/2011/10/17/spurs-memory-20-pop-replaces-hill-after-injury-riddled-3-15-start/

I just looked at that seasons' standings again. I'd forgotten how bad Boston was trying to lose, finishing at 15-67. As much as I wish the Celtics, Tom Heinsohn, the Auerbach family, and all Celtics fans many, many, many years of 15-67, I hope its because they're trying to win and can't, not just that they have ML Carr coaching the team so they'll lose. The Grizzlies were 14-68, and that might have been about right for them. They didn't have any injury issues, they didn't tank. They just SUCKED. So the Spurs weren't even at the bottom of the standings in their so-called tank season.

brownjake43
08-21-2012, 01:41 PM
Well I tried to start a thread, and I guess it was too similar to what this thread was about, and I apologize to mattie for that. Did not mean to call you out or steal your thunder.

Anyways, I like our chances of winning in the next five years because of the four biggest contenders in the East (Miami, Boston, Chicago, Indy) we are by far the youngest. And I guess I'll just leave it at that.