PDA

View Full Version : Could there be a Pacers way of building...



Peck
02-06-2013, 03:21 AM
What happens if the Pacers actually advance the either the E.C. finals or even the NBA finals? No, I知 not asking if we will all be rejoicing and dancing in the streets (which we better be).

No I want to know will the paradigm shift in the way people think NBA teams in general and small market teams in particular have to be built?

Whether a lot of us old timers like it or not the absolute top model for building an NBA franchise now is to tank and the Oklahoma City Thunder are always held as the bright and shining example of dumping salary, bottoming out & being rewarded with high draft picks who turn out to be absolute blue chip players who will then lead your team from the bottom to the top and will do so for a couple of years until you need to dump them and start over again. BTW this is not just fans or even sports writers who like to stir up things on twitter who think this way. I have heard several respected NBA people both former coaches and players who have been on NBA saying that this is the model to use.

What happens if we prove that wrong? I知 not saying we will and perhaps I知 too high after so many home victories that I知 losing perspective but humor me.

The Pacers never tanked, at least not on purpose. Satan did but in his mind he was trying to win and when he finally gave in to not trying to win every game they actually started to win because they got away from his horrible.Ok, we all know where I知 going here so let痴 not make this about him.

Think about this our highest draft pick was # 10, now it can be argued that he is our best player so there is logic in still saying the higher the pick the better the chance of getting a good player. But again, he was # 10 not # 1 or even # 5.

When Danny comes back both he & Roy were drafted at #17. Right now our starting shooting guard is a second round pick and I wouldn稚 trade him for most 1st round picks from his draft.

Our first big off of the bench was selected at 13. Our current first wing off of the bench was this year痴 2nd round draft pick.

We parlayed one first round draft pick into our starting point guard & in a rare occurrence this trade actually benefitted both teams.

We traded away a surplus point guard who probably was never going to start here again and was probably not going to be happy being a backup long term for our back up center.

We did shed salary mostly by just letting it expire and with our available money we did make a splash in the free agent market and signed a player coming off of injury to fill a need, however although he was at one point an all star prior to here he was never considered a marquee player because he was just a solid fundamental player. In other words we didn稚 use our free agent money to sign the big marquee sexy player that everyone wanted us to sign (not that there was one available but I remember many people saying just save the money for the next season).

Of course that non-sexy fundamental signing only turned out to be both the biggest bargain in Pacers history is quite honestly is the best free agent signing in NBA Pacers history. I just can稚 bring myself to say most important because Byron Scott changed our entire culture the day he arrived here. But I値l say this we get to the E.C. finals or beyond & I値l probably change my tune about that as well.

Yea I know this is all pretty premature but still look at where we are. Right now we are the talk of the league and not just because we are winning. We are winning and we are looking good doing it, we are entertaining to watch (at least according to Chris Webber & Steve Smith on NBA tv) and most importantly other than West and soon to be Danny none of our key players are on the wrong side of 30. To put it differently unless something goes terribly wrong we have a few years to be really competitive and if George & Stephenson keep growing then that window could be quite large.

But with all of that in mind is it possible that teams may start to go another route and try the Pacers way of building through solid draft choices and trying to build a winning culture?

Or will it always be 努e must tank to succeed?

Brad8888
02-06-2013, 03:36 AM
Hire JOB. Extend JOB. Fire JOB. 'ship.

mattie
02-06-2013, 03:38 AM
I don't know.

I can tell you I'm convinced without a doubt that the Pacers are going to make the Finals though. I don't think the Heat will be able to beat them once Grangers back. We have the better defense. We also have a starting five that has been killing teams scoring the ball. They're getting better every day as Hill learns point, PG continues to grow as a scorer, Lance is going to be a killer 6th man, and West is simply not the same guy he was last year.

Put Battier on him in the playoffs and West is going to make them regret it.

I've come full circle. The Pacers are a powerhouse. We won't see it yet until Grangers back. But yeah. Grangers already playing in full speed practices. He's injury isn't an ACL. It's a discomfort deal, and presumably since he's practicing the pain is gone. (otherwise he wouldn't practice). He has an old man game anyway. How can it suffer?

The Pacers are going to start 4 allstars in the playoffs. No other team can say that.

Heisenberg
02-06-2013, 03:43 AM
I don't have a lot of time to really get into it, but I really think the new CBA is, eventually, going to drastically change the way teams are constructed and the amount of parity. It's also going to lead to shorter contracts and a lot more player movement, which'll be a shame and I think may hurt some fan interest. Next CBA eliminate max deals entirely and let true superstars make what they deserve and we got a whole new league that's much better. Lebron said as much, and hate the guy all you want, he's right. Lebron's thoughts on labor negotiations of late have genuinely impressed me relative to the seeming non-interest his peers seem to have for the most part. He's done a great job learning the business of the sport.

Kstat
02-06-2013, 03:44 AM
What happens if the Pacers actually advance the either the E.C. finals or even the NBA finals? No, I知 not asking if we will all be rejoicing and dancing in the streets (which we better be).

No I want to know will the paradigm shift in the way people think NBA teams in general and small market teams in particular have to be built?

Whether a lot of us old timers like it or not the absolute top model for building an NBA franchise now is to tank and the Oklahoma City Thunder are always held as the bright and shining example of dumping salary, bottoming out & being rewarded with high draft picks who turn out to be absolute blue chip players who will then lead your team from the bottom to the top and will do so for a couple of years until you need to dump them and start over again. BTW this is not just fans or even sports writers who like to stir up things on twitter who think this way. I have heard several respected NBA people both former coaches and players who have been on NBA saying that this is the model to use.

What happens if we prove that wrong? I知 not saying we will and perhaps I知 too high after so many home victories that I知 losing perspective but humor me.

The Pacers never tanked, at least not on purpose. Satan did but in his mind he was trying to win and when he finally gave in to not trying to win every game they actually started to win because they got away from his horrible.Ok, we all know where I知 going here so let痴 not make this about him.

Think about this our highest draft pick was # 10, now it can be argued that he is our best player so there is logic in still saying the higher the pick the better the chance of getting a good player. But again, he was # 10 not # 1 or even # 5.

When Danny comes back both he & Roy were drafted at #17. Right now our starting shooting guard is a second round pick and I wouldn稚 trade him for most 1st round picks from his draft.

Our first big off of the bench was selected at 13. Our current first wing off of the bench was this year痴 2nd round draft pick.

We parlayed one first round draft pick into our starting point guard & in a rare occurrence this trade actually benefitted both teams.

We traded away a surplus point guard who probably was never going to start here again and was probably not going to be happy being a backup long term for our back up center.

We did shed salary mostly by just letting it expire and with our available money we did make a splash in the free agent market and signed a player coming off of injury to fill a need, however although he was at one point an all star prior to here he was never considered a marquee player because he was just a solid fundamental player. In other words we didn稚 use our free agent money to sign the big marquee sexy player that everyone wanted us to sign (not that there was one available but I remember many people saying just save the money for the next season).

Of course that non-sexy fundamental signing only turned out to be both the biggest bargain in Pacers history is quite honestly is the best free agent signing in NBA Pacers history. I just can稚 bring myself to say most important because Byron Scott changed our entire culture the day he arrived here. But I値l say this we get to the E.C. finals or beyond & I値l probably change my tune about that as well.

Yea I know this is all pretty premature but still look at where we are. Right now we are the talk of the league and not just because we are winning. We are winning and we are looking good doing it, we are entertaining to watch (at least according to Chris Webber & Steve Smith on NBA tv) and most importantly other than West and soon to be Danny none of our key players are on the wrong side of 30. To put it differently unless something goes terribly wrong we have a few years to be really competitive and if George & Stephenson keep growing then that window could be quite large.

But with all of that in mind is it possible that teams may start to go another route and try the Pacers way of building through solid draft choices and trying to build a winning culture?

Or will it always be 努e must tank to succeed?

The pistons did it long before the pacers did, and were the dominant team out of the east over the last decade. It changed nothing. So...no.

In addition, the OKC model...please. So you're telling me the best formula is to land three consecutive top-five picks, and with them select two perennial all stars and a first ballot hall of famer, and then in between snag a borderline all star in the late teens?

What genius thinks that's an easy formula to copy?

Peck
02-06-2013, 04:10 AM
The pistons did it long before the pacers did, and were the dominant team out of the east over the last decade. It changed nothing. So...no.

In addition, the OKC model...please. So you're telling me the best formula is to land three consecutive top-five picks, and with them select two perennial all stars and a first ballot hall of famer, and then in between snag a borderline all star in the late teens?

What genius thinks that's an easy formula to copy?

You haven't perused our trade board in awhile have you? Obviously NBA people understand that this is not easy to duplicate but you would be surprised by the amount of sports writer (even the ones who aren't out to just type words) that think that this is the only way for markets outside L.A. & N.Y. to compete.

I was going to agree with you about the Pistons until I stopped to think about it. How many of those players were actually drafted by the Pistons?

Wallace (both of them) came via trade as did Rip Hamilton, was Billups a free agent. Prince was drafted by Detroit. As to the bench I am pretty sure Mike James was part of the Rasheed trade but I'm not sure. I don't remember how Corliss Williamson got there but I know he wasn't drafted by the Pistons. Did you guys draft Okur?

No, I really don't see that much similarity to the way that we each were built other than the philosophy that there is no true superstar. Now that I can see. But building the team we both have taken different paths & if its any consolation to you, until proven differently your guys version is better.

I know you can't be talking about the 80's Pistons because Zeke was drafted @ # 2

15th parallel
02-06-2013, 04:14 AM
The pistons did it long before the pacers did, and were the dominant team out of the east over the last decade. It changed nothing. So...no.

In addition, the OKC model...please. So you're telling me the best formula is to land three consecutive top-five picks, and with them select two perennial all stars and a first ballot hall of famer, and then in between snag a borderline all star in the late teens?

What genius thinks that's an easy formula to copy?

Tanking will always be the #1 option for the majority of the teams trying to build that are also in the small market. Teams will always bank on young players that have a cheaper contract yet have a really nice potential of ending up an all-star, or maybe a superstar. It may not always hit but it has a proven track record of success in recent history, from Duncan (SA) to LeBron (CLE) all the way to Durant (OKC). The Pacers case will always be a special case simply because it's not that easy to get above average to decent players in the draft within the mid teens and mid-2nd round consecutively. A team can get get lucky in 1 draft getting a potential star in picks 10-20, but on the next 3 draft the other mid picks are D-league level. The only team that has been that good and lucky at the same time in building a great team through non-lottery picks is San Antonio (well, having a Tim Duncan helps in the overall team performance).

As for the Pistons, I agree that they were built without a legitimate superstar similar to Pacers but they are different in terms of how their elite level team was formed. Every player on that starting 5 was obtained through solid trades/free agent signings except for Prince. On the other hand, only Hill and West were non-Pacer draftees formed through trades and the majority were Pacers-drafted.

Midcoasted
02-06-2013, 05:19 AM
You haven't perused our trade board in awhile have you? Obviously NBA people understand that this is not easy to duplicate but you would be surprised by the amount of sports writer (even the ones who aren't out to just type words) that think that this is the only way for markets outside L.A. & N.Y. to compete.

I was going to agree with you about the Pistons until I stopped to think about it. How many of those players were actually drafted by the Pistons?

Wallace (both of them) came via trade as did Rip Hamilton, was Billups a free agent. Prince was drafted by Detroit. As to the bench I am pretty sure Mike James was part of the Rasheed trade but I'm not sure. I don't remember how Corliss Williamson got there but I know he wasn't drafted by the Pistons. Did you guys draft Okur?

No, I really don't see that much similarity to the way that we each were built other than the philosophy that there is no true superstar. Now that I can see. But building the team we both have taken different paths & if its any consolation to you, until proven differently your guys version is better.

I know you can't be talking about the 80's Pistons because Zeke was drafted @ # 2

I would also add that what the Pistons pulled off was not sustainable. They made great trades and that is just not a formula for consistent long term success IMO. Sure they were good for 5 or so years, but that was about it. Not taking away anything from them, just that they did not draft those players like you pointed out and the deals they made were more of a high risk, high reward, and they paid off, but to think they could makes trades like that that work out that well consistently is unlikely.

I feel that the Pacer's system is more sustainable. Every year we find talent in the later rounds or with savvy trades. We don't make blockbuster deals, we just make smart little moves. We know how to grow talent and find it on the cheap. That is sustainable and I think we have a higher ceiling and a better offense than that Pistons team. We don't play that ugly of basketball. The Pacers are exciting to watch and PG is going to be a legit superstar. The Pistons never had that and at this point I am getting sick of the comparison because the roots of the teams and the actual teams themselves are nothing alike other than the Pacers have had one of the better defenses in history this year. And as many have pointed out, you should not compare the Pacers to the best defense in history until their numbers are at least comparable.

We are a more likeable team than those Pistons teams. We have a real chance for something special. If we can win it all this year we could start adding the bandwagon fans we all so despise. But let's face it those bandwagon fans buy tickets and watch games. I think the Pacers in the finals would garner more attention than those old Pistons teams ever would. We are so much more enjoyable to watch. The casual bandwagon fan can really get behind this team if they keep playing like they are at home and can extend that to the road. The Pistons were boring and were a turnoff to the bandwagonners, even though they played fundamentally great basketball.

So hopefully other teams don't copy what we are doing. But ultimately they will if we win a championship. But still they may not because not one other team I can think of has become a good team the way that the Pacers have. Literally every other good team has high draft picks. That may be the real story here. Is there any other team at all that is a true playoff threat that doesn't have a higher pick than 10 on their team?

Kstat
02-06-2013, 06:29 AM
okay, back up the crazy train...


I would also add that what the Pistons pulled off was not sustainable. They made great trades and that is just not a formula for consistent long term success IMO. Sure they were good for 5 or so years, but that was about it.

that was about it?

We had a 6-year run that included a championship, two straight conference titles, six 50+win seasons, and five division titles.

You don't call that "sustaining?"

You do realize only a handful of NBA teams have ever surpassed that level of excellence, right?


Not taking away anything from them, just that they did not draft those players like you pointed out and the deals they made were more of a high risk, high reward, and they paid off, but to think they could makes trades like that that work out that well consistently is unlikely.

uh....the draft/trade/FA ratio is roughly the same for both teams. The Pistons drafted Prince and Okur just like the Pacers drafted George and Stephenson. Moving on....


That is sustainable and I think we have a higher ceiling and a better offense than that Pistons team. We don't play that ugly of basketball. The Pacers are exciting to watch and PG is going to be a legit superstar. The Pistons never had that and at this point I am getting sick of the comparison because the roots of the teams and the actual teams themselves are nothing alike other than the Pacers have had one of the better defenses in history this year. And as many have pointed out, you should not compare the Pacers to the best defense in history until their numbers are at least comparable.

okay...reality check...

First off, the Pacers do play ugly basketball, by NBA standards. There is no pretty way to be 29th in scoring and 2nd in scoring defense. The masses are never going to applaud grind-it-out games. The one guy that commented on loving the Pacers' defensive style of play tonight was Chris Webber, who grew up-guess what-a Pistons fan.

And yes, I know their offense has been trending upward lately, but winning games 110-100 has never been their strategy.




We are a more likeable team than those Pistons teams.

No...you're really not. Nobody is talking about the Pacers outside of Indiana. Unless Paul Goerge becomes the next Kevin Durant/Tim Duncan type superstar, they never will. And George is simply not that kind of player. I'm not saying he will never be a superstar, but he's not as flashy as Durant or Kobe, and will never be a multiple-time MVP like Duncan. He's a star because he's a defensive stopper in addition to a pretty good scorer, and ESPN doesn't love to feature guys like that.

Unless you mean to say that the Pistons were bad guys and universally resented in contrast to the Pacers' much more likeable bunch of upstanding citizens, in which case...you're still wrong, in both cases. Outside of Indiana, at least.


I think the Pacers in the finals would garner more attention than those old Pistons teams ever would.

...the 2004 finals was the most watched series of the decade...

Now, you could counter by saying nobody cared about Pistons/Spurs, in which case...you'd be right. Of course, by the same token, there was mass panic over the possibility of Pacers/Spurs in 1999 and Pacers/Blazers in 2000, and that Pacers team was actually an offensive juggernaut.


We are so much more enjoyable to watch.

...you win games by making the other team miss bad shots and hit the floor...so, no. I understand that they are so much more enjoyable to watch from your perspective, but try to take off the Pacer fan hat and take a step back for a second.

From an outsider's perspective, let me get you prepared for the next 5-6 years:

1. Fans of big markets are not going to like you.
2. Fans of the teams you eliminate are not going to like you.
3. Fans of teams that value offense over defense are going to HATE you.
4. Unless Paul George about doubles his scoring output to Kobe/TMac/Durant levels, he's never going to be a national media darling. Missed shots aren't sexy.

When I said you can't compare this Pacers team to the 2004 Pistons, I said that because they hadn't accomplished anything yet. They are absolutely attempting to emulate them, however, albeit in a league that plays at a faster tempo. If they win a championship this way, I'd accept the comparison. Heck, I'd welcome it.

You're not going to accept this, but the reality is this: The Pacers play in Indiana. The Pacers play a decided physical defense-first philosophy. Neither of those things will endear them nationally. Heck, it's not exactly endearing them locally either. The Pacers haven't been a major draw in Indianapolis since the Bird/Reggie days of free flowing offense and three point shooters at every position.

I get that you're riding the Pacers high right now, and you can't see how the Pacers won't become the NBA's next great dynasty and loved by all...but that's just not going to happen. The hierarchy doesn't like being disturbed. You're going to knock much bigger names than Paul George out of the playoffs, and casual fans will get annoyed by it (unless it's Miami).

God forbid you keep Carmelo or Rose out of the finals....the national media will be borderline-offended in the "why am I stuck in Indianapolis covering the NBA finals when I could be spending a week in New York/Chicago" sense.

Kstat
02-06-2013, 06:39 AM
As for the Pistons, I agree that they were built without a legitimate superstar similar to Pacers but they are different in terms of how their elite level team was formed. Every player on that starting 5 was obtained through solid trades/free agent signings except for Prince. On the other hand, only Hill and West were non-Pacer draftees formed through trades and the majority were Pacers-drafted.

Hibbert was a obtained via trade on draft night. Brilliant deal, but the Pacers were not taking him 11th.

In fact, Hibbert wasn't even the highest draft pick they obtained in that deal.

Downtown Bang!
02-06-2013, 06:45 AM
To me there are three strategys in play for how an NBA team goes about the process and it can depend greatly on if they are a big market or small market.

The first (big market) strategy is to set up a salary "dump" cycle that allows the team to target the Lebron's, Melo's etc. when they become available. Ride the wave as long as productivity & injuries allow then do it again. Basically leverage the big market financials and game the Stern system.

The second stategy which can be in play for both markets is to take advantage of a down period (tanking could be involved) and maximize opportunities with a couple years of high draft picks. Even if a franchise's scouting department is very good there is still a great deal of luck involved with draft position & player injuries. Just look at the draft history of the Trail Blazers & Timberwolves for instance.

The third stategy in my mind is long-term team building which is almost exclusively a small market approach. Draft smart, trade well, spend for value only in free agency, lock up your good players long-term and keep the core together. Lots of teams have done this pretty well. Pacers & Jazz in the 90's. Pistons this decade and if you want to win four titles be the Spurs and do a great job combining both 2 & 3 for fifteen plus years.

I'm hopeful the new CBA will devalue the first strategy and do a better job rewarding the third example. Not sure it will work out that way but it would be great for the NBA in my opinion if there was a paradigm shift similar to what we are seeing in the NCAA where "mid-major" team builders can successfully compete for championships with the big dollar "one & done" programs.

Edit: I don't think the current Pacers team is doing anything funadmentally different than it did in the 90's other than we could likely see a key piece like DG moved early because of luxary tax implications.

McKeyFan
02-06-2013, 07:34 AM
ILebron's thoughts on labor negotiations of late have genuinely impressed me relative to the seeming non-interest his peers seem to have for the most part. He's done a great job learning the business of the sport.
I'd like to know more about this.

He's done a couple of bonehead things, but other than that, I have to say, he may be one of the most talented human beings (non just including basketball) on the planet.

Kstat
02-06-2013, 07:44 AM
I'd like to know more about this.

He's done a couple of bonehead things, but other than that, I have to say, he may be one of the most talented human beings (non just including basketball) on the planet.

Nothing really earth shattering. He just said what we already know: he's massively underpaid for what he contributes on the floor, and he will never get aid what he's worth under the current CBA.

McKeyFan
02-06-2013, 07:44 AM
Right now we are the talk of the league ... We are winning and we are looking good doing it

Earlier in the season when Vogel's head was being called for on a platter by some, I said let's wait until the All-Star break.

I guess Frank figured it out.

Major Cold
02-06-2013, 07:48 AM
I think I am giving up on trying for the Pacers to be recognized. Who cares if fanboys like us?

I actually agree with KStat that we are similar in liking by the common fan. The only way we can supersede the Pistons in being liked is if we dominate the Heat.

The pistons were not built like us. And they had the benefit of having Larry Brown as their coach. Taking other teams misfits and getting success in the weakest era of the Eastern Conference.

Kstat
02-06-2013, 07:52 AM
I think I am giving up on trying for the Pacers to be recognized. Who cares if fanboys like us?

I actually agree with KStat that we are similar in liking by the common fan. The only way we can supersede the Pistons in being liked is if we dominate the Heat.



That wouldn't even supersede it....the 2004 finals was a smash hit in the ratings primarily because the pistons were embarrassing the lakers. Then the lakers broke up, and there was no super-team left to hate, and fans went back to rooting for the new, fresh media superstars, and we were just in the way if wade, lebron, Howard, etc.

cinotimz
02-06-2013, 08:06 AM
okay, back up the crazy train...



that was about it?

We had a 6-year run that included a championship, two straight conference titles, six 50+win seasons, and five division titles.

You don't call that "sustaining?"

You do realize only a handful of NBA teams have ever surpassed that level of excellence, right?



uh....the draft/trade/FA ratio is roughly the same for both teams. The Pistons drafted Prince and Okur just like the Pacers drafted George and Stephenson. Moving on....



okay...reality check...

First off, the Pacers do play ugly basketball, by NBA standards. There is no pretty way to be 29th in scoring and 2nd in scoring defense. The masses are never going to applaud grind-it-out games. The one guy that commented on loving the Pacers' defensive style of play tonight was Chris Webber, who grew up-guess what-a Pistons fan.

And yes, I know their offense has been trending upward lately, but winning games 110-100 has never been their strategy.





No...you're really not. Nobody is talking about the Pacers outside of Indiana. Unless Paul Goerge becomes the next Kevin Durant/Tim Duncan type superstar, they never will. And George is simply not that kind of player. I'm not saying he will never be a superstar, but he's not as flashy as Durant or Kobe, and will never be a multiple-time MVP like Duncan. He's a star because he's a defensive stopper in addition to a pretty good scorer, and ESPN doesn't love to feature guys like that.

Unless you mean to say that the Pistons were bad guys and universally resented in contrast to the Pacers' much more likeable bunch of upstanding citizens, in which case...you're still wrong, in both cases. Outside of Indiana, at least.



...the 2004 finals was the most watched series of the decade...

Now, you could counter by saying nobody cared about Pistons/Spurs, in which case...you'd be right. Of course, by the same token, there was mass panic over the possibility of Pacers/Spurs in 1999 and Pacers/Blazers in 2000, and that Pacers team was actually an offensive juggernaut.



...you win games by making the other team miss bad shots and hit the floor...so, no. I understand that they are so much more enjoyable to watch from your perspective, but try to take off the Pacer fan hat and take a step back for a second.

From an outsider's perspective, let me get you prepared for the next 5-6 years:

1. Fans of big markets are not going to like you.
2. Fans of the teams you eliminate are not going to like you.
3. Fans of teams that value offense over defense are going to HATE you.
4. Unless Paul George about doubles his scoring output to Kobe/TMac/Durant levels, he's never going to be a national media darling. Missed shots aren't sexy.

When I said you can't compare this Pacers team to the 2004 Pistons, I said that because they hadn't accomplished anything yet. They are absolutely attempting to emulate them, however, albeit in a league that plays at a faster tempo. If they win a championship this way, I'd accept the comparison. Heck, I'd welcome it.

You're not going to accept this, but the reality is this: The Pacers play in Indiana. The Pacers play a decided physical defense-first philosophy. Neither of those things will endear them nationally. Heck, it's not exactly endearing them locally either. The Pacers haven't been a major draw in Indianapolis since the Bird/Reggie days of free flowing offense and three point shooters at every position.

I get that you're riding the Pacers high right now, and you can't see how the Pacers won't become the NBA's next great dynasty and loved by all...but that's just not going to happen. The hierarchy doesn't like being disturbed. You're going to knock much bigger names than Paul George out of the playoffs, and casual fans will get annoyed by it (unless it's Miami).

God forbid you keep Carmelo or Rose out of the finals....the national media will be borderline-offended in the "why am I stuck in Indianapolis covering the NBA finals when I could be spending a week in New York/Chicago" sense.

Puck the Fistons

Pacer Fan
02-06-2013, 08:13 AM
A third of the league tanks and it usually doesn't get them anywhere, OKC is one of very few exceptions of tanking actually working. It takes more to be successful then just tanking. Good contracts, great trades, free agents, good coaching staff and FO. Most of the teams that tank have been tanking for a decade.

Unclebuck
02-06-2013, 08:20 AM
I have never been a proponent of tanking as a means of improving your franchise. Notice I didn't say the best means, I said as a means. I completely reject the notion that tanking in any way helps a franchise. Smart trades, smart drafting, and a little luck can turn a franchise around. Getting a high lottery pick assures nothing, you need to get a high lottery pick in the right year, or get lucky that a player like Paul George falls to number 10, and you have to be smart enough as a franchise to realize how good he is going to be and draft the guy when he's available.

There is no exact formula for building a winning team. How did the Pacers acquire David West? Why didn't he go to a large market marque team? I don't know, we got lucky, we did all we could to acquire him, but he could have easily gone to the Celtics - there was nothing brilliant the pacers did to acquire West.

colts19
02-06-2013, 08:30 AM
The new way is simple hire Larry Legend. For getting us Danny, Roy, David, Paul, Lance, George and Tyler. I would like to say once again.

Thank you LEGEND

Mac_Daddy
02-06-2013, 08:44 AM
We've been fairly fortunate over the past couple of years. David West has been a huge factor these past two seasons. I hope it shows other top FAs that they should give small-market franchises a look. Sure, Bird had a lot to do with it, but its still a win in my book. We built strong through the draft, made some decent trades, and we were able to get a top FA to come to us.

VideoVandal
02-06-2013, 08:51 AM
The pistons did it long before the pacers did, and were the dominant team out of the east over the last decade. It changed nothing. So...no.

In addition, the OKC model...please. So you're telling me the best formula is to land three consecutive top-five picks, and with them select two perennial all stars and a first ballot hall of famer, and then in between snag a borderline all star in the late teens?

What genius thinks that's an easy formula to copy?

He isn't necessarily saying that you have to land 3 top 5 picks and tank year in and year out, he is saying that it does however at least require 1 tank season. And I have heard many former GMs in this league for small market teams such as Kevin McHale, talk about how you can not win an NBA championship with out an NBA super star no not just a bunch of All Stars but a legit Super Star a Hall of Fame worthy player. And let's face it these caliber players don't come to cities like Indianapolis on free agent deals, so that leaves only 2 options to get the perceived Super Star that you must have to win the championship either A. trade for one which has been done in recent years but pretty much only to big market teams with other Super Stars already there such as Dwight to LA, Melo to NY (Amare at the time was considered a Super Star and people thought it meant they would get CP3 as well), but again these scenarios don't seem to be open to small market teams such as Pacers. So lastly it comes down to the draft and this is where small market teams have their one chance, Cleveland got their chance with LeBron till he broke their hearts because of this, OKC has been getting their chances now, SA got a million chances thanks to Duncan and amazing coaching, Chicago (while I know they are not small market they were also stuck in a rut neither landing high named FAs or trading for them got unstuck with the 1st overall pick) changed their chances of title contention with Rose. So yes there is a ton of merit to this argument that the only way to win in the NBA in a small market city is to do it by first losing and losing a lot, Detroit Pistons are literally the only exception to this rule in a very long time every other championship team in recent memory has had a Hall of Fame caliper player on the roster, so the Pacers are trying to join the very short list of just the Pistons. For a long time as a Pacer fan when the going got rough I was legitimately upset with Indiana for staying mediocre thinking along these same lines thinking that the mediocrity would never get us anywhere other than maybe some playoff trips but Larry did a phenomenal job of drafting and landing players that are much more skilled than where they were drafted. You could argue that we actually did indeed follow this model of losing to win when at 10 we landed Paul George now at pick 10 there usually is not an opportunity to land many players with top 5 pick talent but I think it is evident that if there was a redraft today that Paul would be a top 5 pick probably even a top 3 pick.

duke dynamite
02-06-2013, 08:52 AM
Who would've thought...

You hire a Champion to build a Championship team. This man has been successful in every level of basketball he's ever been a part of.

http://www.totalprosports.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/12-larry-bird-greatest-best-sports-mustaches.jpg

And for that, I echo the sentiments of the previous posters,

Thanks, Larry.

vnzla81
02-06-2013, 09:37 AM
I'm pretty sure Kstats would be singing a different song if instead of Darko Detroit got Melo, Bosh or Wade, yes tanking is always going to be the way to go and if you have an smart FO that knows wtf they are doing is even better.

And yes the Pacers didn't "tank" but had they won more games we would be talking about Cole Aldrich or Xavier Henry as part of our core, thanks god for Utah too.

Since86
02-06-2013, 09:42 AM
It reinforces the concept of complimenting players, IMO, not necessarily which process to build teams is best.

The Pacers aren't all that special individually. Paul looks like he's turning into it though.

15th parallel
02-06-2013, 09:54 AM
You hire a Champion to build a Championship team.

Someone named Michael Jordan begs to differ. :D

bballpacen
02-06-2013, 09:55 AM
I think that we are an example of catching lightning in a bottle with our current roster...beamed for OKC really... Both are possible ways to build a contender, but neither are guaranteed... I don't think one way is more effective/efficient than the other... Outside of the big markets, you have to do one or the other b/c you are unable to buy the top talent... The Pacers were built similarly in the 90/2000's which lead to a contending team nearly annually...

Major Cold
02-06-2013, 10:09 AM
That wouldn't even supersede it....the 2004 finals was a smash hit in the ratings primarily because the pistons were embarrassing the lakers. Then the lakers broke up, and there was no super-team left to hate, and fans went back to rooting for the new, fresh media superstars, and we were just in the way if wade, lebron, Howard, etc.

It was a bit of that and the fact that Detroit's market is larger, the dispersement of Detroit fans because of the economic decline in the American auto industries, the media today is currently saturated, and many other variables.

And do you think that the Heat is not a super-team that could topple and draw new viewers in? I mean the Dallas series had a 10.6 to the Thunder series of 10.2. And while they weren't an 11.4, I think the Heat is more established as a superteam. I think it can happen. Most likely not with the Pacers because of market size. That and the Pistons were a dynasty in the NBA and in the last 20 years.

But there could be a team that can break that 11.4 mark. I agree that the Pacers are most likely not that. But that doesn't mean that they can't be successful in the NBA (which I know you are not arguing). Their mold is a viable one. And it is a lesson that you can find success in this league through more ways than tanking.

Tanking does have a better success rate I would argue though. Tanking or bottoming out, lottery picks are the best way to win. But it does not come risk free.

vnzla81
02-06-2013, 10:29 AM
And here is a list of "the Pistons way":

Billups (3rd pick overall)

Hamilton (7th pick overall)

Ben Wallace (undrafted)

Prince (23rd overall)

Rasheed Wallace (4th pick overall)

OK so out of the 5 Pistons starters 3 were high draft picks, they also had Darko (2nd pick overall), imagine if instead of Darko they got either Wade, Melo or Bosh? call me crazy but the "Pistons way" is harder to pull off than the "OKC way".

Major Cold
02-06-2013, 10:42 AM
And here is a list of "the Pistons way":

Billups (3rd pick overall)

Hamilton (7th pick overall)

Ben Wallace (undrafted)

Prince (23rd overall)

Rasheed Wallace (4th pick overall)

OK so out of the 5 Pistons starters 3 were high draft picks, they also had Darko (2nd pick overall), imagine if instead of Darko they got either Wade, Melo or Bosh? call me crazy but the "Pistons way" is harder to pull off than the "OKC way".


What finding former lottery picks that either burned their bridges, never matured, or were given away for trash...and then having them gel together and become what they were drafted to do...together...united. Yeah that seems a lot harder than tanking and waiting on your superstars to grow.

imawhat
02-06-2013, 10:54 AM
I don't think there's a Pacers way of building.

What Larry did is extremely difficult. Having tons of patience, drafting guys that are winners/solid basketball players/good people/team-oriented players, and building a team that is sufficient in many categories (e.g. length, size, shooting, speed, iq) but weak in few with only one top-10 draft pick, and that is a #10 pick, is nearly impossible.

Who here thought we could do this with a #10, #13, #17, #17 and #40 while signing a #18 and trading for a #26? Maybe Warren Buffett reads PD, but I doubt there are many others.

*edit*- Vogel and staff deserve a lot of credit too. I knew we had playoff caliber talent even when O'Brien was here, but it still takes a good staff to recognize how to effectively use players, and an even better staff to make a team that is greater than the sum of its parts.

Trader Joe
02-06-2013, 10:56 AM
Paul Georges don't grow on trees.

Cousy47
02-06-2013, 10:57 AM
Nothing really earth shattering. He just said what we already know: he's massively underpaid for what he contributes on the floor, and he will never get aid what he's worth under the current CBA.
I pretty much agree with both you and LeBron. However, that's one of the drawbacks of having the protection of a union to represent you. The Union by charter has to do what's best for the entire membership and free lance(scabs) don't get to be a part of the group. If the top line players start being payed for their worth to the team, the CBA is history or the non superstar players pay is going waaay down.

immortality
02-06-2013, 10:59 AM
We still have a weak bench :<, besides the center position, and a hit/miss Hans, the rest are lacking. We'll see what happens if/when Lance moves to the 6th man role.

McKeyFan
02-06-2013, 11:01 AM
This man has been successful in every level of basketball he's ever been a part of.

http://www.totalprosports.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/12-larry-bird-greatest-best-sports-mustaches.jpg



And you couldn't dream up a visual who would look less likely to do so.

Trader Joe
02-06-2013, 11:03 AM
We still have a weak bench :<, besides the center position, and a hit/miss Hans, the rest are lacking. We'll see what happens if/when Lance moves to the 6th man role.

And as Miami proved last year, your bench is pretty much irrelevant in the playoffs. All you need is for one guy to get kind of hot in each playoff game off the bench and you're fine as long as your starting 5 can pull the weight they are supposed to.

Pacer Fan
02-06-2013, 11:09 AM
I'm pretty sure Kstats would be singing a different song if instead of Darko Detroit got Melo, Bosh or Wade, yes tanking is always going to be the way to go and if you have an smart FO that knows wtf they are doing is even better.

And yes the Pacers didn't "tank" but had they won more games we would be talking about Cole Aldrich or Xavier Henry as part of our core, thanks god for Utah too.

And the last team to win a championship that tank (other then OKC) is who. Teams that that tank continue to tank. They are the bottom feeders. Detroit put that team together thru trades and FA. Cleveland tanked and had the best player in the last decade for 7 years and only won a ecf champion. It's not about tanking, It's about running a FO.

BRushWithDeath
02-06-2013, 11:13 AM
And as Miami proved last year, your bench is pretty much irrelevant in the playoffs. All you need is for one guy to get kind of hot in each playoff game off the bench and you're fine as long as your starting 5 can pull the weight they are supposed to.

Which is assuming that Vogel abandons everything he's shown in the past as far as playing the entire bench as a unit. I hope he does but I want to see it to believe it. If we severely cut down the rotation and always intermingle the starters with the bench when we are forced to go that route, I'll be much more inclined to believe we'd have a shot against Miami.

vnzla81
02-06-2013, 11:17 AM
I hope nobody follows the "Pacers way", that was painful to watch, the "Pacers way" is also hard to pull it off, the Bucks are trying to do the same thing and they are just mediocre and The Bobcats tried and failed.

vnzla81
02-06-2013, 11:20 AM
And the last team to win a championship that tank (other then OKC) is who. Teams that that tank continue to tank. They are the bottom feeders. Detroit put that team together thru trades and FA. Cleveland tanked and had the best player in the last decade for 7 years and only won a ecf champion. It's not about tanking, It's about running a FO.

Miami?

Trader Joe
02-06-2013, 11:21 AM
Which is assuming that Vogel abandons everything he's shown in the past as far as playing the entire bench as a unit. I hope he does but I want to see it to believe it. If we severely cut down the rotation and always intermingle the starters with the bench when we are forced to go that route, I'll be much more inclined to believe we'd have a shot against Miami.

Vogel has already done this. When was the last time we had 5 bench players out there together with no starter that wasn't garbage time? I honestly can't think of it. One of Paul or Lance has been out there at all times since end of December I'd say.

Trader Joe
02-06-2013, 11:21 AM
Miami?

When did Miami tank?

Trader Joe
02-06-2013, 11:22 AM
And the last team to win a championship that tank (other then OKC) is who. Teams that that tank continue to tank. They are the bottom feeders. Detroit put that team together thru trades and FA. Cleveland tanked and had the best player in the last decade for 7 years and only won a ecf champion. It's not about tanking, It's about running a FO.

OKC has not won a title.

Since86
02-06-2013, 11:23 AM
I hope nobody follows the "Pacers way", that was painful to watch, the "Pacers way" is also hard to pull it off, the Bucks are trying to do the same thing and they are just mediocre and The Bobcats tried and failed.

The OKC way is just as hard. The fact is that it's hard to build a contending team, no matter how you try to do it.

For every OKC, there's 20 years of the Clippers wallowing away with their countless lottery picks. Each has it's benefits, each has it's drawbacks.

Trader Joe
02-06-2013, 11:25 AM
In all honesty, we are spoiled, we went through about 4 or 5 years of being terrible and we act like we wandered the desert for years. Compared to Clippers fans, Cavs fans, Grizzlies fans, Charlotte fans, Orlando fans, I could go on, but I'll stop, the point is we're really actually pretty lucky. We had 15+ years straight of playoff caliber teams following by 5 or so years of being down. That's not too bad at all in the sports world.

vnzla81
02-06-2013, 11:31 AM
When did Miami tank?

When they got Wade? and the year before they drafted Butler at 10th and they used him to get Shaq.

They also tanked to get Rose and ended up with Beasley.

Trader Joe
02-06-2013, 11:34 AM
When they got Wade? and the year before they drafted Butler at 10th and they used him to get Shaq.

They also tanked to get Rose and ended up with Beasley.

The Rose/Beasley year is the only year I would say they tanked. The other two years they were just bad. There is a difference.

And it's funny that the year they tanked was the year they got a low value asset.

vnzla81
02-06-2013, 11:39 AM
The Rose/Beasley year is the only year I would say they tanked. The other two years they were just bad. There is a difference.

And it's funny that the year they tanked was the year they got a low value asset.

I believe everybody was tanking for Lebron that year, they also knew that prospects like Melo, Wade and others were going to be there, many called that draft "one of the best drafts ever".

Trader Joe
02-06-2013, 11:40 AM
I believe everybody was tanking for Lebron that year, they also knew that prospects like Melo, Wade and others were going to be there, many called that draft "one of the best drafts ever".

Some definitely tanked, Miami was pretty bad though and still didn't get there. They did OK though haha, Wade was my favorite guy in that draft.

Pacer Fan
02-06-2013, 12:04 PM
OKC has not won a title.

I didn't say they did win the title.

Pacer Fan
02-06-2013, 12:07 PM
Miami?

They didn't tank to win that title...lol

Peck
02-06-2013, 12:27 PM
I hope nobody follows the "Pacers way", that was painful to watch, the "Pacers way" is also hard to pull it off, the Bucks are trying to do the same thing and they are just mediocre and The Bobcats tried and failed.

What's funny is I would use the Bucks as an example that being a bottom feeder just leads to more bottom feeding. Remember these guys actually won the lottery and look what they have to show for it. Jennings is also a lottery pick. However these guys have drafted horribly as well over the years so I just can't see your example of how they are trying to duplicate what we have done.

Don't get me wrong if the Pacers flame out in the first round or even if they lose in the second round and next season don't bring the noise then this will all be a puff of smoke.

Even if it doesn't change the M.O.'s of any of the leagues officials I would kind of hope that maybe just maybe some of the people who think that tanking is the only way might be more open to an alternative approach. I've said it many times before there is no one sure fire way to build a team because if there was everybody would do it.

vapacersfan
02-06-2013, 12:31 PM
In all honesty, we are spoiled, we went through about 4 or 5 years of being terrible and we act like we wandered the desert for years. Compared to Clippers fans, Cavs fans, Grizzlies fans, Charlotte fans, Orlando fans, I could go on, but I'll stop, the point is we're really actually pretty lucky. We had 15+ years straight of playoff caliber teams following by 5 or so years of being down. That's not too bad at all in the sports world.


Washington

Trader Joe
02-06-2013, 12:33 PM
I didn't say they did win the title.

How else should I read this? lol You said "And the last team to win a championship that tank (other then OKC) is who. "

Peck
02-06-2013, 12:34 PM
Washington

That is exactly right. Everytime somebody say's the Thunder to me I just reply the Wizards. How many years has that team been in the lottery?

Trader Joe
02-06-2013, 12:39 PM
That is exactly right. Everytime somebody say's the Thunder to me I just reply the Wizards. How many years has that team been in the lottery?

How many years did Chicago tank and come up with nothing? 10? Then they were decent and lucked into the 1 and got Rose. Tanking is the dumbest strategy in the sports world when there is a lottery.

vnzla81
02-06-2013, 12:42 PM
What's funny is I would use the Bucks as an example that being a bottom feeder just leads to more bottom feeding. Remember these guys actually won the lottery and look what they have to show for it.

To be fair their number one pick had a horrible injury.


Jennings is also a lottery pick.

Jennings would have been a Pacer if it was not because the Pacers decided to win that last meaningless game, Jennings is not bad, he is pretty good.


However these guys have drafted horribly as well over the years so I just can't see your example of how they are trying to duplicate what we have done.

By trying to duplicate what the Pacers have done I mean by staying mediocre and trying to stay mediocre as long as possible, I mean what is the point of signing Dunleavy, Gooden and other old players? they are just happy to make it to the playoffs.


Don't get me wrong if the Pacers flame out in the first round or even if they lose in the second round and next season don't bring the noise then this will all be a puff of smoke.

Yep that could happen.


Even if it doesn't change the M.O.'s of any of the leagues officials I would kind of hope that maybe just maybe some of the people who think that tanking is the only way might be more open to an alternative approach. I've said it many times before there is no one sure fire way to build a team because if there was everybody would do it.

Tanking is what people are doing now and is the way to go teams have done it forever, unless the NBA decides to change the drafting process I don't see it changing anytime soon.

Trader Joe
02-06-2013, 12:54 PM
Last team to win a title from directly tanking....maybe the Heat? One team in the past 20 years? And it is the generally accepted way to do it Vnzla? Is that what you are selling?

I disagree, if anything the flavor of the month right now is to horde cap space or assets for big signings or trades.

Pacer Fan
02-06-2013, 01:02 PM
And the last team to win a championship that tank (other then OKC) is who. Teams that that tank continue to tank. They are the bottom feeders. Detroit put that team together thru trades and FA. Cleveland tanked and had the best player in the last decade for 7 years and only won a ecf champion. It's not about tanking, It's about running a FO.


How else should I read this? lol You said "And the last team to win a championship that tank (other then OKC) is who. "






Well, the one liner you pasted of my quote, I see what your saying. But in the full context I wrote (pasted above), I was referring to OKC Championship and Cleveland Championship which is referring to ECF and WCF which are championships and I referred the Cavs as ecf champions (I meant the same for OKC). My bad if I wasn't detailed enough. I take things for granted on here sometimes as so many of us know so much about the NBA.

Trader Joe
02-06-2013, 01:08 PM
Well, the one liner you pasted of my quote, I see what your saying. But in the full context I wrote (pasted above), I was referring to OKC Championship and Cleveland Championship which is referring to ECF and WCF which are championships and I referred the Cavs as ecf champions (I meant the same for OKC). My bad if I wasn't detailed enough. I take things for granted on here sometimes as so many of us know so much about the NBA.

LOL I see what you were trying to say, just came off as odd since the topic seemed to be NBA titles.

Hicks
02-06-2013, 01:09 PM
Especially with the new luxury tax setup, the keys are essentially to have good scouting, making wise draft picks (best talent available plus filtering out things like high injury risks, mental or personality issues you feel you can't deal with, skills that won't translate to the NBA, etc.), don't waste your money without being too cheap, don't be afraid to spend your money without being stupid, tweak the roster based on how the pieces fit not just on pure talent, foster a winning culture from top to bottom in the organization & team, hire a coach who makes sense and keeps the respect of his players, and then basically hope for the best.

That's just about all you can do, I think.

vnzla81
02-06-2013, 01:10 PM
Last team to win a title from directly tanking....maybe the Heat? One team in the past 20 years? And it is the generally accepted way to do it Vnzla? Is that what you are selling?

I disagree, if anything the flavor of the month right now is to horde cap space or assets for big signings or trades.

More than one team, some teams have also used tanking as a way to get high draft picks so they can flip them for other pieces and veterans, Boston is one example, they flipped some picks and players that were high draft picks to get KG and Ray, I'm not sure but I think Detroit did the same thing.(2 teams)

San Antonio tanked for Duncan and once they got their one piece their front office was smart enough to build around him. (3 teams)

Lakers are the Lakers so they get whoever they want.

Again just because some teams suck at drafting or they suck at surrounding their number one pick with good players(Cleveland) doesn't mean that tanking is not the better way to go, tanking is not even about only the 1st overall pick either, I wanted the Pacers to tank for EJ few years ago and I knew that he was not going to be the 1st pick overall.

Trader Joe
02-06-2013, 01:11 PM
If by tanking for Duncan you mean the Spurs benefited from David Robinson missing pretty much the whole season then I guess that is tanking, but in reality the team that tanked that year for Duncan was famously Boston who lost the lottery.

Boston was a really bad team those years they were up high for assets that eventually became KG and Ray.

Detroit never tanked from my knowledge but Kstat can correct me if he disagrees.

Hicks
02-06-2013, 01:15 PM
If you guys are going to go in circles on this, you might as well start by laying out your individual definitions of the verb "tank" to see how much you are or are not on the same page in the first place.

Trader Joe
02-06-2013, 01:16 PM
If you guys are going to go in circles on this, you might as well start by laying out your individual definitions of the verb "tank" to see how much you are or are not on the same page in the first place.

Intentionally losing games? I don't know. My one issue is I just don't think there's any hard evidence that proves tanking is the way to go. For every positive "tanking" story, Vnzla has produced, even if we accept them as tanking, there are about 5 stories of tanking never ever working.

I think Vnzla would argue the Clippers tanked for Gordon, so ok tanking got them Chris Paul, of course let's ignore the fact it only took them 20 years of sucking to get someone like him.

vnzla81
02-06-2013, 01:19 PM
Intentionally losing games? I don't know. My one issue is I just don't think there's any hard evidence that proves tanking is the way to go. For every positive "tanking" story, Vnzla has produced, even if we accept them as tanking, there are about 5 stories of tanking never ever working.

I think Vnzla would argue the Clippers tanked for Gordon, so ok tanking got them Chris Paul, of course let's ignore the fact it only took them 20 years of sucking to get someone like him.

You believe that "tanking" is getting the 1st overall pick I don't, that is the difference.

edit: The Clippers have a clown as an owner and the Clippers are good right now because they got Blake and other pieces that they were able to trade for CP3 because ...... they were tanking.

Trader Joe
02-06-2013, 01:23 PM
You believe that "tanking" is getting the 1st overall pick I don't, that is the difference.

No I don't believe that at all. The Clippers, Wizards, Grizzlies, Bulls from 98-2008, Warriors, etc. have made plenty of terrible picks in the top 10 as well. It's not as simple as just getting in the top 10, you must scout. You can get talent late in the draft. The Spurs are proof of this.

Ok so you pick in the top 10 for 15 straight years, you might hit pay dirt once on a guy who can lead you to a title. IMO that is not the most efficient way to create a winning team. You can be a middle of the road team and make the jump to a contender a lot easier IMO.

Trader Joe
02-06-2013, 01:27 PM
You believe that "tanking" is getting the 1st overall pick I don't, that is the difference.

edit: The Clippers have a clown as an owner and the Clippers are good right now because they got Blake and other pieces that they were able to trade for CP3 because ...... they were tanking.

Great the Clippers built one competitive team in a 30 year period of tanking. Congratulations.

vnzla81
02-06-2013, 01:40 PM
No I don't believe that at all. The Clippers, Wizards, Grizzlies, Bulls from 98-2008, Warriors, etc. have made plenty of terrible picks in the top 10 as well. It's not as simple as just getting in the top 10, you must scout. You can get talent late in the draft. The Spurs are proof of this.

Ok so you pick in the top 10 for 15 straight years, you might hit pay dirt once on a guy who can lead you to a title. IMO that is not the most efficient way to create a winning team. You can be a middle of the road team and make the jump to a contender a lot easier IMO.

If the Spurs don't tank and get somebody else instead of Duncan because "they are proud and they rather be mediocre" they don't win a championship, and yes the Spurs have done a good job in the draft by getting Manu and Parker but if you look at their draft history after that they have done a decent job but nothing amazing.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAS/draft.html


By the way, if the Spurs go into rebuilding mode I expect them to tank once again.

Kstat
02-06-2013, 01:42 PM
If by tanking for Duncan you mean the Spurs benefited from David Robinson missing pretty much the whole season then I guess that is tanking, but in reality the team that tanked that year for Duncan was famously Boston who lost the lottery.

Boston was a really bad team those years they were up high for assets that eventually became KG and Ray.

Detroit never tanked from my knowledge but Kstat can correct me if he disagrees.

We tanked once(1994) to get Grant Hill. It was a textbook tanking job, too.

Pacer Fan
02-06-2013, 01:42 PM
More than one team, some teams have also used tanking as a way to get high draft picks so they can flip them for other pieces and veterans, Boston is one example, they flipped some picks and players that were high draft picks to get KG and Ray, I'm not sure but I think Detroit did the same thing.(2 teams)

San Antonio tanked for Duncan and once they got their one piece their front office was smart enough to build around him. (3 teams)

Lakers are the Lakers so they get whoever they want.

Again just because some teams suck at drafting or they suck at surrounding their number one pick with good players(Cleveland) doesn't mean that tanking is not the better way to go, tanking is not even about only the 1st overall pick either, I wanted the Pacers to tank for EJ few years ago and I knew that he was not going to be the 1st pick overall.

I'm not sure how accurate you are there, I would have to look some of that up and I don't have the time as I'm on lunch. However. I do get what your saying but for the most part. A team is going to tank to get as high of picks and as many extra picks as possible in order to build a great team and those attempts fail much more then a team that actually gets a championship game.

We are entering the "god of tanking" in Cleveland right now and it will be very interesting how things unfold there. If I was a betting man, I would bet against the Cavs. If they fail in the next 4 years to produce, then we can all declare tanking as a failure, hands down with no arguments. Cavs has had and will have:
2011 1 & 4
2012 4 & 17
2013 Cavs, Heat, Lakers and Kings 1st rnd picks and Cavs & Magics 2nd rnd pick.
2014 Cavs 1st rnd pick and Cavs, Magics and Grizzlies 2nd rnd pick.
2015 Cavs, Heat & Grizzlies 1st rnd picks and Cavs 2nd rnd pick.

That's a 12 man roster in 5 years of 1st rnd picks. And somehow, I feel they will screw it all up!

BPump33
02-06-2013, 01:44 PM
Maybe I missed this, but is tanking to you intentionally losing games or just sucking? Some teams just suck. They don't have to try to lose.

Trader Joe
02-06-2013, 01:44 PM
If the Spurs don't tank and get somebody else instead of Duncan because "they are proud and they rather be mediocre" they don't win a championship, and yes the Spurs have done a good job in the draft by getting Manu and Parker but if you look at their draft history after that they have done a decent job but nothing amazing.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAS/draft.html


By the way, if the Spurs go into rebuilding mode I expect them to tank once again.

Again the Spurs got Duncan because Robinson broke his foot and missed like 70 games. And they suffered several other key injuries is my memory as well.
If that is "tanking" in your mind so be it, but when your best player (by a large margin on the Spurs at the time) misses pretty much the entire season to a serious injury it's tough for me to endorse that as a good way to build a team.

Trader Joe
02-06-2013, 01:45 PM
We tanked once(1994) to get Grant Hill. It was a textbook tanking job, too.

That was one I had in mind. I guess Grant did end up landing you Ben Wallace but that was however many years later so again, not a foolproof way to build.

Kstat
02-06-2013, 01:50 PM
That was one I had in mind. I guess Grant did end up landing you Ben Wallace but that was however many years later so again, not a foolproof way to build.

No, and Joe was a part of that team, so I think he also understands.

vnzla81
02-06-2013, 01:59 PM
Again the Spurs got Duncan because Robinson broke his foot and missed like 70 games. And they suffered several other key injuries is my memory as well.
If that is "tanking" in your mind so be it, but when your best player (by a large margin on the Spurs at the time) misses pretty much the entire season to a serious injury it's tough for me to endorse that as a good way to build a team.

Well that is what you believe, I believe that they didn't play Robinson at the end because there was not point to win more games and move out of the Duncan draft, that is tanking to me, Miami did the same with Wade.

For example the Pacers had a chance to tank few years ago but Larry decided to bring Flip the "we are pushing for the playoffs" Murry and started to win meaningless games, the Pacers also had a chance to sit Danny and tank couple years ago but instead they decided to play the guy with a knee and ankle injury(stupid).

owl
02-06-2013, 02:07 PM
Nothing really earth shattering. He just said what we already know: he's massively underpaid for what he contributes on the floor, and he will never get aid what he's worth under the current CBA.

I dont think too many tears are going to be shed about that.
Teachers and many other professions are neither.
Lebron needs to start his one man league.

Kstat
02-06-2013, 02:10 PM
I dont think too many tears are going to be shed about that.
Teachers and many other professions are neither.
Lebron needs to start his one man league.

...damn him for living in a capitalist country. You'd think we lived in a supply-and-demand economy, or something...

Nobody is shedding tears for LeBron for being worth $100 million when he could easily be worth $200 million. It's just stating a very ironic fact.

Kid Minneapolis
02-06-2013, 02:10 PM
The pistons did it long before the pacers did, and were the dominant team out of the east over the last decade. It changed nothing. So...no.

The 2004+ Pistons were a nice team, but they were hardly the first team to be built the way they were built. Hell, I'd argue they built the same way the 90's Pacers team was built... via some savvy drafting, some savvy trades, no real "superstar" even if Reggie was probly a bigger star than anyone on those Detroit teams, emphasis on defense and rebounding and team play. The Pistons had a better defense while the Pacers had a better offense. The Pacers made 16 playoff appearances in 17 years, reached the conference finals 6 times in 10 years, I could go on. I know a Piston fan won't agree with this, but the Pacers had a more impressive stretch than the 2000s Pistons did ---- MINUS 1 championship. It was the one thing that Pacer team never achieved BUT... the Pistons never had to face Michael Jordan in his prime, as did the Pacers repeatedly. Pistons fans have selective memory about time before their run. The Pacers were an amazing team for a VERY long time before the Brawl.

Kstat
02-06-2013, 02:12 PM
I know a Piston fan won't agree with this, but the Pacers had a more impressive stretch than the 2000s Pistons did ---- MINUS 1 championship. It was the one thing that Pacer team never achieved BUT... the Pistons never faced Michael Jordan in his prime, as did the Pacers repeatedly.

On the flipside, I think the Pistons are the greatest franchise in NBA history- MINUS 15 Celtics and Lakers championships, of course....

Selective logic is awesome.

vapacersfan
02-06-2013, 02:13 PM
No I don't believe that at all. The Clippers, Wizards, Grizzlies, Bulls from 98-2008, Warriors, etc. have made plenty of terrible picks in the top 10 as well. It's not as simple as just getting in the top 10, you must scout. You can get talent late in the draft. The Spurs are proof of this.

Ok so you pick in the top 10 for 15 straight years, you might hit pay dirt once on a guy who can lead you to a title. IMO that is not the most efficient way to create a winning team. You can be a middle of the road team and make the jump to a contender a lot easier IMO.


You leave Kwame Brown alone.

Jordan did a GREAT job.

I will never forget that pic of him leaving in his convertabile looking made as hell when he got fired.

Trader Joe
02-06-2013, 02:13 PM
The whole MJ kept the Pacers out of the finals thing is a little overblown, we only faced him once in the playoffs.

Kstat
02-06-2013, 02:15 PM
The whole MJ kept the Pacers out of the finals thing is a little overblown, we only faced him once in the playoffs.

I've given up pointing that out. I think it makes people feel better to believe they were a budding dynasty cursed by fate, rather than the ringless Ewing
Knicks....

Yes, I believe that their best team from that era did lose to Jordan's Bulls, but that 1998 Bulls team was by no means unbeatable.

Kid Minneapolis
02-06-2013, 02:16 PM
We faced him in our best year.

Kid Minneapolis
02-06-2013, 02:19 PM
On the flipside, I think the Pistons are the greatest franchise in NBA history- MINUS 15 Celtics and Lakers championships, of course....

Selective logic is awesome.

Because that's completely relevant to what I said. There's not much difference between the runs that Indy and Detroit made, my point still stands. They were perennial conference finals and Finals participants, the Pistons just got over the hump 1 year. I still believe that the competition during Indy's run was much higher than during Detroits championship season. The peak was in the late 90s when Chicago and NY and the Pacers were all duking it out every year. I don't think the level of play in the early 2000s was near as good. To Pistons fans though, the 2004 team was the greatest team in history.

Kstat
02-06-2013, 02:20 PM
We faced him in our best year.

..and lost to his worst team. And you had game seven in total control until they pretty much beat you on willpower. That's not a case for impressively losing to an unbeatable force.

Kid Minneapolis
02-06-2013, 02:20 PM
And I seriously doubt the 2004 Pistons would have beaten Michael Jordans "worst team" in '98.

Kstat
02-06-2013, 02:23 PM
They were perennial conference finals and Finals participants, the Pistons just got over the hump 1 year. I still believe that the competition during Indy's run was much higher than during Detroits championship season. The peak was in the late 90s when Chicago and NY and the Pacers were all duking it out every year. I don't think the level of play in the early 2000s was near as good. To Pistons fans though, the 2004 team was the greatest team in history.

1. The 90's Knicks were hardly a great team. Fond memories do not make them a great foe.
2. Had the Pistons lost to the Lakers in the 2004 finals, nobody would have blamed them, and I could have played the "Shaq and Kobe were a perfect 4-0 in the finals, we would have won in year 199X." card. Shoulda coulda woulda.
3. Three of Indiana's six conference title appearance came with Jordan out of the NBA, in a decidedly weakened eastern conference. None of those years did the eventual champion come out of the east. And one of those years you dropped the series to the #8 seed in a decidedly weakened eastern conference.

I know the 90's have a great nostalgic feel to everyone here, as it was an era where the pacers were relevant for nearly an entire decade. But we don't need to keep piling on the roses on what was a very respectable run of success.

Kid Minneapolis
02-06-2013, 02:23 PM
Either way, my point still stands --- the Pacers of the 90s were built of the same stuff that the 2000s Pistons were. It was a similar model. The Pistons weren't the "first to do it." And the 90s Pacers were likely not the first team to do it, either. It just goes to show that smaller markets have to do things in a different way.

Kstat
02-06-2013, 02:28 PM
I don't entirely disagree, but the Pacers post-larry brown were an offensive team. They had some grinders, but won games on the offensive end. Style was very different.

Kid Minneapolis
02-06-2013, 02:32 PM
Sure. This thread though is about building a team. The Pistons were built with savvy drafting and trades. Hard-nosed defense. Team play, rebounding. Good coaching. Relatively low star power. Same as the 90s Pacers. Hell, both teams had the same coach for large stretches of their runs. That's all I'm saying is that the Pacers did this before the Pistons did, the Pistons just got 2 games farther (Indy lost 4-2 to LA). It was an extremely similar run. And I'd say that the current version of the Pacers is really doing the exact same thing again as that 90's team. We're built very similarly.... but I'd say this time around we're using savvy drafting way more than the first time.

Kstat
02-06-2013, 02:35 PM
I we're going to strip this down to a bare-bones "no superstar" thread, then yes, they fall into the same category. But the 00's Pistons and this current pacer team have much more in common than that.

I'd add that three of your four best players this season were acquired via trade or free agency.

Trader Joe
02-06-2013, 02:37 PM
I we're going to strip this down to a bare-bones "no superstar" thread, then yes, they fall into the same category. But the 00's Pistons and this current pacer team have much more in common than that.

I'd add that three of your four best players this season were acquired via trade or free agency.

Are we counting Lance in that group? Lance, West, and Hill? I would count Lance as a guy we drafted.

Kstat
02-06-2013, 02:38 PM
Are we counting Lance in that group? Lance, West, and Hill? I would count Lance as a guy we drafted.

Yeah, I'd count Lance. But he isn't one of your core 4 this season. He's been yo-yoed in and out of the starting lineup, though admittedly he's having a very fine year regardless.

George-drafted
Hill-trade
Hibbert-trade
West-FA

Yes, a lot of the support guys were draft picks, but this team is not anywhere near where they are now without those four guys carrying them.

Trader Joe
02-06-2013, 02:39 PM
Yeah, I'd count Lance. But he isn't one of your core 4 this season.

George-drafted
Hill-trade
Hibbert-trade
West-FA

I would count Hibbert as drafted, he was always the guy we wanted at that slot.

Hicks
02-06-2013, 02:41 PM
That pick was unofficially ours when it was made. I see it as a draft as well. It's not like Toronto wanted him, picked him, then later decided to trade him. We had already agreed to that trade in principle prior to the draft and they picked Roy because we told them to.

Kstat
02-06-2013, 02:41 PM
I would count Hibbert as drafted, he was always the guy we wanted at that slot.

I don't buy it for a second. He wasn't even the highest pick you traded for. Brandon Rush was.

I believe Larry wanted him from the start, but no way was he piking him 11th. He was a high risk/reward guy that paid off.

BPump33
02-06-2013, 02:42 PM
Yeah, I'd count Lance. But he isn't one of your core 4 this season. He's been yo-yoed in and out of the starting lineup, though admittedly he's having a very fine year regardless.

George-drafted
Hill-trade
Hibbert-trade
West-FA

Yes, a lot of the support guys were draft picks, but this team is not anywhere near where they are now without those four guys carrying them.

He's started 41 of 47 games played this year. Your "yo-yoed" comment made me look that up for some reason.

Trader Joe
02-06-2013, 02:43 PM
I don't buy it for a second. He wasn't even the highest pick you traded for. Brandon Rush was.

I believe Larry wanted him from the start, but no way was he piking him 11th. He was a high risk/reward guy that paid off.

What I'm saying is we told Toronto to pick Hibbert. Like Hicks said, it's not like we said hey we want Hibbert since you guys drafted him, we said draft Hibbert.

Kstat
02-06-2013, 02:43 PM
That pick was unofficially ours when it was made. I see it as a draft as well. It's not like Toronto wanted him, picked him, then later decided to trade him. We had already agreed to that trade in principle prior to the draft and they picked Roy because we told them to.

My point is, you told them to draft Brandon Rush first. He was higher on Bird's priority list. Had Toronto turned down the deal, Indiana likely would have taken Rush 11th.

If Bird believed he was worth taking at #11, he would have seen to it that Hibbert would be taken 13th and not 17th, regardless of where he thought Hibbert would actually land. That's definitely a trade acquisition in my book.

Likewise, I count Kobe as a trade acquisition, rather than a Laker draft pick.

shags
02-06-2013, 04:16 PM
Sure. This thread though is about building a team. The Pistons were built with savvy drafting and trades. Hard-nosed defense. Team play, rebounding. Good coaching. Relatively low star power. Same as the 90s Pacers. Hell, both teams had the same coach for large stretches of their runs. That's all I'm saying is that the Pacers did this before the Pistons did, the Pistons just got 2 games farther (Indy lost 4-2 to LA). It was an extremely similar run. And I'd say that the current version of the Pacers is really doing the exact same thing again as that 90's team. We're built very similarly.... but I'd say this time around we're using savvy drafting way more than the first time.

And the Bucks did the same thing in the 80s. I mean, check out their records in that decade under Don Nelson and Del Harris.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/MIL/

So, maybe Milwaukee started this way to build a team in the 80s.

McKeyFan
02-06-2013, 04:36 PM
My point is, you told them to draft Brandon Rush first. He was higher on Bird's priority list. Had Toronto turned down the deal, Indiana likely would have taken Rush 11th.

If Bird believed he was worth taking at #11, he would have seen to it that Hibbert would be taken 13th and not 17th, regardless of where he thought Hibbert would actually land. That's definitely a trade acquisition in my book.

Likewise, I count Kobe as a trade acquisition, rather than a Laker draft pick.
I get your logic here. No problem. But I would just lump acquisitions like Hibbert in the draft category, as all those types are players never before seen on an NBA floor. "True" trades and free agent pickups are known commodities. Two very different categories for acquiring players.

TheDon
02-06-2013, 04:52 PM
I dont think too many tears are going to be shed about that.
Teachers and many other professions are neither.
Lebron needs to start his one man league.

Agreed lets feel bad for the big baby cause ultimately it was his decision to end up in the situation he is in, and now all of a sudden he feels he's underpaid? somebody call the waaahmbulance.

Naptown_Seth
02-06-2013, 06:11 PM
The Pacers built perhaps the best team in the East with 5 ECF appearances over 7 years ending with a 6 game Finals team without tanking OR signing a big FA.

Then the Pacers made TWO TRADES and took that Finals team minus 3 guys (Jax, Dale, Rik) and made it the #1 team in the NBA by record, and please note this also included the best record vs West teams only, and they did it without even missing the playoffs. And they made the playoffs prior to the Ron deal. And even after the Ron trade you could hindsight and say that had they traded Ron and kept Brad that they might have been able to still be a #1 team with Carlisle coaching.


So the Pacers have already made this brilliant example twice, and yet I still have to read stuff even like your OP that suggests that somehow the one fanbase that should be intimately aware of how this can work actually thinks that they never have a chance and the NBA hates them.

When have the Pacers FAILED TO BUILD A WINNER without tanking? Only one time - JOB years. And the instant you swapped him for Vogel, in the same freaking season, the team went above 500 and was a playoff team.

Contrast that with the massive benefits of going up to get Tisdale, McCloud or even Person. Smits panned out but he was never #2 pick good, he was never Ewing, Jordan, Hakeem, Kobe, Shaq good.



The Pacers played .500 ball and ran off several years "stuck at .500". National writers called them the Indy 500. And then the only thing they did was change coaches. In fact they traded their CURRENT ALL-STAR (Detlef) and immediately made an ECF run. Meaning that the talent had been assembled without tanking. Reggie, Dale and even Detlef/McKey were assembled with picks outside the top 10 or a great trade.



Draft smart, trade smart, good coach = winning. Always. In the entire league. The Lakers didn't tank to get Kobe or Shaq, keep that in mind. Lopsided trades or cap space. And half their moves to make super teams backfire or at least make them worse than before. Meanwhile the Spurs haven't had a high pick in forever, and that's Duncan. Parker and Manu - nope, very late picks for stars. Hill which got them Leonard, not a high pick either.

Naptown_Seth
02-06-2013, 06:14 PM
And BTW, the Spurs keep disproving the "the NBA wants big market winners" theory and the instant a big market team wins people shout "other teams never have a chance".

People decide on a theory and then just ignore counter-evidence while waiting for something to prove their point. Then they bring it up with screams of outrage.


And the Bucks did the same thing in the 80s. I mean, check out their records in that decade under Don Nelson and Del Harris.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/MIL/

So, maybe Milwaukee started this way to build a team in the 80s.
See, I agree. The idea or "method" has proven strong over and over. My favorite is "you can't win without a top 5 pick player". Sure, because in the NBA most of the lower picks end up out of the NBA and the other talent gets shifted around till every team has at least 1 top 5 player. The Pacers had Mike Dunleavy and didn't even make the playoffs. Plus those same people will count Kobe as a top 5 because they forget.

Do you get the star and then win, or do the winner-type players BECOME STARS via their winning? If Kobe never wins a title is he still a guy you can win a title with, or does he earn the rep.

And what I'm getting at is what I'll now call the Flacco rule - by winning your rep is changed even though you are doing nothing different than you were when people thought less of you. Flacco is not a top 5 QB and he spent most of the playoffs throwing up interception bait high hanging bombs that kept being undefended or poorly defended. The one SB touchdown had his WR come back to the ball because it was underthrown and then the DB went flying past comically to allow a TD that had no biz being a TD. But Flacco gets credit as an elite QB, #1 by Hoge on ESPN a few days later.


So what this means is that when the Pacers win the title everyone will say "you can't win without a superstar like PG". But if they don't win then PG will have the DG mark of shame - he's just a Robin, not a Batman. Same player with an opinion based more around what his teammates do than what he does.




* should I tell you how I really feel? ;)

Sollozzo
02-06-2013, 06:15 PM
Some definitely tanked, Miami was pretty bad though and still didn't get there. They did OK though haha, Wade was my favorite guy in that draft.

I too remember a day where I was actually a big Wade fan. I loved watching him take Kentucky out in 2003. I was also a big fan of the Shaq/Wade Heat teams and I rooted hard for them against Detroit in those back to back Conference Finals. But I haven't liked Wade since Lebron has been added to the mix.

Naptown_Seth
02-06-2013, 06:29 PM
If by tanking for Duncan you mean the Spurs benefited from David Robinson missing pretty much the whole season then I guess that is tanking, but in reality the team that tanked that year for Duncan was famously Boston who lost the lottery.

Boston was a really bad team those years they were up high for assets that eventually became KG and Ray.

Detroit never tanked from my knowledge but Kstat can correct me if he disagrees.
KG did NOT come from a high asset. The Celtics used Al Jefferson primarily and he was pick 16 I think. Ray was the #5 pick, which happened to become Jeff Green. So had they not made SMART TRADES and instead lived with the benefits of tanking for a high pick then the big 3 would have been Jeff Green, Jefferson and Pierce. Awesome.


The Bulls not only failed with high picks, but they are also famous losers of the FA world (see NJ, NYK for Lebron as others). They cleared enough space to sign Hill and Duncan and got nothing. Duncan ended up staying in big market San Antonio because, you know, all the big FAs always go off to big cities. Unless they are dime a dozen AS PFs, and then they go to SAS or Indy (West).




Smart trades do sometimes seem to involve a dumb/complicit team on the other end with suspicious motivation (see Memphis/LAL also). Of course people now revisit the Memphis deal and look at how it's gone with Marc, as well as no playoffs wins while Pau was the star of the team. In fact Memphis also proved that going from a "1 star" team to a multi-headed threat could push you farther in the NBA.

cgg
02-06-2013, 06:36 PM
Hire JOB. Extend JOB. Fire JOB. 'ship.

It worked for the Celtics. Paul Pierce was #10. Al Jeff was #15. The picks they traded for their big 3 were Randy Foye and Jeff Green.

vnzla81
02-06-2013, 06:53 PM
KG did NOT come from a high asset. The Celtics used Al Jefferson primarily and he was pick 16 I think. Ray was the #5 pick, which happened to become Jeff Green. So had they not made SMART TRADES and instead lived with the benefits of tanking for a high pick then the big 3 would have been Jeff Green, Jefferson and Pierce. Awesome.


The Bulls not only failed with high picks, but they are also famous losers of the FA world (see NJ, NYK for Lebron as others). They cleared enough space to sign Hill and Duncan and got nothing. Duncan ended up staying in big market San Antonio because, you know, all the big FAs always go off to big cities. Unless they are dime a dozen AS PFs, and then they go to SAS or Indy (West).




Smart trades do sometimes seem to involve a dumb/complicit team on the other end with suspicious motivation (see Memphis/LAL also). Of course people now revisit the Memphis deal and look at how it's gone with Marc, as well as no playoffs wins while Pau was the star of the team. In fact Memphis also proved that going from a "1 star" team to a multi-headed threat could push you farther in the NBA.


The Celtics were tanking for Oden, they didn't win the lottery and ended up with the 5th pick that they used to get Allen and KG, remember that KG didn't want to go there until he heard that Ray Allen was going to Boston, so tanking in a way got them KG and Ray Allen you want to admit it or not.

If instead of a 5th overall pick Boston had a 10th pick that trade for Ray Allen doesn't happen and KG would have never go to Boston.

Cactus Jax
02-06-2013, 07:18 PM
And BTW, the Spurs keep disproving the "the NBA wants big market winners" theory and the instant a big market team wins people shout "other teams never have a chance".

People decide on a theory and then just ignore counter-evidence while waiting for something to prove their point. Then they bring it up with screams of outrage.


See, I agree. The idea or "method" has proven strong over and over. My favorite is "you can't win without a top 5 pick player". Sure, because in the NBA most of the lower picks end up out of the NBA and the other talent gets shifted around till every team has at least 1 top 5 player. The Pacers had Mike Dunleavy and didn't even make the playoffs. Plus those same people will count Kobe as a top 5 because they forget.

Do you get the star and then win, or do the winner-type players BECOME STARS via their winning? If Kobe never wins a title is he still a guy you can win a title with, or does he earn the rep.

And what I'm getting at is what I'll now call the Flacco rule - by winning your rep is changed even though you are doing nothing different than you were when people thought less of you. Flacco is not a top 5 QB and he spent most of the playoffs throwing up interception bait high hanging bombs that kept being undefended or poorly defended. The one SB touchdown had his WR come back to the ball because it was underthrown and then the DB went flying past comically to allow a TD that had no biz being a TD. But Flacco gets credit as an elite QB, #1 by Hoge on ESPN a few days later.


So what this means is that when the Pacers win the title everyone will say "you can't win without a superstar like PG". But if they don't win then PG will have the DG mark of shame - he's just a Robin, not a Batman. Same player with an opinion based more around what his teammates do than what he does.




* should I tell you how I really feel? ;)

In a basketball sense, I could kind of compare it to the Dirk Nowitzki effect when he won a title, though he's been a better basketball player than Flacco has been in football. Dirk wasn't considered for much of anything when he was losing in the playoffs and whatnot, but now that he won the title being the man for Dallas, he's a HoF player easily, and people hold him in much higher regard now. I remember that year in the playoffs, Charles Barkley picked against Dallas every round.

Hicks
02-06-2013, 09:57 PM
My point is, you told them to draft Brandon Rush first. He was higher on Bird's priority list. Had Toronto turned down the deal, Indiana likely would have taken Rush 11th.

If Bird believed he was worth taking at #11, he would have seen to it that Hibbert would be taken 13th and not 17th, regardless of where he thought Hibbert would actually land. That's definitely a trade acquisition in my book.

Likewise, I count Kobe as a trade acquisition, rather than a Laker draft pick.

The Toronto trade was known about (and agreed in principle by both teams) BEFORE the Portland trade. In fact, it was known a day ahead of the draft:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=aw-jermaineonealtraded062508

It was the Portland deal that we only heard about on ESPN during the draft, not long after we initially took Bayless (turns out we were just doing that for Portland's sake).

Both Brandon Rush and Roy Hibbert were essentially Larry Bird draft picks, though due to technicality neither trade was official until July 1st 2008.

If you want to say he thought more of Rush than Hibbert at the time, that's fine, because that's obviously true. But both of them were his picks.

PacersPride
02-06-2013, 10:42 PM
But with all of that in mind is it possible that teams may start to go another route and try the Pacers way of building through solid draft choices and trying to build a winning culture?

Or will it always be 努e must tank to succeed?

It will always be tank too succeed. the majority of most GM's will never have the patience or basketBALLS to state having a "3 year plan" and then basically nail it. we are set for a decade. if everything goes right.

All I can say is .. Larry Bird brougght the Pacers Franchise back from the grave. Bird may have in fact even saved this State the Franchise.


BEST GM IN BASKETBALL. I think Legend stuck it to the Celtics .. and Ainge. I believe the Pacers are going to WIN a CHAMPIONSHIP and LEGEND will get his due.

Fellas... I cannot remember the last time i was earnestly this jacked about the blue and gold. the Obrien regime .. had its purpose.. but it was painful.

F* C * the NBA. PACERS ARE BACK.


BOOM BABY ON YOUR FACE STERN



*
*
*

PacersPride
02-06-2013, 10:51 PM
It will always be tank too succeed. the majority of most GM's will never have the patience or basketBALLS to state having a "3 year plan" and then basically nail it. we are set for a decade. if everything goes right.

All I can say is .. Larry Bird brougght the Pacers Franchise back from the grave. Bird may have in fact even saved this State the Franchise.


BEST GM IN BASKETBALL. I think Legend stuck it to the Celtics .. and Ainge. I believe the Pacers are going to WIN a CHAMPIONSHIP and LEGEND will get his due.

Fellas... I cannot remember the last time i was earnestly this jacked about the blue and gold. the Obrien regime .. had its purpose.. but it was painful.

F* C * the NBA. PACERS ARE BACK.


BOOM BABY ON YOUR FACE STERN



*
*
*

hey is the fact this was my 1666 post on PD some sort of sign from above. i dont want to haveing bad mojo


can someoone do some Hail Mary's Full of Grace

for the Blue and Gold

docpaul
02-07-2013, 12:41 AM
What happens if the Pacers actually advance the either the E.C. finals or even the NBA finals? No, I’m not asking if we will all be rejoicing and dancing in the streets (which we better be).

No I want to know will the paradigm shift in the way people think NBA teams in general and small market teams in particular have to be built?

<snip>

But with all of that in mind is it possible that teams may start to go another route and try the Pacers way of building through solid draft choices and trying to build a winning culture?

Or will it always be “we must tank to succeed”?

Peck, have you ever read Simmons' book (The Book of Basketball)? One of the best chapters is about "The Secret", which was a summation of a conversation he had with Isaiah Thomas:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/magazine/archives/news/story?page=magazine-20091228-article21



5. A big theme of my book is The Secret of winning basketball, something Isiah Thomas explains to me at a topless pool in Las Vegas. (The Secret, in a nutshell: Teams only win titles when their best players forget about statistics, sublimate their own games for the greater good and put their egos on hold.) Another big theme of my book: Kobe Bryant's inability to grasp The Secret. He wanted to win a title, but only on his terms. That's what made him the most fascinating player of his generation. In the book, I even spend three pages comparing him to the wolf in Teen Wolf.


Fast-forward to a few weeks ago: A reporter asks Kobe if he still has room to grow as a player. Kobe responds, "I do, I do. I think there's so much more to understand. A lot of it just has to do with winning. When you first come into the league, you're trying to prove yourself as an individual, do things to assert yourself and establish yourself. But once you've done that, there's another level to the game that's more complex than figuring out how to put up big numbers as an individual." (That's right, The Secret! He finally gets it! Man, I wish this were in my book.)


I'm not sure if what you are talking about is so much a large market or small market recipe. I think what we're seeing with this team, is "The Secret" in full effect... and a deliberate attempt to bring on a collection of individuals that buy into this approach in a way that each member of the team complements one another.

Roy's focus on defending the post.
Lance's focus on creating offense and adding energy.
Less emphasis on a point "facilitating the offense" and more emphasis on everyone facilitating easy plays for each other.

Etc, etc. A collective commitment towards winning basketball.

There are all kinds of practical signs of this culture in the games that are played. Where we've failed early in the year is when roles were unfilled (Danny going down with an injury before the season's start), people having to step into their role (Augustin's early year struggles), etc.</snip>

docpaul
02-07-2013, 01:05 AM
Some of the quotes tonight validate this perspective, it's pretty remarkable given where we were two-three years ago:

http://scores.espn.go.com/nba/recap?gameId=400278441


"We got in here before the game and we just looked each other in the eyes, and I knew it," George said of a team meeting. "I knew we had to go out, fight for each other, rely on each other and do everything possible to get a win."


"We got ourselves up for this one in the locker room before the game," West said. "We had to. A lot of guys didn't have a lot out there physically, and we had to lean on each other.

docpaul
02-07-2013, 01:27 AM
Some of the quotes tonight validate this perspective, it's pretty remarkable given where we were two-three years ago:

http://scores.espn.go.com/nba/recap?gameId=400278441


Another:

http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/sixers/20130207_Pacers_pound_their_way_to_win_over_Sixers .html



"They are really good," said Jrue Holiday, who finished 7-for-22 from the floor for 19 points to go along with six rebounds, five turnovers and four assists. "They play within themselves. I think everybody knows their role and they share the ball really well. Just a really solid team, defensively and offensively."

Bball
02-07-2013, 06:56 AM
Pacers Fans "We have a team that's fun to watch. They are winning. They are getting national TV mentions. We've beaten the Heat. I think we have a great shot of making noise in the playoffs. We can make the ECF. Shoot, we can make the FINALS!!! Go Pacers!!!!"

Kstat "Yawn"

;)

1984
02-07-2013, 07:06 AM
If there were, it would be called "a Lakers way to ​not build"

Team Indy
02-07-2013, 08:00 AM
...damn him for living in a capitalist country. You'd think we lived in a supply-and-demand economy, or something...

Nobody is shedding tears for LeBron for being worth $100 million when he could easily be worth $200 million. It's just stating a very ironic fact.

LeBron might well be able to earn $200m currently without salary caps, but putting the league first and having the CBA allows him to be in this position. An ironic fact is without caps, a league in which he earns that much would be unsustainable.

Team Indy
02-07-2013, 08:11 AM
The Toronto trade was known about (and agreed in principle by both teams) BEFORE the Portland trade. In fact, it was known a day ahead of the draft:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=aw-jermaineonealtraded062508

It was the Portland deal that we only heard about on ESPN during the draft, not long after we initially took Bayless (turns out we were just doing that for Portland's sake).

Both Brandon Rush and Roy Hibbert were essentially Larry Bird draft picks, though due to technicality neither trade was official until July 1st 2008.

If you want to say he thought more of Rush than Hibbert at the time, that's fine, because that's obviously true. But both of them were his picks.

At the time, both were considered high for where they were picked. Even if Bird thought Hibbert was worth pick 11, he can take a calculated risk to get more assets due to other teams rating him relatively low. Rush might have been gone by pick 17. In the end, Bird managed to get Rush and Hibbert and a few other assets instead of just picking according to his own big board. Still, the consensus was that 13 for Rush and 17 for Hibbert were too high.