PDA

View Full Version : Odd thoughts



Peck
02-20-2004, 03:08 AM
Ok, were going all over the place with this one.

Let me start off by discussing my favorite hated topic in the world. Teams being dismantled for the sake of salary cap. space.

Atlanta has just devastated their franchise in the matter of a 10 days. Billy Knight is my all-time favorite Pacer & I really wanted him to replace Donnie whenever he stepped down. But now whether he was under direction from management or his own hair brained idea, he has taken a franchise & virtually guaranteed that it will be less than an expansion team for the next 5 years.

Were they a good team? No, they weren't. But they had some talent & just needed a few pieces to be competative again. But that has now been pissed away in a short space & they have nothing to show for it.

Ending contracts & draft picks do not put fans in the stands. They had the talent to at least come home with other talented players.

At some point in time I wonder if the league will ever step in & stop franchises from doing this. It's not without precedent btw. Back in the early 80's the league made a rule that teams could not trade draft choices in consecutive years because Ted Steppian (owner of the Cavs.) was trading away the teams draft picks like candy & giving away players in an effort to save money. I realize it's not the same thing but the way Atlanta blew itself up was just pure & utter bullcrap.

The entire Doleac situation did it for me. After reconsidering the trade that sent Nazr to N.Y. I began to think that Pryzbilla & Doleac was an equal trade in value. Until I just found out that Doleac was waived.

Even those of you that support teams making such moves, & I just don't see how you can btw, cannot possibly convince me that Atlanta is going to be able to field a competative team for years to come.

The magic of free agency will not work for them. It did not work in Chicago & it will not work for them either.

What free agent, big name or otherwise, will come to Atlanta? We can talk about big towns & warm weather climates all we like but the facts just haven't bore out that players switch teams for markets other than the L.A. Lakers.

Miami (warm climate, popular nightlife, fun town, etc.) has yet to sign a big name free agent to come in & right the ship. Brand was restricted so it didn't matter who signed him he would have been back in L.A. either way. Odom is nice, but when people are thinking big name free agency Lamar wasn't the first name out of the shoot.

Chicago (large Market, popular nightlife, fun town, etc.) has yet to sign a big name free agent to come in & right the ship.

Orlando (Warm climate, popular nightlife, fun town, lots of attractions, etc.) was not able to get one big body to come down & help out T-Mac. Is Juan Howard your idea of a big time free agent?

Each of these teams have something in common, they stink.

Big name free agents go to teams that have a chance. They don't always go for money. They don't go for the local living. They go to where they think they can win at. Or in some cases they will go to a better situation. ie. if Al were a F.A. & he signed with Memphis because they guaranteed him he would start. But I bet he wouldn't sign with Atlanta.

I am not as business smart as many of you are, I freely admit that. However I do know that the best way to make a profit or at least the best way to generate revanue is to field a team that is competative. Winning would be better but you at least have to give the fans a hope of being in the game.

What they have done down in Atlanta is a shame on the N.B.A.

BTW, I don't begrudge Detroit one bit for making the deal. I will talk about the trade itself a little later on but for now I just want to say that my above feelings on this have nothing to do with the fact that Detroit may or may not have altered the East.

Moving on.

I hate the luxuary tax with the passion of a white hot sun. I understand the economic realities of the situation but I cannot stand trades or player movements to be made based on anthing other than the on-court product.

Well we might as well go ahead & talk about the Wallace trade to Detroit.

Unlike U.B. I'm not ready to concede to them yet, but I will state that this trade does trouble me. A lot.

A front line of Wallace, Wallace & Prince is troublesome. A frontline of Wallace, Wallace & Okur is downright scary.

We do NOT have enough muscle or mass to deal with that second lineup. Now don't forget they also still have Cambell on their team.

We will have very little margin for error if we play them in the playoffs. Oh & let's not forget Larry Brown is still their coach. I hate to play Larry in the playoffs because that is when his teams are really beginning to click.

Our center spot bothers me more & more as the day goes on.

Who knows Rasheed may not mesh with them. Yeah, right.

But we don't have to worry about Detroit till the playoffs anyway. What we have to do now is make certain we take care of our own. In other words make sure we don't end the season on a bad note.

With that let's discuss the Artest thing.

Ron is down & that is not good. But here's the rub. All season long & really for the past few seasons we have bragged how we are one of the deepest benches in the league. Well now is the time to prove that.

But if Al is really hurt (knee) then we may really be screwed.

To me the person who can make or brake this for us right now is not Al or Bender. It's Austin.

He has to be able to take over the rebounding & defensive duty's that normally would fall on Al not to mention the scoring.

If he can come in & give us a lift I actually could see there being no letdown. However if he is flat & not productive that means we are going to have to rely on Bender. Does anybody want to do that? I hope he does well, but if our bench is going to depend on him for the season then we are pretty much screwed.

I hope Ron is only down a few weeks, but more impoartantly I hope he doesn't rush back to try & save the team. A healthy Ron is more important to the future (playoffs & seasons beyond) than a hurt Ron is to the current schedule.

The trade deadline came & went & not so much as a whimper from our front office.

I am not suprised.

I've lived through every single season that Donnie Walsh has been in charge of basketball operations & I can tell you that whenever most people think a trade is needed or wanted, he does not. Sometimes he right sometimes he's wrong. Nothing more nothing less.

We'll see about this season.

I know some of you are going to tell me Bird is in charge & you may be right. But I have a feeling that as of now Larry Jo has to run things by/through Joseph Donald.

A big man would have been nice. The East has gotten bigger & stronger in the frontcourt & we've stood pat. (that sounds familiar)

I know a lot of you have faith in Foster, all I can say is I hope you are correct & not me because I have none in him. Come playoff time he will get maybe 15 min. a game.

But it's not all bad. As of now we are still sitting on top of the East. J.O. is still the best big man in the East. We still have one of the better coaches in the N.B.A. & most of all we still have :dance:

So I guess the only thing we can do is sit back, relax & watch the season unfold.

Oh yes, before I go so Btown won't be dissapointed I want to make sure I bring up the name Brad Miller.

Again I want to point out the number of people who were on here yesterday that were bemoaning the fact that the Pacers needed a big man & a player who could hit from the outside.

I just always will point out that we had a player who could do both & tossed him out like so much old fruit. :mad: But hey, at least the Simons don't have to pay the luxuary tax. You know the one that as of right now doesn't even exist.

Flame away at me people. :cool:

Bball
02-20-2004, 06:58 AM
Do you get the feeling that teams saw the Pacers' Achilles heel and sought to upgrade for the stretch run?

I see the interior getting really rough for JO.

Can the Pacers respond to the new look of the opposition by this choice to stand pat? I guess we get to watch and find out.

Lots of good stuff in your post but no time to really respond properly.

-Bball

indygeezer
02-20-2004, 08:19 AM
Peck

What Atlanta did was a favor to the Pacers and to this board. Billy Knight sacrificed the Hawks to keep Arkman from ever becoming a Hawk fan. He knew of this risk and worked to keep it from happening. We owe BK for this. :bowdown:

As for Brad...enough already. Dude I respect you to the utmost but this is wearing a little thin. I wish we still had Brad but the reality is, he's gone. DW took a risk, it appears that chance didn't pan out...he took a risk trading for JO and it did. Win some lose some. I wanted a trade in the worst way yesterday and I'm still upset it didn't happen...but I have to have faith in the braintrust to know what they are doing. But I promis you this, if this falls flat in the PO's and they don't do something MAJOR to recitfy it this off season...they will have lost me. I am tired of hearing how they want to see how this team plays out the season. I've heard that for too many seasons now. We either do something, or I become a baseball/hockey/bowling fan. I AM A WIN NOW GUY...&^%$$^ the future...we may all go to hell in a terroist attack and I wanna beat the Lakers for a ring before we do!
<ahem> well after getting that out of my system.

:meditate: We can still be competitive this year. :meditate:
:meditate: We can still be competitive this year. :meditate:
:meditate: We can still be competitive this year. :meditate:
:meditate: We can still be competitive this year. :meditate:
:meditate: We can still be competitive this year. :meditate:
:meditate: We can still be competitive this year. :meditate:
:meditate: We can still be competitive this year. :meditate:
:meditate: We can still be competitive this year. :meditate:
:meditate: We can still be competitive this year. :meditate:
:meditate: We can still be competitive this year. :meditate:
:meditate: We can still be competitive this year. :meditate:
:meditate: We can still be competitive this year. :meditate:

Hicks
02-20-2004, 09:38 AM
When I read Larry Bird saying that he wants to see what this team can do for a full season and in the playoffs before he makes a move, it reminded me of how he sounded about Isiah Thomas when he was hired. He didn't just step in and fire him, he took time to review what had gone on, and study the tapes, etc. Then he fired him.

My thinking is he just wants to be sure he knows what he does or doesn't have before any changes are made.

I totally expect at least SOME kind of move this summer that changes the dynamic of the team at least moderately.

I'm a believer in Donnie Walsh still being overall in charge and not Larry, but I do think Larry can do what he wants to the team this summer as long as DW gives the nod, so I think if Bird wants to make a move this summer, which I personally believe he will because there's no doubt Bird wants to win titles here, he'll be able to do so.

On the Hawks and salary space:

I hate it too. I would be disgusted if I were one of the 18 Hawks fans. ;) I don't believe having tons of cap space works often enough to do it unless you have absolutely no other options. Atlanta had talent, and they threw most of it away.

Nazr's gone for a guy the waived a week later. Theo and Shareef were traded for someone they turned around and traded for essentially peanuts and some cap space a week later. If they weren't happy with the dynamic of that team, between Theo, Shareef, and Terry they could have netted SOME kind of talent in a trade. But instead they threw it away. I will be shocked if they sign anyone better than a Lamar Odom, and even that level of player would really surprise me. I don't think they'll get half of what they might want this summer.

Pistons trade:

It does worry me. Considerably. But am I automatically giving up the East to them? No. But they're our biggest threat. Hopefully they can squash NJ in the 2nd round as the 2/3 seed match-up and we "only" have to deal with them if we get to the ECF, which will mean having to get passed either New Orleans or Milwaukee first. (gulp) (If we do make it to the Finals, we will have EARNED it)

Ron Artest:

My only concern is him coming back too fast. I have no doubt he'll be ready at the latest to start the playoffs. Personally I'm eying later March/ early April unless this goes so smooth he gets to come back faster. Obviously Al gets Ron's starting role, and I'm on the fence as to thinking he'll plug in fine, or ruin us with bad play every alternate night. We'll see. Well, I suppose I do suspect we'll be all right with him more than I think we won't, but I worry about it.

Depth? We have some. But I don't think we've ever had to test it long term before. This will be interesting, and potentially painful, to watch. I think at first Cro will play Al's 6th man spot, and JB gets spot minutes. From there, either JB earns more time or he doesn't, and possibly doesn't get a chance still, but I doubt that.

I hope Bender can do something for us, and he HAS to be hungry to try to do so, but you never know with him, obviously.

Heh, I think this is the biggest post I've written in a long time. My own "odd thoughts". :therock:

indygeezer
02-20-2004, 10:08 AM
OK...I will be calm...I will be calm.

Ron Artest...excellant physical conditioning will allow him to recover quickly. How quickly? I'm in lousy condition, I had thumb surgery Aug. 9th. First of Feb I was finally able to push the button in on my car door...believe me it ain't as easy as it looks. I'm sure that rather than seeing a physical therapist 2x a week it will be daily for him and he will recover much quicker than I did (I still have pain when I bend it too far).

Al Harrington...easy big fella, don't try to do to much, let the game come to you and you'll be ok. But if you try to take over and do it all. THis is his chance to show he deserves that starting position. It is also his opportunity to audition for the other teams becasue if he comes thru, he'll be a very hot commodity and worth a ton. And we'll be forced to trade him. Unfortunately, I fear that bone bruise tremendously. Can you say Steve Stipanovich? I have a VERY uneasy feeling he may not last the year. (my glass is 1/2 empty on this)
Austin too, he's auditioning for a job...either here or elsewhere. He can make himself much more attractive by stepping up. JB, here's some minutes...go make the most of them, cause you ain't going nowhere else. I'm convinced that come heck or high water they are determined to make it work for you. (See my comments above regarding Al's knee injury).

I still believe we have GOT to find minutes for Primoz to get him ready for the PO's...we have got to have that size ready for all we will face then.


+++++ OTHER+++++

The other teams have figure out how to play our team. Put a body on em and be physical. Throw some zone at us. If Reggies shot is off...we're dead, collapse the middle and dare everybody else to shoot. We didn't get the big man...we didn;t get the outside shooter. They say they wanna see how far this team can carry us...well here's the chance for everybody to step up and make me eat my words. I like crow, with spicy mustard and saurkraut please.



<EDIT> OK here's a new odd thoght. Denver is claiming Doleac off waivers. They see the need for another big man. His ending contract will not count against the cap. (Here's the laugher...IT thought he'd be able to resign MD after Atlanta released him...didn't work)
http://www.nypost.com/sports/knicks/16366.htm

sixthman
02-20-2004, 10:51 AM
One of the problems of having a lousy team with a few good players, like the Hawks, is that your best players want out and team chemistry is lousy. The result is bad, fan unfriendly basketball. Sometimes it's just a whole lot better to get a fresh start. I think that's the case in Atlanta.

Peck, why did you not mention Denver? Two years ago at the trading deadline they were a loser team, much like the Hawks of this year. Now they are a successful, exciting young team with a future. Would this amazing turn-a-round have happened if they had not unloaded their top salaried veteran stars and gotten below the cap. I doubt it.

AI'd also point out we'll now see Denver add Doleac for free for their playoff run, if they want, because they have managed their cap situation wisely since their reorganization.

There are other significant advantages to getting under the cap besides being able to sign big name franchise players. Being able to take advantage of opportunities to add good role players on the cheap is one advantage. Being able to make advantageous trades with cap strapped teams is another.

Utah is rebuilding on the run with cap space. Watch what they do in the next couple of years. The Clips are also beginning to get it. Two or three these of these teams will be moving into the upper tier of the western conference, replacing top heavy salaried teams.

At least Atlanta now has the chance to rebuild and become competitive begining with this summer. If they had chosen to maintain the status quo and stayed hemmed in by the luxury tax and the cap, they probably had little chance to significantly move upward.

__________________________________________________ ___________

I still believe the Nets and Hornets are major threats to our winning the East. Now I will add Detroit.

Jon Bender, Austin Croshere, Freddie Jones, Jamaal Tinsley and Reggie Miller will all need to play well, along with JO, if this team is to keep the best record in the East and make a strong run in the playoffs.

__________________________________________________ ___________

Next summer will see a major roster addition and subtraction. Obviously the Pacers will need an addition at guard. Maybe two.

There will be no excuses next summer not to do that either. No players will have the complicated BYC1 status and everyone on the roster will have had a chance to show what he can do.

Here's hoping each of our young players increases his trade value between now and this summer. The best thing that can happen to the Pacers, short-term and long-term, is for Harrington, Croshere, Bender and Freddie Jones light it up the rest of this season.

indygeezer
02-20-2004, 12:03 PM
Scott
My comparison of the two trades was meant only to show that when you roll the dice you take your chances.

I wasn't happy with the "trade" last year either. I was very depressed to see that we were all about winning as long as it didn't cost too much. I very much understood how PFFL and others felt. I can completely uderstand how you and Peck feel now, but I can't do anything about it and constant biatching only makes ya feel worse..or at least it does me.
To be completely honest...I'm ready for DW to retire.

LB said a coach is only effective for 3 years...how many for a Pres/GM before his image becomes too ingrained in the scheme? I'm all for continuity and conservatism but it seem to me that if you are given too long to look at things...you lose sight of how long it is taking.

indygeezer
02-20-2004, 12:30 PM
yeah...I understand venting..


Say I do like that new emoticon is that on the page? I didn't see it....I'll look


:deadhorse: yep there it is...but it ain't what I though. Deadhorse, huh? I thought they were kissing a mule.

Booger
02-20-2004, 03:57 PM
...I'm ready for DW to retire...


I was thinking about this exact same thing the other night. In one of the more recent articles, DW said something to the effect that he couldn't wait to hand over everything to Bird and let him out on his own.

I just hope Bird doesn't get conditioned by Walsh and become a DW clone. Just my opinion, but it's time for DW to go. I think we're going to need Larry to get us over the top. I want a team that's built for a title, not one that's built to be competitive over the long haul, but struggles in the playoffs.

***Warning - Brad Miller rant below***

Peck,

Excellent post. I agree w/ almost everything you said; especially re: Brad Miller and the Hawks. I was arguing over the summer after the Pollard trade that center was going to be our biggest need and that we had basically reverted to the pre-Chicago trade team, except for Artest and Carlisle. A lot of people on the Star forum felt that we were ok at center and Pollard was a guaranteed 10 and 10. Now, I know Pollard has not exactly lived up to expectations, but 10 and 10!! :rolleyes:

I've had that deep, suppressed feeling in the pit of my stomach all year that the Pollard trade was going to come back to haunt us. It's really began to surface this week. DW has said in the past that, under the right circumstances, the Simons would be willing to venture into higher payroll (read: luxury tax) to field a championship caliber team.

AND we freaking had it. WE had that chance. Sheed to the Pistons, to me, wouldn't have mattered if we had Brad Miller. We would be a cinch for the Finals, THIS YEAR. But management is too damn scared to win a title. Burns me to no end.

:puke:

There, I feel a little better now.

Natston
02-20-2004, 04:13 PM
I'm going to beat another dead horse here. Why do people make it sound like it was a straight up trade of Brad for Scot. Granted that it went down in the books as a trade but it wasn't. Look at it this way Brad signed elsewhere, and we signed Scot to have another big man. Jesus Christ, I want Brad back too, but God Dammit...

:deadhorse: :mad:

Ragnar
02-20-2004, 04:56 PM
I'm going to beat another dead horse here. Why do people make it sound like it was a straight up trade of Brad for Scot. Granted that it went down in the books as a trade but it wasn't. Look at it this way Brad signed elsewhere, and we signed Scot to have another big man. Jesus Christ, I want Brad back too, but God Dammit...

:deadhorse: :mad:

Because there were two options that would have been better.

1) Keep Brad for whatever we could have signed him for. He claimed it would be less but lets assume we would be paying him 7 million that would have cost us Pollard and Kenny Anderson.

The downside is suposedley we would have still had Mercer. Who as an ending deal pretty much every team in the NBA would have taken. They could have traded the ending deal for actuall talent as seen by the Sheed trade. We may have even ended up with a draft pick for the ending deal.

2) let Brad walk

We would then have had Mercers ending deal to trade for talent possibly a C as we know that Golden state was looking for ending deals for Dampier.


or you have option 3

3) Trade Brad and Mercer for Scott Pollard

See how well option three worked out.

Now thats not to say we have not had a good year. We have in large part due to coaching. But if we want to win a title we need a big in the center. One who could hit the mid range jumper and pass out of double teams or swing it through him into the post would be ideal. We had that and used option three

There is no way to look at last summer as anything other than a mistake.

Unclebuck
02-20-2004, 05:06 PM
Some of you are going off the deep end.

Look at the bigger picture and by any measure Donnie Walsh has done a great, great job.

For those of you bemoaning that Brad is no longer a Pacer, (and no it was not a trade, it was a last ditch effort to get something), how many more wins do you think the pacers would have right now if Brad were a pacer still. From the way some of you are talking you must think the pacers would have at least 5 more wins. That would make them 44-10, I don't think so

Booger
02-20-2004, 05:08 PM
I'm going to beat another dead horse here. Why do people make it sound like it was a straight up trade of Brad for Scot. Granted that it went down in the books as a trade but it wasn't. Look at it this way Brad signed elsewhere, and we signed Scot to have another big man. Jesus Christ, I want Brad back too, but God Dammit...

:deadhorse: :mad:

Because there were two options that would have been better.

1) Keep Brad for whatever we could have signed him for. He claimed it would be less but lets assume we would be paying him 7 million that would have cost us Pollard and Kenny Anderson.

The downside is suposedley we would have still had Mercer. Who as an ending deal pretty much every team in the NBA would have taken. They could have traded the ending deal for actuall talent as seen by the Sheed trade. We may have even ended up with a draft pick for the ending deal.

2) let Brad walk

We would then have had Mercers ending deal to trade for talent possibly a C as we know that Golden state was looking for ending deals for Dampier.


or you have option 3

3) Trade Brad and Mercer for Scott Pollard

See how well option three worked out.

Now thats not to say we have not had a good year. We have in large part due to coaching. But if we want to win a title we need a big in the center. One who could hit the mid range jumper and pass out of double teams or swing it through him into the post would be ideal. We had that and used option three

There is no way to look at last summer as anything other than a mistake.


DING! DING! DING!

Walsh, as late as last year, used to say how much he laments sign and trade's because he'd rather take the cap space to go find someone he really wants. Well, look what happened.

At worst, we should be in Ragnar's #2 situation. Big mistake.

Bball
02-20-2004, 05:26 PM
There is no way to look at last summer as anything other than a mistake.

Some points... for some reason I believe BMiller ended up underrated as a Pacer. When he was 'on' IMHO he was as good of a center as the NBA Pacers ever had. That easily includes Smits who BMiller was easily better than IMHO.

Even tho we talk about BMiller's 'disappearance' the second half of last year was he really any more inconsistent than Smits? Also, BMiller did have the excuse of being injured. Possibly he should've set out like Bender rather than trying to play thru it. Then maybe some could've raved about his potential.

What this really comes down to is how this team has spent its money. Maybe some past overspending made management gun shy? Maybe some past overspending simply caught up with the team?

From a basketball point of view, not biting the bullet and paying Brad his market value was a mistake IMHO. From a budget point of view I guess as long as things continue on as they have (winning, leading conference) then it was a stroke of genius.

But as Ragnar is pointing out we might've taken the worst case option.... Tho hindsight is 20-20. ...

I'm still having a hard time believing Pollard is this bad. Admittedly, I didn't follow him in Sacremento but it's hard to see anything he's doing in Indy to make me understand how he was a fan favorite or had a reputation as a scrapper and a hustling player. It is more than not fitting in the system.... unless that can somehow explain his slowness, lack of ability to make a close range shot, and 1" vertical jump.

-Bball

kerosene
02-20-2004, 06:42 PM
You can rest easier about Doleac as the Nuggets claimed him off of waivers today.

Shade
02-20-2004, 07:35 PM
Ok, were going all over the place with this one.

Let me start off by discussing my favorite hated topic in the world. Teams being dismantled for the sake of salary cap. space.

Atlanta has just devastated their franchise in the matter of a 10 days. Billy Knight is my all-time favorite Pacer & I really wanted him to replace Donnie whenever he stepped down. But now whether he was under direction from management or his own hair brained idea, he has taken a franchise & virtually guaranteed that it will be less than an expansion team for the next 5 years.

Were they a good team? No, they weren't. But they had some talent & just needed a few pieces to be competative again. But that has now been pissed away in a short space & they have nothing to show for it.

Ending contracts & draft picks do not put fans in the stands. They had the talent to at least come home with other talented players.

At some point in time I wonder if the league will ever step in & stop franchises from doing this. It's not without precedent btw. Back in the early 80's the league made a rule that teams could not trade draft choices in consecutive years because Ted Steppian (owner of the Cavs.) was trading away the teams draft picks like candy & giving away players in an effort to save money. I realize it's not the same thing but the way Atlanta blew itself up was just pure & utter bullcrap.

The entire Doleac situation did it for me. After reconsidering the trade that sent Nazr to N.Y. I began to think that Pryzbilla & Doleac was an equal trade in value. Until I just found out that Doleac was waived.

Even those of you that support teams making such moves, & I just don't see how you can btw, cannot possibly convince me that Atlanta is going to be able to field a competative team for years to come.

The magic of free agency will not work for them. It did not work in Chicago & it will not work for them either.

What free agent, big name or otherwise, will come to Atlanta? We can talk about big towns & warm weather climates all we like but the facts just haven't bore out that players switch teams for markets other than the L.A. Lakers.

Miami (warm climate, popular nightlife, fun town, etc.) has yet to sign a big name free agent to come in & right the ship. Brand was restricted so it didn't matter who signed him he would have been back in L.A. either way. Odom is nice, but when people are thinking big name free agency Lamar wasn't the first name out of the shoot.

Chicago (large Market, popular nightlife, fun town, etc.) has yet to sign a big name free agent to come in & right the ship.

Orlando (Warm climate, popular nightlife, fun town, lots of attractions, etc.) was not able to get one big body to come down & help out T-Mac. Is Juan Howard your idea of a big time free agent?

Each of these teams have something in common, they stink.

Big name free agents go to teams that have a chance. They don't always go for money. They don't go for the local living. They go to where they think they can win at. Or in some cases they will go to a better situation. ie. if Al were a F.A. & he signed with Memphis because they guaranteed him he would start. But I bet he wouldn't sign with Atlanta.

I am not as business smart as many of you are, I freely admit that. However I do know that the best way to make a profit or at least the best way to generate revanue is to field a team that is competative. Winning would be better but you at least have to give the fans a hope of being in the game.

What they have done down in Atlanta is a shame on the N.B.A.

BTW, I don't begrudge Detroit one bit for making the deal. I will talk about the trade itself a little later on but for now I just want to say that my above feelings on this have nothing to do with the fact that Detroit may or may not have altered the East.

Moving on.

I hate the luxuary tax with the passion of a white hot sun. I understand the economic realities of the situation but I cannot stand trades or player movements to be made based on anthing other than the on-court product.

Well we might as well go ahead & talk about the Wallace trade to Detroit.

Unlike U.B. I'm not ready to concede to them yet, but I will state that this trade does trouble me. A lot.

A front line of Wallace, Wallace & Prince is troublesome. A frontline of Wallace, Wallace & Okur is downright scary.

We do NOT have enough muscle or mass to deal with that second lineup. Now don't forget they also still have Cambell on their team.

We will have very little margin for error if we play them in the playoffs. Oh & let's not forget Larry Brown is still their coach. I hate to play Larry in the playoffs because that is when his teams are really beginning to click.

Our center spot bothers me more & more as the day goes on.

Who knows Rasheed may not mesh with them. Yeah, right.

But we don't have to worry about Detroit till the playoffs anyway. What we have to do now is make certain we take care of our own. In other words make sure we don't end the season on a bad note.

With that let's discuss the Artest thing.

Ron is down & that is not good. But here's the rub. All season long & really for the past few seasons we have bragged how we are one of the deepest benches in the league. Well now is the time to prove that.

But if Al is really hurt (knee) then we may really be screwed.

To me the person who can make or brake this for us right now is not Al or Bender. It's Austin.

He has to be able to take over the rebounding & defensive duty's that normally would fall on Al not to mention the scoring.

If he can come in & give us a lift I actually could see there being no letdown. However if he is flat & not productive that means we are going to have to rely on Bender. Does anybody want to do that? I hope he does well, but if our bench is going to depend on him for the season then we are pretty much screwed.

I hope Ron is only down a few weeks, but more impoartantly I hope he doesn't rush back to try & save the team. A healthy Ron is more important to the future (playoffs & seasons beyond) than a hurt Ron is to the current schedule.

The trade deadline came & went & not so much as a whimper from our front office.

I am not suprised.

I've lived through every single season that Donnie Walsh has been in charge of basketball operations & I can tell you that whenever most people think a trade is needed or wanted, he does not. Sometimes he right sometimes he's wrong. Nothing more nothing less.

We'll see about this season.

I know some of you are going to tell me Bird is in charge & you may be right. But I have a feeling that as of now Larry Jo has to run things by/through Joseph Donald.

A big man would have been nice. The East has gotten bigger & stronger in the frontcourt & we've stood pat. (that sounds familiar)

I know a lot of you have faith in Foster, all I can say is I hope you are correct & not me because I have none in him. Come playoff time he will get maybe 15 min. a game.

But it's not all bad. As of now we are still sitting on top of the East. J.O. is still the best big man in the East. We still have one of the better coaches in the N.B.A. & most of all we still have :dance:

So I guess the only thing we can do is sit back, relax & watch the season unfold.

Oh yes, before I go so Btown won't be dissapointed I want to make sure I bring up the name Brad Miller.

Again I want to point out the number of people who were on here yesterday that were bemoaning the fact that the Pacers needed a big man & a player who could hit from the outside.

I just always will point out that we had a player who could do both & tossed him out like so much old fruit. :mad: But hey, at least the Simons don't have to pay the luxuary tax. You know the one that as of right now doesn't even exist.

Flame away at me people. :cool:

This gets my early vote for Post of the Year. I feel exactly the same way, and you said it better than I could. :thumbsup:

sixthman
02-21-2004, 12:51 PM
For those of you bemoaning that Brad is no longer a Pacer, (and no it was not a trade, it was a last ditch effort to get something)

Don't want to beat a dead horse, but this is not completely accurate.

More completely, the Miller transaction was a deal to add a needed big body and to dump Ron Mercer's nearly seven million dollar salary.

In order of importance, I have no doubt dumping Mercer's salary was the most pressing matter for Walsh.

sixthman
02-21-2004, 12:59 PM
But hey, at least the Simons don't have to pay the luxuary tax. You know the one that as of right now doesn't even exist.

Flame away at me people. :cool:

If there were no luxury tax this year, trading Miller would have obviously been a stupid move.

Obviously Walsh thinks there will be a luxury tax.

What is your source for claiming, as of right now, no luxury tax exists? I think there will be one. Am I delusional in this assumption? I would sure be willing to change my opinion.

Hicks
02-21-2004, 01:10 PM
For those of you bemoaning that Brad is no longer a Pacer, (and no it was not a trade, it was a last ditch effort to get something)

Don't want to beat a dead horse, but this is not completely accurate.

More completely, the Miller transaction was a deal to add a needed big body and to dump Ron Mercer's nearly seven million dollar salary.

In order of importance, I have no doubt dumping Mercer's salary was the most pressing matter for Walsh.

Well, if that was the big important part, isn't that kind of retarded? Ron Mercer's contract EXPIRES this year. Trade him, don't trade him, doesn't matter. That money is off the books either way. I'd rather have kept him and traded him this week.

Of course, that would have meant playing at least until now with Fosters/Brezec as your centers.... :shrug:

Ragnar
02-21-2004, 01:40 PM
Of course, that would have meant playing at least until now with Fosters/Brezec as your centers.... :shrug:

You mean as oposed to the many meanigfull games that Pollard has given us?

Sixthman there have been many articles starting before the deal was done that there would be no LT this year. There was only a slight chance it would have but with the total reduction in NBA payroll it is not going to happen.

Anthem
02-21-2004, 01:48 PM
I like the luxury tax.

The league needs financial viability to stay around... for a while there things were getting out of control.

This is, I think, the last offseason where the cap rules. Why? Because new rules have been in place for a while now, and they're working. Once a few more terrible contracts work their way through the system, things will be better.

NBA tickets cost too much as it is.

sixthman
02-21-2004, 01:49 PM
For those of you bemoaning that Brad is no longer a Pacer, (and no it was not a trade, it was a last ditch effort to get something)

Don't want to beat a dead horse, but this is not completely accurate.

More completely, the Miller transaction was a deal to add a needed big body and to dump Ron Mercer's nearly seven million dollar salary.

In order of importance, I have no doubt dumping Mercer's salary was the most pressing matter for Walsh.

Well, if that was the big important part, isn't that kind of retarded? Ron Mercer's contract EXPIRES this year. Trade him, don't trade him, doesn't matter. That money is off the books either way. I'd rather have kept him and traded him this week.

Of course, that would have meant playing at least until now with Fosters/Brezec as your centers.... :shrug:

You're saying you think it would have been better to just let Brad Miller go and kept Mercer's contract? Interesting thought. Who knows what that contract and another player might have turned into.

But, if that's the case, team salaries would have been about 1.5 million higher, probably all to fall under the luxury tax. (the difference between Mercer's salary and Pollard's}

Plus we would have entered the season seriously lacking a big body and depth in the middle. Plus, there had to be some skepticism about Foster. I don't think anyone thought Jeff would fill in as well as he has.

But, bottom line, maybe, is that the Pacers thought Pollard was going to be more productive as a Pacer than he has been.

Anthem
02-21-2004, 01:56 PM
But, bottom line, maybe, is that the Pacers thought Pollard was going to be more productive as a Pacer than he has been.

I've always thought that Bird doubted Brad's long-term effectiveness, partly because his entire understanding of the team at that point was from watching the playoffs.

He admitted that he hadn't kept up with the team during the year, and only started watching after the team had hit rock bottom. I think he watched the playoffs (where Brad was horrible), and decided that Brad wasn't worth investing in.

sixthman
02-21-2004, 02:40 PM
Sixthman there have been many articles starting before the deal was done that there would be no LT this year. There was only a slight chance it would have but with the total reduction in NBA payroll it is not going to happen.

This is the heart of the matter. If you believe no luxury tax is going to be imposed, then the Brad Miller transactions were probably incredibly stupid. (notice I didn't call it a trade ;) )

But, if one believes there is a luxury tax then the transactions are a lot more understandable.

We'll know July 1 about the luxury tax, so no sense carrying this further, except to say: If a luxury tax were imposed and the Pacers would have resigned Brad Miller, the move would have cost ownership around 30 million in salary, matching luxury tax, and loss of shared league income.

Not many rich guys like risking 30 mil when they don't have to.

Ragnar
02-21-2004, 02:49 PM
Sixthman there have been many articles starting before the deal was done that there would be no LT this year. There was only a slight chance it would have but with the total reduction in NBA payroll it is not going to happen.

This is the heart of the matter. If you believe no luxury tax is going to be imposed, then the Brad Miller transactions were probably incredibly stupid. (notice I didn't call it a trade ;) )

But, if one believes there is a luxury tax then the transactions are a lot more understandable.

We'll know July 1 about the luxury tax, so no sense carrying this further, except to say: If a luxury tax were imposed and the Pacers would have resigned Brad Miller, the move would have cost ownership around 30 million in salary, matching luxury tax, and loss of shared league income.

Not many rich guys like risking 30 mil when they don't have to.

The problem with thinking it would have cost them 30 million is that there is no way in hell it would have cost them that.

Pollard + Kenny = Brad's pay

You would have to believe that we would not have been able to dump Mercer and thats just absurd. Ending deals were gold this year any team under the cap who realized they were not going to get talent through free agency would have taken him for nothing.

bulletproof
02-21-2004, 05:15 PM
First, not many GMs fully understand the luxury tax, so I venture to guess most fans don't know diddly-squat about it. Especially when it comes to how it may or may not impact the team's overall financial picture, so it's ludicrous to even have this discussion.

Secondly, no one here knows all the reasons why Brad wasn't re-signed. I know of two: Donnie just didn't think he was worth the price he was commanding and he factored in his history of less-than-spectacular post- All-star game play. Or as Anthem said:


I've always thought that Bird doubted Brad's long-term effectiveness, partly because his entire understanding of the team at that point was from watching the playoffs.

He admitted that he hadn't kept up with the team during the year, and only started watching after the team had hit rock bottom. I think he watched the playoffs (where Brad was horrible), and decided that Brad wasn't worth investing in.

I think that's reason enough.

You guys also keep neglecting to mention that not signing Brad afforded us to fire Isiah and hire Rick—essentially allowing us to pay two coaches at the same time. And Carlisle ain't cheap. It's odd how some of you don't seem to think that factors into the team's bottom line. Or that you choose to ignore it.

Anyway, it's a dead-tired discussion. As I told Peck, I'm curious as to how you're going to quantify Brad's departure come playoff time. If we get out of the second round, it's further than we ever got with Brad. One could make the argument from that alone that letting Brad go was the right thing to do. Of course it would be a stupid argument, but no less stupid than using his play so far this year as an argument for saying that letting Brad go was the wrong thing to do. Because either way you'd have to factor Rick into those arguments. If we had kept Brad, we wouldn't have Rick. You can continue to dismiss or downplay that, but that's the reality of business. And if anyone here thinks Rick has had less of impact on this team than Brad would have, they're delusional.

Ragnar
02-21-2004, 05:33 PM
You guys also keep neglecting to mention that not signing Brad afforded us to fire Isiah and hire Rick—essentially allowing us to pay two coaches at the same time. And Carlisle ain't cheap. It's odd how some of you don't seem to think that factors into the team's bottom line. Or that you choose to ignore it.

Actually it is you who are choosing to ignore something. Pollard and Kenny's salarie = Brad how would not getting Pollard and not getting Kenny have hurt us again?

Anyway, it's a dead-tired discussion. As I told Peck, I'm curious as to how you're going to quantify Brad's departure come playoff time. If we get out of the second round, it's further than we ever got with Brad. One could make the argument from that alone that letting Brad go was the right thing to do. Of course it would be a stupid argument, but no less stupid than using his play so far this year as an argument for saying that letting Brad go was the wrong thing to do. Because either way you'd have to factor Rick into those arguments. If we had kept Brad, we wouldn't have Rick. You can continue to dismiss or downplay that, but that's the reality of business. And if anyone here thinks Rick has had less of impact on this team than Brad would have, they're delusional.

So we should have dumped Jermaine because we have yet to get out of the first round with him?

bulletproof
02-21-2004, 08:45 PM
Actually it is you who are choosing to ignore something. Pollard and Kenny's salarie = Brad how would not getting Pollard and not getting Kenny have hurt us again?

So Brad only signed a one-year contract with Sac? I didn't know that.

You can't just look at one year of a contract. You have to look at the sum total. And when you compare Brad's contract to Scot and Kenny's, Brad will make $50+ million more than those two combined. There's no comparison.



So we should have dumped Jermaine because we have yet to get out of the first round with him?

You missed my point entirely. Again, you refuse to acknowledge that letting Brad go helped accomodate the firing of Isiah and the hiring of Rick—allowing us to pay two coaches at the same time. Rick makes $4 million a year. Isiah was to be paid $5 million this year. Do you honestly believe that management separates their salaries from the players' when it comes to the team's overall expenses? That one doesn't impact the other? Do you think Bird is working for free this year? The Pacers took on a lot of overhead in the off-season—it's not just about Brad and Scot and Kenny.

Bball
02-21-2004, 09:18 PM
Actually it is you who are choosing to ignore something. Pollard and Kenny's salarie = Brad how would not getting Pollard and not getting Kenny have hurt us again?

So Brad only signed a one-year contract with Sac? I didn't know that.

You can't just look at one year of a contract. You have to look at the sum total. And when you compare Brad's contract to Scot and Kenny's, Brad will make $50+ million more than those two combined. There's no comparison.

But it gets even more complicated than that. You have Cro's contract ending as Brad's is reaching midway. You would've had Mercer's ending contract to use in a salary dump.... or coming off the books in a year on its own. Reggie is on a 2 errrrr 3 year contract.

But really... I still say where we really need to be looking is the extensions of Bender:Foster:Artest and ask if all three of those warranted an extension at all and for the amount paid.... and importantly-considering the core of the team (3 starters) were upcoming FA's.

It's all a spiderweb... or a snowball... that keeps growing. I think you guys are not looking at things from their root or following thru either.

Also, if we would've taken Ragnar's route then there's no reason to think that other things couid not have been worked out to bring Carlisle in. Harrington had value. Mercer. Plus, there is the matter of Reggie's contract which was still blank at the time of the BMiller wranglings and ended up mighty generous. IOW it is not cut and dried how any scenario could've played out or been massaged if certain parties had wanted to.



So we should have dumped Jermaine because we have yet to get out of the first round with him?



That's not what I said at all. Again, you refuse to acknowledge that letting Brad go allowed us to fire Isiah and hire Rick—paying two coaches at the same time. Rick makes $4 million a year.


On Carlisle's price... I wasn't sure what he is making but I bet that is more than he would've commanded in 2000-2001.

Just more of the complicated web or snowball effect.


Do you honestly believe that management separates player overhead from everything else regarding the franchise's expenses?

Yes, in sofar as in regards to the luxury tax. Obviously it all comes out of the same till but you have to look at the lines differently because the coach won't impact your luxury tax...or LT payback. And if your coach is a problem you can address that without the double whammy of the LT.

Besides... are you saying when the BMiller wranglings were going on we needed to find money for a yet unannounced coaching change? Hmmmm.....

-Bball

Ragnar
02-21-2004, 10:53 PM
First you point out that Brad's contract is for one year. Then you claim his ditching is what allowed us to dump Isiah. I dont get it. I thought Isiah's deal was for only one year? If so isnt this years pay off Brad exactly what you are claiming is what allowed us to dump Isiah?

The problem with your argument is that THIS YEAR we are paying Pollard and Kenny just as much as we would have payed Brad THIS YEAR. The year your Isiah theory would have been in efect.

You cant say we could not keep Brad because he would be getting a multi year deal in order to fire a coach who had only one year left on his deal. And then take back just as much in salary.

Beyond that what the heck did they think he would be getting, a one year Deal? two years? Come on they knew he would be looking for multi year when they claimed they were going to be able to keep all three of them.

Every single sports writer said Brad would be getting 9 to 10 mil a year then. Guess what he did.

The bottom line is the Pacers f#cked up. I dont know which way they f#cked up. Either they f#cked up by letting him go because they erroniousley thought he had peaked. Or they f#cked up by letting him go because they honestly thought there would be a luxury tax and if there was that they would not be able to dump an ending deal.

The stupid thing is that if there is an LT the ending deal is worth a lot more than if there is no LT. So if they thought there would be an LT they should have known that they could dump Mercer to a team under the cap who wanted to get players with talent for players with ending deals.

If they didnt think there would be an LT why do all this to begin with.

No matter how you spin it. Letting Brad go did not allow us to replace Isiah. I am sorry that is total bull. We are spending just as much this year the year that Isiah is still being paid, as if we had kept Brad.

Letting Brad go allowed us to sign a backup pg who we dont use and have a worthless backup center instead of an allstar center.

Anthem
02-21-2004, 10:56 PM
But really... I still say where we really need to be looking is the extensions of Bender:Foster:Artest and ask if all three of those warranted an extension at all and for the amount paid....

Ok, that's fair.

Foster got 3.8 mil.
Artest got 5.2 mil.
Bender got 5.6 mil.

Now I think we can all agree that Artest's price was an absolute bargain. No way he'd get less than that on the open market right now.

Foster got 3.8 mil, which isn't bad for a good backup center (which is how I think of him).

Bender got 5.6 mil, and I don't know if that's a good decision or a bad one. If his knee hadn't been so bad this season... and if wishes were horses...

indytoad
02-21-2004, 11:29 PM
Wow, Bender makes more than Artest. Never realized that. I wonder why he was signed for so much. I can understand signing him for an extension, I guess, but is that the cheapest they could get...?

IndyToad
Works up high

bulletproof
02-22-2004, 12:20 AM
The bottom line is the Pacers f#cked up. I dont know which way they f#cked up. Either they f#cked up by letting him go because they erroniousley thought he had peaked. Or they f#cked up by letting him go because they honestly thought there would be a luxury tax and if there was that they would not be able to dump an ending deal.

The stupid thing is that if there is an LT the ending deal is worth a lot more than if there is no LT. So if they thought there would be an LT they should have known that they could dump Mercer to a team under the cap who wanted to get players with talent for players with ending deals.

If they didnt think there would be an LT why do all this to begin with.

No matter how you spin it. Letting Brad go did not allow us to replace Isiah. I am sorry that is total bull. We are spending just as much this year the year that Isiah is still being paid, as if we had kept Brad.

Letting Brad go allowed us to sign a backup pg who we dont use and have a worthless backup center instead of an allstar center.


You were all over the place so I chose to begin with your "bottom line."

First, we're sitting atop in the East. We have the second best record in the league. We're tied for best road record. How you can claim we screwed up when it came to Brad is beyond me. The proof will be the end result. And I have a hard time believing that you'll be able to quantify that. This is a different team now. A better one, in my opinion.

You can keep bringing up the LT to try and justify your argument—of which I'm sure you know very little about—but the LT was just part of it. Donnie didn't think Brad was worth what he was commanding. You thought he was. Guess what? You don't get to make that decision. He does. He had a lot of other considerations that you seemingly choose to be ignorant about.

And yes, letting Brad go did allow us to replace Isiah.

It's really pointless debating with you because you refuse to look at this from a business standpoint. And then you throw wild roundhouse punches like, "I don't know how they screwed up, but they screwed up." That's incredibly funny. You don't know anything about the team's finances, yet you're able to make an informed assessment about the LT, Brad and Rick, etc.?


By the way, I enjoy a good, heated debate, so don't take any of this personally.

Peck
02-22-2004, 12:52 AM
The bottom line is the Pacers f#cked up. I dont know which way they f#cked up. Either they f#cked up by letting him go because they erroniousley thought he had peaked. Or they f#cked up by letting him go because they honestly thought there would be a luxury tax and if there was that they would not be able to dump an ending deal.

The stupid thing is that if there is an LT the ending deal is worth a lot more than if there is no LT. So if they thought there would be an LT they should have known that they could dump Mercer to a team under the cap who wanted to get players with talent for players with ending deals.

If they didnt think there would be an LT why do all this to begin with.

No matter how you spin it. Letting Brad go did not allow us to replace Isiah. I am sorry that is total bull. We are spending just as much this year the year that Isiah is still being paid, as if we had kept Brad.

Letting Brad go allowed us to sign a backup pg who we dont use and have a worthless backup center instead of an allstar center.


You were all over the place so I chose to begin with your "bottom line."

First, we're sitting atop in the East. We have the second best record in the league. We're tied for best road record. How you can claim we screwed up when it came to Brad is beyond me. The proof will be the end result. And I have a hard time believing that you'll be able to quantify that. This is a different team now. A better one, in my opinion.

You can keep bringing up the LT to try and justify your argument—of which I'm sure you know very little about—but the LT was just part of it. Donnie didn't think Brad was worth what he was commanding. You thought he was. Guess what? You don't get to make that decision. He does. He had a lot of other considerations that you seemingly choose to be ignorant about.

And yes, letting Brad go did allow us to replace Isiah.

It's really pointless debating with you because you refuse to look at this from a business standpoint. And then you throw wild roundhouse punches like, "I don't know how they screwed up, but they screwed up." That's incredibly funny. You don't know anything about the team's finances, yet you're able to make an informed assessment about the LT, Brad and Rick, etc.?


By the way, I enjoy a good, heated debate, so don't take any of this personally.

Everybody has their own lock hard opinions of this debate. However I think the highlighted needs to be addressed.

Ragnar gave good reasons that he beleived dispelled the notion that Thomas was allowed to be fired because of this. Which as has been pointed out by Bball, unless they were lying (which I realize is always possible) Thomas's job was not even in jeopardy when the Brad decision went down.

I would be willing to listen to your rebuttal of Ragnar's thoughts, but it has to be something more than "because I said so" that you just did there.

Why is Ragnar wrong?

Also not to belabor this point but there was another thing that I think you have to stop & consider here.

Of course we are not looking at this from a business standpoint. We are not the owners. We are the fans of the team & we want the best on-court product that money can buy. I certainly understand why the owners wouldn't want to go broke, but that doesn't mean that I am rooting for them to make money.

We will not be having any parades on Meridian St. to celebrate the fact that the team was able to be under the salary cap & avoid the luxuary tax. You might, I doubt you will have a lot of people join you though.

I'll just say this. Ragnar & myself & maybe others do refuse to see this from a business end. That's our right. You on the other hand seem to want to refuse this from a talent end. That's your right.

From our point of view the entire Brad Miller thing is a seminal moment in Pacers history. I'm not kidding about that. I think it is a blunder that will adversely affect this team in years to come.

I may be right, I may be wrong. But it's my right to think it.

As of now, we are on top of the world. However just a few days ago people who had not really voiced any displeasure over the Miller trade were on here bemoaning the fact that the Pacers were weak in the middle, needed another reliabel outside shooter & a good solid passer. Brad Miller is the solution to all of those problems.

It's almost funny to stand back & look at this from my point. It seems like people on the anti-miller side keep moving the goal post on us. BTW, Bulletproof this part isn't about you because I haven't been dealing with you for that long a lot of this is from back on the star forum.

First Scot Pollard would make us forget Brad Miller. That didn't work so then it became, Brad Miller is not really an all-ster. Oops, ok then it must be the Pacers decided to keep Al Harrington over Brad because he would be more valuable to the team. Hmm, lots of people unhappy with Al so next. Well, then it must be that Donnie new from back in April that he was going to fire Isiah, so this was the reason. They had to get rid of Brad because they knew they needed the money to fire the coach & hire the coach of another team who had yet to be fired. BTW, I say April because according to the young Maloof brother (owner of the Kings) that is when they began to discuss this deal with Indiana.

So you see from our point of view it kind of looks like that no matter what the reason, if & when it is disproven, then new reasons are found.

Seriously, what would be wrong with just saying the team made a mistake? I know as of now you don't beleive that but what if we could prove to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was a mistake, would you even consider calling it a mistake. Or are you only willing to look at cap space?

Again let me state what I've been stating all season long. We are in first place. As long as we advance in the playoffs & play well the trade was an ok thing.

But if we fail & we can pinpoint that failure on center play then it was a horrid horrid trade. From a basketball standpoint.

Either way, since we promote peace & love here on the digest I now present you with :apple:

Bball
02-22-2004, 04:49 AM
Ragnar gave good reasons that he beleived dispelled the notion that Thomas was allowed to be fired because of this. Which as has been pointed out by Bball, unless they were lying (which I realize is always possible) Thomas's job was not even in jeopardy when the Brad decision went down.

That Bball pays attention to little details like that ;)




It's almost funny to stand back & look at this from my point. It seems like people on the anti-miller side keep moving the goal post on us. BTW, Bulletproof this part isn't about you because I haven't been dealing with you for that long a lot of this is from back on the star forum.

That is a very good term for this ongoing discussion. This post makes a lot of sense to me and I think the line about the moving goal post is a very good analogy. It explains (to me) why there is this ongoing debate.

At the end of the day I still think BMiller was 'Jaxed'. Not really wanted for this year. The team did everything they could to NOT sign him. From spending money in other places, not making trades, and importantly- ignoring him come negotiation time. Walsh even telegraphed BMiller's availability to the press.

Sure the money was an issue BUT what did they expect to offer or think they'd have to pay? So sure, they can honestly say they wanted him but couldn't afford him BUT how bad did they want him? At a pay decrease?

But bulletproof has one very good point. Right now the Pacers are looking at a lot of teams in the rearview mirror.

But I will always feel the Pacers could've been monsters had they kept Brad. We could've established a camp at the top of the EC mountain and concentrated on beating the west.... not just getting to the ECF's with a chance at the Finals. ...Altho... you can't win the finals without getting there first.

-Bball

indygeezer
02-22-2004, 08:13 AM
How would Al playing well force us to trade him? He just signed a new contract LAST YEAR> :dance: :pepper:

Much like Tony Davis, he would have earned a starting position with nowhere to put him on a team with his position well stocked...IOW very valuble trade assest with unaddressed team needs. We won't be able to draft for our needs, we can only sign them thru FA or trade. Our cap position precludes signing big $ FA's so that leaves trades.

bulletproof
02-22-2004, 09:46 AM
But I will always feel the Pacers could've been monsters had they kept Brad. We could've established a camp at the top of the EC mountain and concentrated on beating the west.... not just getting to the ECF's with a chance at the Finals. ...Altho... you can't win the finals without getting there first.


Maybe...maybe...maybe. You seem to forget that one of the things Walsh factored into his decision to not keep Brad was his less-than-stellar play down the stretch—his lack of toughness when it matters most. Sorry, but I just don't agree with your statement at all. You can wonder all you want, but so far history proves you dead wrong, my friend. You can look at his play in Sacramento right now and pine for what might have been here, but that's a poor gauge, in my opinion. If you don't understand the reason why, you can PM me and I'll explain it to you. This isn't the place for it.

As for your assertion that Brad was ignored come negotiation time, go back and look at your timeline. All of the Pacers' energy was put into re-signing JO. As it should have been. He was the team's priority. And it would have been foolish to make him (JO) feel anything less than that—that he wasn't being treated as the highest singular priority. Had Brad wanted to stay, he and his money-grubbing agent could've made that happen. It's as simple as that. Maybe he felt slighted. Well tough. Now we have JO and he's in Sacramento. That's how it works. There's a protocol to re-signing your top guys. Reggie sure as hell understood that and he and his agent didn't crowd Walsh when he was devoting all that energy into keeping JO. Reggie knew what was good for him and the team.

Saying that I only made one salient point is a joke. As if the only valid point to my argument is, "Well yeah, look at our record now." That's just laughable (and insulting, I might add). If you want to believe that our current make-up just magically happened, that money comes from nowhere to hire guys like Bird and Carlisle (whose combined salaries are $8 million), then you just go on believing that. I'm not a business-minded person at all, but I obviously have a better grasp of the realities of it than you or anyone else who chooses to ignore this side of the debate when it comes to Brad.

Let me try to clarify this further for you. Bird was hired prior to Brad leaving, which meant there was an additional $4 million dollars added to the team's payroll (which factored into the team's overall finances at the time), and Isiah was fired and Rick was hired after Brad left, which meant an additional $4 million was added to the team's payroll. I know coaches and management have no bearing on the luxury tax whatsoever, that's irrelevent to this discussion, but they sure as hell have an impact on the team's bottom line. And to think that none of this is significant when it comes to Brad is simply naive, and borders on stupidity.

As for Rick, I have no doubt it would have been very, very difficult to convince the Simons to cough up another $4 million in salary had they re-signed Brad for $67 million (forget for a second that they weren't even willing to pay that). So since you guys like to wallow in what might've beens, had we re-signed Brad, we wouldn't have Rick. Except there's one difference between my argument and yours: mine's not conjecture and wild speculation.

I look forward to you coming back at this from another obtuse angle and pulling out the one valid point that I might've made.


Ragnar gave good reasons that he beleived dispelled the notion that Thomas was allowed to be fired because of this. Which as has been pointed out by Bball, unless they were lying (which I realize is always possible) Thomas's job was not even in jeopardy when the Brad decision went down.

I'll respond to more of your post later, Peck, but it's 5:30 in the morning where I am and I'm shuffling off back to bed soon. In the meantime, if you could clarify the above statement for me, I would appreciate it because I am not tracking your logic here.

Peck
02-22-2004, 10:17 AM
Yeah, that was worded badly on my part. Sorry about that.

Ok, to try & clarify.

Ragnar made, what I beleived to be, some very valid points reguarding salary's & the whole Isiah, Rick thing.

But in rethinking this I thinj I may be mis-undertanding what you have been trying to say.

I think (& please correct me if I'm wrong) you are saying that Rick was able to be hired & it was just an added bonus (coincidence) that came about because of the trade. (It was a trade) :angel:

You see all along I've been going with the assumption that you were indicating that firing Rick & hiring Isiah was a conscious effort, but what youv'e really meant was that it was a nice side benefit.

Am I wrong there?

Either way I still think that Ragnar made good points about Pollard & Anderson = Brad's salary & that Thomas only had one year left on his contract anyway.

FireTheCoach
02-22-2004, 11:11 AM
hmmmmmm....

If this is Austins opportunity to step up and be counted, well I'm pretty sure all the Croshere fans will be disappointed.

Well.... maybe not. It's obvious that Croshere fans are satisfied with the occasional three pointer that Austin will knock down. The simple fact that he can't dribble, trips over his own feet, is prone to committing offensive fouls and has played a large part in hamstringing the team with his ludicrous contract is of little concern.

Al Harrington.... (no comment) W%^#$%^ The kid could be huge but IMHO Al still hasn't connected all the dots to get the full picture of what he is yet. He has great games and is a truly productive member of the team on some nights..... then he goes for long spells of ZIPPO SQUAT NADDA. But hey.... thats the way it's always been with Al. TRADE HIM PLEASE DONNIE!

Bender... I'll take JB over Al or Austin ANY day when were talking about the bigger picture and future glories. My biggest concern with Thinder is the health issues. Keeping my fingers crossed that he's not another Camby.

sixthman
02-22-2004, 12:20 PM
Bender... I'll take JB over Al or Austin ANY day when were talking about the bigger picture and future glories. My biggest concern with Thinder is the health issues. Keeping my fingers crossed that he's not another Camby.

Well done. :gopacers:

Bball
02-22-2004, 02:52 PM
Saying that I only made one salient point is a joke. As if the only valid point to my argument is, "Well yeah, look at our record now." That's just laughable (and insulting, I might add).

I didn't mean you had only one point... I just meant one of your points was huge and pointless to debate right now IMHO. .. and that point is that the moves have added up to a stellar record.

I'll respond to the rest later... just wanted to address what appears to be a misunderstanding.

-Bball

Ragnar
02-22-2004, 03:13 PM
Bulletproof,

You keep trying to dump on my argument by saying you know more about the luxury tax and business than I do. Now I dont know anything about you but just the same you know nothing of me. I would like to know what these suposed qualifications you say you have are.

I am not an NBA owner I am simply a fan. A fan who happens to be pretty good with math and happens to deal in money for a living. I am also an avid reader who is pretty good at figuring things out for myself.

That being said you keep saying that is it impossible to determine whether or not there will be a luxury tax this year. I say it is not. Now I know how I am getting my theory how is it that you are coming by yours?

To start things off I will give you what I am going on. First of all we know that the luxury tax kicks in if the players payroll excedes 61.5% of basketball related income. Now the NBA is not going to come out on NBA.com and say what that number is. However there are some indicators of what they expect it to be.

There is the salary cap. The cap is 49% of expected basketball related income. On top of that the max player salerie is 29% of the cap. Jermaine signed a max contract for 13.2 million dollars. That tells us that the cap is 44 million dollars per team. So the per team BRI is about 90 million dollars. Times that by the 29 teams and you get 2 billion 610 million.

So for the luxury tax to kick in the total league payroll will have to excede 1 billion 605 million. Thats an average payroll of 55.344 million dollars per team. Now according to several websites that list player payroll total league payroll is going to be 1 billion 554 million and change. Or an average per team payroll of about 53 million dollars.

Now as you may remember the media reported that expected luxury tax would hit team over what number? Right it was 53 million dollars. We are under that. Had we kept Brad and not signed Anderson we would be over that only if we would not have been able to dump Mercer.

Now you can sit there and say we would not have been able to dump him. But looking at the Rasheed trade and the Starbury trade I dont think anyone will believe you. Not only that according to the figures that were made public the league payroll is under the 61.5% that triggers the tax.

Now you claim to know more about this than I do. I would invite you to move beyond "because I said so" and show me where I am wrong. I could be wrong these numbers could be totaly made up. The websites could be totaly full of crap. Not all off the sites agree on what each team is paying. So I averaged for the teams that had the most difference.

Now what does all of this tell me. It tells me that dumping Brad was a basketball decision. If so it was a mistake IMO. Not only my opinion but in most peoples opinion. Yes we are doing well without him. But I think that we cost our chances in the finals against the bigger western teams by not keeping Brad. If we get there and we loose because Shaq or God forbid. Brad tears us a new one in the middle you will see that I and many other were right.

Now it could have been a money decision. If so ok fine. They were wrong there as well. They didnt want to comit to Brad for seven years. They thought he would not be worth the money. Well then why didnt they negotiate with him at all. They never even sat at the table with him or his agent according to Brad.

Bball
02-22-2004, 03:18 PM
Let me try to clarify this further for you. Bird was hired prior to Brad leaving, which meant there was an additional $4 million dollars added to the team's payroll (which factored into the team's overall finances at the time), and Isiah was fired and Rick was hired after Brad left, which meant an additional $4 million was added to the team's payroll. I know coaches and management have no bearing on the luxury tax whatsoever, that's irrelevent to this discussion, but they sure as hell have an impact on the team's bottom line. And to think that none of this is significant when it comes to Brad is simply naive, and borders on stupidity.

As for Rick, I have no doubt it would have been very, very difficult to convince the Simons to cough up another $4 million in salary had they re-signed Brad for $67 million (forget for a second that they weren't even willing to pay that). So since you guys like to wallow in what might've beens, had we re-signed Brad, we wouldn't have Rick. Except there's one difference between my argument and yours: mine's not conjecture and wild speculation.

I look forward to you coming back at this from another obtuse angle and pulling out the one valid point that I might've made.


As Ragnar pointed out, Isiah only had one year left anyway. That part is a non factor after this year. Here's how I see things. Walsh has always seemed to have been able to find the money to do what he wanted to do. I believe if he had wanted to sign BMiller he could've found the money by playing the cards differently. (And that includes looking at the extensions and motivations there). To put it differently, what did Walsh plan on paying Brad if he really did plan on signing all his own FA's?

I just read Peck's last post- I guess I misunderstood you too if you are saying that having the extra money to sign Rick was a side benefit and not part of a larger plan. But it should be a non-issue to this debate because Walsh had declared Isiah the coach for this year. As long as that was true, why would a coaching change factor into the discussions?

Hmmm I could understand a braintrust meeting saying "We're down to X dollars... if Isiah is to be replaced then re-signing Brad will be a problem". But we've never been privy to any info other than it going down in all of a sudden in late August. I do believe Walsh had no intentions of replacing Isiah altho he had to know Bird might not feel the same so maybe there was some much earlier talk and contingency planning.

Also, why are you saying B Miller's play in Sacremento is not a good barometer? That seems to be what Peck was saying about people moving the goal posts. First we're told that Brad would fall on his face in Sacremento. Then he makes the All-Star team and now you are saying that his play in Sacremento is not a good barometer.

So... I guess I need to PM you to get some things straightened out for me. I see it as there were some concerns about Brad and the team was not going to go out of the way to find the means to re-sign him at anything near what he could command. Are you saying that even if the team could've been nearly certain that Brad was the mssing piece of a championship puzzle they still would not have been able to have sign him due to money?



-Bball

bulletproof
02-23-2004, 04:07 PM
Well, well, well, looky here. What's this I see? I wasn't aware of this until now. Brad's missed the last 4 games for the Kings.

Hmm.

And right after the all-star break, too.

My God. Is it possible?

Naw, it can't be. Walsh just might have known what he was doing when he let Brad walk.


BRAD MILLER
NEWS: February 21
STATUS: Day-to-day/Out 1-2 weeks.
SKINNY: Miller was walking somewhat normally Friday after discarding the boot he'd been wearing on his sprained right foot, the Sacramento Bee reports.

And from ESPN's power rankings this morning (this is what tipped me off to the injury):

3 (1) Kings 40-14
Check that: If Webber's still out and Miller and Jackson join him, that could be a problem. Of course, the Kings being the Kings, it hasn't been a huge problem yet.


Seems to be a pattern here, guys. What did I say in a previous post? Let me remind you:

You seem to forget that one of the things Walsh factored into his decision to not keep Brad was his less-than-stellar play down the stretch—his lack of toughness when it matters most.

I know I wouldn't fork out $67 million for a first-half-of-the-season all-star who can't deliver the goods when it matters most. Maybe you guys would, but I know I wouldn't.

As I've said on many occasions—and this is directed specifically at you bball—historically speaking, Brad's pre-all-star stats don't mean diddly squat because he doesn't bring that same intensity down the stretch. I don't care if he's averaging 30 points a game. I suspect when he moves to the middle upon Webber's return, this pattern is only going to continue, and perhaps get worse.



Now you claim to know more about this than I do. I would invite you to move beyond "because I said so" and show me where I am wrong. I could be wrong these numbers could be totaly made up. The websites could be totally full of crap. Not all off the sites agree on what each team is paying. So I averaged for the teams that had the most difference.

First, I never said I know more about it than you do. What I've been saying all along is that the LT is extremely complex and that a lot of GMs don't even fully understand it, so I seriously doubt that you, or many other fans or sportswriters do either. And since you aren't privy to the Pacers' finances, there's no way you could give an informed opinion on the matter.



Now what does all of this tell me. It tells me that dumping Brad was a basketball decision. If so it was a mistake IMO. Not only my opinion but in most peoples opinion. Yes we are doing well without him. But I think that we cost our chances in the finals against the bigger western teams by not keeping Brad. If we get there and we loose because Shaq or God forbid. Brad tears us a new one in the middle you will see that I and many other were right.

Now it could have been a money decision. If so ok fine. They were wrong there as well. They didnt want to commit to Brad for seven years. They thought he would not be worth the money. Well then why didnt they negotiate with him at all. They never even sat at the table with him or his agent according to Brad.

See above. Me thinks there are some people who know a little more than the fans do when it comes to evaluating a player's financial worth.

As for not sitting down at the table with Brad and his agent, his agent made it pretty clear that he was going to shop Brad. Based on what I've been saying all along, Donnie may have simply concluded, "Go ahead. Shop him. I don't really want his under-playoff-performing *** here anyway. I'd consider a moderate pay increase, but certainly not what you're going to try and get for him."

I also pointed out that there's a pecking order when it comes to re-signing your top guys. JO was the top priority. All of Walsh's energy should have, and did, go into retaining him. If Brad and his agent would have stood pat, Walsh would have most likely made him a fair offer. Certainly not $67 million over 7 years. He simply didn't think he was worth that. You do. He didn't. End of debate.

Bball
02-24-2004, 02:09 PM
As I've said on many occasions—and this is directed specifically at you bball—historically speaking, Brad's pre-all-star stats don't mean diddly squat because he doesn't bring that same intensity down the stretch. I don't care if he's averaging 30 points a game. I suspect when he moves to the middle upon Webber's return, this pattern is only going to continue, and perhaps get worse.


See above. Me thinks there are some people who know a little more than the fans do when it comes to evaluating a player's financial worth.

As for not sitting down at the table with Brad and his agent, his agent made it pretty clear that he was going to shop Brad. Based on what I've been saying all along, Donnie may have simply concluded, "Go ahead. Shop him. I don't really want his under-playoff-performing *** here anyway. I'd consider a moderate pay increase, but certainly not what you're going to try and get for him."

I also pointed out that there's a pecking order when it comes to re-signing your top guys. JO was the top priority. All of Walsh's energy should have, and did, go into retaining him. If Brad and his agent would have stood pat, Walsh would have most likely made him a fair offer. Certainly not $67 million over 7 years. He simply didn't think he was worth that. You do. He didn't. End of debate.

But aren't you coming around to saying that it wasn't simply the Pacers didn't have enough money or any options for Brad, but rather that they saw him as overpriced and as such weren't going to even bother to make any needed moves or sacrifices in trying to sign him? They thought they saw a flaw (I assume that it is mid-season drop-off that they see as habitual altho maybe it is more or other than that) in his game. That's what I thought all along (it was more than just the money alone) when it got obvious they were not very interested in keeping BMiller.

I know Brad is gone and we should get over it. This isn't so much about Brad directly as wondering if the situation is an example of a symptom. Here's why it matters to me:
If they let Brad go because they perceived a critical flaw in his game or something that may be a problem in waiting for the team then fine. We can all see if it was a mistake or not by watching Brad's career unfold elsewhere. OTOH, if it was all about the money then it makes me wonder if we're always destined to be a piece or two away... competitive but just not quite 'there'. Always to have a question mark/hole because the team will not spend to get past a certain level if they see that level as 'good enough' to maintain a certain status quo at the box office.

So it makes a difference in understanding what to expect of the team and management as we cross the peaks and valleys of each season.

-Bball

Gyron
02-24-2004, 02:19 PM
Why-o-why must we continue to argue about Brad and his potential. Most if not all of us did not want to see him leave.

Pacers managment made the choice to let him go. The decision is done and long gone. Now me MUST move on and stop talking of the "would've beens" and the "should've beens" and deal with the most excellent team we have now.

PLEASE please get past the Brad trade and move on....Please ;)

bulletproof
02-24-2004, 04:51 PM
But aren't you coming around to saying that it wasn't simply the Pacers didn't have enough money or any options for Brad, but rather that they saw him as overpriced and as such weren't going to even bother to make any needed moves or sacrifices in trying to sign him? They thought they saw a flaw (I assume that it is mid-season drop-off that they see as habitual altho maybe it is more or other than that) in his game. That's what I thought all along (it was more than just the money alone) when it got obvious they were not very interested in keeping BMiller.

Here's why it matters to me:

If they let Brad go because they perceived a critical flaw in his game or something that may be a problem in waiting for the team then fine. We can all see if it was a mistake or not by watching Brad's career unfold elsewhere. OTOH, if it was all about the money then it makes me wonder if we're always destined to be a piece or two away... competitive but just not quite 'there'. Always to have a question mark/hole because the team will not spend to get past a certain level if they see that level as 'good enough' to maintain a certain status quo at the box office.

bball, :rolleyes: isn't that what I've been saying all along? Go back and read my posts regarding this subject. I think I've been pretty clear. Or have you not really been reading them?

From what I've gathered, and I'm pretty sure I've told you this before, it was primarily about the money with extenuating circumstances. Things are never as cut and dried as we'd like them to be. I know as humans we like to sort things out in our brain that way—put things in tidy little boxes. It makes it easy for us to understand why something may have happened. But that's rarely the case. That's why seven months after Brad's departure, we still discuss and debate it. We're still (well, not me) trying to wrap our brains around it. I, on the other hand, think I have enough answers to let it rest.

I honestly believe had Walsh thought Brad was worth what he was commanding, he most likely would have at least tried to make a case to the Simons to bite the bullet and cough up the dough. But based on Brad's history down the stretch—his lack of toughness when it matters most—he didn't think it would be the responsible thing to do. He couldn't justify in his own mind that Brad was worth it, much less to the owners who entrusted him to be a stewart of their money.

From the look of things right now, I'd say he was right. The guy is injured— as if almost on cue—right after the all-star break. Although, like you said, we will ultimately see if it was a mistake or not by watching Brad's career unfold elsewhere. Which brings up another point. I like what sixthman said sometime ago regarding this: GMs make decisions in real time. Not in hindsight.

Honestly, I hope this puts this to rest. Ragnar, if you want to discuss this further, PM me. Peck, what more can I say? bball? Shame on you for making me repeat myself. ;)

Bball
02-24-2004, 08:08 PM
I honestly believe had Walsh thought Brad was worth what he was commanding, he most likely would have at least tried to make a case to the Simons to bite the bullet and cough up the dough. But based on Brad's history down the stretch—his lack of toughness when it matters most—he didn't think it would be the responsible thing to do. He couldn't justify in his own mind that Brad was worth it, much less to the owners who entrusted him to be a stewart of their money.
-snip-

Honestly, I hope this puts this to rest. Ragnar, if you want to discuss this further, PM me. Peck, what more can I say? bball? Shame on you for making me repeat myself. ;)

I actually think that is new ground. Maybe I am just looking at it differently or you are saying it differently. The whole discussion we had (back at the beginnings of PD) started with me saying I didn't think it could be entirely about the money. I thought you said it was about the money. The other stuff (I took it) was secondary. It didn't matter that Walsh thought Brad couldn't maintain his game over the course of a season because they couldn't pay him what his agent wanted anyway.

I am taking away from what you are saying now that there were misgivings about Brad and so they thought teams were offering too much. Not that they couldn't find the money but that they didn't feel he'd give them a very good ROI.

That makes a big difference. One way the emphassis is entirely on the money and not about being a better team. The other it is not all about the money but a judgement call on based on the play on the court.

-Bball