If this were true we'd have dumped every salary greater than West's, refused to re-sign Roy, and just played Donald Sterling.
Come on, now, the hyperbolic statements about our "loser" owner are starting to go over the top.
You aren't owning a sports team to make money if you cant afford it sell the team I would rather see the franchise win than just be here competing for 5th in the east every year and being 1 and done in the playoffs.
To the point of not having a clear vision, I think there is a clear vision - it's just not Walsh's. Bird is still running this team based on Walsh's comments. He took a year off for health reasons, but Bird's vision and plan is still what is guiding the decisions the FO is making. That explains the short term deal to Augustin. This explains re-signing Roy. This explains trading for Imanini. I think these were all moves Bird would have made.
This team is set up very nicely for the next several years. There is plenty of cap flexibility/cap room to make moves that will help this team improve. I'm of the opinion a top level free agent is not going to outright sign with the Pacers. The only way this franchise is going to win a championship is the way they did it in the 90's - develop your young guys and keep them in Blue and Gold, have a good bench, be balanced, play fundamental basketball and mix in a shrewd trade or two to fill in the gaps. IMHO this is exactly what the FO did this off season. On that point Walsh was right - "wait until you see the team play."
If Vogel is such a good coach, wouldn't you want your FO to listen to him? If your FO doesn't listen to the good coach (I mean, assume they made a big starting lineup move and Vogel in an interview let it be known he wasn't particularly happy with that), wouldn't people be blasting the FO for disrespecting the coach?
It's like some guys want to have it 5 different ways at once. You can't be on the "FO has no intention of making championship moves because they only worked on the bench" wagon and then point out that the coach is the one who didn't want to have the starting lineup messed with.
OK, yes Vogel said that to the press. Come on though you know Vogel, he's the most positive guy ever. he was gushing about the bench all season long and yet what, they upgraded the bench. So of course he is going to say he didn't want to upgrade the starters because it appears the starters aren't going to be upgraded.
I mean sometimes you have to read between the lines.
Lets say a trade happens for a new starter. What do you think Frank will say then. I doubt he'll repeat his I told FO not to change the starters.
To be clear, I'm not saying Frank is upset right now, and I'm sure he likes the starters and he probably did tell DW and Pritch lets see what these starters can do with a better bench and a full season. I'm just saying there is not a straight line between what Frank says and what the FO will do or is trying to do.
They are always looking to upgrade the whole team, including the starters. No matter what Frank says in public or what he says in public in referenvce to what he says in private
Because hearing those words over and over was really a bummer the first time around.
And I'll tell you what, a packed house at MSA seemed to enjoy taking Boston/Bird to game 5 quite a bit too, and that was just round 1. The "horror" of the Walsh years sounds like the most spoiled sports fan complaint ever....well, along with Colts fans that hated the Dungy/Manning "choke" era of only 1 title and 2 Super Bowls appearances.
The Yankees 1 WS title in 12 years just called to say "we're happy just to be above .500", because I'm pretty sure how that franchise is run. If they'd spent money and chased titles they surely would have won more often, right? 7 WS wins in 50 years? That's 43 failures. That's a team that just doesn't give a s***.
It depends on what your definition of up and coming team is. I say we're up and coming because we have a team that fits together better than we had last year. DJ is more of a distributor than what we had last yr, Mahinmi is bigger, longer and more athletic than any frontcourt player we've had in a long while. He will be able to play with Roy or with West. Green is a wild-card in that if he's able to score and defend effectively off the bench, he would give us a completely different dynamic than what we had before simply because of his size and athleticism.
Most teams are built on 3-4 key pieces. If Roy, Hill and PG can all reach their potential as NBA players, we'll be a strong team for years to come. I agree with you 100%, we're missing that one final piece. But in my mind we are definitely a young, up and coming team with our best years ahead of us.
And, clearly, every move that the FO made this summer was designed to keep us where we were.
We also spent and went into the luxury tax many seasons during our various ECF runs. We didn't get the results we wanted, but the front office very much took risks in order to try and put together a championship-level team.
The strategic plan can be cheered or jeered once there's been enough time to evaluate it.
They front office has very, very clearly said repeatedly: we like the starting 5 from this year, and we want to build a better bench around them. We want team cohesion, good chemistry, and some god-honest time for the team to grow in experience playing with each other. There has been a ton of movement over the past 4-5 years, and now it's time to reach a steady state and see what we have.
They didn't say that they weren't going to move some of the starting five to the bench, they didn't say they weren't going to go after a "star" if it was available to them. But they had a focus and an emphasis.
There has not been enough time to see if this is a valid way of winning or not. The team's age is a side effect of their strategy. Now they're in a position to test their strategy, because they've locked a significant part of their core up for a number of years.
Let's face it, most teams haven't won a championship, ever... so whining that it "won't work" or it "doesn't work" is simply playing the odds and the easy argument to make on a forum like this.
Can't we do better than that? This is all I'm asking.
As an aside, go read the interwebs and find out what Collison has been saying about his time with the Pacers. He has been nothing but laudatory in his prediction of where the team was headed: "I thought we were all going to build something special together". "I was surprised that I wasn't going to be part of that". That strikes me as a person who liked being a part of this team. That seems like a good direction to me... one that this franchise hasn't had in *years*.
They did. They pitched 10m to Nash and Nash passed and took less money so he could play out west to stay close to his kids. That stupid, selfish jerk.Quote:
I think if the Pacers announced that Deron Williams this offseason was a major priority, and they made a major offer,
Let's say you trade Danny+West for Howard or Melo or Amare. Does that team win a title? Because those guys have been on teams that had pretty darn good talent around them and they still didn't win. Steve Nash had a good Amare and good Marion on the team with him and they didn't win. Deron Williams hasn't won anything yet himself and neither has Rose for that matter, or Chris Paul.
So just who is the "star" that would easily make the Pacers a title contender if "all you have to do" is trade away Danny + West (or some similar combo) to get them here? Yep, just put Deron with Tyler and that combo is going for 50 points every night and will give you shut down defense.
To get some of these guys you are giving up huge holes. Once a team gets close it's very hard to add without taking a risk of going backward instead. The closer to the top you get the more luck you need and the craftier the moves must be.
It sounds like I'm defending TPTB when in fact I didn't like this summer at all. But it's because I think they missed on the small moves or the smart moves. Scola coming in for example. But not willing the Deron deal or finding a way to chase Dwight doesn't bother me because the Nets sucked and the Pacers were competitive with the Dwight Magic.
- Less than 2 years ago we replaced our coach and made the playoffs.
- We then went out and upgrade 2 of our starting spots (West and Hill), just ONE year ago.
- next season we have the league's 5th best record and take the NBA champs to the longest series of their playoff run.
- We spend this offseason keeping our starting 5 intact and upgrading our bench. The team is now like the 6th-youngest team in the league or something like that.
How is that "continually" counting on the same talent? This lineup has had ONE shortened season together, and they far exceeded anyone's expectations.
This team is getting better faster than anyone could have imagined 2 years ago. We all want a championship obviously, but you guys need to be a teeny bit more patient. We're not quite sure what we even have here just yet. If all our starters had peaked and had had a few years together as a lineup (such as the 2000 finals team) I could see the argument for reloading, but this isn't quite the time for that yet.
I think you are right about this. The deals and the players of interest seem to point to it as well as the comments.
Originally Posted by fwpacerfan
I truly do think the Pacers could deal both West and Granger together to bring in a core piece they could help build around. A top five player? No. But someone with very good to great scoring ability? Yes.
I honestly think the front office could trade our starting 5 for better players, but they just don't want to win.
That is a useless negative comment that I have seen 47 times over the last couple of days.
OK, so you seem to be suggesting that a potential deal is there for the taking and yet the Pacers are refusing it. A deal that you believe will make the Pacers better and yet the Pacers are just refusing to make the deal.
let me just ask are you saying the Pacers know of a deal or know they could make a deal for those two players, a deal that will make the team better and yet they refuse to do so? Why would they refuse to do so.
See this goes to motivation. (in this scenerio it doesn't matter whether the deal is good or bad - you are suggesting it seems to me that they are refusing to make a deal in which they believe will make the pacers better.
You are questioning the motive of the pacers franchise and I guess that is what has me a little worked up.
I can understand disagreeing with certain trades and draft picks, but to question the motivation seems over-the-top to me.