As I write this, 24 hours have passed since I left Conseco Fieldhouse last night. The Pacers draft night party was a great time as expected, and I greatly enjoyed seeing so many of PD members in attendance. As always, it was a huge amount of fun to discuss NBA basketball and breaking down draftees with such fun and knowledgeable people.
Many draft nights, you get answers to questions you've been wondering about. You see how your front office thinks, you see how they evaluate players by their comments and by who they select, and you try to read between the lines to figure out what your favorite team's short and long term futures are.
The Pacers manueverings on draft night make alot of sense on many levels, but there remain some nagging questions as we head into summer. This thread will try to ask the hard questions I have, give my opinions on what some of those answers may be, and hopefully be a conduit for intelligent discussion.
As an aside, those of you have have messaged me requesting a detailed, in depth breakdown of Tyler Hansbrough's game will get your wish in a few days. While I ran out of personal time to do a long profile of him prior to last night, I had plenty of video and notes from both this season and last to go over, and I started this process late this afternoon. Hopefully, I can provide you (and myself) some information about Hansbrough's game that will give us some insight into how he may translate into the NBA. I hope to have that done in detail and posted by Sunday evening. As it is, I did write a small blurb in my "Best of the rest" draft thread that you can feel free to read if you want to wet your appetite for it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
As I said in the title, I left draft night 24 hours ago with more questions than answers about our beloved Pacers. Here are just a few of them on my mind tonight:
Q: What are we doing with Jarrett Jack and TJ Ford?
A: Certainly, the last few days have given us mixed messages. It was widely assumed by most Pacers fans that the most likely scenario would be to re-sign Jack, make him a starter, trade Ford for something, and draft a point guard as our backup. Even if that exact scenario wasn't what you had in mind, clearly most want Jack to return, and in fact think it is imperative to our next season success.
I wrote earlier in the offseason about the problems that the timeline of events could cause in this scenario. I thought then that, while it would be unpopular, that it was much more likely that Ford would come back, and that Jack would be gone, either used as salary relief or in a sign and trade deal later this summer.
I thought that was most likely because, if you traded Ford prior to re-signing Jack, you left yourself open to possibilities that you could be caught without either one, possibly being forced to force feed another deal in a panic move, overpay for someone else, or start a rookie at the toughest position in the league to get quality play from a first year player.
But then, the Pacers gave us little hints that they agreed with the majority of you in "your dump Ford/keep Jack" master plan. Granger mentioned that he and Jack were talking everyday in a radio interview. Soon reports would come out the Pacers were enamored with Ty Lawson and Eric Maynor. Jim O'Brien mentioned publically his desire for a bigger point guard solution. This was followed by draft gossip stories saying the Pacers were indeed shopping TJ Ford around the league as trade bait.
Even I, who first of all knew better, and who secondly actually likes TJ Ford as a player better than Jack quite a bit, bought into the likelihood of moving Ford and keeping Jack as a very likely summer outcome, and was in my own mind trying to figure out how that decision would impact us moving forward. I was sure, and even said so publically, that we probably had a "wink and nod" agreement with Jarrett Jack to return to us when he became available in early July to sign a new deal.
Now, I don't know what to think. We don't appear to have a clear plan where Jarrett Jack is concerned, yet I think our Pacers front office isn't that enamored with Ford either. We didn't draft a potential replacement in the first round despite the fact that this was a fairly deep draft as far as credible level point guards went.
What we have is a mish-mash of thoughts that make no sense yet. I've been all over the map myself on how this is going to turn out, and I still don't know. If I was guessing today I'd say my original instinct was correct, that Ford will return as our starter, and that Jack will recieve an offer we deem to rich for our blood for his services, and that we will either let him go altogether, sign and trade him in such a way as to gain a valuable trade exception and/or a useful player in return.
Trying harder to draft a point guard on draft night and ending up with a first round talent to groom as back up to either one of them would have at least made logical sense I think, not doing so leaves us with options more limited than I would like.
My guess is that it won't be the actually amount of money per year that means we won't bring back Jack, that it will be the length of the deal someone will give him. We seem to be a team planning for the summer of 2011 and having as much cap space as possible that off-season, I'm not sure we want money committed to Jack to eat into that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Do the Pacers somehow believe that Hansbrough and Murphy can play on the floor simultaneously and not get killed defensively?
It isn't Hansbrough's own talents and limitations that I question at all....it's just that I had 2 qualifications I had this year for us drafting a post player. I felt that if we drafted a post player that he had to fit one of these two roles:
1. A big man who could play defensively either at the same time as Hibbert or Murphy, with enough size and skills to be the biggest guy on the floor to split minutes with Hibbert, and to give us 10-15 minutes of backup minutes to Murphy.
2. Or a "perimeter" type of 4 man who could defend some other smaller/quicker PF's in the league, and who could give us backup minutes at the wing spots right away, giving us alot of roster flexibility both short and long term.
My analysis told me a player who fit the first category didn't exist in this draft, so I wanted to draft a player who fit the second one. In my view, Earl Clark and James Johnson both fit that profile. I studled Clark extensively and decided I didn't like his lack of fire and focus, and was unwilling to gamble on him. I studied Johnson as well however, and felt he was a perfect fit for what we needed to add to the mix. I don't think Johnson is going to be a superstar or anything, I just viewed him as a potential really good NBA player, ready to play immediately, in a position of need.
But the Pacers drafted a post player who doesn't fit any of those two categories, telling me either that that wasn't how they were looking at our roster configuration, or that they think that indeed we CAN get away with a lineup playing Murphy and Hansbrough together. I just don't see that being successful in any way, shape or form.
As our roster stands now, I understand that Hibbert is the starting center, being backed up by Foster....that isn't a great combination but it is serviceable and makes sense. But if you are financially and "scheme wise" committed to Troy Murphy to play 33 minutes per night or so, then it is hard for me to see how Tyler Hansbrough plays more than about 15 minutes per night for us.
I guess that's ok, except I had higher hopes for what additional production I thought Johnson would have brought to us immediately.
Murphy is unlikely to be traded, but if he would be then taking Hansbrough makes more sense short term to me. Right now, I think you have to play either one of them, but never both of them simultaneously, and it will be that way until Murphy leaves town in 2 years when his contract is up, or in the event he is dealt somehow.
A long term front line of playing 2 of the following players would be Bird's goal it would appear:
1. Hibbert, as a starter at the "5" spot.
2. "Player X" as a starter at the "4" spot.
3. Hansbrough coming in off the bench as a sub at the "4", with either "player X" sliding up to play center or taking a seat.
Murphy is a nice enough player, but he can't be "player x" in Bird's long term vision, so at some point he is going to have to go....I just wonder when it may be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Is the Pacers front office killing us by not looking long term with our picks, and playing it too safe?
Actually, this is one complaint I hear that I think is complete fallacy.
In fact, I think Hansbrough is much more of a "long term" pick made with the future in mind than most of you realize. Like I posted up above, Bird seemingly made this pick not with 2009-2010 in mind, but with 2011-2012 squarely in his sights. This may run contrary to popular belief, but I don't see how it can be argued. Hansbrough will be much more important to our team in 2 years than he will be this year, where I think he could be used for pretty limited minutes, playing only when Murphy is out of the game.
In fact, while I think James Johnson made more sense for this season, even I can see where Bird is going long term with his vision for how this team will be built, and in that vision it is very likely Hansbrough will be a very nice cog of a well oiled, well thought out, highly efficient machine of a basketball team.
Now, whether Larry Bird's vision of how to build a basketball a team is too "80's/90's" to be successful in a new century is something that can be debated long into the future.
Clearly, Larry Bird values role players, players whose size and measurables "fit" into pre determined categories, values character and production over potential and flash, likes "positional purity" over multi dimensional guys who play many positions. He clearly sees the game and its players divided up into the traditional ways of "point guards, wings, and post players" instead of all of the "4 out 1 in" styles we see now coming into fashion.
Whether that rigid of an interpretation will work as well now as it did when Larry played and coached remains to be seen.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Will Jim O'Brien be our coach in 2010-2011?
I doubt it. Despite public statements to the contrary, I actually don't think our coaching staff and front office see the game the same way. JOB will be under the gun to change his team defensive schemes to more of what Bird himself prefers (you can go back in time and read some of my Pacers team defense threads from last season to hear more about that in detail), and to play Hansbrough more minutes than O'Brien himself will probably be comfortable with. All of that joined by what could be another season of limites success and a restless fanbase I would guess could lead to a mid season coaching change this year, although I hope things don't go that sour that quickly.
Barring something strangely optimistic or something gone horribly wrong, my guess is that we will be looking for a new coach next spring. But it is clearly a murky question with little hope for clarity anytime soon.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Did drafting Hansbrough have anything to do with marketing concerns and regaining the casual fan in Indiana?
I think it absolutely did, no matter what you may hear about this being a purely basketball decision.
While drafting Hansbrough may not have been immensely popular with some of our hard core Pacers fans that populate this board, among the casual fans of Indiana, "Psycho T" will be a major plus.
1. Drafting a well known college player universally known for winning a national championship, being a college All American, and having the reputation of being the "hardest working man in college basketball" may all be hocus pocus to us, but to the casual fan they are by and large ecstatic with this selection.
2. Kids and their parents/coaches are going to take to Hansbrough. His cool nickname, his tough guy attitude, and over the top enthusiasm for playing are going to make him very marketable to both an older and younger demographic. He will remind older fans of what they consider to be true "throwback" type players, and his style will impress the youngsters. In marketing, you always want to get as many kids to buy your brand and develop loyalty, and in general it is older fans who have both the time and money to attend games and buy merchandise. Hansbrough is a single or double in terms of a draft pick on the floor probably, but in this state, for this team, he is a home run from a business perspective.
I can already see "Psycho T" tee shirts, jerseys, bobbleheads, posters, and whatever else Jim Morris can think of being big sellers this summer and next fall to kids all over Indiana. Winning sells better than anything else, but a well known successful player from a name brand North Carolina program certainly doesn't hurt the cause financially speaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. Forgetting Hansbrough for now, what in the world is up with picking AJ Price in the second round?
This one I have no answers for. As it stands now, it only makes sense to me if the plan is to bring back Ford, let Jack go, actually use Deiner as your primary backup, and have Price as your third point guard.
Price of course has a ton of baggage from an injury/health standpoint, and was involved in a theft scandal at UCONN as well. It isn't like Price is so overwhelmingly talented to ignore all of that risk, so the motivation for the pick is a mystery to me. The Pacers didn't work out Price in person, so it isn't like they could have been overwhelmed by some great display of hidden skills only they saw.
Being that we only have 2 wings on our current roster, even taking a mediocre project/flyer wing player would have made a million times more sense than taking yet another point guard who I feel won't even make the roster. At least a wing player would have had a chance from a sheer numbers perspective.
There has to be more to the story here that we don't know yet. How Price fits into whatever other plans we have this summer remains to be seen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. What is going to happen with Tinsley?
A. I guess we are going to arbitration, and will make a judgment from there. His status is a giant anchor on anything else we want to do from a personnel standpoint, and needs to get resolved somehow someway.
I have high hopes for an idiot team to emerge to trade us their trash for our trash sometime in July. I would love for the Knicks to jump in and trade us Jered Jeffries for him straight up....at least Jeffries could play a little bit in practice or something. I of course like Jeffries as a versatile perimeter defender who actually could help us as a role player, but even if I didn't I'd still do the deal just to move Jamal Tinsley out of our lives.
If we can't deal him, we need to buy him out and get it over with. Any penny saved at this point is a penny earned, even if we have to buy him out at 95% of the total amount he is owed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: How are we going to fill out the roster?
I think the following things are probably true:
1. We will only keep 14 players on our roster instead of the allowable 15, just to cut costs. If one of those ends up having to be Tinsley, that means that you'll only have 13 available players. Then you factor in Dunleavy's knee injury, and we will have little room for error as far as injuries go. (Yet more reasons to both buy out Tinsley just so we have his spot for a warm body and why a flexible player like Johnson made so much sense to me to draft)
2. Considering they were at Conseco for the draft party despite not being under contract currently, I'd be shocked if both Graham and McRoberts don't return next season.
3. Any free agent we sign, my guess is we only offer deals 2 years in length, so they expire the same time as most of our other "non long term future" guys. This means no big time free agents nor trades involving guys with long term contracts are coming to Indiana I predict. If your deal expires in the summer of 2011 or before, you can be traded for, otherwise happy trails!
4. The above paragraph probably means that Jack is gone for sure, and I doubt we re-sign Daniels either. So that leaves us with this:
PLAYERS PREDICTED TO RETURN:
Ford, Deiner, Rush, Granger, Murphy, Hansbrough, Hibbert, Foster, Graham, McRoberts. (10 total)
The 11th player will be whomever we trade Jarrett Jack for in a sign and trade deal.
The 12th will be a cheaper free agent we sign for depth, probably a wing. (Gerald Green perhaps? Anthony Parker? ) Whoever it is he will be cheap.
The 13th will be an injured Dunleavy.
The 14th player will be Tinsley.
We will keep the 15th spot open in case we need to make a trade where we take on an extra body, need to sign someone to a 10 day contract, or for some other unforeseen emergency.
That roster isn't very good on paper, and is badly in need of depth and talent. Now you see why we need to get something for Tinsley done, just because of the numbers crunch.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As always, the above was just my opinion.
Tbird
Many draft nights, you get answers to questions you've been wondering about. You see how your front office thinks, you see how they evaluate players by their comments and by who they select, and you try to read between the lines to figure out what your favorite team's short and long term futures are.
The Pacers manueverings on draft night make alot of sense on many levels, but there remain some nagging questions as we head into summer. This thread will try to ask the hard questions I have, give my opinions on what some of those answers may be, and hopefully be a conduit for intelligent discussion.
As an aside, those of you have have messaged me requesting a detailed, in depth breakdown of Tyler Hansbrough's game will get your wish in a few days. While I ran out of personal time to do a long profile of him prior to last night, I had plenty of video and notes from both this season and last to go over, and I started this process late this afternoon. Hopefully, I can provide you (and myself) some information about Hansbrough's game that will give us some insight into how he may translate into the NBA. I hope to have that done in detail and posted by Sunday evening. As it is, I did write a small blurb in my "Best of the rest" draft thread that you can feel free to read if you want to wet your appetite for it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
As I said in the title, I left draft night 24 hours ago with more questions than answers about our beloved Pacers. Here are just a few of them on my mind tonight:
Q: What are we doing with Jarrett Jack and TJ Ford?
A: Certainly, the last few days have given us mixed messages. It was widely assumed by most Pacers fans that the most likely scenario would be to re-sign Jack, make him a starter, trade Ford for something, and draft a point guard as our backup. Even if that exact scenario wasn't what you had in mind, clearly most want Jack to return, and in fact think it is imperative to our next season success.
I wrote earlier in the offseason about the problems that the timeline of events could cause in this scenario. I thought then that, while it would be unpopular, that it was much more likely that Ford would come back, and that Jack would be gone, either used as salary relief or in a sign and trade deal later this summer.
I thought that was most likely because, if you traded Ford prior to re-signing Jack, you left yourself open to possibilities that you could be caught without either one, possibly being forced to force feed another deal in a panic move, overpay for someone else, or start a rookie at the toughest position in the league to get quality play from a first year player.
But then, the Pacers gave us little hints that they agreed with the majority of you in "your dump Ford/keep Jack" master plan. Granger mentioned that he and Jack were talking everyday in a radio interview. Soon reports would come out the Pacers were enamored with Ty Lawson and Eric Maynor. Jim O'Brien mentioned publically his desire for a bigger point guard solution. This was followed by draft gossip stories saying the Pacers were indeed shopping TJ Ford around the league as trade bait.
Even I, who first of all knew better, and who secondly actually likes TJ Ford as a player better than Jack quite a bit, bought into the likelihood of moving Ford and keeping Jack as a very likely summer outcome, and was in my own mind trying to figure out how that decision would impact us moving forward. I was sure, and even said so publically, that we probably had a "wink and nod" agreement with Jarrett Jack to return to us when he became available in early July to sign a new deal.
Now, I don't know what to think. We don't appear to have a clear plan where Jarrett Jack is concerned, yet I think our Pacers front office isn't that enamored with Ford either. We didn't draft a potential replacement in the first round despite the fact that this was a fairly deep draft as far as credible level point guards went.
What we have is a mish-mash of thoughts that make no sense yet. I've been all over the map myself on how this is going to turn out, and I still don't know. If I was guessing today I'd say my original instinct was correct, that Ford will return as our starter, and that Jack will recieve an offer we deem to rich for our blood for his services, and that we will either let him go altogether, sign and trade him in such a way as to gain a valuable trade exception and/or a useful player in return.
Trying harder to draft a point guard on draft night and ending up with a first round talent to groom as back up to either one of them would have at least made logical sense I think, not doing so leaves us with options more limited than I would like.
My guess is that it won't be the actually amount of money per year that means we won't bring back Jack, that it will be the length of the deal someone will give him. We seem to be a team planning for the summer of 2011 and having as much cap space as possible that off-season, I'm not sure we want money committed to Jack to eat into that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Do the Pacers somehow believe that Hansbrough and Murphy can play on the floor simultaneously and not get killed defensively?
It isn't Hansbrough's own talents and limitations that I question at all....it's just that I had 2 qualifications I had this year for us drafting a post player. I felt that if we drafted a post player that he had to fit one of these two roles:
1. A big man who could play defensively either at the same time as Hibbert or Murphy, with enough size and skills to be the biggest guy on the floor to split minutes with Hibbert, and to give us 10-15 minutes of backup minutes to Murphy.
2. Or a "perimeter" type of 4 man who could defend some other smaller/quicker PF's in the league, and who could give us backup minutes at the wing spots right away, giving us alot of roster flexibility both short and long term.
My analysis told me a player who fit the first category didn't exist in this draft, so I wanted to draft a player who fit the second one. In my view, Earl Clark and James Johnson both fit that profile. I studled Clark extensively and decided I didn't like his lack of fire and focus, and was unwilling to gamble on him. I studied Johnson as well however, and felt he was a perfect fit for what we needed to add to the mix. I don't think Johnson is going to be a superstar or anything, I just viewed him as a potential really good NBA player, ready to play immediately, in a position of need.
But the Pacers drafted a post player who doesn't fit any of those two categories, telling me either that that wasn't how they were looking at our roster configuration, or that they think that indeed we CAN get away with a lineup playing Murphy and Hansbrough together. I just don't see that being successful in any way, shape or form.
As our roster stands now, I understand that Hibbert is the starting center, being backed up by Foster....that isn't a great combination but it is serviceable and makes sense. But if you are financially and "scheme wise" committed to Troy Murphy to play 33 minutes per night or so, then it is hard for me to see how Tyler Hansbrough plays more than about 15 minutes per night for us.
I guess that's ok, except I had higher hopes for what additional production I thought Johnson would have brought to us immediately.
Murphy is unlikely to be traded, but if he would be then taking Hansbrough makes more sense short term to me. Right now, I think you have to play either one of them, but never both of them simultaneously, and it will be that way until Murphy leaves town in 2 years when his contract is up, or in the event he is dealt somehow.
A long term front line of playing 2 of the following players would be Bird's goal it would appear:
1. Hibbert, as a starter at the "5" spot.
2. "Player X" as a starter at the "4" spot.
3. Hansbrough coming in off the bench as a sub at the "4", with either "player X" sliding up to play center or taking a seat.
Murphy is a nice enough player, but he can't be "player x" in Bird's long term vision, so at some point he is going to have to go....I just wonder when it may be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Is the Pacers front office killing us by not looking long term with our picks, and playing it too safe?
Actually, this is one complaint I hear that I think is complete fallacy.
In fact, I think Hansbrough is much more of a "long term" pick made with the future in mind than most of you realize. Like I posted up above, Bird seemingly made this pick not with 2009-2010 in mind, but with 2011-2012 squarely in his sights. This may run contrary to popular belief, but I don't see how it can be argued. Hansbrough will be much more important to our team in 2 years than he will be this year, where I think he could be used for pretty limited minutes, playing only when Murphy is out of the game.
In fact, while I think James Johnson made more sense for this season, even I can see where Bird is going long term with his vision for how this team will be built, and in that vision it is very likely Hansbrough will be a very nice cog of a well oiled, well thought out, highly efficient machine of a basketball team.
Now, whether Larry Bird's vision of how to build a basketball a team is too "80's/90's" to be successful in a new century is something that can be debated long into the future.
Clearly, Larry Bird values role players, players whose size and measurables "fit" into pre determined categories, values character and production over potential and flash, likes "positional purity" over multi dimensional guys who play many positions. He clearly sees the game and its players divided up into the traditional ways of "point guards, wings, and post players" instead of all of the "4 out 1 in" styles we see now coming into fashion.
Whether that rigid of an interpretation will work as well now as it did when Larry played and coached remains to be seen.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Will Jim O'Brien be our coach in 2010-2011?
I doubt it. Despite public statements to the contrary, I actually don't think our coaching staff and front office see the game the same way. JOB will be under the gun to change his team defensive schemes to more of what Bird himself prefers (you can go back in time and read some of my Pacers team defense threads from last season to hear more about that in detail), and to play Hansbrough more minutes than O'Brien himself will probably be comfortable with. All of that joined by what could be another season of limites success and a restless fanbase I would guess could lead to a mid season coaching change this year, although I hope things don't go that sour that quickly.
Barring something strangely optimistic or something gone horribly wrong, my guess is that we will be looking for a new coach next spring. But it is clearly a murky question with little hope for clarity anytime soon.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Did drafting Hansbrough have anything to do with marketing concerns and regaining the casual fan in Indiana?
I think it absolutely did, no matter what you may hear about this being a purely basketball decision.
While drafting Hansbrough may not have been immensely popular with some of our hard core Pacers fans that populate this board, among the casual fans of Indiana, "Psycho T" will be a major plus.
1. Drafting a well known college player universally known for winning a national championship, being a college All American, and having the reputation of being the "hardest working man in college basketball" may all be hocus pocus to us, but to the casual fan they are by and large ecstatic with this selection.
2. Kids and their parents/coaches are going to take to Hansbrough. His cool nickname, his tough guy attitude, and over the top enthusiasm for playing are going to make him very marketable to both an older and younger demographic. He will remind older fans of what they consider to be true "throwback" type players, and his style will impress the youngsters. In marketing, you always want to get as many kids to buy your brand and develop loyalty, and in general it is older fans who have both the time and money to attend games and buy merchandise. Hansbrough is a single or double in terms of a draft pick on the floor probably, but in this state, for this team, he is a home run from a business perspective.
I can already see "Psycho T" tee shirts, jerseys, bobbleheads, posters, and whatever else Jim Morris can think of being big sellers this summer and next fall to kids all over Indiana. Winning sells better than anything else, but a well known successful player from a name brand North Carolina program certainly doesn't hurt the cause financially speaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. Forgetting Hansbrough for now, what in the world is up with picking AJ Price in the second round?
This one I have no answers for. As it stands now, it only makes sense to me if the plan is to bring back Ford, let Jack go, actually use Deiner as your primary backup, and have Price as your third point guard.
Price of course has a ton of baggage from an injury/health standpoint, and was involved in a theft scandal at UCONN as well. It isn't like Price is so overwhelmingly talented to ignore all of that risk, so the motivation for the pick is a mystery to me. The Pacers didn't work out Price in person, so it isn't like they could have been overwhelmed by some great display of hidden skills only they saw.
Being that we only have 2 wings on our current roster, even taking a mediocre project/flyer wing player would have made a million times more sense than taking yet another point guard who I feel won't even make the roster. At least a wing player would have had a chance from a sheer numbers perspective.
There has to be more to the story here that we don't know yet. How Price fits into whatever other plans we have this summer remains to be seen.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Q. What is going to happen with Tinsley?
A. I guess we are going to arbitration, and will make a judgment from there. His status is a giant anchor on anything else we want to do from a personnel standpoint, and needs to get resolved somehow someway.
I have high hopes for an idiot team to emerge to trade us their trash for our trash sometime in July. I would love for the Knicks to jump in and trade us Jered Jeffries for him straight up....at least Jeffries could play a little bit in practice or something. I of course like Jeffries as a versatile perimeter defender who actually could help us as a role player, but even if I didn't I'd still do the deal just to move Jamal Tinsley out of our lives.
If we can't deal him, we need to buy him out and get it over with. Any penny saved at this point is a penny earned, even if we have to buy him out at 95% of the total amount he is owed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: How are we going to fill out the roster?
I think the following things are probably true:
1. We will only keep 14 players on our roster instead of the allowable 15, just to cut costs. If one of those ends up having to be Tinsley, that means that you'll only have 13 available players. Then you factor in Dunleavy's knee injury, and we will have little room for error as far as injuries go. (Yet more reasons to both buy out Tinsley just so we have his spot for a warm body and why a flexible player like Johnson made so much sense to me to draft)
2. Considering they were at Conseco for the draft party despite not being under contract currently, I'd be shocked if both Graham and McRoberts don't return next season.
3. Any free agent we sign, my guess is we only offer deals 2 years in length, so they expire the same time as most of our other "non long term future" guys. This means no big time free agents nor trades involving guys with long term contracts are coming to Indiana I predict. If your deal expires in the summer of 2011 or before, you can be traded for, otherwise happy trails!
4. The above paragraph probably means that Jack is gone for sure, and I doubt we re-sign Daniels either. So that leaves us with this:
PLAYERS PREDICTED TO RETURN:
Ford, Deiner, Rush, Granger, Murphy, Hansbrough, Hibbert, Foster, Graham, McRoberts. (10 total)
The 11th player will be whomever we trade Jarrett Jack for in a sign and trade deal.
The 12th will be a cheaper free agent we sign for depth, probably a wing. (Gerald Green perhaps? Anthony Parker? ) Whoever it is he will be cheap.
The 13th will be an injured Dunleavy.
The 14th player will be Tinsley.
We will keep the 15th spot open in case we need to make a trade where we take on an extra body, need to sign someone to a 10 day contract, or for some other unforeseen emergency.
That roster isn't very good on paper, and is badly in need of depth and talent. Now you see why we need to get something for Tinsley done, just because of the numbers crunch.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As always, the above was just my opinion.
Tbird
Comment