Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Tbird analysis: 2009 draft night leaves more questions than answers

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 4
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 template Next
  • #1

    Tbird analysis: 2009 draft night leaves more questions than answers

    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
    Last edited by thunderbird1245; 06-27-2009, 02:47 AM.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 draft night leaves more questions than answers

    As always, good stuff

    some feedback


    Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
    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.
    I agree with pretty much everything here, but I don't believe Bird is quite as rigid as you see him.


    Originally posted by tbird
    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 is clearly a murky question with little hope for clarity anytime soon.
    I can't say for certain whether Obie will be back or not. A lot depends on the team's success. If they let Jack walk (which I'll get back to later), then I'd say O'Brien will be on the way out, because they'll have no chance at success.

    But, on a broader point, I really strongly disagree with your take on the dynamic between O'Brien and Bird. Clearly, this may not be a permanent pairing, but I think they have largely similar views. What you see as dissonance, I see as "violently agreeing." I don't think they have fundamental differences in how they see the game...why is probably better left for a forum party discussion.

    Originally posted by tbird
    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.
    Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. It's the 52nd pick. Only 16 of the last 29 have even made teams. They probably just liked the guy (and I would swear I read comments to the effect that they had worked him out, but I can't find them at the moment).

    Originally posted by tbird
    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
    Regarding Jack, I still believe that they're going to re-sign him. I also believe they're shopping Ford, but finally, I think they're expecting to have Jack/Ford for one more year. I believe the only threat to that is someone offering him $5mm or more per annum, and I find that highly unlikely.

    I find it unlikely that they would consider Jack's contract extending into the summer of 2011 prohibitive. More to the point, at the price I expect, I think it would be foolish to think it prohibitive.

    Regarding filling out the roster, I am absolutely certain that they will carry 14 players in addition to Tinsley. If they trade, or buyout Tinsley, they would be far more likely to leave the 15th slot open. If Dunleavy comes back healthy, they may leave it open. However, it is completely impractical to carry only 14 players when two of those roster spots (Dunleavy and Tinsley) are effectively dead.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 draft night leaves more questions than answers

      I'm not sure I see Draft Party attendance as adequate proof that Graham will be back. But, hey, he's not expensive, for sure.

      Bird has said they want to resign Jack often enough that I think the Pacers will make a real effort to do so, but no, I can't propose any particular scenario that explains AJ. There has been wishful thinking by some here, and a certain logic to it, but there hasn't been any real hint of a TJ Ford deal...so I could see AJ, and any prospective PGs at our summer activities as being just-in-case presences. As in, what if we can't keep JJ (i.e. outbid an interested other party)?

      As far as a Murphy / TH combination on the floor, I don't see that happening much, just because neither of them will make a go of it at SF or C...but I do believe Bird thinks Hansbrough has a good chance to be out starting PF in a couple of years, and certainly by the time Troy's gone, we'll know whether TH has what it takes to be that starter.

      Your 14-player idea (13 counting Tinsley) troubles me. Have you heard anyone in the Pacer organization hint or indicate that that's an option they might pursue?


      [~]) ... Cheers! Go Pacers!

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 draft night leaves more questions than answers

        Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
        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.
        TBird, you know who should be our 12th player....both of our favorite Guard.....Quinton Ross

        I was thinking of it....and I'd rather try to sign Ross and make a run at Ime Udoka to fill out our GF rotation ( while choosing not to resign Graham ).
        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 draft night leaves more questions than answers

          Ross or Udoka would at least add some much needed defensive presence, but are they really any better than SG in the big picture? He's got the occasional instant offense. Could he improve that from a consistency standpoint and/or his D, which has never impressed me.

          I'm sure investigation is going on and I imagine TM's contract makes it pretty prohibitive, but given the season he just had, I'd be testing the waters on interest in him. I'd be checking what Foster might fetch, too.

          Divesting ourselves of one of those PGs is fine by me. I'd prefer TJ personally. I think Jack's got more moxie/external leadrship traits than TJ, from what I can perceive, of course. TJ seems a bit to mercurial for my taste. Either way, in all these scenarios, it depends on what could be coming back.

          I would agree with the ESPN Pacers draft analysis (IIRC) that talked about eventually needing one more impact guy to pair with DG. The good thing is we'll have a nice core of support guys if/when that occurs. Until it does, I find it difficult seeing the record stray much north of .500. That second guy IMO is probably not on the roster now. BR being the only guy I see as a remote possibility.
          I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

          -Emiliano Zapata

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 draft night leaves more questions than answers

            I've been thinking about the whole Ford/Jack/Price situation quite a bit.

            I think Bird's ideal draft day would have been to deal Ford either for a veteran big or a 2nd pick high enough to draft either Maynor or Lawson. He'd then re-sign Jack. Heading into next season you've got your prospective PG of the future and a popular combo guard who can start while the new guy matures.

            However, I think it quickly became clear to Bird that trading TJ Ford during this offseason was going to be very difficult, if not impossible. At that point he decided that taking a PG meant not re-signing Jack, and he decided that none of them were quite that good.

            At this point, unless a team makes Jack a ridiculous offer, I think he'll be back. Going into next season with Ford as the starter and Diener as his primary backup means that you're counting on Diener starting at least 10-15 games. Even though I like Travis, that's not a good plan and Bird knows it.

            Jack, however, has only missed 2 games in his entire career. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that he's going to play 75-80 games. Essentially, you can have Jack without Ford, but you can't have Ford without Jack or a backup of similar quality.

            How does AJ Price fit in? I think he'll most likely get cut, but there are 3 situations where he will probably make the roster: TJ Ford gets traded, Jamaal Tinsley gets traded or bought out, Jarrett Jack leaves. If any of those things happen, Price would become the 4th PG on the roster instead of the 5th, and he's probably good enough and cheap enough to make the team.

            As for Hansbrough and Bird's vision for him, I'm not entirely sure. My hunch is that Bird thinks he's got a shot at becoming a starter alongside Hibbert in the future. Also, I think that having Hansbrough makes either a Murphy or Foster trade much more palatable within the "win now" framework. Selling high on Murphy or trading Foster prior to drafting Hansbrough would have meant that Josh McRoberts, or whatever mediocre free agent we might be able to sign, would have been our primary back-up big. With Hansbrough on the roster, Bird likely feels like he's got a much higher quality 4th big man, so moving one of his top 3 is easier to do.
            "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

            - Salman Rushdie

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 draft night leaves more questions than answers

              Originally posted by thunderbird1245 View Post
              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.
              Once again, Tbird, marvelous stuff. If this thread could be merged (as I think it should be) with Sweab's excellent "Take a Step Back" thread, it/they would be the clear winner for Thread of the Year, IMO.

              Of all the great points made so far, the one I think stands out the most is the message that Larry's choice of Hansbrough reminds us that this team remake is a work in progress and that all the parts don't (can't) fit perfectly all the time. I'll repeat a comment I made on another thread: either Murphy and/or Foster will be traded within the next two years.

              Regarding your quote above, I have a trade idea:
              TJ Ford to the LA Clippers for Marcus Camby.

              Rumors persist that they're trying to trade one of their front-court veterans (Randolph, Kaman, Camby) and I imagine they would benefit from a strong backup to oft-injured Baron Davis. (I do admit, however, that Ford & Eric Gordon would make for a small backcourt.) Camby is entering the last year of a contract within range of Ford's, which likely will make him particularly attractive to many teams. (Never mind that the Clips got him for peanuts for the cash-strapped Nuggets. A lost NBA championship as a result??) Moreover, Camby seems to fit the description of "Player X" pretty decently. He's got an injury history, too, but a healthy Camby certainly would improve our defense.

              You made the excellent point about the sequence of decisions and I imagine that, if interested, TPTB would first want to re-sign Jack, then perhaps see if Price can serve as the #3 PG next season. In fact, Price may get some playing time if Jack is needed to continue to serve as a backup SG while Dunleavy rehabilitates. (Seth and others seem quite high on Price's potential if he can fully recover from his ACL injury, which may take another year.)

              If, on the other hand, you are accurate in assuming that Ford will stay -- even though TPTB don't seem crazy about him -- then another idea altogether would be to acquire a veteran PG who is a clear upgrade over Ford. FA's Mike Bibby (who's 31, but faded in the playoffs) from Atlanta and Andre Miller (who's 33 and still doesn't shoot the 3, but remains solid otherwise) from Philly come to mind.

              We seem almost functional now, at least, but clearly, more change is coming. Whether it happens this summer, mid-season next year, or after next season likely depends on the timing of attractive offers. While my enthusiasm for Hansbrough has been less than exuberant, my enthusiasm for the new season now is!
              Last edited by DrFife; 06-27-2009, 10:49 AM.


              "He’s no shrinking violet when it comes to that kind of stuff."

              - Rick Carlisle on how Kevin Pritchard responds to needed roster changes.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 draft night leaves more questions than answers

                Do you think Walsh and NYK would have an interest in Tinsley for Jeffries? I've never considered it but I actually think it makes sense. They get an up tempo PG who would love to play both in NY and for D'Antoni. He could flourish really. Contracts match up. JJ comes home to Indiana, where he's going to be popular simply from that. He was a good wing defender when he was with the Wiz. He'd be a nice lanky back up to have at the 3, and another body to throw at guys like LeBron. I'd do it in a heartbeat. Anyone else think this would have a chance? Or does Walsh just want to avoid ever dealing with Jamaal again?

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 draft night leaves more questions than answers

                  Donnie Walsh is not touching Jamaal Tinsley with a ten foot pole.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 draft night leaves more questions than answers

                    Originally posted by rexnom View Post
                    Donnie Walsh is not touching Jamaal Tinsley with a ten foot pole.
                    Depends on how hard he thinks he can swing it.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 draft night leaves more questions than answers

                      Originally posted by kester99 View Post
                      I'm not sure I see Draft Party attendance as adequate proof that Graham will be back. But, hey, he's not expensive, for sure.

                      Bird has said they want to resign Jack often enough that I think the Pacers will make a real effort to do so, but no, I can't propose any particular scenario that explains AJ. There has been wishful thinking by some here, and a certain logic to it, but there hasn't been any real hint of a TJ Ford deal...so I could see AJ, and any prospective PGs at our summer activities as being just-in-case presences. As in, what if we can't keep JJ (i.e. outbid an interested other party)?

                      As far as a Murphy / TH combination on the floor, I don't see that happening much, just because neither of them will make a go of it at SF or C...but I do believe Bird thinks Hansbrough has a good chance to be out starting PF in a couple of years, and certainly by the time Troy's gone, we'll know whether TH has what it takes to be that starter.

                      Your 14-player idea (13 counting Tinsley) troubles me. Have you heard anyone in the Pacer organization hint or indicate that that's an option they might pursue?



                      JOB was talking about this on the radio, he said that he would like to have 13 players on the roster, because that could give the pacers the flexibility of signing a free agent in case somebody gets hurt and I also think that more than one team is going to start doing that with the only reason of saving money.
                      @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 draft night leaves more questions than answers

                        I see Ford and Jack as players more than PG. I believe Ford and Tinsley are on the table. The money for teams under the avg team salaries is going to drop so I see us at 67M or less. This paid the Pacers 1.6M last year. I hope we bring in a Vet big man and the league pays his salary as they did with Darrell Armstrong. This may give them more to spend on Jack.
                        "He wanted to get to that money time. Time when the hardware was on the table. That's when Roger was going to show up. So all we needed to do was stay close"
                        Darnell Hillman (Speaking of former teammate Roger Brown)

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 draft night leaves more questions than answers

                          When considering AJ Price, we should remember how dramatically this point guard bottleneck will evaporate by the end of this season.

                          Diener: Definitely gone after this season.

                          Ford: Likely gone after this season since he almost certainly won't exercise his player option this coming summer (will want a long-term deal as he hits his prime, particularly given his health risks). While the Pacers could theoretically re-up Ford for such a deal, most on this board believe (as I do) that this is highly unlikely.

                          Tinsley: Almost certainly gone after the arbitratron. Either Pacers lose and are legally obligated to buy Tinsley out at full value, or Tinsley loses and is either traded or accepts a buy-out with a haircut so that he can start playing again. Regardless, he will never step on the floor as a Pacer again.

                          That leave us with Jarrett Jack (if we re-sign him) and AJ Price. In this light, drafting a point guard this year was pretty essential, and it speaks to how much the Pacers must have liked Hansbrough that they did not go with Lawson/Holiday/Maynor.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 draft night leaves more questions than answers

                            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.
                            We did bring Price in for a workout with Lawson and Teague..

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Tbird analysis: 2009 draft night leaves more questions than answers

                              Originally posted by Mr. Sobchak View Post
                              We did bring Price in for a workout with Lawson and Teague..

                              I missed that. Good find....lets give an "E" to me on that one.

                              Tbird

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 4 template Next
                              Working...
                              X