Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 789101112 LastLast
Results 251 to 275 of 291

Thread: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

  1. #251
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Age
    33
    Posts
    28,142

    Default Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

    Quote Originally Posted by Since86 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    And the Pacers don't have any ability to get any of those guys, without making a trade that would cost young talent like Roy (assuming he's re-signed) or PG.

    Which is why I asked you already to provide some names, other than EJ, that are a realistic option that would get your approval.

    What you're asking for is a solution, but the method of getting those players is completely unrealistic.
    I thought it was unrealistic to get a young point guard that averaged 14 points 6.6 apg and 4.6 rpg in Kyle Lowry for a draft pick but as you might know that's what the Toronto Raptors were able to pull off, saying that something is unrealistic is just making excuses.

  2. #252
    Administrator Unclebuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    32,767

    Default Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

    I think Bird left for a variety of reasons, but if I had to list the top two reasons.

    1) health and personal reasons - I know that is rather broad.

    2) being in a small market. I think that frustrates Bird a lot more than whether Herb will spend the money (although they are in some ways related) Not being able to attract free agents to come here has to frustrate Bird. Pacers either have to way overpay for someone or get second tier free agents. (this is also a factor in making trades because you have to determine if the player will re-sign with the pacers.

    Honestly, I think this is more what the article and other rumors are referencing, not that herb won't spend the money - that is way to narrow
    Last edited by Unclebuck; 07-09-2012 at 02:26 PM.

  3. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Unclebuck For This Useful Post:


  4. #253
    Running with the Big Boys BillS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Danberry
    Age
    55
    Posts
    11,603

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

    Quote Originally Posted by vnzla81 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Bills the "young players" I'm talking about are already productive players in the NBA, I'm not talking about rookies,second year players or players with "potential" (Milsap 27, Humpries 26, Monta 26, Josh Smith26, etc) those are players that came to mind but I'm pretty sure there are more.
    Well, we spent a LOT of this year looking at what Monta would have "given" us, so I'll lay off that. In general, though, for any of those players who are considered to be better than the player the Pacers currently have at that position, what would we have had to give away in order to get them? Are we giving up our own complementary pieces in order to bring in someone who fixes one problem but leaves a hole somewhere else? Are we just shuffling the holes around?

    To be successful you need a good mix of up-and-coming guys, guys with potential, and guys who are absolutely known quantities. At any given time, someone who is up-and-coming on another team may look better than one of your own guys, but unless you can somehow make an even swap you will be giving up something to get something. That means you can't just go because you think a piece is better than what it replaces, you have to go because the piece you get makes you better than what it replaces AND what you gave up.
    BillS

    "Every time I pitched it was like throwing gasoline on a fire. Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw!"
    - Ebby Calvin "Nuke" LaLoosh

  5. #254
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    21,090

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

    Quote Originally Posted by vnzla81 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I thought it was unrealistic to get a young point guard that averaged 14 points 6.6 apg and 4.6 rpg in Kyle Lowry for a draft pick but as you might know that's what the Toronto Raptors were able to pull off, saying that something is unrealistic is just making excuses.
    So Kyle Lowry type player is the answer to the Pacers problems, or you just want them to make moves for simply making moves?

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Since86 For This Useful Post:


  7. #255
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Age
    33
    Posts
    28,142

    Default Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

    Quote Originally Posted by BillS View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Well, we spent a LOT of this year looking at what Monta would have "given" us, so I'll lay off that. In general, though, for any of those players who are considered to be better than the player the Pacers currently have at that position, what would we have had to give away in order to get them? Are we giving up our own complementary pieces in order to bring in someone who fixes one problem but leaves a hole somewhere else? Are we just shuffling the holes around?

    To be successful you need a good mix of up-and-coming guys, guys with potential, and guys who are absolutely known quantities. At any given time, someone who is up-and-coming on another team may look better than one of your own guys, but unless you can somehow make an even swap you will be giving up something to get something. That means you can't just go because you think a piece is better than what it replaces, you have to go because the piece you get makes you better than what it replaces AND what you gave up.
    We are going to have more holes in 2 or 3 years when West and Danny are probably gone or their game is not there anymore, who are you going to replace them with? you didn't replace them when you had the opportunity because you didn't want to have two holes, now what can you do? rebuilding and a 3 years plan again? or sign two over the hill players that could keep us in "playoffs contention"?

  8. #256
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Everywhere. I live in a big motorhome and I travel the entire country
    Age
    67
    Posts
    3,288
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

    Quote Originally Posted by vnzla81 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    We are going to have more holes in 2 or 3 years when West and Danny are probably gone or their game is not there anymore, who are you going to replace them with? you didn't replace them when you had the opportunity because you didn't want to have two holes, now what can you do? rebuilding and a 3 years plan again? or sign two over the hill players that could keep us in "playoffs contention"?
    That is why Granger and even West should be traded now if they bring anything decent back.......

  9. #257
    Running with the Big Boys BillS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Danberry
    Age
    55
    Posts
    11,603

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

    Quote Originally Posted by vnzla81 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    We are going to have more holes in 2 or 3 years when West and Danny are probably gone or their game is not there anymore, who are you going to replace them with? you didn't replace them when you had the opportunity because you didn't want to have two holes, now what can you do? rebuilding and a 3 years plan again? or sign two over the hill players that could keep us in "playoffs contention"?
    So you don't think Paul George is going to develop to at least Danny's level? So if we replace West with someone WHEN West expires instead of before it doesn't count as a replacement? Does every single player on the team need to be the same age or level of experience? I say no - you NEED some vets AND some second year guys. Otherwise, instead of building a team you're just more-or-less swapping rosters from top to bottom every few years, which means taking a completely new set of risks every time.

    I also don't quite understand how making two holes NOW to fix one is considered a positive move. For the sake of the discussion, let's say that our biggest holes right now are backup PF and starting PG. If we trade Danny and West for a starting PG, don't we now have holes at starting PF, backup PF, and starting SF? Didn't we just make 3 holes out of 2? If Danny and West are as flawed as some say, who would give us anything more than a single starter for the two of them? If they aren't that flawed, why not use them today?

    An argument can be made that our draft has not contributed to our own developing players. Tyler has been disappointing at best and Plumlee is ... unexpected. I can see that we don't seem top be moving forward using the draft as best as perhaps we could have. The problem is that even the most desirable FA destinations can't do everything through FA work alone. You at least need to develop your roleplayers yourself, and we may have not given ourselves the best chance to do that. Even at that, though, making frantic moves and getting rid of players as soon as they have "value" to get players you keep until they have "value" and getting rid of them as well seems like the means to a championship (use of players and trades) has become an end in itself (the team that makes the most moves wins).
    BillS

    "Every time I pitched it was like throwing gasoline on a fire. Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw!"
    - Ebby Calvin "Nuke" LaLoosh

  10. #258
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Age
    33
    Posts
    28,142

    Default Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by BillS View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    So you don't think Paul George is going to develop to at least Danny's level?
    Maybe, probably, but I'm not counting on it, even if he was at Danny's level I don't think he is enough to take us to the top.


    So if we replace West with someone WHEN West expires instead of before it doesn't count as a replacement?
    It count as a replacement, but how are you going to get a replacement if you already let the expiring expire? is another over the hill PF in his last legs going to help us win a championship? I doubt it.

    Does every single player on the team need to be the same age or level of experience? I say no
    No, but as Detroit thought us, it's ideal to have a group of players the peak at the same time to have the best chance to be successful and win a championship.

    -
    you NEED some vets AND some second year guys. Otherwise, instead of building a team you're just more-or-less swapping rosters from top to bottom every few years, which means taking a completely new set of risks every time.
    My suggestion actually eliminates swapping roster or players every year, young players that peak at the same time = less player movement.

    I also don't quite understand how making two holes NOW to fix one is considered a positive move. For the sake of the discussion, let's say that our biggest holes right now are backup PF and starting PG. If we trade Danny and West for a starting PG, don't we now have holes at starting PF, backup PF, and starting SF? Didn't we just make 3 holes out of 2? If Danny and West are as flawed as some say, who would give us anything more than a single starter for the two of them? If they aren't that flawed, why not use them today?
    I believe that Danny and West could net us some good players.

    An argument can be made that our draft has not contributed to our own developing players. Tyler has been disappointing at best and Plumlee is ... unexpected. I can see that we don't seem top be moving forward using the draft as best as perhaps we could have. The problem is that even the most desirable FA destinations can't do everything through FA work alone. You at least need to develop your roleplayers yourself, and we may have not given ourselves the best chance to do that. Even at that, though, making frantic moves and getting rid of players as soon as they have "value" to get players you keep until they have "value" and getting rid of them as well seems like the means to a championship (use of players and trades) has become an end in itself (the team that makes the most moves wins).
    I'm not talking about getting rid of players as soon as they have value, I'm talking about moving players before their value goes to the toilet or they expire.

  11. #259
    Running with the Big Boys BillS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Danberry
    Age
    55
    Posts
    11,603

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

    [QUOTE=vnzla81;1476489]
    My suggestion actually eliminates swapping roster or players every year, young players that peak at the same time = less player movement.
    :
    :
    :
    I'm not talking about getting rid of players as soon as they have value, I'm talking about moving players before their value goes to the toilet or they expire.
    The first statement implies that all your players not only peak at the same time but that you successfully PREDICT they are going to peak at the same time some years earlier. It also assumes your players peak exactly as you expected.

    If anyone is that good at evaluating players they should get their butts off this forum and start running a team because even Jerry West wasn't THAT good.

    The second statement kind of contradicts the first. If you only hold on to players until they have peaked and then trade them, wouldn't you be swapping your whole roster as soon as they have peaked? Since they all peak at the same time you either held on to guaranteed starters as your bench OR you are trading your entire rotation for guys that are yet to peak.


    It's easy to SAY these things, but I think you have very little flexibility to recover from normal basketball events and inevitable human failures using this strategy.
    BillS

    "Every time I pitched it was like throwing gasoline on a fire. Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw!"
    - Ebby Calvin "Nuke" LaLoosh

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to BillS For This Useful Post:


  13. #260
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Age
    33
    Posts
    28,142

    Default Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

    [QUOTE][QUOTE=BillS;1476504]
    Quote Originally Posted by vnzla81 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

    The first statement implies that all your players not only peak at the same time but that you successfully PREDICT they are going to peak at the same time some years earlier. It also assumes your players peak exactly as you expected.

    If anyone is that good at evaluating players they should get their butts off this forum and start running a team because even Jerry West wasn't THAT good.
    Remember the players I suggested? players that are 24,25,26 years old and are already good to great players? again I'm not talking about rookies or players we know nothing about, players in general get in their prime at 26, 27,28,29 and 30, meaning that you have four to five years to keep the same team.

    The second statement kind of contradicts the first. If you only hold on to players until they have peaked and then trade them, wouldn't you be swapping your whole roster as soon as they have peaked?
    No really, just look at what Detroit did, of course that if you get into a point were you can't compete anymore you have to move some players.

    Since they all peak at the same time you either held on to guaranteed starters as your bench OR you are trading your entire rotation for guys that are yet to peak.

    It's easy to SAY these things, but I think you have very little flexibility to recover from normal basketball events and inevitable human failures using this strategy.
    Normal basketball events and inevitable human failures happen all the time with a young or older team.


    edit: By the way I could give you the Cleveland Cavaliers with Lebron as an example, they kept filling the team with over the hill old players to surround Lebron and how that worked out? now Cleveland learned the lesson and is trying to surround their franchise player in Irving with young players that are going to peak at the same time.
    Last edited by vnzla81; 07-09-2012 at 05:24 PM.

  14. #261
    Running with the Big Boys BillS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Danberry
    Age
    55
    Posts
    11,603

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

    Quote Originally Posted by vnzla81 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Remember the players I suggested? players that are 24,25,26 years old and are already good to great players? again I'm not talking about rookies or players we know nothing about, players in general get in their prime at 26, 27,28,29 and 30, meaning that you have four to five years to keep the same team.
    And I still want to know how you get them all on the same team. What pieces are you trading for them? Are you doing it all in the same year with your entire roster? How are you getting all these guys who are proven as better than the guys you have using only the guys you have?

    Quote Originally Posted by vnzla81 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    No really, just look at what Detroit did, of course that if you get into a point were you can't compete anymore you have to move some players.
    Interestingly, I think Detroit is a MUCH better match for "develop some players and add pieces until you get the team polished" - there's no way they get to the Finals (much less win) without adding Rasheed as the final tweak. That's a long way from putting together a team of guys all peaking at the same time some time in advance and riding them all the way home.

    And even at THAT we're talking a team that had a few years of success and then crashed - the Pacers run from 94-2004 was arguably better than that over the long run. The only difference is that Detroit won their finals against a somewhat depleted LA team. If you judge Detroit as successful and the Pacers over that period as a failure, then that answers the question I asked about your definitions earlier in this thread - to me success is a team that is a long term contender, not a short-term winner that fails to meet expectations in future years.

    Quote Originally Posted by vnzla81 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    now Cleveland learned the lesson and is trying to surround their franchise player in Irving with young players that are going to peak at the same time.
    We'll see how long it takes those players to pan out or if some of them need to be moved again down the road to take the final steps. If the Cavs put all their eggs in one basket, Irving will get as frustrated as LBJ.
    BillS

    "Every time I pitched it was like throwing gasoline on a fire. Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw!"
    - Ebby Calvin "Nuke" LaLoosh

  15. #262
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Age
    33
    Posts
    28,142

    Default Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by BillS View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    And I still want to know how you get them all on the same team. What pieces are you trading for them? Are you doing it all in the same year with your entire roster? How are you getting all these guys who are proven as better than the guys you have using only the guys you have?
    Humpries is there for the take he is a free agent so you don't have to trade anybody, Hill is not going anywhere in a long time so the piece that we probably have to trade for is small guard or small forward, Danny+ pieces to Atlanta for Smith? West+ pieces for Smith? you get a good group of young players in Hill, PG, JS, Humpries, Roy? it's just an example but you get the point.

    Interestingly, I think Detroit is a MUCH better match for "develop some players and add pieces until you get the team polished" - there's no way they get to the Finals (much less win) without adding Rasheed as the final tweak. That's a long way from putting together a team of guys all peaking at the same time some time in advance and riding them all the way home.

    And even at THAT we're talking a team that had a few years of success and then crashed - the Pacers run from 94-2004 was arguably better than that over the long run. The only difference is that Detroit won their finals against a somewhat depleted LA team. If you judge Detroit as successful and the Pacers over that period as a failure, then that answers the question I asked about your definitions earlier in this thread - to me success is a team that is a long term contender, not a short-term winner that fails to meet expectations in future years.
    Detroit had a pretty good run with a title to talk about and made it to the finals twice, that's pretty good.


    We'll see how long it takes those players to pan out or if some of them need to be moved again down the road to take the final steps. If the Cavs put all their eggs in one basket, Irving will get as frustrated as LBJ.
    I don't think they are putting all their eggs in one basket, they are pretty sure giving Irving the best chance to win in the future and are not surrounding him with over the hill vets like they did with Lebron, they know they won't win a championship in the future by having old vets taking space from the young guys, their best chance is for them to grow together ala OKC.

  16. #263
    NaptownSeth is all feel Naptown_Seth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Downtown baby
    Posts
    12,618

    Default Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

    According to SI Bird's view of "willing to spend" must be skewed. From their story on Roy...
    The Hibbert decision marks Indianaís second free agency splurge of the month,
    So the cheapskate is splurging...again.

    And yet Larry was dissatisfied with Herb's willingness to spend. Frankly I welcome Larry's next go-round as GM elsewhere, maybe he can go Isiah in NYC. If you thought Balkman was iffy, here comes another Tyler or Plumlee pick for your big market where the salary cap rules apparently don't apply.



    The chip on my shoulder about this issue is large, it just really grates me.

  17. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Naptown_Seth For This Useful Post:


  18. #264
    You can call me Taz cinotimz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,324

    Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

    Quote Originally Posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    According to SI Bird's view of "willing to spend" must be skewed. From their story on Roy...

    So the cheapskate is splurging...again.

    And yet Larry was dissatisfied with Herb's willingness to spend. Frankly I welcome Larry's next go-round as GM elsewhere, maybe he can go Isiah in NYC. If you thought Balkman was iffy, here comes another Tyler or Plumlee pick for your big market where the salary cap rules apparently don't apply.



    The chip on my shoulder about this issue is large, it just really grates me.
    hmmm Not like u to lose sight of the forest for the trees so much. Theres no denying Birds impact on the franchise. First as a coach and then as an executive. Coach of the year getting the franchise the closest its ever been to an NBA championship. Then totally making over the team after the brawl to the point of last years success. Executive of the year. In the end I dont believe it ultimately was as much about spending per se as it was Eric Gordon when it comes to business issues. That and I think hes frustrated because he realizes we likely will never be able to win a title as a small market team because we simply cant compete with whats going on in Miami, New York, LA, Boston etc...

  19. #265
    Running with the Big Boys BillS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Danberry
    Age
    55
    Posts
    11,603

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

    Quote Originally Posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    According to SI Bird's view of "willing to spend" must be skewed. From their story on Roy...

    So the cheapskate is splurging...again.

    And yet Larry was dissatisfied with Herb's willingness to spend. Frankly I welcome Larry's next go-round as GM elsewhere, maybe he can go Isiah in NYC. If you thought Balkman was iffy, here comes another Tyler or Plumlee pick for your big market where the salary cap rules apparently don't apply.



    The chip on my shoulder about this issue is large, it just really grates me.
    Putting things in historical perspective, I don't think the issue has EVER been about spending to retain our own free agents. One reason the Brad Miller situation stands out, for instance, is because of how unusual it was for the Pacers not to pay their own guys pretty much no matter what.

    If you focus the discussion along the lines of going out and paying for OTHER TEAMS' free agents, the body of evidence in the Pacers FO's favor significantly diminishes. As I say all the time, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (in other words, we could very well be going unsuccessfully after FAs and just not having the attempts publicized when they fail), but it makes it hard to provide empirical counterexamples of any real magnitude.
    BillS

    "Every time I pitched it was like throwing gasoline on a fire. Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw!"
    - Ebby Calvin "Nuke" LaLoosh

  20. #266

    Default Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

    Quote Originally Posted by Wage View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    . . . The Pacers packed the fieldhouse for years with competitive teams lacking superstars. The closest thing the NBA Pacers have ever had to a superstar was JO, and he was borderline and not for long. . .
    Not commenting on the rest of your point or the argument. But this is false. There was nothing borderline about JO's talent. Before he hurt his knee, he was as good as anyone in the game. After that, he fell apart quickly, but when healthy, JO was a superstar.

  21. #267
    NaptownSeth is all feel Naptown_Seth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Downtown baby
    Posts
    12,618

    Default Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

    Quote Originally Posted by Since86 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Doubling your winning percentage, and not signing guys that you don't have the option to sign is now valid criticism?
    It's dumbfounding.

    This idea that Herb hasn't paid for rosters has no merit, not one good example. And yet it goes on and on, this time from Larry himself.

    I know people love him, but stuff like this, the Morway leak/comments, Lance, Tyler, Miles, Diener, KRush, not keeping JJack, extending JOB, replacing JJack with Watson, comments about Carlisle's control of the team as though Larry's hands were tied on the matter, picks for James White, his love of Shawne Williams...

    It's a long list of items to me, longer than the positives (JO trade, Roy at 17, POR trade, George draft, West signing, Hill trade is nice but kinda neutral due to sacrifice), and in many ways his choices actually extended the suffering.

    I've just had my fill. I hope this is not a 1 year temporary thing, I hope this is Walsh guiding Pritch into the role of top dog over the next 2-3 years. Sorry to sidebar kinda but in light of the Hill and Hibby resigns it just makes Bird's comments sound petty and off-base yet again.

  22. #268
    NaptownSeth is all feel Naptown_Seth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Downtown baby
    Posts
    12,618

    Default Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

    Quote Originally Posted by BillS View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Putting things in historical perspective, I don't think the issue has EVER been about spending to retain our own free agents. One reason the Brad Miller situation stands out, for instance, is because of how unusual it was for the Pacers not to pay their own guys pretty much no matter what.

    If you focus the discussion along the lines of going out and paying for OTHER TEAMS' free agents, the body of evidence in the Pacers FO's favor significantly diminishes. As I say all the time, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (in other words, we could very well be going unsuccessfully after FAs and just not having the attempts publicized when they fail), but it makes it hard to provide empirical counterexamples of any real magnitude.
    Well one supersedes the other. You have a choice - Reggie Miller and Rik Smits OR let them go and chase Charles Barkley or Gary Payton, etc.

    Given a roster of Jax, Reggie, McKey, Dale, Rik, Tony and then guys like Rose, Best, Croshere (and the costs of Croshere/Bender combined) I think you pretty much are done. You've spent your money and found satisfying results with a nice balance of players. That's it, that's the end of the road.

    It's like Miami fans being mad that the Heat didn't sign Nash and trade Haslem for Dwight and trade James Jones for Kobe. It's just literally not possible within the CBA rules, it has nothing to do with not being willing to spend.



    You are right, the Pacers normally have not had FA money for us to see if they would spend or sit on it....until last year when they outbid Boston for David West. So you've had one trial, last year, and the Pacers landed firmly on the "willing to spend" side of things when it comes to FAs. And there's the strong rumor that they offered Nash 10m a year which is market competitive based on the 9m the Lakers are paying him.

    And they did go out and sign Byron Scott, Sam Perkins and later Saras in attempts to bulk up the talent as much as possible. With Saras they were in direct competition with 2 other teams (GSW and ?I forget). It was MLE since that's all they had, but they didn't sit on the cash.

    They also could have easily just let Peja walk but MORWAY (not Larry) made the plan to pay NOH to let us SnT Peja to them so the Pacers could get a 7.5m TE window to stuff Harrington into. So that's Herb spending to pay off NOH (rumor was 250K as I recall) and then absorb 7.5m of Harrington money in order to make the team better. They also signed Armstrong as I recall (ie, not a trade), and this was while they were still trying to hang on post-brawl to the winning ways instead of punting into a total rebuild.

    How the heck is that evidence of not spending? Let Peja go, don't fill his contract space, don't give up a #11 pick for Harrington to take that space, don't sign DA, trade JO right then and go into "I don't want to spend, time to rebuild" mode.

    There is a ton of implicit evidence that suggests Herb has been a dutiful owner and willing to pay for a quality (and sometimes not quality) product.


    Maybe Larry can cut Herb a check for that extension year of JOB
    that didn't last but a few months when the record, the players and the fanbase all said it was a terrible choice. Man, it's got my blood boiling just thinking about it again.
    Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 07-10-2012 at 02:33 PM.

  23. #269
    Administrator Peck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,628

    Default Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

    Quote Originally Posted by xIndyFan View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Not commenting on the rest of your point or the argument. But this is false. There was nothing borderline about JO's talent. Before he hurt his knee, he was as good as anyone in the game. After that, he fell apart quickly, but when healthy, JO was a superstar.
    That's one opinion, there are others.


    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

  24. #270
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Age
    33
    Posts
    28,142

    Default Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

    Seth I don't think you understand the point that me and others have been making regarding Simon, yes we know he is willing to pay to have a competitive team(up to the cap), I just don't think he is willing to spend for a championship even if it means going over the cap, signing Hibbert and Hill doesn't have to do with anything that me and others have been talking about, he has to spend the money regardless.

  25. #271
    You can call me Taz cinotimz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,324

    Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

    Quote Originally Posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Well one supersedes the other. You have a choice - Reggie Miller and Rik Smits OR let them go and chase Charles Barkley or Gary Payton, etc.

    Given a roster of Jax, Reggie, McKey, Dale, Rik, Tony and then guys like Rose, Best, Croshere (and the costs of Croshere/Bender combined) I think you pretty much are done. You've spent your money and found satisfying results with a nice balance of players. That's it, that's the end of the road.

    It's like Miami fans being mad that the Heat didn't sign Nash and trade Haslem for Dwight and trade James Jones for Kobe. It's just literally not possible within the CBA rules, it has nothing to do with not being willing to spend.



    You are right, the Pacers normally have not had FA money for us to see if they would spend or sit on it....until last year when they outbid Boston for David West. So you've had one trial, last year, and the Pacers landed firmly on the "willing to spend" side of things when it comes to FAs. And there's the strong rumor that they offered Nash 10m a year which is market competitive based on the 9m the Lakers are paying him.

    And they did go out and sign Byron Scott, Sam Perkins and later Saras in attempts to bulk up the talent as much as possible. With Saras they were in direct competition with 2 other teams (GSW and ?I forget). It was MLE since that's all they had, but they didn't sit on the cash.

    They also could have easily just let Peja walk but MORWAY (not Larry) made the plan to pay NOH to let us SnT Peja to them so the Pacers could get a 7.5m TE window to stuff Harrington into. So that's Herb spending to pay off NOH (rumor was 250K as I recall) and then absorb 7.5m of Harrington money in order to make the team better. They also signed Armstrong as I recall (ie, not a trade), and this was while they were still trying to hang on post-brawl to the winning ways instead of punting into a total rebuild.

    How the heck is that evidence of not spending? Let Peja go, don't fill his contract space, don't give up a #11 pick for Harrington to take that space, don't sign DA, trade JO right then and go into "I don't want to spend, time to rebuild" mode.

    There is a ton of implicit evidence that suggests Herb has been a dutiful owner and willing to pay for a quality (and sometimes not quality) product.


    Maybe Larry can cut Herb a check for that extension year of JOB
    that didn't last but a few months when the record, the players and the fanbase all said it was a terrible choice. Man, it's got my blood boiling just thinking about it again.

    It almost sounds like youre more upset that he did many things you didnt agree with and it turned out to be a major success which he was recognized as executive of the year for such. Hindsight is 20/20. Bottom line is he did a masterful job. The results speak for themselves.
    Last edited by cinotimz; 07-10-2012 at 02:44 PM.

  26. #272
    You can call me Taz cinotimz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,324

    Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

    And I believe this 'strong rumor' regarding some mythical $10 million/year offer to Nash has been officially debunked by the ESPN article which pretty much shows the Pacers never even showed any real interest in Nash-let alone offer $10million/year.

    Ill say it again. I think its much more likely this whole thing revolved around the point that Larry did pretty much everything he said he was gonna do as for his 3 year plan. Including changing the culture, turning over the roster and clearing enough capspace to become a major player business wise. And my guess is Larry felt like he had a franchise type player who for once was interested in coming to Indy that he wanted to pursue-Gordon-and was likely told no. WE all know about Herbs feelings on pursuing RFA's. Maybe that was it. Maybe Herb wasnt comfortable with it due to Gordons injury history or something else. Who knows. We may never know for sure. It certainly is Herbs right as owner. Just as it is Birds right to not go on. You combine the aforementioned with the obvious frustration of feeling like you will never be on a level playing field as a small market team and the fact Bird has always leaned on taking it a bit easier in retirement, well its not hard to see why he walked away.

    Bottom line is, as competitive as Bird is, you know he deep down wanted to try and finish what he started given the feeling they were really making progress. So it had to be something significant for him to call it quits. And given his success and basically accomplishing all he said he would and had planned for, its not too hard to reason maybe he shouldve been given what it was he was wanting. Seems one could reason he had earned that right. But again, Herb isnt obligated to do such. Its his call and his money. He obviously said no. So, we are where we are. Maybe things will work out. Time will tell. But Bird was more of a known factor at this point in time versus Walsh and Pritchard. And he obviously carries alot more weight with the players than either Walsh or Pritchard ever will. Only MVP, coach of the year and executive of the year, ever.
    Last edited by cinotimz; 07-10-2012 at 03:12 PM.

  27. The Following User Says Thank You to cinotimz For This Useful Post:


  28. #273
    Jimmy did what Jimmy did Bball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    20,115

    Default Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

    We know the team will overspend on their own FA's. It's happened time and time again. West, IMHO, was a bargain due to his injury deflating his market value.

    What we don't know is whether the team really dabbles in the FA market when the bidding goes up.

    My question is: If you're willing to overspend on your own FA's then why not extend the same process to other FA's (and the FO should stop with any nonsense about not going after RFA's)?
    Nuntius was right. I was wrong. Frank Vogel has retained his job.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."

    -John Wooden

  29. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bball For This Useful Post:


  30. #274
    Professional Beachcomber mildlysane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Port Charlotte, Florida
    Age
    43
    Posts
    1,263
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

    Quote Originally Posted by Peck View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    That's one opinion, there are others.
    At least for 1 year he was a superstar...3rd in voting for MVP.

  31. #275
    You can call me Taz cinotimz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,324

    Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: NY Daily News: 'Larry Bird flew the coop in Indiana and the Pacers' billionaire owner is partly to blame'

    Quote Originally Posted by Peck View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    That's one opinion, there are others.
    Yea, like he was the huge benefactor of having Ron Artest and Brad Miller beside him on the front line with Reggie roaming the 3 point line keeping people honest. JO was a very good one on one player. And given the rest of the starters it was very difficult for teams to double him, thus he shined. But if a team had a great post defender like Sheed, he quickly became mortal and if they did double, he was basically inept at feeding others-which began to happen alot more when Miller departed.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-29-2011, 04:50 PM
  2. Pacers owner: Larry Bird's job safe
    By spazzxb in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-01-2011, 04:48 PM
  3. Larry Bird's job safe through season's end, Pacers owner says [ESPN]
    By RoboHicks in forum NBA Headlines (RSS Feeds)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-01-2011, 01:30 PM
  4. Larry Bird: Pacers owner hasn't indicated team move [ESPN]
    By RoboHicks in forum NBA Headlines (RSS Feeds)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-15-2010, 05:30 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •