My problem is when people say Simon positively WILL NOT spend and so therefore blah blah blah. I think the reality is that Simon is WILLING to spend for a PROVEN result, and the people who complain are the ones whose "acceptable risk" is Herb's "too risky".
Is Simon being too conservative? Perhaps - I certainly don't think so, since I think a max offer for Gordon was pretty much a crazy move considering the injury history. Then again, I tend to see the damage of failure as of more concern than the possibility of success, especially given the situation starting in 2004. I can understand why people would disagree with that, and that's fine, but to fly in the face of almost 30 years of spending patterns to claim that it is all a basic "won't spend money on a championship team" issue is a bit bogus.
The Pacers have been conservative (sometimes to a fault) and that gets reinforced when the most recent case of trying to break that mold resulted in a public f**king in the stands at the Palace. I think Simon is more than willing to spend the money but ONLY if someone can make the case that the money is being spent on a high-percentage move.
Ironically, for all that Walsh has that "do nothing" moniker, I think he is much better able to convince Simon what to spend money on than Bird was. Some of that may be due to Bird's choices, some of it may just be due to the relationship Walsh and Simon have had over the years.
I'll take "spend on the wrong players" or "slow to pull the right trigger" or even "poor evaluation of talent" as critiques of the various previous FO lineups we've had. I may or may not agree, but I think they have a basis in history. The whole sound bite of "too cheap to spend money" just doesn't hold water, though.