Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 268

Thread: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

  1. #101
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Little Rock, AR
    Age
    28
    Posts
    1,339

    Default Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

    Also I'm not sure why people are so excited about being average... we have performed exactly at the average according to Seth's calculations, even ignoring how our schedule is going to get much more difficult at home and stay roughly equal on the road, but is average really the goal? Unless you somehow believe that the addition of Danny Granger fresh off a knee injury catapults an average team to a championship contender (it doesn't) I don't see that as a particularly good thing.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Dece For This Useful Post:


  3. #102
    Member aamcguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    West Lafayette
    Age
    23
    Posts
    2,506

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Dece View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Also I'm not sure why people are so excited about being average... we have performed exactly at the average according to Seth's calculations, even ignoring how our schedule is going to get much more difficult at home and stay roughly equal on the road, but is average really the goal? Unless you somehow believe that the addition of Danny Granger fresh off a knee injury catapults an average team to a championship contender (it doesn't) I don't see that as a particularly good thing.
    I think the part you are missing is that we've been fairly average despite playing at a very low standard for our team talent level. And as we are 13-11 and have the 13th best record in the league, we are slightly above average. Missing who until this year has been our best player. Many, including myself, believe that he will resume being our best player when he returns to the team.

    So while you may not agree that we are a good team, there's plenty of reasons to believe that we are. Including what we did last year.

  4. #103
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Little Rock, AR
    Age
    28
    Posts
    1,339

    Default Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

    People keep throwing out, "while missing our best player!" Guys, we aren't missing Lebron, CP3, or Rose here. Yea sure, maybe he's our best player, but he's still Danny Granger. We are missing Danny Granger. A one time all star and gold medal team bench warmer. We're missing a guy, that even if he comes back 100% will take an average ~40 win team to maybe a ~50 win team. Sure, 50 wins isn't BAD, but it's worse than our pace last year and it's no contender. I mean, if you're happy with that, god bless your little heart, but we just had a really solid season, and had tons of capspace and a draft pick to improve with, and a 50 win product isn't a step up, it is, in fact, a step back. That should **** you off, to have a good team set up for a monster off season, to end up, at best, a step back from where you started. That's nothing to be excited about because all those assets we had to improve with are now gone.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Dece For This Useful Post:


  6. #104
    Member aamcguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    West Lafayette
    Age
    23
    Posts
    2,506

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Dece View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    People keep throwing out, "while missing our best player!" Guys, we aren't missing Lebron, CP3, or Rose here. Yea sure, maybe he's our best player, but he's still Danny Granger. We are missing Danny Granger. A one time all star and gold medal team bench warmer. We're missing a guy, that even if he comes back 100% will take an average ~40 win team to maybe a ~50 win team. Sure, 50 wins isn't BAD, but it's worse than our pace last year and it's no contender. I mean, if you're happy with that, god bless your little heart, but we just had a really solid season, and had tons of capspace and a draft pick to improve with, and a 50 win product isn't a step up, it is, in fact, a step back. That should **** you off, to have a good team set up for a monster off season, to end up, at best, a step back from where you started. That's nothing to be excited about because all those assets we had to improve with are now gone.
    Why are you a fan of the Pacers? You don't like Hibbert, you're not enamored with either Granger or George. Those guys along with Hill are the only core players on our team locked up to deals past this year. You don't think any of the players we have are good enough for the role they fill unless you have a high opinion of West. But then, he is also the oldest player on our team.

    What would you have proposed we did this offseason? There isn't much we could have done better than what they did based on the information we had at the time. Maybe you wanted one of the "hot" free agents coming off of waivers or you wanted us to go all out for Deron Williams or OJ Mayo. But to me it looks like they built the team up to be successful for a while. If you can't bring in 2 or 3 stars, that's how you do it. You build a team that will be competing for the top 4 in your conference for 5-6 years and you hope that you have a really good year. I love the Pacers, and see no reason to be ****** off about anything the FO has done when it hasn't been proven to not work yet.

  7. #105
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Little Rock, AR
    Age
    28
    Posts
    1,339

    Default Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

    Nothing we could have done better? You truly believe we had the most optimal off season possible? That's too ridiculous to even take serious, but here's a short handful of things we could have done better:

    1) Signed Asik on a great deal... Houston got him for 3 years 25, I would have given 3 years 30 and let Hibbert walk
    2) Gotten Scola for pennies on his value. Missing out on amnesty players was a huge fail
    3) Brand was another nice amnesty option
    4) Let George Hill go find an offer sheet. Other teams could only offer him 4 years, so I would have gotten him for likely less money without blowing my only 5 year contract.
    5) Traded for James Harden... since I saved my 5 year contract I can now use it on an actual star player.
    6) Not given Collison away for nothing... so now instead of an undrafted player or DJAugustine who's playing his way out of the league I have a decent backup
    7) Not given out a journeyman big man a 4 year contract... Brand and Scola are better and cheaper anyway.

    So let's see, I've saved money on center without downgrading significantly, I've acquired at least 1, if not 2 quality backup big men for cheap, I've retained George Hill, I've possibly traded for a true star player and given him my 5 year contract, and I still have a backup point guard. My team crushes this team.

    Why am I a fan if I think our roster is full of poor contracts and players who can't win it all? 5 years from now we'll have a new GM, a new coach, possibly a new owner, and maybe 2 players leftover from this roster. The Pacers are bigger than any of these things, and these things will always change over time.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Dece For This Useful Post:


  9. #106
    Member ilive4sports's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    6,822

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Dece View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    People keep throwing out, "while missing our best player!" Guys, we aren't missing Lebron, CP3, or Rose here. Yea sure, maybe he's our best player, but he's still Danny Granger. We are missing Danny Granger. A one time all star and gold medal team bench warmer. We're missing a guy, that even if he comes back 100% will take an average ~40 win team to maybe a ~50 win team. Sure, 50 wins isn't BAD, but it's worse than our pace last year and it's no contender. I mean, if you're happy with that, god bless your little heart, but we just had a really solid season, and had tons of capspace and a draft pick to improve with, and a 50 win product isn't a step up, it is, in fact, a step back. That should **** you off, to have a good team set up for a monster off season, to end up, at best, a step back from where you started. That's nothing to be excited about because all those assets we had to improve with are now gone.
    We are missing our captain. We are missing the guy who the offense has revolved around for how many seasons now. We are missing our best player. Also hilarious how gold medal team bench warmer is an insult. "Hey, this guy wasn't good enough to play ahead of 3 of the other best basketball players in the world!"

    Just because he isn't LeBron or CP3 doesn't mean missing him isn't drastically going to affect this team. Especially at the start of the season. The team is really just now figuring out how to play without him. Look at all the close games we have lost. I'd say we win the majority of those with Danny Granger. When Danny is in the line up, any of our starters can legit go for 20+ any given night. How many teams can say that?

    Also not really sure how a 50 win season is a step back? Doesn't our season really depend on what happens in the playoffs? I'm sorry but i just dont see how this team has taken any steps back quite honestly. We had a slow start, but have picked it up. I'd say Hibbert has taken few steps back offensively. Bench is still a problem. But PG is better. West is better. Hill is better.

    We are 13-11. There are still 58 games left in the season. Thats a lot of basketball. Far too early to act like the sky is falling.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to ilive4sports For This Useful Post:


  11. #107
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Little Rock, AR
    Age
    28
    Posts
    1,339

    Default Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

    I think you're too young to even go with the proven to not work comment... I mean, I know I'm only 6 years older, but it's been near a decade since we've been truly good... if a decade of mediocre isn't proof, I dunno what is. I think you just don't remember what an actually good team looks like.

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


  13. #108
    The Mole ColeTheMole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Bloomington
    Posts
    551

    Default Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Dece View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Nothing we could have done better? You truly believe we had the most optimal off season possible? That's too ridiculous to even take serious, but here's a short handful of things we could have done better:

    1) Signed Asik on a great deal... Houston got him for 3 years 25, I would have given 3 years 30 and let Hibbert walk
    2) Gotten Scola for pennies on his value. Missing out on amnesty players was a huge fail
    3) Brand was another nice amnesty option
    4) Let George Hill go find an offer sheet. Other teams could only offer him 4 years, so I would have gotten him for likely less money without blowing my only 5 year contract.
    5) Traded for James Harden... since I saved my 5 year contract I can now use it on an actual star player.
    6) Not given Collison away for nothing... so now instead of an undrafted player or DJAugustine who's playing his way out of the league I have a decent backup
    7) Not given out a journeyman big man a 4 year contract... Brand and Scola are better and cheaper anyway.
    Do you realize the rest of the league won't just let the Pacers do what they want? This isn't 2k...you cannot just force other teams to make trades and players to sign with you.
    DG for 3

  14. #109
    yawn cgg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Delray Beach, FL
    Age
    30
    Posts
    2,908

    Default Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Dece View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I think you're too young to even go with the proven to not work comment... I mean, I know I'm only 6 years older, but it's been near a decade since we've been truly good... if a decade of mediocre isn't proof, I dunno what is. I think you just don't remember what an actually good team looks like.
    Nothing strengthens your argument like telling the other guy he's to young to get it.

  15. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to cgg For This Useful Post:


  16. #110
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Little Rock, AR
    Age
    28
    Posts
    1,339

    Default Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

    1) If you offer Asik more money he takes it. There's no reason he signs with Houston for less.
    2) Amnesty players have no choice but to go for the team that offers most for their contract. The Suns won the auction, but we had more cap space available if we don't sign Hibbert, so we could have outbid. We'd have him under contract for 3 years, he does not get a say in this.
    3) See above.
    4) George Hill was a RFA... meaning we could match any offer, he has no choice, he's ours.

    Hm, ok, so far every move I've made happens whether the rest of the league likes it or not... let's continue.

    5) This one isn't for sure, definitely the *Thunder could have preferred Houston's package, but its certainly not impossible as that's what this whole thread starting talking about.
    6) I have Collison under contract, there's nothing that can force me to give him away.
    7) Nothing in the world forces me to give Ian a contract.

    So, no, we aren't playing NBA2k here, these were all very reasonable moves, and only 1 of them is in question, that being the Harden trade. Fortunately the other 6 moves look really good wthout that trade, we still have Paul George, who's a real good player.
    Last edited by Dece; 12-17-2012 at 07:54 PM.

  17. #111
    Say it out loud. Graham Mernatsi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Grammar School
    Posts
    61

    Default Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Well maybe if you stopped watching the Griz you'd get around to watching the #1 rebounding team in the NBA instead, ie the Pacers. All this talk about how Paul isn't so hot, how Roy isn't so hot, yet they are destroying FG% left and right and yanking down rebounds with the best of them.

    The Pacers defensive FG% is .017 ahead of 2nd place. .017 is the same gap from 2nd to freaking 14th, that's how dominate their lead in that stat is. Memphis is 2nd in Off Reb% while Indy is only 10th, but Indy is 2nd in Def Reb% with Memphis all the way down at 22nd. Indiana has the most rebounds of any team in the NBA right now.

    So how is it that Gasol has to "share" rebounds with his dominate teammates but Hibbert doesn't have to share rebounds for the #1 rebounding team? Oh, right, West and Paul just stand around and watch while Roy gets a free shot at everything.
    Good post, Seth, but I can't let this crap slide. Peck doesn't get a pass, and neither do you.



    "Dominate" is a verb. "Dominant" is an adjective. A dominant team is one that dominates.

    Time to step your game up, son.


  18. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Graham Mernatsi For This Useful Post:


  19. #112
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Little Rock, AR
    Age
    28
    Posts
    1,339

    Default Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

    Quote Originally Posted by cgg View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Nothing strengthens your argument like telling the other guy he's to young to get it.
    Nothing proves lack of wisdom like believing you don't gain it with age.

  20. #113
    thx4tehmRys Danny! daschysta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geist, Indianapolis
    Posts
    1,951
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

    Our team is the best defensive team in the NBA so far by almost every single metric, yet they struggle offensively. The mere fact that Danny Granger is the most explosive scorer on the team has an outsized effect in this particular situation, his specific skillset is absolutely crucial, and partially evidenced by how much better our team looks now that Paul George has been filling it for the last few weeks, compared to how we looked before he broke out.. I have every reason to believe that our team is going to be better than last year once Danny returns, considering George and West are playing at a much higher level and our team defense is amazing, but lacks the scoring punch that Danny can provide.

    Plus our team is simply adjusting to the lack of Danny and improving as the year goes on. Our schedule the past 10+ games has been significantly higher in SOS than the first half, and yet we've won 9 of our last 13.

  21. The Following User Says Thank You to daschysta For This Useful Post:


  22. #114
    White and Nerdy Anthem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    23,738

    Default Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Dece View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Nothing proves lack of wisdom like believing you don't gain it with age.
    Oh gosh, I know tons of people that didn't gain any with age.
    Welcome to Pacers Digest! New around here? Here are three tips for making the forum a great place to talk about Pacers basketball.

    • Log in. Even if you want to read instead of post, it's helpful because it lets you:
    • Change your signature options. You can hide all signatures by choosing "Settings" (top right) then "General Settings" (middle left) and unchecking the box "Show Signatures" (in the "Thread Display Options" area).
    • Create an ignore list. I know it may seem unneighborly. But you're here to talk about the Pacers, not argue with someone who's just looking for an argument. Most of the regular users on here make use (at least occasionally) of the "Ignore" feature. Just go to "Settings" -> "Edit Ignore List" and add the names.

    Enjoy your time at PD!

  23. The Following User Says Thank You to Anthem For This Useful Post:


  24. #115
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Little Rock, AR
    Age
    28
    Posts
    1,339

    Default Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

    Alright, that's fair, you aren't guaranteed to ever gain any, but you are never wiser at 21 than you are at 31.

  25. #116

    Default Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

    I assume the asking price would've been PG+West. That's tough. In hindsight, I wouldn't do it. We'd just have no way of replacing West for at least 4 years. Obviously, we could pass on Granger in 2 years and sign a PF, but that's lateral.
    I'd take my chances with the current team and hope George keeps it up.

  26. #117
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Evansville, IN
    Posts
    1,078

    Default Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Dece View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    1) If you offer Asik more money he takes it. There's no reason he signs with Houston for less.
    2) Amnesty players have no choice but to go for the team that offers most for their contract. The Suns won the auction, but we had more cap space available if we don't sign Hibbert, so we could have outbid. We'd have him under contract for 3 years, he does not get a say in this.
    3) See above.
    4) George Hill was a RFA... meaning we could match any offer, he has no choice, he's ours.

    Hm, ok, so far every move I've made happens whether the rest of the league likes it or not... let's continue.

    5) This one isn't for sure, definitely the *Thunder could have preferred Houston's package, but its certainly not impossible as that's what this whole thread starting talking about.
    6) I have Collison under contract, there's nothing that can force me to give him away.
    7) Nothing in the world forces me to give Ian a contract.

    So, no, we aren't playing NBA2k here, these were all very reasonable moves, and only 1 of them is in question, that being the Harden trade. Fortunately the other 6 moves look really good wthout that trade, we still have Paul George, who's a real good player.
    I like Harden, but IMO Harden & Asik in our starting lineup is not better than PG, Hibbert, the loss of West or Granger (we can't afford them all next year when Harden's max kicks in), and the multiple first rounders you would have to combine with PG to get Harden.

    I somewhat agree with you on Hill, however, we saw some absolutely ridiculous deals being handed out this summer. What if some team offered him 4 year 40M? Now he's on the books at 10M vs 8M. We just don't know the circumstances of his free agency value to fully pass judegement. Letting the market set your players value can burn you too, look at Hibbert.

    Agree on bench. We whiffed and I'm willing to admit it. Ian Manhinmi is worth $3-4M, so I'm ok with his salary on an annual basis, however I question the length of the deal or the fact that we gave up an asset in DC when we didn't have to. DJA is terrible and the jury is out on Green (not looking good though). I would have liked to have been active on the amnesty wire. Add in the fact that Hansbrough has regressed and Lance has been forced into the starting lineup and you have a recipe for a terrible bench, which has held true.

    I disagree with you on the potential of starting lineup. They proved last year how good they could be - they had the best win % in the entire league after Hill entered the lineup and were + 47 against Miami and had the best +/- in the playoffs. Our bench just sucked. And to think, that starting lineup can be better (West and PG improvement has actually happened). It's not just Granger missing, we are missing HIbbert's shooting too, which I believe will come around. Since PG became assertive 7 games ago, the starters have been solid. You add Granger and get Hibbert going, and they can contend as a starting unit. The problem has, and will continue to be, our bench. We desperately need to improve the bench. I'd try and keep Mahinmi and Lance - the rest, inluding Plumlee and picks, are in play. We are going to have to take on $$$ though as the value of most of our bench is of an expiring contract. Shawn Marion, Vince Carter, Devin Harris, & JJ Barea are all players I would look at. All could likely be had and wouldn't jeopordize future cap space to resign West, PG, or DG (should we choose too).
    Last edited by purdue101; 12-17-2012 at 08:25 PM.

  27. #118
    Member aamcguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    West Lafayette
    Age
    23
    Posts
    2,506

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Dece View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I think you're too young to even go with the proven to not work comment... I mean, I know I'm only 6 years older, but it's been near a decade since we've been truly good... if a decade of mediocre isn't proof, I dunno what is. I think you just don't remember what an actually good team looks like.
    First off, 26-21 = 5. You are 5 years older than me. Also, I turn 22 in a month, so depending on when your birthday is the difference may be even less.

    Secondly, I have been a Pacers fan for over 15 years. Which means I watched both the end of the Reggie as our star era and the entirety of the JO era.

    Thirdly, even if I had missed out on good teams, being a Pacers fan doesn't stop me from watching any of the other 29 teams in the NBA.

    So please spare me this talk of "wisdom" when there are people alive who are 3 and 4 times your age.
    Last edited by aamcguy; 12-17-2012 at 08:32 PM.

  28. The Following User Says Thank You to aamcguy For This Useful Post:


  29. #119
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Little Rock, AR
    Age
    28
    Posts
    1,339

    Default Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

    I was just as foolish at 22 as I was at 21 but really this is all very off topic of the point being made. I shouldn't have mentioned age, I was wrong. Still true that you will grow wiser, regardless of your 15 years of NBA fandom, but irrelevant to this discussion, ad hominem etc.

    Fact remains you haven't made a very compelling argument.

  30. #120
    Member aamcguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    West Lafayette
    Age
    23
    Posts
    2,506

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Dece View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I was just as foolish at 22 as I was at 21 but really this is all very off topic of the point being made. I shouldn't have mentioned age, I was wrong. Still true that you will grow wiser, regardless of your 15 years of NBA fandom, but irrelevant to this discussion, ad hominem etc.

    Fact remains you haven't made a very compelling argument.
    I disagree; I think you just don't agree with my argument. And since I like what has been done with the team the past couple of years and you clearly don't, we are not going to agree. But you are asking how people can be happy with our team this year. If you refuse to listen to myself and others who feel the same way about the team, you are going to keep asking.

  31. #121
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Little Rock, AR
    Age
    28
    Posts
    1,339

    Default Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

    What even is your argument man? All you've said is we couldn't have done better this offseason. That's not an argument as much as a statement, and I've already provided you with 7 moves, each superior to the ones we made, and 6 of them could not have been stopped. To have a compelling argument you first have to MAKE one.

    "We had the best off season possible." Really? Defend that statement.

  32. #122

    Default Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Dece View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Nothing we could have done better? You truly believe we had the most optimal off season possible? That's too ridiculous to even take serious, but here's a short handful of things we could have done better:

    1) Signed Asik on a great deal... Houston got him for 3 years 25, I would have given 3 years 30 and let Hibbert walk
    2) Gotten Scola for pennies on his value. Missing out on amnesty players was a huge fail
    3) Brand was another nice amnesty option
    4) Let George Hill go find an offer sheet. Other teams could only offer him 4 years, so I would have gotten him for likely less money without blowing my only 5 year contract.
    5) Traded for James Harden... since I saved my 5 year contract I can now use it on an actual star player.
    6) Not given Collison away for nothing... so now instead of an undrafted player or DJAugustine who's playing his way out of the league I have a decent backup
    7) Not given out a journeyman big man a 4 year contract... Brand and Scola are better and cheaper anyway.

    So let's see, I've saved money on center without downgrading significantly, I've acquired at least 1, if not 2 quality backup big men for cheap, I've retained George Hill, I've possibly traded for a true star player and given him my 5 year contract, and I still have a backup point guard. My team crushes this team.

    Why am I a fan if I think our roster is full of poor contracts and players who can't win it all? 5 years from now we'll have a new GM, a new coach, possibly a new owner, and maybe 2 players leftover from this roster. The Pacers are bigger than any of these things, and these things will always change over time.
    Just a few quibbles with some of your points:

    1) 3 years 30 million would have been an illegal contract. The Bulls had to have a chance to a match, so Houston was limited on what it could offer. If the Pacers wanted to increase the average salary per year, they would have had to offer 4 years. Plus, if the Bulls do happen to match, the Pacers have now lost Hibbert and they are already a few days into free agency so many of the top players are already gone. That's a big risk to take.

    4) The Pacers did not lose their designated 5 year deal by giving Hill 5 years. That only applies to extensions that are signed, not players who make it to restricted free agency. They still have that if they want to use it.

    Also, if you sign Asik to a large deal and keep Collison, the Pacers probably don't have enough cap space to sign Scola. They had between 10 and 11 million to start with. Asik on 4/40 (which the Pacers would have to do to outbid Houston and stay within cap rules) would have been about 4 million more than Hibbert's cap hold. So that's between 6 and 7 million left. If Hill signed an offer sheet on the first day or two of free agency (which would have been at least a couple million above his cap hold even if it was a couple million less than his current contract) that would have left the Pacers with not enough room to sign Scola and possibly not enough to sign Brand.

    Also, the Pacers had to make sure they didn't have to replace very many players in any one offseason since once you are above the cap, you get very limited exceptions to be able to add players. If they added Brand and kept Collison, they would been stuck in that situation next offseason.

    Basically I'm just pointing out that this wasn't a basic situation like it may have been in MLB where a team can be analyzed by how they used their money and which players they used it on. The cap and the various ways it can and cannot be manipulated creates quite a bit of trouble in that department.

  33. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Cubs231721 For This Useful Post:


  34. #123
    Member aamcguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    West Lafayette
    Age
    23
    Posts
    2,506

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Dece View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    What even is your argument man? All you've said is we couldn't have done better this offseason. That's not an argument as much as a statement, and I've already provided you with 7 moves, each superior to the ones we made, and 6 of them could not have been stopped. To have a compelling argument you first have to MAKE one.

    "We had the best off season possible." Really? Defend that statement.
    I don't believe we had the best off season possible. I never said that. I will defend the statement I did make:

    There isn't much we could have done better than what they did based on the information we had at the time.
    I believe the goal of our FO is to keep our starting 5 intact. The owner told them he is unwilling to pay any luxury tax because of our market size. Therefore, I make all evaluations with that thought intact.

    The one thing I do wish they would have done is bid on Brand or Scola. I will say that outright.

    Our team is the best defensive team in the league right now. They wanted to higher a backup center (not big man, center) who would be able to man the floor and protect the paint when Hibbert is in foul trouble. And he has to be able to do it on a regular basis because Hibbert only plays 30 minutes a night. I think Ian was a great choice. He is a good PnR player and he is a good shotblocker. I think 4 million a year is a fair contract. They gave up Collison and Jones because they wanted to keep capspace low and they felt that a backup center was a bigger need than a backup point guard since Hill plays more than Collison.

    I am okay with that, since neither Collison nor Jones were in our long-term plans. I do wish they would have kept Jones though, I always liked what he brought to the floor. Collison was expendable since we went with Hill, and even more so since it was clear we were either going to trade for Augustin or sign him outright if Charlotte didn't want to trade. As it was, we signed Augustin immediately following his release. At the time, that was a horizontal move. Augustin's talent level appeared very similar to Collison's before this year.

    We picked up a promising wing in Green. I didn't really like this move that much, but I knew we had Stephenson and he had played well in stretches last season. Plus, we had a starting wing combo of Granger/George, so he would fit in in either spot. A dynamic big wing trio. It grew on me until the season wore on.

    So we solidified our bench, resigned Hibbert (I wnated him resigned no matter the cost), resigned Hill to a reasonable contract. In reality, our bench probably got worse because of how our new additions have performed. But our bench has the potential to improve. Last season's bench would get no better than it was.

    That is why I think we did a good job. We had 5 starters, so unless we were gonna get somebody significantly better no major moves needed to be made. I may have done some things differently in hindsight, but at the time I was pleased at what they had done.

  35. The Following User Says Thank You to aamcguy For This Useful Post:


  36. #124
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Little Rock, AR
    Age
    28
    Posts
    1,339

    Default Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

    Quote Originally Posted by Cubs231721 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Just a few quibbles with some of your points:

    1) 3 years 30 million would have been an illegal contract. The Bulls had to have a chance to a match, so Houston was limited on what it could offer. If the Pacers wanted to increase the average salary per year, they would have had to offer 4 years. Plus, if the Bulls do happen to match, the Pacers have now lost Hibbert and they are already a few days into free agency so many of the top players are already gone. That's a big risk to take.

    4) The Pacers did not lose their designated 5 year deal by giving Hill 5 years. That only applies to extensions that are signed, not players who make it to restricted free agency. They still have that if they want to use it.

    Also, if you sign Asik to a large deal and keep Collison, the Pacers probably don't have enough cap space to sign Scola. They had between 10 and 11 million to start with. Asik on 4/40 (which the Pacers would have to do to outbid Houston and stay within cap rules) would have been about 4 million more than Hibbert's cap hold. So that's between 6 and 7 million left. If Hill signed an offer sheet on the first day or two of free agency (which would have been at least a couple million above his cap hold even if it was a couple million less than his current contract) that would have left the Pacers with not enough room to sign Scola and possibly not enough to sign Brand.

    Also, the Pacers had to make sure they didn't have to replace very many players in any one offseason since once you are above the cap, you get very limited exceptions to be able to add players. If they added Brand and kept Collison, they would been stuck in that situation next offseason.

    Basically I'm just pointing out that this wasn't a basic situation like it may have been in MLB where a team can be analyzed by how they used their money and which players they used it on. The cap and the various ways it can and cannot be manipulated creates quite a bit of trouble in that department.
    1) Ok, then 4 years 32 million. Minor detail, the bigger point was we could have offered more than Houston, and that we could have gotten Asik for less than Hibbert. Still true.

    4) My mistake on the 5 year thing, remains that we could have gotten him for 4 years instead of 5, shorter contracts are nearly always to your advantage. There's a reason players are often willing to take less per year for a greater overall contract value. Also no team had cap to offer Hill 10M+ a year, I mean honestly, name me 1 team who would have offered that.

    Keeping Collison isn't set in stone, giving him away for nothing was the problem. You don't think someone would have offered a second rounder for him? Better than nothing.

    Overall the point is NOT that these were THE MOVES, the point is that other, better moves existed and these are just some possible examples of that.

  37. The Following User Says Thank You to Dece For This Useful Post:


  38. #125
    Member HickeyS2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Indianapolis/Sacramento
    Posts
    840

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

    One thing I learned from this thread, age might make you wiser, but it doesn't make you smarter.

Similar Threads

  1. Windhorst: Thunder still rolling without Harden [ESPN]
    By RoboHicks in forum NBA Headlines (RSS Feeds)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-28-2012, 03:00 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-28-2012, 01:30 PM
  3. Thunder intend to keep both Harden and Ibaka
    By Sparhawk in forum Trade Proposals
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 06-15-2012, 07:00 PM
  4. Miami And Chicago Discussed Deal Involving Gordon, Marion
    By MillerTime in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-18-2008, 11:52 PM
  5. {Pacers.Com} Is deal for #1 pick being discussed ?
    By Frank Slade in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 06-21-2006, 10:40 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
  •