Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 120

Thread: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

  1. #1
    Administrator Peck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,449

    Default Could there be a Pacers way of building...

    What happens if the Pacers actually advance the either the E.C. finals or even the NBA finals? No, I知 not asking if we will all be rejoicing and dancing in the streets (which we better be).

    No I want to know will the paradigm shift in the way people think NBA teams in general and small market teams in particular have to be built?

    Whether a lot of us old timers like it or not the absolute top model for building an NBA franchise now is to tank and the Oklahoma City Thunder are always held as the bright and shining example of dumping salary, bottoming out & being rewarded with high draft picks who turn out to be absolute blue chip players who will then lead your team from the bottom to the top and will do so for a couple of years until you need to dump them and start over again. BTW this is not just fans or even sports writers who like to stir up things on twitter who think this way. I have heard several respected NBA people both former coaches and players who have been on NBA saying that this is the model to use.

    What happens if we prove that wrong? I知 not saying we will and perhaps I知 too high after so many home victories that I知 losing perspective but humor me.

    The Pacers never tanked, at least not on purpose. Satan did but in his mind he was trying to win and when he finally gave in to not trying to win every game they actually started to win because they got away from his horrible.Ok, we all know where I知 going here so let痴 not make this about him.

    Think about this our highest draft pick was # 10, now it can be argued that he is our best player so there is logic in still saying the higher the pick the better the chance of getting a good player. But again, he was # 10 not # 1 or even # 5.

    When Danny comes back both he & Roy were drafted at #17. Right now our starting shooting guard is a second round pick and I wouldn稚 trade him for most 1st round picks from his draft.

    Our first big off of the bench was selected at 13. Our current first wing off of the bench was this year痴 2nd round draft pick.

    We parlayed one first round draft pick into our starting point guard & in a rare occurrence this trade actually benefitted both teams.

    We traded away a surplus point guard who probably was never going to start here again and was probably not going to be happy being a backup long term for our back up center.

    We did shed salary mostly by just letting it expire and with our available money we did make a splash in the free agent market and signed a player coming off of injury to fill a need, however although he was at one point an all star prior to here he was never considered a marquee player because he was just a solid fundamental player. In other words we didn稚 use our free agent money to sign the big marquee sexy player that everyone wanted us to sign (not that there was one available but I remember many people saying just save the money for the next season).

    Of course that non-sexy fundamental signing only turned out to be both the biggest bargain in Pacers history is quite honestly is the best free agent signing in NBA Pacers history. I just can稚 bring myself to say most important because Byron Scott changed our entire culture the day he arrived here. But I値l say this we get to the E.C. finals or beyond & I値l probably change my tune about that as well.

    Yea I know this is all pretty premature but still look at where we are. Right now we are the talk of the league and not just because we are winning. We are winning and we are looking good doing it, we are entertaining to watch (at least according to Chris Webber & Steve Smith on NBA tv) and most importantly other than West and soon to be Danny none of our key players are on the wrong side of 30. To put it differently unless something goes terribly wrong we have a few years to be really competitive and if George & Stephenson keep growing then that window could be quite large.

    But with all of that in mind is it possible that teams may start to go another route and try the Pacers way of building through solid draft choices and trying to build a winning culture?

    Or will it always be 努e must tank to succeed?


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

  2. The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to Peck For This Useful Post:

    + Show/Hide list of the thanked


  3. #2
    Custom User Titleist
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound, but of mind.
    Posts
    3,536
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

    Hire JOB. Extend JOB. Fire JOB. 'ship.

  4. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Brad8888 For This Useful Post:


  5. #3
    George Hill Apologist mattie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Age
    28
    Posts
    2,501

    Default Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

    I don't know.

    I can tell you I'm convinced without a doubt that the Pacers are going to make the Finals though. I don't think the Heat will be able to beat them once Grangers back. We have the better defense. We also have a starting five that has been killing teams scoring the ball. They're getting better every day as Hill learns point, PG continues to grow as a scorer, Lance is going to be a killer 6th man, and West is simply not the same guy he was last year.

    Put Battier on him in the playoffs and West is going to make them regret it.

    I've come full circle. The Pacers are a powerhouse. We won't see it yet until Grangers back. But yeah. Grangers already playing in full speed practices. He's injury isn't an ACL. It's a discomfort deal, and presumably since he's practicing the pain is gone. (otherwise he wouldn't practice). He has an old man game anyway. How can it suffer?

    The Pacers are going to start 4 allstars in the playoffs. No other team can say that.
    Find me on the internets @mattiecolin

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


  7. #4
    future dragon trainer Heisenberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    11,863

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

    I don't have a lot of time to really get into it, but I really think the new CBA is, eventually, going to drastically change the way teams are constructed and the amount of parity. It's also going to lead to shorter contracts and a lot more player movement, which'll be a shame and I think may hurt some fan interest. Next CBA eliminate max deals entirely and let true superstars make what they deserve and we got a whole new league that's much better. Lebron said as much, and hate the guy all you want, he's right. Lebron's thoughts on labor negotiations of late have genuinely impressed me relative to the seeming non-interest his peers seem to have for the most part. He's done a great job learning the business of the sport.

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Heisenberg For This Useful Post:


  9. #5
    Rebound King Kstat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Age
    32
    Posts
    27,476

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peck View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    What happens if the Pacers actually advance the either the E.C. finals or even the NBA finals? No, I知 not asking if we will all be rejoicing and dancing in the streets (which we better be).

    No I want to know will the paradigm shift in the way people think NBA teams in general and small market teams in particular have to be built?

    Whether a lot of us old timers like it or not the absolute top model for building an NBA franchise now is to tank and the Oklahoma City Thunder are always held as the bright and shining example of dumping salary, bottoming out & being rewarded with high draft picks who turn out to be absolute blue chip players who will then lead your team from the bottom to the top and will do so for a couple of years until you need to dump them and start over again. BTW this is not just fans or even sports writers who like to stir up things on twitter who think this way. I have heard several respected NBA people both former coaches and players who have been on NBA saying that this is the model to use.

    What happens if we prove that wrong? I知 not saying we will and perhaps I知 too high after so many home victories that I知 losing perspective but humor me.

    The Pacers never tanked, at least not on purpose. Satan did but in his mind he was trying to win and when he finally gave in to not trying to win every game they actually started to win because they got away from his horrible.Ok, we all know where I知 going here so let痴 not make this about him.

    Think about this our highest draft pick was # 10, now it can be argued that he is our best player so there is logic in still saying the higher the pick the better the chance of getting a good player. But again, he was # 10 not # 1 or even # 5.

    When Danny comes back both he & Roy were drafted at #17. Right now our starting shooting guard is a second round pick and I wouldn稚 trade him for most 1st round picks from his draft.

    Our first big off of the bench was selected at 13. Our current first wing off of the bench was this year痴 2nd round draft pick.

    We parlayed one first round draft pick into our starting point guard & in a rare occurrence this trade actually benefitted both teams.

    We traded away a surplus point guard who probably was never going to start here again and was probably not going to be happy being a backup long term for our back up center.

    We did shed salary mostly by just letting it expire and with our available money we did make a splash in the free agent market and signed a player coming off of injury to fill a need, however although he was at one point an all star prior to here he was never considered a marquee player because he was just a solid fundamental player. In other words we didn稚 use our free agent money to sign the big marquee sexy player that everyone wanted us to sign (not that there was one available but I remember many people saying just save the money for the next season).

    Of course that non-sexy fundamental signing only turned out to be both the biggest bargain in Pacers history is quite honestly is the best free agent signing in NBA Pacers history. I just can稚 bring myself to say most important because Byron Scott changed our entire culture the day he arrived here. But I値l say this we get to the E.C. finals or beyond & I値l probably change my tune about that as well.

    Yea I know this is all pretty premature but still look at where we are. Right now we are the talk of the league and not just because we are winning. We are winning and we are looking good doing it, we are entertaining to watch (at least according to Chris Webber & Steve Smith on NBA tv) and most importantly other than West and soon to be Danny none of our key players are on the wrong side of 30. To put it differently unless something goes terribly wrong we have a few years to be really competitive and if George & Stephenson keep growing then that window could be quite large.

    But with all of that in mind is it possible that teams may start to go another route and try the Pacers way of building through solid draft choices and trying to build a winning culture?

    Or will it always be 努e must tank to succeed?
    The pistons did it long before the pacers did, and were the dominant team out of the east over the last decade. It changed nothing. So...no.

    In addition, the OKC model...please. So you're telling me the best formula is to land three consecutive top-five picks, and with them select two perennial all stars and a first ballot hall of famer, and then in between snag a borderline all star in the late teens?

    What genius thinks that's an easy formula to copy?
    Last edited by Kstat; 02-06-2013 at 03:48 AM.

    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

  10. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Kstat For This Useful Post:


  11. #6
    Administrator Peck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    12,449

    Default Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

    Quote Originally Posted by Kstat View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The pistons did it long before the pacers did, and were the dominant team out of the east over the last decade. It changed nothing. So...no.

    In addition, the OKC model...please. So you're telling me the best formula is to land three consecutive top-five picks, and with them select two perennial all stars and a first ballot hall of famer, and then in between snag a borderline all star in the late teens?

    What genius thinks that's an easy formula to copy?
    You haven't perused our trade board in awhile have you? Obviously NBA people understand that this is not easy to duplicate but you would be surprised by the amount of sports writer (even the ones who aren't out to just type words) that think that this is the only way for markets outside L.A. & N.Y. to compete.

    I was going to agree with you about the Pistons until I stopped to think about it. How many of those players were actually drafted by the Pistons?

    Wallace (both of them) came via trade as did Rip Hamilton, was Billups a free agent. Prince was drafted by Detroit. As to the bench I am pretty sure Mike James was part of the Rasheed trade but I'm not sure. I don't remember how Corliss Williamson got there but I know he wasn't drafted by the Pistons. Did you guys draft Okur?

    No, I really don't see that much similarity to the way that we each were built other than the philosophy that there is no true superstar. Now that I can see. But building the team we both have taken different paths & if its any consolation to you, until proven differently your guys version is better.

    I know you can't be talking about the 80's Pistons because Zeke was drafted @ # 2


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

  12. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Peck For This Useful Post:


  13. #7

    Default Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

    Quote Originally Posted by Kstat View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The pistons did it long before the pacers did, and were the dominant team out of the east over the last decade. It changed nothing. So...no.

    In addition, the OKC model...please. So you're telling me the best formula is to land three consecutive top-five picks, and with them select two perennial all stars and a first ballot hall of famer, and then in between snag a borderline all star in the late teens?

    What genius thinks that's an easy formula to copy?
    Tanking will always be the #1 option for the majority of the teams trying to build that are also in the small market. Teams will always bank on young players that have a cheaper contract yet have a really nice potential of ending up an all-star, or maybe a superstar. It may not always hit but it has a proven track record of success in recent history, from Duncan (SA) to LeBron (CLE) all the way to Durant (OKC). The Pacers case will always be a special case simply because it's not that easy to get above average to decent players in the draft within the mid teens and mid-2nd round consecutively. A team can get get lucky in 1 draft getting a potential star in picks 10-20, but on the next 3 draft the other mid picks are D-league level. The only team that has been that good and lucky at the same time in building a great team through non-lottery picks is San Antonio (well, having a Tim Duncan helps in the overall team performance).

    As for the Pistons, I agree that they were built without a legitimate superstar similar to Pacers but they are different in terms of how their elite level team was formed. Every player on that starting 5 was obtained through solid trades/free agent signings except for Prince. On the other hand, only Hill and West were non-Pacer draftees formed through trades and the majority were Pacers-drafted.

  14. #8

    Default Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

    Quote Originally Posted by Peck View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You haven't perused our trade board in awhile have you? Obviously NBA people understand that this is not easy to duplicate but you would be surprised by the amount of sports writer (even the ones who aren't out to just type words) that think that this is the only way for markets outside L.A. & N.Y. to compete.

    I was going to agree with you about the Pistons until I stopped to think about it. How many of those players were actually drafted by the Pistons?

    Wallace (both of them) came via trade as did Rip Hamilton, was Billups a free agent. Prince was drafted by Detroit. As to the bench I am pretty sure Mike James was part of the Rasheed trade but I'm not sure. I don't remember how Corliss Williamson got there but I know he wasn't drafted by the Pistons. Did you guys draft Okur?

    No, I really don't see that much similarity to the way that we each were built other than the philosophy that there is no true superstar. Now that I can see. But building the team we both have taken different paths & if its any consolation to you, until proven differently your guys version is better.

    I know you can't be talking about the 80's Pistons because Zeke was drafted @ # 2
    I would also add that what the Pistons pulled off was not sustainable. They made great trades and that is just not a formula for consistent long term success IMO. Sure they were good for 5 or so years, but that was about it. Not taking away anything from them, just that they did not draft those players like you pointed out and the deals they made were more of a high risk, high reward, and they paid off, but to think they could makes trades like that that work out that well consistently is unlikely.

    I feel that the Pacer's system is more sustainable. Every year we find talent in the later rounds or with savvy trades. We don't make blockbuster deals, we just make smart little moves. We know how to grow talent and find it on the cheap. That is sustainable and I think we have a higher ceiling and a better offense than that Pistons team. We don't play that ugly of basketball. The Pacers are exciting to watch and PG is going to be a legit superstar. The Pistons never had that and at this point I am getting sick of the comparison because the roots of the teams and the actual teams themselves are nothing alike other than the Pacers have had one of the better defenses in history this year. And as many have pointed out, you should not compare the Pacers to the best defense in history until their numbers are at least comparable.

    We are a more likeable team than those Pistons teams. We have a real chance for something special. If we can win it all this year we could start adding the bandwagon fans we all so despise. But let's face it those bandwagon fans buy tickets and watch games. I think the Pacers in the finals would garner more attention than those old Pistons teams ever would. We are so much more enjoyable to watch. The casual bandwagon fan can really get behind this team if they keep playing like they are at home and can extend that to the road. The Pistons were boring and were a turnoff to the bandwagonners, even though they played fundamentally great basketball.

    So hopefully other teams don't copy what we are doing. But ultimately they will if we win a championship. But still they may not because not one other team I can think of has become a good team the way that the Pacers have. Literally every other good team has high draft picks. That may be the real story here. Is there any other team at all that is a true playoff threat that doesn't have a higher pick than 10 on their team?
    Last edited by Midcoasted; 02-06-2013 at 05:24 AM.

  15. #9
    Rebound King Kstat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Age
    32
    Posts
    27,476

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

    okay, back up the crazy train...

    Quote Originally Posted by Midcoasted View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I would also add that what the Pistons pulled off was not sustainable. They made great trades and that is just not a formula for consistent long term success IMO. Sure they were good for 5 or so years, but that was about it.
    that was about it?

    We had a 6-year run that included a championship, two straight conference titles, six 50+win seasons, and five division titles.

    You don't call that "sustaining?"

    You do realize only a handful of NBA teams have ever surpassed that level of excellence, right?

    Not taking away anything from them, just that they did not draft those players like you pointed out and the deals they made were more of a high risk, high reward, and they paid off, but to think they could makes trades like that that work out that well consistently is unlikely.
    uh....the draft/trade/FA ratio is roughly the same for both teams. The Pistons drafted Prince and Okur just like the Pacers drafted George and Stephenson. Moving on....

    That is sustainable and I think we have a higher ceiling and a better offense than that Pistons team. We don't play that ugly of basketball. The Pacers are exciting to watch and PG is going to be a legit superstar. The Pistons never had that and at this point I am getting sick of the comparison because the roots of the teams and the actual teams themselves are nothing alike other than the Pacers have had one of the better defenses in history this year. And as many have pointed out, you should not compare the Pacers to the best defense in history until their numbers are at least comparable.
    okay...reality check...

    First off, the Pacers do play ugly basketball, by NBA standards. There is no pretty way to be 29th in scoring and 2nd in scoring defense. The masses are never going to applaud grind-it-out games. The one guy that commented on loving the Pacers' defensive style of play tonight was Chris Webber, who grew up-guess what-a Pistons fan.

    And yes, I know their offense has been trending upward lately, but winning games 110-100 has never been their strategy.



    We are a more likeable team than those Pistons teams.
    No...you're really not. Nobody is talking about the Pacers outside of Indiana. Unless Paul Goerge becomes the next Kevin Durant/Tim Duncan type superstar, they never will. And George is simply not that kind of player. I'm not saying he will never be a superstar, but he's not as flashy as Durant or Kobe, and will never be a multiple-time MVP like Duncan. He's a star because he's a defensive stopper in addition to a pretty good scorer, and ESPN doesn't love to feature guys like that.

    Unless you mean to say that the Pistons were bad guys and universally resented in contrast to the Pacers' much more likeable bunch of upstanding citizens, in which case...you're still wrong, in both cases. Outside of Indiana, at least.

    I think the Pacers in the finals would garner more attention than those old Pistons teams ever would.
    ...the 2004 finals was the most watched series of the decade...

    Now, you could counter by saying nobody cared about Pistons/Spurs, in which case...you'd be right. Of course, by the same token, there was mass panic over the possibility of Pacers/Spurs in 1999 and Pacers/Blazers in 2000, and that Pacers team was actually an offensive juggernaut.

    We are so much more enjoyable to watch.
    ...you win games by making the other team miss bad shots and hit the floor...so, no. I understand that they are so much more enjoyable to watch from your perspective, but try to take off the Pacer fan hat and take a step back for a second.

    From an outsider's perspective, let me get you prepared for the next 5-6 years:

    1. Fans of big markets are not going to like you.
    2. Fans of the teams you eliminate are not going to like you.
    3. Fans of teams that value offense over defense are going to HATE you.
    4. Unless Paul George about doubles his scoring output to Kobe/TMac/Durant levels, he's never going to be a national media darling. Missed shots aren't sexy.

    When I said you can't compare this Pacers team to the 2004 Pistons, I said that because they hadn't accomplished anything yet. They are absolutely attempting to emulate them, however, albeit in a league that plays at a faster tempo. If they win a championship this way, I'd accept the comparison. Heck, I'd welcome it.

    You're not going to accept this, but the reality is this: The Pacers play in Indiana. The Pacers play a decided physical defense-first philosophy. Neither of those things will endear them nationally. Heck, it's not exactly endearing them locally either. The Pacers haven't been a major draw in Indianapolis since the Bird/Reggie days of free flowing offense and three point shooters at every position.

    I get that you're riding the Pacers high right now, and you can't see how the Pacers won't become the NBA's next great dynasty and loved by all...but that's just not going to happen. The hierarchy doesn't like being disturbed. You're going to knock much bigger names than Paul George out of the playoffs, and casual fans will get annoyed by it (unless it's Miami).

    God forbid you keep Carmelo or Rose out of the finals....the national media will be borderline-offended in the "why am I stuck in Indianapolis covering the NBA finals when I could be spending a week in New York/Chicago" sense.
    Last edited by Kstat; 02-06-2013 at 07:24 AM.

  16. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to Kstat For This Useful Post:

    + Show/Hide list of the thanked


  17. #10
    Rebound King Kstat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Age
    32
    Posts
    27,476

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

    Quote Originally Posted by 15th parallel View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    As for the Pistons, I agree that they were built without a legitimate superstar similar to Pacers but they are different in terms of how their elite level team was formed. Every player on that starting 5 was obtained through solid trades/free agent signings except for Prince. On the other hand, only Hill and West were non-Pacer draftees formed through trades and the majority were Pacers-drafted.
    Hibbert was a obtained via trade on draft night. Brilliant deal, but the Pacers were not taking him 11th.

    In fact, Hibbert wasn't even the highest draft pick they obtained in that deal.
    Last edited by Kstat; 02-06-2013 at 06:44 AM.

  18. #11
    Member Downtown Bang!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    St Paul MN
    Posts
    506

    Default Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

    To me there are three strategys in play for how an NBA team goes about the process and it can depend greatly on if they are a big market or small market.

    The first (big market) strategy is to set up a salary "dump" cycle that allows the team to target the Lebron's, Melo's etc. when they become available. Ride the wave as long as productivity & injuries allow then do it again. Basically leverage the big market financials and game the Stern system.

    The second stategy which can be in play for both markets is to take advantage of a down period (tanking could be involved) and maximize opportunities with a couple years of high draft picks. Even if a franchise's scouting department is very good there is still a great deal of luck involved with draft position & player injuries. Just look at the draft history of the Trail Blazers & Timberwolves for instance.

    The third stategy in my mind is long-term team building which is almost exclusively a small market approach. Draft smart, trade well, spend for value only in free agency, lock up your good players long-term and keep the core together. Lots of teams have done this pretty well. Pacers & Jazz in the 90's. Pistons this decade and if you want to win four titles be the Spurs and do a great job combining both 2 & 3 for fifteen plus years.

    I'm hopeful the new CBA will devalue the first strategy and do a better job rewarding the third example. Not sure it will work out that way but it would be great for the NBA in my opinion if there was a paradigm shift similar to what we are seeing in the NCAA where "mid-major" team builders can successfully compete for championships with the big dollar "one & done" programs.

    Edit: I don't think the current Pacers team is doing anything funadmentally different than it did in the 90's other than we could likely see a key piece like DG moved early because of luxary tax implications.
    Last edited by Downtown Bang!; 02-06-2013 at 07:22 AM.

  19. #12
    Intuition over Integers McKeyFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Free Lance!
    Posts
    8,027

    Default Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

    Quote Originally Posted by Heisenberg View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    ILebron's thoughts on labor negotiations of late have genuinely impressed me relative to the seeming non-interest his peers seem to have for the most part. He's done a great job learning the business of the sport.
    I'd like to know more about this.

    He's done a couple of bonehead things, but other than that, I have to say, he may be one of the most talented human beings (non just including basketball) on the planet.
    .

    .

    .

    .


    撤eople talk about how quiet he [McKey] is, but he痴 really been helpful. He gives a lot of insight to players in how to guard certain teams and what their weaknesses are. The whole team listens to him, and it makes my job a lot easier. Having players like him is what pro basketball is all about for me. 有arry Brown

  20. #13
    Rebound King Kstat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Age
    32
    Posts
    27,476

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by McKeyFan View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'd like to know more about this.

    He's done a couple of bonehead things, but other than that, I have to say, he may be one of the most talented human beings (non just including basketball) on the planet.
    Nothing really earth shattering. He just said what we already know: he's massively underpaid for what he contributes on the floor, and he will never get aid what he's worth under the current CBA.

    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

  21. #14
    Intuition over Integers McKeyFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Free Lance!
    Posts
    8,027

    Default Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

    Quote Originally Posted by Peck View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Right now we are the talk of the league ... We are winning and we are looking good doing it
    Earlier in the season when Vogel's head was being called for on a platter by some, I said let's wait until the All-Star break.

    I guess Frank figured it out.
    .

    .

    .

    .


    撤eople talk about how quiet he [McKey] is, but he痴 really been helpful. He gives a lot of insight to players in how to guard certain teams and what their weaknesses are. The whole team listens to him, and it makes my job a lot easier. Having players like him is what pro basketball is all about for me. 有arry Brown

  22. #15
    It is ka Thankee sai Major Cold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Garrett, IN
    Posts
    9,006
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

    I think I am giving up on trying for the Pacers to be recognized. Who cares if fanboys like us?

    I actually agree with KStat that we are similar in liking by the common fan. The only way we can supersede the Pistons in being liked is if we dominate the Heat.

    The pistons were not built like us. And they had the benefit of having Larry Brown as their coach. Taking other teams misfits and getting success in the weakest era of the Eastern Conference.

  23. #16
    Rebound King Kstat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Age
    32
    Posts
    27,476

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Major Cold View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I think I am giving up on trying for the Pacers to be recognized. Who cares if fanboys like us?

    I actually agree with KStat that we are similar in liking by the common fan. The only way we can supersede the Pistons in being liked is if we dominate the Heat.
    That wouldn't even supersede it....the 2004 finals was a smash hit in the ratings primarily because the pistons were embarrassing the lakers. Then the lakers broke up, and there was no super-team left to hate, and fans went back to rooting for the new, fresh media superstars, and we were just in the way if wade, lebron, Howard, etc.
    Last edited by Kstat; 02-06-2013 at 07:54 AM.

    It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

    Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
    Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
    NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

  24. The Following User Says Thank You to Kstat For This Useful Post:


  25. #17
    You can call me Taz cinotimz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,324

    Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

    Quote Originally Posted by Kstat View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    okay, back up the crazy train...



    that was about it?

    We had a 6-year run that included a championship, two straight conference titles, six 50+win seasons, and five division titles.

    You don't call that "sustaining?"

    You do realize only a handful of NBA teams have ever surpassed that level of excellence, right?



    uh....the draft/trade/FA ratio is roughly the same for both teams. The Pistons drafted Prince and Okur just like the Pacers drafted George and Stephenson. Moving on....



    okay...reality check...

    First off, the Pacers do play ugly basketball, by NBA standards. There is no pretty way to be 29th in scoring and 2nd in scoring defense. The masses are never going to applaud grind-it-out games. The one guy that commented on loving the Pacers' defensive style of play tonight was Chris Webber, who grew up-guess what-a Pistons fan.

    And yes, I know their offense has been trending upward lately, but winning games 110-100 has never been their strategy.





    No...you're really not. Nobody is talking about the Pacers outside of Indiana. Unless Paul Goerge becomes the next Kevin Durant/Tim Duncan type superstar, they never will. And George is simply not that kind of player. I'm not saying he will never be a superstar, but he's not as flashy as Durant or Kobe, and will never be a multiple-time MVP like Duncan. He's a star because he's a defensive stopper in addition to a pretty good scorer, and ESPN doesn't love to feature guys like that.

    Unless you mean to say that the Pistons were bad guys and universally resented in contrast to the Pacers' much more likeable bunch of upstanding citizens, in which case...you're still wrong, in both cases. Outside of Indiana, at least.



    ...the 2004 finals was the most watched series of the decade...

    Now, you could counter by saying nobody cared about Pistons/Spurs, in which case...you'd be right. Of course, by the same token, there was mass panic over the possibility of Pacers/Spurs in 1999 and Pacers/Blazers in 2000, and that Pacers team was actually an offensive juggernaut.



    ...you win games by making the other team miss bad shots and hit the floor...so, no. I understand that they are so much more enjoyable to watch from your perspective, but try to take off the Pacer fan hat and take a step back for a second.

    From an outsider's perspective, let me get you prepared for the next 5-6 years:

    1. Fans of big markets are not going to like you.
    2. Fans of the teams you eliminate are not going to like you.
    3. Fans of teams that value offense over defense are going to HATE you.
    4. Unless Paul George about doubles his scoring output to Kobe/TMac/Durant levels, he's never going to be a national media darling. Missed shots aren't sexy.

    When I said you can't compare this Pacers team to the 2004 Pistons, I said that because they hadn't accomplished anything yet. They are absolutely attempting to emulate them, however, albeit in a league that plays at a faster tempo. If they win a championship this way, I'd accept the comparison. Heck, I'd welcome it.

    You're not going to accept this, but the reality is this: The Pacers play in Indiana. The Pacers play a decided physical defense-first philosophy. Neither of those things will endear them nationally. Heck, it's not exactly endearing them locally either. The Pacers haven't been a major draw in Indianapolis since the Bird/Reggie days of free flowing offense and three point shooters at every position.

    I get that you're riding the Pacers high right now, and you can't see how the Pacers won't become the NBA's next great dynasty and loved by all...but that's just not going to happen. The hierarchy doesn't like being disturbed. You're going to knock much bigger names than Paul George out of the playoffs, and casual fans will get annoyed by it (unless it's Miami).

    God forbid you keep Carmelo or Rose out of the finals....the national media will be borderline-offended in the "why am I stuck in Indianapolis covering the NBA finals when I could be spending a week in New York/Chicago" sense.
    Puck the Fistons

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


  27. #18
    Indiana Pacers Forever Pacer Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    ya
    Posts
    3,703

    Default Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

    A third of the league tanks and it usually doesn't get them anywhere, OKC is one of very few exceptions of tanking actually working. It takes more to be successful then just tanking. Good contracts, great trades, free agents, good coaching staff and FO. Most of the teams that tank have been tanking for a decade.
    .

    Frank Vogel says "Killer instinct, start strong, build a lead and then step on their throats."

  28. #19
    Administrator Unclebuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    32,683

    Default Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

    I have never been a proponent of tanking as a means of improving your franchise. Notice I didn't say the best means, I said as a means. I completely reject the notion that tanking in any way helps a franchise. Smart trades, smart drafting, and a little luck can turn a franchise around. Getting a high lottery pick assures nothing, you need to get a high lottery pick in the right year, or get lucky that a player like Paul George falls to number 10, and you have to be smart enough as a franchise to realize how good he is going to be and draft the guy when he's available.

    There is no exact formula for building a winning team. How did the Pacers acquire David West? Why didn't he go to a large market marque team? I don't know, we got lucky, we did all we could to acquire him, but he could have easily gone to the Celtics - there was nothing brilliant the pacers did to acquire West.
    Last edited by Unclebuck; 02-06-2013 at 08:25 AM.

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


  30. #20
    Member colts19's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    terre haute indiana
    Posts
    318

    Default Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

    The new way is simple hire Larry Legend. For getting us Danny, Roy, David, Paul, Lance, George and Tyler. I would like to say once again.

    Thank you LEGEND
    Good is the enemy of Great


    We're changing the identity of our basketball team -- dramatically. We're a power post team -- a blood-and-guts, old-school, smash-mouth team that plays with size, strength, speed and athleticism. We attack the basket. . . . This is the new identity of our team. It was a great effort. I'm very proud of our guys."
    -- Frank Vogel.

  31. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to colts19 For This Useful Post:


  32. #21
    Brian Mac_Daddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    University Heights
    Age
    27
    Posts
    567
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

    We've been fairly fortunate over the past couple of years. David West has been a huge factor these past two seasons. I hope it shows other top FAs that they should give small-market franchises a look. Sure, Bird had a lot to do with it, but its still a win in my book. We built strong through the draft, made some decent trades, and we were able to get a top FA to come to us.


  33. #22
    Member VideoVandal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Coatesville, IN
    Posts
    351

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

    Quote Originally Posted by Kstat View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The pistons did it long before the pacers did, and were the dominant team out of the east over the last decade. It changed nothing. So...no.

    In addition, the OKC model...please. So you're telling me the best formula is to land three consecutive top-five picks, and with them select two perennial all stars and a first ballot hall of famer, and then in between snag a borderline all star in the late teens?

    What genius thinks that's an easy formula to copy?
    He isn't necessarily saying that you have to land 3 top 5 picks and tank year in and year out, he is saying that it does however at least require 1 tank season. And I have heard many former GMs in this league for small market teams such as Kevin McHale, talk about how you can not win an NBA championship with out an NBA super star no not just a bunch of All Stars but a legit Super Star a Hall of Fame worthy player. And let's face it these caliber players don't come to cities like Indianapolis on free agent deals, so that leaves only 2 options to get the perceived Super Star that you must have to win the championship either A. trade for one which has been done in recent years but pretty much only to big market teams with other Super Stars already there such as Dwight to LA, Melo to NY (Amare at the time was considered a Super Star and people thought it meant they would get CP3 as well), but again these scenarios don't seem to be open to small market teams such as Pacers. So lastly it comes down to the draft and this is where small market teams have their one chance, Cleveland got their chance with LeBron till he broke their hearts because of this, OKC has been getting their chances now, SA got a million chances thanks to Duncan and amazing coaching, Chicago (while I know they are not small market they were also stuck in a rut neither landing high named FAs or trading for them got unstuck with the 1st overall pick) changed their chances of title contention with Rose. So yes there is a ton of merit to this argument that the only way to win in the NBA in a small market city is to do it by first losing and losing a lot, Detroit Pistons are literally the only exception to this rule in a very long time every other championship team in recent memory has had a Hall of Fame caliper player on the roster, so the Pacers are trying to join the very short list of just the Pistons. For a long time as a Pacer fan when the going got rough I was legitimately upset with Indiana for staying mediocre thinking along these same lines thinking that the mediocrity would never get us anywhere other than maybe some playoff trips but Larry did a phenomenal job of drafting and landing players that are much more skilled than where they were drafted. You could argue that we actually did indeed follow this model of losing to win when at 10 we landed Paul George now at pick 10 there usually is not an opportunity to land many players with top 5 pick talent but I think it is evident that if there was a redraft today that Paul would be a top 5 pick probably even a top 3 pick.

  34. #23
    Denim Chicken duke dynamite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Bloomington
    Posts
    13,372
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

    Who would've thought...

    You hire a Champion to build a Championship team. This man has been successful in every level of basketball he's ever been a part of.



    And for that, I echo the sentiments of the previous posters,

    Thanks, Larry.

  35. The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to duke dynamite For This Useful Post:

    + Show/Hide list of the thanked


  36. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Age
    33
    Posts
    28,142

    Default Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

    I'm pretty sure Kstats would be singing a different song if instead of Darko Detroit got Melo, Bosh or Wade, yes tanking is always going to be the way to go and if you have an smart FO that knows wtf they are doing is even better.

    And yes the Pacers didn't "tank" but had they won more games we would be talking about Cole Aldrich or Xavier Henry as part of our core, thanks god for Utah too.

  37. #25
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    20,794

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Could there be a Pacers way of building...

    It reinforces the concept of complimenting players, IMO, not necessarily which process to build teams is best.

    The Pacers aren't all that special individually. Paul looks like he's turning into it though.

Similar Threads

  1. Building a better Pacers team
    By Pacersalltheway10 in forum Trade Proposals
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-30-2010, 09:03 PM
  2. building through youth? not true for the Pacers
    By Pacergeek in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 01-22-2010, 11:54 PM
  3. Replies: 19
    Last Post: 01-08-2007, 09:58 PM
  4. Are the Pacers building a team around JO or not?
    By Bball in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 06-29-2006, 09:54 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
  •