Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

[Nuntius]

Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

Pacers would've had to go small, and conventional wisdom to beating Miami was to go big and pound it inside. But turns out the key isn't size inside....... its ball movement and shooting. Its passing it around and tiring the Heat out, as the Mavs and Spurs showed

It's both ball movement and size. Tim Duncan averaged 15.4 PPG, 10 RPG and 2 APG and he was a big reason why San Antonio won so easily.

[d_c]

Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

Its obviously hindsight and i didn't think so on draft day, but yes, the Pacers would be better with Leonard.

Pacers would've had to go small, and conventional wisdom to beating Miami was to go big and pound it inside. But turns out the key isn't size inside....... its ball movement and shooting. Its passing it around and tiring the Heat out, as the Mavs and Spurs showed

Yeah Leonard plays the same position as the Pacers best player, but the bottom line is the Pacers would've had a better shot at beating Miami with Leonard on the team instead of George Hill. They would've beaten Atlanta more easily as well.

[pacer4ever]

Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

After our first round scare I'm surprised we don't have a 7 page thread on the fact we picked Tyler over Jeff Teague.

Tyler over Ty Lawson, anyone who watched the UNC teams of that era knew Ty was going to be a much better pro than Tyler. That one isn't even about 2nd guessing that was a stupid pick at the time and still is.



I was not a fan of trading for George Hill, but at least I could understand the logic. Drafting Tyler over the glut of good guards available made 0 sense.

[Ransom]

Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

After our first round scare I'm surprised we don't have a 7 page thread on the fact we picked Tyler over Jeff Teague.

[Pacer Fan]

Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

Who then would the Pacers have drafted?
Why would they not have drafted a projected lottery pick who fell to them as he was the BPA?

I was not surprised by the Pacers draft and loved the deal. I figured a deal for the Pacers pick was in the making, I was blown away we got Hill for the 15th pick. I believe only Klay Thompson and Markieff Morris would have trumped a trade.

[CableKC]

Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

Kawhi is easily a top 5 pick in that year's draft.

I know that it sucks that we traded him for a Player that is a solid but not spectacular Player ( unfortunately, one that divides this forum at times ).

I know that it sucks that he's doing much better on another Team and won a NBA Championship before PG24 or anyone else on the Pacers....but what's done is done.

I don't see the point to continue to cry over spilled milk and dream of what could have been. What's done is done. Time to move on and do what I have done....cheer for him as a Player that was a Pacer for 15 seconds.

[Since86]

Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

I think it's pretty plain to see that Larry doesn't really believe in the small ball lineup. Granger at the 4 was a short term solution, not a solution for an entire season. Even with JOb, the Pacers roster stayed relatively normal. Roy was force fed minutes, which had to wrinkle JOb pretty badly. Roy's a stiff now, but back then he was nothing but an occasional rebounder, who relied on his 15ft jumper to score, and was used as a facilitator. Every move since then Larry has made, has been a reinforcement of a more traditional lineup, outside of Copeland.

Pacers had a pretty young team. Larry was already saying things about Lance being the most talented on the team, we had PG starting to give glimpses of what he could become, a young PG in Collison, a still green Hibbert. The Pacers weren't looking to continue adding youth, they were looking to find examples for their younger players.

GHill fit, not only because he filled a basketball need, but he was coming from an organization like the Spurs, with the ability to teach his younger teammates everything he absorbed in SA. There's a very fine line of collecting talent like poker chips and actually developing that talent through leadership. What you lose in youth/talent, you may gain in experience/teaching/chemistry.

The one position the Pacers felt the best about, IMHO anyways, would be the SF. You have the vet leader in Granger, you have the developing PG with potential coming out his nose like snot on a toddler. They were thin everywhere else. GHill not only fixed a rotational issue, it avoided a logjam at the position you're most set at, and it provided the necessary lockerroom needed in order to really grow your talent.

Larry's best moves are his conservative moves, and I honestly think trading GHill for a relative question mark in Leonard was the conservative move. You knew what you were going to get in Hill, and what you were going to get was what the Pacers needed.

[diamonddave00]

Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

Remember at the time Leonard was drafted David West was not a Pacer- they had played Granger some minutes at power forward; prior to that draft. Having Danny, Paul and Kwahi the plan could have been play all 3 together for limited minutes with Kwahi backing up both Danny and Paul. Lance was just coming off his rookie season where he played only a few games , he was also seen as a total wildcard with some point guard skills.

Personally I was bummed hearing we had traded him for George Hill a combo guard who was going to be a free agent, when prior to the draft Kwahi was seen as a top 8 pick, I thought he was a high lottery pick we had stolen like Granger

[CableKC]

Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

With the understanding that reports were they WOULD have drafted him ....

If you get BPA who isn't going to see the floor in your system or because of a logjam, you haven't gotten much other than someone who will be a kcik-in in a later trade because no one has seen what he can do.

Unless it's a complete no-brainer, you might be better off with a player almost as good who better fills a need. You don't go for a significantly worse player JUST because he fills a need, but filling a need can count toward a decision of who on the board is actually BPA for your team.

To echo what Justin Tyme was posting....there were many articles that did suggest that the FO was really struggling with deciding to pull the trigger on the GH trade and Kawhi. Ultimately, they decided on going with GH for need....as opposed to sticking with Kawhi and then sorting it out later.

EDIT- p4e posted this earlier:

Not true the Pacers almost scrapped the trade because Leonard fell. He was the guy they wanted as well.

The Pacers swallowed hard and agreed. There was still one problem left: Indiana loved Kawhi Leonard. The Pacers had him about no. 5 or no. 6 on their draft board, and they thought very hard about scrapping the Hill deal and just taking a guy they never expected to be alive at no. 15. “When Kawhi ended up being there, we had to think about taking him,” Morway says. “But we already had Danny Granger and Paul George. That’s what made it a little easier for us.”

http://grantland.com/features/analyz...erence-finals/

But IMHO....I always thought that the best route to take is to take the BPA unless the difference between the BPA and the BPA that can fill a need wasn't that wide. For example, if the BPA is a Wing Player but there isn't a huge dropoff in talent between that Player and the BPA that plays a position of need....then my preference would be to draft the BPA at a position of need.

[BillS]

Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

Who then would the Pacers have drafted?
Why would they not have drafted a projected lottery pick who fell to them as he was the BPA?

With the understanding that reports were they WOULD have drafted him ....

If you get BPA who isn't going to see the floor in your system or because of a logjam, you haven't gotten much other than someone who will be a kcik-in in a later trade because no one has seen what he can do.

Unless it's a complete no-brainer, you might be better off with a player almost as good who better fills a need. You don't go for a significantly worse player JUST because he fills a need, but filling a need can count toward a decision of who on the board is actually BPA for your team.

[Justin Tyme]

Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

The first question should be, would the Pacers had picked Leonard if not for the trade? I say no.

Who then would the Pacers have drafted?
Why would they not have drafted a projected lottery pick who fell to them as he was the BPA?

[Justin Tyme]

Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

You stole my thunder. I was going to say, we have no guarantee that the Pacers were going to pick Leonard sans a deal. I would argue the fact that they were willing to make that particular pick for GH shows they had no intention of picking Leonard if they used the pick for themselves.

Hasn't this info been posted twice recently that the Pacers were going to draft Leonard for themselves and even considered keeping Leonard instead of trading him. Leonard was a lottery pick who fell, so who else were the Pacers going to pick if not Leonard?

[indygeezer]

Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

The first question should be, would the Pacers had picked Leonard if not for the trade? I say no.

The second question should be, would Pacers be better with Leonard instead of Hill this past season? I say hell to the yes.

You stole my thunder. I was going to say, we have no guarantee that the Pacers were going to pick Leonard sans a deal. I would argue the fact that they were willing to make that particular pick for GH shows they had no intention of picking Leonard if they used the pick for themselves.

[Since86]

Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

I don't think anybody questions that he would be a good player here. He's obviously a good player with a good work ethic. AT WORST he would have been an extra wing defender, who could play some small ball 4 when we needed. I just don't think he would be nearly as good here with the Pacers. He just would've never had the opportunity to play 30+ mpg unless he's cutting into Lance' s time from the last two years - which would have stunted Lance's development.

I agree though, NOBODY should question Leonard's skills, or work ethic. He would have been a good player wherever he went. Again, I just doubt he's the total product we just saw have 3 really good games in the finals.

I'm not sure anyone really thought he'd shoot as well as he has. We're talking about a guy who couldn't crack 30% from behind the closer college 3pt line, stepping into the NBA and shooting nearly 38% from the NBA line. No one doubted his defense/rebounding/tangibles, but they really weren't sure what he was going to do offensively. If he was a bigger Tony Allen, would there really be this question? I don't think so, and that was a very real possibility when he was drafted. Which isn't a bad thing, at all.

There's no way the Spurs saw his offensive game like this. I'm open to thinking they could have further down the road, but him looking like the best player on the floor during his 3rd season in the NBA finals is something I doubt even Kawhi thought would happen.

[Pacer Fan]

Re: Would we be a better team right now if we would have kept K. Leonard?

The first question should be, would the Pacers had picked Leonard if not for the trade? I say no.

The second question should be, would Pacers be better with Leonard instead of Hill this past season? I say hell to the yes.