Pacers Rebuild

[count55]

About 3,800 words for no apparent reason

So what?

[Boneman2]

If the OP truly believes the Pacers are pretenders then why is he/she writing thesis statements about said team?

Its not like it is typical to be consumed to this extent over a non-threat.

I see right through the conjecture, and I know the true meaning of this invalid argument.

It is derived out of jealousy or fear.

Funny how this is an issue while the Pacers are actually starting to resemble a contender.

Its as if the OP is really trying to convince himself if anything, for reassurance purposes I guess.

[jman2585]

There's no harm in intelligent discussion. Your mod has no problem with me saying the Pacers are not a contender. Do you disagree with my analysis that they are not a contender?

[Gremz]

We're not a contender.......yet. But we're well on our way. You can't deny that.

And I don't speak for every Pacers fan. They're point of view is just as valid as mine.

[jman2585]

I'm not sure you're on your way, because while on the one hand, you could say "we're one guy away", that guy is someone like Chris Paul (not Eric Gordon). And I don't see how you can add a Chris Paul guy, certainly not without giving up alot of talent in return (thus negating the addition of Paul). Plus West is getting older, and could leave this offseason.

[Gremz]

Defense wins championships........just saying.

[jman2585]

That's actually a big misconception. D is good of course, but talent wins championships. That's why the Heat just won a title with Bosh as their starting C.

[Gremz]

If talent was enough the 2004/5 Phoenix Suns would have won the title without losing a game in the playoffs.

Come one now, there's always room for variance. The Pacers are still building this core, even you can see that.

We all know improvement is required, but to say there is zero chance here is pretty ignorant. Time will tell whether this "rebuild" has worked or not, but it's far from being a closed gate, and that's the best way to look at it at this juncture.

[jman2585]

The Suns were less talented than the Spurs. They were more talented on offense, but holistically they were less talented. But it's entirely possible they could have been so much better on offense that it still wouldn't have mattered. It's about talent. D is a part of talent of course, but it's false to say "No D, no title".

Nothing is impossible, but it's almost unheard of to acquire a player like that for nothing. And in the current climate it certainly seems next to impossible, not unlike hoping I'll win the lotto. I would never rely on it, or even think it's remotely likely.

[Wizop]

There's no harm in intelligent discussion. Your mod has no problem with me saying the Pacers are not a contender. Do you disagree with my analysis that they are not a contender?

yes, the number two team in a conference is absolutely a contender. what is your definition of contender? do you have to have over a 50% chance of winning the title to be a contender? what would eliminate all but one team. contender should mean something different from favorite.

here are the current odds

http://www.vegasinsider.com/nba/odds/futures/

we're in the five slot. now I'll admit odds are not exactly a prediction. they are set to even out the betting. an illustration of this is the position of the Lakers who are higher than I'd expect which in my opinion reflects not their chances but their number of fans.

where would you set the contender cut-off? 100 to 1? 50 to 1? 20 to 1? 10 to 1? presently Indiana is at 18 to 1 which translates to something between a 1 in 5 and 1 in 6 chance of winning it all.

[Boneman2]

There's no harm in intelligent discussion. Your mod has no problem with me saying the Pacers are not a contender. Do you disagree with my analysis that they are not a contender?

Of what use is your analysis, seems like an unobjective rant to me. I have no doubt about your position on this matter.

We're elite without Granger, he just returned.
We're starting a relatively young core and you believe the end is near once DWest expires. You just don't understand or have failed to realize our situation.
The reality is the Pacers are just scratching the surface, look out.

[Pacerlive]

That's actually a big misconception. D is good of course, but talent wins championships. That's why the Heat just won a title with Bosh as their starting C.

The difference here is that you believe talent from 3 guys vs 6 guys is better and of course there is history to support that claim. Being in a small market however there is little choice in the matter unless your superstar (which you acquired in the draft) likes the small market feel like Kevin Durant or Timmy D. That however is unlikely and history supports that claim as well (Kobe, Shaq, LeBron, CP3, Dwill, Howard and even Bosh).

You either build to keep the team in your city or you don't. Being mediocre is a death sentence for small markets and even worse this isn't a FA destination like south beach.

The Pacers did get to the Finals with this approach so it can work.

[Pacerlive]

:D

There's no harm in intelligent discussion. Your mod has no problem with me saying the Pacers are not a contender. Do you disagree with my analysis that they are not a contender?

Of what use is your analysis, seems like an unobjective rant to me. I have no doubt about your position on this matter.

We're elite without Granger, he just returned.
We're starting a relatively young core and you believe the end is near once DWest expires. You just don't understand or have failed to realize our situation.
The reality is the Pacers are just scratching the surface, look out.

For goodness sakes how serious should we take this guy when he thinks the Mavs will sign David West?

We got the second seed in the East with not having our franchise player yet we are just lucky to be here?

Unobjective rant is being too kind. Its more of a nonsensical post from a person who disregards facts like Danny hasn't been on the team the entire season and PG emergence as a offensive threat.

[Charcoal Filtered]

e, not unlike hoping I'll win the lotto. I would never rely on it, or even think it's remotely likely.

Detroit and Dallas have both hit the lotto in the last 10 yrs..

[jman2585]

A team like the Mavs could sign West. Cuban has had no issue playing guys out of position before, right now he has Brand playing minutes at C, and has had teams with A.Walker and Jamison out of position at the 3 and 5 too. It's not at all far fetched. But other teams would be a better fit, sure.

I also think it's inaccurate to claim "we got to the finals this way". The 2000 Pacer team was built with either players you got from the lotto (R.Miller 11th pick, Smits 2nd, D.Davis 13th, Croshere 12th) from years of failures, or were players acquired by trading assets you got in the lotto (Dampier for Mullin, McKey was a lotto pick who you got by trading a lotto pick, who you had acquired with a lotto pick, even Jalen was a product of gradual turnover of good 1st round picks). Plus in 2000 the real finals took place in the West, the Blazers would have beaten the Pacers too. The Pacers weren't winning a title that year, the East just historically sucked (way more than it does now).

Basically a contender is a team who only needs to get lucky once in the playoffs. These Pacers don't fit that bill.

[Charcoal Filtered]

So of the thirty teams, which teams do you think are built or rebuilding correctly?

[jman2585]

The Spurs model is basically the one everyone who isn't already set, or one piece away, or in a unique position (Lakers/Nets) should be following. You probably don't think it involves the draft because the Spurs have averaged 58 wins for the last 16 years, but tanking in 97 gave them the assets they needed to do that (and in 1987-89 they tanked to some degree, to build the team they had in the first place). The Spurs had exceptional work in building around Duncan of course, but they were fortunate in continually seeing ahead of the curve in a number of ways (the international market, stashing players overseas, having exceptional scouting, taking advantage of the developmental league, etc). That's allowed the Spurs to stave off rebuilding, as well as all the usual "good management" moves, like building a good culture, making smart trades, picking good coaches, etc. But the team knows when to lose on purpose too, they just haven't had to in ages because they've been seeing ahead of the curve so much. When that luck runs out, they'll tank again. Teams can't plan on "seeing ahead of the curve" as a plan, because it relies on other teams being stupid, and also not copying you.

And we know that they will be willing to tank, because if you look at the 5 Spurs outposts around the NBA, they've shown they're very willing to tank and build through the draft. Presti in OKC is the model of how to build a contender from nothing, he's done almost everything right. The Magic and Hornets are doing the same thing. And it'll work.

The Cavs (a non Spurs FO) also seem to be going about things the right way, I think they're well on the path to becoming a contender again, they remind me alot of the Thunder.

If I had to look at one of the worst managed teams, it's the Bucks. A team trying to do what you're doing.

[Charcoal Filtered]

It does not matter as much what model you follow, but how effective you do each facet. You have to draft, trade, and find players that can produce in your system effectively. The Bucks are not doing very well IMO because of trading for chuckers like Ellis and spending foolishly on FA's like Gooden. One of the examples you gave in the Cavs are not drafting well with Waiters and Thompson being mediocre.

Look at Denver.

I love what they have done after getting rid of Carmelo.

Faried was drafted 22.
Lawson was drafted 18.

They got AI for a very cheap price. There was no significant tanking involved.

If they would have done the same thing Orlando did with trading Howard, they would certainly have been faced with multiple years of a losing record. Not for sure if you are a season ticket holder for any team. I am with the Blazers and know it is a tough pill to swallow even for one season.

[jman2585]

It does matter, because some models are more conducive to achieving your goal (if players got the option to bat with corked bats, or do spitballs, they would, because even though it's no guarantee it helps increase the odds). Denver got most of their assets with lotto picks in the first place, and kept rolling those assets over into new assets (like Melo). They tanked hard in 2002 and 2003 in order to accumulate some of those assets (while saving cap space to bolster their chances)

[jman2585]

The Bucks are not doing very well IMO because of trading for chuckers like Ellis and spending foolishly on FA's like Gooden. One of the examples you gave in the Cavs are not drafting well with Waiters and Thompson being mediocre.

I should also respond to this part. I don't think Thompson or Waiters will prove to be bad picks. Both have really started to pick up lately, and alot of people said the same thing about Irving (rather unfairly). I think they're a few pieces away, but they've got a good foundation down there. Waiters right now looks similar to Beal, a guy nobody is ripping on.