Watson Official, Chat Wrap Today

[Wizop]

and the key phrase is "bottom half of the roster." if these guys surprise, great, but they are all basically place holders who should give way to first round draft picks year by year.

[Boneman2]

I think what Scoot said about signing multiple players/ back-ups makes good fiscally driven sense, as opposed to locking it all up on one b/u. JJ has great character, that I will miss. Fortunately Larry saw JJ was never going to be a solid distributor, just an undersized SG that pushes around PG's.

[8305]

[quote="Scoot McGroot"]Earl Watson is a terrific backup PG in this league. However, he's a well below average starter.

Travis Diener is a terrific 3rd/emergency PG in this league. However, he's a very low caliber starter.

TJ Ford is the only starting caliber PG we have, and is a pretty solid player. Let's let him play and see what happens.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for moving TJ if the value is very good and can improve the team long-term, but I just don't see that happening right now. The market is slim pickins' in return for TJ Ford.

Basically agree however, I think it will be interesting to see if TJ is able to hold onto the starting job. My guess is one of the reasons Watson came to Indiana was the potential of beating out our starter. Heck, in Tj's a fairly short career it has happened three times. Its not that TJ isn't a more talented player than the guys who have beaten him out in the past. I think teams have just responded better when his backup has gotten starter minutes during TJ's inevitable injury time.

[Watson410]

You made your username after him, he must be baller.

I can assure you I did not make my username after Earl Watson! Did it ever occur to you that my name is Watson? It's not really an uncommon name.

[PaceWalker]

Couple Questions...

1. I've seen different reports about what the deal is. Mike Wells says 1 year $3 mil and RealGM and the pacers.com is saying "multi-year deal." Anyone know what it is?

2. Can Watson shoot the 3? mid-range game? I haven't seen much of him.


I am happy about this signing. I think it's exactly what we needed to do after letting Jack go (which I was for due to $$$). I think this is a great short-term signing.

[IrishLuck31]

1) Im not sure about the money, but Id like to find out too.

2) He is not a great 3-point shooter, he is much better at the mid-range game, and despite being known as a solid defender of the pg position, he doesnt have too much height (6'1 I believe), so when we go up against bigger PGs, we will still defensively be in a lot of trouble.

-I think Earl Watson would be a perfect backup PG in the right situation.... however, the fact that our starter, TJ, shares Watson's limitations - lack of consistent 3 point shooting, small, sometimes too much dribbling, has me a little wary of this signing. We didnt have too many other options

-since O'brien's system can ideally be just several skilled players moving the ball around and not necessarily needing a traditional PG to distribute everything in the half-court set, do you guys think it would be possible to go w/ a lineup of Dahntay Jones, Brush, Granger, and then any 4 or 5 for some parts of the game? Jones can defintely guard the PG spot - he played great Def in the playoffs against Chris Paul, we would just need Rush or Granger to be able to bring the ball up and initiate our offense. I think Granger has the ability to bring the ball up and just the get the offense flowing for at least a few minutes per game

[PaceWalker]

Mark Stein just tweeted that it is a one year deal worth $2.8 mil

[PaceWalker]

1) Im not sure about the money, but Id like to find out too.

2) He is not a great 3-point shooter, he is much better at the mid-range game, and despite being known as a solid defender of the pg position, he doesnt have too much height (6'1 I believe), so when we go up against bigger PGs, we will still defensively be in a lot of trouble.

-I think Earl Watson would be a perfect backup PG in the right situation.... however, the fact that our starter, TJ, shares Watson's limitations - lack of consistent 3 point shooting, small, sometimes too much dribbling, has me a little wary of this signing. We didnt have too many other options

-since O'brien's system can ideally be just several skilled players moving the ball around and not necessarily needing a traditional PG to distribute everything in the half-court set, do you guys think it would be possible to go w/ a lineup of Dahntay Jones, Brush, Granger, and then any 4 or 5 for some parts of the game? Jones can defintely guard the PG spot - he played great Def in the playoffs against Chris Paul, we would just need Rush or Granger to be able to bring the ball up and initiate our offense. I think Granger has the ability to bring the ball up and just the get the offense flowing for at least a few minutes per game

Thanks for the answers. I like your idea about the no PG lineup. At least it's a very interesting idea. I think it's something that we could look into, playing against taller PGs. It is becoming more and more popular in this league to see point-forwards in order to create match up problems, so I wouldn't be opposed with the Pacers trying it out.

[fienX420]

Because if we sign all 4 year deals, then we won't have cap space in 2 years...

Dude. One 4 year deal for a player we really needed (Jack). We'd still have plenty of cap space in 2011. The rest of these guys - can you say we really need them? Solomon Jones is going to play behind Hibbert, Foster, Murphy, Hansbrough, and McRoberts. Dahntay Jones is no better a defensive player than Jack or Rush or Daniels (and he did get a 4 year deal).

[PaceWalker]

Because if we sign all 4 year deals, then we won't have cap space in 2 years...

Dude. One 4 year deal for a player we really needed (Jack). We'd still have plenty of cap space in 2011. The rest of these guys - can you say we really need them? Solomon Jones is going to play behind Hibbert, Foster, Murphy, Hansbrough, and McRoberts. Dahntay Jones is no better a defensive player than Jack or Rush or Daniels (and he did get a 4 year deal).

Solomon Jones is basically a roster filler that we are giving the small chance to actually turn into something. Jones deal is not that big and is a role player that we needed. Jack is now overpaid with a not much higher ceiling to get better.

The Pacers have too long of a history in getting caught up in long/bad contracts. I like this approach. It's still 2 years away so why jeopordize the 2011 summer with a contract that might turn out bad? "Singles and doubles" is the right play until 2011.

[Scoot McGroot]

Because if we sign all 4 year deals, then we won't have cap space in 2 years...

Dude. One 4 year deal for a player we really needed (Jack). We'd still have plenty of cap space in 2011. The rest of these guys - can you say we really need them? Solomon Jones is going to play behind Hibbert, Foster, Murphy, Hansbrough, and McRoberts. Dahntay Jones is no better a defensive player than Jack or Rush or Daniels (and he did get a 4 year deal).

Yeah, Dahntay got a 4 year for HALF the money of Jarrett Jack. Half. That's a lot of savings for a long-term role player.

[fienX420]

I guess you don't think Jack is worth twice as much as Dahntay Jones. Market says he is. I say he's worth far more than that (or, at least, Jones is worth far less). Between Jones, Jones, and Watson, we are definitely spending more this year than Jack would've cost us. Next year? It's probably close (and that's the only year that saving significant money is justifiable). Summer of 2011? We have $22 million in contracts (Granger, Dahntay Jones, Hibbert, Rush, and Hansbrough). If we'd subbed Jack for Jones, we'd have like $25 million. Not a big difference. Especially if you're not a contender to land a big fish. And especially if you're looking to keep your own free agents (which doesn't require cap space to do in the first place). I just think that Jack was a better fit to include in that core group we take into 2012. It would have given us some consistency at the PG position, which is something we've desperately needed since freaking Mark Jackson held it down. Not to mention that Jack is more age appropriate for the group.

[cdash]

I guess you don't think Jack is worth twice as much as Dahntay Jones. Market says he is. I say he's worth far more than that (or, at least, Jones is worth far less). Between Jones, Jones, and Watson, we are definitely spending more this year than Jack would've cost us. Next year? It's probably close (and that's the only year that saving significant money is justifiable). Summer of 2011? We have $22 million in contracts (Granger, Dahntay Jones, Hibbert, Rush, and Hansbrough). If we'd subbed Jack for Jones, we'd have like $25 million. Not a big difference. Especially if you're not a contender to land a big fish. And especially if you're looking to keep your own free agents (which doesn't require cap space to do in the first place). I just think that Jack was a better fit to include in that core group we take into 2012. It would have given us some consistency at the PG position, which is something we've desperately needed since freaking Mark Jackson held it down. Not to mention that Jack is more age appropriate for the group.

The market is deceiving isn't it? Toronto had to throw a little extra cash at Jack because he was a restricted free agent. If they had ponied up a 4 year/$16 million offer, then we would have matched and they would have just tied up their cap space for a week. Jones was unrestricted, so we didn't have to worry about Denver matching.

You are right, we are spending more on Jones, Jones, and Watson than we would have on Jack. But you know what? That's three players. Two of them are sure-fire rotation guys, and the other presents us with something we desperately need in our frontcourt, even if it is just spot minutes (shot blocking, athleticism). I'd rather have those three than just Jarrett Jack alone. That's just me though.

I like Jack too, but saying he would give us consistency a la Mark Jackson is outrageous. Jack is what he is: an extremely solid, reliable backup point guard. He is a good locker room guy and provides good leadership. He isn't a foundation piece, he is a luxurious secondary piece, one more valuable to a team that is contending (or, in Toronto's case, delusional enough to think they can contend) than he is for a team that is two years into a rebuilding plan.

[Dunthreevy]

I guess you don't think Jack is worth twice as much as Dahntay Jones. Market says he is. I say he's worth far more than that (or, at least, Jones is worth far less). Between Jones, Jones, and Watson, we are definitely spending more this year than Jack would've cost us. Next year? It's probably close (and that's the only year that saving significant money is justifiable). Summer of 2011? We have $22 million in contracts (Granger, Dahntay Jones, Hibbert, Rush, and Hansbrough). If we'd subbed Jack for Jones, we'd have like $25 million. Not a big difference. Especially if you're not a contender to land a big fish. And especially if you're looking to keep your own free agents (which doesn't require cap space to do in the first place). I just think that Jack was a better fit to include in that core group we take into 2012. It would have given us some consistency at the PG position, which is something we've desperately needed since freaking Mark Jackson held it down. Not to mention that Jack is more age appropriate for the group.

The market is deceiving isn't it? Toronto had to throw a little extra cash at Jack because he was a restricted free agent. If they had ponied up a 4 year/$16 million offer, then we would have matched and they would have just tied up their cap space for a week. Jones was unrestricted, so we didn't have to worry about Denver matching.

You are right, we are spending more on Jones, Jones, and Watson than we would have on Jack. But you know what? That's three players. Two of them are sure-fire rotation guys, and the other presents us with something we desperately need in our frontcourt, even if it is just spot minutes (shot blocking, athleticism). I'd rather have those three than just Jarrett Jack alone. That's just me though.

I like Jack too, but saying he would give us consistency a la Mark Jackson is outrageous. Jack is what he is: an extremely solid, reliable backup point guard. He is a good locker room guy and provides good leadership. He isn't a foundation piece, he is a luxurious secondary piece, one more valuable to a team that is contending (or, in Toronto's case, delusional enough to think they can contend) than he is for a team that is two years into a rebuilding plan.

Well said.

As far as the comparison of Jack to Mark Jackson, I consider that nearly blasphemous. Jarrett Jack will never in his career be what Mark Jackson was. That's coming from a guy who supported Jack all season last year and am still a big fan of the guy.

[8305]

D Jones and Watson vs Jack.

Jones is a better defender of either guard position and a reasonably competent three point shooter. He is agrueably a better option at the 2 guard. While I loved Jack's toughness and durability he makes a lot of mistakes with the ball. Watson getting his minutes at the point will likely result in fewer turnovers. Defensively, Watson will deal with quickness better, Jack is better against size. Are we overall better at the point with Watson than Jack? Pretty good chance we are I think.

Jack was extremely useful here last year because as it turned out there were minutes at both positions and he could fill them. The same reason he makes a lot of sense for Toronto. But is a solid veteran pg and a defensive stopper at the 2 a better option than one guy trying to do both at essentially the same money currently and less long term? Pretty good chance the answer is yes.

[LEIF]

have the terms of this multi year deal been released?

[cdash]

have the terms of this multi year deal been released?

I think it's just one year for around $3 million.

[glasket]

have the terms of this multi year deal been released?

I think it's just one year for around $3 million.

Was it not a multi year contract? Fairly sure I read somewhere on nba.com that it was multi year (sorry no time to search for link)

[Scoot McGroot]

Pacers.com said it was a multi-year deal in the official release from the Pacers.

I'm waiting to hear back from some guys that are privy to league info on salaries to see what they found.

[fienX420]

Sorry if people took it wrong, but I in no way compared Jack to Mark Jackson. We haven't had a consistent presence at the PG position since Mark Jackson was here. If we had signed Jack to a 4 year deal, at least we'd have the same guy in the rotation at the PG position for an extended period of time. That's all I was saying. Mark Jackson was an all-time great PG. Jack isn't much of a PG at all. I didn't make a comparison between the two.