Are we Better without...

[Orlock78]

Ok so I gotta ask the question after our last 4 games....

Are we a better team without Murphy, Dunleavy, and to a lesser extent Foster?

Frankly I've been shocked by what our young team has done lately (especially Jones), but am extremely psyched. I just wonder if they can keep it up. Actually I think they can, but I'm not so sure that the return of Murphy and Dunleavy are good things. They seem to be playing so well right now it would almost be a shame to break up the continuity that this unit has established. What do you guys think?

[MUpacersSIC]

I kind of think that we should have them come off the bench when they do return. Why change what's going on when it's working!

[MUpacersSIC]

I kind of think that we should have them come off the bench when they do return. Why change what's going on when it's working!

[greenway84]

I agree. I think they should come of the bench. I noticed last night we had a hard time scoring off the bench. I would say that we trade Murphy while his stock is high and while we dont think we need him. Until that happens the bench it should be. I have to say we wouldnt lose points when our starters are out.
Watson/Head/Dunleavy/Murphy/Soloman On a side note, I still think we target a pg by trade deadline or at least this summer.

[pacerfan4life]

I don't think so. What it will do is make us a really deep team! I think there are certain things that foster , dunleavy and murphy bring to the pacers.

[Gremz]

I can't imagine we'd be better without them. Murphy in particular was extremely consistent for us last season. If we were able to bring Dunleavy and Foster off the bench and continue playing in this fashion we'd be a much better shot at a playoff berth.

[kdawg531]

Murphy is a defensive liability. He was consistent on the boards on with his three point shooting, but the more athletic and powerful PFs school him constantly while he attempts to guard them.

I think he would be perfect off the bench for this team.

[Crossova21]

Murphy is a defensive liability. He was consistent on the boards on with his three point shooting, but the more athletic and powerful PFs school him constantly while he attempts to guard them.

I think he would be perfect off the bench for this team.

I agree 100%. I would actually like to see us revisit the trade that would send Murph to Cavs for Z. It works in tradechecker straight up. Murph gives them another shooter for James and we get Z's expiring contract. It'll take away from the money we'll have in 2011 but the 2010 free agency class is SO much better.

[Miller4ever]

Murphy may be a liability guarding PF's, but so is Granger. Murph's shooting and ability to stretch the defense is also extremely valuable. When he comes back, he will and should start. If defense starts hemorrhaging points, we can always bring in Solo and Hansbrough. Unfortunately, they are still young, and they aren't as dependable yet. Murphy may not be a very physical defender, but he does a few things that are valued within our defensive system. He gets deflections, hustles on loose balls, and does one of the most underrated things on defense: grabs the rebound. Getting stops is useless if you keep yielding second chances.

[Crossova21]

I think if Murph does start when he comes back then Rush is the odd man out. I really like Dahntay Jones and for some reason it still doesn't look like Rush has his confidence. He plays like he's scared sometimes.

[Scoot McGroot]

Murphy is a defensive liability. He was consistent on the boards on with his three point shooting, but the more athletic and powerful PFs school him constantly while he attempts to guard them.

I think he would be perfect off the bench for this team.

I agree 100%. I would actually like to see us revisit the trade that would send Murph to Cavs for Z. It works in tradechecker straight up. Murph gives them another shooter for James and we get Z's expiring contract. It'll take away from the money we'll have in 2011 but the 2010 free agency class is SO much better.

Moving Murphy for Z won't give us any cap space in 2010 free agency. We'll lower our salary commitments, sure, but losing his $12 million salary for next season would put us right at/around $53 million, which is still projected to be right at/still slightly over the salary cap line. It'd give us a lot of breathing room under the luxury tax, and we'd be able to use the full MLE without worry, but that's all.

However, if we move Murphy for Z and shift our cap space to 2010, that doesn't necessarily mean that we "lose" cap space in 2011. It all depends on how we spend in the summer of 2010. We could spend some money we other wise wouldn't have spent if Murphy was on the books, or we could just hold onto it and save it forward to the following summer of 2011.

[Scoot McGroot]

As it is, I don't think we necessarily need to move Murphy for Z unless some sort of long-term incentive is included as well.

[Gremz]

As it is, I don't think we necessarily need to move Murphy for Z unless some sort of long-term incentive is included as well.

I agree. Not sure how determined Cleveland would be to making changes, but Murphy would be a great addition for them. For us, unless a decent 1st or a Hickson is coming our way (which the Cavs might balk at) we won't be giving up Murphy's production.

[Orlock78]

After a little more thought, I think agree with those who have said Murphy should come off the bench. I love his game, and him as a player, but we just aren't good enough defensively when he is on the floor. Although its true Granger is also not our best defensive option at PF, the difference is that every other PF in the league is going to have a hell of a time guarding him, and usually that equates to a lot of wasted energy that makes them less effective on offense. Overall I think our second unit could use the boost in rebounds, and scoring that Murphy provides.

Our achilles heel over the last year or so has been defense. Right now I think we have been playing better defensively than at any time in the past year, so I don't see any reason to screw it up by putting the very same guys (Murph, and Dunleavy) back in the starting lineup, who were a major part of the reason we couldn't defend. It doesn't mean they are useless, just that their skll set would be better coming off the bench.

[8305]

Who starts isn't that important. Its who get the minutes and who is out there at the end of the game that really matters. One thing the last 4 games has proven is that a lineup that includes Granger, D Jones and Rush makes for a more athletic group than we've put on the floor for years and its effective. I think we will continue to see those three on the floor at the same time alot even after everyone is back.

At full strength this team is 12 deep with guys who have made nice contributions this year or have had noteworthy success in their past. At least two guys will have to fall out of the rotation. My best guess today is the guys out will be Head and S. Jones. Two others might be looking at less than 12 minutes a night. Best guess on those two now would Hansbrough and Foster.

[IrishLuck31]

yes. Murphy should play when he gets back, but I dont believe he is part of our best 5 man lineup

[Donerik]

Troy could come off the bench, play him with Jeff or Tyler, I am sure he'll enjoy collecting his paycheck and move on in 2 years.

Dunleavy needs to play... There is no way that his Defense is bad enough that the +/- on starting him over Rush doesn't offset 32% shooting, 26% from the three, and 50% from the charity stripe. He's either injured and playing, not putting the work in, or not good. We brought in a defensive stopper so he shouldn't be too ragged from guarding a teams top wing for 48 minutes that his legs just can't get the ball to the rim... Maybe put him on the phone with Kareem and have them talk about what happens when you don't work hard. With all the faults in last nights game Afrotop shot 1-9, 1-7 from 3.

I'd love to have the option to go to dunleavy over afrotop, playing Earl Watson @ the 2 is not the answer.