RealGM

There's an insider only article up on ESPN dated March 31st and titled "What is the Pacer's Ceiling?" The sub-heading is "Without a star addition, Indiana could settle into NBA's upper-middle class"

A few quotes:

However, as promising as the outlook in Indiana may appear right now, the Pacers do run the risk of getting trapped in the NBA's upper-middle class -- close to contender status, but not quite on the level of the league's elite -- if they can't add a star talent.

When you compare the Bulls and Pacers, the biggest difference is that Derrick Rose plays for the Bulls. Chicago parlayed an injury-riddled and underachieving 33-49 record in 2007-08 season into the top pick of the next draft. The Pacers were just three games better that season, yet selected 11th and took Jerryd Bayless.

in the NBA, it's easy to get lulled into acceptance of a second-round upside. Indiana looks exceptionally strong at roster spots 3-10, perhaps even 2-10 depending on how you view Danny Granger. It's that centerpiece, that ornament atop the tree that is lacking, and it's awfully hard to acquire it once you've improved beyond a certain point.

In interviews, Vogel has insisted that his roster "has no ceiling." George has plenty of room to grow, but he's likely on an Andre Iguodala path where he dominates in most categories but isn't an offensive centerpiece. Hibbert is a solid player at a position of scarcity, but may be nearing the upper limits of what he can produce. Beyond these players, you have solid role contributors, but no one who is going to push the team into the elite.

The Pacers won't be an easy out in the postseason this year, but it would be shocking to see them beat either Miami or Chicago in a seven-game series. Then what? How does Bird take the next step? Franchise players don't grow on trees, and unless Larry Legend can somehow pluck one from the ether, Pacers fans might as well get used to this season. Because it's exactly like the one they'll enjoy for the next three to four years.

It mentions a few possibilities in the offseason like going after Eric Gordon (states that New Orleans is likely to match) and signing Greg Oden as a low-risk option. I don't think there's anything in here that's a surprise to anyone, but I hadn't noticed this article until today. It's written by a guy (Brad Doolittle) from Basketball Prospectus. I'm not familiar with him.

Personally, i feel we already have a franchise player in the making in Paul George.

I'd like to break the mold. who was Chicago's franchise player when they ran off all those wins with Rose out? aren't they proving what can be accomplished if you defend every possession?

at the college level would you call either Hayward or Howard franchise players? and turning the question around, will a franchise player by himself guarantee anything? look at MN when the big ticket was in his prime? is he still a franchise player in Boston where they are winning a division today?

it used to be said back in the Russell and Chamberlain era that you couldn't win without a dominant center. that's been disproved over and over again. now you do need a center that can defend the post but no one called Bill Cartwright a dominant center.

I suppose there is an argument that team concept or not in the final minute of a playoff game you need a player who can get a shot off on his own. Reggie couldn't. he needed screens. that team never got all the way thanks to Jordan and Kobe. was that because we lacked a star, they had a star, or the officials let the star play by a different set of rules?

in any event, trading Granger or George gets you no where. you aren't going to get back Kevin Durant. our best small market hope is that a play off rotation of 7 or 8 or even 10 very good players is good enough to beat a few great players and a bunch of just guys.

and we still do have cap room. maybe David West won't be the last very good player to decide that going to a place that plays as a team is a good idea.

P.S. after writing that I read today's Star and found this article.

http://www.indystar.com/article/20120406/SPORTS04/204060315/Indiana-Pacers-Danny-Granger-finds-easier-score-balanced-offense

here is Granger saying playing within the team concept is making things easier for him. does it come down to whether you can win with a team that can get a good player a good shot or just with a team with a great player who can get himself a bad shot and make it anyway?

OKC tonight. a win would say a lot for where we stand.

I mostly agree with the article. It's hard to win an NBA championship without at least one guy who is truly among the very best players in the league. And much as I like Paul George, it would be expecting a lot from him to ever reach that level.

Going forward, the Pacers do have two things that, at least in theory, ought to be very attractive to elite free agents: (1) money, and (2) a very good supporting cast already in place. Free agency seems to me to be a more likely way to get an elite player than trading or drafting.

I wonder if small market teams will start to benefit in free agency soon given all the media uproar in the big markets. For example, Carmelo wanted to get to New York and he made it, but now it seems like they're always on the cusp of throwing him under the bus there. The big three teamed up in Miami (I don't know if this necessarily qualifies as a big market, but they made it one) and now they get picked apart all the time. Deron Williams played in Utah and had decent team success there. Then he got shipped off to the Nets and that seems like a mess for him. He would be the perfect target for us. He's the one guy that I would want to throw max money at as he would make a real difference for the team and justify us overspending to keep some of our other RFAs as I think we'd make a move into the upper tier of teams. From his perspective, we can offer as much money as anyone outside NJ, we don't have to give up any pieces to get him, he gets to come into a team that (potentially) scored the #3 seed in the East without him... that seems desirable. I think his experience in Utah and Jersey may make going to Indy more palatable if he recognizes that you can be better off being the biggest fish in a smaller pond.

Obviously, Deron would be #1 for us. Steve Nash would be a great #2 option as well.

Other than that, there's not a lot that we'd look at otherwise. I can't imagine that we'll actually go after Eric Gordon in restricted free agency. There's not a lot of game changers out there otherwise.


I'm amazed that the example of Peyton Manning in Indy doesn't attract more famous athletes to want to play here. Think about it for a second. Peyton Manning, quite possibly the biggest celebrity and most well known football player in the NFL lived in Indy, and was able to pretty much live incognito the whole team. Hell, his wife was pregnant and had twins, and was out of the hospital for 2-3 weeks before anyone in Indy even KNEW! There's something to be said for a quiet lifestyle out of the public eye, while still being close enough to Chicago or a quick flight to NY for "festivities".

Nash has more reasons for and less reasons against coming to Indiana, unlike Deron, who everyone thinks is returning home to Dallas.

Dallas is home for him and Dirk would be an obvious draw as well. But, they won't have the money to go get another top-flight FA even if one were available (no more pairing Dwight and Deron in Dallas since Dwight re-upped for a year). Dallas just won a title last season. That team will always be Dirk's and it's also a city likely to always care more about the Cowboys. In Indy, he could be the man and take a team somewhere its never been before. Manning is a good example, and I think Reggie making the hall of fame this year and having such a good reputation as a player should also show that you can be beloved in a smaller market and still be as famous as you want to be everywhere else. I think we're a really good fit for Williams but we're never mentioned as a destination.

I also want Lin. I know he's injured now, but even his post-Linsanity numbers of 13 and 5 were good, and he would be my #3 PG target in the offseason.

in the NBA, it's easy to get lulled into acceptance of a second-round upside. Indiana looks exceptionally strong at roster spots 3-10, perhaps even 2-10 depending on how you view Danny Granger. It's that centerpiece, that ornament atop the tree that is lacking, and it's awfully hard to acquire it once you've improved beyond a certain point.

I know it is just Indiana, but if ESPN can notice it, is it so out of the question Deron or Nash can notice the same? I doubt there are many teams so well contructed to support 1 top 20 player chipping in and compete immediately.
Danny would make one hell of a Robin.