RealGM

I'm really surprised the Bulls have struggled so much. Deng has been hurt much of the time, but I don't know what has happened to some of the other guys (Hinrich in particular). We can all be grateful that their front office made some really bad decisions--think they'd like to have Ty Chandler and LaMarcus Aldridge right now instead of Wallace and Thomas?

The Bulls are turning into a cautionary tale for people who would advocate blowing up their team so they can rebuild through lottery picks/free agency. Chicago has about a kajillion former top-ten picks on their roster, plus one very expensive free agent, and it looks like they could still be headed straight back to the lottery.

Of course they will probably go off on the Pacers tonight.

mizzoupacers wrote:We can all be grateful that their front office made some really bad decisions--think they'd like to have Ty Chandler and LaMarcus Aldridge right now instead of Wallace and Thomas?

The Bulls are turning into a cautionary tale for people who would advocate blowing up their team so they can rebuild through lottery picks/free agency. Chicago has about a kajillion former top-ten picks on their roster, plus one very expensive free agent, and it looks like they could still be headed straight back to the lottery.

I disagree. It took awhile, but the Bulls got dealt a royal flush and they pissed it away. Chandler, LA, Deng, Gordon, Hinrich, and Nocioni would have been unstoppable. Now, they have players that are very green (Noah and Thomas), over the hill (Wallace), while the others are ready to run. Thought Paxson did a great job fleecing Zeke, but his other moves have been questionable.

Surprised that the Bulls are only one back from us in the loss column. Should be a great game.

Charcoal Filtered wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



I disagree. It took awhile, but the Bulls got dealt a royal flush and they pissed it away. Chandler, LA, Deng, Gordon, Hinrich, and Nocioni would have been unstoppable. Now, they have players that are very green (Noah and Thomas), over the hill (Wallace), while the others are ready to run. Thought Paxson did a great job fleecing Zeke, but his other moves have been questionable.

Surprised that the Bulls are only one back from us in the loss column. Should be a great game.

And before that, they had Brand, Artest, & Brad Miller.

I believe the point is that blowing things up is far from a guarantee for success. The Bulls won their title, then intentionally went in the tank. They lost 74% of their games over the next six years, and, though they've been in the playoffs the last three, they've won only one playoff series, and now are looking up at the Pacers in the standings. During those six years, they had 9 1st round picks, 7 of them in the top 10. Only two (Gordon, Hinrich) still play for them.

Those of us who have been resistant to blowing things up haven't been saying that we're happy with the way things are. We also haven't been saying that we're satisfied with mediocrity, or that one-and-done in the playoffs is good enough for us.

We just think that many vastly underestimate how hard it is to recover once you crash. Here are some numbers:

- Bulls - Six years (99-04) - no playoffs, .259 winning pct.
- Hawks - Eight years (00-07) - no playoffs, .332 winning pct.
- Celtics - one playoff appearance in 8 years (94-01), .386 winning pct., 5 in 14 years with .423 winning pct over that time fram (one ECF appearance)
- Cavs - one playoff appearance in 9 years (97-05), .419 winning pct.
- Mavs - one playoff appearance in 12 years (89-00), .359 winning pct.
- Nuggets - Eight years (96-03), no playoffs, .321 winning pct.
- Warriors - One playoff appearance in 13 years, .362 winning pct.
- Clippers - Well, it's the Clippers...only four playoff appearances since 1984...won 36% of their games...They had 17 top 10 picks during that time, including 9 top five picks (two #1's - Danny Manning & Michael Olawakandi)
- Knicks - one playoff appearance in the last six years (02-07), no winning seasons, .396 winning pct.
- Blazers - No playoffs last four years, .369 winning pct.

My point is that in this league, once you become bad, you tend to be bad for a very long time. If you're looking for a savior through the draft, simply look at this list of #1 picks since 1980:

Year Lg Team First Pick College
2007 NBA Portland Trail Blazers Greg Oden Ohio State University
2006 NBA Toronto Raptors Andrea Bargnani
2005 NBA Milwaukee Bucks Andrew Bogut University of Utah
2004 NBA Orlando Magic Dwight Howard
2003 NBA Cleveland Cavaliers LeBron James
2002 NBA Houston Rockets Yao Ming
2001 NBA Washington Wizards Kwame Brown
2000 NBA New Jersey Nets Kenyon Martin University of Cincinnati
1999 NBA Chicago Bulls Elton Brand Duke University
1998 NBA Los Angeles Clippers Michael Olowokandi University of the Pacific
1997 NBA San Antonio Spurs Tim Duncan Wake Forest University
1996 NBA Philadelphia 76ers Allen Iverson Georgetown University
1995 NBA Golden State Warriors Joe Smith University of Maryland
1994 NBA Milwaukee Bucks Glenn Robinson Purdue University
1993 NBA Orlando Magic Chris Webber University of Michigan
1992 NBA Orlando Magic Shaquille O'Neal Louisiana State University
1991 NBA Charlotte Hornets Larry Johnson University of Nevada, Las Vegas
1990 NBA New Jersey Nets Derrick Coleman Syracuse University
1989 NBA Sacramento Kings Pervis Ellison University of Louisville
1988 NBA Los Angeles Clippers Danny Manning University of Kansas
1987 NBA San Antonio Spurs David Robinson United States Naval Academy
1986 NBA Cleveland Cavaliers Brad Daugherty University of North Carolina
1985 NBA New York Knickerbockers Patrick Ewing Georgetown University
1984 NBA Houston Rockets Hakeem Olajuwon University of Houston
1983 NBA Houston Rockets Ralph Sampson University of Virginia
1982 NBA Los Angeles Lakers James Worthy University of North Carolina
1981 NBA Dallas Mavericks Mark Aguirre DePaul University
1980 NBA Golden State Warriors Joe Barry Carroll Purdue University

Even having the #1 pick is at best a 50/50 proposition on landing a real difference maker, arguably much lower than that.

Capspace is useful only if you have a plan on how to spend it.

Harken back to the Bulls clearing all that space in 2000, then the marquis free agents staying away in droves because they didn't want to play for them. They ended up signing Ron Mercer late in the summer desperately trying to meet the league minimum payroll.

That same summer, the Magic were supposed to be the new model. They basically torched their team, opening reams of capspace with which they signed the two top names available: Tracy McGrady & Grant Hill. The best that got them was 44 wins in 2002.

Yes, there have been exceptions, most notably the Suns with their quick turnaround (but they had Isiah to help them). However, they tend to be exceptions, not the rule.

I remember the '80's, when the Pacers averaged 32 wins a season. It was a miserable experience.

Before I buy into a rebuilding process, I want to see some indication that we know how we're going to do it. I don't think "lose 60 games and draft Derrick Rose (or Eric Gordon) qualifies".

Count, you are the fastest keyboard in the Midwest, but I'll move my follow-up post from the game thread to here.

Charcoal Filtered wrote:I disagree. It took awhile, but the Bulls got dealt a royal flush and they pissed it away. Chandler, LA, Deng, Gordon, Hinrich, and Nocioni would have been unstoppable.

I'll bet this topic leads to long conversations in bars all over Chicago.

In the nine drafts since they blew up their championship team, the Bulls have had an incredible 12 lottery picks...plus another first-round pick they used to get Ron Artest:

1999: Elton Brand (1), Ron Artest (16).
2000: Marcus Fizer (4), Jamal Crawford [8]
2001: Tyson Chandler (2) [in trade for Brand], Eddie Curry (4)
2002: Jay Williams (2)
2003: Kirk Hinrich (7)
2004: Ben Gordon (3), Luol Deng (7)
2005: no pick
2006: Ty Thomas (4) [in trade for Curry], Thabo Sefolosha (13)
2007: Joakim Noah (9) [in trade for Curry]

That's an entire team of lottery picks!!! Yet just a couple of bad moves, plus one piece of incredibly bad luck (Williams) has been all it took to prevent them from getting past the second round of the playoffs.

It ain't a sure thing. What would the Pacers look like ten years from now with Larry Bird overseeing 12 lottery picks?

Chicago was able to blow it up because of all the money coming off the books at once. Indy doesn't need to blow it up completely, they just need to lose their overpaid/underachieving forwards ( O'neal/Murphy), and to a lesser degree Jamaal. You see, Indy couldn't blow it up even if they wanted too.

On the bright side, these contracts will actually have value in a few years.

I have been praying that we blow it up the past two year. last season i was praying we loose every game so we would get a top ten pick, but pacers decided to play one game and that game made them have the elenvth worst record, making them trade thier pick


i firmly believe we need to trade Jo, and all our vets except foster and dunleavey and play young talent.

we need to build around granger, williams, ike.

those are just my 2 cents

I am on the "blow it up" side of the fence, however, I also know that is not very realistic this year, or even next year, with the large long contracts that we have. What I see happening to the Pacers in the next few years, is that we hover in mediocrity, and as those contracts get shorter, we move them for some young talent, or possibly a disgruntled vet needing a change of scenery. We will never be bad enough to land a top 5 pick(unless we get lucky in the lotto) so we need to make sure that our picks count. To me, we are on a 5 year plan, and for the next two at least, what you see is what you get.

JO I think if he is not traded by next year's trade deadline, will play out his contract here. I think that Dunleavy will play out his contract, and be one or "premier guys." Granger or Williams will be moved, and we should get back some young backcourt players or picks to draft such players. Murphy and Tinsley are here till they are expirings, and maybe then, we can find a way to ship them out for mid to late first rounders, IF WE ARE LUCKY.

After that, If we are able to draft the right players, then we could possibly compete a year or so later.

Definitely agree that blowing it up is not a guarantee for success. However, if you have the right management in place, it can be a path a team could choose to take. Here is my analysis of the list of teams from count:

- Bulls - Drafted high school kids when they missed out on a franchise player. Besides the fleecing of Zeke, Paxson has not done a very good job.

- Hawks - Ownership issues and drafting issues have set this team back.
- Celtics - Initially missed the lottery with no backup plan. Ainge had one this time and did a great job getting Allen and KG.
- Cavs - Got Lebron, but let Boozer walk and overpaid for Hughes.
- Mavs - Enter Cuban and Nellie. Management and ownership made this team.
- Nuggets - Kiki did a great job blowing it up and then getting Melo. He is now without a job and think this is definitely a team stuck in mediocre land.
- Warriors - Responsible for the huge deals for Dunleavy and Murphy. Credit Nelson for the recent turnaround, but past decisions by poor management still haunt this team.
- Clippers - Its the owner.
- Knicks - Possibly the worst managed team ever.
- Blazers - Even without Oden, this team is on the rise. Would have loved it if Kevin Pritchard was the Pacers GM, but cannot complain since the Blazers are closer to home.

For the record, I am not for blowing up the current team until we have better management. Not for sure how much Walsh is still involved with the team, but think the decisions over the past few years dictate a change.

DON'T BLOW IT UP!!!

Give me one example of a team blowing it up and winning a title, and even if you can, then it's still the exception, not the rule, much like Mod55 said.

The NBA is a process. Most teams don't go from one year being terrible to being an NBA Champ. It takes time, good moves, and usually one big break.

What is "Blowing it Up"?
It's not like we have a team of old vets. We don't have an tenured of old coach who has been hanging around & just not able to get us over the hump. I mean, what do we have to "Blow Up"?
-We do have 1 "star-type" player w/ a huge contract & not so healthy body, who fits questionably into our new committed style of play. Is trading JO your definition of "Blowing it Up"?
-We have a PG who has beed here some 6-7 seasons now & has made almost "0" progress or growth (on-court or off) during this time. He too has a sizable contract, that is actually acceptable if his production was at the level we know he is capable of & were consistant - but it's not. Is moving JT considered "Blowing it Up"?
-We too have Murphy, a PF/C who was aquired in a trade from a teem who wanted to play a more up-tempo stype & he was a better fit in 1/2 court system - something we played then. Now, we are trying to be the same up-tempo team he did not fit before & now we have the same delemia. He too is overpaid, & now w/ his production down due to not fitting in w/ the style of play, is even more dificult to move. Would finding a taker for Murph be considered "Blowing it Up"?
-Lastly, we have several players who all roughly play the same position (SG/SF/PF-ish). 2 are young (rook contracts) & 1 is a young high-paid vet. Putting all 3 on the court at the same time does not give us the best chance to win. Sitting 1, esp if they are not the #6 man, or getting 15-20+ min's/gm does not add to their development nor help us win. Add in a M.Daniels & even Rush who have shown they too are worthy of min's, & we have 6 fighting for a spot @ SF/SG -7 if we add the youth & upside of an Ike @ PF (who also can not get on the court). Would trading 2-3 of these players, even at the extent of youth (S.Williams/ Ike?) for a more role-defined player be "Blowing it Up"?

Q: Is 1, 2/3 or "ALL the Above" needed to be defined a "Blowing it Up"?

Personally, I think we have 3 big choices to make:
-How important is winning now vs next 2-3 yrs?
-The future of JO in Indy: a) he fits, b) we trade him, but for what cost?
-The future of S.Williams & Ike: a) keep/ develope/ use, or b) trade
(I did not add Tin's & Murph, as I think we know we want to move both, but we are just not finding the trading partners we need)
IMO, we should explore moving Sean to get a player who plays a position we need & will use. I think we all agree he likely has more up-side, but w/ Dun playing well & having that contract, he's here & will play. Granger, who I was OK w/ moving at the start, is now starting to show that w/ shots & aggression, he is a 20 pt/ nite guy, who can play D. I think he needs to stay (unless a star-type play is offered in return). I like Sean, but don't see him playing much. Same w/ Ike. Both players (SW/ID) also seem to be "between positions" / "over/under-sized" for where they need to play. Sean is yet another 6-10 SG w/ a frail fraim, & Ike is a 6-7 PF who can not consistantly match up w/ the big boys who play his position. "Tweeners" rarely make it. We need to up-grade the talent on the FLOOR, not our bench. We need GAME players, not PRACTICE stars. If anything needs "Blown-Up", it is that....
Needs (IMO):
-Young PG (other then Tin's, not a starter-quality player on the roster - No Jeremy, Deiner is Not!)
-A True PF: (I exclude JO, assuming he leaves/ we move him, & exclude Dun/Granger & Sean & Ike above - see notes above)
-Young C: (Harrison is gone, no one behind Jeff)

From Charcoal's list, Portland strikes me as the most interesting parallel to Indiana. Both teams changed within the space of a few seasons from serious contenders to mediocrities beset with chemistry/off-court problems that angered and alienated their fans. Only Portland is a few years farther down that road than we are. Portland in the 1999/00 season was about where the Pacers were in 2003/04.

Portland's season records:

1999/2000: 59-23 (the year they blew Game 7 of the conf. finals against the Lakers)
2000/01: 50-32
2001/02: 49-33
2002/03: 50-32
2003/04: 41-41
2004/05: 27-55
2005/06: 21-61 (worst record in NBA)
2006/07: 32-50

The Blazers still won some games from 00/01 to 02/03, but they were no longer a serious threat to the Lakers, Spurs, or Kings, and boneheads like Sheed and Bonzi were destroying the team's public image. So in the middle of the 03/04 season, they "blew it up," trading both of those guys for not much immediate return. The housecleaning continued in subsequent years.

Portland suffered through three really bad seasons, but stocked up on draft picks. Their drafts:

2004: Sebastian Telfair (13), Viktor Khryapa (22), Sergei Monia (23)
2005: Martell Webster (6), Jarrett Jack (22) [they traded a lower-first-round pick and a second-round pick to get Jack]
2006: LaMarcus Aldridge (2) [traded #4 pick Ty Thomas and Khryapa to move up to #2], Brandon Roy (6) [essentially acquired the pick from Boston in the Telfair trade]
2007: Greg Oden (1)

They crapped out in the '04 draft, got a couple of decent players in '05, then hit the jackpot in '06 by fleecing a couple of other teams, and again in '07 by winning the lottery. Without the '06 draft, Portland would probably still be losing 50+ games. WITH the '06 draft and the '07 draft, they are now a scary-ass young team.

I'd be willing to endure three 50+ loss seasons to see the Pacers become a scary-ass young team again.

Can the Pacers follow Portland's blueprint? Probably that would require not just a shrewd front office but also a fair amount of luck.

Can you imagine what Boston would be like if they never traded the Brandon Roy pick for Sebastian Telfair?

I mean, they wouldn't have had to trade the #5 pick, Wally, and West for Ray Allen, and instead could've focused on a point guard there, or kept the pick, or gone for a center to add depth.


Holy crap.

The problem with analyzing whether it was good or not for Boston to tank by trading away their pick for Telfair is that

1. It is not for certain that Boston would have been gutsy enough to force Minnesota's hand by drafting Foye.

2. If Boston had drafted Gay or obtained Roy, would it still put them in the #5 slot?

3. Would Minnesota still have made the KG deal with Raef instead of Ratliff?

In defense of current Pacer management, I did think standing pat and hiring Obie was the right move. Get a coach that can get the most out of the players on the current roster. Wait till a players value rises (Tinsley is somewhat tradeable now I would think) instead of on the low (Steven Jackson).

I see two parts to the blow it up question.

The first is reliability of the plan. That has already been discussed here and the Bulls have been pointed out as a cautionary tale of how it can go wrong. Although, not blowing up has a lot of bodies buried out back too (see 12 years of Warriors futility).

But the second issue is one of flexibiltiy. As things stand, the Pacers don't have a lot of flexibility (although it is at least improving as Mike plays his way closer to his contract cost). I'd like to see the Pacers tear it down simply to get back that flexibility of front office decision making, and front office ability to take advantage of opportunity. The downside is that it might be painful and has no guarantee of working anytime soon.

You have to weigh that against the upside of not doing it. What is the best the Pacers can accomplish if they don't tear down? A marginal playoff squad, without a strong core of young developing players, just doesn't seem like enough of an upside to warrant staying the course.

I vote for boldness on the part of the Pacer front office. Concentrate of moving the big contracts for shorter ones. Start developing young players. Be willing to let marginal young talent walk rather than extending them. Go for PG and Bigman development. You can fill the swing positions with a lot of different players if you have a top PG and big.