RealGM

There has been a lot of activity over the last three days. The big JO-to-Toronto Trade and the drafting, then trading of Bayless have been the biggest impacts.

One of the things that happened last night was many, if not all of us felt some degree of disappointment (if not outright anger) over the fact that we had Bayless, then traded him away. There have been calls for Bird's firing. While I don't agree with them, I certainly understand the sentiment. The time since Bird was hired has been one of great early promise followed by some of the most bitter disappointment in franchise history. To borrow Bird's phrase, I think it's absolutely appropriate for him to be on "thin ice", with every move measured and weighed to determine whether he moves one step closer or one step away from termination.

I freely admit it...I'm a Pacer homer. I reconciled myself a long time ago to the idea of sticking with the team through thick and thin. That doesn't mean that I don't get angry or frustrated. It just means that I have yet to experience or contemplate a thing that they would do that would cause me to stop being a fan. That doesn't make me a better fan than anyone, and, in some ways, one could argue it makes me a worse fan, but that's really not what I'm trying to say. (I think questioning other people's fanhood is bull.) I'm just trying to be honest about where I come from when I start looking for the good (or rationalizing, as the pshrinks among us might claim).

But, I asked myself this this morning: How would I have reacted to being told on Monday, June 24th the following things would be true (though not official) on Friday, June 27th:

- We would have a new starting point guard in TJ Ford and a solid backup who can defend in Jarrett Jack.
- We would have reduced our 2008-2009 payroll by $2 million, giving us 15 players under contract, whereas we previously were staring at being over the luxury tax with only 12 players under contract. We would've done it without having to fill the last three spots with league min guys.
- We would have come out of draft night with Brandon Rush, Roy Hibbert, and Jarrett Jack.
- Instead of having 5 players (JO, T-Murda, Junior, Droopy, Travis) with $55mm in committed salaries in 2009-2010, we have six players (T-Murda, Junior, Droopy, Travis, Brandon, Hibbert) with $43mm in committed salaries.
- To get this, I'd have to give up JO, Ike, and #11 & #41 (keeping in mind what I am actually getting out of the draft)

What would I think?

Personally, I would've been thrilled with that. For that reason, I was able to get over the initial disappointment (for the most part) in relatively short order. It's also why I'm not pickin' up my pitchfork and heading to Larry's office. I think the team has come farther than I probably hoped they would this summer. All that's left for them to do now, in my opinion, it to move Tinsley (for anything), and I will consider this summer a sparkling success.

Before we leave the Bayless issue, I want to acknowledge that I don't necessarily disagree with the point of view that we should have kept Bayless. He is the more exciting player/pick, and I think, probably does have more "star" potential. However, my belief is that Bird has actually improved the team, both on the floor and on the books, significantly so far this summer. The argument that he could've/should've improved it more by keeping Bayless is sound, but I don't believe the difference is a firing offense. I'd call it the difference between a very good job and an outstanding job. (Yes, I recognize that difference could eventually cost us a title, but right now, I'm pleased to see a clear direction and some positive moves.)

Anyway, why do I think we're better? I've outlined the finances. We "moved" JO's money around. It does put $8.3mm into 2010-2011 that wasn't there before, but we were never going to be LeBron players, and the pieces are smaller and easier to move. While the overall spending is only about $4 to $6 mil less than previously committed, it's structured in a much more manageable way.

However, I think we've gotten better on the court, and here's why:

- PG improvement - I think TJ Ford is at least as good as the "Good Droopy". He's not a good shooter, and Tinsley was a better passer, but Ford makes up for it with speed, better defense, better (but not perfect) attitude, and better reliability. I was going to say durability, but I'll go with reliability. In other words, Ford may risk career ending injury every time he takes a foul, but that risk (IMO) is far less than the JT knee/elbow/butt bruise day-to-day crap we've dealt with for years now. Add to that Jarrett Jack as a backup, who brings us a big, physical guard who leaves you wanting as a playmaker but can upgrade our perimeter D. Finally, Diener has shown he can be a good player in short minutes...he'll be a nice change of pace.
- Perimeter Defense Improvement - I want to first say that nobody we've gotten is a Ron-Artest-Lockdown defender. When I say improvement, I mean that we've added size, strength, and speed to our arsenal, and I don't think we've hurt ourselves offensively in the process. Both Jack and Rush have excellent physical characteristics for guarding the wings. Ford has great speed and can pressure the ball, though he will be susceptible to post ups. However, if Ford can slow down the advance of the ball and cut down penetration, Jack, Rush, and Granger can prevent easy passes to the wing and the post, then the opposing team can't get into its offense as quickly. Therefore, fewer easy shots, fewer opportunities to post up a small Ford, less pressure on the interior defense.
- Stability up front - No, it's not exciting, and somewhat lacking in talent, but a big man rotation of Murphy/Foster/Rasho/Hibbert will give us relatively reliable, predictable production from the front. Rasho's main value is as an expiring, but he will be a serviceable big man. Hibbert is interesting. He doesn't have the speed and anticipation to be a great shot blocker, but he's huge, and by all accounts, very smart from a basketball perspective. He's a good passer and a fantastic screener. No, he won't get up and down the court like a Gazelle, but I think he'll help immensely in the half court, as a passer, screener, and formidable post presence.
- Just plain stability - I think, for the first time in a long time, we will see our top 10 players all play over 65 games. The team will learn to play together better. The roles established by Dunleavy and, more importantly, Danny Granger as quality scoring options will be solidified. We won't be guessing all the time.

Now, for the silly prediction that everyone will make fun of me for:

I think the Pacers could win 45 games next year and be dangerous in the playoffs. Yes, the talent that the Pacers gave away in JO was potentially greater than the talent received in Ford, Rasho, & Hibbert. However, that talent didn't play for us last year. Our two key players coming into last year (JO & JT) missed a combined 83 games. The team went 36-46.

Yeah, but how many games did they win without those guys? you ask. Well, the team was 16-23 (.410) in games where Jamaal played (20-23, .465 w/o), 19-23 (.452) in games where JO played (17-23, .425 w/o), so those guys didn't have a huge impact last year. More to the point, the team was only 10-16 (.385) when both played, vs. 26-30 without (.464).

Assume Danny and Mike have years comparable to last year, substitute TJ & Jack for Diener/Owens/Murray, and substitute Brandon Rush for Kareem Rush, and that's where my optimism comes from.

And this is done with a team whose core players are between 25-29.

Yes, we'll need to figure out how to improve to become contenders again, but I'm excited about some good basketball being played next year.

Of course, I could be incredibly wrong, but...isn't that what the summer is all about?

This is a nice write.

My answer is the Pacers are better off.

I have been saying to move JO for a while now. The main reason I wanted to move JO is because we kept believing there was a chance this guy could be the pillar of the franchise. Season in and season out, JO was our man. Well we hung on to him one season to long and I voiced that opinion many times. The only way to restart this franchise was to move JO.

So after draft night Bird literally pulls a Jesus and turns a few loafs of bread (JO, Diogu) into 7 new Pacers. That fact alone is incredible to me.

Does this mean the Pacers are better? NO.

I think the Pacers can be a halfway decent team and fight for a playoff spot. Pretty much same position we were in last year.

However, this team is now better off. We won't be dissapointed by JO and Tinsley anymore. We finally got some guys who are going to play consistantly. We also have two legit rotations. Rasho/Murphy/Granger/Dunleavy/Ford and Hibbert/Foster/Williams/B.Rush/Jack. That's better as a whole than what we had last year.

Although I don't expect a huge increase, if an increase at all in W-L, I do expect a huge ticket sales increase (which will probably include me buying a 10 game package) and the direction of this team is finally headed in the right place. Yea, so what, we may have to suffer through one or two more lotteries, but you know that saying you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs. Cross your fingers guys, we may get lucky and end up with Blake Griffin or Ricky Rubio next year.

I was initially irritated when I heard of the trade of Bayless for Rush--but that disappeared as I watched Bayless's response to events, first when we drafted him (he could hardly contain his enthusiasm ) and then latter when the trade was announced (his irritation was clear to see.)

Here's a young man with an opportunity only a very select few get to become an instant millionaire, and he was clearly taking it as just his due and was openly bored/irritated by the process and all too obviously felt he should be above this sort of thing.

There's a reason he fell to us in the first place, and my bet is that it had a lot to do with
A-T-T-I-T-U-D-E. To say the least, I wasn't impressed. We don't need any more punks or cancers. We've had enough of those.

I like the trades and selections we've made. We addressed our main needs for a quality PG and backup, bigs who will give us serious defense and boardwork in the paint, and a guy who gives us additional three-point capability and significant perimeter defense at the 2 and even the 3. Add to that some cap flexibility as well, all without disturbing what I feel to be our core for the future.

That and you can bet Larry isn't done dealing--that's pretty obvious. We still have a chip or two available (Williams, Daniels, even Tins in a PG-short league) to corral a competent PF to either replace or give good backup to Murphy.

Not to mention the addition by subtraction that has been longed for here for quite some time.

Yeah--we're better off. And I can see us in the playoffs next year.

No question we are better off. We are a better team now, we have more flexibility for the future, we have gotten rid of some of the lingering issues with the team, and finally...we begin a new era of Pacer basketball. Its no coincidence that this board has been more active the past few days. Obviously the draft has something to do with that, but the fact that this team looks to be headed in the right direction for the first time since the brawl really plays a part in that too. I dont want to make any playoff predictions yet, because there are a lot of moves still to be made. Who goes where in free agency, more trades from our front office, trades for other teams, injuries, etc. I think that as of right now when I look at things, we look like a playoff caliber team.

Oh, and kudos to Larry Bird. We have been on his case around these parts (fairly or not), but I think he and Morway have done a masterful job putting this team in a position to compete now while improving our future. The Bayless trade wasnt popular, but I get a sneaking suspicion that in time, that will prove to be the right move. So from one of his biggest detractors, kudos to Larry Bird.

This was a good read. I do agree that the team is much better now. We have several more players that we can shop in Tinsley and Daniels and we have some valuable expiring contracts to maybe help us land an impact guy. I am getting over my frustration with the Bayless trade. I would have been pleased coming out of the draft with Rush and Jarrett Jack if not for feeling like a really talented player had slipped through our fingers. If he wasn't on the board and it was Augustin instead then I would have been more excited. I think that Rush is the kind of guy that could be a starter and contributor on a championship calibre team. While I think Bayless is special, SGs in PGs bodies have a much rockier history to overcome. Time will tell on all this.

In the meantime, our team seems to be much more evenly constructed now. We could use a more talented inside player, and I still say we're missing an alpha dog. I think that we have the kind of team that would be excellent as the supporting cast for a superstar...we just don't have a superstar. I don't mean this as a knock on Granger. He's just not there yet.

Also, I went back and watched my TIVO of the draft. I think Bayless was just upset about slipping. Everything I've read about him seems like he's a hard worker. However, I did think that Rush came off a bit better in his interviews. I liked his comments on O'Brien; "He's a coach that likes to play defense and shoot 3s. That's what I like to do."

I like the direction we are heading. I hated the Bayless trade, not because I don't like Rush - because I do, but because we got have gotten a lot more. Bayless is easily worth Rush and the #27 in my mind and I can only imagine most GM's minds. I don't think Bird pressed for it hard enough. I do like Rush though, but I wish we would have gone after a PF instead. Rush is behind two 19 ppg scorers, I don't see too much of a future for him here unless we move Dunleavy and that doesn't seem like it will happen. I actually prefer Rush to Dunleavy and would prefer to bring Dunleavy off the bench, I can see him being a very good 6th man. Rush is better for a starting lineup with his defense and style of play. Dunleavy will be a good spark off the bench and can get the offense going more so than Rush will.

I like where we are going but will not be satisfied till we get our answer at PF. We now have plenty of trading chips with Foster(I love him, but with Rasho and Hibbert he is expendable and very good trade bait), Daniels(a nice expiring), and Williams(a young prospect). When we get our answer at PF and get Tinsley off the roster(I don't care how), then I will be satisfied. I am happy as of what we have done so far though, I like the direction we are going with adding defense. Honestly when I look at the future of Granger, Rush, and Hibbert I can kind of seeing us becoming a Pistons like team. We won't be amazingly flashy, but if we can get good chemistry we will have a team that could possibly compete every year without there having to be a superstar.