RealGM

Question simply is how good is Jack? Is he good because he was on the bench in Portland and showed he's capable when given the chance or is he good because O'Brien's system makes him good?

We're talking about matching a four year contract for a guy who over a year ago barely got minutes at PG, who's good because of a coach system, who may not be here in a year's time. The result: 16 million for a backup PG, which BTW is next to impossible to move in it's own right.

After thinking about this today, I'm now convinced the Pacers should let him go. If he's only good because of the system he's in, all he'll become is another big money deadweight in Toronto and they maybe begging us to take him back.

Let him walk.

He's a good guy and a tough nose player, but showed very poor decision making skills at the end of games and had a lot of huge turnovers. I really like TJ ford running the show.

No need to tie up money for 4 years on jack IMO.

At first, I thought we should match it, but the more I think about it, the more I think we should just go for a cheaper alternative. I mean like it or not, this team is not going to contend for the next 2 seasons. Bird has a 3-year plan, and with Jack signing a 4 year deal, it takes away money we can throw at players in free agency and hurts future roster flexibility.

Jack started almost 100 games for Portland before he started over 50 here. Ideally, he is a backup PG - BUT he's also practically the ideal backup PG. Jack is one of a very, very few individuals who is a good defender at the PG position. The only thing that keeps him from being an elite PG is that he doesn't have the greatest offensive skill-set, especially handle and court-vision. That being said... he's only 25. The offer that Jack has is a great deal for any team, especially the Pacers. Not matching would be a huge mistake. It pretty much wastes the benefit of the trade that brought him here. We didn't need a one-year rental - we needed a long-term solution. And it's sitting in our lap. It'd be one thing if we hadn't signed Dahntay Jones... we could just say that things didn't turn out the way we wanted - we couldn't drop any salary and we can't spend a dime. But we've showed we can spend some money, and if you can pay Dahntay Jones, you should pay Jack.

fienX420 wrote:Jack started almost 100 games for Portland before he started over 50 here. Ideally, he is a backup PG - BUT he's also practically the ideal backup PG. Jack is one of a very, very few individuals who is a good defender at the PG position. The only thing that keeps him from being an elite PG is that he doesn't have the greatest offensive skill-set, especially handle and court-vision. That being said... he's only 25. The offer that Jack has is a great deal for any team, especially the Pacers. Not matching would be a huge mistake. It pretty much wastes the benefit of the trade that brought him here. We didn't need a one-year rental - we needed a long-term solution. And it's sitting in our lap. It'd be one thing if we hadn't signed Dahntay Jones... we could just say that things didn't turn out the way we wanted - we couldn't drop any salary and we can't spend a dime. But we've showed we can spend some money, and if you can pay Dahntay Jones, you should pay Jack.

hmmm…

i think that the long-term solution
that came with the trade for Jack was
not Jack himself but Brandon Rush.

if you say that he is an ideal back-up,
then that would eliminate him from being
labeled as the long-term solution at PG
since we may assume that a long-term
solution means a starter.

i think the operative phrase on your
statement of our spending is
some money. that said, i think
the reason why we "can pay Dahntay Jones"
is because of what he brings to
our team: a different skill set
which we are lacking in –lockdown D –
which Jones applies in defending
the PG position as proven of his
D on CP3 during the DEN–NO series.

whereas for Jack, we have other
options who can fill his void – 3 are
even already signed.

these are some reasons why i think
our front office won't go so far as
to break its back to re-sign Jack.

GO PACERS!

Let him walk. Sign Anthony Carter to the vet's minimum. We get leadership, superior decision making, and we can allow TJ to be the undisputed starter, at least until we find a better solution. No, it's not the sexy thing to do, but it's about the best option we have for the money we are working with.

fienX420 wrote:Jack started almost 100 games for Portland before he started over 50 here. Ideally, he is a backup PG - BUT he's also practically the ideal backup PG. Jack is one of a very, very few individuals who is a good defender at the PG position. The only thing that keeps him from being an elite PG is that he doesn't have the greatest offensive skill-set, especially handle and court-vision. That being said... he's only 25. The offer that Jack has is a great deal for any team, especially the Pacers. Not matching would be a huge mistake. It pretty much wastes the benefit of the trade that brought him here. We didn't need a one-year rental - we needed a long-term solution. And it's sitting in our lap. It'd be one thing if we hadn't signed Dahntay Jones... we could just say that things didn't turn out the way we wanted - we couldn't drop any salary and we can't spend a dime. But we've showed we can spend some money, and if you can pay Dahntay Jones, you should pay Jack.

Jack started 99 games in his Portland career, 79 of those starts came in his second year.

What happened?

He was beat by Steve Blake for the starting lineup. Blake though not the prettiest name, was good at two things: running the floor and being effective, having one of the best assist to turnover ratio's as a result.

We have our own version of Steve Blake in Travis Deiner.


What brought Jack to the dance was his defense, what got him benched, and even sent to the locker room but Jim O'Brien himself was his inconsisencies on offense.

PacersDG wrote:Let him walk.

He's a good guy and a tough nose player, but showed very poor decision making skills at the end of games and had a lot of huge turnovers. I really like TJ ford running the show.

No need to tie up money for 4 years on jack IMO.

Why do several posters think Jack is turnover prone. From what I recall last season, Ford game seemed to be to drive towards the lane and get caught in the air. If he had no one open, he was forced to turn the ball over or fire up a circus shot. To me that is the definition of poor decision making, regardless of what point in the game it took place.

The T.O. stats from last season back it up:

MPG TO
Ford 30.5 2.43
Jack 33.1 2.24

It appears to me they are practically even, I guess Ford is turnover prone as well.

IndySports wrote:

PacersDG wrote:Let him walk.

He's a good guy and a tough nose player, but showed very poor decision making skills at the end of games and had a lot of huge turnovers. I really like TJ ford running the show.

No need to tie up money for 4 years on jack IMO.

Why do several posters think Jack is turnover prone. From what I recall last season, Ford game seemed to be to drive towards the lane and get caught in the air. If he had no one open, he was forced to turn the ball over or fire up a circus shot. To me that is the definition of poor decision making, regardless of what point in the game it took place.

The T.O. stats from last season back it up:

MPG TO
Ford 30.5 2.43
Jack 33.1 2.24

It appears to me they are practically even, I guess Ford is turnover prone as well.

Yeah, they are both turnover prone. Both have issues with decision making.

PR07 wrote:I think we should just go for a cheaper alternative. I mean like it or not, this team is not going to contend for the next 2 seasons. Bird has a 3-year plan, and with Jack signing a 4 year deal, it takes away money we can throw at players in free agency and hurts future roster flexibility.

That's what I think too.

I think chances are good that the Pacers can find a better pg than Jack sometime in the next couple of years. Better off maintaining the flexibility to do that, than to pay more than was hoped in order to keep Jack.