Dr Mufasa wrote:Everyone shows OKC, Portland, Sacramento, Memphis, etc.'s style of rebuilding. Basically suck as much as possible, collect top 5 picks, then turn it around
How about some love for what the Pacers have done post melee. From the 07 season to now they've won 35, 36, 36, and 32 games and never gotten a pick higher than 10. They got labelled as the team with the worst position in the NBA for this reason, they were never bad enough to get great picks
Instead they concentrated on CULTURE and getting the right type of players, even if it means half the team is vets who 'hurt tanking'. People have called for Obie's head for years but this is his 4th season. The result is far more continuity and chemistry than franchises like Philly and Detroit who gun through coaches yearly. Bird understands its better for a rebuilding team to keep one coach because of continuity
They've patiently had faith in their 30-35 W and trying to win to the end strategy, contiously supported playing hard when other teams gave up and tanked. And they waited for the right moves. And now look at their team
Darren Collision (good starting young PG, could get better)
Brandon Rush (defensive 3pt shooter)
Danny Granger (all-star SF)
Psycho T (always room for someone who plays hard)
Roy Hibbert (future all-star, playing like a franchise C this season)
I would easily take this Pacers team going forward over Sacramento, Minnesota, Memphis, LA Clippers, etc with this core. Only OKC is above. And IMO the reason the Thunder are winning is the same reason Indy is on the way up. They focus on defense and winning players. This year they're 6-6 but have a 4+ SRS and 8-4 expected W-L so the stats say they've been better than that
Yes if every team tried to build like this it wouldn't be flawless. Some teams would stay mediocore. But there's just as many if not more teams who stay at the bottom in the 'tank for high picks' way. So I think Bird deserves some credit for being unorthadox and patient despite a handful of mediocore teams
People keep falling for this sort of early hype, the same way Warriors fans always bought late runs in losing seasons as a sign then team would be awesome the next year. The Pacers are looking ok, that's not a bad thing, they have some solid players, but they're never going to be a contender, and they're questionable to even make the playoffs. You don't win titles with "ok" play.
I never labelled them the "worst position in the NBA", that's for sure. But you can put me on record as saying Hibbert is not a franchise C, at least if you mean what I assume that term implies... he's certainly a starter for a winning team, but he's going to be very lucky to make more than 1 all-star game in his career, and that'll be a product of playing in the East.
I don't agree with your narrative either, comparing them to some random young teams, and then declaring that "only OKC" is more promising. The brawl happened in 2004-5, and since then the Jazz have gone from a 26 win team to a perennial 50+ win team (despite injuries), the Blazers have gone from a 27 win team to a perennial 50+win team (who has been hit by absurd and unprecedented injuries over the last few years), The Hornets have gone from an 18 win team to a perennial contender (minus last years injury ruined season), the Hawks went from 13 wins to a borderline contender, the Cavs went from missing the playoffs to a contender, the Magic went from missing the playoffs to being a contender, etc. And since then we've seen the rise of OKC (as you point out). All of this is alot more impressive than anything the Pacers have done.
You say you'll take the Pacers over the Wolves/Clippers/Kings/Memphis. The only reason I agree with the Clippers is because of their ownership, it has nothing to do with young cores (I'll take the Clippers core that has a chance to eventually win something). Memphis has a better core, but play in the West... if these guys were in the East, I'd take them in a heartbeat. The Kings have a long way to go, they've also been hurt, but long term they've got a better chance than the Pacers too if healthy. As for the Wolves, management is a serious problem, but I'll take their young cast too, since at least it has a hope in hell of winning a title (especially if they get Rubio over).
Most of the Pacers guys will start to be on the downside of their careers in 3 years, and what will they have achieved by then? Nothing of significance. They're at best a 1st round playoff team this year, and without a real star and some real depth that's not going to change. Most of their guys are nothing special at all. For the Pacers to get good, they need their GM to pull off a series of miracle home runs, like the Webber/Richmond trade, or the Gasol/rubbish trade. Lottery teams don't need to rely on miracles to be successful (miracles we have no reason to believe Pacers management is capable of), and as such I prefer their method.
