# We screwed ourselves



## Knick Killer (Jul 16, 2006)

We are in the absolute worst position we could be in right now. We finish the season in 9th place in the East. Which means not only do we miss the playoffs, we also have an extremely low percentage of winning the lottery and drafting a franchise changing player in Derrick Rose or Michael Beasley. I don't get why our team just didn't tank. Sure we had a shot at the 8th seed but why would we want to make the playoffs to only get the living **** kicked out of us by the Boston Celtics. That's no fun IMO. Sure we will still get a decent draft pick but knowing that we could have had Beasley or Rose just hurts. Honestly I would have loved for our season to go like Miami's. Why? Because you get rewarded for being a horrible team, you dont when you are a mediocre team.

I am an extremely frustrated Pacers fan right now. I don't see this team getting better anytime soon unless we finally blow this team up and start over because I do not like what we have right now one bit. I don't know about you guys but being an 8th or 7th seed team in the East does not satisfy me. I want this team to be a contender again and that wont happen until everyone realizes that we need to make some HUGE changes.


----------



## Ruff Draft (Nov 21, 2004)

The Pacers are definitely in a rut. They don't have financial space, trade pieces, or good picks. It's going to be ugly for awhile sadly.


----------



## PacersorBust (Mar 6, 2008)

We wait for the lottery...they said Kevin Love is going to declare so that made my day a little better.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Good thread. I also was baffled with the push the Pacers were making. I can see why the Hawks are tired of stockpiling draft picks, but the Pacers still have glaring holes on their roster. Shoulda tanked from the get go. Beasley or Rose woulda softened the blow of loosing JO or Tinsley


----------



## clownskull (Jun 21, 2002)

yeh, i have argued this stuff with others on other sites and it really seems to go nowhere as most arguments seem to. there are those who were bummed out about not making the playoffs and stuff but, it would have been just a total waste of time. they would have been slaughtered by the celts in 4 boring games. the pro-playoff folks kept harping about things like the whole "just getting in is very important because playoff experience is very important" i think that stuff is just a bunch of b.s. 
i am totally convinced that it would only have shown just how badly over matched we were. when one team is so much inferior than the other- neither team learns anything. i heard things like how reggie learned what it takes to be great by all those consecutive 1st round playoff losses early in his career. i counter that by saying no, he didn't, all he really learned was that his team didn't have enough talent around him to do anything more than be 1st round fodder.
boston didn't even make the playoffs last year and this year they are going to the ecf's at the very least. playoff experience is overrated as far as i am concerned. you got to have the squad or you will simply be just spinning your wheels.
i hate the idea of tanking but, really- how else are we going to get better or even have the chance if not in the draft? we have no real room in the salary dept. to get quality free agents and have some big contracts that don't draw interest from other teams. we are stuck between a rock and a hard place for now.


----------



## Redeemed (Feb 2, 2008)

PacersorBust said:


> We wait for the lottery...they said Kevin Love is going to declare so that made my day a little better.


Kevin Love won't make things any better.


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

Mediocrity is the absolute worst position to be in for a team in the NBA, and that's exactly where we are. #11 projected two years in a row and the #9 seed in the East. Fun.


----------



## Knick Killer (Jul 16, 2006)

DienerTime said:


> Kevin Love won't make things any better.


He won't be our saviour but he would definitely help more then someone like...Russel Westbrook.


----------



## PacersorBust (Mar 6, 2008)

Pray for lottery luck.


----------



## Redeemed (Feb 2, 2008)

PacersorBust said:


> Pray for lottery luck.


If we somehow got the number one pick, who would we take? Beasley or Rose? I'm leaning towards Rose.


----------



## rock747 (Aug 3, 2004)

We would take Rose without a doubt.


----------



## Knick Killer (Jul 16, 2006)

PacersorBust said:


> Pray for lottery luck.


We wouldn't have to pray if we were smart and didn't go after the 8th seed.


----------



## StephenJackson (Oct 28, 2004)

Well,

I will never be ashamed of a team that at least goes out and tries to win every game. I see no foul in that. I don't agree with tanking, I think it is a poor thing to do, and I respect the players we have for grinding it out the way they did trying to make the playoffs. They were playing for pride, and I expect no less.


----------



## ray_allen_20 (Dec 26, 2007)

Tanking is low, and I'm sure the fans love to see wins, even if it is for nothing. Also, you guys are in a fairly decent position because you have ALOT of extremely tradable assets that just don't really gel with your system. I don't know much about your GM but if he plays his cards right you guys could be an elite team in a few years.


----------



## PacersorBust (Mar 6, 2008)

ALOT? Are you kidding me? The only 'extremely tradable assets' anybody would want from us would be Granger, Dunleavy, Foster, and Diener. Everybody else on the team has little to no trade value...which includes O'Neal, Tinsel, D. Harrison, Diogu, M. Daniels, and Troy Murphy.


----------



## Knick Killer (Jul 16, 2006)

I agree tanking is low, but it isnt as low as our talent level.


----------



## StephenJackson (Oct 28, 2004)

Our talent level really isn't THAT low, this team certainly has some potential with a tweak here and there. If we had a healthy Jermaine all year, this would have been a different story. Once we solidify that situation, as well as the PG situation, this team looks a heck of a lot better.


----------



## rock747 (Aug 3, 2004)

We need some defense. We need a reliable big man. We need a reliable PG.


----------



## PacersorBust (Mar 6, 2008)

What if larry forefeited our pick? My God there would be a huge riot outside of Conseco Fieldhouse. Just some thought lol.


----------



## Wayne (May 24, 2006)

PacersorBust said:


> What if larry forefeited our pick? My God there would be a huge riot outside of Conseco Fieldhouse. Just some thought lol.


For Steve Nash or Chris Paul or somebody


----------



## PaCeRhOLiC (May 22, 2005)

StephenJackson said:


> If we had a healthy Jermaine all year, this would have been a different story. Once we solidify that situation, as well as the PG situation, this team looks a heck of a lot better.




How long have we been waiting for that to happen though Jax...


----------



## ray_allen_20 (Dec 26, 2007)

PacersorBust said:


> ALOT? Are you kidding me? The only 'extremely tradable assets' anybody would want from us would be Granger, Dunleavy, Foster, and Diener. Everybody else on the team has little to no trade value...which includes O'Neal, Tinsel, D. Harrison, Diogu, M. Daniels, and Troy Murphy.


Uh there's no way J.O has less trade value than Diener. What exactly is so good about Diener? His shooting? Passing? 

J.O maybe old and injury prone but he's still the biggest proven force on the team.


----------



## Redeemed (Feb 2, 2008)

ray_allen_20 said:


> Uh there's no way J.O has less trade value than Diener. What exactly is so good about Diener? His shooting? Passing?
> 
> J.O maybe old and injury prone but he's still the biggest proven force on the team.


Diener lives up to if not outplays his contract, JO does not. Diener is also healthy, JO is not. We're not saying Diener could get more in a trade than JO, we're saying more teams would want Diener than JO because right now JO is a gigantic risk for any team to take on.


----------



## rock747 (Aug 3, 2004)

DienerTime said:


> We're not saying Diener could get more in a trade than JO, we're saying more teams would want Diener than JO because right now JO is a gigantic risk for any team to take on.


I'm not saying that. I'm pretty sure more teams would be interested in JO than Diener. Risk or no risk.


----------



## Knick Killer (Jul 16, 2006)

rock747 said:


> I'm not saying that. I'm pretty sure more teams would be interested in JO than Diener. Risk or no risk.


I totally agree.


----------



## Sliccat (Oct 16, 2004)

rock747 said:


> I'm not saying that. I'm pretty sure more teams would be interested in JO than Diener. Risk or no risk.


It depends on how you mean that. Because of Diener's much lower contract, he's just more attractive and easier to move. Of course, if a team could pick one, they'd pick JO.

But because of his contract and injuries, nobody really wants to touch him right now.


----------



## PacersorBust (Mar 6, 2008)

Wayne said:


> For Steve Nash or Chris Paul or somebody


No, i mean forefeiting as in not picking at all.


----------

