Larry Legend screwed up

[D.o.s.]

Not now, no. Their collapse has been absolutely eye-popping.

[wayupnorth]

So can we stop using Indiana as a proof point that it's possible to build a "contender" without a superstar?

lol

[Celtics18]

So can we stop using Indiana as a proof point that it's possible to build a "contender" without a superstar?

If they lose to Washington, we'll use the Wizards instead. 

[BballTim]

So can we stop using Indiana as a proof point that it's possible to build a "contender" without a superstar?

We'll always have the Pistons.

Although Sheed was an enigma, he was probably the 5th most talented big man in the NBA that season, particularly because he was a skilled weapon on both ends of the floor. Having a big with superstar talent helps one's title chances.

Sheed was a former #4 pick. Billups was a former #3 pick. Lottery talent is almost always needed on a title team.

  Billups was on at least his 5th team by then. Sheed had talent and skills but was something of an underperformer.

The Pistons didn't have a typical year in year out All NBA player, and top 5 in the league performer, but they still had serious talent. The Pacers are not as good as those Pistons as a team and as individuals.

Billups was a late bloomer, and Sheed had a serious on and off switch. But those two still had serious talent, worthy of two top 5 picks.

Talent wins in the NBA. I can't think of a champion who didn't have at least 1 top 5 pick on it, and a few more lottery picks in general.

The Pacers do not belong in the conversation with the 2004 Detroit Pistons. Or the 2005 Pistons, or 2006 Pistons, etc.

  The thing is "at least 1 top 5 pick and a few more lottery picks" describes almost every team in the league in any given year. In fact it describes the current Celts team.

[D.o.s.]

So can we stop using Indiana as a proof point that it's possible to build a "contender" without a superstar?

If they lose to Washington, we'll use the Wizards instead.

You don't think that John Wall applies? He was a #1 pick, after all.

[Celtics18]

So can we stop using Indiana as a proof point that it's possible to build a "contender" without a superstar?

If they lose to Washington, we'll use the Wizards instead.

You don't think that John Wall applies? He was a #1 pick, after all.

I guess it depends on your definition of "superstar."  If John Wall qualifies as a superstar, there are a whole bunch of superstars in the league picked well outside the lottery. 

[Mr October]

So can we stop using Indiana as a proof point that it's possible to build a "contender" without a superstar?

We'll always have the Pistons.

Although Sheed was an enigma, he was probably the 5th most talented big man in the NBA that season, particularly because he was a skilled weapon on both ends of the floor. Having a big with superstar talent helps one's title chances.

Sheed was a former #4 pick. Billups was a former #3 pick. Lottery talent is almost always needed on a title team.

  Billups was on at least his 5th team by then. Sheed had talent and skills but was something of an underperformer.

The Pistons didn't have a typical year in year out All NBA player, and top 5 in the league performer, but they still had serious talent. The Pacers are not as good as those Pistons as a team and as individuals.

Billups was a late bloomer, and Sheed had a serious on and off switch. But those two still had serious talent, worthy of two top 5 picks.

Talent wins in the NBA. I can't think of a champion who didn't have at least 1 top 5 pick on it, and a few more lottery picks in general.

The Pacers do not belong in the conversation with the 2004 Detroit Pistons. Or the 2005 Pistons, or 2006 Pistons, etc.

  The thing is "at least 1 top 5 pick and a few more lottery picks" describes almost every team in the league in any given year. In fact it describes the current Celts team.

Yup, there is no doubt that plenty of top 5 picks do not become superstars. Plenty of lottery picks turn out to be busts. Nonetheless, all title winners are anchored by big time lottery talent.

So far the Pacers are continuing to prove that they do not have enough talent to win the whole thing.

[Mr October]

So can we stop using Indiana as a proof point that it's possible to build a "contender" without a superstar?

If they lose to Washington, we'll use the Wizards instead.

You don't think that John Wall applies? He was a #1 pick, after all.

I guess it depends on your definition of "superstar."  If John Wall qualifies as a superstar, there are a whole bunch of superstars in the league picked well outside the lottery.

John Wall is absolutely a superstar. He is Derrick Rose 2.0. I absolutely consider Wall one of the top 15 players in the NBA. I would rather build around john Wall than Kevin Love or Stephen Curry.

Dont forget the point of this whole thread. The Pacers are no longer the banner for how to build a title contender without big time lottery picks. The Wizards have a couple big time lottery studs in Wall and Beal.

[Donoghus]

Pacers aren't dead yet.  I think people are being too quick to throw dirt on them.

[Celtics18]

So can we stop using Indiana as a proof point that it's possible to build a "contender" without a superstar?

If they lose to Washington, we'll use the Wizards instead.

You don't think that John Wall applies? He was a #1 pick, after all.

I guess it depends on your definition of "superstar."  If John Wall qualifies as a superstar, there are a whole bunch of superstars in the league picked well outside the lottery.

John Wall is absolutely a superstar. He is Derrick Rose 2.0. I absolutely consider Wall one of the top 15 players in the NBA. I would rather build around john Wall than Kevin Love or Stephen Curry.

Dont forget the point of this whole thread. The Pacers are no longer the banner for how to build a title contender without big time lottery picks. The Wizards have a couple big time lottery studs in Wall and Beal.

I'm a John Wall fan.  He's still very young and he could still keep improving, but there's no way he's at a "superstar" level right now.

[Mr October]

Interesting side note on Indiana:

With as much attention as George, Stephenson and certainly Hibbert has received, I look towards David West for Indiana's identity. I didn't take their team seriously until West arrived and completed a big strong front court. When the Pacers were exchanging blows with Miami the past couple years, i felt like David West's toughness and inside presence were at least as important at Paul George's emergence as a star that could hold his own a bit with Lebron.

This post season i dont see the same game changing interior presence out of David West. He might be slowing down and exiting his prime. It'll be interesting to see how their young stars go about leading the team on the court as David West's ability fades.

[sed522002]

I don't know if this was said, but it's being reported that they didn't give Bynum a physical until AFTER he signed     

Candace Buckner of IndyStar:

The Pacers, who did not administer a physical to Bynum until after he signed the contract, had initially entered this relationship with high hopes.

http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/05/09/pacers-signed-andrew-bynum-without-giving-him-a-physical-first/?ocid=Yahoo&partner=ya5nbcs

[Mr October]

So can we stop using Indiana as a proof point that it's possible to build a "contender" without a superstar?

If they lose to Washington, we'll use the Wizards instead.

You don't think that John Wall applies? He was a #1 pick, after all.

I guess it depends on your definition of "superstar."  If John Wall qualifies as a superstar, there are a whole bunch of superstars in the league picked well outside the lottery.

John Wall is absolutely a superstar. He is Derrick Rose 2.0. I absolutely consider Wall one of the top 15 players in the NBA. I would rather build around john Wall than Kevin Love or Stephen Curry.

Dont forget the point of this whole thread. The Pacers are no longer the banner for how to build a title contender without big time lottery picks. The Wizards have a couple big time lottery studs in Wall and Beal.

I'm a John Wall fan.  He's still very young and he could still keep improving, but there's no way he's at a "superstar" level right now.

That is a fine stance to take. A superstar probably needs to be defined as a player who's fame and accomplishments go beyond his sport. Even that definition doesn't do justice to Lamarcus Aldridge and Marc Gasol. It is hard to define superstar. Was Paul Pierce a superstar? Maybe not, even though he had the talent to be more famous than he was.

Anyway, Wall is perhaps not a superstar yet, but he looks like he is on his way. And again sticking to the point of the thread, the Wizards are not a good example of building a team without high lottery talent. That is my point in this discussion.

I suppose i could have stated my stance as:

The young wizards stars might not be superstars yet, but they cannot be used as an example of building a contender without high lottery talent.

The Pacers had been the banner team for building a team without high lottery talent, and if they fall, no one takes their place.

[Celtics18]

So can we stop using Indiana as a proof point that it's possible to build a "contender" without a superstar?

If they lose to Washington, we'll use the Wizards instead.

You don't think that John Wall applies? He was a #1 pick, after all.

I guess it depends on your definition of "superstar."  If John Wall qualifies as a superstar, there are a whole bunch of superstars in the league picked well outside the lottery.

John Wall is absolutely a superstar. He is Derrick Rose 2.0. I absolutely consider Wall one of the top 15 players in the NBA. I would rather build around john Wall than Kevin Love or Stephen Curry.

Dont forget the point of this whole thread. The Pacers are no longer the banner for how to build a title contender without big time lottery picks. The Wizards have a couple big time lottery studs in Wall and Beal.

I'm a John Wall fan.  He's still very young and he could still keep improving, but there's no way he's at a "superstar" level right now.

That is a fine stance to take. A superstar probably needs to be defined as a player who's fame and accomplishments go beyond his sport. Even that definition doesn't do justice to Lamarcus Aldridge and Marc Gasol. It is hard to define superstar. Was Paul Pierce a superstar? Maybe not, even though he had the talent to be more famous than he was.

Anyway, Wall is perhaps not a superstar yet, but he looks like he is on his way. And again sticking to the point of the thread, the Wizards are not a good example of building a team without high lottery talent. That is my point in this discussion.

I suppose i could have stated my stance as:

The young wizards stars might not be superstars yet, but they cannot be used as an example of building a contender without high lottery talent.

The Pacers had been the banner team for building a team without high lottery talent, and if they fall, no one takes their place.

They are the current poster child.  Let's not forget that both the Lakers and the Mavericks pulled it off recently, though, not to mention the Pistons back in '04.  And, of course, in a round about way our own Celtics back in '08.

The point being, that there's no one formula.  And, you certainly can't determine contenders by how many lottery picks they have on their roster. 

 

[Mr October]

So can we stop using Indiana as a proof point that it's possible to build a "contender" without a superstar?

If they lose to Washington, we'll use the Wizards instead.

You don't think that John Wall applies? He was a #1 pick, after all.

I guess it depends on your definition of "superstar."  If John Wall qualifies as a superstar, there are a whole bunch of superstars in the league picked well outside the lottery.

John Wall is absolutely a superstar. He is Derrick Rose 2.0. I absolutely consider Wall one of the top 15 players in the NBA. I would rather build around john Wall than Kevin Love or Stephen Curry.

Dont forget the point of this whole thread. The Pacers are no longer the banner for how to build a title contender without big time lottery picks. The Wizards have a couple big time lottery studs in Wall and Beal.

I'm a John Wall fan.  He's still very young and he could still keep improving, but there's no way he's at a "superstar" level right now.

That is a fine stance to take. A superstar probably needs to be defined as a player who's fame and accomplishments go beyond his sport. Even that definition doesn't do justice to Lamarcus Aldridge and Marc Gasol. It is hard to define superstar. Was Paul Pierce a superstar? Maybe not, even though he had the talent to be more famous than he was.

Anyway, Wall is perhaps not a superstar yet, but he looks like he is on his way. And again sticking to the point of the thread, the Wizards are not a good example of building a team without high lottery talent. That is my point in this discussion.

I suppose i could have stated my stance as:

The young wizards stars might not be superstars yet, but they cannot be used as an example of building a contender without high lottery talent.

The Pacers had been the banner team for building a team without high lottery talent, and if they fall, no one takes their place.

They are the current poster child.  Let's not forget that both the Lakers and the Mavericks pulled it off recently, though, not to mention the Pistons back in '04.  And, of course, in a round about way our own Celtics back in '08.

The point being, that there's no one formula.  And, you certainly can't determine contenders by how many lottery picks they have on their roster.

I agree that there are many ways to build a contender. But if you want to win the whole thing you still need big time talent, and every champion i can think of had high lottery talent playing key roles. The Pistons had Rasheed and Billups. The Lakers had Pau Gasol and Lamar Odom. Bynum was mid-late lottery. The Mavs had Tyson Chandler, Jason Kidd, as will as mid - late lottery talent in Dirk and Shawn Marion. All the above players played key roles and starter minutes on their championship teams. Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen were top 5 picks, Pierce was mid-late lottery.

No one has won the title without drafting, signing (as a free agent), or trading for high lottery talent. That is where most star players are found.

Is it possible to win without high lottery players? Sure. Someday it will happen. maybe next year. Maybe 20 years from now. And the odds will be stacked against that route.

I don't care how we find our roster that wins us the next title. I just dont think Indiana is the poster team for who we should emulate. Not only do i not think they are contender material, I also think they are boring to watch.