Paul George Traded To OKC

[Roy H.]

It has been really difficult for me to reason out Indy's thought process over the last week or so. 

First, there was the report that they wouldn't let Boston speak with Paul George to determine his willingness to re-sign, despite the fact that such a conversation could have made us more willing raise our offer.  As it is, we had to assume that he was just a rental and negotiate accordingly.

Now, they impose an artificial deadline on themselves before taking a lower offer.  Why?  I'm sure the OKC offer would have still been available a week from now. 

The report is that Indy didn't want to make a powerhouse in the East.  Again, why?  Indy isn't competing anytime soon anyway.  Cleveland and Boston both decline after a few years - the former because of Lebron's eventual decline, the latter because of money.  When they come down, ideally you're ready to play again.  So what's the problem? 

Rather than dealing with Cleveland or Boston or even LAL, they decided to take an overpaid SG who I'm not convinced is even a positive asset and a mediocre prospect big for their star forward.  I don't get any of this.

They accepted our offer. Danny didn't want to pull the trigger yet, so they moved on.

There's none of this "they were asking for too much" or "they didn't want to trade in Conference". They were willing to deal and asked for a commitment. Danny said no.

[Ilikesports17]

It has been really difficult for me to reason out Indy's thought process over the last week or so. 

First, there was the report that they wouldn't let Boston speak with Paul George to determine his willingness to re-sign, despite the fact that such a conversation could have made us more willing raise our offer.  As it is, we had to assume that he was just a rental and negotiate accordingly.

Now, they impose an artificial deadline on themselves before taking a lower offer.  Why?  I'm sure the OKC offer would have still been available a week from now. 

The report is that Indy didn't want to make a powerhouse in the East.  Again, why?  Indy isn't competing anytime soon anyway.  Cleveland and Boston both decline after a few years - the former because of Lebron's eventual decline, the latter because of money.  When they come down, ideally you're ready to play again.  So what's the problem? 

Rather than dealing with Cleveland or Boston or even LAL, they decided to take an overpaid SG who I'm not convinced is even a positive asset and a mediocre prospect big for their star forward.  I don't get any of this.

They accepted our offer. Danny didn't want to pull the trigger yet, so they moved on.

There's none of this "they were asking for too much" or "they didn't want to trade in Conference". They were willing to deal and asked for a commitment. Danny said no.

Which seems stupid to me.

Why not wait 4 days and maybe get a better offer?

Why not just take the offer that gave you Kevin Love?

[Atzar]

It has been really difficult for me to reason out Indy's thought process over the last week or so. 

First, there was the report that they wouldn't let Boston speak with Paul George to determine his willingness to re-sign, despite the fact that such a conversation could have made us more willing raise our offer.  As it is, we had to assume that he was just a rental and negotiate accordingly.

Now, they impose an artificial deadline on themselves before taking a lower offer.  Why?  I'm sure the OKC offer would have still been available a week from now. 

The report is that Indy didn't want to make a powerhouse in the East.  Again, why?  Indy isn't competing anytime soon anyway.  Cleveland and Boston both decline after a few years - the former because of Lebron's eventual decline, the latter because of money.  When they come down, ideally you're ready to play again.  So what's the problem? 

Rather than dealing with Cleveland or Boston or even LAL, they decided to take an overpaid SG who I'm not convinced is even a positive asset and a mediocre prospect big for their star forward.  I don't get any of this.

They accepted our offer. Danny didn't want to pull the trigger yet, so they moved on.

There's none of this "they were asking for too much" or "they didn't want to trade in Conference". They were willing to deal and asked for a commitment. Danny said no.

But if Danny wants to wait until he talks to Hayward, why not let him wait?  That OKC offer would have still been there in a week, I'm sure.  I don't see the incentive for Indy to rush this out.  If anything, the free agency shakeout might have made somebody panic and overpay for George. 

[Roy H.]

It has been really difficult for me to reason out Indy's thought process over the last week or so. 

First, there was the report that they wouldn't let Boston speak with Paul George to determine his willingness to re-sign, despite the fact that such a conversation could have made us more willing raise our offer.  As it is, we had to assume that he was just a rental and negotiate accordingly.

Now, they impose an artificial deadline on themselves before taking a lower offer.  Why?  I'm sure the OKC offer would have still been available a week from now. 

The report is that Indy didn't want to make a powerhouse in the East.  Again, why?  Indy isn't competing anytime soon anyway.  Cleveland and Boston both decline after a few years - the former because of Lebron's eventual decline, the latter because of money.  When they come down, ideally you're ready to play again.  So what's the problem? 

Rather than dealing with Cleveland or Boston or even LAL, they decided to take an overpaid SG who I'm not convinced is even a positive asset and a mediocre prospect big for their star forward.  I don't get any of this.

They accepted our offer. Danny didn't want to pull the trigger yet, so they moved on.

There's none of this "they were asking for too much" or "they didn't want to trade in Conference". They were willing to deal and asked for a commitment. Danny said no.

But if Danny wants to wait until he talks to Hayward, why not let him wait?  That OKC offer would have still been there in a week, I'm sure.  I don't see the incentive for Indy to rush this out.  If anything, the free agency shakeout might have made somebody panic and overpay for George.

I don't know what motivated Indy, but they were ready to deal with us. Not committing was a miscalculation in my opinion. Paul George is elite.

[MBunge]

It has been really difficult for me to reason out Indy's thought process over the last week or so. 

First, there was the report that they wouldn't let Boston speak with Paul George to determine his willingness to re-sign, despite the fact that such a conversation could have made us more willing raise our offer.  As it is, we had to assume that he was just a rental and negotiate accordingly.

Now, they impose an artificial deadline on themselves before taking a lower offer.  Why?  I'm sure the OKC offer would have still been available a week from now. 

The report is that Indy didn't want to make a powerhouse in the East.  Again, why?  Indy isn't competing anytime soon anyway.  Cleveland and Boston both decline after a few years - the former because of Lebron's eventual decline, the latter because of money.  When they come down, ideally you're ready to play again.  So what's the problem? 

Rather than dealing with Cleveland or Boston or even LAL, they decided to take an overpaid SG who I'm not convinced is even a positive asset and a mediocre prospect big for their star forward.  I don't get any of this.

They accepted our offer. Danny didn't want to pull the trigger yet, so they moved on.

There's none of this "they were asking for too much" or "they didn't want to trade in Conference". They were willing to deal and asked for a commitment. Danny said no.

He should have said no.  What if he makes a commitment, doesn't get Hayward and then George leaves after a year?  All because Indy, who have absolutely nothing else going on, won't wait a few days.

Mike

[Roy H.]

It has been really difficult for me to reason out Indy's thought process over the last week or so. 

First, there was the report that they wouldn't let Boston speak with Paul George to determine his willingness to re-sign, despite the fact that such a conversation could have made us more willing raise our offer.  As it is, we had to assume that he was just a rental and negotiate accordingly.

Now, they impose an artificial deadline on themselves before taking a lower offer.  Why?  I'm sure the OKC offer would have still been available a week from now. 

The report is that Indy didn't want to make a powerhouse in the East.  Again, why?  Indy isn't competing anytime soon anyway.  Cleveland and Boston both decline after a few years - the former because of Lebron's eventual decline, the latter because of money.  When they come down, ideally you're ready to play again.  So what's the problem? 

Rather than dealing with Cleveland or Boston or even LAL, they decided to take an overpaid SG who I'm not convinced is even a positive asset and a mediocre prospect big for their star forward.  I don't get any of this.

They accepted our offer. Danny didn't want to pull the trigger yet, so they moved on.

There's none of this "they were asking for too much" or "they didn't want to trade in Conference". They were willing to deal and asked for a commitment. Danny said no.

He should have said no.  What if he makes a commitment, doesn't get Hayward and then George leaves after a year?  All because Indy, who have absolutely nothing else going on, won't wait a few days.

Mike

There's risk in any trade. Do we have so little confidence in our franchise and city that we're worried about players bolting to join losing teams offering less money.

[blink]

It has been really difficult for me to reason out Indy's thought process over the last week or so. 

First, there was the report that they wouldn't let Boston speak with Paul George to determine his willingness to re-sign, despite the fact that such a conversation could have made us more willing raise our offer.  As it is, we had to assume that he was just a rental and negotiate accordingly.

Now, they impose an artificial deadline on themselves before taking a lower offer.  Why?  I'm sure the OKC offer would have still been available a week from now. 

The report is that Indy didn't want to make a powerhouse in the East.  Again, why?  Indy isn't competing anytime soon anyway.  Cleveland and Boston both decline after a few years - the former because of Lebron's eventual decline, the latter because of money.  When they come down, ideally you're ready to play again.  So what's the problem? 

Rather than dealing with Cleveland or Boston or even LAL, they decided to take an overpaid SG who I'm not convinced is even a positive asset and a mediocre prospect big for their star forward.  I don't get any of this.

They accepted our offer.

Where has any report said this?  If that was the case, then Indy would have waited until the GH thing plays out.  I haven't heard reports online that said Indy accepted any offer from Boston.

[Roy H.]

It has been really difficult for me to reason out Indy's thought process over the last week or so. 

First, there was the report that they wouldn't let Boston speak with Paul George to determine his willingness to re-sign, despite the fact that such a conversation could have made us more willing raise our offer.  As it is, we had to assume that he was just a rental and negotiate accordingly.

Now, they impose an artificial deadline on themselves before taking a lower offer.  Why?  I'm sure the OKC offer would have still been available a week from now. 

The report is that Indy didn't want to make a powerhouse in the East.  Again, why?  Indy isn't competing anytime soon anyway.  Cleveland and Boston both decline after a few years - the former because of Lebron's eventual decline, the latter because of money.  When they come down, ideally you're ready to play again.  So what's the problem? 

Rather than dealing with Cleveland or Boston or even LAL, they decided to take an overpaid SG who I'm not convinced is even a positive asset and a mediocre prospect big for their star forward.  I don't get any of this.

They accepted our offer.

Where has any report said this?  If that was the case, then Indy would have waited until the GH thing plays out.  I haven't heard reports online that said Indy accepted any offer from Boston.

Woj said it. 

.@wojespn on @espn: #Pacers wanted Smart, Crowder, multiple 1st Rd picks from #Celtics. Boston wasn't ready to close before Hayward signing.

Indy also has a roster to fill, and they didn't want to wait several days while free agent opportunities to pass them by, only to have things fall through.

[Tr1boy]

pritchard is an amateur

does he really think the PAcers will make much noise during FA

After all the key FAs sign... PG13 would have been the biggest fish left

Numerous podcast have said what a bad deal the Pacers received for PG13

and  Crowder/Smart and non lotto 1st would have been better

[Moranis]

You have to trade Crowder, Smart, and 3 non prime 1sts for George every single time.  Look at this way, Smart or Bradley is likely gone next summer because it isn't financially feasible to keep both.  Crowder may be starting now but he is pretty clearly a bench level player. Assuming the 3 firsts were 3 of these 4, Bos 18, Bos 19, LA, Mem then there is no reason to keep those as they likely won't make the team long term anyway.

Even as a rental you have to make the trade but there is no guarantee it would have been a rental.

[Smitty77]

It has been really difficult for me to reason out Indy's thought process over the last week or so. 

First, there was the report that they wouldn't let Boston speak with Paul George to determine his willingness to re-sign, despite the fact that such a conversation could have made us more willing raise our offer.  As it is, we had to assume that he was just a rental and negotiate accordingly.

Now, they impose an artificial deadline on themselves before taking a lower offer.  Why?  I'm sure the OKC offer would have still been available a week from now. 

The report is that Indy didn't want to make a powerhouse in the East.  Again, why?  Indy isn't competing anytime soon anyway.  Cleveland and Boston both decline after a few years - the former because of Lebron's eventual decline, the latter because of money.  When they come down, ideally you're ready to play again.  So what's the problem? 

Rather than dealing with Cleveland or Boston or even LAL, they decided to take an overpaid SG who I'm not convinced is even a positive asset and a mediocre prospect big for their star forward.  I don't get any of this.

They accepted our offer. Danny didn't want to pull the trigger yet, so they moved on.

There's none of this "they were asking for too much" or "they didn't want to trade in Conference". They were willing to deal and asked for a commitment. Danny said no.

I know that you are VERY important on this blog Roy, but you state things like you have a direct line of communication with Danny, Wyc, etc.  Do you?  Please share with everyone so that we can stop relying on the increasingly unreliable Woj:-))))

Smitty77

[nebist]

It has been really difficult for me to reason out Indy's thought process over the last week or so. 

First, there was the report that they wouldn't let Boston speak with Paul George to determine his willingness to re-sign, despite the fact that such a conversation could have made us more willing raise our offer.  As it is, we had to assume that he was just a rental and negotiate accordingly.

Now, they impose an artificial deadline on themselves before taking a lower offer.  Why?  I'm sure the OKC offer would have still been available a week from now. 

The report is that Indy didn't want to make a powerhouse in the East.  Again, why?  Indy isn't competing anytime soon anyway.  Cleveland and Boston both decline after a few years - the former because of Lebron's eventual decline, the latter because of money.  When they come down, ideally you're ready to play again.  So what's the problem? 

Rather than dealing with Cleveland or Boston or even LAL, they decided to take an overpaid SG who I'm not convinced is even a positive asset and a mediocre prospect big for their star forward.  I don't get any of this.

They accepted our offer. Danny didn't want to pull the trigger yet, so they moved on.

There's none of this "they were asking for too much" or "they didn't want to trade in Conference". They were willing to deal and asked for a commitment. Danny said no.

He should have said no.  What if he makes a commitment, doesn't get Hayward and then George leaves after a year?  All because Indy, who have absolutely nothing else going on, won't wait a few days.

Mike

There's risk in any trade. Do we have so little confidence in our franchise and city that we're worried about players bolting to join losing teams offering less money.

Roy, you realize that deal makes it impossible to sign Hayward though, right?  Celts needed to wait to sign GH first in order to get both players.  Otherwise, they're looking at just PG instead of possibly GH, Crowder, and Smart.  It just becomes very important that we seal the deal with Hayward now.

[Smitty77]

Woj just said on ESPN that the Pacers wanted Crowder/Smart/multiple 1srs but we weren't willing to commit til we signed Hayward. Sounds like they panicked and jumped the gun early for some reason.

So, no LAL pick and we still said no?

Unreal.

I don't think we said no. I think we said to wait until the Hayward situation is addressed.

They asked for a handshake and a commitment. We said no.

Even without Hayward that would have been a ridiculous steal.

"Ridiculous steal?"  For a one year rental?  Come on.

If you ignore all the reports that George was interested in re-upping here, I guess. George retweeted Pierce's suggestion that we trade for him. But none of that matters?

Roy,

Please humor me and others and list "ALL the reports" that George was interested in re-upping here!!  Then, list all the "reports" stating that he was heading to LA in 2018-2019!!

Thanks,

Smitty77

The one time George spoke publicly, he indicated he wanted to be traded here.

Link to the video?

Smitty77

[Roy H.]

You have to trade Crowder, Smart, and 3 non prime 1sts for George every single time.  Look at this way, Smart or Bradley is likely gone next summer because it isn't financially feasible to keep both.  Crowder may be starting now but he is pretty clearly a bench level player. Assuming the 3 firsts were 3 of these 4, Bos 18, Bos 19, LA, Mem then there is no reason to keep those as they likely won't make the team long term anyway.

Even as a rental you have to make the trade but there is no guarantee it would have been a rental.

Exactly. Plus, having George on board makes other free agents (Hayward, ring chasers) more likely to sign.

It was really a no-lose trade.  I can't believe that Danny wouldn't give a verbal commitment, with or without Hayward.

[Eja117]

It has been really difficult for me to reason out Indy's thought process over the last week or so. 

First, there was the report that they wouldn't let Boston speak with Paul George to determine his willingness to re-sign, despite the fact that such a conversation could have made us more willing raise our offer.  As it is, we had to assume that he was just a rental and negotiate accordingly.

Now, they impose an artificial deadline on themselves before taking a lower offer.  Why?  I'm sure the OKC offer would have still been available a week from now. 

The report is that Indy didn't want to make a powerhouse in the East.  Again, why?  Indy isn't competing anytime soon anyway.  Cleveland and Boston both decline after a few years - the former because of Lebron's eventual decline, the latter because of money.  When they come down, ideally you're ready to play again.  So what's the problem? 

Rather than dealing with Cleveland or Boston or even LAL, they decided to take an overpaid SG who I'm not convinced is even a positive asset and a mediocre prospect big for their star forward.  I don't get any of this.

They accepted our offer. Danny didn't want to pull the trigger yet, so they moved on.

There's none of this "they were asking for too much" or "they didn't want to trade in Conference". They were willing to deal and asked for a commitment. Danny said no.

He should have said no.  What if he makes a commitment, doesn't get Hayward and then George leaves after a year?  All because Indy, who have absolutely nothing else going on, won't wait a few days.

Mike

There's risk in any trade. Do we have so little confidence in our franchise and city that we're worried about players bolting to join losing teams offering less money.

If we're so confident then all we have to do is wait till the trade deadline or wait a year and we'll just get whatever we want.  No need to trade away anything