8p9s Roundtable: Should the Pacers Tank?

If the Indiana Pacers lose tonight to the Atlanta Hawks (a hiiiiigh probability) the team will now have it’s third losing streak this season of at least six games. Things aren’t going well is the point. A team that survived a slew of early-season injuries with a shot at the playoffs now looks like they’re in the midst of a hopeless year.

So what should the Indiana Pacers do leading up to the trade deadline? Should they blow it up? Should they tank?

More from Pacers News

• 2 Studs, 1 dud from gut-wrenching Indiana Pacers loss to Charlotte Hornets
• Handing out early-season grades for Pacers’ Bruce Brown, Obi Toppin
• 3 positives, 2 negatives in Pacers In-Season Tournament win vs. Cavaliers
• 2 positives, 3 negatives from first week of Indiana Pacers basketball
• Should Isaiah Jackson’s days with Indiana Pacers be numbered?

Pick one: Blow it up for a pick or stay the course for the playoffs?

Jon Washburn: Even if a playoff birth was guaranteed (which it isn’t), I would choose the first option. Indy should definitely allow David West to “take some time to get healthy” and bench George Hill for the rest of the season. I do think this team can be great again with a healthy Paul George, so I wouldn’t really “blow it up,” but nobody should be too upset if Larry Bird starts sending Luis Scola, C.J. Watson, Ian Mahinmi, C.J. Miles, and/or Rodney Stuckey to teams that could use them.

Tim Donahue: When Chuck Summers wrote the article “Tanks, but No Tanks” in opposition to tanking earlier this year, a commenter pointed to Paul George being drafted in the lottery as to why Mr. Summers was wrong. But that’s a bad example. Because on February 26, 2010, the Pacers were tied with the Kings for the fourth worst record in the Association. They won 13 of their final 24 games, moving all the way down to the 10th worst. This doesn’t mean Indiana will be rewarded for not tanking. It shows that the Pacers don’t tank, and I’m good with that.

Blow it up. Indiana should get creative and see what teams they can do deals with even if it means losing the continuity and playoff hopes.

Chuck Summers: I’ve used this space before to discuss my issues with tanking, and those views remain the same. If the Pacers continue to battle injuries and a crippling inability to close out games, “the course” might not lead to the playoffs anyways. Though far from a perfect comparison to this year’s Pacers, Atlanta’s transition from first-round fodder to contender does show that a hopeless playoff push, while not necessarily a step in development, is at least not an impediment to it.

Jalen Bishop: Blow it up. Indiana should get creative and see what teams they can do deals with even if it means losing the continuity and playoff hopes. They had a shot at the playoffs before the Pistons and Hornets started inching their way towards the eighth seed, but that’s over. I don’t think Vogel, the front office, or the players are going to lay down and quit if it blows up. They’re trying to win.

Pick one: The Indiana Pacers should be buyers or sellers at the trade deadline?

Washburn: I think the Pacers can do both — they can sell the now while trying to buy the future. Scola, Mahinmi, and Stuckey especially could all add good value to the right playoff team. I would be looking for Dion Waiters-like players that have good upside but are stuck on the wrong team. I might also check Lance Stephenson’s availability again, yanno, just because.

Donahue: If by “sellers,” you mean dump David West, George Hill, or Roy Hibbert, then, no, definitely not that. However, they shouldn’t necessarily be buyers, either. Mostly, what they should be is cautious. Any move they make should fit with what they see next year and beyond. Making a trade to get into this year’s playoffs is fine, as long as the player is either a long-term asset or on an expiring contract. They need to avoid confusing activity with accomplishment, and it’s really the type of situation where discretion will be the better part of valor.

Mostly, what the Pacers should be is cautious. Any move they make should fit with what they see next year and beyond.

Summers: I don’t see a strong incentive for the Pacers to be either. I don’t think they have anything that would yield a justifiably high return, and I certainly don’t think that David West, Roy Hibbert, or George Hill would be “addition by subtraction” candidates. Any buying should be with the future, not this season, in mind, but the surprising struggles of the Cavs show the potential perils of building around a star before actually seeing how said star will fit with the new pieces. So I would be a little tepid about buying, as well.

Bishop: Sellers. As much as it hurts to think about, Indiana should send out feelers for David West. A contending team in the East or West would ponder over it. I’d like to see Indiana stack second-round picks and try to draft big wing players. Maybe they could flip those picks into something else. Get creative.

Pick one: The Hornets or Pistons loss was more demoralizing?

Washburn: In retrospect, the Pacers probably should have tried to score in overtime against the Hornets, but I think the Pistons loss was more demoralizing. The Pacers had both games firmly in their grasp, but to see one of the biggest, strongest, and most physically dominant players in the league flop LIKE THAT in THAT SITUATION was atrocious.

Donahue: The Pacers — especially Frank Vogel — were mad after the Detroit loss, but not remotely demoralized. They knew they made mistakes, but they also felt that there were some calls that hurt them badly. That feeling probably intensified after Andre Drummond received a flop warning for a play with 23.9 seconds left. The Charlotte loss, on the other hand, fit the pattern of losses to the Lakers, Sixers, and T-Wolves. The Pacers couldn’t create separation from struggling, undermanned teams and couldn’t execute down the stretch. Losses like these erode the foundation of a team.

The Hornets were missing their top two scorers and shot just over 30% against the Pacers. Taking an L in that situation is much more demoralizing.

Summers: The Pistons loss was tough to swallow, in large part because post-Smoove Detroit has been a really solid team. This hasn’t been the case for Charlotte at any point this year. The Hornets were missing their top two scorers and shot just over 30% against the Pacers. Taking an L in that situation is much more demoralizing than losing on a tip-in from one of the best rebounders in the league.

Bishop: Hornets. The game was awful. According to ESPN Stats & Info, the Hornets/Pacers game was the lowest-scoring overtime game in NBA history. I’m aware both teams are without their studs but that stat is crazy to me. Drummond’s tip-in was depressing to watch, but I thought the game was just another episode in the Pacers season.

Pick one: Paul George or James Harden will have a better 2015-16 season?

Washburn: It really depends on who Paul George’s teammates are. I think that in a vacuum, he is a slightly better player than Harden, but Harden is in the absolute perfect situation right now, playing in a system that accentuates all of his best qualities. Because of that, I think that Harden will have a better season, but I expect both guys to be top ten NBA players.

Donahue: I would expect it to take at least a year for Paul George to get back to his peak playing ability, so Harden is a pretty safe pick here. Though the Pacers do not expect Paul back this year — and should, under no circumstances, rush his return — the rust factor might be why they would consider letting him play, if available and fully healthy late in the season. The sooner he starts seeing full-speed NBA action, the sooner he will be able to regain form.

Harden will have a better season, but I expect both guys to be top ten NBA players.

Summers: Even ignoring the fact that basketball Frankenstein Daryl Morey might have created an analytically informed offensive monster in James Harden, it would be tough to bet on Paul George to have a better 2015-16. There will be too much rust to shed, too much confidence to regain. Assuming he makes a full recovery, George should continue to develop into a better two-way player than Harden. It just won’t be next year.

Bishop: James Harden. Paul George is going to go through a short, growing phase of playing professional basketball again. It would be hard to imagine PG coming back and averaging 25-6-6 like Harden is doing.

Pick one: C.J. Watson or Donald Sloan should start when George Hill is sidelined.

Washburn: C.J. Watson is a better shooter, more versatile, and a better defensive player than Donald Sloan, but I would start Sloan for two reasons. First, Watson has been atrocious for the past two weeks. Second, he is a far superior pick-and-roll ball handler than Watson and a better flat-out scorer as well. The 2014-15 Pacers would benefit from his skill set more than Watson’s at this point in time.

Donahue: Does it matter? The Pacers have used 10 different starting lineups. Exactly one of them (Watson/Miles/Solomon/West/Hibbert) has scored more than a point per possession (103.8/100 in 32 minutes). None of them have a positive +/-, though the one possibly being proposed here (Sloan/Stuckey/Solomon/West/Hibbert) has broken even in their 45 minutes. However, they’re only scoring 82.9 per 100 possessions. If Watson isn’t going to be healthy, then Sloan is probably more effective … but, maybe that is best used against bench units. The Pacers probably need to adopt an asymmetrical attack, because their current starters are woefully overmatched.

I definitely don’t believe that starting one over the other would make a significant impact on the starting five, which have been riding that proverbial struggle bus for a while now.

Summers: Sloan has been a bit more effective this year, but I don’t think that effectiveness is necessarily misused on the second unit. I definitely don’t believe that starting one over the other would make a significant impact on the starting five, which have been riding that proverbial struggle bus for a while now.

Bishop: Donald Sloan. Watson has been bad this past week and will get back to form soon, but Sloan is the guy Vogel needs to place in the starting lineup right now. He’s good at attacking on pick-and-rolls and finishing. The combination of Stuckey and Watson will hopefully eliminate some of the standing and passing around the 3-point line that goes nowhere. Let’s change it up.