8p9s Roundtable: Did the Pacers Offseason Moves Make the Team Better?
By Ben Gibson
What was your initial reaction to the Roy Hibbert trade and do you think it made the Pacers better or worse than if they kept him for one more season?
Tim Donahue: My initial reaction was, “Boy, Bird really, REALLY wanted to get rid of Roy.” That the market for Hibbert was only a second-round pick wasn’t particularly surprising — see Zach Lowe’s discussion of Hibbert from late June. It was shocking, however, to see the Pacers concede the point less than a week into free agency. How much of the Pacers’ improvement or decline next season will be attributable to Hibbert’s absence is impossible to objectively measure. However, I think moving on from both Hibbert’s strengths and limitations gives Indiana a greater chance of being better, sooner, than sticking with him for another year would.
Will Furr: It felt a bit like the Pacers were giving him away for nothing, but his mopey attitude and recent struggles on offense combined with Larry Bird’s trashing of him in the media drove his value way down.
Just two to three years ago, the concept of trading a truly exception rim defender who wasn’t a total minus on offense for a 2nd round pick was insane. Wait, that’s still insane. … I digress.
Just two to three years ago, the concept of trading a truly exception rim defender who wasn’t a total minus on offense for a 2nd round pick was insane. Wait, that’s still insane. … I digress. The Pacers probably would’ve been a better team with Roy and Luis Scola manning the 5 and 4 spots, running it back, and doing the same thing, but they probably weren’t winning a title with that front line. The Pacers may take a step back, but it’s in an attempt to take several steps forward.
Jeremy Comstock: My initial reaction to the Hibbert trade? I fell to my knees hollering “Praise Jesus!” Do I think it made the Pacers better or worse? Neither. At the beginning of the offseason, they had two possible paths: 1. To bring the band back for one more tour and hope to recapture some of the pre-Struggle magic sans-Lance; 2. To “rebuild on the fly” and try to make the playoffs with a new look roster. Once West opted out, the first path disappeared, and trading Roy became the only reasonable option for both parties. They used the money to sign decent role-players to decent contracts, and Roy gets to play somewhere at the molasses-level pace that is his only avenue for NBA success.
Whitney Medworth: Shocked. I couldn’t believe they pulled it off so quickly. Looking back now, I guess he was always going to find a home on a team that missed out in free agency, but I thought it would come at the trade deadline. And ultimately, this is best. We weren’t going to get a Roy Hibbert resurgence this year no matter how bad we wanted one. The break up was necessary.
Dylan Hughes: I had lost hope a Roy Hibbert trade would actually happen after DeAndre Jordan agreed to sign with Dallas, emphasis on “agreed” and not so much “sign.” A trade with the Clippers was a possibility, but it seemed like they were looking at Kosta Koufos and JaVale McGee first. If they were looking at JaVale McGee first, it was time to move on. Dallas made a lot of sense with the possibility of a Monta Ellis sign-and-trade, although I have no idea if that would actually be better cap-wise than just signing Ellis outright. If it would be better, I couldn’t explain why. Portland made a lot of sense with their amount of cap space, but so did the Lakers after striking out on everyone else. I think the trade was good despite the little return. There was no way they got much out of a salary dump, no matter how much a team might have wanted/needed him. Because frankly, a team never needs Roy Hibbert. His rim protection is very valuable, but everything else is meh.
Next: David West is Gone