How does Larry Bird stepping down as team president change the future for the Indiana Pacers? Has Paul George played his last game with the team?
Our 5-on-5 crew debates and predicts Indiana's next moves.
1. How should Pacers fans feel about the news that Larry Bird is stepping down and being replaced by Kevin Pritchard?
Chris Herring, FiveThirtyEight/ESPN.com: More confident than before. Bird is old-school and might be more averse to the idea of dealing Paul George and hitting the reset button, even though it seems that might be best long-term. Pritchard's track record suggests he may be more flexible on that front. Trading George could pay dividends -- even if it does turn out to be a lengthy process to get the Pacers back into contention.
Bradford Doolittle, ESPN Insider: The path isn't necessarily any more clear for a Pacers reset, unless owner Herb Simon is on board with that approach. But that's not to say it won't happen.
Kevin Pritchard is a veteran executive. Surely he has some differing perspectives from Bird, but his approach in Portland was to aggressively move pieces to fit around a Brandon Roy-LaMarcus Aldridge core, bit by bit. I could see Pritchard trying to rearrange around George and Myles Turner instead of dealing George to launch a rebuild. However, that's just a guess, and it really comes down to their read on what George wants to do.
Jeremias Engelmann, ESPN Insider: It sounds harsh, but I'd feel somewhat indifferent. Bird's last few decisions -- like replacing Frank Vogel with Nate McMillan and dealing George Hill -- were far from home runs, and the franchise has been in no man's land for a while now. Perhaps Pritchard has more luck.
Kevin Pelton, ESPN Insider: In good hands. Despite its bizarre end, Pritchard's tenure as GM of the Portland Trail Blazers was a qualified success. I should note here that I'm not an impartial observer, having consulted for the Pacers while Pritchard was with the organization, but my assessment of his time with the Blazers predates working with him. Indiana has some challenging decisions to navigate in the 14 months leading up to George's free agency and I think Pritchard is capable of leading the Pacers.
2. The Pacers _________ trade Paul George this offseason.
A. Should and will
B. Should but won't
C. Shouldn't but will
D. Shouldn't and won't
Amin Elhassan, ESPN Insider: A. If (and only if) George does not make the All-NBA team this season. Should he be named to such an honor, the Pacers would be eligible to offer him a deal that would be about $70 million more lucrative than any other open-market offer, a sum that would certainly keep him in a Pacers uniform. However, without that safety net, the Pacers would face too large a flight risk, and so they'd be better off moving aggressively rather than waiting.
Herring: A. Dropping their playoff series in frustrating fashion doesn't help the case to keep him. But at this point, without the potential lure of extra money through the Designated Player Exception (DPE), I don't think you can risk losing someone that talented -- for nothing -- in his prime, especially not when there are reports saying he's interested in going elsewhere. Go acquire a pick or two to get players closer in age to Turner.
Doolittle: D. Trading George signals a total rebuild. The Pacers have the flexibility to make themselves over this summer, and they need to make a run at doing so before dealing away an irreplaceable talent.
Engelmann: Probably B. There's certainly a case to be made for dealing him and "blowing it up." The Pacers have finished seventh in the East and been ousted in the first round two straight years. Before that, they finished ninth. They're the mayors of "no-man's land."
Pelton: D. I'm not convinced the Pacers can get enough value from teams that aren't certain they can re-sign George -- or from the Los Angeles Lakers if they believe they can sign him without having to give up picks or young players in return -- to justify giving up the chance he makes the All-NBA Team next year. While George probably can't maintain his level of play over the last month for a full season, if he comes close, there will probably be an All-NBA spot for him.
3. What else do you foresee and advise for the Pacers this offseason?
Herring: Depending on what happens with George, it may make sense to tear the process all the way down and start over. If you end up keeping him, which is risky for any number of reasons, you need to substantially improve the team to make sure he doesn't go into free agency next summer disappointed with the direction of the franchise.
That means finding guys who would be upgrades over Jeff Teague and C.J. Miles. Since I don't have faith they can convince those sorts of talents to play for a stagnant Pacers team, I'd probably advise dealing George and starting over.
Elhassan: Obviously, the George domino will dictate much of the direction Indiana should take. If George is to be moved, the most prudent course of action is to divest themselves of the other large salaries on the books (Thaddeus Young and Monta Ellis to start) and begin to craft the next vision of Pacers basketball around Turner.
Doolittle: We'll see just how much the Pacers are hamstrung by the contracts Bird has given out that last couple of years for middling players like Ellis, Young and Al Jefferson. The Pacers should re-sign Teague, who not only fits well with George, but gives Indiana the chance to play faster if the right roster is put into place.
Then they need to make a run at Hoosier State native Gordon Hayward, clearing cap space as needed. A core four of George, Teague, Hayward and Turner would need only to be augmented with a 3-and-D wing to be a dynamite unit.
Engelmann: Teague has played well for the Pacers (real plus-minus: 1.5). If they can retain him for less than 80 percent of the max, they should.
Miles, if he's smart, will opt out. On the free-agent market, he'll command more than double the $4.7 million he is making now. He also should be re-signed if the price is right, say, $13 million per season.
Pelton: A relatively quiet offseason, presuming Indiana is able to re-sign Teague at a reasonable price. If so, Teague's cap hold will swallow up most of the Pacers' cap space, particularly if Miles opts out (a virtual certainty) and re-signs. The Pacers could tweak their backup frontcourt rotation, but I think that's about it.
4. Fact or fiction: Myles Turner is the future superstar cornerstone for Indiana.
Elhassan: Faction. He's a tremendous shot-blocker and defensive presence with a more than respectable perimeter stroke that extends to 3-point range. He might not be a superstar, but he's a pretty good asset to have in the cupboard, with a skill set that will fit in nearly any incarnation of a winning team.
Pelton: Fiction. I think it's unlikely that Turner develops into a top-10 player given his current trajectory. A more realistic outcome is him emerging as a top-25 player who's an All-Star most years. That could be a cornerstone piece, but I wouldn't call that a superstar.
Herring: Both. He becomes the player you build around if George walks. But based on what we've seen so far -- a ton of ability and athleticism, but likely still a rung beneath someone like Karl-Anthony Towns or Nikola Jokic -- you still need to find more young running mates for him to experience sustainable teamwide success. I'm not sure Turner's talent alone gets you there in the future.
Doolittle: Assuming his game continues to grow, Turner should be a foundation-quality player for a team in contention. I'm not sure I see him as a cornerstone because he's not a great offensive creator, either for himself or others. But maybe he can get there.
As for his combo skills of deep shooting and shot-blocking, it's funny how much less rare that package now seems after basically half of the centers in the NBA took to shooting 3-pointers.
Engelmann: Fact, or at least, I think so. Turner just turned 21 and is one of the top 40 players in the NBA, according to Real Plus-Minus. He's a "modern" center who can shoot 3s, and he also gets steals and blocks while not turning the ball over often. His rebounding needs some work, though; currently, he grabs only 6.3 defensive boards per 36 minutes.
5. If Pacers were a stock and you were looking three years ahead, would you buy, sell or hold?
Herring: Sell. If George departs, things would get ugly. But that'd still be best for the long-term growth of the franchise, which has made the playoffs 22 of the past 28 seasons.
George, a former No. 10 pick, is the only top-10 selection the Pacers have had in 20 years. It's so hard to find franchise-altering talent without being a high-end lottery team. The next few years would be painful, which is why I'd sell. But the long-term outlook would improve.
Elhassan: Hold. History tells us that Indiana is rarely awful. Any George trade is sure to net a luxurious haul, and as I mentioned above, Turner is a nice piece to build around in the meanwhile.
Doolittle: Sell. The path to immediate contention -- landing a premier free agent in addition to keeping Teague -- is a long shot. If George wants out at some point, then you're starting at ground level. You don't get from there to relevancy in three years, especially when the process has yet to start as of the close of the 2016-17 season.
Engelmann: Hold. Pacers management has been pretty average when it comes to putting together a competitive team. Their roster decisions are never home runs. Rather, they include some head-scratchers, like the recent George Hill trade.
Pelton: Hold. While I think Turner's a good enough centerpiece that Indiana would probably be undervalued by the market because of concern about George leaving, I don't feel confident enough about the Pacers' ability to put a winning team around Turner to actually buy up shares. Turner might be the only player on the current roster more likely than not to still be around in three years.