Hayward's rising stock presents Bird with difficult dilemma

June 21, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In April, when Butler University star Gordon Hayward declared himself eligible for the National Basketball Association, many draft analysts said the Indiana Pacers would be fools to draft the Brownsburg native.

He’s too wispy and has no post-up game. For a shooter, his range isn’t good enough. He’s not athletic enough.

Most draft experts in April said Hayward would go no higher than No. 15, but more likely around No. 20 to No. 30.

Let’s not get confused. Gordon Hayward is no Larry Bird.

But he’s no Steve Alford either. This isn’t 1987.

As it turns out, Hayward might not be available Thursday when the Pacers draft at No. 10 (assuming the Pacers hold on to that selection).

Hayward’s draft stock is soaring. His handlers too are gaining confidence. Earlier this month, Hayward refused to work out for the Memphis Grizzlies, which has the 12th selection.

Part of that has to do with the Grizzlies’ poor management and ownership. But his handlers also feel Hayward could be gone before No. 12.

NBA Commissioner David Stern over the weekend invited Hayward to New York for the draft. That’s an honor usually reserved for players projected to go in the top 12 to 15 of the draft.

Earlier this month, Hayward worked out for the L.A. Clippers which picks No. 8, and Utah, which picks No. 9.

Scouts for those teams were surprised by Gordon’s athleticism, his lateral movement—likely the product of years of playing tennis—and his ability to play the perimeter. They also love his attitude and demeanor. No surprise there for those that followed the Bulldogs basketball program the last two years.

Hayward will be in Conseco Fieldhouse today to work out for the Pacers.

There’s another reason the Pacers shouldn’t draft Hayward, NBA observers said. And this is my favorite one. It would be unfair to pin the hopes of a franchise turn-around on a 20-year-old local kid.

Too much pressure. He couldn’t handle it.

Performing in front of the home crowds didn’t seem to affect him during the Final Four.

And of course, there’s the Pacers' dire need for a point guard. That’s a valid point.

But not everyone thinks drafting solely on need is the most brilliant idea. I agree.

“As we look back at the draft, the mistakes that have been made in this league are made primarily because we let the pain of need supersede the talent that might be available,” said Gersson Rosas, Houston Rockets vice president of player personnel.

No one will ever forget the Portland Trailblazers passing on Michael Jordon because they already had Clyde Drexler on the roster.

This is a deep draft, and Pacers basketball operations boss Larry Bird’s job doesn’t figure to be easy.

The Pacers badly need to win more games and attract more fans. The team is losing on the courts and bleeding about $30 million annually.

Hayward would undoubtedly help fill some seats. But if the team doesn’t win, Bird knows that’s only a stop-gap measure.

And Bird may still be smarting from the criticism he took over drafting North Carolina's Tyler Hansbrough last year. Hansbrough hasn't exactly made Bird look like a talent judging guru just yet. Some have suggested the Hansbrough draft choice was as much to do with sales and marketing as basketball Xs and Os.

Certainly the same folks that criticized Bird last year could suggest the same thing about the Pacers drafting Hayward.

If Bird truly thinks Hayward is the best guy for the Pacers to pick, it will be as brave a choice as Donnie Walsh’s decision in 1987 to pass on Steve Alford for Reggie Miller. That pick is still largely the foundation on which Walsh’s legacy here rests.

Thursday’s selection could be that kind of event for Bird.

Hayward and Bird could be tied together like Walsh and Miller.

Of course the opposite also is true. If Bird passes on Hayward and he falls flat, and Bird's choice soars, the man from French Lick will look pretty smart.

Either way, if Bird misses, he could find himself blowing away with the wind.

And his legacy along with him.

  • Don't DO IT!!!!
    While Hayward, may have been a great H.S. and College player he will undoubtedly fail in the N.B.A. night in and night out he would come against the best players around the world and unless he miraculously develops a long range jump shot or gets some tremendous hops from the shoe store he will (I Hate to say it...)always be the player who should have stayed in college and didn't make the jump. Yes, he was exciting to watch in the Final Four and yes he is from right down the street but if the Pacers are to ever rebound and become a contender again they should not draft Hayward....but I do think Bird will not go with his gut and end up picking him anyway and next year when the Lakers when again Indianapolis will be mad again that Artest has won again....especially Anthony Schoettle!! (Just kidding with you buddy!!!!) LOL!!!!
  • Gordon Hayward
    Gordon Hayward can explode to the hoop and finish, shoot the 3, pass the ball, handle it well for a "2" or "3", defend, and rebound. He is a team player who understands the game and is a winner.

    I guess the Pacers SHOULD draft someone else - Gordon wouldn't fit in with a bunch of losers!
  • johnsorg
  • Really Phil?
    "...he will undoubtedly fail in the NBA."? Really? Given to a little hyperbole are we, Phil? After you've had a chance to put down your crystal ball perhaps you wouldn't mind telling us who you'd suggest the Pacer's draft. I, for one, think Hayward would make a terrific choice for many reasons.
  • Business?
    I'm confused about the purpose of this blog. If the purpose is sports business, then why do you focus on the same content found in stories by Wells, Kravitz, etc, and never focus on the part of the story that a guy like Darren Rovell would? If you want to be sports business, then you need to show how the sports decisions will affect the business side. That's how you're going to get readers because if they want team news then the local beat writer will get you ever time.

Post a comment to this blog

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
  1. Why not take some time to do some research before traveling to that Indiana town or city, and find the ones that are no smoking either inside, or have a patio? People like yourself are just being selfish, and unnecessarily trying to take away all indoor venues that smokers can enjoy themselves at. Last time I checked, it is still a free country, and businesses do respond to market pressure and will ban smoking, if there's enough demand by customers for it(i.e. Linebacker Lounge in South Bend, and Rack and Helen's in New Haven, IN, outside of Fort Wayne). Indiana law already unnecessarily forced restaurants with a bar area to be no smoking, so why not support those restaurants that were forced to ban smoking against their will? Also, I'm always surprised at the number of bars that chose to ban smoking on their own, in non-ban parts of Indiana I'll sometimes travel into. Whiting, IN(just southeast of Chicago) has at least a few bars that went no smoking on their own accord, and despite no selfish government ban forcing those bars to make that move against their will! I'd much rather have a balance of both smoking and non-smoking bars, rather than a complete bar smoking ban that'll only force more bars to close their doors. And besides IMO, there are much worser things to worry about, than cigarette smoke inside a bar. If you feel a bar is too smoky, then simply walk out and take your business to a different bar!

  2. As other states are realizing the harm in jailing offenders of marijuana...Indiana steps backwards into the script of Reefer Madness. Well...you guys voted for your Gov...up to you to vote him out. Signed, Citizen of Florida...the next state to have medical marijuana.

  3. It's empowering for this niche community to know that they have an advocate on their side in case things go awry. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lrst9VXVKfE

  4. Apparently the settlement over Angie's List "bundling" charges hasn't stopped the practice! My membership is up for renewal, and I'm on my third email trying to get a "basic" membership rather than the "bundled" version they're trying to charge me for. Frustrating!!

  5. Well....as a vendor to both of these builders I guess I have the right to comment. Davis closed his doors with integrity.He paid me every penny he owed me. Estridge,STILL owes me thousands and thousands of dollars. The last few years of my life have been spent working 2 jobs, paying off the suppliers I used to work on Estridge jobs and just struggling to survive. Shame on you Paul...and shame on you IBJ! Maybe you should have contacted the hundreds of vendors that Paul stiffed. I'm sure your "rises from the ashes" spin on reporting would have contained true stories of real people who have struggled to find work and pay of their debts (something that Paul didn't even attempt to do).