Bob Kravitz

bob.kravitz@indystar.com

Reading between the lines of Frank Vogel's and Larry Bird's post-mortems (and that's the only way to approach one of these things):

• Roy Hibbert likely will return, in large part because he's virtually untradeable at his current salary. When Hibbert is engaged — that is, when he gets early touches and early baskets — he makes the Pacers an elite defensive team. When he goes into one of his funks, he's a liability.

"I'd like to see Roy more consistent," Bird said. "The first half (of the season), he was very active, contested a lot of shots and played big. … When Roy loses his confidence he struggles at times."

If and when Hibbert returns, he's got to come back with an entirely different mindset. He's got to work on his head as much, if not more, than his body. An All-Star cannot go scoreless in three of four games during a playoff run. If he's going to be an elite center, he's got to make small teams like the Hawks and Heat pay for their lack of size by getting deep post position and scoring at will, something that never happened in either series.

• I sense Bird will look to upgrade the point-guard spot, where George Hill currently resides. Like Hibbert, when he's active and aggressive offensively, he's more than good enough to lead a team deep into the playoffs. When he's not — and he wasn't very often in the Eastern Conference finals — he's a glorified combo guard masquerading as an over-matched point guard.

This really goes all the way back to 2009, the year Bird drafted Tyler Hansbrough when there were several point guards available who would have led the Pacers for years to come. Jrue Holiday. Ty Lawson. Jeff Teague.

Can you imagine this team now with one of those point guards, plus Kawhi Leonard, the player the Pacers traded to get Hill?

Bird has made some good moves during his tenure; the Hansbrough draft wasn't one of them.

So you're left with Hill, who has his moments, but they're too few and far between.

"I love how he defends the point guard spot," Bird said. "I would like him to be more active on the offensive end; he turns down a lot of opportunities to score. … Lately, I'm hearing a lot about the point guard situation. I like George but you never know what's going to happen during the summer."

• The Pacers will bring back Lance Stephenson as long as nobody makes him a bank-breaking offer. Bird has a specific number in mind. If Stephenson is at or below that number — and don't ask me what it might be — they'll bring him back and hope he can handle his newfound riches and become more of a professional. If somebody makes him a Brad Miller-esque offer, the Pacers will let him walk, or try to fashion some kind of sign-and-trade.

"You don't let a talent like that walk away if you can help it," Bird said. "…His ceiling is what he wants it to be."

I've long gotten the sense that Stephenson is more popular with Bird and, to a lesser extent, Vogel, than he is with teammates. Stephenson was central to some of the Pacers' in-house problems this year, especially when the team went sideways after the All-Star break. It was at that point that Stephenson stopped facilitating and started trying to score, as if to show Eastern Conference coaches they screwed up when they didn't name him to the All-Star team. When Hibbert said there are "some selfish dudes" — a statement that tore up the locker room — he was pointing toward the stat-chasing Stephenson.

I'll reiterate what I wrote the other day: I wouldn't pay him to return, especially given the Pacers' cap situation and the fact they won't pay the luxury tax (unless owner Herb Simon changes his mind). But that's just me.

• As Bird and Vogel spoke Monday, I kept wondering something: Why do guys leave here and go elsewhere and find their games, while productive players come here and either struggle or disappear?

Talking about Gerald Green, Miles Plumlee and D.J. Augustin, who all left and went on to have very good seasons.

Talking about Evan Turner, Luis Scola and Chris Copeland, who either gave the Pacers inconsistent production or ended up on the end of Vogel's bench.

It's fair to ask: Is that a Vogel thing? Is that a coaching staff thing? Is that a style-of-offense thing? If it's not, what is it? Help me here.

The Copeland issue is a mystery to me. While I understand Scola took most of his minutes, I can't be convinced there weren't times when the offensively challenged Pacers couldn't have used Copeland, especially against smaller lineups. In a league over-flowing now with stretch-4s and stretch-5s, Copeland would have been useful. Or so you'd think.

• This is an enormously important off-season for Bird, who doesn't have a lot of financial wiggle room with which to work.

A bunch of us loved the Scola deal, but in the end, Phoenix got the best of that trade. The Andrew Bynum signing was a low-risk, high-reward gambit that didn't work out in the slightest. And Turner was a total disaster, rarely getting off the bench against the Miami Heat.

Bird doesn't have much money, and there are no game-changers at the No. 57 draft spot (except for Manu Ginobili, who was taken with the 57th pick in 1999).

"Any changes we make will have to come in trades,'' Bird said.

• I'm more than fine with Bird's decision, which he describes as a no-brainer, to bring back Vogel. Bottom line is, they still won 56 games, still reached the sixth game of the Eastern Conference finals against a team that might go down as one of history's greatest.

Would I like to see him make more dramatic adjustments to his rotation? Yes. Do I worry that guys might walk all over him as he goes into the final year of his extension? Yes. Do I think the Pacers need to improve upon the way they run their offense? Yes.

But Vogel is an established winner and has built a strong culture here.

This was no time to panic and start anew.

Bob Kravitz is a columnist for The Indianapolis Star. Call him at (317) 444-6643 or email bob.kravitz@indystar.com. Follow him on Twitter: @BKravitz.