Candace Buckner

candace.buckner@indystar.com

The Indiana Pacers mortgaged a lot on this 2013-14 season - chasing after and locking in vets while giving up the younger, and cheaper, assets. Now, after coming up short in the Eastern Conference Finals, the Pacers have got to answer plenty of questions as they move forward for the future.

The Pacers aren't the only ones with questions, you, the fan of the team and beloved reader of IndyStar, have some of your own. I put out a call for your questions, something like this...

(Your question will be answered soon enough, Whole Foods 86th St.)

Several of the questions were on the same topic, so I chose the one that best captured the spirit of the popular inquiry and answered it.

Here we go.

@Screwhead_317 asks: Bird said that Hibbert should reach out to one of the greats...who should Roy try to contact?

As a kid of the '80s, I thought it was pretty cool that Bird mentioned Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. Respect trumps rivalries, it seems. So, I fully endorse Hibbert working with the greatest skilled big man to have ever played the game. Thing is, I haven't heard of KAJ working with non-Lakers (if that has happened, I just have never heard of it before). Although this may be too elementary, Hibbert might think about tracking down a Pete Newell disciple to work on his fundamental low-post game. But realistically, Hibbert should reach out to - and I'm serious - Shaquille O'Neal. Every bit of criticism, although cutting at times, that Shaq shared on the TNT panel about Hibbert's game was 100 percent true. Hibbert does not make himself a big enough target. He consistently allows the likes of Pero Antic and smaller centers dictate the terms of the play, when the man they call the 'Big Dawg' should be imposing his size inside for good position. And he thinks too much, which I believe won't be much of a problem if he's closer to the basket and does not have to put the ball on the floor. So, yes, I think Hibbert should contact the most dominant big of our time - not the most skilled - the one guy who can teach him how to consistently play big at 7-2.

@SmiFF620 asks: Looking back on the season do you feel the 13-14 Pacers had a successful season despite what LB says about goals team set?

Successful to a degree. I can't completely concur with Mr. Legend because the whole season was predicated on getting a Game 7 on the home floor against the Miami Heat and this time, prevailing to go to the NBA Finals. The Pacers earned the top seed and the opportunity for a Game 7, but they could not even past Game 6. I don't care who tells you otherwise, but that's a major letdown.

@Jwhitson9 asks: With players going elsewhere and getting better , coming here and getting worse how much is franks fault?

It's funny, this question brings to mind something Solomon Hill told me in regards to why he grew up in Los Angeles but hated the Lakers. As a kid, he had envisioned himself playing in the NBA, and I guess, looked for guys who looked like him: young. And since Phil Jackson rarely played rookies, Hill started his lifelong crusade against the Lakers. Well, good thing Hill isn't a kid growing up in Indy right now, because he might not like the Pacers. While Frank Vogel was the liberator who gave Paul George his first shot off Jim O'Brien's bench, as well as the one who let young Lance live, he hasn't exactly been pro-youth during his three years as head coach. Miles Plumlee and Orlando Johnson come to mind in that category, then you look at players like well-traveled Gerald Green and career back-up Darren Collison and think they could have done much more here. System can be the difference maker and the Pacers' grind-out style doesn't lend itself to players who excel in the freedom of an open court. So, yes, you would like to see more offensive diversity to accommodate these talents. But let's be honest, Vogel has had some dogs on his bench. Guys like Jeff Ayres, D.J. Augustin and Tyler Hansbrough haven't magically appeared as stars the moment they've left Indiana. So overall, I think the sample size of players leaving and getting better is a bit too small to completely pin it on Vogel.

@DanDMB41 asks: how does that affect cap numbers this offseason?

Dan asked this question in regards to Paul George receiving 27 percent of the team's salary cap with his second All-NBA selection. I'll never claim to be a Larry Coon up in this piece and since the salary cap won't be announced until early July after the NBA's moratorium period, we won't know for sure just how much George is racking in. But if you're asking if George's salary raise will hurt the Pacers in re-signing one special free agent, the Pacers still have ways to bring Lance back.

@AJRose61 asks: What's the odds Stephenson stays a Pacer over more money? Will they try to re-sign Turner if Lance left or look elsewhere?

The good news: Pacers want Lance back and the word I've been getting lately is that Lance wants to come back. I don't know how much money he wants and I'm sure since this will be his first big contract in the NBA, Lance would like to set up himself and his family up for the next four years (as anyone would in his situation). However, I do think the environment here with the Pacers, and his love for Larry Bird, has the ability to trump all other teams' offers. Lance truly has a good thing going here. But considering the recent trend of second-round draft picks who have been majorly paid with their second contracts (DeAndre Jordan, Goran Dragic, Nikola Pekovic, Omer Asik), I'm thinking Lance could easily find himself with a four-year, $28 million deal.

Now, on Evan Turner ... he will not return to the Pacers. Even if Lance leaves, I no longer believe the Pacers view Turner as a second option.

@P_P_Petry asks: George Hill. Staying or going?

If the Pacers are active this offseason with trades, then yes, I think George Hill is going. Although Hill had a good end-of-the-year meeting with Bird, he's been around long enough to know that he could still get traded. With $24 million tied up to him over the next three years, his production does not match that level of financial commitment. But...

@eatdrkslpsprtz2 asks: #Pacers does #GeorgeHill have any trade value?

That's the thing - how do you dump Hill with that contract? And he's coming off his worst statistical year as a regular starter. The best the Pacers can do is sell him as a combo guard who can help some team's second unit. But again, who's buying that for $8 million next season? He's not assertive enough to start in the NBA, even if matched with a pure point guard. So, Hill doesn't exactly have the trade value to be part of a deal for the Pacers to get someone, like, Rajon Rondo.

@Jake_Lester asks: Do you think the Pacers pursue a Rondo like player and who do they give up to get him?

Well, Jake from State Farm, doesn't everybody want to pursue a trade for Rondo? If Kevin Love really wants out and is as enamored with Boston as it has been reported, you can forget about Rondo because he'll remain a Celtic. But if Love doesn't make his way to Beantown, and the Celtics are convinced they need to stay in rebuilding mode, then heck yeah, the Pacers should try to get Rondo. But again, where are the assets? Chris Copeland was a hot commodity coming off last year's playoffs with the New York Knicks, but after a year on the bench, I doubt they can package him with, say, George Hill to match salaries and bring in Rondo. Unfortunately, I think the Pacers will have to give up more youth and quality if they want to improve the PG position. I noticed that both Vogel and Bird were building up rookie Solomon Hill all of a sudden in the end-of-year press conference. As far as youthful assets, the picking's slim, and Solomon Hill just might be it. So, Pacers will likely have to give up a Hill, a Copeland, or even a Luis Scola to try to get better this year. There are sign-and-trade elements, but as far as guys under contract right now, the Pacers don't have a lot of assets to give up.

@joby_semmler asks: Best available true PG on the market within Pacers cap space & might consider playing in Indy? GHill not exactly starter.

There are no point guards available in free agency that I believe will improve the Pacers. Though Steve Blake or Aaron Brooks are veterans who could come on the cheap, the Pacers will need to make a trade to get better at that position and not simply pick up an also-ran.

@JoseGonPacer asks: If the Pacers stay put and don't change the starting lineup, do you think they can beat the Heat or be in the same position?

This isn't breaking news but as currently constructed, the Pacers can not beat the currently-constructed Miami Heat. If Hill stands pat and Lance comes back, then the bench must be overhauled.

@ToeKnee_Cobb asks: if Lance doesn't comeback, where could a possible landing spot be?

I've had this discussion before about where Lance might fit, and I see Western Conference as possible destinations. Minnesota with Rubio or back with B. Shaw in Denver. New Orleans with their 27 guards on roster still has no one to match Lance's skills. But if he sticks to the Eastern Conference, I imagine Philly or Atlanta as decent fits. If Lance goes back to Brooklyn, the world just might explode.

@jmstwn asks: We seem behind in the analytics department; does the team have any plans to modernize on that front?

No, the Pacers are not behind. The team has a very smart and capable analytics dude who's based in Brooklyn. Stanford grad, former Wall Street dynamo. He's worked with the Pacers for several years, he meets up with the team back in Indy at the start of every playoff series. I've met him a few times on the road and found him to be way smarter than me... which doesn't say much because most people are, but trust me, the Pacers have a solid analytics department.

Oh, if you must know... Wannabe Startin' Something.

It's been real, gang. Thanks for participating.