PDA

View Full Version : The official Trade Foster by deadline thread.



theboyjwo
01-24-2009, 12:08 AM
If by the trade deadline, the pacers haven't turned the corner and started winning consistently then we need to trade Foster.

Look I know alot of people love Foster, I love him too. But I love the Pacers more. This teams needs a defender, somebody who can lock down the paint, guard the opposing teams best PF/C. We all know Foster has value. Any team would love to have his production and contract. So you could literally set up any number of deals that include foster and an expiring like Daniels or Rasho.

Additionally we've already seen in limited minutes McRoberts is way more athletic, and in my opinion potential to be a better defender. He can be a gritty energy player in the same vein as Foster is now. He only needs to get fouls under control. Better trade Foster now while he has value. Cause he is clearly going to decline in production over the next several years. It makes no sense to hold on to a player who will continually get worse.

So if this team hasn't developed by the trade deadline, which really would be a good bench mark anyway because we are just staring to get healthy again. Then its time to cash in some value. Start developing McRoberts to be Foster 2.0, and go get that defensive stopper.

DGPR
01-24-2009, 12:15 AM
I'm hoping some sort of deal happens before the trade deadline, and it doesn't even have to involve Foster.


:jamaaltinsley:

RaptorsFan
01-24-2009, 12:16 AM
I like Fosters game.

croz24
01-24-2009, 12:25 AM
should have traded foster by last year's trade deadline

theboyjwo
01-24-2009, 12:33 AM
I liked his game back when we were a halfcourt team a few years ago. But he does not fit in this system. He doesn't have the lateral quickness or athleticism to recover on defense. I also don't like how they run the offense through him on the elbow. He can't consistently hit an open jumper. That offensive formation rely's on drawing the opposing teams big out from under the basket so you can open up the lane for slashers. Teams don't respect Jeff's jumper, thats why you see centers and PF playing 3-4 feet off him when he gets the ball towards the top of the key.

Atleast they have adjusted and with the hand the ball off to Danny on the high screen. But the point is, its so predictable.

jeffg-body
01-24-2009, 12:40 AM
He's a great player for us and all, but he just doesn't fit well scheme wise. I think some contender would want a guy like Foster and I believe we would like to either get a nice young piece to go with the young developing core we already have or a descent draft pick.

YoSoyIndy
01-24-2009, 02:23 AM
Why would anyone look to acquire Foster? He has 3 years left on his contract. It's tough to trade someone who's current contract goes through 10-11 and is getting paid just a little more than his worth.

Jose Slaughter
01-24-2009, 03:42 AM
Theboyjwo

Using some of your thoughts from your first post, I have some questions.

1. You suggest that we should trade Foster now because "he is clearly going to decline in production over the next several years".

Here's the questions... If you're the other teams GM why would you be interested in a player whos skills will clearly decline over the next several years?

2. You suggested that we trade him for "somebody who can lock down the paint, guard the opposing teams best PF/C".

Here's the question... Again, you're the other teams GM, why trade away a lock down interior defender? Why trade away a position that most teams have trouble filling?

Now combine your 2 thoughts....

You seriously think anyone is going to trade away their best interior defender for a guy whos skills will nose dive the next couple of seasons?

CableKC
01-24-2009, 03:44 AM
I don't get why we need to trade Foster. He's a solid Backup Big Man that fits what this team is trying to do......the problem is that he's being used as a Starting Center that is playing far more minutes that he probably should be playing.

RamBo_Lamar
01-24-2009, 03:55 AM
Theboyjwo

Using some of your thoughts from your first post, I have some questions.

1. You suggest that we should trade Foster now because "he is clearly going to decline in production over the next several years".

Here's the questions... If you're the other teams GM why would you be interested in a player whos skills will clearly decline over the next several years?

2. You suggested that we trade him for "somebody who can lock down the paint, guard the opposing teams best PF/C".

Here's the question... Again, you're the other teams GM, why trade away a lock down interior defender? Why trade away a position that most teams have trouble filling?

Now combine your 2 thoughts....

You seriously think anyone is going to trade away their best interior defender for a guy whos skills will nose dive the next couple of seasons?


Wow!

Now this is a fine example of pure logic that even Mr. Spock himself would
have to agree with.

Pretty hard to argue with that.

MillerTime
01-24-2009, 03:57 AM
Foster is not going to be traded. Hes a hard worker and does everything the Pacers ask him to do. Hes not our #1 option at PF/C, but with the current roster he is forced to be a starter. Give it some time, once we can get a starting C, Foster will come off the bench and be that energy guy we need

Trader Joe
01-24-2009, 04:08 AM
I'm hoping some sort of deal happens before the trade deadline, and it doesn't even have to involve Foster.


:jamaaltinsley:

Why is everybody so excited to see Tinsley traded? What's even the point? The trade isn't gonna help the team, and if people really aren't paying attention the team because he's still on the "roster" then they aren't going to do it once he is gone.

It's a non-issue at this point to me. If we do move him, I'm fully expecting it to be for a contract just as horrid belonging to a player who probably won't be a part of the regular rotation.

Is the trade of Tinsley that symbolic to some of you? He hasn't been a Pacer as far as I'm concerned since Bird basically exiled him 7-8 months ago.

MillerTime
01-24-2009, 07:41 AM
Why is everybody so excited to see Tinsley traded? What's even the point? The trade isn't gonna help the team, and if people really aren't paying attention the team because he's still on the "roster" then they aren't going to do it once he is gone.

It's a non-issue at this point to me. If we do move him, I'm fully expecting it to be for a contract just as horrid belonging to a player who probably won't be a part of the regular rotation.

Is the trade of Tinsley that symbolic to some of you? He hasn't been a Pacer as far as I'm concerned since Bird basically exiled him 7-8 months ago.

If we could have traded Tinsley for Hunter and Atkins we would have had expiring contracts one year before Tinsley was done...

So there is a point in trading him. Getting that salary off our books one year sooner

aceace
01-24-2009, 09:07 AM
The Pacers just signed to a 2 year extension because Foster brings it every night. He's a good locker room guy and could play 20 minutes a night for any team in the league. There are 2 reasons to make a trade before the deadline. 1. Your not going to make the playoffs and your seeking young talent or draft picks for the future. 2. You are going to the playoffs and you need to strengthen a weak spot on your team without giving up a core part of your team. Foster and the Pacers are neither of these at this point. We are 4 games out of the 8 spot. Losing so many games by 3 points or less we could be 1 player away from being a 4-5 seed had we had that player from the beginning of the season (Dunleavy)

The Pacers need to package Tinman (if possible) + an expiring to bring a really good SG or PF who has a solid post game, because B.Rush is not ready and Graham is a backup. We need a player that can light it up from 3 or score inside. I don't know who that would be.

Unclebuck
01-24-2009, 09:24 AM
No

LoneGranger33
01-24-2009, 10:32 AM
As long as we don't move Old Reliable too - that guy is gold.

Justin Tyme
01-24-2009, 11:18 AM
No


There are just some responses one expects/predict to see when reading a thread title. Now, if I can just predict those 6 winning #'s tonight.

Trader Joe
01-24-2009, 12:22 PM
If we could have traded Tinsley for Hunter and Atkins we would have had expiring contracts one year before Tinsley was done...

So there is a point in trading him. Getting that salary off our books one year sooner

I don't believe that was ever a real deal. Just Vescey creating a stir.

Bball
01-24-2009, 12:56 PM
Foster is not going to be traded. Hes a hard worker and does everything the Pacers ask him to do. Hes not our #1 option at PF/C, but with the current roster he is forced to be a starter. Give it some time, once we can get a starting C, Foster will come off the bench and be that energy guy we need


Put me down for the trade. I suggested the other day that we needed to move Foster so he no longer was a bandaid the team could apply... then a few days later Peck essentially suggested the same.

We're going to have trouble finding that starting center you talk about, particularly if you realize he isn't going to fall into our laps as a ready-made player. We might be able to get a guy with size and height, but we'll have to develop him in all likelihood. As long as Foster is here, we'll keep going back to Foster because he does give his all and we'll need patience to bring a developing center along. But his all isn't good enough. Especially as a starting C. Meanwhile, our center prospects will not get the minutes we need (or they'll stay on the draft board/FA pool).

Maybe it's hard to sit a guy like Foster when he's giving his all, but you can't give him the minutes we do and put him in the situations we put him in. ...Yet we keep doing it. There's a reason Foster always loses his starting job to begin with (edit: to start each season).

If we could use him situationally it would be great.... but we try and stretch his contributions past what he can comfortably contribute. I'm now of the belief that as long as we have Foster we're not going to be looking hard enough to find/develop the real interior presence we need.

...And of course his defense is very overrated to begin with...

Major Cold
01-24-2009, 01:13 PM
If anyone thinks that McBob will give us everything that Foster does and more needs to watch Foster play the entire time he is on the floor. Last night Scola was tearing us apart and they finally made the switch from Murph to Foster and Foster pressures Scola into passing the ball. He sinks and hedges better than any front court player we have.

And I don't care if he is our starter. All I care is that he is in the game late when we have a lead.

flox
01-24-2009, 01:27 PM
If only he wasn't so liked, we could trade him for an asset to the future.

trey
01-24-2009, 01:31 PM
I'm a huge fan of Foster. I'm not sure that everybody realizes just how important those extra posessions are that he gives us when he's crashing the offensive boards. He's so active and gets the other team really frustrated when he's on the court, and he does a lot of things that go unnoticed to most people. Taking charges, tipping the ball, diving for loose balls, he wants the rebounds more than anyone else on the court. I'd much rather see him get a good amount of minutes coming off the bench instead of starting, but I don't want to see him get traded.

Pacemaker
01-24-2009, 02:55 PM
NO

Jon Theodore
01-24-2009, 03:02 PM
Yeah lets trade one of the few guys who really enjoys living in Indiana and WANTS to stay with our franchise and is commited to turning it around, lets trade him.

duke dynamite
01-24-2009, 03:06 PM
I think Foster is a much needed asset to this team. He may not be a consistent scorer, but he comes in and plays defense when we desperately need it. By no means am I calling him a specialist, but he is our guy.

ajbry
01-24-2009, 03:16 PM
should have traded foster by last year's trade deadline

We have a winner. With his contract as it currently stands, his value isn't as high.

Major Cold
01-24-2009, 03:20 PM
We have a winner. With his contract as it currently stands, his value isn't as high.
The market is bad because of the luxury tax. That does not mean he is less valuable. If we were to package him with others, his 2 years on this contact would make no difference.

Foster is not getting 10 mil plus folks.

rm1369
01-24-2009, 04:05 PM
I believe Jeff is a valuable asset that will have significantly declined by the time this is a solid playoff team and a contender. I believe his value should be cashed in - now. This team has a recent history of holding on to players until their value is at it's lowest point - JO, Ron, Tinsley, SJax. Even Brad Miller's value was at it's lowest point to the team due to it being a sign and trade. It's a huge factor in why this team is not very "talented". The reason for Jeff's decline in value may be different than those players, but it's just as real.

You won't get much for Jeff at this point. Whatever we could get would still likely be more valuable to the team in 2-3 years (when it matters) than Jeff will be. Of course it probably doesn't matter because I don't believe the team has a long term plan. I think they are just trying to keep from being horrible now. If thats the case then there is no reason to trade Jeff. He certainly makes them better right now. It's just a very shortsighted plan, IMO.

BRushWithDeath
01-25-2009, 11:52 AM
I think his extension will make him much harder to move but if we can, it should happen. But it should have happened before resigning him.

beast23
01-25-2009, 12:42 PM
NoWell now that was insightful. If I may, can I begin building on that thought, one word at a time?

HELL, NO.

:)

Justin Tyme
01-25-2009, 01:02 PM
You won't get much for Jeff at this point. Whatever we could get would still likely be more valuable to the team in 2-3 years (when it matters) than Jeff will be. Of course it probably doesn't matter because I don't believe the team has a long term plan. I think they are just trying to keep from being horrible now. If thats the case then there is no reason to trade Jeff. He certainly makes them better right now. It's just a very shortsighted plan, IMO.


I like this paragrapgh of your post.

1) I like your point about the value of another player in 2-3 years vs a 34-35 years old Foster. Good point.

2) I agree I'm not sure the FO has a plan for future. They never seemed to have had one with the 2 headed monster in charge. Keeping the team afloat seems be about the only plan in use at the present time.

vnzla81
01-25-2009, 01:07 PM
I like this paragrapgh of your post.

1) I like your point about the value of another player in 2-3 years vs a 34-35 years old Foster. Good point.

2) I agree I'm not sure the FO has a plan for future. They never seemed to have had one with the 2 headed monster in charge. Keeping the team afloat seems be about the only plan in use at the present time.

I agreed with this comments. It always seems that the pacers hold into players for too long and they want to trade them when their value is low. They should be looking for a way to trade Foster, Murphy and even Dunleavy, this guys are making to much money and I don't think their value is going to be higger than what they are right now.

2minutes twowa
01-25-2009, 01:10 PM
If Larry wanted to trade Foster, he would've done it when he was an expiring. He's obviously one of those players that is good for the team in many ways. When they announced his extension, it seemed clear to me that he would be a Pacers for life and probably retire after this deal is up.

Bball
01-25-2009, 01:36 PM
I like this paragrapgh of your post.

1) I like your point about the value of another player in 2-3 years vs a 34-35 years old Foster. Good point.

2) I agree I'm not sure the FO has a plan for future. They never seemed to have had one with the 2 headed monster in charge. Keeping the team afloat seems be about the only plan in use at the present time.

There does seem to be a plan but it falls apart with what OBrien is doing. So I don't know if there's a plan or not.

We drafted a real center (or had Toronto do it for us). We drafted a real shooting guard who had good defensive instincts in college. We also got a real center in Rasho from Toronto. We got some speed at the PG positions and Jack especially should be able to guard most opposing PG's effectively.

I consider Diener a true PG and a very worthy backup. His ball movement skills might actually be the best of our PG collection although defensively he is challenged. Of course you have to ask yourself, he's not exactly slow so why can't he defend a little better?

But then we run Rasho out of gas, would be doing the same with Hibbert if we played him more, plus we aren't giving him consistent minutes anyway. We're not exactly playing a 'big guy' friendly style of ball. Rush is in and out of the doghouse so much that I wonder if he even understands what he needs to work on at this point? We play Jack at SG when we have Marquis, Rush, and Dunleavy all available for that spot. Foster is playing center when IMHO he should find himself at PF more times than not.

We have the players to play a traditional basketball lineup yet we don't. Even when we do it seems like it's a goal of OBrien's to get the small ball crew in as soon as possible as he mixes and matches until it's there for what seems like the majority of the game.

If our plan is to play a traditional basketball lineup, I'd say we do have a plan the way the team has been pieced together. But then you look at what Jim O "the O stands for Offense" Brien is doing and you have to wonder.

Unlike what seems like the majority here, I think this team is built for a more traditional game that we could slow down. Not a hurry up, no defense, track meet. We should be able to attack with our guards and wings when the opportunity is there plus get into our offense quickly when it's not, and we have the players to run a motion offense when the break isn't there. And we should be able to play better defense with our size and people if we don't run them out of gas on offense AND demand more of them on defense. Give them a system they can maximize their success in and then demand they execute it.

Foster might actually fit into the plans in that case as a situational player since he can give you some athleticism and hustle on the court and defend other PF's and some centers. But his offense limits you, and his defense is overrated, especially when you put him into situations where he's overmatched. His hustle may make us feel good about him in those situations but the reality is, he's hurting the team when he's put into the wrong situations. Especially if it's for extended periods of time. One of the main adjustments a team can do to negate Foster is just put a body on him. His offensive rebounding success has a lot to do with the need to not guard him on offense. And that means his man is free to disrupt our offense elsewhere.

If we can use Foster properly, then sure keep him, but he isn't indispensable if the right trade should come up and he is a player you can shop to test the market. And if TPTB can't keep coaches from falling in love with his hustle and having too little patience with our more traditional centers, then you have to remove that option from their tool case... one way or another.

rm1369
01-25-2009, 02:14 PM
We drafted a real center (or had Toronto do it for us). We drafted a real shooting guard who had good defensive instincts in college.

Or we drafted the most "NBA ready" players without regard to how they fit into the scheme, the lineup, or their long term potential. Hibbert in particular has been a curious draft pick from the begining - everyone new that O'brien wouldn't play him because he just doesn't fit the scheme.

I hope your right and O'brien is the only problem. I remember Bird commenting that he had no interest in rebuilding, the team needed to win now. Considering Bird is so straightforward (to a fault, IMO) I can only come to the conclusion that his plan does not involve a long term strategy for getting this team in contention. He just wants to field the "best" team he can in the present - future be damned.

theboyjwo
01-26-2009, 01:24 AM
Theboyjwo

Using some of your thoughts from your first post, I have some questions.

1. You suggest that we should trade Foster now because "he is clearly going to decline in production over the next several years".

Here's the questions... If you're the other teams GM why would you be interested in a player whos skills will clearly decline over the next several years?

2. You suggested that we trade him for "somebody who can lock down the paint, guard the opposing teams best PF/C".

Here's the question... Again, you're the other teams GM, why trade away a lock down interior defender? Why trade away a position that most teams have trouble filling?

Now combine your 2 thoughts....

You seriously think anyone is going to trade away their best interior defender for a guy whos skills will nose dive the next couple of seasons?

I said do a PACKAGE Deal. Foster and Daniels or Rasho or along those lines. I never said a GM is gonna take Foster for a lock down defender.
And some teams will be looking for a solid veteran who brings it every night for a playoff push. Certainly Foster can bring that for the next 2 years. You'd shop him to teams who are possession teams like Spurs, and Mavs. But point is, he doesn't fit into the game plan for this type of team. You put him on a slow down grind it out half court team and he becomes better than he is now, and probably last a few more years. Running is hard on a 7fter.

Even if we couldn't get a lock down defender, atleast get somebody who is big and athletic and quick.

Unclebuck
01-26-2009, 09:23 AM
No

ChicagoJ
01-26-2009, 09:23 AM
All I want from Foster is a future #1.

All I want from Daniesl is a future #1.

With Rasho, I'm indifferent between cap scape and a future #1.

BillS
01-26-2009, 09:34 AM
cap scape

My favorite typo of the year because that's how I feel about cap space, it seems to be blamed for way too much...

Jonathan
01-26-2009, 09:56 AM
Foster is this team's 9 year Vet. He is more important to this team then acquiring future talent. Foster gives max effort, leadership, & that is more valueable than a future first rounder in this year's "weak" draft class. This thread lacks the respect Jeff Foster deserves.

Slick Pinkham
01-26-2009, 10:00 AM
10 offensive rebounds... we need to get rid of THAT.

:sarcasm:

I ride with Uncle Buck. His value to the Pacers well exceeds his trade value, even though he is somewhat overpaid.

Anthem
01-26-2009, 10:36 AM
Bball, aren't you the one who's always talking about the value of locker room presence and savvy pro leadership?

ChicagoJ
01-26-2009, 11:03 AM
My favorite typo of the year because that's how I feel about cap space, it seems to be blamed for way too much...

Well, I'm not a big fan of either cap space or cap scape.

Nor am I a fan of having Foster, Daniels, or Rasho on this team next year. Need to covert those assets into something else before they are either gone or become liabilities.

Justin Tyme
01-26-2009, 12:35 PM
Or we drafted the most "NBA ready" players without regard to how they fit into the scheme, the lineup, or their long term potential. Hibbert in particular has been a curious draft pick from the begining - everyone new that O'brien wouldn't play him because he just doesn't fit the scheme.

I hope your right and O'brien is the only problem. I remember Bird commenting that he had no interest in rebuilding, the team needed to win now. Considering Bird is so straightforward (to a fault, IMO) I can only come to the conclusion that his plan does not involve a long term strategy for getting this team in contention. He just wants to field the "best" team he can in the present - future be damned.


To me I thought it was a message that O'Brien was a 3 year or less coach, b/c Hibbert didn't fit into O'Brien's run n gun style. Hibbert was for the post O'Brien era where Rush could be used in O'Brien's system as well the post O'Brien era.


My feeling is Bird needed to change the culture and chemistry of the Pacers with the object of getting pride and interest back. To be honest, I don't feel Bird thought the Pacers would start out this poorly. Thus after the poor 1st half, it became imperative to go into a win now mode. As someone else coined the phrase, it became "desperation time", and time to emphasize winning. The fans were/are getting restless. As far as the FO having a true long term plan, they have not given any indication of having one. A one day at a time direction.

theboyjwo
01-26-2009, 12:41 PM
Foster is this team's 9 year Vet. He is more important to this team then acquiring future talent. Foster gives max effort, leadership, & that is more valueable than a future first rounder in this year's "weak" draft class. This thread lacks the respect Jeff Foster deserves.

9 year vet who can't make a lay up, can't hit a jumper, can't defend without fouling.

Good rebounder though.

Jonathan
01-26-2009, 03:03 PM
9 year vet who can't make a lay up, can't hit a jumper, can't defend without fouling.

Good rebounder though.

Foster is a great. This is blaphemy. Keep in mind it is not his job to score the ball. He earns his money by hustling and knowing his role. He is a team first; not a me first player.

Jonathan
01-26-2009, 03:18 PM
If by the trade deadline, the pacers haven't turned the corner and started winning consistently then we need to trade Foster.

Additionally we've already seen in limited minutes McRoberts is way more athletic, and in my opinion potential to be a better defender. He can be a gritty energy player in the same vein as Foster is now. He only needs to get fouls under control. Better trade Foster now while he has value. Cause he is clearly going to decline in production over the next several years. It makes no sense to hold on to a player who will continually get worse.

So if this team hasn't developed by the trade deadline, which really would be a good bench mark anyway because we are just staring to get healthy again. Then its time to cash in some value. Start developing McRoberts to be Foster 2.0, and go get that defensive stopper.

You must be from Carmel Indiana. Did you see Mc Roberts almost lose us the game against the Raptors. He was terrible. He is not a shut down defender at all. Chris Bosh abused him. Name one shut down defender @ PF/C that is available on a non-contending playoff team?
I do agree that if we are not contending by the deadline look to make a move but why make a terrible trade. Our future is Danny Granger. Combine him with a top ten pick and cap space we are fine w/o making a major move.

Justin Tyme
01-26-2009, 04:31 PM
This is blaphemy.

Keep in mind it is not his job to score the ball.

He is a team first; not a me first player.



There is a difference between blasphemy and the truth. Foster isn't a good FT shooter either.

And he's doing a great job at excelling at doing it too.

Wouldn't disagree with that.

Jonathan
01-26-2009, 05:06 PM
[QUOTE=Justin Tyme;840944]There is a difference between blasphemy and the truth. Foster isn't a good FT shooter either.

And he's doing a great job at excelling at doing it too.

Wouldn't disagree with that.

Arguing about Jeff Foster free throw shooting is illogical.

He looked good 4-5 against Toronto on the 16th. Way better than Mc Roberts that day.

Foster will never get to the line ten times a game or demand the ball on offense. I do not care if he goes 0-2 or 1-2 from the line each game.

Naptown_Seth
01-26-2009, 05:18 PM
If anyone thinks that McBob will give us everything that Foster does and more needs to watch Foster play the entire time he is on the floor. Last night Scola was tearing us apart and they finally made the switch from Murph to Foster and Foster pressures Scola into passing the ball. He sinks and hedges better than any front court player we have.

And I don't care if he is our starter. All I care is that he is in the game late when we have a lead.
I agree. Foster has limits, but he's paid like it. He has plenty of situations where he gives you great value and TONS of vet smarts and leadership.

Next topic: we should trade Tinsley and get a break-you-down PG with eyes in the back of his head that can make every pass in the book with either hand.

To come: I should trade my 11 year old Mitsu for a brand new Porsche, but should I also ask the dealer for cash back too, or is that being greedy?


edit - I see the rebuttle of "I said package", but frankly each package features a player MORE VALUABLE to another team than Foster, so why not call it the official "Trade Quis" or "Trade Rasho" thread instead? There was a strong implication that somehow Foster had this big time value to other teams.

He has value, but if you get a great defensive big it will be because a team needs Quis or Rasho's expiring A LOT MORE.

Anthem
01-26-2009, 06:15 PM
Well, I'm not a big fan of either cap space or cap scape.

Nor am I a fan of having Foster, Daniels, or Rasho on this team next year. Need to covert those assets into something else before they are either gone or become liabilities.

Hard to move them secretly when they have to play out in the open. Not sure what such an action would accomplish, either. :devil:

Wouldn't have said anything if not for the cap scape.

ChicagoJ
01-26-2009, 06:18 PM
Well... ****. I give up.

Bball
01-26-2009, 07:16 PM
Bball, aren't you the one who's always talking about the value of locker room presence and savvy pro leadership?

Well, I talked about JO's extreme lack of the above while proclaiming himself a leader to anyone who'd listen all the while standing in the way of true leadership developing. But this team has Granger stepping up and I doubt the loss of Foster would cause the team to crumble from a lack of leadership. I think Granger has his teammates' respect (something that IMO JO never had or earned... but I digress....).

Now, if you could get a guy about Foster's age who had been to the mountain and wanted to take Danny under his wing and help Danny see the mountain and help Danny develop even more as a player and leader then that would be good. I'm thinking of someone like what Byron did for us when I say that.

I also don't think this team is devoid of good character guys so it's not like we're trying to counter loons, druggies, and me-first players with some examples of true professionalism.

IOW... We don't need Foster to provide anything other than play his role. But I believe his role is more of a niche role yet we don't always use him that way and ultimately (to paraphrase the Bobcat announcers) we "put him in a position to fail".

Pacerized
01-26-2009, 10:08 PM
The only reason I would want Foster traded would be if it were in a package to bring in a Player like Amare. Since that's not going to happen, I can't see a good reason to trade him. It looks like he's lost a little this year, but he's still a great rebounder and our best big man defender. Foster is not overpaid for a veteran big man. He'd still get 20-24 min on just about any NBA team, so trading him would not be difficult, however getting an impact player for him would be very unlikely. Trading Foster for chump change would sour me on this team. Luckily Bird is too smart for that and recognizes what Foster brings to this team even if some fans don't.

plutarch
01-26-2009, 10:22 PM
i always respected pd people, but this thread is a shame
sure its good to talk about trading people but to put foster under the bus like that is stupid

theboyjwo
01-27-2009, 03:41 PM
edit - I see the rebuttle of "I said package", but frankly each package features a player MORE VALUABLE to another team than Foster, so why not call it the official "Trade Quis" or "Trade Rasho" thread instead? There was a strong implication that somehow Foster had this big time value to other teams.

Sounds like nit picking to me. I've never said Foster is must have player. But you can't deny, any team would love to have him if the package is right.
All I'm sayin is we aren't going anywhere with him....

theboyjwo
01-27-2009, 04:01 PM
You must be from Carmel Indiana. Did you see Mc Roberts almost lose us the game against the Raptors. He was terrible. He is not a shut down defender at all. Chris Bosh abused him. Name one shut down defender @ PF/C that is available on a non-contending playoff team?
I do agree that if we are not contending by the deadline look to make a move but why make a terrible trade. Our future is Danny Granger. Combine him with a top ten pick and cap space we are fine w/o making a major move.

Why you gotta insult me for? How about you quit swinging from Fosters Balls. Besides I said develop McRoberts into a Foster type player. You gotta realize that if this team isn't any better come trade deadline, then things have got to change. Young players are gonna get the chance, McRoberts has barely gotten a chance at consistent PT.

Granted he didn't put up a good showing against Toronto, but I was at the game in the lower level and half of those calls were BS. The Refs took him out of it mentally.
Do you not think McRoberts can replace Foster? He is the same kind of player so far. He just isn't polished, and calling Foster Polished doesn't even seem right. Supposedly McRoberts can shoot it better too, but we haven't seen it.
I know getting a lock down defender is pretty slim, but atlease look for a player who can actually defend without fouling, knock down an open jump shot? Hit a free throw? Open Lay ups. Its simply unacceptable for a 7 fter to miss an open lay up as many times as Foster does. He doesn't really fit our system.

Naptown_Seth
01-27-2009, 05:10 PM
Sounds like nit picking to me. I've never said Foster is must have player. But you can't deny, any team would love to have him if the package is right.
All I'm sayin is we aren't going anywhere with him....
Or logic.

Look, people pick up on cues and respond accordingly. You start a "Trade Foster by Deadline" thread and then talk about getting this great defensive stopper big and barely mention the packages and then get surprised/defensive that people somehow missed that the intent was to use the very valuable Quis/Rasho situations with Foster as the piece that takes the sting out of giving up a high quality big.

So it's barely about Foster at all. A team making that deal isn't trying to get Foster, they are trying to get that other piece and using him as the band-aid for giving up their own big.

Not to mention this wonderful contradiction...

We all know Foster has value. Any team (except the Pacers) would love to have his production and contract. Bold being my comment.


Foster as the central trade asset either gets you a backup guard or a mid-first round pick, say 15 or worse. 15 because of this draft and because you are trading for the playoff push to a team that thinks this will get them there rather than into the bottom 15-16 teams.

theboyjwo
01-27-2009, 11:40 PM
Or logic.

Look, people pick up on cues and respond accordingly. You start a "Trade Foster by Deadline" thread and then talk about getting this great defensive stopper big and barely mention the packages and then get surprised/defensive that people somehow missed that the intent was to use the very valuable Quis/Rasho situations with Foster as the piece that takes the sting out of giving up a high quality big.

Not my fault people can't read and comprehend. Cause I plainly said package him with Quis and Rasho.



So it's barely about Foster at all. A team making that deal isn't trying to get Foster, they are trying to get that other piece and using him as the band-aid for giving up their own big.

From my stand point its totally about Foster, its all about getting rid of a Big who has value and doesn't fit into our system very well.



Foster as the central trade asset either gets you a backup guard or a mid-first round pick, say 15 or worse. 15 because of this draft and because you are trading for the playoff push to a team that thinks this will get them there rather than into the bottom 15-16 teams.

Again I never said Foster would be the central trade asset. I never over hyped him, like all the many other posters in this thread have. Merely said lets package him with the expiring contracts and go after a defensive big. You jump to conclusions, just like everyone else who says why would Team A give us their lock down defender for Foster......Amazing how I haven't even offered a specific player to go after and people jump all over it as a stupid trade in theory. Which it is not. If I had offered specifics it would haven been in the trade proposals section.

But hey go figure, I'm done with defending my position or how I positioned it to a bunch of people who are enamored with player cause he has the hustle. Its like telling bible thumpers Jesus wasn't actually born on Xmas. I've said my peace on the matter and plenty have agreed with me.

deekay85
01-28-2009, 09:16 AM
What about this one:

Indiana trades:

Jeff Foster

Philadelphia trades:

M. Speights
Reggie Evans
------------------------------------

I like the game of this young Rook called Speights. He is very promising and talented. But behind Brand he got no chances. This is the type of PF we desperately need.
Evans is little bit like Foster. Hustle, Defense (better??!), Rebounds

Klick me (Tradechecker) (http://www.realgm.com/src_checktrade.php?tradeid=4955138)

Justin Tyme
01-28-2009, 10:46 AM
Its like telling bible thumpers Jesus wasn't actually born on Xmas. I've said my peace on the matter and plenty have agreed with me.


I agree with you in that the Pacers don't need Foster, and my feeling is they shouldn't have given him an extension.

Oh btw, I'm one of those Christians who doesn't believe Christ was born on Dec 25th. That time of the year wouldn't have been conducive for the census the Romans required. My guess is Jesus was born in the spring to summer. JMOAA

Peter_sixtyftsixin
01-28-2009, 10:49 AM
I agree with you in that the Pacers don't need Foster, and my feeling is they shouldn't have given him an extension.

Oh btw, I'm one of those Christians who doesn't believe Christ was born on Dec 25th. That time of the year wouldn't have been conducive for the census the Romans required. My guess is Jesus was born in the spring. JMOAA

I'm a Bible/Religion major, by our best guess we believe it was some time around March/April.

avoidingtheclowns
01-28-2009, 10:56 AM
What about this one:

Indiana trades:

Jeff Foster

Philadelphia trades:

M. Speights
Reggie Evans
------------------------------------

I like the game of this young Rook called Speights. He is very promising and talented. But behind Brand he got no chances. This is the type of PF we desperately need.
Evans is little bit like Foster. Hustle, Defense (better??!), Rebounds

Klick me (Tradechecker) (http://www.realgm.com/src_checktrade.php?tradeid=4955138)

why exactly would philly do that? evans is a little bit like foster, why not just keep the young promising rookie and evans?

also, i think you're undervaluing reggie evans and his willingness to go after loose balls.

Itu6BeKEi8Y

Anthem
01-28-2009, 11:59 AM
Hah, that Kamen clip never gets old.

If I was Philly, though, I'd move Brand and keep Speights.

vnzla81
01-28-2009, 12:08 PM
Hah, that Kamen clip never gets old.

If I was Philly, though, I'd move Brand and keep Speights.

I would send Brand to Detroit for Iverson................:D

Jonathan
01-29-2009, 01:07 PM
Why you gotta insult me for? How about you quit swinging from Fosters Balls. Besides I said develop McRoberts into a Foster type player. Granted he didn't put up a good showing against Toronto, but I was at the game in the lower level and half of those calls were BS. The Refs took him out of it mentally.
Do you not think McRoberts can replace Foster? .

I would rather "swing from the balls of Foster than Mc Roberts" Foster is a nine year veteran. Who has proven something in this league. Mc Roberts has shown nothing. He does not even resemble Foster. The refs did not take him out of the game mentallly. He did it to himself. Bosh was scoring on him at will.
No Mc Roberts cannot replace Foster. They are very different players with different games. Knock Foster all you want for fouling but when he fouls somebody they rarely get an AND 1. Knock his free throw shooting. He gets to the line at most 6 times a game. He does shoot around 60% that is not terrible. He has an overall high fg% for the season. Mc Roberts is not strong enough to be PF/C in this league right now. Mc Roberts is very good at getting a rebound and pushing the pace. He is very good in the open court. He should not just be handed minutes. Our team is in the playoff hunt.