PDA

View Full Version : 2 teams made offers for Jeff Foster



imawhat
02-19-2009, 04:59 AM
And expected news from the Doneleavy camp.

http://www.indystar.com/article/20090219/SPORTS04/902190432/1088/SPORTS04

By Mike Wells

Trade deadline today

The league's trade deadline is at 3 p.m. today and any last-minute deal the Pacers make likely won't include injured center Jeff Foster. The Denver Nuggets are the latest team to be turned down for Foster's services.

The Bobcats also expressed interest in Foster, who signed a two-year extension before the season. The Pacers have no interest in trading Foster or rookie Brandon Rush, about whom teams have also inquired.

Bball
02-19-2009, 06:36 AM
And expected news from the Doneleavy camp.

http://www.indystar.com/article/20090219/SPORTS04/902190432/1088/SPORTS04

By Mike Wells

The Pacers have no interest in trading Foster or rookie Brandon Rush, about whom teams have also inquired.

Let's hope that should read:

"The Pacers have no interest in trading Foster or rookie Brandon Rush in these deals because neither offer was felt to benefit the Pacers"

flox
02-19-2009, 07:35 AM
Let's hope that should read:

"The Pacers have no interest in trading Foster or rookie Brandon Rush in these deals because neither offer was felt to benefit the Pacers"

I really really really hope so.

Major Cold
02-19-2009, 09:05 AM
Let's hope that should read:

"The Pacers have no interest in trading Foster or rookie Brandon Rush in these deals because neither offer was felt to benefit the Pacers"
No I am betting this team is soooo stupid that we were offered Kevin Durrant and Jeff Green for those two and we turned it down.

It's obvious that the deals were not good for the team, thus no trade. But what gets me is that people want change no matter what the cost. We could trade away players for a mere chance to get a decent to good players, when in fact there are contending teams that want these "scrubs".

Foster has value but fans throw him under the bus for the last few years. Teams would love to get their hands on him and people cannot wrap their minds around it because he is not a 20/10 guy.

Unclebuck
02-19-2009, 09:24 AM
I think this confirms that the Bobcats wanted Foster and Rush in the trade rumors from last week and the Pacers turned that possible deal down - I figured that was the case and the Pacers rightfully turned it down. I'm sure more than two teams have made offers for Foster in the past week

Eindar
02-19-2009, 09:29 AM
No I am betting this team is soooo stupid that we were offered Kevin Durrant and Jeff Green for those two and we turned it down.

It's obvious that the deals were not good for the team, thus no trade. But what gets me is that people want change no matter what the cost. We could trade away players for a mere chance to get a decent to good players, when in fact there are contending teams that want these "scrubs".

Foster has value but fans throw him under the bus for the last few years. Teams would love to get their hands on him and people cannot wrap their minds around it because he is not a 20/10 guy.

That's a bit of an overstatement. I'd like to see Foster gone, but I have never thrown him under the bus. He's a good, cheap big man that plays solid interior D and is a great rebounder, doesn't cause trouble over his minutes. He's a glue guy, and teams are always looking for guys like that. He's of value to a contender because they don't care what his production or health are like 2 years from now; they're trying to win a title this year. Whereas for the Pacers, we're wasting his services, and by the time we're ready to contend, he'll no longer be a servicable big man in the NBA. That's why I want him to be traded, not because I think he's a bad player, but because I think he's an asset that we're squandering.

owl
02-19-2009, 09:54 AM
That's a bit of an overstatement. I'd like to see Foster gone, but I have never thrown him under the bus. He's a good, cheap big man that plays solid interior D and is a great rebounder, doesn't cause trouble over his minutes. He's a glue guy, and teams are always looking for guys like that. He's of value to a contender because they don't care what his production or health are like 2 years from now; they're trying to win a title this year. Whereas for the Pacers, we're wasting his services, and by the time we're ready to contend, he'll no longer be a servicable big man in the NBA. That's why I want him to be traded, not because I think he's a bad player, but because I think he's an asset that we're squandering.

Maybe the offer for Foster was not that great and if they had accepted it would be
squandering his value? We have no idea what is being offered for him.

indygeezer
02-19-2009, 09:57 AM
Nope, Jeff should retire a Pacer. A monument to hard work and hussle.

Major Cold
02-19-2009, 10:00 AM
Maybe the offer for Foster was not that great and if they had accepted it would be
squandering his value? We have no idea what is being offered for him.
Yes trade him for the right player. But is Gerald Wallace the right player? I understand that his services are limited here. But my point is that there are posters who actually believe that he is a horrible defender.

Look at it this way. Unless we get picks or prospects I do not want to trade Foster. If we get back an equal contract with equal talent is anything different?

If we are to trade Foster with Tins I might think about taking back another status quo player. But even then we would have to give up something (Rush).

count55
02-19-2009, 10:29 AM
Nope, Jeff should retire a Pacer. A monument to hard work and hussle.

Meh...if it works out that way, fine, if not, fine. All players should be used in the way that can help the franchise the most.


Yes trade him for the right player. But is Gerald Wallace the right player? I understand that his services are limited here. But my point is that there are posters who actually believe that he is a horrible defender.

Look at it this way. Unless we get picks or prospects I do not want to trade Foster. If we get back an equal contract with equal talent is anything different?

If we are to trade Foster with Tins I might think about taking back another status quo player. But even then we would have to give up something (Rush).

I'm unaware of any deals for Wallace, but I'm not particulary interested in owing him $9.5 per for the next four seasons (beyond this one) given his injury history.

However, I would have been fine if Foster had been involved in a deal with Tinsley centered around Mohammed and Felton. I would not have put Rush in such a deal.

Foster is, basically, solid. Nothing more, nothing less. He's a good guy to have on the team for the right price. I would prefer that we didn't owe him $12mm over the next two years, but I'm not heartbroken about it. He is a willing defender, but not a great one by any means.

indygeezer
02-19-2009, 10:34 AM
Meh...if it works out that way, fine, if not, fine. All players should be used in the way that can help the franchise the most.


Foster is, basically, solid. Nothing more, nothing less. He's a good guy to have on the team for the right price. I would prefer that we didn't owe him $12mm over the next two years, but I'm not heartbroken about it. He is a willing defender, but not a great one by any means.

Can't disagree with a word you said. IMPO it would be great if it happend that way but I won't lose sleep if it doesn't.

1984
02-19-2009, 11:09 AM
We aren't looking to shed Foster's new contract as it is equal to his value as a player. Therefore, we would have to benefit via draft picks or young talent.

Trading Brandon Rush would be like trading our first round pick. Rush is not a disapointment and any player or pick received for Rush would have to be significant.

Frankly, I think Foster is a valuable commodity to the Pacers, whether as a player or trade fodder. He has been good to this franchise, but we have to do what is best for the team moving forward. The Foster stonewalls are either signs that the Pacers really believe they can make the playoffs now, or the deals presented were completely one sided and did not benefit the Indiana Pacers.

avoidingtheclowns
02-19-2009, 11:12 AM
I think this confirms that the Bobcats wanted Foster and Rush in the trade rumors from last week and the Pacers turned that possible deal down - I figured that was the case and the Pacers rightfully turned it down. I'm sure more than two teams have made offers for Foster in the past week

i'm surprised in the lack of rumors involving rasho, frankly. he's an exp. contract, competent on offense and defense and has quite a bit of playoff experience.

OakMoses
02-19-2009, 11:23 AM
I'm looking at Denver's roster + salaries, and I'm not seeing any reasonable offer they could make for Foster.

They're not going to trade Billups, Nene, or Carmelo. We're not going to take Martin. I don't think trading JR Smith would really interest either team. The best they're going to be able to do is something like Stephen Hunter + an expiring and a 1st rounder. Unless they're willing to take Tinsley back, I don't see anything being even remotely attractive to the Pacers.

ChicagoJ
02-19-2009, 11:31 AM
Contenders also don't want Foster in their starting lineup. His picture should be in the dictionary under "first big man off the bench." But in spite of his hard work and hustle, his overall game and skills have a limit and diminishing returns. Even when he starts, he rarely plays more than 20-24 mpg.

I can live with being told my criticism of him and his uber soft front-the-post defense junk is too harsh. But way too many people around PD overstate his contributions and abilities, as well.

I question the wisdom of his contract extension, as it makes Foster less attractive as a trading chip when we could have converted him into a future contributor.

Cherokee
02-19-2009, 11:44 AM
Contenders also don't want Foster in their starting lineup. His picture should be in the dictionary under "first big man off the bench." But in spite of his hard work and hustle, his overall game and skills have a limit and diminishing returns.
I agree, but I wouldn't give him away, either. He's good for 10-12 minutes a game in reserve.

Major Cold
02-19-2009, 11:58 AM
How do we know that we could have turned him into a prospect? Seriously Jeff was only worth a late round draft pick last year. Then you have to match salaries. Then to make them match you get a quality player back. So why would the team give up a pick and role player for a role player, when they can keep the pick and the role player? Oh yeah cause this summer Foster was an expiring contract.

From a buisness stand point I understood when we resigned Jeff that it would hinder us in a couple of years. But at this point you cannot neglect the fact that he helps in areas that Hibbert needs.

ChicagoJ
02-19-2009, 12:31 PM
Jeff himself was a late first round pick. The idea would have been to draft a younger version of Jeff. By the time this team is a contender again, 3 or 4 years from now, they'll need a "first big man off the bench" that was probably drafted in the bottom third of the first round.

Nothing wrong with that. I don't want every Pacers draft pick to turn into a superstar. I want most of them to turn into the right "complimentary player" to a team. We already have our own version of Danny Granger, just need to fill out a team around him that compliments him.

ChicagoJ
02-19-2009, 12:33 PM
I agree, but I wouldn't give him away, either. He's good for 10-12 minutes a game in reserve.

I wouldn't consider getting a mid to late first rounder as "giving him away". To me, that's the right value.

Yeah, its tricky to trade a player for a pick these days. Smart GMs figure out a way around that, but I'm not sure the media and fans always recognize when a player is being traded for a pick because you have to throw an unwanted player in to make the salaries match. As long as the unwanted player is an expiring, no harm done.

Major Cold
02-19-2009, 12:52 PM
A pick does not guarantee you that you will get a Foster like player. I mean if you could redraft Foster's rookie class, do you think he would be drafted ahead of some of the duds?

Trader Joe
02-19-2009, 02:46 PM
Nope, Jeff should retire a Pacer. A monument to hard work and hussle.

And losing?

I know, I'm being too hard on Jeff, but I just feel like the guy hasn't really improved at all since he started getting big minutes.

ChicagoJ
02-19-2009, 03:28 PM
I agree, but I wouldn't give him away, either. He's good for 10-12 minutes a game in reserve.

Let me put it a different way, I'd love for the Pacers to make a trade to improve thier frontcourt so that Jeff only had to play 10-12 minutes per game. But that's not gonna happen, I don't think.

vnzla81
02-19-2009, 09:20 PM
The Pacers turned down a deal with Denver for Petro,Weems and 1st round pick for Foster? can anybody explaing this to me?

Kuq_e_Zi91
02-19-2009, 09:25 PM
I read that Denver was shopping Kleiza and Steven Hunter hard. I can't verify that those were the two involved in our deal.

vnzla81
02-19-2009, 09:30 PM
I read that Denver was shopping Kleiza and Steven Hunter hard. I can't verify that those were the two involved in our deal.

JMV mentioned this on his radio show.

speakout4
02-19-2009, 09:39 PM
However, I would have been fine if Foster had been involved in a deal with Tinsley centered around Mohammed and Felton. I would not have put Rush in such a deal.

Foster is, basically, solid. Nothing more, nothing less. He's a good guy to have on the team for the right price. I would prefer that we didn't owe him $12mm over the next two years, but I'm not heartbroken about it. He is a willing defender, but not a great one by any means.
I have trouble seeing what people see in Rush other than potential. We know what Foster can do and what his value is but Rush so far has been unimpressive. Everytime I have seen him shoot a jump shot he has missed.

count55
02-19-2009, 10:09 PM
I have trouble seeing what people see in Rush other than potential. We know what Foster can do and what his value is but Rush so far has been unimpressive. Everytime I have seen him shoot a jump shot he has missed.

I don't put Rush in any deal because I'm more likely to get more out of him by keeping him than I am by trading him.

Rush can play basketball, but his shooting is certainly a problem. That seems eminently correctable to me.

More to the point in this specific deal, I saw a relatively high likelihood (or at least higher than I'd like) that Felton would command too large of a contract this summer, and that we'd let him walk.