PDA

View Full Version : Jeff Foster



pianoman
06-10-2009, 10:42 AM
it seems that every every off season, and before the trade deadline, we all want to trade Jeff. Why is this? Jeff has spent his whole career here, and has been loyal to the pacers, and the city of Indianapolis. Not once has he done anything negative, and does nothing but hustle on the court. Of course his number will never be retired,(He wears number 10. He needs a number in the 30's.:devil:) but he should stay here for the rest of his career. He doesn't have many years left in the tank anyways. Can we just keep him instead of looking for anyone to trade him for? Does anybody else feel this way? Or am I just in love with Foster?

duke dynamite
06-10-2009, 10:50 AM
Ring a bell?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WnboXiq33os&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WnboXiq33os&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Jeff has his ups and downs. Days I like him, days I don't.

Speed
06-10-2009, 11:20 AM
I like Jeff, I like the Pacers first though. I was a Pacer fan before Jeff and I'll be a fan after Jeff.

If it's advantageous for the Pacers to trade him to improve then I'm for it. Nothing against Jeff, he's represented, big time, imo.

Major Cold
06-10-2009, 11:21 AM
Fact of the matter is we need him more than Dunleavy. We need front court depth. So trading our best relief big man, for players that won't be here long enough to get acclimated to the rigorous system is futile.

If we can get a player like V or Gortat, then I would be ok with it. But we don't have them.

MillerTime
06-10-2009, 11:56 AM
I agree with Speed. I like Jeff, but I like the Pacers more

Jeff is one of our biggest trading assets. A lot of our players have bad contract but are good players (i.e. Murphy). I think it Murphy was making somewhere close to the MLE, half the NBA would have calling about him.

Jeff has a reasonable contract and is a professional. He is one player that could get us (if traded) something decent in return.

Anthem
06-10-2009, 12:03 PM
Fact of the matter is we need him more than Dunleavy.
He's tradable, Dun isn't. If we make moves this summer, we may have to include Jeff just to get other teams interested.

CableKC
06-10-2009, 12:07 PM
I like Jeff, I like the Pacers first though. I was a Pacer fan before Jeff and I'll be a fan after Jeff.

If it's advantageous for the Pacers to trade him to improve then I'm for it. Nothing against Jeff, he's represented, big time, imo.
What Speed said.

It's not that I ( or anyone that advocates the same ) wants him moved ( cuz the one good thing he does is pull down offensive rebounds....which is very important for a team that takes and misses a lot of shots ); it's more accurate to say that IF the right deal came along involving him that would improve this Team/Roster, then I be okay with moving him. Otherwise, if an offer was made and it doesn't do anything to improve this team....then I would say "pass, Foster is worth more to us then some crappy deal that does not improve us".

MillerTime
06-10-2009, 12:10 PM
I think in terms of tradable assets we have Foster, Granger (who is probably off limits), Rush, Hibberts and #13 pick. And I think Murphy and Ford are borderline

Pacers
06-10-2009, 12:36 PM
He doesn't have many years left in the tank anyways.


You answered your own question.

Unclebuck
06-10-2009, 01:27 PM
Jeff will have more trade value during the season near the trade deadline as contending teams either sustain injuries or realize they need a player such as Jeff.

pianoman - you must not read my posts very often

Justin Tyme
06-10-2009, 02:38 PM
Foster has been a good Pacer company man, BUT Bird shot himself in the foot by giving him a 12 mil 2 year extention unless he feels he can use him in a trade to get a better piece or 2 of the puzzle back. Giving Foster that 6 mil a year has tied his hands in getting another player or players if he signed Foster to keep him the next 2 years.

Unclebuck
06-10-2009, 03:01 PM
Foster has been a good Pacer company man, BUT Bird shot himself in the foot by giving him a 12 mil 2 year extention unless he feels he can use him in a trade to get a better piece or 2 of the puzzle back. Giving Foster that 6 mil a year has tied his hands in getting another player or players if he signed Foster to keep him the next 2 years.

OK, so if Jeff wasn't on books this upcoming year for $6.1M how would we use the money. Seems to me whether Jeff is on the books or not, we only have the MLE. (Sure it would have saved the Simons some money) but as far as making the team better not having jeff around doesn't help the team and would not have helped the Pacers sign a free agent.

What am I missing??

Major Cold
06-10-2009, 03:40 PM
I have no issue in trading Jeff, but we need front court depth. And I don't want to trade our only strong bench big man for something other than front court help.

Whether Dunleavy is healthy or not I feel that Jeff is more important because there is so little depth in the front court, while we have Granger, Rush, and Jack (maybe) at the wing.

BBALL56HACKER
06-10-2009, 07:23 PM
Trading Foster is not going to get us a player that will be any better than what he does. Why would anyone one want to trade for him unless its to make them better by giving us something that wasn`t good enough for them . Foster does NOT need to be traded. I want to see him finish his career HERE !

Dr. Awesome
06-10-2009, 07:26 PM
I like Jeff, I like the Pacers first though. I was a Pacer fan before Jeff and I'll be a fan after Jeff.

If it's advantageous for the Pacers to trade him to improve then I'm for it. Nothing against Jeff, he's represented, big time, imo.

Very well said.

Justin Tyme
06-11-2009, 09:03 AM
OK, so if Jeff wasn't on books this upcoming year for $6.1M how would we use the money. Seems to me whether Jeff is on the books or not, we only have the MLE. (Sure it would have saved the Simons some money) but as far as making the team better not having jeff around doesn't help the team and would not have helped the Pacers sign a free agent.

What am I missing??


You act as if Foster is irreplaceable! How do you know that the 6 mil couldn't have been used in attaining a player or 2 that would have helped the Pacers when Bird gave Foster an extension? YOU DON'T!

Quit being blinded by a 32 year old 21 min part time/sometimes starter player with past health problems that has a career 61% FTA, who averages 5 & 7, plays mediocre "D" that teams don't have to put much effort in guarding when he's playing away from the basket.

How has he truly impoved his game over the years? He's a one trick pony that has energy that can rebound. He's never developed a mid range jump shot to not allow his "D" man to sag off him. How's that help the Pacers? It doesn't. Why hasn't he improved over the years on his propensity to missing putbacks? He misses more bunnies in a season than Elmer Fudd!

Bird stepped on himself giving Foster an extension when he did. He shot himself in the foot limiting his options by doing it. It was a poor managerial move by Bird. This has been my contention all along.

Foster may have some value to some other teams, BUT what other team is going to give Foster 12 mil for 2 years as a b/u bench player? What are the Cavs paying Joe Smith? How much was OKC paying him b4 they bought him out? It wasn't 6 mil! It was 4 mil which is more in line as to what Foster is worth, not 6 mil.

If the Pacers don't re-sign Jack b/c of not having the money, that 6 mil would have been available to have re-signed Jack. That will be a shame if they lose Jack b/c of Foster's extension.

Unclebuck
06-11-2009, 10:03 AM
You act as if Foster is irreplaceable! How do you know that the 6 mil couldn't have been used in attaining a player or 2 that would have helped the Pacers when Bird gave Foster an extension? YOU DON'T!

Quit being blinded by a 32 year old 21 min part time/sometimes starter player with past health problems that has a career 61% FTA, who averages 5 & 7, plays mediocre "D" that teams don't have to put much effort in guarding when he's playing away from the basket.

How has he truly impoved his game over the years? He's a one trick pony that has energy that can rebound. He's never developed a mid range jump shot to not allow his "D" man to sag off him. How's that help the Pacers? It doesn't. Why hasn't he improved over the years on his propensity to missing putbacks? He misses more bunnies in a season than Elmer Fudd!

Bird stepped on himself giving Foster an extension when he did. He shot himself in the foot limiting his options by doing it. It was a poor managerial move by Bird. This has been my contention all along.

Foster may have some value to some other teams, BUT what other team is going to give Foster 12 mil for 2 years as a b/u bench player? What are the Cavs paying Joe Smith? How much was OKC paying him b4 they bought him out? It wasn't 6 mil! It was 4 mil which is more in line as to what Foster is worth, not 6 mil.

If the Pacers don't re-sign Jack b/c of not having the money, that 6 mil would have been available to have re-signed Jack. That will be a shame if they lose Jack b/c of Foster's extension.



Wow, I thought I posted something that was very analytical without any love for Jeff. My point was and is OK, take Jeff's contract away - we still only have the MLE to sign any free agents. Of course that doesn't matter on Jack - but I hardly think Jeff's contract or if he wasn't in the picture - I don't see that impacting the re-signing of Jack. If the pacers want jack they will offer him a reasonable contract and if Jack wants to stay he will accept it.


You are the one that is getting emotional

Justin Tyme
06-11-2009, 11:56 AM
Wow, I thought I posted something that was very analytical without any love for Jeff. My point was and is OK, take Jeff's contract away - we still only have the MLE to sign any free agents. Of course that doesn't matter on Jack - but I hardly think Jeff's contract or if he wasn't in the picture - I don't see that impacting the re-signing of Jack. If the pacers want jack they will offer him a reasonable contract and if Jack wants to stay he will accept it.


You are the one that is getting emotional


I believe you asked "what am I missing?" My response wasn't emotional, it was factual. Maybe the facts were just too truthful for you. Just remember you asked.

I also asked you questions which you didn't answer, but that's your perogative. To be quite honest, I never expected the questions to be answered. I learned along time ago most would rather make comments than answer questions.

As far as Jack re-signing goes, I don't know what it will take to keep him. My feeling is between 3.5 and 4.5 mil, at least I hoping that's all. Who knows maybe another team will really want him and are willing to pay him more... possibly the MLE. IMO, "IF" the Pacers had to pay either Foster or Jack 6 mil a year, I know which one I'd rather pay the 6 mil to and his name isn't Foster. Now let me say this, I don't feel either one is worth 6 mil. 4 mil range is about right for both.

In Jack's case, I'm beginning to wonder if the Pacers aren't possibly looking to draft a PG with the thought of not re-signing Jack, and using the money on another FA... possibly a big. Thus keeping Ford next season with his contract an expiring the season after with Diener the b/u next season while grooming a PG for the future. Personally, I'd rather trade Ford for some assets, but that's JMOAA.

Hicks
06-11-2009, 12:09 PM
Maybe the facts were just too truthful for you. Just remember you asked.

I also asked you questions which you didn't answer, but that's your perogative. To be quite honest, I never expected the questions to be answered. I learned along time ago most would rather make comments than answer questions.

:unimpress Showing a lot of respect right there....