PDA

View Full Version : Who's eating crow over Jeff Foster?



SMosley21
01-20-2011, 11:09 AM
I'll be honest, I didn't think he would add much to the team this year but I didn't outright denounce him as having no value. He has been pretty damn great lately though. He's not as quick/athletic as he once was but damn is he a smart player. I'm amazed that his body has allowed him to play as much as he has recently. He logged 30 minutes last night against a really fast paced offensive team, and has been over 25 minutes in our last 3 games.

Last 3:

@Golden State - 3 points, 15 rebounds, 1 steal (30 minutes)
@Los Angeles (C) - 4 points, 8 rebounds, 5 assists, 1 steal, 1 block (29 minutes)
vs. Chicago - 6 points, 15 rebounds, 2 steals (26 minutes)


I never would have thought before the season started that Jeff Foster would not only play significant minutes this season, but also increase his trade value in the process.

Peck
01-20-2011, 11:13 AM
Jeff is not uping his trade value, he is only increasing the amount of money the Pacers are going to give him for his next contract.

I'm not saying I like it but Jeff is not going anywhere, unless there is such a deal that Bird can't turn it down.

I just worry that all of this cap space will be cut in half by re-signing Dunleavy & Foster.

Trader Joe
01-20-2011, 11:14 AM
Jeff has impressed me.

I still hope we don't waste money on him.

Hicks
01-20-2011, 11:14 AM
Instead of saying Jeff is done, I just see people criticizing him now.

SMosley21
01-20-2011, 11:20 AM
Instead of saying Jeff is done, I just see people criticizing him now.

A lot of which is unwarranted. People expect too much out of Jeff. He's never been, nor will he ever be a threat on the offensive end (other than the boards and keeping plays alive). He doesn't make many mental errors, so there isn't much room to complain about there. Honestly, the only thing I've been able to complain about from Jeff are a few poorly timed jumpers. Overall though, I think Jeff's performance recently has been nothing but a good thing.

DISCLAIMER: This isn't any indication that I want the team to re-sign Foster after the season.

Kegboy
01-20-2011, 11:57 AM
Irrelevant.

Trader Joe
01-20-2011, 11:59 AM
Instead of saying Jeff is done, I just see people criticizing him now.

Not criticizing him personally, he's definitely played much better than he has in a couple years, but I wouldn't want to spend another contract on him.

Peck
01-20-2011, 12:01 PM
Not criticizing him personally, he's definitely played much better than he has in a couple years, but I wouldn't want to spend another contract on him.

I agree.

Hicks
01-20-2011, 12:08 PM
Didn't say you did, but I've generally seen it. Jeff is who he has been for years, basically. I don't see the point in criticizing him now.

PR07
01-20-2011, 12:41 PM
He's been a pretty steady force as of late. I wouldn't want him back at his current price tag, but I wouldn't mind having him back.

presto123
01-20-2011, 12:51 PM
I an not eating anything. I still don't think he's all that great. He's playing because we desperately need a rebounder and defense. But I thought he contributed to that last loss with stupid fouls at stupid times.

joeyd
01-20-2011, 12:54 PM
He's been a pretty steady force as of late. I wouldn't want him back at his current price tag, but I wouldn't mind having him back.

I agree. It wouldn't be a stretch to say that he has been our best defensive player, certainly a candidate for defensive MVP, if there was such a thing. Definitely a candidate for best 6th man (although he is often not the first off the bench he is certainly one of our best bench players). In fact, with all of Roy's problems, a case could be made that Foster should start at C, at least based on some of the matchups.

Jeff's a smart guy with a good business sense, and he also wants to retire as a Pacer, but not coach. If he is healthy, and even if we get another big, I would love to have Jeff back.

LA_Confidential
01-20-2011, 12:56 PM
At this point, the best thing Jeff could do for us is net something decent in return for his expiring contract. Glad to see he's been able to get some PT this year but I'd much rather see Josh getting those minutes.

Justin Tyme
01-20-2011, 01:03 PM
Jeff is not uping his trade value, he is only increasing the amount of money the Pacers are going to give him for his next contract.

I'm not saying I like it but Jeff is not going anywhere, unless there is such a deal that Bird can't turn it down.

I just worry that all of this cap space will be cut in half by re-signing Dunleavy & Foster.


That's a discouraging post. Perish the thought. Bird WAAAY overpaid for Foster 2 years ago, and to read he might do it again just ruins my day.

Justin Tyme
01-20-2011, 01:06 PM
At this point, the best thing Jeff could do for us is net something decent in return for his expiring contract.


Couldn't agree more. Foster is another injury waiting to happen.

Justin Tyme
01-20-2011, 01:13 PM
I reserve to right to have to eat crow when the season is over. I want to see if this streak continues, if he can remain healthy, and can contribute at a level that will make me have to eat crow. In this case, I'll just adopt Bird's philosophy of patience b4 making a decision.

DTheKing23
01-20-2011, 01:22 PM
honestly i thought he was horrible last night..yea he had a decent amount of rebounds but imo he was a big part of why we lost last night..even my girl (who doesnt ever watch basketball) was asking why they would keep him in the game when the guy (hansbrough) that did good earlier was on the bench.I swear on both ends of the floor in the 4th he was messing up left and right

Major Cold
01-20-2011, 02:14 PM
The pick and roll with Jeff late in the 4th was horrible. Everyone was out of position. Jeff was tired and played too long. Josh got the start, why not let him or Tyler finish. Lee schooled Jeff in the 4th.

beezer615
01-20-2011, 02:49 PM
The fact that he is playing 30 minutes actually makes me mad because we are still losing ballgames. HANS and McBob are taken out in crunch time. I will eat no crow until he shows that playing all those minutes wins us ballgames.

cdash
01-20-2011, 02:55 PM
I love Jeff Foster. To hell with those of you who don't. I'd gladly take him back on this team next year--if he took a paycut.

joeyd
01-20-2011, 02:59 PM
The fact that he is playing 30 minutes actually makes me mad because we are still losing ballgames. HANS and McBob are taken out in crunch time. I will eat no crow until he shows that playing all those minutes wins us ballgames.

I don't think that's fair. Just because you don't win the ballgames? Really? There are tons of decent players playing for bad teams, so either you set your bar really high or your criteria need some adjusting. Because right now, Foster's contribution is better on a per minute basis than any of our other bigs. Maybe if Hibbert could stay out of foul trouble and start playing like he did at the beginning of this season, then he could finish the games. And people have already stated their case as to why McBob is removed during crunch time.

Justin Tyme
01-20-2011, 03:20 PM
I love Jeff Foster. To hell with those of you who don't. I'd gladly take him back on this team next year--if he took a paycut.



Just interested in what kind of money do you think the Pacers should sign Foster for??

SMosley21
01-20-2011, 03:29 PM
Just interested in what kind of money do you think the Pacers should sign Foster for??

Personally I'd give him the vet minimum. Jeff knows that his current salary has him very overpaid and he's a loyal guy. If the front office comes to him after this season and tells him we want to keep him around for another year (maybe even 2) at the veteran minimum, I have a hard time believing he would turn that deal down. Problem is, the current vet minimum is $1.3 million but that ends after this season. It's going to be up to the CBA to determine what the vet minimum will be going into next season.

Mackey_Rose
01-20-2011, 03:50 PM
I suppose I would be one of the people who this thread was aimed at.

He has played decent enough. Nothing really special, in my opinion. However, he has been able to play more games consecutively than I ever imagined he would.

I still see no reason to play him as a member of the rotation. I just don't think he contributes anything at a level that warrants taking away valuable game experience from our younger players who will be at least the equal of Foster before their careers are over, which Jeff's surely is after this season. As a Pacer anyway, it should be over. I would hope we don't make a contract extension mistake with the same guy twice.

SMosley21
01-20-2011, 03:58 PM
I suppose I would be one of the people who this thread was aimed at.

He has played decent enough. Nothing really special, in my opinion. However, he has been able to play more games consecutively than I ever imagined he would.

I still see no reason to play him as a member of the rotation. I just don't think he contributes anything at a level that warrants taking away valuable game experience from our younger players who will be at least the equal of Foster before their careers are over, which Jeff's surely is after this season. As a Pacer anyway, it should be over. I would hope we don't make a contract extension mistake with the same guy twice.

Not aimed at any particular people. I just remember seeing more than a few people claiming that Foster shouldn't see any playing time at all and that he would not have any value on the court. Hell I was even one of those people who didn't think he had much value other than as a veteran leader. He has surprised me with his ability to log significant minutes and still rebound at a high rate.

ilive4sports
01-20-2011, 04:04 PM
I suppose I would be one of the people who this thread was aimed at.

He has played decent enough. Nothing really special, in my opinion. However, he has been able to play more games consecutively than I ever imagined he would.

I still see no reason to play him as a member of the rotation. I just don't think he contributes anything at a level that warrants taking away valuable game experience from our younger players who will be at least the equal of Foster before their careers are over, which Jeff's surely is after this season. As a Pacer anyway, it should be over. I would hope we don't make a contract extension mistake with the same guy twice.

I agree with this. He has given us some positive this year. Not many expected that because of his injury. But how much more does he give us than Josh?

Last night he had big rebounding numbers, but he really hurt us. Lee abused him with his jumper. And Foster, why the hell did he even take 8 shots? Especially when he only hit 1.

cdash
01-20-2011, 04:08 PM
Just interested in what kind of money do you think the Pacers should sign Foster for??

2 years/$6.5 million would be fair. I wouldn't throw a fit over 2 years/$7.5 million either.

Mackey_Rose
01-20-2011, 04:09 PM
Not aimed at any particular people. I just remember seeing more than a few people claiming that Foster shouldn't see any playing time at all and that he would not have any value on the court. Hell I was even one of those people who didn't think he had much value other than as a veteran leader. He has surprised me with his ability to log significant minutes and still rebound at a high rate.

I understand it was nothing personal. I was just one who was a vocal member of the "Foster is done camp." So I thought I'd throw in my two cents.

I've never been a fan of his, and that probably caused me to have an unfairly biased opinion of his ability to still play.

Mackey_Rose
01-20-2011, 04:10 PM
2 years/$6.5 million would be fair. I wouldn't throw a fit over 2 years/$7.5 million either.

Please don't put things like that in writing. Bird might be reading. Let's not give him any ideas.

cdash
01-20-2011, 04:13 PM
Please don't put things like that in writing. Bird might be reading. Let's not give him any ideas.

A contract like that isn't going to break the bank. Teams always can use big man depth, so it's not like a deal like that would be untradeable if it didn't work out. He's been with the franchise for a decade. He's a great locker room guy. What is the problem there? Besides the fact that you don't like him.

Mackey_Rose
01-20-2011, 04:15 PM
A contract like that isn't going to break the bank. Teams always can use big man depth, so it's not like a deal like that would be untradeable if it didn't work out. He's been with the franchise for a decade. He's a great locker room guy. What is the problem there? Besides the fact that you don't like him.

He's 67 years old.

cdash
01-20-2011, 04:16 PM
He's 67 years old.

Oh stop it. He's still useful. Why do you dislike him so much? That is baffling to me.

SMosley21
01-20-2011, 04:18 PM
He's 67 years old.

and he's not worth $3-4 million per season.

If it "doesn't work out" then why would another team want to trade for him and that contract? The way I think of "doesn't work out" is that he physically isn't capable of playing or producing at a reasonable rate.

Mackey_Rose
01-20-2011, 04:22 PM
Oh stop it. He's still useful. Why do you dislike him so much? That is baffling to me.

Just because he has been here forever, that doesn't mean he is a good player. He is grossly overpaid for his production, and has been for years. He is not that good. We can do better for that kind of money.

If he wants to retire as a Pacer, he should show the team the loyalty that they have shown him, and hang them up after this season.

"Four Hall-of-Famers. And Jeff Foster."

Got a good laugh out of that on Monday.

cdash
01-20-2011, 04:32 PM
Just because he has been here forever, that doesn't mean he is a good player. He is grossly overpaid for his production, and has been for years. He is not that good. We can do better for that kind of money.

If he wants to retire as a Pacer, he should show the team the loyalty that they have shown him, and hang them up after this season.

"Four Hall-of-Famers. And Jeff Foster."

Got a good laugh out of that on Monday.

For a little over $3 million/year, I'd love to see a list of big guys who are better that we could get. What he does isn't showing up so much in stat sheets. I really like Foster, and have for a long time. He plays the game physical, defends well, is a good veteran influence in the locker room, he can still rebound well, and he gets under the skin of opposing guys he guards. To me, that is worth overpaying him slightly.

cdash
01-20-2011, 04:35 PM
and he's not worth $3-4 million per season.

If it "doesn't work out" then why would another team want to trade for him and that contract? The way I think of "doesn't work out" is that he physically isn't capable of playing or producing at a reasonable rate.

If he doesn't work out it could be because we would have young options in the pipeline. Not just injury related.

You guys are getting awfully frugal here over a pretty low salary for a big guy. I agree, right now he is very much overpaid. But at $3.5 million/year on a short deal, it's really not bad. It's certainly not going to prohibit us from going after the big money guys or anything.

Pacer in Your Face
01-20-2011, 04:37 PM
For a little over $3 million/year, I'd love to see a list of big guys who are better that we could get. What he does isn't showing up so much in stat sheets. I really like Foster, and have for a long time. He plays the game physical, defends well, is a good veteran influence in the locker room, he can still rebound well, and he gets under the skin of opposing guys he guards. To me, that is worth overpaying him slightly.

yea! if we get some big guys that are better that would be desirable. Foster has a great prescience. i like the big man game.:dance:

Mackey_Rose
01-20-2011, 04:47 PM
For a little over $3 million/year, I'd love to see a list of big guys who are better that we could get. What he does isn't showing up so much in stat sheets. I really like Foster, and have for a long time. He plays the game physical, defends well, is a good veteran influence in the locker room, he can still rebound well, and he gets under the skin of opposing guys he guards. To me, that is worth overpaying him slightly.

Guys who currently make that less or similar money that we could get similar production out of (not taking into account whether they would be attainable for us):

Jason Collins
Josh Powell
Glen Davis
Shaquille O'Neal
Omer Asik
Taj Gibson
Ryan Hollins
JJ Hickson
Christian Eyenga
Renaldo Balkman
Shelden Williams
Melvin Ely
Chris Wilcox
Greg Monroe
Ben Wallace
Jonas Jerebko
Brandan Wright
Ekpe Udoh
Louis Amundson
Jordan Hill
Chuck Hayes
Patrick Patterson
Tyler Hansbrough
Roy Hibbert
Solomon Jones
Josh McRoberts

That is just going through team rosters alphabetically up through the Indiana Pacers. The list could go on and on. I understand feeling sentimental for Foster, but we don't owe him anything more at this point.

He had a good run with us. The time has come for both parties to move on.

Granville Fleming
01-20-2011, 04:49 PM
Did anyone saying positive things about Jeff Foster not watch the 4th quarter last night? Lee scored at will on him. When it comes to the stretch run, he always seems to be at the wrong place at the wrong time and makes the wrong decision. How many games is he going to have to blow for us in the 4th quarter before we stop playing this guy when the game is on the line. I have no problem with this guy getting 10-15 minutes a night but it better be in the first 3 quarters.

SMosley21
01-20-2011, 04:55 PM
Did anyone saying positive things about Jeff Foster not watch the 4th quarter last night? Lee scored at will on him. When it comes to the stretch run, he always seems to be at the wrong place at the wrong time and makes the wrong decision. How many games is he going to have to blow for us in the 4th quarter before we stop playing this guy when the game is on the line. I have no problem with this guy getting 10-15 minutes a night but it better be in the first 3 quarters.

I guess we could say the same thing about Granger in the 3rd quarter then too. How many consecutive possessions did he turn the ball over on? 5 turnovers from Granger in the 2nd half alone (7 total).

Foster didn't cost us that game. Turnovers cost us the game last night and considering Foster only had 1 turnover, that tells you how much I think he cost us last night. David Lee had 8 points in the 4th quarter last night and 4 of them were from the FT line.

ilive4sports
01-20-2011, 05:44 PM
I guess we could say the same thing about Granger in the 3rd quarter then too. How many consecutive possessions did he turn the ball over on? 5 turnovers from Granger in the 2nd half alone (7 total).

Foster didn't cost us that game. Turnovers cost us the game last night and considering Foster only had 1 turnover, that tells you how much I think he cost us last night. David Lee had 8 points in the 4th quarter last night and 4 of them were from the FT line.

On fouls from Foster... Foster had a terrible 4th quarter. He missed both his shots, committed 3 fouls, had a TO, and let Lee score 8 points on him. He did have 3 rebounds, got a steal and drew a charge. Oh and he made one of his two free throws.

Don't let the rebounding numbers fool you. He did not have a good game. His fourth quarter was horrible. Yes Granger turned it over a lot in the 3rd, but we still had the lead going into the fourth. And at least Granger was giving us positives on scoring and rebounding

SMosley21
01-20-2011, 05:50 PM
On fouls from Foster... Foster had a terrible 4th quarter. He missed both his shots, committed 3 fouls, had a TO, and let Lee score 8 points on him. He did have 3 rebounds, got a steal and drew a charge. Oh and he made one of his two free throws.

Don't let the rebounding numbers fool you. He did not have a good game. His fourth quarter was horrible. Yes Granger turned it over a lot in the 3rd, but we still had the lead going into the fourth. And at least Granger was giving us positives on scoring and rebounding

Do you really think that we have someone else on the roster who would've done better on Lee? Honestly?

Pacerized
01-20-2011, 06:52 PM
2 years/$6.5 million would be fair. I wouldn't throw a fit over 2 years/$7.5 million either.

I would agree with something like this. There is no reason a healthy Foster can't make a really good backup center for 2 more years. We're not going to do any better for a backup center at that price. That kind of salary for a contributing big man is a bargain and wouldn't hinder us from going after a starting PF.

1984
01-20-2011, 07:01 PM
Not criticizing him personally, he's definitely played much better than he has in a couple years, but I wouldn't want to spend another contract on him.

I'm not going to apologize for critiquing "Foster the player". Anyone who critiques "Foster the person" and is not named God may be off base. Though, I stand by what I've said about his regression. Foster has cost this team as much as he has added.

See Lee, David.
See Bogut, Andrew.

Justin Tyme
01-20-2011, 07:15 PM
2 years/$6.5 million would be fair. I wouldn't throw a fit over 2 years/$7.5 million either.


That's about all he was worth when Bird gave him a 2 year 12.6 mil contract. Throwing that type money at Foster is a waste of money and roster spot. Vet minimum is reasonable considering his injury history & age. He wants to continue on as a Pacer he takes the minimum or peddles his wares down the road.

I'd rather take the money you mentioned to pay towards the salary of a REAL COACH! Someone who can make more of a difference with this team than Foster over the next 2 years.

If Simon overpays for Foster again, I have no sympathy for him, nor do I want to hear about the Pacers finanical problems in the future. He controls how the money is spent. Wisely or foolishly.

Gamble1
01-20-2011, 07:46 PM
If he doesn't work out it could be because we would have young options in the pipeline. Not just injury related.

You guys are getting awfully frugal here over a pretty low salary for a big guy. I agree, right now he is very much overpaid. But at $3.5 million/year on a short deal, it's really not bad. It's certainly not going to prohibit us from going after the big money guys or anything.
IF you can upgrade ANY postion you do it and for 3.5 million to 5 million we could get a younger version of Jeff.

It use to be that Jeff could put up a pretty good fight with a number of 4's and 5's but now he can't. His age has caught up with him and his veteran tricks he use to get away with are now getting called by the refs.

He has lost his usefullness on this team and we can't afford to pay him what other teams will surely pay him.

cdash
01-20-2011, 08:47 PM
Guys who currently make that less or similar money that we could get similar production out of (not taking into account whether they would be attainable for us):

Jason Collins
Josh Powell
Glen Davis
Shaquille O'Neal
Omer Asik
Taj Gibson
Ryan Hollins
JJ Hickson
Christian Eyenga
Renaldo Balkman
Shelden Williams
Melvin Ely
Chris Wilcox
Greg Monroe
Ben Wallace
Jonas Jerebko
Brandan Wright
Ekpe Udoh
Louis Amundson
Jordan Hill
Chuck Hayes
Patrick Patterson
Tyler Hansbrough
Roy Hibbert
Solomon Jones
Josh McRoberts

That is just going through team rosters alphabetically up through the Indiana Pacers. The list could go on and on. I understand feeling sentimental for Foster, but we don't owe him anything more at this point.

He had a good run with us. The time has come for both parties to move on.

That's great, but I'm asking which of those guys we could get, and don't be cheap and put guys who are on their rookie contracts on that list. Realistic options now.

Pacerized
01-20-2011, 08:55 PM
That's great, but I'm asking which of those guys we could get, and don't be cheap and put guys who are on their rookie contracts on that list. Realistic options now.

I noticed the rookie contracts and the fact that many of the players couldn't play a legitimate center role for us. I kind of lost interest when I saw Soloman Jones on the list.

BlueNGold
01-20-2011, 09:39 PM
I'll be honest, I didn't think he would add much to the team this year but I didn't outright denounce him as having no value. He has been pretty damn great lately though. He's not as quick/athletic as he once was but damn is he a smart player. I'm amazed that his body has allowed him to play as much as he has recently. He logged 30 minutes last night against a really fast paced offensive team, and has been over 25 minutes in our last 3 games.

Last 3:

@Golden State - 3 points, 15 rebounds, 1 steal (30 minutes)
@Los Angeles (C) - 4 points, 8 rebounds, 5 assists, 1 steal, 1 block (29 minutes)
vs. Chicago - 6 points, 15 rebounds, 2 steals (26 minutes)


I never would have thought before the season started that Jeff Foster would not only play significant minutes this season, but also increase his trade value in the process.

Other than Foster and Hans, almost all of our bigs since Dale Davis have been girls in the paint. Brad Miller wasn't bad I suppose. ...but it's been a long ride downhill since Dale...

joeyd
01-20-2011, 11:04 PM
I agree with this. He has given us some positive this year. Not many expected that because of his injury. But how much more does he give us than Josh?

Last night he had big rebounding numbers, but he really hurt us. Lee abused him with his jumper. And Foster, why the hell did he even take 8 shots? Especially when he only hit 1.

See my post in the other thread about "what's wrong with the team." Basically, my observation is that yes, Foster does tend to miss a few bunnies, but his shot selection is not dictated by him. Rather he is the recipient of several dump-offs from team mates that find him as the only option when they are well-defended with the shot clock running down. Jeff would be the first person to tell you that he is not the first, second or third shooting option on the team. He had a decent %FG up until a couple of days ago. He doesn't take 8 shots in a game often, and although I did not see the whole GSW game, I would almost bet the farm that it was not by his design to do so.

joeyd
01-20-2011, 11:14 PM
Guys who currently make that less or similar money that we could get similar production out of (not taking into account whether they would be attainable for us):

That is just going through team rosters alphabetically up through the Indiana Pacers. The list could go on and on. I understand feeling sentimental for Foster, but we don't owe him anything more at this point.

He had a good run with us. The time has come for both parties to move on.

I edited out your list for space considerations. I haven't followed many of those on the list so I really can't comment on those folks. But I can comment on a couple. Let's start with Roy. We are hardly getting similar production from him. He can't even stay out of foul trouble. Ben Wallace? He doesn't have any of the intangibles that Foster brings. Of the group, I like Hansbrough the best. He has shown that he can be a beast on the offensive boards and also has a nice offensive game. He can develop into a smart player; he already brings the energy and the mean streak.

Folks seem so ready to dismiss Foster, but with Roy playing so crappy, it's clear that Foster is needed, if only in a supporting role. Unless there is a major fortification at that position next year, what is the harm in having him back at a more affordable price? I see no down side.

xBulletproof
01-20-2011, 11:18 PM
Guys who currently make that less or similar money that we could get similar production out of (not taking into account whether they would be attainable for us):

How many of that list are on rookie contracts? If we're signing someone who isn't Foster, they're not going to be on a rookie contract either. If you're going to make a realistic list, you'd need to edit out all the rookie contract players. However I'd agree I wouldn't give Foster much on the chance he won't play most of the games. I'm not going to let the last couple weeks blind me to the last couple of years.

Granville Fleming
01-21-2011, 08:59 AM
Do you really think that we have someone else on the roster who would've done better on Lee? Honestly?

Tyler


Also, Foster doesn't have the instincts or the hops to compete when the game is on the line. Remember earlier in the year when we lost at the buzzer to the Bucks when Foster didn't even jump on the Bogut tip-in at the buzzer. I remember last season on a last second play when we threw it in to foster and he just stood there holding the ball while the final buzzer went off. Last night wasn't a final buzzer situation(thankfully he wasn't in) but he had already done his damage. I like Foster but he should never be in when the game is on the line.

Mackey_Rose
01-21-2011, 10:35 AM
How many of that list are on rookie contracts? If we're signing someone who isn't Foster, they're not going to be on a rookie contract either. If you're going to make a realistic list, you'd need to edit out all the rookie contract players. However I'd agree I wouldn't give Foster much on the chance he won't play most of the games. I'm not going to let the last couple weeks blind me to the last couple of years.

It is pretty much irrelevant whether they are on rookie contracts. The point is, that there are many other options available. The contract that cdash proposed may seem fairly small, but for a guy who contributes as little and as seldom as Foster has, it doesn't make sense to me.

The last line in this quoted post is extremely valuable, and I should have brought up this point already. Well done xBulletproof.

I just don't want to see the franchise continue to make the same mistakes that they have for much of the last decade. If they make the same mistakes with the same players, it's even worse.

Let's stop focusing on the past and present, and look to the future. At this point in his career, Foster should not be considered a part of that future.

cdash
01-21-2011, 11:43 AM
It is pretty much irrelevant whether they are on rookie contracts. The point is, that there are many other options available. The contract that cdash proposed may seem fairly small, but for a guy who contributes as little and as seldom as Foster has, it doesn't make sense to me.

The last line in this quoted post is extremely valuable, and I should have brought up this point already. Well done xBulletproof.

I just don't want to see the franchise continue to make the same mistakes that they have for much of the last decade. If they make the same mistakes with the same players, it's even worse.

Let's stop focusing on the past and present, and look to the future. At this point in his career, Foster should not be considered a part of that future.

No one is considering Foster part of the future. He's simply bridging the gap. Does it really even matter? We are discussing backup centers and guys that generally aren't going to play big minutes unless Hibbert goes down. You don't expect guys like that to be part of the future.

And it really does matter if they are on their rookie contracts. I asked what big men we could get that could come in and perform at Foster's level for around that price or less. We can't get guys on rookie deals. When their contracts are up, they are going to demand more money and are going to be out of that price range.

Since86
01-21-2011, 11:50 AM
I don't understand why you say players on rookie contracts should be taken out of the list.

Wouldn't it be smarter to draft his replacement, if that's what your expecting, and pay them less money? I know we're talking about saving just 2 or 3 mil over a couple of years, but that adds up.

I really don't care either way, to be honest, but if you can get similiar production for less money, you have to do it. That's a no brainer.

cdash
01-21-2011, 11:54 AM
I don't understand why you say players on rookie contracts should be taken out of the list.

Wouldn't it be smarter to draft his replacement, if that's what your expecting, and pay them less money? I know we're talking about saving just 2 or 3 mil over a couple of years, but that adds up.

I really don't care either way, to be honest, but if you can get similiar production for less money, you have to do it. That's a no brainer.

Sure, but I'm asking for solutions. If he named some prospects that were going to be available when we picked in the first or even sleeper second round guys, I wouldn't say much about it. But guys like Taj Gibson? Really? I mean, come on. The Bulls aren't getting rid of him and when his contract is up, rest assured he will be making a hell of a lot more than 3-4 million. I don't want a list of guys in the league who make around that much money who are producing on par or above what Foster is. I want guys who are realistically attainable for that price. I agree with the last part of your post, I'm just not sure it's as easy to find as you guys are making it out to be.

Since86
01-21-2011, 12:07 PM
You're asking a question that can't be answered.

You tell me, or really Mackey, which players are going to be available with a late pick and I'm sure a list can be made. But a lot of things need to happen between here and there, things that cannot be predicted.

Merely stating "drafting a replacement" is a solution, even if it isn't a very detailed one.

EDIT: Finding a Foster really isn't that hard. Teams do it every year.

While I like Jeff, and I like having him on the Pacers squad, I think a lot of guys are emotionally attached to him just because he's been with the Pacers. That's not good business practice.

If Jeff wants to remain a Pacer, he should probably make some concessions. The Pacers have overpaid for his services for a long time now. They shouldn't do it again, and they're not wrong if they ask to pay him his market value.

Players shouldn't get extra money just because they've been with the team for so long.

EDIT2: Again, it really doesn't matter to me, because it is Jeff and he's been a damn good person while in a Pacers uniform, but this is the exact reason why the NBA is in the shape that it's in. If teams continue to overpay 10-15th guys on the roster, then they're going to overpay the other guys even more.

Teams, and players, need to get their sense of what their values actually are and stop with the non-sense overpaying just because they can. It's hurting everyone.

Peck
01-21-2011, 12:35 PM
Just because he has been here forever, that doesn't mean he is a good player. He is grossly overpaid for his production, and has been for years. He is not that good. We can do better for that kind of money.

If he wants to retire as a Pacer, he should show the team the loyalty that they have shown him, and hang them up after this season.

"Four Hall-of-Famers. And Jeff Foster."

Got a good laugh out of that on Monday.

Yeah I laughed at that as well, at first.

Then after letting it sink in I sat down and cried for about a half hour.

cdash
01-21-2011, 12:35 PM
We'll just agree to disagree. I don't think you can really count on a rookie to give you the veteran presence that Foster gives you, but if you are looking solely at production and not taking into account intangibles, then you're probably right. I'm biased because I love Foster and I love the way he plays the game. I don't think giving him $3 million/year is fiscally irresponsible or a contract that is going to hinder our ability to sign the core guys we want.

joeyd
01-21-2011, 01:17 PM
cdash is right. That type of arrangement for another year or two, would not hinder us from addressing team needs. And if he ends up taking a deal where he gets paid a bit over the league minimum, I'd like to see people do the math and present a reason as to why his contributions would not benefit the team at that pay rate. Don't bring health issues into the debate though. He has already taken some beatings this year against some other bigs, played some significant minutes in several games, and the surgery looks to have done the trick. So for the sake of discussion, assume he is healthy going forward, and would receive a slight bump over the veteran minimum.