I mentioned this in an article I just finished on the main board, but wanted to isolate it here for discussion in the trade forum:

Pacers see an opportunity in the next couple of days, and decide to move up in the draft for Jordan Hill. (or someone else perhaps)

Pacers trade Jeff Foster, and pick #13 to Golden State

Golden State trades Ronny Turiaf and pick #7 to Indiana.

Why for Indiana: They consider this if there is a player at 7 they really covet, in this scenario I am using Jordan Hill as an example. Indiana adds the consensus second best power forward in the draft, plus a role player big man in Turiaf. Indiana saves a little money in 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 from the difference in Foster and Turiafs contracts.

Why not for Indiana: Turiaf's contract runs one year longer than Foster's. Foster is a career Pacer and glue guy. Hill may not be worth trading up for, who knows?

Why for Golden State: Foster is a bigger and cheaper version of Turiaf, and gives them a more veteran leadership type guy. Nellie can get the guy he wants at #13 anyway perhaps, and they have no need for Hill with Wright and Randolph already in Golden State. Fosters contract is one year shorter than Turiaf's, and moving back six draft spots saves them a bit of money as well.

Why not for Golden State: Maybe the 7th pick has more value than this. Then again, maybe not this year.