Other moves aside, putting any faith into Foster as a counted-upon player was a mistake.
You said that the bench was the bigger problem in the series. The starters outscored the heat. The bench did not. Telling me why the bench did not, doesn't change the fact that they didn't. When you're comparing the Pacers starters to the Pacers bench, the rest of the leagues benches and what they do against the heat is irrelevant.
I said it was a mistake before it ever happened. I said it was a mistake when it happened. That it turned out to be a mistake after it happened should not have come as a surprise to Bird, or anyone else.
Dirk +40 (-2, +13, +12, +7, +14, -4)
Kidd +42 (-7, +1, +5, +12, +13, +18)
Marion +28 (-9, +1, -1, -2, +21, +18)
Chandler +40 (-2, +4, +4, +7, +14, +3)
Stevenson -31 (-5, -5, -7, +6, -12, -8)
Barea -24 (-6, -11, +3, -7, +14, -7)
Terry +22 (0, +13, -6, +1, +1, +13)
Peja -19 (-3, -7, -11, +2)
Haywood -11 (-6, +5, -10)
Cardinal +3 (-4, -3, -1, -7, +18)
Mahinmi -10 (-6, -3, -1)
Stevenson and Barea are like that because Stevenson started the first 3 games of the series, then Barea started for the last three.
Last edited by Since86; 05-30-2012 at 02:14 PM.
Why was it a mistake? Because he took a roster spot for someone who could contribute? Nope. Because he took money so they couldn't sign a player that they wanted? Nope. Because he took playing time away from players that were never signed, that could have still been signed? Nope.
If it worked out, then it was a great signing. If it didn't work out, it didn't hurt anything. To think that it's a "major" blunder doesn't make any sense because it doesn't have any impact outside of Jeff and Simons' bank account.
How do you know the Pacers didn't just want Foster in the locker room?
We made other moves for bigs, so obviously Foster didn't hinder that front.
We also know that he has helped with Lance. And who were the first two players at the field house after the lockout?
He also mentioned Jeff and Lance would be playing in summer league.
I think when he talks about toughness on the 2nd team that could all be answered in the draft by getting O'Quinn, I think he fits what we are trying to do also.
Why so SERIOUS
I'm very happy that it sounds like Bird is most likely staying. At the same time I'll be extremely disapointed if we're as passive in free agency as he indicates. This is our last chance to get better now, we don't need to worry so much about being able to re-sign someone 2 years from now if we never stand a chance at the title anyway. The personel that we have now will never evolve into title contenders, we need to make a move for that missing piece while we can.
As D0NT_SH0OT_ME suggested in his other "Pacers Salary Cap situation" thread....even if we renounce everyone, re-sign GH/Hibbert, Inferno picks up his option, draft/sign the 26th pick and then make a $10 mil offer to Nash.....the Pacers would have roughly $6 to 7 mil to spend on anything
I just don't think that we have the resources and assets to improve the Starting Lineup. Getting a Starting PG is obvious and something that can be done.......but beyond that.....how are we going to improve the Starting lineup that is better than what we have now?
Last edited by CableKC; 05-30-2012 at 02:54 PM.
Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.
The Pacers had roster spots and money left over, even after Foster and everyone else was signed, and they still didn't use them.
I don't have a problem at all with how the Foster situation turned out. Maybe we paid him a little too much but I saw the deal partially as a "thank you" type deal like Reggie got before he retired. Surely the front office knew there was a good chance Foster wouldn't make it through the year, but figured that he could play some playoff minutes and be a great locker room/practice presence. With the exception of the playoff minutes they probably got pretty close to what they bargained for.
Last edited by rabid; 05-30-2012 at 03:11 PM. Reason: typos
Just because you keep repeating that does not make it true. You're entitled to your opinion but it's also valid to believe that our guys got a big benefit from Foster's presence in the locker room and on the practice court. Other than David West he was the most respected veteran voice on the team, at least if you believe the comments of the players and coaching staff throughout the season.
We had roster spots left over, $ left over and plenty of minutes for the bigs.
You say 'blunder,' others feel differently. Have to agree to disagree here.
Last edited by rabid; 05-30-2012 at 03:13 PM.
"Reggie Miller is the hardest player to guard." --Kobe Bryant
"Playing Reggie Miller drives me nuts. It's like chicken-fighting with a woman." --Michael Jordan
This. Outside of getting a great starting PG what else can we upgrade in FA???
PG, DG, West, and Hibbert are very good starters and I would venture to say Hibbert and PG are just going to keep improving, they have seemed to every year. Outside of grabbing a big upgrade at PG all we need to do is improve the bench. Pushing George Hill to the bench is a huge upgrade, trading off Collison for something will help, and adding some more scoring/shot blocking(Samuel Dalembert?) on the bench will be an upgrade.
When you have a terrific bench, your starters can rest. When your starters rest, they play better. It's not a hard concept. Every team in the league tries to improve their bench because it improves your entire team.
The bolded. How can you possibly have any idea how big of an impact Foster was as a mentor? That is just a horse **** comment you threw in there in an ill-fated attempt to strengthen your position.
I don't get why we spend so much time on this board discussing Foster. Of course the front office knew he had back trouble--he's had back trouble for the past half decade. It's nothing new. My guess is they resigned him in the hopes that he could be available for the playoffs. Anything he could give us in the regular season was icing on the cake. We had the cap space, there weren't a ton of other options on the market at the time, and the man has engrained himself in the organization over the course of his career. I'm sure if the front office were faced with this situation again (without the benefit of hindsight), they would play it the exact same way.
You cannot be serious. The starters were more of the problem than the bench, because the starters didn't outscore the heat by enough to overcome the fact that the bench was outscored.
Are you a politician with that type of spin?
Please sign Nash. That is all