PDA

View Full Version : Past Trade Target: Jeff Foster



Bruno
06-23-2009, 03:44 PM
http://www.nba.com/media/act_jeff_foster.jpg

Jeff Foster | C
Born: Jan 16, 1977
Height: 6-11 / 2,11
Weight: 250 lbs. / 113,4 kg.
College: Texas State
Years Pro: 9

info (http://www.nba.com/playerfile/jeff_foster/index.html)

Bruno
06-23-2009, 03:47 PM
My favorite target for Spurs after the RJ trade.

Mason and Bonner (or Finley if he opts in) works salary wise.
Spurs can also add a 2010 first round pick if it isn't enough.

Mr.Bottomtooth
06-23-2009, 03:50 PM
I thought you couldn't trade consecutive first rounders?

Bruno
06-23-2009, 03:52 PM
I thought you couldn't trade consecutive first rounders?

You can't trade future consecutive first round pick. Spurs can trade their 2010 first round pick just after this year draft.

Darkwaters
06-23-2009, 03:55 PM
Hes an SA native, right?

Mr.Bottomtooth
06-23-2009, 03:55 PM
You can't trade future consecutive first round pick. Spurs can trade their 2010 first round pick just after this year draft.

Nice, didn't know that. :tu

I would be satisified if the Spurs went after any of Foster, Collison, or Pachulia.

mardigan
06-23-2009, 03:59 PM
He would be a great pickup. Great rebounder and tough guy all around.

velik_m
06-23-2009, 04:08 PM
Would be a great pickup, what is his contract status?

Bruno
06-23-2009, 04:23 PM
Would be a great pickup, what is his contract status?

2 years remaining with a salary slightly over $6M per year.

HarlemHeat37
06-23-2009, 04:28 PM
I like Foster's game, but I don't think he can give us what we need at this point..

benefactor
06-23-2009, 04:35 PM
My favorite target for Spurs after the RJ trade.

Mason and Bonner (or Finley if he opts in) works salary wise.
Spurs can also add a 2010 first round pick if it isn't enough.
I have liked him for a long time. It would help the Pacers in 2010 to make the deal but he is a pretty heavy rotation big for them, so I have my doubts about whether or not they would pull the trigger.

urunobili
06-23-2009, 09:02 PM
Foster would be plan C on my list...

being A) Pachulia B) Collison C) Foster D) Gortat E) Kaman F) Dice

Spursfan092120
06-23-2009, 10:03 PM
I had a class with him at SWT..

angelbelow
06-23-2009, 10:05 PM
yes!!! if only the pacers would be willing to deal him for pennies.

velik_m
06-24-2009, 02:20 AM
2 years remaining with a salary slightly over $6M per year.

Ouch. That's a bit too much.

EricB
06-24-2009, 02:24 AM
Foster would be plan C on my list...

being A) Pachulia B) Collison C) Foster D) Gortat E) Kaman F) Dice


How the hell could you have Jeff Foster ahead of Antonio McDeyss.

EricB
06-24-2009, 02:25 AM
China Doll, no offensive game, not a big enough guy to guard the guys like Yao and Shaq, and not nimble enough to guard guys like Gasol.

No thanks.

mountainballer
06-24-2009, 03:32 AM
RJ adds enough scoring that a scoring big is a priority. now it's all about defense, shotblocking and rebounding and Foster is very good in two of this three departments.
if the Spurs can add someone like him they have an almost perfect line up, for sure the currently best 5 player line up in the league.
what I doubt is that the Pacers want to trade him. reportedly they got lots of offers for him in the last year, but never bite. and Foster himself often stated that he wants to retire with the only team he has ever played for. (and the fans love him too)
so, unless something else happens (Pacers somehow make a surprising move for a top center), I don't see him on the market.

btw. for sure SA would be the only team Foster wouldn't be totally sad to be traded to.

Bruno
06-24-2009, 05:40 AM
The longtime Pacers and fan favorite thing makes Foster less tradable.

Now, Pacers could be motivated for financial reasons. In 2010-2011, the luxury tax threshold should be lower than next year due to the economic crisis.
Pacers will have 9 players (Murphy, Granger, Dunleavy, Ford, Tinsley, Foster, Rush, Hibbert and the 13th pick of the 2009 draft) under contract for a total salary of $62M. Add to that a 2010 first round pick that should be a lottery one and you are at least at $64M with 10 players under contract.
If you take a luxury tax threshold of $68M, Pacers must fill their roster with min or LLE players. If they decide to re-sign Jarrett Jack this summer or to use the MLE on a FA, they will have to cut some cost for the 2010-2011 season.

mountainballer
06-24-2009, 08:40 AM
I still would think trading Foster is only something like plan D or E to get their cap situation fixed. before they trade Foster, they will try to dump either Dunleavy, Murphy or Ford.
(best case they dump Tinsley, but as we know this is almost impossible. maybe if they add the #13 pick?)
so, if they really would listen to Foster offers, it will likely be close to training camp, when all the other plans have failed. question is, could the Spurs wait for that long to solve their big men situation?

pad300
06-25-2009, 04:23 PM
I still would think trading Foster is only something like plan D or E to get their cap situation fixed. before they trade Foster, they will try to dump either Dunleavy, Murphy or Ford.
(best case they dump Tinsley, but as we know this is almost impossible. maybe if they add the #13 pick?)
so, if they really would listen to Foster offers, it will likely be close to training camp, when all the other plans have failed. question is, could the Spurs wait for that long to solve their big men situation?

If they are willing to dump Murphy for salary cap, jump on it. Murphy for Bonner, Mason and Finley works ($11,047,619 for Murphy in 09/10, Bonner+Mason+Finley make $9,536,500 ; it works as a trade). Murphy's been good in Indiana and his game'd fit very nicely next to Duncan. He'd be a huge upgrade over Bonner. Also, his contract expires at the same time as Jefferson's.

Duncan, Murphy, Gist, Mahinmi, and 2 Vet min level bigs (eg. Nesterovic, Ike Diogu, Shelden Williams, whomever...).
Manu, Jefferson, Bowen (resigned for the Vet min), Hairston, Williams, vet min FA
Parker, Hill, Vet min FA

Looks good to me

bigdog
06-25-2009, 04:28 PM
If they are willing to dump Murphy for salary cap, jump on it. Murphy for Bonner, Mason and Finley works ($11,047,619 for Murphy in 09/10, Bonner+Mason+Finley make $9,536,500 ; it works as a trade). Murphy's been good in Indiana and his game'd fit very nicely next to Duncan. He'd be a huge upgrade over Bonner. Also, his contract expires at the same time as Jefferson's.

Duncan, Murphy, Gist, Mahinmi, and 2 Vet min level bigs (eg. Nesterovic, Ike Diogu, Shelden Williams, whomever...).

Also, Troy Murphy has no defensive presence, no shot-blocking capability, and is probably just a better version of Bonner. No thanks.

pad300
06-25-2009, 04:38 PM
Also, Troy Murphy has no defensive presence, no shot-blocking capability, and is probably just a better version of Bonner. No thanks.

You ain't been paying attention to Mr. Murphy. Troy Murphy's rebound rate 08/09 19.2% . Matt Bonner's rebound Rate 08/09 11.9%. Troy Murphy had the second best Defensive rating of the entire Indiana team, at 106 pts against/100 possessions (Josh McRoberts came in 1st at 105 pts, but he only played 279 minutes of mostly garbage time).

Murphy is much better than Bonner; he rebounds. He can also lead the line while Duncan is resting. He was Indiana lead big this year, and didn't look too bad doing it...

Tully365
06-25-2009, 05:56 PM
If they are willing to dump Murphy for salary cap, jump on it. Murphy for Bonner, Mason and Finley works ($11,047,619 for Murphy in 09/10, Bonner+Mason+Finley make $9,536,500 ; it works as a trade). Murphy's been good in Indiana and his game'd fit very nicely next to Duncan. He'd be a huge upgrade over Bonner. Also, his contract expires at the same time as Jefferson's.

Duncan, Murphy, Gist, Mahinmi, and 2 Vet min level bigs (eg. Nesterovic, Ike Diogu, Shelden Williams, whomever...).
Manu, Jefferson, Bowen (resigned for the Vet min), Hairston, Williams, vet min FA
Parker, Hill, Vet min FA

Looks good to me

I agree, but this roster would have a combined salary above 75 mil and possibly close to 80-- do you think the organization is willing to go that high?

pad300
06-25-2009, 08:20 PM
I agree, but this roster would have a combined salary above 75 mil and possibly close to 80-- do you think the organization is willing to go that high?


They are talking about spending the MLE, above and beyond the current payroll. Current Payroll (Duncan, Jefferson, Parker,Gino, Mason, Bonner, Finley, Hill, Mahinmi ) is $71,229,230. Add the MLE (5.5 Million estimated), and 3 Vet min contracts (3*825497), that is $79,205,721. My Version is $78,150,919, assuming we use just the vet min on the spots I indicated. Both could get a little cheaper, my version by carrying 1 less wing and 1 less big, the MLE version by using Gist and Hairston in place of Vet min contracts. IMO the MLE version is a much worse roster, given it only has 13 players (ie. less room to carrying prospects a la gist, hairston, etc.).

Tully365
06-26-2009, 01:54 AM
Stranger things have happened in just the last two days, with landing Jefferson and Blair falling to #37, but I just find it a bit strange that a franchise renowned for careful and intelligent frugality would suddenly be willing to exceed the luxury tax threshold by nearly 10 million dollars, and in a bad economy. If it happens, I will be overjoyed... but it just seems odd to me.

Bruno
06-26-2009, 03:23 AM
As I've said during the draft, I hope that to have drafted Hansbrough will push Pacers to deal Foster. *finger crossed*

ploto
06-26-2009, 08:11 AM
Not going to happen

pad300
06-26-2009, 10:16 AM
Stranger things have happened in just the last two days, with landing Jefferson and Blair falling to #37, but I just find it a bit strange that a franchise renowned for careful and intelligent frugality would suddenly be willing to exceed the luxury tax threshold by nearly 10 million dollars, and in a bad economy. If it happens, I will be overjoyed... but it just seems odd to me.

True, I'm not sure that I believe the spend the MLE bit either... But trading Bonner, Finley and Mason for Murphy would not be more expensive.

Mel_13
06-26-2009, 12:59 PM
True, I'm not sure that I believe the spend the MLE bit either... But trading Bonner, Finley and Mason for Murphy would not be more expensive.

These are strange times indeed. I would have placed a nice bet against the RJ trade happening, especially with the Spurs sending almost the minimum allowable total contract value in return.

But you almost have to believe they're serious about using the MLE now. In his interview after the RJ trade, Pop specifically mentioned using the MLE (he called it the Middle Class Exception:lol) to target a 4.

If that happens when additional salary, lux tax, and lost lux distribution are all added up, the Spurs may spend 20M more this year than last year. I also find it hard to believe, but Pop could have just said something generic like "we'll see what's available to improve the team". Specifically mentioning the MLE in connection with getting a 4 wasn't necessary.

They've definitely raised expectations. Let's see what they deliver.

Tully365
06-28-2009, 09:12 PM
True, I'm not sure that I believe the spend the MLE bit either... But trading Bonner, Finley and Mason for Murphy would not be more expensive.

Yeah, I've been thinking the same thing... it's fun to come here and see all the speculation about Rasheed, Dice, etc., but a lower tier signing plus a trade seems more likely to me-- I hope I'm wrong!

I've read a few posts recently that imply that Foster is injury prone, but all I can remember ever hearing is that he occasionally has some back problems. So I checked, and he has averaged 73.5 games per season the last 10 years, included the last three of 74/77/75.

EricB
06-28-2009, 11:35 PM
As I've said during the draft, I hope that to have drafted Hansbrough will push Pacers to deal Foster. *finger crossed*

Foster sucks and is injury prone. I don't get the hardon over this guy.

Tully365
06-29-2009, 01:02 AM
I've read a few posts recently that imply that Foster is injury prone, but all I can remember ever hearing is that he occasionally has some back problems. So I checked, and he has averaged 73.5 games per season the last 10 years, included the last three of 74/77/75.


Foster sucks and is injury prone.

I've never followed him very closely, and most of what I know is the stats quoted above-- how is he injury prone? Is it more than the back?

Mr.Bottomtooth
06-29-2009, 07:14 AM
Foster sucks and is injury prone. I don't get the hardon over this guy.

Played 74 games last season and averaged 6 & 7. That sure does suck alright.

frequency
06-29-2009, 10:14 AM
Hes an SA native, right?

yep, we graduated same class from Madison high School in 95'.

i use to play ball at his house, indoor half court

Marcus Bryant
06-29-2009, 01:17 PM
If you deal Bonner + Finley for Foster and then sign Wallace or McDyess, the frontcourt rotation is set...and you retain Mason.

Starters
1 Parker
2 Ginobili
3 Jefferson
4 Duncan
5 Wallace

Bench
1 Hill
2 Mason
3 Bowen
3/4 Gist
4 Blair
4/5 Mahinmi
4/5 Foster

IR
1/2 McClinton
2/3 Hairston or Williams
4/5 Oberto

Re-sign Bowen and Oberto and sign Gist. Of course, next summer would be interesting when Splitter will presumably be available. But for next season that is a nice frontcourt rotation.

But the Pacers would have to be willing to do a straight salary dump with Foster. Unless they are that desperate, the Spurs would have to spice up their offer, presumably by including Mason instead of Finley, and/or adding a pick and/or cash.

I'm not opposed to the idea of dealing for Foster, but I wouldn't overpay if they are able to land a starting bigman through free agency.

Tully365
06-29-2009, 01:29 PM
^ ^

If the Spurs are able to land Wallace first, I imagine that even those here who think Foster is over-rated would be happy bringing him on, especially with your scenario. Along with Blair, that would be one hell of a rebounding roster.

Marcus Bryant
06-29-2009, 01:35 PM
While adding Jefferson does solve some problems, you don't want to totally thin out your swingman rotation, especially with Ginobili's health still being a concern.

barbacoataco
06-29-2009, 02:41 PM
I like this roster.

kbrury
06-30-2009, 11:09 AM
If you deal Bonner + Finley for Foster and then sign Wallace or McDyess, the frontcourt rotation is set...and you retain Mason.

Starters
1 Parker
2 Ginobili
3 Jefferson
4 Duncan
5 Wallace

Bench
1 Hill
2 Mason
3 Bowen
3/4 Gist
4 Blair
4/5 Mahinmi
4/5 Foster

IR
1/2 McClinton
2/3 Hairston or Williams
4/5 Oberto

Re-sign Bowen and Oberto and sign Gist. Of course, next summer would be interesting when Splitter will presumably be available. But for next season that is a nice frontcourt rotation.

But the Pacers would have to be willing to do a straight salary dump with Foster. Unless they are that desperate, the Spurs would have to spice up their offer, presumably by including Mason instead of Finley, and/or adding a pick and/or cash.

I'm not opposed to the idea of dealing for Foster, but I wouldn't overpay if they are able to land a starting bigman through free agency.

Ill pray for this roster every night.

coyotes_geek
07-01-2009, 08:29 AM
CG: Article on the Pacers and their rebuilding plan. The absence of Jeff Foster's name suggests availability.

*********

The Pacers have about $8 million to spend in free agency this summer, and are looking to re-sign both Jarrett Jack and Josh McRoberts.

Indiana president Larry Bird says that the team is in the second year of a three-year rebuilding plan and that he and general manager David Morway have no intention of deviating.

"We're going to get down below that and we're going to build with a young core group," Bird said. "Then we won't have any complaints to go forward with."

The Pacers made qualifying offers to both Jack and McRoberts on Tuesday, making both restricted free agents.

"Indiana is the first place I want to play," Jack told the Indianapolis Star on Tuesday. "Like I said over and over, the Pacers are the ones that put me in the position to get a lucrative contract. I would love to come back and play for them for many years to come."

Bird said that the team will look to improve via trades, but none of their core players - Danny Granger, Brandon Rush, Roy Hibbert and Tyler Hansbrough - will be involved.

"It's a three-year plan and I wouldn't do anything to jeopardize any of these young guys because they are going to be good," Bird said. "If I can add to that core through a trade, I probably will."

http://www.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/60237/20090701/pacers_wont_deviate_from_rebuilding_plan/

mountainballer
07-01-2009, 09:29 AM
just also read this. but then I thought: ok, 3 years plan, this means the Pacers play Foster the next 2 seasons and they let his contract expire. (when Hibbert and maybe Hansbrough will be ready to form the starting front court)
on the other hand: can a 32 years old player be in the plans of a re building team and if no, wouldn't it be better for both, the player and the team, if they separate rather sooner than later?
however, just guessing: if the Spurs would trade Bonner+Fin for Foster (which I would like), would the Spurs still need to go for a quality big in free agency? likely yes. Foster would be a huge upgrade when it comes to defend Gasol and Dirk, but the front court would still lack depth and versatility. (in a perfect world we do such a trade and still get Sheed/Dice via FA)
a front court of Tim-Sheed/Dice-Foster-Blair-Ian would be hard to ignore.

coyotes_geek
07-01-2009, 09:35 AM
The only thing that concerns me about going after Foster is that the Pacers would probably want Hill included.

Finley/Bonner/Hill for Foster. Yes or no?

MB20
07-01-2009, 09:39 AM
I don´t like the idea of trading Hill. I´d look for other options first.

mountainballer
07-01-2009, 10:06 AM
The only thing that concerns me about going after Foster is that the Pacers would probably want Hill included.

Finley/Bonner/Hill for Foster. Yes or no?

hmm. right now it looks as if the Spurs are able to get a quality big from free agency. so I would hesitate. (it would also reduce the number of players under contract to 8 and that's including M. Williams. 5 more new players on the roster? big risk)
but if the Spurs can't get Sheed/McDyess/Varejao I would do it. the need for a somehow decent big is that much urgent than what Hill could provide in the next two years.
will be interesting what Pop thinks McClinton can do immediately. if he looks good, it's easier to see Hill as part of a trade package.

coyotes_geek
07-01-2009, 10:13 AM
Another potentially relevant tidbit here. Per one of Marc Stein's pieces, Indiana is in the Gortat hunt. Not sure exactly why, but if they landed him he's one more piece that makes Foster redundant.

mountainballer
07-01-2009, 10:21 AM
yes, this wouldn't make any sense at all, especially considering Gortat can't be had for cheap.
(don't know if Hibbert+Gortat is the best idea in the world either, but that's not my problem)

edit: ok, totally forgot about Murphy. Murphy plus Gortat might fit well. so yes, if they get Gortat, Foster doesn't make much sense for them.

loveforthegame
07-01-2009, 10:31 AM
Teams will want the expiring contracts but I think to get one of these big men through a trade it will cost us either Hill or a 1st round pick.

Bruno
07-01-2009, 10:38 AM
I wouldn't trade Hill for Foster.
Spurs max offer for Foster should be Bonner + Finley + 2010 first round pick.
IMO, it's a fair offer. If Pacers don't like it, they can keep Foster.

benefactor
07-01-2009, 11:24 AM
I wouldn't trade Hill for Foster.
Spurs max offer for Foster should be Bonner + Finley + 2010 first round pick.
IMO, it's a fair offer. If Pacers don't like it, they can keep Foster.
Agreed. Foster is a nice big but with the Spurs already in a questionable situation at the backup point it would be too much to give up.

It's good to see that both Foster and Collison are shaping up to be good potential options for a trade after some initial mystery regarding them.

MaNu4Tres
07-01-2009, 12:28 PM
I would not give up a 1st round pick for a guy who will see 10 minutes a game at most.

MaNu4Tres
07-01-2009, 12:29 PM
I rather bring back Oberto or Theo Ratliff with our veteran minimum than trade for a guy that would play the same role and give up a 1st round pick.

ploto
07-01-2009, 03:08 PM
Hibbert will start and Jeff will back him up. They are not planning to trade him. His name is not mentioned because he is not in their long-term plans, but they and he would like him to retire a Pacer.

coyotes_geek
07-15-2009, 04:15 PM
Either the Pacers just added one more piece that makes Jeff Foster redundant, or they're trying to corner the market on white PF/C's.

http://www.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/60598/20090715/agent_pacers_mcroberts_agree_to_terms/

mountainballer
07-15-2009, 05:23 PM
Either the Pacers just added one more piece that makes Jeff Foster redundant, or they're trying to corner the market on white PF/C's.

http://www.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/60598/20090715/agent_pacers_mcroberts_agree_to_terms/

you think they will try to trade Hibbert?

MaNu4Tres
07-15-2009, 05:28 PM
you think they will try to trade Hibbert?

Due to the great value on his rookie scale contract and many years still left on it, it is highly unlikely they will trade Hibbert. If anything they may trade him next year to possibly move up in the draft next year for a prospect they admire more.

If your asking a question regarding whether or not the Pacers would trade Hibbert to the Spurs, the answer is no. Spurs have nothing Pacers would want besides Tony Parker as they build for the future rather than the present.

coyotes_geek
07-15-2009, 06:23 PM
you think they will try to trade Hibbert?

If I were them, I wouldn't. I'd be looking to move Foster for expirings and a good young player. But then if I were them I wouldn't have drafted Tyler Hansbrough in the lottery or signed Josh McRoberts so who knows what the Pacers are thinking.

loveforthegame
07-16-2009, 12:40 AM
No way I'd trade Hibbert just yet.

Foster would have a lot of appeal to teams though. The Pacers should be able to get some package involving expiring contracts, picks, cash, young prospect though.

mountainballer
07-16-2009, 05:55 AM
If I were them, I wouldn't. I'd be looking to move Foster for expirings and a good young player. But then if I were them I wouldn't have drafted Tyler Hansbrough in the lottery or signed Josh McRoberts so who knows what the Pacers are thinking.

the question about a Hibbert trade was pure sarcasm, b/c Hibbert will be the only remaining non white player in their frontcourt.
(as an answer to your sarcastic remark that they might try to corner the market on white PF/C's.)

btw. if they ask for Fin+Bonner plus a young player, a player like James Gist would make a lot of sense for them. (if they see NBA potential in Gist of course)

coyotes_geek
07-16-2009, 08:06 AM
the question about a Hibbert trade was pure sarcasm, b/c Hibbert will be the only remaining non white player in their frontcourt.
(as an answer to your sarcastic remark that they might try to corner the market on white PF/C's.)

btw. if they ask for Fin+Bonner plus a young player, a player like James Gist would make a lot of sense for them. (if they see NBA potential in Gist of course)

:lol Doh! I guess I need to get the help desk to check my sarcasm detector as it appears not to be working.

loveforthegame
07-18-2009, 09:07 PM
It seems the Celtics and Pacers might do a s/t involving Daniels instead of signing him outright for the LLE.

I post this here because Scalabrine and Tony Allen could be involved.

If that happens then I don't see them doing a Finley/Bonner trade for Foster.

Sdayi135
07-19-2009, 10:46 AM
I'd rather trade for a Nick Collison.

coyotes_geek
07-19-2009, 10:51 AM
Collison would just be redundant to what McDyess and Blair give us. He's a good player, but there's no need for him.

Sdayi135
07-19-2009, 11:51 AM
Collison would just be redundant to what McDyess and Blair give us. He's a good player, but there's no need for him.

I was thinking along the lines of the idea of trading for a big, and I thinking if want to trade for a big, there are better options than Jeff Foster. Collison was the first that popped up in my head.

Plus, I still have a hard time believing Blair's going to get 20 MPG as RC said he's "penciled in." And the jury is still out on Ian as to wheter he can contribute.

MaNu4Tres
07-19-2009, 01:48 PM
collison would just be redundant to what mcdyess and blair give us. He's a good player, but there's no need for him.

+1

MaNu4Tres
07-19-2009, 01:50 PM
I think our best bet to improve as a team is to add Camby via trade close to the trade deadline. That's if Mahimni/ Blair/ Haislip don't live up to expectations. Trading for any other big mentioned Foster/Collison would be more of a sideways move. IMo

Marcus Bryant
07-19-2009, 11:01 PM
Turning Finley and Bonner into Jeff Foster would be an improvement.

angelbelow
07-20-2009, 01:50 AM
Anyone against bring in Jeff for just Finley/Bonner seriously needs to watch Jeff play.

MaNu4Tres
07-20-2009, 05:21 AM
Anyone against bring in Jeff for just Finley/Bonner seriously needs to watch Jeff play.



Foster would see Oberto like minutes (12-15) and put up Oberto like numbers at most . Numbers aren't everything and adding Foster would be adding a rugged interior defender/ rebounder, but we can find someone like that for cheaper given the minutes that are available for such an acquisition. (IE Rasho, Ratfliff,*possibly Foyle, *Jarron Collins.


Foster would be adding a physical presence upfront. But adding him wouldn't be improving the 3rd big man slot in the rotation. Which is one of the only real moves that would really improve our team (adding a better 3rd wing would be the other). Adding Foster would just be improving our 10th-12th man, which is kind of irrelevant especially in March going forward into the playoffs.

If Spurs were to make a trade ( Finley/ Bonner plus 1st round) or (Mason/ Bonner plus 1st rounder) a significant improvement would be bringing back somebody that could be an automatic improvement in a potential 7-8 man rotation or some big that could split time with McDyess at the 4/5 as the third big (clear cut 3rd big over Blair/Mahimni) or a better 3rd wing than Roger Mason. Those two moves are really the only two moves that would make a significant improvement.

Improving the 11th roster spot doesn't when it's all said and done.

benefactor
07-20-2009, 06:21 AM
Foster would see Oberto like minutes (12-15) and put up Oberto like numbers at most . Numbers aren't everything and adding Foster would be adding a rugged interior defender/ rebounder, but we can find someone like that for cheaper given the minutes that are available for such an acquisition. (IE Rasho, Ratfliff,*possibly Foyle, *Jarron Collins.


Foster would be adding a physical presence upfront. But adding him wouldn't be improving the 3rd big man slot in the rotation. Which is one of the only real moves that would really improve our team (adding a better 3rd wing would be the other). Adding Foster would just be improving our 10th-12th man, which is kind of irrelevant especially in March going forward into the playoffs.

If Spurs were to make a trade ( Finley/ Bonner plus 1st round) or (Mason/ Bonner plus 1st rounder) a significant improvement would be bringing back somebody that could be an automatic improvement in a potential 7-8 man rotation or some big that could split time with McDyess at the 4/5 as the third big (clear cut 3rd big over Blair/Mahimni) or a better 3rd wing than Roger Mason. Those two moves are really the only two moves that would make a significant improvement.

Improving the 11th roster spot doesn't when it's all said and done.

Anyone against bring in Jeff for just Finley/Bonner seriously needs to watch Jeff play.

MaNu4Tres
07-20-2009, 06:40 AM
I have watched Foster play many times benefactor. I never said I was against bringing him in. All i said was with the minutes available for what he is ( an addition to the lump of the 3rd-5th bigs off the bench) ( Not a clear cut 3rd big man) he wouldn't make enough of a significant impact with the minutes split with Blair/ Mahimni/ Haislip to actually put us over the hump.

He would be a slight improvement if that.

benefactor
07-20-2009, 09:05 AM
I have watched Foster play many times benefactor. I never said I was against bringing him in. All i said was with the minutes available for what he is ( an addition to the lump of the 3rd-5th bigs off the bench) ( Not a clear cut 3rd big man) he wouldn't make enough of a significant impact with the minutes split with Blair/ Mahimni/ Haislip to actually put us over the hump.

He would be a slight improvement if that.
Slight improvement? :lol

If you are saying he is not a clear cut 3rd big over Blair and Mahimni then you obviously have not watched much of him. He is a proven NBA big and has been one of the best offensive rebounders in the league over the past several seasons. Saying that he would struggle to find minutes over a rookie and and a project big is pretty silly. Haislip and Foster aren't really related, as Haislip is more of a shooting big like Bonner.

Furthermore, acquiring Foster is more of a look ahead. When we get to the playoffs the big man rotation will be shortened. I would feel much more confident having a big like Foster(two seasons of deep playoff runs with Indiana) shoring up our front line over two inexperienced rookies(Mahimni is basically a rookie).

mountainballer
07-20-2009, 09:30 AM
Furthermore, acquiring Foster is more of a look ahead. When we get to the playoffs the big man rotation will be shortened. I would feel much more confident having a big like Foster(two seasons of deep playoff runs with Indiana) shoring up our front line over two inexperienced rookies(Mahimni is basically a rookie).

most intriguing for me (to look ahead) would be his ability to guard Gasol and Dirk. (as well as KG and Sheed in a possible finals match up.) also his versatility to play 4 and 5 would fit nice, he could play alongside Tim and should also do well alongside Dice.
and he would be a helpful part of the Spurs offense. no, this is not a typo. the fact that he can't score to save his live doesn't mean that he wouldn't be a very nice part for our offense with Tim, Tony, Manu and JR on the floor. Foster can't score, but he moves very well, sets smart screens and is an underrated passer. he would make life much easier for all the other scoring options, especially on the pick and roll, and 4 great scorer on the floor should be good enough to compete with any offense in the league.

MaNu4Tres
09-30-2009, 01:57 AM
I would not give up a 1st round pick for a guy who will see 10 minutes a game at most.


I rather bring back Oberto or Theo Ratliff with our veteran minimum than trade for a guy that would play the same role and give up a 1st round pick.

benefactor
09-30-2009, 05:42 AM
I'd still take Foster right now.

MaNu4Tres
09-30-2009, 07:59 AM
And what? Trade away our trading assets for a player that would compliment the team with the role that Ratliff has now?

Would be a waste of our trading assets, especially if you include a 1st rounder. You could fill the void he would bring by signing a player like Ratliff, which we did by the way, for the minimum.

I'd rather wait and use our trading assets for a player that would see quality time (20-23 plus minutes) in a potentially tightened 8-9 man rotation when it counts in May and June.

We can agree to disagree. I think you think Foster is still 26 years old.

mountainballer
09-30-2009, 08:44 AM
And what? Trade away our trading assets for a player that would compliment the team with the role that Ratliff would?

Would be a waste of our trading assets, especially if you include a 1st rounder. You could fill the void he would bring by signing a player like Ratliff, which we did by the way, for the minimum.

I'd rather wait and use our trading assets for a player that would see time in a tightened 8-9 man rotation when it counts in May and June.

We can agree to disagree. I think you think Foster is still 26 years old.

Foster would be the 3rd big in our rotation. he would be a nice compliment to Tim and Dice, so he would also be part of the PO rotation. he is 32, no reason to assume he will slow down significantly over the next two seasons.

on the other hand: Ratliff averaged 24 games per season over the last 3 years. so what role are you thinking he will take you think Foster also would get??? maybe you are the one thinking about the wrong age of a player.
and btw. Ratliff and Foster are not similar players, not at all and even less at this point of their careers. so, whatever role you were thinking Ratliff will play, it will be different to what Foster would play.

so, no different opinion to 2 months ago: if Spurs can get Foster for just expiring contracts (Matt+Fin) it would be a steal.(why should the Pacers do it?). and yes, I would give the 2011 1st rounder if necessary. 2010 can't be traded anyhow and gives another chance for a young player, Spurs also have a good chance to also add Splitter 2010.
Hill, Blair, Splitter, 2010 1st rounder, maybe Hairston, Williams, maybe even De Colo......that's quite a deep pool of young players, who also need to be integrated.
I don't think Spurs can't afford to trade the 2011 1st round pick.

benefactor
09-30-2009, 08:52 AM
^^Pretty much sums up my thoughts on it.

MaNu4Tres
09-30-2009, 09:04 AM
Foster would be the 3rd big in our rotation. he would be a nice compliment to Tim and Dice, so he would also be part of the PO rotation. he is 32, no reason to assume he will slow down significantly over the next two seasons.

on the other hand: Ratliff averaged 24 games per season over the last 3 years. so what role are you thinking he will take you think Foster also would get??? maybe you are the one thinking about the wrong age of a player.
and btw. Ratliff and Foster are not similar players, not at all and even less at this point of their careers. so, whatever role you were thinking Ratliff will play, it will be different to what Foster would play.

so, no different opinion to 2 months ago: if Spurs can get Foster for just expiring contracts (Matt+Fin) it would be a steal.(why should the Pacers do it?). and yes, I would give the 2011 1st rounder if necessary. 2010 can't be traded anyhow and gives another chance for a young player, Spurs also have a good chance to also add Splitter 2010.
Hill, Blair, Splitter, 2010 1st rounder, maybe Hairston, Williams, maybe even De Colo......that's quite a deep pool of young players, who also need to be integrated.
I don't think Spurs can't afford to trade the 2011 1st round pick.


I disagree and you can't convince me otherwise sorry. Foster would be clumped together in the 3rd-6th spots in the rotation in the frontcourt IMO. All of them have obvious negatives ( Foster on the offensive end, Bonner on the defensive end physically ( Bonner does have good position defense, it's just his physical ability doesn't allow him to be as effective as he should be), Ratliff on the offensive end, Blair pick and roll defense and NBA BBIQ). None of them are clear cut number 3 players in the frontcourt rotation.IMO

And Foster would play the same role as Ratliff which would be to play great interior defense, rebound, set efficient screens, and convert wide open scenarios when others create for him or finish garbage points after an offensive rebound. Nothing more nothing less.

Unless Blair/ Mahimni/ Haislip end up as busts and if Bonner or Ratliff were to get hurt then I'd consider trading my assets for him close to the deadline. Right now his skills doesn't justify giving up as much as you would for a player that wouldn't see more than 15 minutes a game. Especially if we signed a player ( Ratliff) already for the minimum that fits the role Foster would. All Foster would do right now is slow down the development of Blair/ Haislip/ Mahimni and also make the signing of Ratliff irrelevant. Ratliff brings elements to the Spurs that no one on the roster can do outside of Duncan. There is a reason they brought him in, even if it's for 8-10 minutes a game. We need what Ratliff can bring.

mountainballer
09-30-2009, 09:32 AM
I'm really shocked that there is a need to point out the differences between Ratliff and Foster.
jesus, Ratliff is done. he can play the Willis/Massenburg role at best (if he is healthy enough)
every team has it's 3rd stringers. Ratliff is ours this year. that's ok.
Foster would be a 2nd stringer.
and NO, Ratliff can't do what Foster could. he couldn't defend Gasol and Dirk and he doesn't help in the rebounding department. (always been awful there, totally useless on the board these days.) Ratliff is an insurance policy. like every insurance, it's better we don't need it at all.

MaNu4Tres
09-30-2009, 09:47 AM
I'm really shocked that there is a need to point out the differences between Ratliff and Foster.
jesus, Ratliff is done. he can play the Willis/Massenburg role at best (if he is healthy enough)
every team has it's 3rd stringers. Ratliff is ours this year. that's ok.
Foster would be a 2nd stringer.
and NO, Ratliff can't do what Foster could. he couldn't defend Gasol and Dirk and he doesn't help in the rebounding department. (always been awful there, totally useless on the board these days.) Ratliff is an insurance policy. like every insurance, it's better we don't need it at all.

Ratliff is not done. He had been injured in recent years and I agree that's a concern. But he played quite a bit most recently in favor of Dalembert in the playoffs against the Magic. He will have a role more similiar to Willis did in 2003. http://www.nba.com/spurs/stats/2002/index.html which is just what the Spurs need from him.

There's 96 minutes available for the frontcourt position.

And here's a rough estimate on how it looks considering what happened last year and what R.C has said in many interviews about how Blair is a guy who can come in and give the team about 20 minutes instantly.

Duncan 31-33 mpg
Dyess 23-25 mpg
Bonner 15-17mpg
Blair 15-17 mpg
Ratliff 8-10 mpg

Where and who would you sit for Foster?


Go ahead and pull the Bonner card, but he did have a productive year and was granted PT over Gooden, Kurt and Oberto. That indicates him getting some run this year. Especially if Pop is still the coach.

mountainballer
09-30-2009, 10:01 AM
Where and who would you sit for Foster?

Go ahead and pull the Bonner card, but he did have a productive year and was granted PT over Gooden, Kurt and Oberto. That indicates him getting some run this year.

ok, saves time if you answer you own question.
and "Mr. Productive" Bonner had 3.0 PPG on 0.65 PPS in the last PO. (his best career PO production though:wow)
didn't you tell us that this is when it counts?
as long as Bonner doesn't crack the 3.0 PPG barrier in the PO, I don't think there are indications that he is in position for an important role next season.

benefactor
09-30-2009, 12:11 PM
Bonner playing ahead of Foster? Seriously?

It matters little anyway...because Bonner would be gone in the trade.

benefactor
09-30-2009, 12:15 PM
A Duncan/McDyess/Foster/Blair front line would give us the best offensive rebounding front line in the league.

Bruno
09-30-2009, 12:42 PM
With the luxury tax threshold dropping next year, Pacers will need to trade for expiring contracts one of Ford, Murphy, Dunleavy or Foster to avoid paying the tax in 2010-2011. I wouldn't be surprised to see Foster being the one gone.

mountainballer
10-01-2009, 07:54 AM
A Duncan/McDyess/Foster/Blair front line would give us the best offensive rebounding front line in the league.

A Duncan-Foster tandem would also give us one of the best (if not THE best) frontcourt defenses in the league.

benefactor
10-01-2009, 12:17 PM
A Duncan-Foster tandem would also give us one of the best (if not THE best) frontcourt defenses in the league.
Indeed. There have been many discussion on this forum about whether or not we are on the same level up front at the Lakers...even with the improvements we have made. If we were able so somehow steal Foster from Indy then discussions would no longer be necessary because there would be no doubt that we would be above them.

MaNu4Tres
10-03-2009, 04:20 PM
ok, saves time if you answer you own question.
and "Mr. Productive" Bonner had 3.0 PPG on 0.65 PPS in the last PO. (his best career PO production though:wow)
didn't you tell us that this is when it counts?
as long as Bonner doesn't crack the 3.0 PPG barrier in the PO, I don't think there are indications that he is in position for an important role next season.





Go ahead and pull the Bonner card, but he did have a productive year and was granted PT over Gooden, Kurt and Oberto. That indicates him getting some run this year. Especially if Pop is still the coach.


Matt is working out with the first team right now. They are expecting 15-20 minutes from him. The Spurs have already talked to his agent about a new contract. Not saying they wouldn't trade him but right now doesn't appear to be a possibility. Pop loves Matt.

benefactor
10-03-2009, 08:49 PM
I'm gonna have to call BS on the 15-20 minutes projection. We didn't go out and make a bunch of major upgrades to the front line just to have the same situation we had last year with Bonner.

We have seen from all the times that Bonner has been in Pop's doghouse just how much he loves him. The love affair will end pretty quickly now that we have much better options on our bench.

MaNu4Tres
10-03-2009, 09:07 PM
I'm gonna have to call BS on the 15-20 minutes projection. We didn't go out and make a bunch of major upgrades to the front line just to have the same situation we had last year with Bonner.

We have seen from all the times that Bonner has been in Pop's doghouse just how much he loves him. The love affair will end pretty quickly now that we have much better options on our bench.

Will it's obvious to anyone we have better options in the front court compared to last year. Bonner will still get some time this year, just not as much. He will most likely get the first look as the 3rd/4th big considering his production in 82 games out of 87 last year. Pop makes new guys earn there spots going into the year unless the transaction was an obvious upgrade like when Derek Anderson came and now Richard Jefferson.

MaNu4Tres
10-03-2009, 09:12 PM
And I call that the Spurs will never make a dumb business like move trading our trading assets for a player to fill in a role they could sign for the minimum like Ratliff. ( Which they did.)

mogrovejo
10-04-2009, 02:45 AM
Foster would easily be the Spurs 3rd best big, but:

- he's declining quickly. Just a couple of years ago, he was the best offensive rebounder in the league and a top-5 rebounder; today he's an above average one but not that good any more.

- his lack of an offensive game 5ft away from the rim makes him a subpar pair to Duncan.

- the Pacers will ask for too much to let him go. Bird, Morway and O'Brien value the intangibles he brings, especially in terms of locker-room leadership, very highly. You have better chances of getting Troy Murphy than Foster.

benefactor
10-04-2009, 08:54 AM
Foster would easily be the Spurs 3rd best big, but:

- he's declining quickly. Just a couple of years ago, he was the best offensive rebounder in the league and a top-5 rebounder; today he's an above average one but not that good any more.

- his lack of an offensive game 5ft away from the rim makes him a subpar pair to Duncan.

- the Pacers will ask for too much to let him go. Bird, Morway and O'Brien value the intangibles he brings, especially in terms of locker-room leadership, very highly. You have better chances of getting Troy Murphy than Foster.
Yeah...he's not quite the player he used to be but he is still a very solid all around big man. I don't think you would see much of him playing with Duncan. He would probably come in for Duncan and McDyess would slide to PF as the extra shooter. This would actually work out very nicely defensively too because McDyess is a good perimeter defender for a big man and Foster is a good post defender. The offensive rebounding benefits speak for themselves.

As Bruno indicated earlier in the thread...Foster is probably the most likely to get traded sometime this season so that the Pacers can avoid the tax. Dunleavy and Murphy both have 2 years and over 20 million left on their contracts, so the Pacers would be hard pressed to find a taker for either of them. Foster is getting 6 million this year and 6.6 million next year, which is a reasonable price for a good rotation big man. His contract also fits well into the window the Spurs are working with. What the Pacers get in return for him probably won't matter, because the priority will be getting under the tax threshold. If they take Finley/Bonner/pick, they will at least have players that can contribute something instead of a straight salary dump.

MaNu4Tres
01-08-2010, 07:07 PM
Would the Foster worshipers still trade our trading assets for him? Just wondering?

Chieflion
01-09-2010, 05:51 AM
Would the Foster worshipers still trade our trading assets for him? Just wondering?
I am definitely not a Foster worshipper and I would hate to see giving a 1st round pick which may end up being a steal for an average player like Foster who does not really give the Spurs a clear upgrade.

MaNu4Tres
01-09-2010, 10:58 AM
I guess not.

Bruno
01-09-2010, 10:58 AM
Gloating over a player's injury is quite lame.

MaNu4Tres
01-09-2010, 11:06 AM
Gloating over a player's injury is quite lame.

It was a question. Don't go making accusations out of spite.

Thanks :toast

MaNu4Tres
01-09-2010, 11:07 AM
Even if he wasn't injured like he has been the past 2 weeks, the idea to trade for him was and still is a terrible idea. Just saying.

Bruno
01-09-2010, 11:15 AM
Foster has been basically injured since the start of the season. I don't know how it shows that an healthy Foster could have help or not Spurs. Just saying.

mountainballer
02-02-2010, 09:31 AM
http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/2010/02/report-jeff-foster-likely-to-require-surgery-be-done-for-the-year/
Multiple sources said Denver’s longstanding pursuit of Indiana’s Jeff Foster is over because he’s likely to require surgery for his injured back and miss the rest of the season.

this might not be a surprise, Foster struggled with his back for the whole season.
this also puts an end to all trade scenario's around Foster.
the bad news for us:
even if many thought the idea of getting Foster would have been bad, the fact that he is off the market isn't something even the critics should be happy about. it means that the teams linked to Foster (mostly the Nuggets, but also the Jazz) will focus on other players, who the Spurs might be interested in either. (Haywood?, Camby?). and we know what this means: the player either goes elsewhere, or the price is higher.

HarlemHeat37
02-02-2010, 02:40 PM
There were rumors that Denver already made an offer for Haywood and were rejected, they were talking about it on ESPN radio 2 weeks ago..they were also saying Denver was kind of unwilling and unable to do much with a guy like that from a financial standpoint..

I doubt they would want Camby back after originally dumping him..maybe some hard feelings..

Utah is talking to the Wizards about him for their TE in some kind of a package according to the Jazz' television play-by-play guy..

Obviously none of us know what actually happens behind the scenes, so these are just rumors from sources..

I'm kind of worried about Portland jumping after Haywood, what do you think mountainballer?..

mountainballer
02-02-2010, 06:45 PM
yes, Blazers will likely be in the mix and the Rockets as well.
both can offer the expiring contracts along with picks and/or a young player. if Spurs want to outbid them, it might become expensive.