Trade Idea: Bonner & Finley for Jeff Foster

[ElNono]

No, it's that the Spurs lowballed him because they're cheap as . He thought he was worth more, which he was. However, the market was particularly hot for him at that time so he took a shorter deal and then got paid down the road. Simple as that. If the Spurs made a respectable offer, he probably would have accepted it. In my mind, it was all about the team disrespecting him by lowballing.

I gather you mean that the market was particularly NOT hot for him?
You would think a guy that was 'lowballed' like you said would never want to face the same management, but all we hear is how much he'd like to play for the Spurs again, under the same management.
Plus he ended up taking less money in Atlanta than what the Spurs offered him. And if you're indeed right, then all the ring talk is merely posturing.
I actually think he misses being in the thick of things.

[MaNu4Tres]

There's zero doubt in my mind that Jackson simply wanted to be THE MAN. Captain Jack. He wasn't going to be that under Duncan's shadow.
.

That is just silly.

Your wrong unfortunately, but your en led to your opinion.

[kbrury]

Can this thread die already I think every possible angle has been explained in not only this thread, but two others as well.

Just an opinion. Carry on.
But Ill gladly talk about Stephen Jackson all day even though he has had five times as many threads.

[MaNu4Tres]

No, it's that the Spurs lowballed him because they're cheap as . He thought he was worth more, which he was. However, the market was particularly hot for him at that time so he took a shorter deal and then got paid down the road. Simple as that. If the Spurs made a respectable offer, he probably would have accepted it. In my mind, it was all about the team disrespecting him by lowballing.

He was actually offered 3 years 9 million by the Spurs and his agent asked for more with Jackson trusting the agent where everything would work out in the end and he would receive the 3 year 13-15 million deal. Turns out during this time Spurs got the call from Sacramento wanting to know if they wanted in on Turk and Mercer. They needed a quick answer, so Spurs went the safe route and went with Turkoglu and Mercer knowing they could lose out on Jackson and his agent's contract demands.

[MaNu4Tres]

You don't have to read anything or follow what I type.

Just a suggestion.

[MaNu4Tres]

I have to admit kbrury im flattered your spending your time monitoring my posts.

[kbrury]

Just thought it was a little humorous lol.

[ElNono]

That is just silly.

Your wrong unfortunately, but your en led to your opinion.

You're certainly en led to yours too.

[Mel_13]

No, it's that the Spurs lowballed him because they're cheap as . He thought he was worth more, which he was. However, the market was particularly hot for him at that time so he took a shorter deal and then got paid down the road. Simple as that. If the Spurs made a respectable offer, he probably would have accepted it. In my mind, it was all about the team disrespecting him by lowballing.

Revisionist history with no basis in fact.

[Agloco]

Credit to Bruno for this one, which he has been advocating throughout the offseason.

Pacers would do this primarily for Finley and Bonner's expiring contracts. In Murphy, Granger, and Dunleavy, they have some rather big contracts for a team which is still in rebuilding mode. Not sure if they are close to paying the Lux Tax, but if they are then this deal would make much more sense for them. Such a trade would also be Caucasian neutral, which apparently is quite important in Indianapolis.

Seriously tho, I think this gains traction as the season progresses. Especially if Bonner or Finley are stinking up the joint.

[Marcus Bryant]

Of course Foster to SA is unrealistic but the Spurs taking on Jack's contract is a given. Of course Matt Bullard Bonner is not a one trick pony who shouldn't be logging heavy minutes in the frontcourt rotation of any serious contender. What has happened to this forum?

[MaNu4Tres]

Of course Matt Bullard Bonner is not a one trick pony who shouldn't be logging heavy minutes in the frontcourt rotation of any serious contender. What has happened to this forum?

Since when is 15 minutes heavy minutes like you suggest?

[Mel_13]

Kind of like 95% of your posts.

That's the best you could do? How about backing up your wild assertions with anything resembling facts, evidence, or supporting do entation?

You know, such as a contemporaneous report:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vau...0223/index.htm

Now back up your side of the issue with something other than your imperfect recollections or personal attacks.

[Marcus Bryant]

Since when is 15 minutes heavy minutes like you suggest?

Anything over 10 is too much for him. 15? egads.

[Mel_13]

Um, the only thing this article shows is that I'm exactly right. He was insulted by the offer. He ended up not having much interest in the market at the time, took a short deal, and then banked after he showed what he could do. Thanks very much for proving me right.

If you read your post and that article and come to the conclusion that you have been proven right, then any further discussion is clearly useless.

Then again, you look at statistics and see proof that Beno is a good starting NBA PG. I should have known better.

[Bruno]

Of course Foster to SA is unrealistic but the Spurs taking on Jack's contract is a given. Of course Matt Bullard Bonner is not a one trick pony who shouldn't be logging heavy minutes in the frontcourt rotation of any serious contender. What has happened to this forum?

I wonder it too. And it's even worse in the "NBA forum" section.

[Mel_13]

Add another to the 95%.

You have no sense of irony, do you?

[Mel_13]

Now back up your side of the issue with something other than your imperfect recollections or personal attacks.

You've got no sense, period. I don't really blame you, though. It obviously runs in the family. How do I know that, you ask? Well, your name is Mel.

[Mel_13]

Ad hominem attacks are the refuge of those incapable of making their case with the facts.

[Whisky Dog]

I can't believe this is an argument. Sure Finley and Bonner suck, but Foster is an average defensive player with no offense whatsoever. Should be able to get a better deal.

[jjktkk]

No, it's that the Spurs lowballed him because they're cheap as . He thought he was worth more, which he was. However, the market was particularly hot for him at that time so he took a shorter deal and then got paid down the road. Simple as that. If the Spurs made a respectable offer, he probably would have accepted it. In my mind, it was all about the team disrespecting him by lowballing.

The Spurs lowballed because they had to worry about getting new contracts for Parker and Ginoboli, and IMO they did not want to give out max money to SJAX, who while talented, can be volatile and immature, basically a headcase.

[benefactor]

I've never watched Foster play, so I will make something up.

[Marcus Bryant]

[mountainballer]

The Spurs lowballed because they had to worry about getting new contracts for Parker and Ginoboli, and IMO they did not want to give out max money to SJAX, who while talented, can be volatile and immature, basically a headcase.

thanks, finally someone who remembers the real cir stances. Manu was on a 2 years LLE contract from 2002-2004, so Spurs didn't have full Bird rights. they needed to take care for enough cap space in 2004 to be able to match offers higher than MLE.
(if they didn't, they get into a situation like Warriors had with Arenas in 2003, when they finally lost Arenas with nothing in return). Manu wouldn't have signed for the MLE, in 2004 it was already obvious that he is an all star talent.
if the Spurs signed Sjax to a big contract, it could have caused the loss of Manu. and I dare to claim: Sjax wouldn't have brought as the 2005 le.

(but I don't expect a guy, who thinks Beno is a great player, to get this)

[neverdead2008]

I don't like this trade