Reply With Quote
As I've said during the draft, I hope that to have drafted Hansbrough will push Pacers to deal Foster. *finger crossed*
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.
As I've said during the draft, I hope that to have drafted Hansbrough will push Pacers to deal Foster. *finger crossed*
Not going to happen
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) 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.
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.
Foster sucks and is injury prone. I don't get the hardon over this guy.
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?
Played 74 games last season and averaged 6 & 7. That sure does suck alright.
yep, we graduated same class from Madison high School in 95'.
i use to play ball at his house, indoor half court
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 e 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.
^ ^
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 of a rebounding roster.
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.
I like this roster.
Ill pray for this roster every night.
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_ar...building_plan/
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.
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?
I donŽt like the idea of trading Hill. IŽd look for other options first.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
