Trade with Indy (Jeff Foster?)

[indeedproceed]

GMs are bidding on Jeff Foster:

In his chat today, ESPN's Chad Ford wrote this: "Troy Murphy and Jeff Foster are the two guys on the Pacers' roster that a lot of GMs have interest in. I suspect both will be gone by the trade deadline. They both have a lot of value to contenders."

So where could they land? The Cavs have previously expressed interest in Murphy for his ability to rebound, hit threes and extend the floor, and he could fit in nicely as a counterpart to Shaquille O'Neal.

Ford notes Foster is "a mobile big who can defend player like Pau Gasol," so it's possible a team like the Mavericks -- who have some nice trade chips in Drew Gooden and Erick Dampier -- could trade for Foster and bring him off the bench to combat Gasol in a potential playoff matchup.

A trade I would make without a second thought:

Boston trades: Scalabrine, Shelden Williams, one of Giddens/Walker (for me, Giddens), 2nd round pick

Pacers trade: Jeff Foster

Thoughts?

[Roy Hobbs]

Unfortunately, I don't see a package like that getting it done.  Ford suggests that Foster has value, and that package is basically trash, sadly enough.

[scoop]

1. I wouldn't trade for Foster while he's dealing with recurring back injuries. After seeing him playing out there a few weeks showing fitness, then I'd consider him -  he brings rebounding (much needed!) and defensive versatility.

2. The Pacers may need to trade away salary this season in order to avoid paying the luxury tax next season. Obviously they'd rather trade TJ Ford or Murphy, not Foster. Or the luxury tax threshold may be higher than expected and all they have to dump is one million dollars or something like that.

3. If they really need to shed salary and don't have a better option, they may do that trade. But I think Foster would be the 4th big and keeping Davis wouldn't make much sense, so I'd construct a trade around Davis.

[indeedproceed]

I think Roy is probably right, but he's a well known Jeff Foster fan. He even wears his hair like him.

1. I wouldn't trade for Foster while he's dealing with recurring back injuries. After seeing him playing out there a few weeks showing fitness, then I'd consider him -  he brings rebounding (much needed!) and defensive versatility.

I agree with this only to the point that he's such a drastic defensive upgrade over anyone else involved in the trade that I think it's worth the risk, but that's ajudgement call, and your point about Foster's injury is very valid.

2. The Pacers may need to trade away salary this season in order to avoid paying the luxury tax next season. Obviously they'd rather trade TJ Ford or Murphy, not Foster. Or the luxury tax threshold may be higher than expected and all they have to dump is one million dollars or something like that.

See, Foster has a deal guaranteed to 6 million next year as well. Ford, Murphy, they're the better players, and Indiana is rebuilding. I think moving Foster makes more sense, not less.

3. If they really need to shed salary and don't have a better option, they may do that trade. But I think Foster would be the 4th big and keeping Davis wouldn't make much sense, so I'd construct a trade around Davis.

I don't see Foster eliminating Davis, but supplementing him. Foster brings better rebounding and more versatile defense than Davis can, and Davis brings his sometimes solid midrange jumper and scrappier savvier offense. They're really different players, and don't duplicate a lot of each others talents.

[youcanthandlethetruth113]

I feel like at this point in Foster's career he's a bit of a glorified Scott Pollard (who would also have the same impact - unfortunately).

Why doesn't Scal get any credit/love around here. I don't think he's simply a toss in on a trade for a guy with a history of RECENT injuries. Giddens? Are you nuts? Give up potential for proven rust? That seems wild and desperate to me.

Bring me Troy Murphy

[Jeff]

I thought for a brief moment about taking TJ Ford to make things work out, but then I checked their salaries and realized that that whole team has unwieldy contracts - somebody got a little spendy with all those guys 

[Bankshot]

1. I wouldn't trade for Foster while he's dealing with recurring back injuries. After seeing him playing out there a few weeks showing fitness, then I'd consider him -  he brings rebounding (much needed!) and defensive versatility.

2. The Pacers may need to trade away salary this season in order to avoid paying the luxury tax next season. Obviously they'd rather trade TJ Ford or Murphy, not Foster. Or the luxury tax threshold may be higher than expected and all they have to dump is one million dollars or something like that.

3. If they really need to shed salary and don't have a better option, they may do that trade. But I think Foster would be the 4th big and keeping Davis wouldn't make much sense, so I'd construct a trade around Davis.

You'd trade Big Baby for Jeff Foster?  Wow.  Foster is nice to have, but I don't think he's better than Big Baby right now, certainly not good enough to include Baby in a trade for him.

[2short]

always wanted foster on the c's
at this point we have a log jam of bigs and i don't think that package would get foster here
i think we should be concentrating on sf or pg posistion
think big!
heinrich, battier or prince 

[slamtheking]

I think Roy is probably right, but he's a well known Jeff Foster fan. He even wears his hair like him.

1. I wouldn't trade for Foster while he's dealing with recurring back injuries. After seeing him playing out there a few weeks showing fitness, then I'd consider him -  he brings rebounding (much needed!) and defensive versatility.

I agree with this only to the point that he's such a drastic defensive upgrade over anyone else involved in the trade that I think it's worth the risk, but that's ajudgement call, and your point about Foster's injury is very valid.

2. The Pacers may need to trade away salary this season in order to avoid paying the luxury tax next season. Obviously they'd rather trade TJ Ford or Murphy, not Foster. Or the luxury tax threshold may be higher than expected and all they have to dump is one million dollars or something like that.

See, Foster has a deal guaranteed to 6 million next year as well. Ford, Murphy, they're the better players, and Indiana is rebuilding. I think moving Foster makes more sense, not less.

3. If they really need to shed salary and don't have a better option, they may do that trade. But I think Foster would be the 4th big and keeping Davis wouldn't make much sense, so I'd construct a trade around Davis.

I don't see Foster eliminating Davis, but supplementing him. Foster brings better rebounding and more versatile defense than Davis can, and Davis brings his sometimes solid midrange jumper and scrappier savvier offense. They're really different players, and don't duplicate a lot of each others talents.

Foster doesn't duplicate BBD but who's minutes would Foster take?  Not Sheed's.  I'd rather have BBD out on the floor with Sheed for his energy and offenseive abilities, particularly with the 2nd unit.

Foster would be Shelden's replacement but I doubt he'd be happy with hardly ever seeing the floor.

[moiso]

I'd love to have Foster on our bench if it meant only giving up that package.  A few years ago I would have given up a lot more for him.

[scoop]

See, Foster has a deal guaranteed to 6 million next year as well. Ford, Murphy, they're the better players, and Indiana is rebuilding. I think moving Foster makes more sense, not less.

Really? Ford was just demoted to 3rd string PG (in fact, 5th, after Watson, Price, Diener and Head), they aren't playing him even in blow-outs. He was never a good fit in Indiana, he's been declining steadily in the last few years and he'll make $8.5M next season.

Maybe Murphy is a better player than Foster. It depends on what you want. But Murphy is a terrible defender and an one-dimentional offensive player who will make $12M the next season. For the buck, I prefer a healthy Jeff Foster over Murphy and isn't even close. Considering Foster story in Indiana and his lockeroom/leadership status, I'm inclined to think Bird feels the same way.

I don't see Foster eliminating Davis, but supplementing him. Foster brings better rebounding and more versatile defense than Davis can, and Davis brings his sometimes solid midrange jumper and scrappier savvier offense. They're really different players, and don't duplicate a lot of each others talents.

Sure, but that's also true for Foster and Sheed. I'd try to make the trade around Davis because it wouldn't make sense to me to have players/contracts like Foster or Davis out of the rotation. I wouldn't mind to include Davis in some other deal though.

[scoop]

You'd trade Big Baby for Jeff Foster?  Wow.  Foster is nice to have, but I don't think he's better than Big Baby right now, certainly not good enough to include Baby in a trade for him.

I essentially think that Foster, with his rebounding and defense (quality+versatility), would be a better fit as the 4th big than Davis. But yeah, although they offer different things, I think Foster is still the superior player. 

[ssspence]

You'd trade Big Baby for Jeff Foster?  Wow.  Foster is nice to have, but I don't think he's better than Big Baby right now, certainly not good enough to include Baby in a trade for him.

I essentially think that Foster, with his rebounding and defense (quality+versatility), would be a better fit as the 4th big than Davis. But yeah, although they offer different things, I think Foster is still the superior player. 

Danny would not trade Baby (on a great contract) for Foster. Foster's a defensive 5, which is great to have but not a team need right now. 

I don't see a deal happening involving a 4 or 5 unless there's a clear role in the rotation, and with KG's health unclear we're going to need Baby's game at the 4.