For 3 out the past 4 seasons Jeff Foster has averaged over 3 offensive rebounds a game. He doesn't block shots, but in look at the 2 categories what is more beneficial for the team? A blocked shot could got 1 of 3 ways- 1 it could get deflected back to the opposing team, 2 it could get knocked out of bounds which means it goes back to the opposing team, or 3 we could actually get the ball off the blocked shot deflection. Now for an offensive rebound it goes one way and one way only it gives the ball back to US, gives us another 24 second clock assuming it touched the rim, and lastly gives us a 2nd opportunity to score, on top of completely frustrating the opposing team. In my opinion blocked shots are overrated in comparison to offensive rebounds. And if we were to have a choice between 2 one-dimensional players 1 who blocks lots of shots, and one who gets lots of offensive rebounds, then I would choose the latter. That is just my opinion though!
Sacramento, Indiana Closing in on Deal?
- Thread starter Mike0476
- Start date
Fortunately.
Its a load of hooey. I would be willing to bet there is less correlation between offensive rebounding and winning big then there is between defensive rebounding and winning big, let alone shotblcoking and winning big. I myself used to be a great offensive rebounder. Loved it. Had a knack for where the ball was going to go. But I am under no illusion -- its showy. Like a dunk. But DEFENSE is where you win big. DEFENSIVE reboudning. DEFENSIVE shotblocking. Closing down that lane. Shutting off those second chance opportunities. I will take a big defensive rebounder who isn't much on the offensive glass over a big offensive reboudner who doesn't help on the defensive glass any day of the week. Less showy. Less fun. But the meat and potatoes of an elite winning defense. One and out for the other team. And let's not even get to shotblocking where a guy who blocks 2.5 a game is probably responsible for at least that many intimidations and another handful of changed decisions -- singlehandedly altering the entire attack of the opponent.
i don't really like the rumored deal. jeff foster is, as brick said several posts back, at best a glorified throw-in in a sign-and-trade for bonzi wells. sarunas is also kind of a ? to me. he seems like he could be a solid backup, but its all backwards. foster should be the throw-in, not the highlight of the deal, and we should really have no interest in sarunas at all, considering we're guard-heavy at the moment. and, unless i'm missing something, what's the point of not paying bonzi wells, a 29-year-old guard, if you're gonna get back another 29-year-old guard who is much less talented and not nearly as useful?
I'm not for getting Sarunas, but Foster is good. He played Rasheed and Ben Wallace pretty well in the games I've seen. That's a huge step over what we have now in the interior which is nothing. Bonzi Wells can be a great player, but he is not going to play like he did in the playoffs on a regular basis. The way I look at this trade ....It's better to get something (which we lack) for nothing.
Actually less talented than KT, but as far as I know lacks the delusions of grandeur and is willing to accept his role. Just go out there and bust his behind on the glass. If he could just block Earl Boynkins shot he would be much more useful. As is, its just the one thing. Superspecialist. He's like the Steve Kerr of rebounders.
Quite surprised at your view of Foster actually. Could be Bonzi's agent told Petrie that other than a sign and trade he'll just go home to Indiana for the full MLE if the Kings offer is only about 1mil more/year...hard to tell at this point.
If so, GP goes for a guy who is an elite rebounder AND solid defender AND has size but cannot score or block shots. I agree that I'd rather have Chandler than Foster any day of the week, but it's not like Chandler is an elite shotblocker either. Solid, but not great. The youth is the big draw there.
I'd rather just resign Bonzi as well but if the deal is really falling apart behind the scenes and tempers are flaring Foster may be the best we get...especially since we don't even really have Bonzi now anyway.
If so, GP goes for a guy who is an elite rebounder AND solid defender AND has size but cannot score or block shots. I agree that I'd rather have Chandler than Foster any day of the week, but it's not like Chandler is an elite shotblocker either. Solid, but not great. The youth is the big draw there.
I'd rather just resign Bonzi as well but if the deal is really falling apart behind the scenes and tempers are flaring Foster may be the best we get...especially since we don't even really have Bonzi now anyway.
Are our views really that different? Foster has ONE thing he does that keeps him in the league. Does it real well. But he's still an immensely limited player. And if he wasn't actually BAD at the other parts of the game, that thing he does well would be much niftier. As it is its not like he's an ok or solid scorer or shotblocker or anything else. Pretty much he's just bad at everything except rebounding. Will stand in there on defense against his own man, but when we are talking about needing to up the interior defense that is the lesser of our concerns. As a help defender/shotblocker he makes Brad look like Zo, and that's not easy to do. Puzzling too, as he's tall enough, and has the right mentality, but is just totally ineffective at stopping anybody but his own man.
I actually like Foster, or would, if he were a 15-20min backup that we had landed cheaply. But not at this cost. And not with any delusions that he is going to majorly shore up the things that ail us. He only helps the one thing, but of course at the cost of losing the guy who was the best at that thing in return, and he is actually bad at the rest of the stuff. If you are going to do this you've got to be making some other ratehr significant moves to justify it, because this move on its own stinks.
Just as an aside, given that Bonzi actually outplayed Peja last year, how would people have felt if what we got back for Peja was Foster and Jasekvecius? See, that is the problem. You never want to get midlevel midaged guys for impact players.
I actually like Foster, or would, if he were a 15-20min backup that we had landed cheaply. But not at this cost. And not with any delusions that he is going to majorly shore up the things that ail us. He only helps the one thing, but of course at the cost of losing the guy who was the best at that thing in return, and he is actually bad at the rest of the stuff. If you are going to do this you've got to be making some other ratehr significant moves to justify it, because this move on its own stinks.
Just as an aside, given that Bonzi actually outplayed Peja last year, how would people have felt if what we got back for Peja was Foster and Jasekvecius? See, that is the problem. You never want to get midlevel midaged guys for impact players.
Last edited:
I'd still push for it, and once that avenue is exhausted and only until then, I'll except Shawne Williams, who I wanted us to draft if we didn't pick a big— in hopes we might be able to use him in a small ball line-up.
You watch more Pacers games, so I won't disagree with you, but what you said about Jeff guarding the best offensive player doesn't prove nothing. JO is a big part of the offense and having Foster guard the other team’s best offensive player can be strategy to protect JO. Not having to baby-sit good offensive players frees up JO to help out on penetrators and takes advantage of his blocking ability.
You watch more Pacers games, so I won't disagree with you, but what you said about Jeff guarding the best offensive player doesn't prove nothing. JO is a big part of the offense and having Foster guard the other team’s best offensive player can be strategy to protect JO. Not having to baby-sit good offensive players frees up JO to help out on penetrators and takes advantage of his blocking ability.
no, i think what brick is saying is that foster is not a great post defender. i don't really know, cuz i don't recall many instances in which i've seen jeff foster play. perhaps that's because he's only a 15-20 minute guy, which is okay if he's filler in a sign-and-trade for bonzi, but he sure as hell better not be the highlight of the deal for the kings when you're letting go of an impact player.
No, a fair comparison might be just Scot Pollard, leaving the rich off. But Scot was actually a considerably better shotblocker than Foster -- and that's a major sticking point. There is no Jermaine here to cover for the lack of shotblocking from our centers. Foster is not a scrub and has a use in this league as a roleplayer, but like most limited roleplayers, you can only afford to use them if you have the right personnel around them to make up for it.
Again I just have to point this out: you are trading a guy who averaged 23pts 12rebs in the playoffs against the Spurs and destroyed Bruce Bowen for a guy who averaged 2.8ppg 6rpg against the interior defense of the New Jersey Nets (i.e. nonexistent). There is a reason that the Pacers will be quite happy to make this move and dump some more midlevel contracts on us, and its not because David Harrison is going to play 48min a game for them next year.
Again I just have to point this out: you are trading a guy who averaged 23pts 12rebs in the playoffs against the Spurs and destroyed Bruce Bowen for a guy who averaged 2.8ppg 6rpg against the interior defense of the New Jersey Nets (i.e. nonexistent). There is a reason that the Pacers will be quite happy to make this move and dump some more midlevel contracts on us, and its not because David Harrison is going to play 48min a game for them next year.
Last edited:
True, unless that guy is leaving anyway for nothing. It is puzzling though since Bonzi seemed very sincere in wanting to come back and I would think unlikely that he would throw a fit and say he would be disgruntled if playing for 5/36. We hold all the cards here until another team steps up under the cap or Bonzi throws an absolute fit and starts tossing demands and ultimatums around.
I'm still hoping this is a desperate attempt by Bonzi's agent, who seems like a real ahole btw, to get more $$ in a soft market. Maybe he came up with the trade himself based on known needs, floated it to the Pacers and the press. Who knows...will find out soon enough.
I'm still hoping this is a desperate attempt by Bonzi's agent, who seems like a real ahole btw, to get more $$ in a soft market. Maybe he came up with the trade himself based on known needs, floated it to the Pacers and the press. Who knows...will find out soon enough.
Looking at his career stats he actually is pretty close to Pollard, him being the much better rebounder and Pollard being the better shot-blocker. Based on the reports I'll give Foster the edge in post defense, so he's still a "Well-to-Do Man's" Scott Pollard.
As for the comparison of playoff stats, you're just comparing six games, it definitely means something that it was against Bruce Bowen and the Spurs, but it doesn't mean everything. If there is one huge mistake teams make it is overpaying for playoff performance.
During the regular season:
Bonzi: 52 games - 13.6 ppg on 11.5 shots 2.8 apg 7.7 rpg 32.4 mpg
Foster: 63 games - 5.9 ppg on 4 shots. 0.8 apg 9.1 rpg 25 mpg
Sarunas: 75 games - 7.3 ppg on 5.7 shots. 3 apg 2 rpg 20mpg
I put up the shots because it shows that Sarunas actually gets good bang for his buck, better points per shot than Bonzi.
So although I know you can't entirely take out Bonzi's superb playoff performance, by trading away a SG, we get two really nice pieces at backup point and backup big. Although you disagree Brick, I am of the mind that Kevin is ready to go to take Bonzi's place, and that this is a good deal.
As for the comparison of playoff stats, you're just comparing six games, it definitely means something that it was against Bruce Bowen and the Spurs, but it doesn't mean everything. If there is one huge mistake teams make it is overpaying for playoff performance.
During the regular season:
Bonzi: 52 games - 13.6 ppg on 11.5 shots 2.8 apg 7.7 rpg 32.4 mpg
Foster: 63 games - 5.9 ppg on 4 shots. 0.8 apg 9.1 rpg 25 mpg
Sarunas: 75 games - 7.3 ppg on 5.7 shots. 3 apg 2 rpg 20mpg
I put up the shots because it shows that Sarunas actually gets good bang for his buck, better points per shot than Bonzi.
So although I know you can't entirely take out Bonzi's superb playoff performance, by trading away a SG, we get two really nice pieces at backup point and backup big. Although you disagree Brick, I am of the mind that Kevin is ready to go to take Bonzi's place, and that this is a good deal.
Bonzi deal
the Bee just picked up on this:
http://www.sacbee.com/content/sports/story/14276837p-15086115c.html
Wells may be traded to Pacers
By Sam Amick -- Bee Staff Writer
Published 11:22 am PDT Tuesday, July 11, 2006
LAS VEGAS - Bonzi Wells may be going home again.
According to draftexpress.com, the Kings and Indiana Pacers are discussing a sign-and-trade that would send the free-agent shooting guard to his home state and bring center Jeff Foster and point guard Sarunas Jasikevicius to Sacramento.
Reached late Monday night, Wells' agent, William Phillips, told The Bee that a sign-and-trade was a definite part of the slow-moving discussions, and that one team had "come up the board" among the six teams he's been negotiating with. Reportedly, the Kings' contract offer was for five years and $36 million, which would be a pay cut from the $8 million Wells earned last season.
But doing the deal involving Foster - a 6-11 center/forward who will make $5.2 million this season - and Jasikevicius - a 6-4 guard who will make $4 million - would certainly give Wells the money he desires while giving the Kings the depth down low they need, not to mention a promising point guard.
Per the terms of the NBA's collective bargaining agreement, the salaries of the players in sign-and-trade deals must be within 25 percent of each other, meaning Wells' salary could range from $6.9 million to $11.5 million.
"That's part of (the discussions)," Phillips said regarding sign-and-trades. "Straight signings are part of it. We're talking with Sacramento. We're talking with other teams, some teams that that are over the (salary) cap and some who are under. ... One team has come up the board. I'll know a lot more in the next 24 to 48 hours."
While free agents can't be signed until Wednesday, the significance of the July 12 date goes beyond that. The coming season's exact salary cap figure will be known by then, as well as the luxury tax threshhold. The Kings worked hard to get under the tax last season, finally doing so with the trade that sent Brian Skinner to Portland and brought Vitaly Potapenko and Sergei Monia to Sacramento. Teams that are over the tax have to pay an extra dollar for each dollar they spend over the tax, a costly price they'd rather not pay.
Phillips told the Associated Press last week that Wells - who is a native of Muncie, Ind., and played at Ball State - would enjoy going back.
"Anytime you have an opportunity to come home, it's a great opportunity," Phillips said last week. "Initially, I mentioned the Pacers to Bonzi, and based off his reaction, I could tell he was pretty excited." Foster has two seasons left on his contract, with a player option for 2008-09. Jasikevicius has two seasons remaining on his deal.
the Bee just picked up on this:
http://www.sacbee.com/content/sports/story/14276837p-15086115c.html
Wells may be traded to Pacers
By Sam Amick -- Bee Staff Writer
Published 11:22 am PDT Tuesday, July 11, 2006
LAS VEGAS - Bonzi Wells may be going home again.
According to draftexpress.com, the Kings and Indiana Pacers are discussing a sign-and-trade that would send the free-agent shooting guard to his home state and bring center Jeff Foster and point guard Sarunas Jasikevicius to Sacramento.
Reached late Monday night, Wells' agent, William Phillips, told The Bee that a sign-and-trade was a definite part of the slow-moving discussions, and that one team had "come up the board" among the six teams he's been negotiating with. Reportedly, the Kings' contract offer was for five years and $36 million, which would be a pay cut from the $8 million Wells earned last season.
But doing the deal involving Foster - a 6-11 center/forward who will make $5.2 million this season - and Jasikevicius - a 6-4 guard who will make $4 million - would certainly give Wells the money he desires while giving the Kings the depth down low they need, not to mention a promising point guard.
Per the terms of the NBA's collective bargaining agreement, the salaries of the players in sign-and-trade deals must be within 25 percent of each other, meaning Wells' salary could range from $6.9 million to $11.5 million.
"That's part of (the discussions)," Phillips said regarding sign-and-trades. "Straight signings are part of it. We're talking with Sacramento. We're talking with other teams, some teams that that are over the (salary) cap and some who are under. ... One team has come up the board. I'll know a lot more in the next 24 to 48 hours."
While free agents can't be signed until Wednesday, the significance of the July 12 date goes beyond that. The coming season's exact salary cap figure will be known by then, as well as the luxury tax threshhold. The Kings worked hard to get under the tax last season, finally doing so with the trade that sent Brian Skinner to Portland and brought Vitaly Potapenko and Sergei Monia to Sacramento. Teams that are over the tax have to pay an extra dollar for each dollar they spend over the tax, a costly price they'd rather not pay.
Phillips told the Associated Press last week that Wells - who is a native of Muncie, Ind., and played at Ball State - would enjoy going back.
"Anytime you have an opportunity to come home, it's a great opportunity," Phillips said last week. "Initially, I mentioned the Pacers to Bonzi, and based off his reaction, I could tell he was pretty excited." Foster has two seasons left on his contract, with a player option for 2008-09. Jasikevicius has two seasons remaining on his deal.
Well, of course the story from DE is going to get around... alls it is is rehashing it, and using past stuff in the article there.
Just like posting the DE.com blurb on message boards (which it has, here, and on a couple other kings boards, and pacersdigest.com I'd bet).
I mean from a different source other than DE.com, which I don't think is legit. They reported KG to Sac for Brad/Bibby/pieces...
Just like posting the DE.com blurb on message boards (which it has, here, and on a couple other kings boards, and pacersdigest.com I'd bet).
I mean from a different source other than DE.com, which I don't think is legit. They reported KG to Sac for Brad/Bibby/pieces...