PDA

View Full Version : Trading Jackson and Tinsley



Putnam
06-05-2006, 11:15 AM
Many of the experts around here already know this, but I just realized how hard it will be to trade Jackson and Tinsley. Given salaries and Tinsley's Base Year Compensation status, there are very limited opportunities to trade either player.

There is no player on ANY of the following teams that match up with either Tinsley or Jackson one-for-one on the realgm trade checker:

Boston
Atlanta
Chicago
Denver
LA Lakers
New Orleans
Philadelphia
Utah

According to the trade checker, there are 40 players in the whole NBA who could be traded under the rules of the Collective Bargaining Agreement for Jackson, and even fewer for Tinsley.

Of course, you only need to trade a player once, so 40 options may be plenty. But when you strike off the "old-and-busted" players that we wouldn't take in trade, and the "new hotness" players that we couldn't get, the list becomes very short indeed.

I have three observations.

1. Several of the names that stay on the list of possible trades have been tossed around on this board. (Earl Watson, Stromile Swift, Corey Magette, Morris Peterson, among others). Props to the Pacers Digest participants, who know what they are talking about!

2. The probability of the Pacers doing two-for-one trades or multi-player trades has to be pretty high. If TPTB expect to clear away the problems AND get talent in return, they're going to have to give to get. This means that the likelihood of Foster/Johnson/Jasikavicius/Harrison/Croshere getting caught up in a trade is pretty high, if Jackson and/or Tinsley go.

3. Maybe we need to consider "Getting under the cap" as part of the long-term strategy for righting the ship. As long as the Pacers are over that cap, the possibilities for improving the team are constrained. Walsh likes to field a good, playoff-calibur team every year, but it is costing too much.



Plus it bugs the heck outta me that my hometown team is one of the most overpaid, underachieving, fattest clubs in the league. I want the Knicks to be overpaid, and I want to hate them for it.


.

JayRedd
06-05-2006, 11:23 AM
3. Maybe we need to consider "Getting under the cap" as part of the long-term strategy for righting the ship. As long as the Pacers are over that cap, the possibilities for improving the team are constrained. Walsh likes to field a good, playoff-calibur team every year, but it is costing too much.




BINGO!!!!!

We need to come to the realization that we are not going to improve through trades. Right now, we have three total "assets" that are going to get any interest from GMs throughout the league: JO, Danny and Austin's expiring contract. Harrison and AJ could be seen as intriguing to a few other teams, but aren't anything anyone's getting too excited about.

I imagine we're not trading Granger. And, while it's not out of the question to trade JO, I really don't think we're getting anything back from him that will make us better next year.

So we've either got to hope that we keep getting great players with the 17th pick in the draft, or we need to get under the cap and sign somebody with real NBA talent.

rexnom
06-05-2006, 11:59 AM
BINGO!!!!!

We need to come to the realization that we are not going to improve through trades. Right now, we have three total "assets" that are going to get any interest from GMs throughout the league: JO, Danny and Austin's expiring contract. Harrison and AJ could be seen as intriguing to a few other teams, but aren't anything anyone's getting too excited about.

I imagine we're not trading Granger. And, while it's not out of the question to trade JO, I really don't think we're getting anything back from him that will make us better next year.

So we've either got to hope that we keep getting great players with the 17th pick in the draft, or we need to get under the cap and sign somebody with real NBA talent.
Let's be realistic. How are we going to get under the cap? That will take years of trading established players for expiring contracts and just waiting out the rest and not resigning them. We're not like Phoenix a few years ago or Orlando last year. We don't really have a young team close to the cap.

Then, if we do get under the cap, we need to be VERY far below the cap to add a player of the caliber you are looking far. Consider that FA that leave their old teams almost always get overpaid. Consider also that most quality FAs never leave their old teams via free agency. There have been few exceptions to that rule such as Chauncey to Detroit and Nash to Phoenix. Simply looking at Phoenix, however, it was very hard for them to get Nash over and it was only thanks to Cuban not wanting to commit to him. And no one knew that Chauncey was this good when he was in Minnesota.

To me, free agency is not a realistic option. If you want to rebuild, the best way is through the draft. That will be painful but that's usually how you get your superstar. No thanks. Blow this team up, sure. But rebuild through the draft.

Anthem
06-05-2006, 12:05 PM
Tinsley won't be BYC once the season's over. So that's not an issue.

Putnam
06-05-2006, 12:40 PM
Tinsley won't be BYC once the season's over. So that's not an issue.


Thanks for the correction.

But with a salary of $5.85 million, and a total of $33.6 million remaining on his contract going out to 2011, Tinsley nevertheless is hard to fit into a trade -- harder than Jackson will be.

Anthem
06-05-2006, 12:44 PM
Thanks for the correction.

But with a salary of $5.85 million, and a total of $33.6 million remaining on his contract going out to 2011, Tinsley nevertheless is hard to fit into a trade -- harder than Jackson will be.
Hard to say. I mean, Baron Davis got traded, and he was regarded as more of an injury risk than Tinsley.

I still think Atlanta's a natural trading partner.

Leisure Suit Larry
06-05-2006, 12:50 PM
Hard to say. I mean, Baron Davis got traded, and he was regarded as more of an injury risk than Tinsley.

I still think Atlanta's a natural trading partner.

We better not trade Jackson, I hope not Tinsley either.

Anthem
06-05-2006, 12:56 PM
We better not trade Jackson, I hope not Tinsley either.
Then you've been out in the sun too long.

CableKC
06-05-2006, 01:04 PM
I see 2 scenarios when it comes to moving either SJax and/or Tinsley because of their trade value:

1 ) Trade them for backup players that have a contract that is equal in total $$$ and # of years. Basically a "trade your garbage for my garbage" type deal.

or

2 ) If TPTB get an offer to take on SJax or Tinsley but require that players like JONeal, Foster, AJ or ( even ) Harrison be included. They could be moved....except that we lose a player that we may not want to part with.

I can hope and pray that we can get back an expiring contract, a young player in return...or even a draft pick of some sort.....but if I know that Bird wasn't happy with SJax on/off the court behavior and know that he's likely on the trading block....then its easy to assume that every GM knows the same thing. I wouldn't be surprised if we can only get back cr@p for moving either of them.

My choice is to simply do a straight up swap for the best player that we can get in return for any of them....as long as they have a comprable salary/contract. I just want them off the team, I want to keep the roleplayers on our team ( like AJ or Foster ) that I like and would be wililng to take on equal salary/contract in order to accomplish that goal.

Can someone clarify for me.........does the salary for a player that go out for the 2006-2007 simply have to match the incoming salary for 2006-2007 season ( regardless of the length of the contract )?

For example, say that Tinsley is owed $5.71 mil for the 2006-2007 season but is owe a total of $35 mil over the remaining 5 years of his contract.

Does that mean as long as we have $5.71 mil in 2006-2007 contracts coming in ( regardless of how much they are owed over the length of those contracts ) that trade can occur?

or

Does that mean that ( no matter what ) we have to take in about $35 mil in total contracts in order for the trade to occur?

Its unclear to me whether a trade is based purely on the amount of salary for that upcoming season ( meaning $5.71 mil coming in and $5.71 mil going out ) or if its based on the total amount of the contracts that come in ( as in $35 mil coming in and $35 mil going out ).

Knowing this would help me figure out what are viable trade scenarios.

Leisure Suit Larry
06-05-2006, 01:06 PM
Then you've been out in the sun too long.

Tinsley is worth the risk because we couldn't get **** for him. When he's healthy, he can play and is by far the best PG on the team. I know that's a big IF if he is healthy but I say hold on to him.

Jackson can play. You guys complain because he gets to emotional, so what he cares about the game and wants to win. He was injured like what once this season? In the words of Kellen Winslow, "he's a f**kin soldier."

Putnam
06-05-2006, 01:07 PM
Let's be realistic. How are we going to get under the cap? That will take years of trading established players for expiring contracts and just waiting out the rest and not resigning them.

Yeah, that is what it will take.

"trading established players" = Jackson and Tinsley
"waiting out the rest and not resigning them" = Bender, Pollard, Croshere

Depending on what happens with Foster and Stojakovic, the Pacers could be under the cap as soon as 2008. The process doesn't have to ruin the seasons along the way, since there are players at every position who out-perform our players for less money.


To me, free agency is not a realistic option. If you want to rebuild, the best way is through the draft. That will be painful but that's usually how you get your superstar. No thanks. Blow this team up, sure. But rebuild through the draft.

I didn't mean to imply that all the rebuilding would be done through trading,and certainly not through signing free agents. I agree it's better to draft and develop the core of the team.

I don't expect the Pacers to develop through signing pricey free agents. I'd expect 8+ positions on the roster to always be drafted players. But if they need a piece (Mark Jackson, Derrick McKey, Chris Mullen, etc.) I want them to be able to get him without hindrance from the CBA. That just seems like smart management.

CableKC
06-05-2006, 01:11 PM
Hard to say. I mean, Baron Davis got traded, and he was regarded as more of an injury risk than Tinsley.

I still think Atlanta's a natural trading partner.

I'm gonna throw out a possible dark horse for a candidate for "trading partner" for Tinsley......the Kings.

They need a backup PG, they have some redundancy in their frontcourt and the Maloofs have been known to take risks on some players.

Jon Theodore
06-05-2006, 01:12 PM
Yeah trading tinsley is a joke. We can't get **** for him, I don't understand how people can't see that. I actually don't want to trade either of these guys, I just want a new coach.

A coach who will discipline jackson and not let tinsleys injuries mess with the rotations so much. In other words, don't let Tinsley start unless he goes a LONG time without injuries.

A new coach is all this team really needs. George Karl could turn this team around.

rm1369
06-05-2006, 01:12 PM
Let's be realistic. How are we going to get under the cap? That will take years of trading established players for expiring contracts and just waiting out the rest and not resigning them. We're not like Phoenix a few years ago or Orlando last year. We don't really have a young team close to the cap.

Then, if we do get under the cap, we need to be VERY far below the cap to add a player of the caliber you are looking far. Consider that FA that leave their old teams almost always get overpaid. Consider also that most quality FAs never leave their old teams via free agency. There have been few exceptions to that rule such as Chauncey to Detroit and Nash to Phoenix. Simply looking at Phoenix, however, it was very hard for them to get Nash over and it was only thanks to Cuban not wanting to commit to him. And no one knew that Chauncey was this good when he was in Minnesota.

To me, free agency is not a realistic option. If you want to rebuild, the best way is through the draft. That will be painful but that's usually how you get your superstar. No thanks. Blow this team up, sure. But rebuild through the draft.

I'm starting to think the only way to rebuild is to dump Jermaine for a young player or 2 and some expiring contracts. It kills us talent wise but I would probably do:

Indiana Trade Breakdown
Outgoing
Jermaine O'Neal
Stephen Jackson
Jamaal Tinsley

Incoming
Jalen Rose (expiring)
Jamal Crawford
Channing Frye
David Lee
#20 Pick
#29 Pick

That gives us only about $25,000,000 million in committed salaries for the 2007 / 08 season (not counting three late draft choices or resigning Peja / Freddie)

AJ / Sarunas
Crawford / Rose
Granger / Rose
Fry / Croshere / Lee
Foster / Harrison
3 late draft picks + possible S & T of Peja and Freddie

Thats ugly, but we would clear our past sins, have some young talent, caproom, and flexibility (with Croshere + Rose expiring contracts).

Even though that team would suck, I'd bet the fans would like it more.

I can't see Isaih passing on that. Not that I think it would be a good move for New York, but I can't see IT passing up the chance to acquire JO.

Probably wrong place for this, but your post made me curious.

Peck
06-05-2006, 01:13 PM
Free agency is a rough racket.

Remember when Chicago dumped all of it's players to get under the cap? What big name free agent signed there? None.

Same with Denver, Atlanta & Toronto.

The draft is also a dicey proposition as that you never know what you have until about mid-way through the first season & even then you don't always know. Also unless you are dealing with a star player it usually takes 2-3 years for a player to develop into a real contributer so if you take say 3 drafts it might be 6 years for those three players to be gelled as a unit to play. The league changes to often for that.

Trades also are a crapshoot because sometimes things that look good on paper just don't work out chemistry wise for your team, look no further than Al for Jax to answer that one.

In all honesty there is no ONE way to do it, you have to be pro-active in all three levels to ever have a chance.

You have to look to sign solid free agents, knowing up front that you are not going to sign an established star player because they just don't move very often & when they do Indiana is not the place they go. Generally you are going to either get a young raw player, like Washington did with Arenas, & hope they devlop or you can build a solid bench with free agency.

You always have to be on the lookout for your draft pick. Get the best player you can at the position you are at. However one of the real dangers of being mediocre is that you fall into the middle of the first round. You can get good players there, but you are not going to get immediate impact players there who change your franchise. Even Granger, as much as I love him, was not an immediate impact player. He is still developing & in about another year or two he could be a star but it still is going to take time.

For the Pacers, IMO, the best way to improve our team is by trade. Not just for what we can bring in but in all honesty for what we can get rid of as well.

No you won't be able to trade Stephen Jackson by himself for anything really good. But combine Jackson with Jeff Foster & you could probably get a good player or a couple of good players. Jamaal Tinsley by himself is worthless, but Jamaal with Austin Croshere's ending contract could net you a good player. To move some of our junk we are going to have to package up a player or two we don't want to get rid of but that's just the way it is. Saras, Cro, Foster, Harrison or Johnson could all be packaged with one of the malcontents to get a good player in return.

Now all it takes is for management to commit to this, which may or may not be the plan.

Leisure Suit Larry
06-05-2006, 01:26 PM
Yeah trading tinsley is a joke. We can't get **** for him, I don't understand how people can't see that. I actually don't want to trade either of these guys, I just want a new coach.

A coach who will discipline jackson and not let tinsleys injuries mess with the rotations so much. In other words, don't let Tinsley start unless he goes a LONG time without injuries.

A new coach is all this team really needs. George Karl could turn this team around.

I agree but we aren't getting George Karl. We need someone who can get along with the players and let them do their thing on the court sometimes.

CableKC
06-05-2006, 02:03 PM
Tinsley is worth the risk because we couldn't get **** for him. When he's healthy, he can play and is by far the best PG on the team. I know that's a big IF if he is healthy but I say hold on to him.

Jackson can play. You guys complain because he gets to emotional, so what he cares about the game and wants to win.
Why must we all go through this again? Oyyy.....

I do not dispute that they have their positives....but there are too many negatives for me to ignore. For Tinsley; its the "injury-prone" question and the resulting instability at the PG rotation for AJ, Sarunas and the rest of the lineup. For SJax; its the inconsistency, his penchant to play selfishly and his inability to not carry out long-conversations with the ref while the rest of the team is on the other side of the court finishing up the play.

The problem with having them in the roster is that it creates too much instability and variables that I want to eliminate that ultimately causes too many problems over the course of the season. If we are forced to live with Carlisle for another season...then I want to minimize ( if not eliminate ) any drama over the course of the season.

You can say the same exact things with JONeal....but because its going to be far more difficult to move him and actually get back a fair trade that will benefit the team......I would live with him ( and his negatives ) in the immediate near-future. I actually care what we get back for JONeal as he is the franchise player and the biggest contract.....but I could live with getting back "just decent" players in return for any of them...as long as they aren't "potential headaches" for the team.


He was injured like what once this season? In the words of Kellen Winslow, "he's a f**kin soldier."

He maybe a soldier and the most durable between the starting 5....but I would to not keep the soldier that keeps on shooting himself or the team in the foot on a regular basis.

Young
06-05-2006, 02:06 PM
Here are some ideas for trading Tinsley and Jackson.

For Tinsley:

Pacers Get: Marko Jaric
Wolves Get: Jamaal Tinsley
This doesn't help either team out with $, it's pretty much an "trade your garbage for my garbage" to quote CableKC. Marko might fit better in Indy, and the Wolves have insurance incase Marcus Banks doesn't re-sign with them.

Pacers Get: Malik Rose
Knicks Get: Jamaal Tinsley
This deal gives us a shorter contract. For the Knicks they get a pass first point guard, but if they do this they would defiantly be trading either Marbury or Francis. David Harrison and Nate Robinson could be added in the deal too.

Pacers Get: Luke Jackson/Ira Newble
Cavs Get: Jamaal Tinsley
If the Cavs want to upgrade the point guard spot, I read yesterday I think it was they have interest in Andre Miller, then Tinsley would be an opition. For the Pacers we rid ourselves of Tinsley's contract while getting a young talent with skills and a veteran defender.

For Jackson:

Pacers Get: Luke Jackson/Ira Newble
Cavs Get: Stephen Jackson
I also suggested this trade with Tinsley as you can see. I think that if the Cavs want a 3rd scorer to complament Lebron and Larry, Jackson would be a great fit. Mike Brown seems to like Jackson, so I think this is a real possiabilty.

Pacers Get: Marquis Daniels
Mavs Get: Stephen Jackson
Daniels is seldom used by the Mavs. The Mavs might want Jackson's scoring. This really doesn't help us or them Mavs out with $, but it's a trade your junk for someone elses junk type deal.

Pacers Get: Sasha Vujacic, Devean George (S&T to a 1 year, 5 million deal, don't know if George would accept that though. He may want a multi year deal.)
Lakers Get: Stephen Jackson
I think that Jackson could make a good fit in the Triangle. It gives us some shorter contracts. This would be a great trade for us, IMO, getting a young talent in Sasha and an expiering veteran in George.

I think any of the deals are pretty fair for both teams, and I could see them happening, of course it depends on what other GMs want to do.

CableKC
06-05-2006, 02:11 PM
Free agency is a rough racket.

Remember when Chicago dumped all of it's players to get under the cap? What big name free agent signed there? None.

Same with Denver, Atlanta & Toronto.

The draft is also a dicey proposition as that you never know what you have until about mid-way through the first season & even then you don't always know. Also unless you are dealing with a star player it usually takes 2-3 years for a player to develop into a real contributer so if you take say 3 drafts it might be 6 years for those three players to be gelled as a unit to play. The league changes to often for that.

Trades also are a crapshoot because sometimes things that look good on paper just don't work out chemistry wise for your team, look no further than Al for Jax to answer that one.

In all honesty there is no ONE way to do it, you have to be pro-active in all three levels to ever have a chance.

You have to look to sign solid free agents, knowing up front that you are not going to sign an established star player because they just don't move very often & when they do Indiana is not the place they go. Generally you are going to either get a young raw player, like Washington did with Arenas, & hope they devlop or you can build a solid bench with free agency.

You always have to be on the lookout for your draft pick. Get the best player you can at the position you are at. However one of the real dangers of being mediocre is that you fall into the middle of the first round. You can get good players there, but you are not going to get immediate impact players there who change your franchise. Even Granger, as much as I love him, was not an immediate impact player. He is still developing & in about another year or two he could be a star but it still is going to take time.

For the Pacers, IMO, the best way to improve our team is by trade. Not just for what we can bring in but in all honesty for what we can get rid of as well.

No you won't be able to trade Stephen Jackson by himself for anything really good. But combine Jackson with Jeff Foster & you could probably get a good player or a couple of good players. Jamaal Tinsley by himself is worthless, but Jamaal with Austin Croshere's ending contract could net you a good player. To move some of our junk we are going to have to package up a player or two we don't want to get rid of but that's just the way it is. Saras, Cro, Foster, Harrison or Johnson could all be packaged with one of the malcontents to get a good player in return.

Now all it takes is for management to commit to this, which may or may not be the plan.

I completely agree....rebuidling through freeing up capspace for runs at huge top tier Free Agents don't always work for small Market teams like Indy. Heck...it didn't even work for Chicago ( a big Market team ) a couple of years back.

The bottom line is that even if we freed up huge amounts of salary to sign a top tier Free Agent......I would find it hard for them to come to Indy since we will likely be in a "rebuilding mode". Top Tier Free agents that everyone wants that will command huge contracts will want to somewhere where they can make their money and win a ring. If we dump JONeal and get back only "solid players" and capspace....we are going to land in Lotteryland for the next couple of years.

Also...I don't that Walsh has a history of opening up the wallets to go after Big $$$ Free Agents. He rebuilds through the draft and S&T of players with established contracts. Any move Walsh/Bird makes that involves JONeal has to net them a solid foundation to build on but ( at the same time ) allow the Pacers to be competitive.

JayRedd
06-05-2006, 02:17 PM
Yeah trading tinsley is a joke. We can't get **** for him, I don't understand how people can't see that. I actually don't want to trade either of these guys, I just want a new coach.

A coach who will discipline jackson and not let tinsleys injuries mess with the rotations so much. In other words, don't let Tinsley start unless he goes a LONG time without injuries.



It's not even about talent at this point. This post-Palace of Auburn Hills fiasco team needs to be disesembled--at least somewhat. I really believe there is residual locker room problems that are probably just getting worse and worse with all the mediocrity. It really goes back to what Bird was saying about needing a culture change. I have no idea whether or not Jackson is a "bad" guy. But I know from everyone's body language, media squabling, inconsistency and general apathetic behavior that there is something going on that matters more than the actual ability these guys have to play basketball.

Firing Carlisle and getting a new coach may help to do this. But I still think there needs to be a new locker room culture led by a few Pacer vets like JO, AJ, Croshere. Without this, I think Danny, Harrison, Peja, Saras and any other new Pacers are going to just fall into this bad environment. And I think, the easist and quickest way to change this--or at least try to--is to get rid of Jax and TinMan and bring in the best, cheapest guys you can.

JayRedd
06-05-2006, 02:23 PM
I completely agree....rebuidling through freeing up capspace for runs at huge top tier Free Agents don't always work for small Market teams like Indy. Heck...it didn't even work for Chicago ( a big Market team ) a couple of years back.


Not sure why nobody thinks the Chicago situation is working out well. On next year's roster, they have Hinrich, Deng, Gordon and Nocioni and after the season, they'll have over $20 million to make a run at Bron, Wade, Bosh, Pierce, Carmelo or maybe even Dirk or Vince. I'd say they have one of the brightest--and most flexible--futures of any team in this league right now.

But, yes, they have drafted extremely well also.

Jermaniac
06-05-2006, 02:27 PM
The only trade I would do there is the Marquise Daniels for Stephen. Rest of them suck.