PDA

View Full Version : Jack vs. Tins



Shade
06-29-2006, 10:19 AM
If you could only get rid of one player, which would it be? I chose these two because they seem to be the two least popular Pacers by far.

FrenchConnection
06-29-2006, 10:20 AM
Tins.. At least Jack plays.

Frank Slade
06-29-2006, 10:22 AM
If you could only get rid of one player, which would it be? I chose these two because they seem to be the two least popular Pacers by far.

Tinsley.

naptownmenace
06-29-2006, 10:23 AM
See my sig.

circlecitysportsfan
06-29-2006, 10:23 AM
Atleast with Jack you have a guy you know is going to show up and play.

*Libel removed*

[Referring to Tinsley] I can't wait untill he's gone, how could you have that much talent and just not care?

Jon Theodore
06-29-2006, 10:24 AM
TInsley also smokes a lot of pot, dont forget that folks.

317Kim
06-29-2006, 10:26 AM
Jamaal Tinsley.

Shade
06-29-2006, 10:27 AM
Wow, I knew a lot of people didn't like Tinsley, but I didn't realize he's the anti-Christ. :eek:

circlecitysportsfan
06-29-2006, 10:28 AM
Wow, I knew a lot of people didn't like Tinsley, but I didn't realize he's the anti-Christ. :eek:

No he killed the Anti-Christ because he thought he was too soft.

JayRedd
06-29-2006, 10:34 AM
My only problem with Tins is the injury question. Really not comfortable calling him fat and lazy and heartless and etc like some of you, when some of his injuries have been completely legitimate, but I do admit that Jerry Rice he is not.

What I do know though is that Jax has to go. He's a Palace of Auburn Hills reminder and he's just not that good to begin with. At least Tinsley is a very good player. The contracts are about the same: Tins makes a tiny bit less, but does have a worrying extra year on his deal.

My take is this: We know Tins is injury prone. But this could (doubtful, I know) possibly change. And we know Stephen Jackson is Stephen Jackson. This is not going to change.

Putnam
06-29-2006, 10:35 AM
I'll keep Tinsley. At least he sits quietly at the end of the bench rather than going out on the floor, taking bad shots and slacking on defense the way Jackson does.

Jackson will be easier to trade, both because of his 05-06 performance and his contract.

But they've both got to go.

Shade
06-29-2006, 10:35 AM
My take is this: We know Tins is injury prone. But this could (doubtful, I know) possibly change. And we know Stephen Jackson is Stephen Jackson. This is not going to change.

QFT

Putnam
06-29-2006, 10:37 AM
What I do know though is that Jax has to go. He's a Palace of Auburn Hills reminder and he's just not that good to begin with. At least Tinsley is a very good player. The contracts are about the same: Tins makes a tiny bit less, but does have a worrying extra year on his deal.

My take is this: We know Tins is injury prone. But this could (doubtful, I know) possibly change. And we know Stephen Jackson is Stephen Jackson. This is not going to change.


Excellent post!

Unclebuck
06-29-2006, 10:44 AM
This is a tough call.

Tinsley is a quiet killer. Jax is much more obvious.

Would you rather just be shot in the heart and die quickly. Or die a slow and painful almost invisible death.

Those are the two choices.

I guess i'd rather die all at once

Leisure Suit Larry
06-29-2006, 10:46 AM
Where is the option "NEITHER"

JayRedd
06-29-2006, 10:47 AM
Where is the option "NEITHER"

Hahhahaha....

Wait?!?! Are you serious? You wanna keep both of these knuckleheads?

Leisure Suit Larry
06-29-2006, 10:50 AM
Hahhahaha....

Wait?!?! Are you serious? You wanna keep both of these knuckleheads?

Yeah, I like Tinsley a lot, just the injuries bother me and we won't get anything good for him.

I don't get how you can like Jackson. He plays hard and if he is hurt he doesn't miss games. He's an f'in soldier.

JayRedd
06-29-2006, 10:58 AM
He's an f'in soldier.

A soldier with a great right hook. Until he's gone, those images of him throwing haymakers in the stands will not be gone from this team.

Leisure Suit Larry
06-29-2006, 10:59 AM
A soldier with a great right hook. Until he's gone, those images of him throwing haymakers in the stands will not be gone from this team.

Oh My GOD. GET OVER IT. That was 2 years ago, nobody even cares anymore.

Putnam
06-29-2006, 11:00 AM
A soldier with a great right hook. Until he's gone, those images of him throwing haymakers in the stands will not be gone from this team.


Darn right!

JayRedd
06-29-2006, 11:04 AM
nobody even cares anymore.

Really?

Pretty sure Larry Bird, Donnie Walsh, the Simons, half the players and 75% of the people buying tickets are still pretty embarrassed/bothered by it.

Keeping Ron around and hoping the "cloud would disperse on its own" was a gamble worth making because of the talent involved. Jackson is an overwhelmingly average NBA player. There is no sense in keeping this stale atmosphere around and letting it saturate people like Granger, Harrison, Sarunas and our new picks.

Leisure Suit Larry
06-29-2006, 11:10 AM
Really?

Pretty sure Larry Bird, Donnie Walsh, the Simons, half the players and 75% of the people buying tickets are still pretty embarrassed/bothered by it.

Keeping Ron around and hoping the "cloud would disperse on its own" was a gamble worth making because of the talent involved. Jackson is an overwhelmingly average NBA player. There is no sense in keeping this stale atmosphere around and letting it saturate people like Granger, Harrison, Sarunas and our new picks.

We should get rid of Harrison, Jones, and AJ too then....oh yeah and Jermaine

Brian
06-29-2006, 11:19 AM
Neither AS OF NOW...What could we really get for those 2?.People would low-ball us with both of them,And if they were on another team and got offered to us I hope we would too.I dont see LB saying "well how about we give you granger/saras for jax/tins".

Because Ill tell you what teams think when they look at those 2.

Jack-Ok,decent shooter,good defender,extremely easy to get into his head and throw him off of his game.

Tinsley-Could be one of the top 5 pg's in the NBA...when healthy.Which we doubt that he is actually injuried all the time,lacks heart is his problem.Would rather chill in the offseason than keep himself in shape.

Bball
06-29-2006, 11:30 AM
I would've liked to have seen Sjax disciplined last year and put on a short leash to see how he might've responded. But I think we've come too far for that now. The fans have spoken, and unfortunately TPTB (with Coach Carlisle at the front of the line) didn't speak when it might've made a difference. The horse is already out of the barn now so there is no use in shutting the door now.

So, altho I chose Tinsley as my pick if I could only pick one, that doesn't mean I'm saying Sjax should stay.

-Bball

Shade
06-29-2006, 11:37 AM
Neither AS OF NOW...What could we really get for those 2?.People would low-ball us with both of them,And if they were on another team and got offered to us I hope we would too.I dont see LB saying "well how about we give you granger/saras for jax/tins".

Because Ill tell you what teams think when they look at those 2.

Jack-Ok,decent shooter,good defender,extremely easy to get into his head and throw him off of his game.

Tinsley-Could be one of the top 5 pg's in the NBA...when healthy.Which we doubt that he is actually injuried all the time,lacks heart is his problem.Would rather chill in the offseason than keep himself in shape.

Personally, I'd look to package one with Foster and one with Cro, hopefully brining back a center and a shooting guard.

Jermaniac
06-29-2006, 11:38 AM
I love me some Jamaal Tinsley

Trader Joe
06-29-2006, 11:43 AM
It all depends on what you can get. I would keep Tins before Jack tho. Really both need to go tho. Lets be honest.

ChicagoJ
06-29-2006, 12:25 PM
My take is this: We know Tins is injury prone. But this could (doubtful, I know) possibly change. And we know Stephen Jackson is Stephen Jackson. This is not going to change.


Wow... I wish I'd written that... perfect!

I'm still okay with seeing how Tinsley responds to a new coach before he's dumped.

SJax wore out his welcome with me a long, long, long time ago. (Actually, when he was still on the Spurs.)

Bball
06-29-2006, 12:32 PM
Wow... I wish I'd written that... perfect!

I'm still okay with seeing how Tinsley responds to a new coach before he's dumped.

SJax wore out his welcome with me a long, long, long time ago. (Actually, when he was still on the Spurs.)


There's still room on the bandwagon to drive Tinsley out of town. You're welcome to join us.

-Bball

Chauncey
06-29-2006, 12:36 PM
I'm utterly confused at anyone that would keep Tinsley ahead of Jax. Jax has his own issues, but those issues don't include being a lazy ***, not showing up for work, not being in shape and not showing effort.

Tinsley has the same problems that Jax has plus about 523 extra ones of his own.

ChicagoJ
06-29-2006, 12:45 PM
That could prove to be right... but I'm still looking for the evidence that says the problems we see with Tinsley are really his fault and not Rick's fault. I'm unconvinced.

If the same problems re-appeared with another coach, I'd be happy to get on that bandwagon. Until then, I think its premature. Especially since said coach has communciation problems with other players - especially other PGs.

RWB
06-29-2006, 12:59 PM
I'm utterly confused at anyone that would keep Tinsley ahead of Jax. Jax has his own issues, but those issues don't include being a lazy ***, not showing up for work, not being in shape and not showing effort.


Lazy ***??? You mean like how Jack doesn't get back on defense when he's griping at the refs?

Not showing up for work???? Wasn't Jack suspended for a number of games at one point?

Not being in shape? I would agree with this Chauncey.

Not showing effort??? You mean like chucking up outside shots with 14 or more seconds on the clock without making a single pass?

Chauncey
06-29-2006, 01:07 PM
Lazy ***??? You mean like how Jack doesn't get back on defense when he's griping at the refs?

Not showing up for work???? Wasn't Jack suspended for a number of games at one point?

Not being in shape? I would agree with this Chauncey.

Not showing effort??? You mean like chucking up outside shots with 14 or more seconds on the clock without making a single pass?

This is all relative to each other..but I would say this.

Lazy *** - at least jax is on the court. Tins is in street clothes with his hand in a cast protecting his hang nail.

Not showing effort - see above

Not showing up for work - The one thing you can legitimately blame Jax for is his role in the brawl. No question.

Suaveness
06-29-2006, 01:08 PM
Lazy ***??? You mean like how Jack doesn't get back on defense when he's griping at the refs?

Not showing up for work???? Wasn't Jack suspended for a number of games at one point?

Not being in shape? I would agree with this Chauncey.

Not showing effort??? You mean like chucking up outside shots with 14 or more seconds on the clock without making a single pass?

He doesn't get back on defense because he's talking, not because he's lazy. I don't know if he's lazy or not, and I honestly want no part of him on the team. But I'd rather have Tinsley gone.

I mean, COME ON. Do you people really think he'll magically become healthy? I just don't see it. I don't think HE has the work ethic.

Frankly, I want both gone.

Chauncey
06-29-2006, 01:08 PM
That could prove to be right... but I'm still looking for the evidence that says the problems we see with Tinsley are really his fault and not Rick's fault. I'm unconvinced.

If the same problems re-appeared with another coach, I'd be happy to get on that bandwagon. Until then, I think its premature. Especially since said coach has communciation problems with other players - especially other PGs.

I can understand that, I guess. Lord knows I'm not a big fan of Carlisle at all. I'd much rather see a player busting his *** instead of pouting because he isn't allowed to play the type of basketball he wants, though.

RWB
06-29-2006, 01:15 PM
Frankly, I want both gone.

Yep, I'm on here trying to defend Tins and it's like hitting myself with a hammer.

Leisure Suit Larry
06-29-2006, 01:17 PM
Seriously though if SOME fans on their own teams don't like them, what do you actually think you could get for them? I really don't want either of them traded. I guess if I had to decide I would let Tinsley go because of the injuries. Jackson is a good player and a hard worker. You can say he has a bad attitude because everyone whines about calls, he is just competitive.

ChicagoJ
06-29-2006, 01:38 PM
I can understand that, I guess. Lord knows I'm not a big fan of Carlisle at all. I'd much rather see a player busting his *** instead of pouting because he isn't allowed to play the type of basketball he wants, though.

Which is exactly what Tinsley did during Carlisle's first season in Indy.

I think his injuries were too bothersome last season to repeat that. And I think some of Tinsley's perceive problems were just his "fustration" of being unable to fulfill his potential because of injuries and then rushing back onto the court too quickly. But in his defense, he was watching AJ and Saras play PG, and knew that the team needed his help as quickly as possible.

Chauncey
06-29-2006, 01:40 PM
Could be..and I think Tinsley could have been a pretty damn good PG in the NBA, top 5-6. I was a huge supporter of his out of college, but I sour quickly on guys that don't bust their butts in the Summer to improve.

ChicagoJ
06-29-2006, 01:42 PM
Seriously though if SOME fans on their own teams don't like them, what do you actually think you could get for them? I really don't want either of them traded. I guess if I had to decide I would let Tinsley go because of the injuries. Jackson is a good player and a hard worker. You can say he has a bad attitude because everyone whines about calls, he is just competitive.

Shooting a low percentage, turnover prone, terrible shot selection, too much time yapping at the refs.

Jackson is not even a good player. We could tolerate his attitude if he was a great player. (Reggie, in fact, was often guilty of all of those except the low shooting percentage - therefore his questionable shot selection was easily forgiven.)

If Jackson worked as hard to eliminate the reasons the fans boo him, instead of complaining about the boo's, then maybe we could call him hard working, too.

D-BONE
06-29-2006, 02:11 PM
I'm sorry but I can't even answer this question. The quintessential no-win scenario.

Young
06-29-2006, 02:18 PM
I didn't want to start another thread about Jackson and Tinsley so i'll just post this...

I did this in a thread on Peja and i'll do it here, go through and say which teams would have interest in these guys.

Boston: They wouldn't want either of these guys but could we possiably get in on their deal with the 76ers? I heard they need at least one more team to make salaries match. Who would we get IDK...
New Jersey: They wouldn't want either.
New York: I think they could have interest in Tinsley but not Jackson. We could choose from Q Rich, Jamal Crawford, and Malik Rose. Maybe we can get Nate Robinson with Rose too. Getting Malik wouldn't be terriable simply because he only has 2 years 12 million left on his contract.
Philadelphia: Like I said with Boston maybe we can get in on their trade if they need salary. But neither team would probably want Jackson or Tinsley so probably not.
Toronto: They won't have any interest in Jackson or Tinsley.
Chicago: They won't have any interest in Jackson or Tinsley.
Cleveland: I think they might have some interest in getting Jackson or Tinsley but more so Jackson. They won't have to much to offer though. Something involing Newble/Luke Jackson or Eric Snow.
Detroit: They won't want either Jackson or Tinsley.
Milwaukee: I don't think they would want Tinsley but maybe Jackson. I think they want another scorer at the 2/3 to go along with Reed and Simmions. Jackson would be a decent opition. His contract. Maybe we could get the expiering contract of either Joe Smith or Calvin Booth along with some type of pick?
Atlanta: Since they didn't take a point guard will they have interest in Tinsley? Maybe. They won't want Jackson but I could see their interest in Tinsley. What they could give for Tinsley IDK.
Charolette: They won't want Jackson or Tinsley.
Miami: They won't want Jackson or Tinsley.
Orlando: They won't want either Jackson or Tinsley with Jameer, Reddick, Hill, Hedo.
Washington: If they want a natural point guard Tinsley could interest them. Jackson wouldn't though. Maybe they would swap Antonio Daniels for Jamal Tinsley?
Dallas: They won't have interest in either Jackson or Tinsley.
Houston: They might have interest in Tinsley but not Jackson. I doubt they have much interest though.
Memphis: They probably won't want Tinsley or Jackson.
New Orleans: They won't want Tinsley or Jackson.
San Antonio: They won't want Tinsley and they had Jackson before but didn't want to keep him that much.
Denver: They are rumored to want to move Andre Miller, could Tinsley interest them? I would think Jackson would interest them because they need another swingman badly, someone who can shoot.
Minnesota: They need everything except for a PF. They could offer us a variety of players but nothing special. We could probably pick from Marko Jaric, Trenton Hassell, Ricky Davis, and Troy Hudson. Only guys who interest me any is Hassell and Davis.
Portland: I wouldn't think they would want either Tinsley or Jackson.
Seattle: I have no clue what they are doing there. I doubt they want Tinsley or Jackson though.
Utah: They don't need either Jackson or Tinsley with Deron, Ronnie, and Kirilenko.
Golden State: They won't want Tinsley but they might like Jackson...I highly doubt it though.
Los Angelse Clippers: Could they want Jackson? He is more durable than Corey Maggette. I don't see them liking Tinlsey with Sam Cassell possiably re-signing and Shaun Livingston waiting in the wings.
Los Angelse Lakers: They won't want Tinsley with Jordan Farmar just being drafted but may Stephen Jackson interests them? He might fit in the triangle well.
Phoenix: They won't want Tinsley or Jackson.
Sacramento: I don't see them wanting Jackson or Tinsley.

Ok so that's all the teams.

Possiable suitors for Tinsley:
- New York, Atlanta, Washington, Houston, Denver, and Minnesota.

Possiable suitors for Jackson:
- Cleveland, Milwuakee, Denver, Minnesota, LA Clippers, LA Lakers.

We aren't going to get much for Tinsley or Jackson but we might be able to get something decent in return.

Now who would I rather get rid of more? IDK. Probably Tinsley just because he doesn't play as much but it depends on what we are getting back.

beast23
06-29-2006, 06:49 PM
I absolutely refuse to accept the parameters of the vote. And despite perceived values in trading, I don't understand how anyone would want to trade other players on the roster ahead of these two guys.

Tinsley: Too many games lost due to injury. And he's just too stubborn at times in his private one-on-one games against his defender to be trusted. Thirdly, I think there are some real trust issues and dislike between Tinsley and Carlisle.

Jackson: Spends way too much time flapping his jaws at officials and taking defensive possessions off. He's not a bad offensive player, but I also think there is at least minor problems between Jackson and Carlisle. AND, regardless of what anyone says... his involvement in the fight still hangs over his head and this franchise.

They both absolutely have got to go.

SoupIsGood
06-29-2006, 06:52 PM
Puke.

I almost don't consider Tins or Jack Pacers anymore. They won't be here next season.

Gamble
06-29-2006, 06:58 PM
I voted Tinsley and I am not sure if anyone has said this but I think
its important knowing who your starting pg is.