PDA

View Full Version : Poll on SJax/Tinsley, what do you do if you can't make a good trade?



Chauncey
07-25-2006, 02:10 PM
Go on record..........

SoupIsGood
07-25-2006, 02:17 PM
I said cut both, but what I mean is trade both, even if there isn't a good trade out there. Get them out.

Although I could see keeping Tinsley - his problems stand a chance of being fixable. Jax is just incurably stupid.

Kegboy
07-25-2006, 02:28 PM
There are always bad trades. :-p

As far as Tinsley goes, I think TPTB have tied our hands by dropping AJ. Unless you believe Daniels can be a full time PG.

As for Jack, eh, I just don't care anymore.

Chauncey
07-25-2006, 02:28 PM
Even if the "bad trade" brings back bad salaries? You'd still trade them both?

SoupIsGood
07-25-2006, 02:30 PM
Well, Jax and Tins are already pretty bad salaries, seeing as their contracts run for years. Just how bad of contract could we get in return for them?

Kegboy
07-25-2006, 02:31 PM
Well, Jax and Tins are already pretty bad salaries, seeing as their contracts run for years. Just how bad of contract could we get in return for them?

Oh, let's say both of them for KMart.

blanket
07-25-2006, 02:34 PM
we're not going to cut a player who we'll still have to pay for the remaining 4-5 years left on his contract -- much less TWO PLAYERS like that. Trade is our only real option; or, with a little luck, a medical retirement for Tins :devil:.

Chauncey
07-25-2006, 02:35 PM
we're not going to cut a player who we'll still have to pay for the remaining 4-5 years left on his contract -- much less TWO PLAYERS like that. Trade is our only real option; or, with a little luck, a medical retirement for Tins :devil:.

Dude, if that comment was about Dubya instead of Tinsley, NSA would already be at your house

SoupIsGood
07-25-2006, 02:36 PM
Oh, let's say both of them for KMart.
:bananadea

btowncolt
07-25-2006, 02:37 PM
Fun, NSA jokes when I'm a block from the White House. This should go well.......

:shudder:

Frank Slade
07-25-2006, 02:41 PM
we're not going to cut a player who we'll still have to pay for the remaining 4-5 years left on his contract -- much less TWO PLAYERS like that. Trade is our only real option; or, with a little luck, a medical retirement for Tins :devil:.

Yeah I voted in reference to trade, not cut. Since this is not the NFL.


Fun, NSA jokes when I'm a block from the White House. This should go well.......

:shudder:

:spy: During the war I was a BOMBadier! :spy:

Putnam
07-25-2006, 02:42 PM
When we say "Cut them," we mean, "Buy out their contracts," don't we?

It is possible that one of them might take the money and run, at a discount that would be a good deal for us. If Tinsley is as tired of playing as he seems, he might be willing to take a lump sum and retire (wild speculation). That would be good for the team, and would be a wash for the Simons, who have to pay him whether he stays or goes.

For my part, I still believe Jackson can be traded.

Shade
07-25-2006, 02:47 PM
LOL @ cutting both of them.

JO/Hulk
Al/Foster/Powell
Danny/Williams/Marshall
Quis/White
Runi/Armstrong/Greene

:lol: :rollout:

SoupIsGood
07-25-2006, 02:49 PM
LOL @ cutting both of them.

JO/Hulk
Al/Foster/Powell
Danny/Williams/Marshall
Quis/White
Runi/Armstrong/Greene

:lol: :rollout:

I dunno, we still look alright if we cut Jax.

Tins is the one that'd hurt, since we have no one to fill in.

Shade
07-25-2006, 02:52 PM
I dunno, we still look alright if we cut Jax.

Tins is the one that'd hurt, since we have no one to fill in.

Yeah, we'd look just fine with no shooting from the SG spot at all, and a rookie as the primary back-up. :suicide2:

Chauncey
07-25-2006, 02:57 PM
Yeah I voted in reference to trade, not cut. Since this is not the NFL.

You can still cut/release people in the NBA, you just have to pay them.

CableKC
07-25-2006, 02:58 PM
We don't have any choice...keep them. There is no way that the Simons will pay them 35+ mil each for a buyout.

Destined4Greatness
07-25-2006, 02:58 PM
Wow there is alot of support to keep them both wow.

Please tell me how Jax has a bad contract. Dude makes 6 million plays Decent D, and plays every game. JO is overpaid, Tinsley is overpaid, Ray allen is overpaid, The Knicks are overpaid.

Putnam
07-25-2006, 03:02 PM
We don't have any choice...keep them. There is no way that the Simons will pay them 35+ mil each for a buyout.


But can buyouts be negotiated for a lesser sum? Or can't they?

SoupIsGood
07-25-2006, 03:03 PM
Yeah, we'd look just fine with no shooting from the SG spot at all, and a rookie as the primary back-up. :suicide2:

What the hell is everyone's obsession with shooting all about, and why does it have to come from only the SG spot?

Ignore the fact that Marquis is a quality player and obsess over the fact that he doesn't bomb threes all game. That's classic mypoic pessimism (sp).

I would rather have Quis not shooting threes and instead creating off the dribble, than have Jack launching threes and turning the ball over off the dribble.

CableKC
07-25-2006, 03:05 PM
Wow there is alot of support to keep them both wow.

This is not becuase we want to keep them both....if I could jettison them for Expiring contracts and some 3rd string players...I would be all for that.

If the assumption is that no one wants them......and given the choice to cut either of them or both ( and therefore negotiate an expensive buyout )....what other choice do we have? Pay them 35+ mil each for doing nothing so that they aren't on the roster?

I suspect that the results was much like voting in the 2004 Presidential election....you end up picking the "lesser of two evils".

Destined4Greatness
07-25-2006, 03:06 PM
But can buyouts be negotiated for a lesser sum? Or can't they?

If the Player is willing. Say Tinsley thinks he can get a deal for 4 million per year, if he can be a FA. Well since his deal is for about 35, and theres 5 years left. He would probably need 15 million plus to take the cut. Say we gave him 20 million. He goes out and gets a 20 million 5 year deal. We pay 15 less, he gets 5 million more over the same time period.

But since tinsley would be lucky to get a 3 million per year, short term contract. We probably won't save a decent size amount and a gamble is better.

Frank Slade
07-25-2006, 03:07 PM
You can still cut/release people in the NBA, you just have to pay them.

Exactly so it's rarely practical to cut a player. There is almost always a better option then to pay a player at any price to walk, in addition to paying for his replacement.

CableKC
07-25-2006, 03:07 PM
But can buyouts be negotiated for a lesser sum? Or can't they?

Sure...but you think that the Simons are going to fork out about $60 million+ to buy them out?

I doubt it. They may not be liked by the fan...or many of us here in PD land....but given the choices that we have in the poll.....there isn't much choice here.

Destined4Greatness
07-25-2006, 03:09 PM
What the hell is everyone's obsession with shooting all about, and why does it have to come from only the SG spot?

Ignore the fact that Marquis is a quality player and obsess over the fact that he doesn't bomb threes all game. That's classic mypoic pessimism (sp).

I would rather have Quis not shooting threes and instead creating off the dribble, than have Jack launching threes and turning the ball over off the dribble.

First off, Jack hardly turned the ball over that much. And maybe if he had somebody in the Paint helping create some space he would have turned it over less.

grace
07-25-2006, 03:20 PM
Oh, let's say both of them for KMart.

:puke::shudder::puke::bananadea

rexnom
07-25-2006, 03:22 PM
This is ridiculous. We aren't going to cut Jack or Tins. And we never should. If we get a suitable PG replacement I could see us doing a Tins for scraps trade but otherwise, no. We don't do trades just to do trades. As for Jack, why do you guys hate him so much? How many players have played better than him over the past two years for us so consistently?

grace
07-25-2006, 03:27 PM
What the hell is everyone's obsession with shooting all about?

I might be wrong but isn't the object of basketball to get more points than the other team? Unless the other team starts making shots in the Pacers basket I think someone has to be able to shoot the ball.
----------------------------------------------------------

This is ridiculous. We aren't going to cut Jack or Tins.

We're just trying to give :kravitz: another idea for a column. :shhh:

Unclebuck
07-25-2006, 03:27 PM
Well, you can't cut them

Pacers should take the best trade they can get for either.

SoupIsGood
07-25-2006, 03:28 PM
I might be wrong but isn't the object of basketball to get more points than the other team? Unless the other team starts making shots in the Pacers basket I think someone has to be able to shoot the ball.

Nice; read my post again and try to read past the first half a sentence. I was pretty obviously not saying "to hell with shooting!" :laugh:

vapacersfan
07-25-2006, 03:34 PM
First off, Jack hardly turned the ball over that much. And maybe if he had somebody in the Paint helping create some space he would have turned it over less.

One of his, or Tinsley's for that matter, rushed jumpers at the start of a possesion (or for that matter taking their respective man one on one just for "oneups-manship) is just as bad as a turnover.
----------------------------------------------------------

Sure...but you think that the Simons are going to fork out about $60 million+ to buy them out?

I doubt it. They may not be liked by the fan...or many of us here in PD land....but given the choices that we have in the poll.....there isn't much choice here.

I am not positive, but I thought that the new CBA stated that you could not negotiate buy outs....
----------------------------------------------------------
Just checked it:



But there's a twist, which needed an arbitrator's ruling during the 1999-00 season to resolve. As detailed in question number 90, on January 10 all contracts become guaranteed for the rest of the season. Compensation protection insures the player against loss of salary after being waived for lack of skill. But if he is waived after January 10, then he doesn't lose his salary, so the compensation protection does not kick in. Even though the team & player can mutually agree to reduce or eliminate the player's compensation protection, he is still owed his full salary if waived after January 10.

This was challenged by John Starks during the 1999-00 season. Starks had been traded to the Bulls, and wanted to sever ties with the team after January 10. The arbitrator ruled that in the last season of a player's contract, the team and player could choose to eliminate the contract guarantee that kicked in on January 10. Starks and the Bulls were therefore free to agree to a divorce (with no money owed to Starks) as described above.

There is one other type of buyout described in the CBA. When a contract contains an option year, a buyout amount for the option year can be written into the contract. The buyout amount may be up to 50% of the salary for the option year, and is payable with the exercise of an ETO or the non-exercise of an option.


http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm

grace
07-25-2006, 03:36 PM
Nice; read my post again and try to read past the first half a sentence. I was pretty obviously not saying "to hell with shooting!" :laugh:

I have a short attention span. I don't usually read past the first couple sentences or the first paragraph. It's why I don't get the brilliance that is Peck.

And I was trying to be sarcastic. :tongue:

SoupIsGood
07-25-2006, 03:41 PM
I have a short attention span. I don't usually read past the first couple sentences or the first paragraph. It's why I don't get the brilliance that is Peck.

And I was trying to be sarcastic. :tongue:

Well I thought that you might have been right before I hit submit, but I'm feeling cranky today. :tongue: Actually, sorry for being a bit snappy there, it's just the "OMGZ WE CAN'T SHOOT" attitude seemingly came out of nowhere and is getting out of hand! (imo) It feels like we could bring in Dwayne Wade and someone would complain that he can't hit threes.

rexnom
07-25-2006, 03:49 PM
I might be wrong but isn't the object of basketball to get more points than the other team? Unless the other team starts making shots in the Pacers basket I think someone has to be able to shoot the ball.
Like Jermaine O'Neal? He's a center with a very nice jumper. How about Al Harrington? He's got range out to the three point line. In fact, he made 66 3pt shots last year and his 3pt% has only improved every year in the league. Or maybe Danny Granger. He's got a very nice looking mid range jumper and as a rookie in six playoff games made nine threes while shooting over 50% from the 3pt line, which was his only consistent time at the starting 3 spot last year. Also, David Harrison has been among the league leaders in FG% over the past two years. He can't shoot from 15ft out or anything but he doesn't try...and when he is close, he usually hits. Foster? Not an offensive threat, but he doesn't pretend to be.

And our backcourt? Stephen Jackson made 117 threes last year. The year before, 103, in 51 games (that's more than 2/game). The year before that? 145. That same year Ray Allen made 148. Reggie Miller? 134. All shot under 40%. Sarunas is also a legitimate three point threat. People seem to forget how this was his first season and how before he hit a clear wall, he was shooting fairly well, despite being out of position. James White, despite being a rookie and not known as a shooter made 5 threes on .625 shooting in summer league play. Do we need many more three point shooters? Jamaal Tinsley can shoot the three but do we really want him to? Wouldn't he be better off dishing it to someone? Marquis Daniels is the type of player that will penetrate and take a shot that's closer or pass to someone who has a better shot. Isn't that better than a 3pt shot?

That's our main rotation of guys, as of right now. We could always add more players. So in summation, we have guys who can hit the three but we also have guys who can do much more than that and beat defenses in many more ways. In the end, I think we want to get away from the "live and die by the three" game. I don't think the three should be that crucial.

grace
07-25-2006, 03:53 PM
Like Jermaine O'Neal? He's a center with a very nice jumper. How about Al Harrington? He's got range out to the three point line. In fact, he made 66 3pt shots last year and his 3pt% has only improved every year in the league. Or maybe Danny Granger. He's got a very nice looking mid range jumper and as a rookie in six playoff games made nine threes while shooting over 50% from the 3pt line, which was his only consistent time at the starting 3 spot last year. Also, David Harrison has been among the league leaders in FG% over the past two years. He can't shoot from 15ft out or anything but he doesn't try...and when he is close, he usually hits. Foster? Not an offensive threat, but he doesn't pretend to be.

And our backcourt? Stephen Jackson made 117 threes last year. The year before, 103, in 51 games (that's more than 2/game). The year before that? 145. That same year Ray Allen made 148. Reggie Miller? 134. All shot under 40%. Sarunas is also a legitimate three point threat. People seem to forget how this was his first season and how before he hit a clear wall, he was shooting fairly well, despite being out of position. James White, despite being a rookie and not known as a shooter made 5 threes on .625 shooting in summer league play. Do we need many more three point shooters? Jamaal Tinsley can shoot the three but do we really want him to? Wouldn't he be better off dishing it to someone? Marquis Daniels is the type of player that will penetrate and take a shot that's closer or pass to someone who has a better shot. Isn't that better than a 3pt shot?

That's our main rotation of guys, as of right now. We could always add more players. So in summation, we have guys who can hit the three but we also have guys who can do much more than that and beat defenses in many more ways. In the end, I think we want to get away from the "live and die by the three" game. I don't think the three should be that crucial.

You might have a good point in there somewhere but like I said before I don't read anything over a paragraph. :sorry:

rexnom
07-25-2006, 04:00 PM
You might have a good point in there somewhere but like I said before I don't read anything over a paragraph. :sorry:
Eh, it's ok. Neither do I. I just needed to rant. And you were just joking before anyways.

Putnam
07-25-2006, 05:36 PM
Well, the voice of reason ought to prevail.

If the CBA doesn't allow for contract buy-outs for a reduced value, then the only real choices are trade 'em or keep 'em. I was thinking that you could offer a fraction of the contract value for an immediate buyout. If not, then it's wishful to think of cutting them.


But I STILL believe that Jackson has trade value.

As much as I rag on the guy, I think he is a failure only by the standard I hold for the Pacers. He's a perfectly acceptable player for any of those other teams.

.

Will Galen
07-25-2006, 05:52 PM
DarkDreams, DeS, Jay@Section204, Lord Helmet, Putnam, Wyatt, Chauncey, Destined4Greatness, Frank Slade, Revis1on, SjA3837, Alpolloloco, btowncolt, Pinturicchio, Puovils, Roy Munson, SoupIsGood, and Suaveness?

Remind me never to go into business with you guys.

ChicagoJ
07-25-2006, 05:56 PM
Why, because we have a sense of when to cut our losses and move on?

What would you rather do, keep Artest around so long that he destroys two straight seasons? That worked out really well.

In fact, I'd argue (strongly) that letting him stick around for so long is what "poisoned" these two players in the first place. And it added to the fans' collective venom for them - they'd been duped by an Artest they believed could/ would change and now that they've been scorned they are perhaps overly critical of guys that are probably just run-of-the-mill distractions.

J_2_Da_IzzO
07-25-2006, 05:56 PM
Thing is Tinslet hurts us because he is always injured which I would rather have then Jax who plays and hurts us.

ARTESTINMYHEART
07-25-2006, 06:20 PM
You don't just "cut" or "trade" two very talented players in Jamaal Tinsley and Stephen Jackson. Barring anything unexpected, both will return as Pacers next season.

Chauncey
07-25-2006, 06:22 PM
part 2 coming up