PDA

View Full Version : Star: O'Brien questions Tinsey's dependability



Putnam
05-08-2008, 05:55 AM
O'Brien questions Tinsley's dependability

Pacers coach doesn't see his injury-prone point guard playing a key role with the team next season


By Mike Wells

Posted: May 8, 2008



http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080508/SPORTS04/805080335



Jim O'Brien said his relationship with Jamaal Tinsley is fine, but theIndiana Pacers coach isn't sure he can depend on the point guard to be his floor leader any longer.

"To say as a coach we're going to go with him as our point guard despite the injuries, you can't do that," O'Brien said during a phone interview Wednesday. "I would love to see him healthy, but that has not been the track record. It's very, very difficult to depend on him when, physically, he's been undependable. When he's on the court, we know what we're going to get. He's a great assist guy, he runs the fast break great. But based on the track record of physical ailments, how much can you depend on him?"

<script type="text/javascript"> OAS_AD('ArticleFlex_1'); </script>
O'Brien campaigned to keep Tinsley shortly after he was named coach last year. Their relationship appeared to sour about a month into the season. O'Brien disagreed with that assessment Wednesday, saying the two were "on the same page" and that Tinsley's left knee injury, which happened Dec. 15 at Miami, precluded him from having the type of season O'Brien envisioned. Tinsley has played an average of 49 games the past five seasons.

Tinsley's diminished status became even more obvious when O'Brien didn't even mention him when discussing the team's core group. O'Brien talked about Mike Dunleavy, Danny Granger, Jermaine O'Neal, Shawne Williams, Marquis Daniels, Troy Murphy, Jeff Foster, Stephen Graham and Ike Diogu.
"It comes down to whether Jamaal is healthy enough to be part of the mix for the future," O'Brien said.

The Pacers will look to move Tinsley, who has three years remaining on his contract, and O'Neal's name likely will be mentioned again in trade talks this summer.

The Pacers have said publicly that they need help at point guard and in the frontcourt, but it's not certain they will select a player at either of those positions in the June 26 draft.

The Pacers will pick 11th if the lottery seeds hold.

Team president Larry Bird has the final say on draft day, and O'Brien said Bird knows what the team needs.

"I think that if there's somebody available that can fill a need, Larry will certainly fill that need," O'Brien said. "But what if you get to the 11th pick and say our need is point guard, and after the 10th pick it's clear that all the point guards we want are gone? Maybe the 18th-best player on the board is a point guard. I don't think you take the 18th-best player the board; I think you take the absolute best player available because the 11th pick is not going to change around our franchise next year. You're still trying to develop a group of players or assets that can grow this franchise."

Diener has surgery on toe

Pacers point guard Travis Diener underwent surgery to remove bone spurs (http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080508/SPORTS04/805080335#) on his left big toe Wednesday. Rehabilitation time is expected to be about three months.

Diener averaged 6.9 points, shot 37 percent from the field and had a 4.6-to-1 assist-to-turnover ratio in 66 games, including 21 starts, last season.

Morway promoted

David Morway was promoted to general manager. He will oversee the salary cap and assist president Larry Bird with all personnel decisions.

Will Galen
05-08-2008, 07:33 AM
It appears to me Bird will take the best player available to us in the draft.

That doesn't stop them from looking first for Players that fit though, like another Wells article talked about.

BobbyMac
05-08-2008, 09:58 AM
I think Tinsley would make a great backup..15 minutes a nite..more than that risks injury....too bad he's paid like a starter.

Naptown_Seth
05-08-2008, 10:06 AM
HOLY CRAP! HOME RUN!
Maybe TPTB are going to do it right and understand the situation. Maybe they read PD more than we know, or should I say listen to PD more than we know.

Two stellar comments that have been discussed quite a bit here (with concerns):

"I think that if there's somebody available that can fill a need, Larry will certainly fill that need," O'Brien said. "But what if you get to the 11th pick and say our need is point guard, and after the 10th pick it's clear that all the point guards we want are gone? Maybe the 18th-best player on the board is a point guard. I don't think you take the 18th-best player the board; I think you take the absolute best player available because the 11th pick is not going to change around our franchise next year. You're still trying to develop a group of players or assets that can grow this franchise."
and

Morway promoted

David Morway was promoted to general manager. He will oversee the salary cap and assist president Larry Bird with all personnel decisions.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
Tons of us have said "don't force the PG choice at 11" and "get whatever you can, there are too many needs and the team isn't one player away, especially a #11 player".

And a bunch of us have also said that Morway should have been the GM candidate all along, even doing Bird's role.

In fact with this move and Simon's "final say" position and Bird being removed from having to do all the "day to day" stuff like player scouting, what exactly is Bird's role again?

Frankly I don't care because if Simon, Morway and the scouts are all the ones doing their respective jobs as just mentioned then Bird can Boomer for Adults all he wants. I just want the jobs done right and I trust those other people to do just that, at least as much as LB would.

Major Cold
05-08-2008, 10:20 AM
IF we draft another SF I will be pissed.

If we reach I will be pissed.

If we reach and the player is a project (Williams) I will be pissed.

If we draft a frontcourt player over some 2 guards I won't be pissed.

Chances are I will be pissed though.

Putnam
05-08-2008, 10:29 AM
The preceding good comments aside, what I find curious in this story is O'Brien coming out so plainly against Tinsley, declaring "physically, he's been undependable."

How does that statement affect the chances of moving Tinsley in the off-season?




there are too many needs and the team isn't one player away, especially a #11 player".

I like this statement. It is true on so many levels:

1. Not a player who will be available at #11 in the draft.
2. Not a player who will be 11th on the Pacers depth chart.
3. Not the player who wears #11 on his jersey.

idioteque
05-08-2008, 10:33 AM
How does that statement affect the chances of moving Tinsley in the off-season?

That was my first reaction as well. I don't know, maybe a GM could see right through a smokescreen like that anyway.

Major Cold
05-08-2008, 10:36 AM
Buy him out and move on.

Naptown_Seth
05-08-2008, 10:49 AM
I like this statement. It is true on so many levels:

1. Not a player who will be available at #11 in the draft.
2. Not a player who will be 11th on the Pacers depth chart.
3. Not the player who wears #11 on his jersey.
:) Yeah, I thought of that #3 version as I typed it, finding it ironic given the thread title.

One thing I do like about JOB and many of us have mentioned it is that he has no problem with candor. But a few weeks ago when discussing this topic (JOB's candor) I did mention that this doesn't keep him away from SPIN. To me this is exactly what you have here, just as he was part of the spin that Jackson was wrong about Tins being suspended or that JOB didn't have a problem with the PHX finish.

I think most of us feel he certainly did suspend him and did have an issue with how the PHX game ended. And I'd bet that he has more issues with Tinsley than just health. But being the positive PR guy he shows both candor (can't count on Tins, not our guy anymore) and spin (just health reasons).

That's JOB's MO to me. He's Rick but more open on items he's comfortable discussing.

And then since we all see P.com and some parts of Indy Star to be the setup mouthpiece of the team, it's seems to me that the pump is being primed to trade Tinsley. They've established a desire to move on but have adjusted the issue to being about health rather than attitude/off-court. If they can get teams to buy into that health angle they might have a better chance to move him.

Plus you just know this is also their voice to the fans, reaching out to them with "he's no longer our guy, come buy tickets, and if he isn't actually moved at least realize we really wanted to and tried". I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't help plant the JO to Dallas rumor, just to get other team's seeing a JO deal as an option. Fake demand to prime the marketplace, if somebody else wants it then it must have value.

Jonathan
05-08-2008, 10:56 AM
I used to love the star/news untill the Gannet Corporation bought it out. This is not NEWS to the people on Pacers Digest. This topic has already been discussed ie JOB's last call in show.

naptownmenace
05-08-2008, 11:52 AM
Buy him out and move on.

Yes, please for the love of God buy him out and move on already.

Speed
05-08-2008, 12:08 PM
Chances are I will be pissed though.

Nice work and yep, me too!!

Speed
05-08-2008, 12:13 PM
If Obie said these things as a precursor to a buy out because he's untradeable for a positive return, then nice job.

If Obie said this with trading him in mind, completely stupid.

Things GMs want least.

1. Player who is injured.
2. Bad contract
3. off court problems
4. on court problems
5. a player who is not good.

He is at least hits 3 of those 5, you could argue 5 of those 5. I see a buy out in the offing.

BillS
05-08-2008, 12:53 PM
If Obie said this with trading him in mind, completely stupid.

Yeah, because otherwise we'd have slipped Tinsley past those GMs who don't know about his secret season-ending injury history. Shhhhh.

Speed
05-08-2008, 01:10 PM
Yeah, because otherwise we'd have slipped Tinsley past those GMs who don't know about his secret season-ending injury history. Shhhhh.

Well no, but it doesn't help to constantly say he's worthless and we don't even value him so you shouldn't either due to him always being injured.

Not a secret, but you only need one GM to think he could turn it around to at least get him off your roster.

Probably not possible and way past the point of convincing another GM of that, I guess, but you should at least give it a try instead of undermining your position, imo.

Major Cold
05-08-2008, 01:19 PM
Maggette for Tins.

MyFavMartin
05-08-2008, 01:59 PM
It's funny if you read the title of this tread, because what is there really to question?

Doug
05-08-2008, 02:10 PM
This is just to make the "casual" fan base feel better.

Because it doesn't say anything that anybody who follows the Pacers doesn't already know.

Tinsley knows.
JOB knows.
JOB has probably told Tinsley as much directly. Multiple times.
All of the other GMs know.

There's not any possible harm in saying that "the Pacers can't depend on Tinsley because he's hurt all the time".


Now, by saying "because he's hurt all the time", though, they do spin things a bit. There's probably a significant number of people here who believe that Tinsley's not really hurt, at least not badly. That he was sitting out for a) disciplinary reasons, b) sinuspoutitis, c) he just doesn't care, d) all of the above.

Injuries heal. Attitude problems tend to linger and flare up again.

JayRedd
05-08-2008, 03:00 PM
In other breaking news, JOB just finished eating lunch.

MyFavMartin
05-08-2008, 03:09 PM
This is just to make the "casual" fan base feel better.


Tommy: Let's think about this for a sec, Ted, why would somebody put a guarantee on a box? Hmmm, very interesting.

Ted Nelson, Customer: Go on, I'm listening.

Tommy: Here's the way I see it, Ted. Guy puts a fancy guarantee on a box 'cause he wants you to fell all warm and toasty inside.

Ted Nelson, Customer: Yeah, makes a man feel good.

Tommy: 'Course it does. Why shouldn't it? Ya figure you put that little box under your pillow at night, the Guarantee Fairy might come by and leave a quarter, am I right, Ted?

Ted Nelson, Customer: What's your point?

Tommy: The point is, how do you know the fairy isn't a crazy glue sniffer? "Building model airplanes" says the little fairy; well, we're not buying it. He sneaks into your house once, that's all it takes. The next thing you know, there's money missing off the dresser, and your daughter's knocked up. I seen it a hundred times.

Ted Nelson, Customer: But why do they put a guarantee on the box?

Tommy: Because they know all they sold ya was a guaranteed piece of ****. That's all it is, isn't it? Hey, if you want me to take a dump in a box and mark it guaranteed, I will. I got spare time. But for now, for your customer's sake, for your daughter's sake, ya might wanna think about buying a quality product from me.

__________________________________________________ ___

It's good to know that everyone knows what's in box #11.

Now what are we going to do about?

Since86
05-08-2008, 03:14 PM
Nothing like a Tommy Boy reference.

MyFavMartin
05-08-2008, 03:21 PM
Nothing like a Tommy Boy reference.

What happened to your face?

Tom White
05-08-2008, 04:29 PM
How does that statement affect the chances of moving Tinsley in the off-season?

It doesn't.

I hope you don't believe the other GM's in the league are totally unaware of Tinsley's injury history.

CableKC
05-08-2008, 04:49 PM
Unfortunately.....IMHO....all the things JO'B said about Tinsley is also true for JONeal.

It would have been nice if Wells asked the "hardball follow-up" question on whether JO'B could say that we should continue to go with JONeal as our PF ( if not our Franchise Player ) who is as injury-prone ( or has missed as many games for one reason or another ) as Tinsley over the last couple of seasons.

I am guessing that one of the reasons is because we have so much invested in JONeal then compared to Tinsley. But in the end....it's easier to throw a player that is owed $21 mil in guaranteed $$$ under the bus then it is to thrown one that is owed $44 mil.

I can see that the key difference in not having to be dependant on JONeal as one of our Starting Big Men is that we have Murphy and Foster to do their best impression of JONeal when he is out with injuries....whereas we only have Diener to backup Tinsley. But I could still argue that there are better ways to spend the $22mil in salary that he is owed in the 2008-2009 season.

kester99
05-08-2008, 07:08 PM
So JT's injury history keeps him from being named in the core group of players....which nevertheless includes JO???

CableKC
05-08-2008, 07:22 PM
So JT's injury history keeps him from being named in the core group of players....which nevertheless includes JO???
Isn't that what I just said? :laugh:

J/K

Great minds think alike :buddies:

kester99
05-08-2008, 08:45 PM
Isn't that what I just said? :laugh:


Yes you did...and you are 100 percent correct, sir.

duke dynamite
05-09-2008, 01:38 AM
This article gives me mixed feelings on TPTB stance on Tinsley.

Are they wanting to give him another chance, or are they saying that he's toast?

avoidingtheclowns
05-09-2008, 11:13 AM
The preceding good comments aside, what I find curious in this story is O'Brien coming out so plainly against Tinsley, declaring "physically, he's been undependable."

How does that statement affect the chances of moving Tinsley in the off-season?

do you really think GMs wouldn't look to see how many games Tinsley has played over the years per season? tinsley is a known commodity around the league--this doesn't impact tinsley's value a bit.

Naptown_Seth
05-09-2008, 12:06 PM
As I said, I think it's just spin for "if you need a guy who's great as long as you only need 40 healthy games from him, or reduce his minutes to keep him out there longer then he's your guy".

That's a lot better than "he'll cause so many problems that even though he's healthy you'll bench him for the season, or he'll have his own 'injury strike' and leave you hanging".

It's what kind of guy you'll get. You can work with a guy limited by his body, but a guy with emotional/mental/worse issues is someone that you don't want even if it's only for 15-20 minutes a game for 60 games.



Cable,
The reason you don't dump JO the same way is because you are fixing a different issue in preparation of moving him. The knock on JO is the injuries, so you want to spin that away. The knock on Tins is that it might have a lot more to do with stuff behind the scenes, things that would fall in line with his off-court issues. GM's may see Tins as a guy that's not really an injury risk but rather a chemistry/legal risk. If you can convince them that the ONLY thing holding Tins back is injuries then it's an improvement.

That's not an improvement to JO's image because that's already where it's at for him. The spin on him is that the knee issue was finally resolved and he'll be back to near where he was, but that the Pacers are being forced to move him against their will thanks to rebuilding needs.

There is no getting around the candor of putting Tins on the block and his games missed, you must address that. But if you can sell it as ONLY injury related then he has some value, even though you aren't convincing them that he'll be healthy. JO on the block can be repositioned from health to team restructure. That's how you improve the value of both players.

If you had to convince teams that JO was "only" injured ala Tins you'd really be screwed. Can you imagine JO's contract behind Rio, 8 Seconds, Cloud 9, sinuspoutis, PHX game, etc?

madison
05-09-2008, 05:06 PM
100% agree with Naptown. If you're a rival GM, you see JT as being a potential legal/chemistry problem, not a health problem. On the other hand, that was the rap on Jackson, yet another team in the right situation found him useful. That could still happen in regard to JT. The problem in disposing of JT is no one knows how much of his absence is true injury (to which he seems prone), team discipline because of bad off-court judgement, or terrible attitude (recall Rick made him sit for weeks at the start of the 61-game season). If I were a GM, I would want to know which of the three is the problem with this guy before risking adding him to my team. If I were the Pacers, I'd just buy him out and let him go where ever he can find a job. That's expensive and means we get nothing for him, but he's damaged goods anyway.