PDA

View Full Version : Moving Jamaal



Anthem
05-27-2008, 11:05 AM
This is the key to the offseason to me. I expect us to get somebody solid but unspectacular at #11. I wouldn't be surprised to see us trade back into the late first round, but that's a long-term move. I don't really think moving Jermaine is going to be a great option for us, and I don't see us making a huge splash in the free agent market.

But if we could move Jamaal, I'd consider it a successful offseason. The question is, how do we accomplish this?

His contract is pretty bad, and the two teams who usually don't care about that (Dallas and NY) just got the guys who are wise to him.

Other than Granger and Dunleavy, we don't have a ton of positive-value players. In my opinion, here they are:

Quis (contract)
Ike (potential)
Shawne (potential)
Hulk (potential)
Foster (immediate impact)

None of those guys have a ton of value, but at least adding them to a package makes it a more attractive package instead of a less attractive one.

Is there anybody in the league that would take a package of these guys and give us back something that would help us? You're basically looking for a 11-14mil package without a terrible contract length.

Thoughts?

MillerTime
05-27-2008, 11:11 AM
trade Tinsley, Daniels and Dunleavy for Nocioni and Hinrich

Speed
05-27-2008, 11:12 AM
Whats Jeffs contract, time wise? If you are ever going to move him, its now.

I'm thinking of a situation like happened with Steve Francis on a lesser level, trade Jamaal to a team that will buy him out almost immediately, but I don't know if Jeff or any of those players are enough to unload JT due to his extremely negative situation.

Where is the guy who used to want to save everyone, he was an old point guard, acutally had his son in last years draft. He was a coach for awhile in Texas I want to say, crap, its on the tip of my tongue.... anyway, if he's working somewhere on somebodies staff, maybe you can convince him that he can save Jamaal. The guy has a bad mustache, man its kiling me, I can't think of what his name is.

LoneGranger33
05-27-2008, 11:14 AM
I also think moving Jamaal is in the best long-term interests of the franchise. I thought Atlanta was a good option until the Bibby trade, but other than that I can't think of a decent trade partner. I'm not too sure Donnie wouldn't go for it at the right price - D'Antoni would need someone to run the point in his fast-paced system (I mean, other than Nate Robinson...) What about Charlotte - LB is looking for a veteran floor general? Does Larry Brown know better? And I don't know how long the holy trinity of Smush Parker, Brevin Knight and Dan Dickau will last in Clipperland, but I doubt they'd want to take on more dead weight.

OakMoses
05-27-2008, 11:21 AM
Where is the guy who used to want to save everyone, he was an old point guard, acutally had his son in last years draft. He was a coach for awhile in Texas I want to say, crap, its on the tip of my tongue.... anyway, if he's working somewhere on somebodies staff, maybe you can convince him that he can save Jamaal. The guy has a bad mustache, man its kiling me, I can't think of what his name is.

I think you're talking about John Lucas, but I have no idea where he is now.

MagicRat
05-27-2008, 11:24 AM
Y'all are gonna see it this year......

LoneGranger33
05-27-2008, 11:26 AM
Y'all are gonna see it this year......

JamaalStar?

Naptown_Seth
05-27-2008, 11:26 AM
Moving Jamaal
Um, Mayflower?

I thought this was a poll.

count55
05-27-2008, 11:33 AM
Whats Jeffs contract, time wise? If you are ever going to move him, its now.

I'm thinking of a situation like happened with Steve Francis on a lesser level, trade Jamaal to a team that will buy him out almost immediately, but I don't know if Jeff or any of those players are enough to unload JT due to his extremely negative situation.

Where is the guy who used to want to save everyone, he was an old point guard, acutally had his son in last years draft. He was a coach for awhile in Texas I want to say, crap, its on the tip of my tongue.... anyway, if he's working somewhere on somebodies staff, maybe you can convince him that he can save Jamaal. The guy has a bad mustache, man its kiling me, I can't think of what his name is.

Foster has one year left at $5.5mm.

As far as trading Tinsley to a team that would buy him out immediately, that strikes me as a non-starter because such a team doesn't exist. I can't imagine why anybody would buy out a guy who would then sit as a hit against their cap for two more seasons following the current one.

One of the reasons I was disappointed in Walsh going to NY was that it took two ugly contracts (Jeffries and James) out of the bidding for Droopy. I still think the most likely scenario is to find some other team that has an equally bad contract, but will look at JT without the baggage he has accumulated here and thinking the risk that he won't be able to play more than 40 games a year is still better odds than that turd that's currently sitting on the roster that can't play at all.

As I mentioned: Jeffries and James immediately come to mind as filling that bill (bad contract, no contribution)

Others could be:

Atlanta - Claxton, but his contract is actually better than JT's
Denver - Nene, I doubt he'll ever play much again, but people tend to be a little deluded when it comes to young bigs
Kenyon Martin, where you'd have to package in one or more of the guys Anthem is talking about...and he's not quite a complete turd
LA Clippers - Maybe Mobley or Tim Thomas, but they both have shorter contracts
LA Lakers - Maybe Vlad Rad
Bucks - Simmons or Gadzuric
Minnesota - Jaric
Phoenix - Diaw - I know this is touchy and they probably wouldn't do it, but he is owed an awful lot of money ($36 mil) for a rotation player
Portland - Przybilla, but his contract isn't all that much worse than Fosters (which is/was actually pretty decent) and his production (at least on the glass) isn't bad
Sacto - Kenny Thomas, but his contract is a year shorter
Raps - Jason Kapono

Man, this looks like it will be harder than I thought...

Speed
05-27-2008, 11:44 AM
I think you're talking about John Lucas, but I have no idea where he is now.

YES!!! thank you!

Someone find John Lucas, I'm sure he can convince a team to take a chance on him.

Major Cold
05-27-2008, 11:57 AM
Buy him out and have Larry just focus on making the team better.

Chewy
05-27-2008, 12:33 PM
YES!!! thank you!

Someone find John Lucas, I'm sure he can convince a team to take a chance on him.

Lucas worked for the Raptors this past season, im not sure they need a point guard even if they trade one, they got another one coming over to nba next season.

Will Galen
05-27-2008, 12:56 PM
This is the key to the offseason to me. I expect us to get somebody solid but unspectacular at #11. I wouldn't be surprised to see us trade back into the late first round, but that's a long-term move. I don't really think moving Jermaine is going to be a great option for us, and I don't see us making a huge splash in the free agent market.

But if we could move Jamaal, I'd consider it a successful offseason. The question is, how do we accomplish this?

His contract is pretty bad, and the two teams who usually don't care about that (Dallas and NY) just got the guys who are wise to him.

Other than Granger and Dunleavy, we don't have a ton of positive-value players. In my opinion, here they are:

Quis (contract)
Ike (potential)
Shawne (potential)
Hulk (potential)
Foster (immediate impact)


FYI Hulk's a free agent, so he would have to be used in a sign and trade. That's unlikely but could happen.

Infinite MAN_force
05-27-2008, 01:08 PM
I don't see why Walsh would not trade Jeffries for Tinsley. Tinsley at least gives you something when hes healthy, jeffries is just worthless. It would be a PR win for us.

Speed
05-27-2008, 01:14 PM
FYI Hulk's a free agent, so he would have to be used in a sign and trade. That's unlikely but could happen.

Does it matter that he's supposedly a "restricted" free agent?

Young
05-27-2008, 01:15 PM
I have some hope that we can move Jamaal but I know that there are probably very few teams that have interest in him.

Given his salary teams won't want im as a backup. His injury problems will scare off teams too.

The few teams that come to my mind are possibly Miami, Orlando, Clippers, and Seattle. A lot of these teams are a little shaky though, I don't think any of them are rushing to the phone to call about Jamaal's avaliabilty right now.

Miami might have interest if they draft Michael Beasley. Maybe a deal involing Tinsley for Blount or Tinsley, Daniels for Blount, Banks could work.

Orlando is rumored to be unhappy with Jameer Nelson. If a deal was made it would pretty much have to be a swap of the two unless a third team was involed. I don't have a problem with Jameer but his contract is pretty long and i'm not for sure he would be our point guard for the future. So maybe we are better off holding on to Jamaal insteado f swaping him for Nelson.

The Clippers are probably the only team in the league with a big hole at point guard. I don't know their mindset, win now or re build, but Jamaal could be sent there for either Cuttino Mobley or Tim Thomas. I don't know how attractive the Pacers would be to either of these guys but it would get rid of Jamaal.

I have doubts that Seattle would have any serious interest in Jamaal. If they did we could swap Jamaal for either Earl Watson or Luke Ridnour. I perfere Watson. But I have doubts the Sonics would do this. They will likely draft a guard (Bayless).

New York might be brought up too. But would Walsh want to bring Tinsley and his injuries andh is contract to the Knicks? I have my doubts there.

In my opinion these are about the only possible opitions the Pacers are likely to have. Most teams are set or already have a better situation and don't need Jamaal. I'm hoping something can get done but we'll see.

Putnam
05-27-2008, 01:19 PM
Question: If Tinsley isn't traded and stays on the Pacers' roster, what can they do to distance him from the rest of the team?

I'm thinking of Tinsley the payroll deadweight as a separate problem from Mel-Mel the on-court Abuser. Obviously, solve the former problem and you've solved the second as well. But if they can't trade him in a way that helps the team (and the upshot of this thread leans that way), then they'll have to deal creatively with a player with a highly paid, long-term contract who is quite explicitly persona non grata. (That's O'Brien talking, not me.)

What do other teams do in this situation? Can you say to them, "Just give us your address and we'll mail the check. But stay away from the fieldhouse?" Can you make them earn their contract by bagging groceries, passing out Thanskgiving turkeys, blogging on Pacers.com and reading Horton Hears a Who to school children?

count55
05-27-2008, 01:23 PM
Does it matter that he's supposedly a "restricted" free agent?

In order for him to be "restricted", we'd have to make a qualifying offer by June 30: http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#36


In order to make their free agent a restricted free agent, a team must submit a qualifying offer to the player by June 30. The amount of the qualifying offer for players on rookie "scale" contracts is based on the player's draft position (see question number 41). The qualifying offer for all other players must be for 125% of the player's previous salary, or the player's minimum salary (see question number 11) plus $175,000, whichever is greater. The qualifying offer must be for one season. A player can elect to accept his qualifying offer (the qualifying offer must be accepted by March 1) and play the following season under its terms. This is sometimes done in order to become an unrestricted free agent the following summer (see question number 38).

If the player is coming off the fourth year of his rookie scale contract, then in addition to a qualifying offer, his team can also submit a maximum qualifying offer. A maximum qualifying offer is for six seasons at the maximum salary with 10.5% annual raises. It can contain no options, ETOs or bonuses of any kind, and must be fully guaranteed. When a team submits a maximum qualifying offer (in essence "stepping up" with a maximum contract offer before the player even hits the market), it places a more stringent requirement on other teams' offer sheets (see below).


In Harrison's case, the qualifying offer would be $2,601,474 for the first year, according to Shamsports.com (http://http://www.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/pacers.jsp).

I can see us re-signing Harrison, but only at or around the minimum salary. We won't be (or, at least, shouldn't be) interested in him enough to risk getting put on the hook for $2.6mm next year. Therefore, the 'restricted' part of his free agency will likely never come to fruition.

Will Galen
05-27-2008, 01:27 PM
Does it matter that he's supposedly a "restricted" free agent?

Now that you mentioned it I think he could be restricted. I do know the Pacers didn't pick up his option.

count55
05-27-2008, 01:29 PM
Question: If Tinsley isn't traded and stays on the Pacers' roster, what can they do to distance him from the rest of the team?

I'm thinking of Tinsley the payroll deadweight as a separate problem from Mel-Mel the on-court Abuser. Obviously, solve the former problem and you've solved the second as well. But if they can't trade him in a way that helps the team (and the upshot of this thread leans that way), then they'll have to deal creatively with a player with a highly paid, long-term contract who is quite explicitly persona non grata. (That's O'Brien talking, not me.)

What do other teams do in this situation? Can you say to them, "Just give us your address and we'll mail the check. But stay away from the fieldhouse?" Can you make them earn their contract by bagging groceries, passing out Thanskgiving turkeys, blogging on Pacers.com and reading Horton Hears a Who to school children?


They can do the same thing they did with Artest: simply leave him inactive. It's not uncommon for players who are not active, or are injured, to be physically apart from the team: even players that were good teammates. I don't know if you recall back in the 94 or 95 season, LaSalle Thompson was parked on IR (prior to the active/inactive lists) for quite awhile, and he spent most of his time in California "rehabbing". And he was, by all accounts that I can recall, a "good" teammate.

However, I don't think just parking Jamaal somewhere is going to be a good long-term solution. It won't (probably) reach the degree of discussion that the Artest situation did, but I'm sure it would be impossible to prevent his presence on the roster from being an ongoing distraction/irritation, regardless of his physical separation from the team.

If we don't want him to be a part of the team (which I think most have decided), then we're going to need to take whatever nasty tasting medicine is necessary to get him off the roster.

naptownmenace
05-27-2008, 01:32 PM
Buy him out and have Larry just focus on making the team better.

That's the only real option. No teams want Tinsley, his contract, or his baggage.

They might be able to get a couple of second round picks from a team under the cap which would be a major coop if that happened. Are there any teams under the cap this summer?

NapTonius Monk
05-27-2008, 01:33 PM
Buy him out and have Larry just focus on making the team better.

It's the only realistic solution. No one is going to take on Tinsley in a trade, unless the rest of the parts you give up are so enticing, the other team can't refuse. Unfortunately, it would probably be the result of getting your butt kicked in unequal trade value.

count55
05-27-2008, 01:34 PM
That's the only real option. No teams want Tinsley, his contract, or his baggage.

They might be able to get a couple of second round picks from a team under the cap which would be a major coop if that happened. Are there any teams under the cap this summer?


Maybe Atlanta, Memphis, and Charlotte, but everybody else looks to be over...(from Hoopshype, so look out for that grain of salt)

NapTonius Monk
05-27-2008, 01:40 PM
They can do the same thing they did with Artest: simply leave him inactive. It's not uncommon for players who are not active, or are injured, to be physically apart from the team: even players that were good teammates. I don't know if you recall back in the 94 or 95 season, LaSalle Thompson was parked on IR (prior to the active/inactive lists) for quite awhile, and he spent most of his time in California "rehabbing". And he was, by all accounts that I can recall, a "good" teammate.

However, I don't think just parking Jamaal somewhere is going to be a good long-term solution. It won't (probably) reach the degree of discussion that the Artest situation did, but I'm sure it would be impossible to prevent his presence on the roster from being an ongoing distraction/irritation, regardless of his physical separation from the team.

If we don't want him to be a part of the team (which I think most have decided), then we're going to need to take whatever nasty tasting medicine is necessary to get him off the roster.

Unfortunately, Jamaal being inactive on the court doesn't equate to him being inactive in the news. As long as he is associated here, anything negative shines a negative light on the team. Some nightclub tussle; some midtown shootout; it all comes back to the TrailPacers. The only answer is to cut ties with him, and a buyout is probably the only realistic solution that doesn't require you taking back some ungodly contract in exchange.

count55
05-27-2008, 01:43 PM
Unfortunately, Jamaal being inactive on the court doesn't equate to him being inactive in the news. As long as he is associated here, anything negative shines a negative light on the team. Some nightclub tussle; some midtown shootout; it all comes back to the TrailPacers. The only answer is to cut ties with him, and a buyout is probably the only realistic solution that doesn't require you taking back some ungodly contract in exchange.

This is more or less what I was saying, though I'd probably lean towards taking back the ungodly contract rather than buying him out. I mean, even Jeffries and James have had decent years in the past, grossly overpaid though they are. Since we're already out the money, why not hold onto the sliver of hope that you might actually get some small amount of return out of the investment.

d_c
05-27-2008, 01:53 PM
Maybe Atlanta, Memphis, and Charlotte, but everybody else looks to be over...(from Hoopshype, so look out for that grain of salt)

-Atlanta is pretty near being over the cap and they have to re-sign Childress and Smith. The "cap holds" of those 2 players put them over the cap. After they're re-signed, they will be solidly over the cap.

-Memphis is under the cap but it was financially motivated on the part of ownership to dump salary, and I doubt they cleared all that salary off by giving away Pau Gasol in order to be able to get a player like Tinsley.

-Charlotte already spent much of their cap space from last offseason on Matt Carroll, Jason Richardson and the in season trade for Nazr Mohammed. Okafor's "cap hold" puts them over the cap and if/when they re-sign him, they will clearly be over the cap.

Note: Hoopshype failed to include Matt Carroll's remaining salary. He signed a 6 year $27M deal last summer.

naptownmenace
05-27-2008, 02:00 PM
-Atlanta is pretty near being over the cap and they have to re-sign Childress and Smith. The "cap holds" of those 2 players put them over the cap. After they're re-signed, they will be solidly over the cap.

-Memphis is under the cap but it was financially motivated on the part of ownership to dump salary, and I doubt they cleared all that salary off by giving away Pau Gasol in order to be able to get a player like Tinsley.

-Charlotte already spent much of their cap space from last offseason on Matt Carroll, Jason Richardson and the in season trade for Nazr Mohammed. Okafor's "cap hold" puts them over the cap and if/when they re-sign him, they will clearly be over the cap.

Note: Hoopshype failed to include Matt Carroll's remaining salary. He signed a 6 year $27M deal last summer.

So buying Tinsley out and eating the contract is the only real option unless we package him with Granger. I'm fine with that.

d_c
05-27-2008, 02:09 PM
So buying Tinsley out and eating the contract is the only real option unless we package him with Granger. I'm fine with that.

That's all up to the Simons.

Adonal Foyle was bought out of his final 2 years and $18M for a total of about $12M. Reportedly, Foyle took a lot of flak from other players/agents around the league for eating $6M off his contract in order to play somewhere else where he could get more playing time (and he ended up riding pine in Orlando, LOL) because it set a bad precedent for player buyouts.

So assume that AT BEST, Tinsley will accept nothing less than geting bought out for $14M of his final $21M.

Are the Simons willing to eat that? That's almost $5M/year for 3 years against the cap (and the payroll) for a guy who's no longer around and who's contract you can no longer trade. Keep in mind that he would be an asset in the final year of his deal, but that option gets totally eliminated if you buy him out.

Speed
05-27-2008, 02:12 PM
So buying Tinsley out and eating the contract is the only real option unless we package him with Granger. I'm fine with that.

It's a last resort that 99.9 % of the time you don't even consider, but I think this may be the one case you do it. If you can even get him to take .95 on the dollar you've done the right thing.

I think even if you could get him to go crazy (in a good way) for 4 months and move him at the deadline, isn't a even possible scenario. And I'd rather not lose any assets at all in moving his contract. His contract isn't going to make or break the rebuilding of the team.

Buy him out.

Or say to him, we won't play you, you let us pay you only part of what your scheduled to earn and go get more than the difference on the free agent market. It's really time.

Speed
05-27-2008, 02:14 PM
Keep in mind that he would be an asset in the final year of his deal, but that option gets totally eliminated if you buy him out.

Thats fine, but I don't want him on the team, at practice, in the fieldhouse. He'll probably be on the front page, I would guess though.

Putnam
05-27-2008, 02:15 PM
Keep in mind that he would be an asset in the final year of his deal, but that option gets totally eliminated if you buy him out.

That is the way I'm looking at it.

He needs to go away now, but we want to trade him two years from now.

Jonathan
05-27-2008, 02:18 PM
Jamaal is impossible to move in the off season.
I do not see the organization packaging Q6, Jeff Foster, & him in a deal.
The best team for Jamaal to go to is Cleveland.
I do not know his relationship w/ Mike Brown.

Unclebuck
05-27-2008, 02:19 PM
I think buying Tinsley out for $14M on his $21M will be the best money the Simons have ever spent.

Right now he is doing more harm to the franchise then good, so asking him to go away for $14M seems like a bargain to me

Speed
05-27-2008, 02:20 PM
Jamaal is impossible to move in the off season.
I do not see the organization packaging Q6, Jeff Foster, & him in a deal.
The best team for Jamaal to go to is Cleveland.
I do not know his relationship w/ Mike Brown.


Mike was here when he was late to practice in an ongoing basis, suspended/not suspended wink wink, eating hot dogs from the vendors at the Fieldhouse. Thats another problem, the best fits for him, have people associated with those teams who know him too well.

Unclebuck
05-27-2008, 02:23 PM
Mike Brown will have nothing to do with Tinsley, plus, he doesn't fit with that team at all. They need a shooting and defending point guard - Tinsley is neither. The Cavs don't need a point guard who dominates the ball

Jonathan
05-27-2008, 02:39 PM
Jamaal Tinsley for Morris Peterson.

Hicks
05-27-2008, 02:40 PM
Jamaal Tinsley for Morris Peterson.

Why on earth would New Orleans do that?

Jonathan
05-27-2008, 02:52 PM
Why on earth would New Orleans do that?

New Orleans ran w/ Pargo & Paul on several occasions. I feel Tinsley is better than Pargo. We might have to package a deal but this is a start.

NapTonius Monk
05-27-2008, 02:58 PM
Denver might be a place to consider for Jamaal. Karl is a fairly eclectic coach, and he might be able to get the most out of JT. We could grab Nene; maybe a Taurean Green as a young PG project...for Tinsley and Shawne.

count55
05-27-2008, 02:59 PM
I think buying Tinsley out for $14M on his $21M will be the best money the Simons have ever spent.

Right now he is doing more harm to the franchise then good, so asking him to go away for $14M seems like a bargain to me

It is a bargain. If I were Tinsley and/or his agent, I wouldn't take less than the value of the contract at the NPV of future cash flows, which I'm thinking would be $17-18 million. Why cough up a discount beyond that if you don't have to?

Get the money today, then you could find some team somewhere to give you a smallish contract and be money ahead.

I just don't see Jamaal doing us any favors.

Speed
05-27-2008, 03:05 PM
Get the money today, then you could find some team somewhere to give you a smallish contract and be money ahead.

I just don't see Jamaal doing us any favors.


Get the money today, play the way he's capable of for a year, get another 4 year contract and then put it in cruise control, call it a rich undeserving career, be bankrupt in 5 years, go play for the Globetrotters for a year or two until they make you leave for scaring kids and cursing incessantly, while being too out of shape to even beat the Generals. Does that about cover it?

count55
05-27-2008, 03:13 PM
Get the money today, play the way he's capable of for a year, get another 4 year contract and then put it in cruise control, call it a rich undeserving career, be bankrupt in 5 years, go play for the Globetrotters for a year or two until they make you leave for scaring kids and cursing incessantly, while being too out of shape to even beat the Generals. Does that about cover it?

Of course, if he could manage that, he would've been able to get people to pay him around $50 million to be Jamaal Tinsley over the course of his career. Bankrupt or not, you'd have consider that a pretty impressive accomplishment.

Rajah Brown
05-27-2008, 03:25 PM
I'd hate to see the Pacers give up an asset that could be used in
a different trade or take back some other contractual flotsam
in an attempt to unload Tinsley.

I get that people are sick and tired of him (me too, though I care
far less about the off the court stuff than many seem to). But I
don't see the urgency to jettsion him that would justify screwing
up the salary structure any more than it already is.

Tom White
05-27-2008, 03:30 PM
Now that you mentioned it I think he could be restricted.


Or perhaps he should just be restrained.

Ok, now back to Tinsley.

I don't see buying him out as an option. The Pacers are already over the salary cap to the point of being able to reach out and touch the luxury tax.

If you buy him out, his salary does not magically vanish from those totals. Plus, you still have to add an additional salary (at additional $$$$) to replace him on the roster.

Imagine if the Pacers could not make moves for three more years because they still have a guy counting against their cap who isn't even around.

I think I'm resigned to believe an "our bad contract for your bad contract" will wind up being the resolution. At least the team then gets someone without "local media baggage".

Although many of us might want to see it happen, I just don't see the Pacers going that direction with him.

ABADays
05-27-2008, 03:45 PM
You know, I read these posts and recall the million posts past. In Indiana, you really, really have to be a F*up for the fans here to universally detest you. I have contended for a long time that Tinsley is too stupid to even realize how much money he cost himself.

JayRedd
05-27-2008, 04:04 PM
First off, John Lucas has a fantastic mustache.


I think buying Tinsley out for $14M on his $21M will be the best money the Simons have ever spent.

Also...There's no way Tin is taking $14 million. Think $18 million. There's really no reason for him to take less. We have little to no leverage here.

But what makes moving Jamaal so difficult is that he is the full trifecta of unmovable NBA player: excessively long contract, highly injury-prone and not particularly good in the first place.

That said, I actually think we can still get rid of him if we really commit to it.

Jamaal, Shawne and Foster for something like Wally Szczerbiak or Larry Hughes or Cuttino/Tim Thomas or Q/Malik Rose or Toine/Buckner would probably get it done.

I'm not advocating any of those, just saying it's doable if we throw in two other "assets" (though I consider Shawne debatable).

Speed
05-27-2008, 04:08 PM
First off, John Lucas has a fantastic mustache.

Says the guy with Ron Burgundy as his avatar.

avoidingtheclowns
05-27-2008, 04:13 PM
That's all up to the Simons.

Adonal Foyle was bought out of his final 2 years and $18M for a total of about $12M. Reportedly, Foyle took a lot of flak from other players/agents around the league for eating $6M off his contract in order to play somewhere else where he could get more playing time (and he ended up riding pine in Orlando, LOL) because it set a bad precedent for player buyouts.

i thought ultimately it was about being closer to home as he is from the caribbean.


I think buying Tinsley out for $14M on his $21M will be the best money the Simons have ever spent.

Right now he is doing more harm to the franchise then good, so asking him to go away for $14M seems like a bargain to me

yeah except it isn't just dollar amounts -- it is the fact that we buy him out of the next three years BUT for the next three years he still holds our organization hostage by remaining in the cap figures. that is $6-7 mil each season we won't be able to still spend (or spend double by going over the cap) for tinsley to be gone this early. it doesn't make a ton of sense - maybe with two or one year left but not with three.


Why on earth would New Orleans do that?

they wouldn't. mike james perhaps but i think that probably depends on what happens with pargo...

Alpolloloco
05-27-2008, 04:22 PM
I might have the perfect trading partner for moving Jamaal ... Washington Wizards!

They need to sign Arenas & Jamison to new deals and besides Agent Zero only have Antonio Daniels as their backup guard. Both guys arent't real passfirst PG's so there might be a need for Tinsley.

Wizards fans want to get rid of Songaila and his contract, and Etan Thomas isn't a fan favourite either.

So would they bite on a Tinsley/Diogu/Harrison package for Thomas/Songaila?

d_c
05-27-2008, 04:36 PM
i thought ultimately it was about being closer to home as he is from the caribbean.


That was just a small part of it. He liked the Bay Area a lot.

He just wanted more playing time. Recall that at the end of the playoffs for the Magic a couple weeks ago, Foyle was whining again about playing time and saying he wanted to go somehwere else again.

http://www.contracostatimes.com/sports/ci_9133694

Like someone mentioned, I don't see Tinsley taking less than $17-18M in any kind of buyout. Different circumstances than Foyle.

And recall that most players were pretty shocked/aghast at the deal that Foyle caved into. 1/3 of your remaining salary is a lot. I just kind of doubt Tinsley would do the same.

Anthem
05-27-2008, 04:44 PM
No way Tinsley lets himself get bought out for $14m. I strongly doubt he'd allow himself to get bought out for $18m. He'd want the full amount. That, plus the things everybody else has said, makes it pretty clear to me: buying out Tinsley is simply not on the table.

So it's a matter of moving him. I imagine we'd have to take somebody else's overpaid player, but I'd be willing to do that if it was somebody we could actually use, or somebody with a shorter contract. SO, back to my first post.

What are legit targets (both as teams and as packages) for a Pacer team trying to move Jamaal?

Alpolloloco
05-27-2008, 05:20 PM
No way Tinsley lets himself get bought out for $14m. I strongly doubt he'd allow himself to get bought out for $18m. He'd want the full amount. That, plus the things everybody else has said, makes it pretty clear to me: buying out Tinsley is simply not on the table.

So it's a matter of moving him. I imagine we'd have to take somebody else's overpaid player, but I'd be willing to do that if it was somebody we could actually use, or somebody with a shorter contract. SO, back to my first post.

What are legit targets (both as teams and as packages) for a Pacer team trying to move Jamaal?

See my post on page 2 involving the Washington Wizards.

Pacers get Thomas(2yrs 7m)/Songaila(3 yrs 4m) for Tinsley(3 yrs 7m)/Diogu(2 yrs 6m)/Harrison(1 yr 2m).

Wizards could use a passfirst PG like TInsley and some low post guys like Diogu and Harrison while we could use a bruiser like Thomas.

Both Tinsley and Thomas are oft-injured and have had their share of offcourt issues.

D-BONE
05-27-2008, 05:29 PM
See my post on page 2 involving the Washington Wizards.

Pacers get Thomas(2yrs 7m)/Songaila(3 yrs 4m) for Tinsley(3 yrs 7m)/Diogu(2 yrs 6m)/Harrison(1 yr 2m).

Wizards could use a passfirst PG like TInsley and some low post guys like Diogu and Harrison while we could use a bruiser like Thomas.

Both Tinsley and Thomas are oft-injured and have had their share of offcourt issues.

Thomas has to get a clean bill of health first after his health issues-somehthing heart related IIRC. Anyway, I'd gladly take a healthy Thomas. A legit interior defender and rebounder. Not a big minute superstar but at least he'd add some presence.

Infinite MAN_force
05-27-2008, 05:50 PM
See my post on page 2 involving the Washington Wizards.

Pacers get Thomas(2yrs 7m)/Songaila(3 yrs 4m) for Tinsley(3 yrs 7m)/Diogu(2 yrs 6m)/Harrison(1 yr 2m).

Wizards could use a passfirst PG like TInsley and some low post guys like Diogu and Harrison while we could use a bruiser like Thomas.

Both Tinsley and Thomas are oft-injured and have had their share of offcourt issues.


Trading tinsley for someone else who has had off-court problems kind of defeats the purpose.

I look at trading Tinsley as purely a PR move. Any way we cut it we will have an overpaid player riding the bench, so might as well make it one who wont keep fans away.

Hello Jared Jeffries. GO HOOSIERS!

Dece
05-27-2008, 05:57 PM
I think it's fairly likely Jamaal will be our starting point guard to start next season. I fully realize you guys are saying NO WAY NEVER HAPPEN WHAT ABOUT PHOENIX AND WHAT JOB SAID etc etc etc, but the truth of the matter is, he's worth more to us than to another team. The best point guard we might be able to add is Augustin. Neither Augustin or Diener are good enough to be the starter of a successful team. They are also both way too small to be our 1/2 punch. Whether you all like it or not, JT is the most talented guard, point or otherwise, on our team full of small forwards.

I'd be surprised to see Jamaal in another jersey at the start of next season. Maybe after the all star break, but not before.

NapTonius Monk
05-27-2008, 06:20 PM
I think it's fairly likely Jamaal will be our starting point guard to start next season. I fully realize you guys are saying NO WAY NEVER HAPPEN WHAT ABOUT PHOENIX AND WHAT JOB SAID etc etc etc, but the truth of the matter is, he's worth more to us than to another team. The best point guard we might be able to add is Augustin. Neither Augustin or Diener are good enough to be the starter of a successful team. They are also both way too small to be our 1/2 punch. Whether you all like it or not, JT is the most talented guard, point or otherwise, on our team full of small forwards.

I'd be surprised to see Jamaal in another jersey at the start of next season. Maybe after the all star break, but not before.

I feel fairly confident in saying Jamaal Tinsley has played his last game in a Pacers uniform. If Jamaal pouted and gave half-hearted effort when the team was saying how important he was, how do you think he'll respond in a lame-duck situation, where the coach point blank said he didn't figure into their plans next year?

avoidingtheclowns
05-27-2008, 06:28 PM
Trading tinsley for someone else who has had off-court problems kind of defeats the purpose.

what off-court issues do you speak of? the fights with heywood? granted locker-room tomfoolery isn't great but kareem rush was a lockerroom cancer before this season too. i don't know of anything outside the heywood fights (and most of what i've heard indicating the team much preferred thomas).

JayRedd
05-27-2008, 06:41 PM
I think he's referring to the whole "leaking aorta" thing. Could be problematic for a professional athlete.

avoidingtheclowns
05-27-2008, 06:43 PM
I think he's referring to the whole "leaking aorta" thing. Could be problematic for a professional athlete.

that is what would be classified a tinsley-esque off court issue?


actually that's the reason i wanted to kick lester to the twins this off season. nightmare off the field issues with that whole chemo thing.

JayRedd
05-27-2008, 06:47 PM
I took it to mean "Tinsley never plays cause he's always injured and Etan Thomas may similarly never play because he has a congenital heart problem."

Not trying to be cruel, but you usually don't want to target a guy with those type of issues when proposing a trade.

But, we can probably let him speak for himself, I suppose. Maybe he did mean the shower-room fisticuffs and protest poetry.

avoidingtheclowns
05-27-2008, 07:02 PM
I took it to mean "Tinsley never plays cause he's always injured and Etan Thomas may similarly never play because he has a congenital genetic heart problem."

Not trying to be cruel, but you usually don't want to target a guy with those type of issue when proposing a trade.

But, we can probably let him speak for himself, I suppose. Maybe he did mean the shower-room fisticuffs and protest poetry.

i'm not saying i disagree -- etan, even without the heart problem, had a bit of an injury issue. he only played in about 70% of the games his first six seasons before sitting out all of 07-08 with the heart condition. but we're also talking people who we could trade jamaal for (including jared jeffries, speedy claxton, etc) no shortage of injury issues all around.

the benefit of getting thomas is he could be the pacers' slam poet laureate AND he could be that big man coach kegboy has always wanted.

Doddage
05-27-2008, 07:24 PM
I posted in the trade forum regarding a deal that could very well occur given some nice advertisement of Tinsley. Well, Denver could of course use a point guard, as that's their most noticeable hole. Even though they have some daunting contracts and are in luxury tax range, they HAVE to do something to compete in the Western conference. This starts at the point guard position, which Jamaal is proven to be effective when healthy.

Here it is:
Tinsley + #41 for Chucky Atkins and Steven Hunter

They get rid of some trash, as Atkins and Hunter basically don't get any playing time and they get an upgrade over Anthony Carter. Tinsley's health shouldn't be the issue that it is here since he won't have as many responsibilities since AI and Carmelo Anthony bring in most of the offense. With that said, they still need that one distributor.

In terms of what we'd be getting, Hunter could be a nice bench option or possibly even a starter for us since our center rotation is weak. Atkins probably would be waived, although we could keep him to be three deep at PG. He'd have to accept being behind Diener in the rotation, though. This is, of course, provided that we draft a point guard. This is really paramount to us looking to trade Jamaal, since otherwise we'd have no starting point guard.

Infinite MAN_force
05-27-2008, 07:39 PM
what off-court issues do you speak of? the fights with heywood? granted locker-room tomfoolery isn't great but kareem rush was a lockerroom cancer before this season too. i don't know of anything outside the heywood fights (and most of what i've heard indicating the team much preferred thomas).

I actually don't know anything about the guy. I was just going off the fact that he said "They both have had their share of off-court problems"

Evan_The_Dude
05-27-2008, 08:36 PM
I don't have time to look at how it would work, but I can see Tinsley in a Golden State Warriors uniform. I think he'd even like that himself.

d_c
05-27-2008, 08:58 PM
I don't have time to look at how it would work, but I can see Tinsley in a Golden State Warriors uniform. I think he'd even like that himself.

Tinsley on the Warriors would instantly become the worst contract on the roster (ahead of Al Harrington and the $6M we pay Foyle to not be here). Indy had better be giving the Warriors some seriously good compensation to take on Tinsley. I don't see it happening.

From just a purely financial standpoint, our ownership isn't going to committ $21M over the next 3 years for a PG who is unreliable in more ways than one.

If you've noticed some of the financial hardball the W's have been practicing the past 2 years (how stiffly they've dealt with Pietrus, Barnes, Nellie, Biedrins and Baron), you'll know they won't be taking on Tinsley.

Roaming Gnome
05-28-2008, 12:23 AM
I think it's fairly likely Jamaal will be our starting point guard to start next season. I fully realize you guys are saying NO WAY NEVER HAPPEN WHAT ABOUT PHOENIX AND WHAT JOB SAID etc etc etc, but the truth of the matter is, he's worth more to us than to another team. The best point guard we might be able to add is Augustin. Neither Augustin or Diener are good enough to be the starter of a successful team. They are also both way too small to be our 1/2 punch. Whether you all like it or not, JT is the most talented guard, point or otherwise, on our team full of small forwards.

I'd be surprised to see Jamaal in another jersey at the start of next season. Maybe after the all star break, but not before.

Right now, I'm putting more stock into these words about Jamaal then into what our head coach said about Jamaal not being in our future plans. Than again, saying a guy is not in the "future plans" is not the same to me as saying the guy "won't be back next season". Eventhough I don't see Jamaal being the starter when the season begins, I just don't see him being off the team, either.

Jamaal is going to cost us to move him whether it is in more cap flexibility, or losing a valuable chip just to move him.

Robertmto
05-28-2008, 12:28 AM
I might have the perfect trading partner for moving Jamaal ... Washington Wizards!

They need to sign Arenas & Jamison to new deals and besides Agent Zero only have Antonio Daniels as their backup guard. Both guys arent't real passfirst PG's so there might be a need for Tinsley.

Wizards fans want to get rid of Songaila and his contract, and Etan Thomas isn't a fan favourite either.

So would they bite on a Tinsley/Diogu/Harrison package for Thomas/Songaila?

Not alot of people want to get rid of Songaila, they just want him toio get less minutes, and Blatche more. Etan Thomas was more of a fan favorite than Haywood, so IDK what ur talking about.

And Antonio Daniels on hsi worst day is better than Tinsley in a K&B suit

D-BONE
05-28-2008, 07:13 AM
I posted in the trade forum regarding a deal that could very well occur given some nice advertisement of Tinsley. Well, Denver could of course use a point guard, as that's their most noticeable hole. Even though they have some daunting contracts and are in luxury tax range, they HAVE to do something to compete in the Western conference. This starts at the point guard position, which Jamaal is proven to be effective when healthy.

Here it is:
Tinsley + #41 for Chucky Atkins and Steven Hunter

They get rid of some trash, as Atkins and Hunter basically don't get any playing time and they get an upgrade over Anthony Carter. Tinsley's health shouldn't be the issue that it is here since he won't have as many responsibilities since AI and Carmelo Anthony bring in most of the offense. With that said, they still need that one distributor.

In terms of what we'd be getting, Hunter could be a nice bench option or possibly even a starter for us since our center rotation is weak. Atkins probably would be waived, although we could keep him to be three deep at PG. He'd have to accept being behind Diener in the rotation, though. This is, of course, provided that we draft a point guard. This is really paramount to us looking to trade Jamaal, since otherwise we'd have no starting point guard.

Atkins as the 3rd PG could be a reliable injury stop gap and a mentor to Diener and a newly-drafted point. This assuming he's reasonably healthy as he missed significant time last season due to injury.

Hunter is nothing to write home about as you note but I agree he could possibly be a contributing 5 off the bench. His biggest contribution would probably be in blocked shots.

I think something along these lines would be best case for Tins. If Atkins is healthy I think adding these two vets potentially adds more than Jared Jeffries could offer without the headache contract. Is Tinsley's dirty laundry even too much for George Karl to undertake?

pacergod2
05-28-2008, 09:05 AM
I would agree that the Washington Wizards would be a good spot for Tinsley, however I think it would be because they lose Arenas in free agency. I think the organization realizes he is not worth the hype, just the jersey sales. He can score but he takes so much away from the rest of the team offensively and is not a great defender. The team looked 10x better when he wasn't on the floor. I live in VA and go to a couple games a year... including all pacers games. And HAVE to watch those ugly uni's on Comcast when there's no other games on.

I also think Washington's roster would be good for Tinsley because they do have Antonio Daniels to share time with, alleviating Tinsley having to play more than 25-30 minutes a game. Plus Daniels is small and can't handle much bigger guards.

I actually could see Arenas in Charlotte. Especially if they lose Okafor.

The players in Washington LOVE Songaila. I doubt they would trade him.

Just my thoughts.

Naptown_Seth
05-28-2008, 11:35 AM
I think he's referring to the whole "leaking aorta" thing. Could be problematic for a professional athlete.
Oh great, another bleeding heart liberal, that's all you need in Indy. You think thugs are hated, that's nothing.
;)

LoneGranger33
05-28-2008, 01:59 PM
Oh great, another bleeding heart liberal, that's all you need in Indy. You think thugs are hated, that's nothing.
;)

Hahahah...Maybe there is a place in the comedy business for you...:laugh:

And, to remain on-topic, Antonio Daniels is the man.

Dr. Goldfoot
05-28-2008, 02:00 PM
If I was in charge of this team I'd be more concerned with moving JO than Tinsley. I think Jamaal is the starter next season. That has nothing to do with my man love of JT either. I'm just being realistic.

LoneGranger33
05-28-2008, 02:15 PM
Speaking of Al Harrington...they say the third time's a charm.

Putnam
05-28-2008, 02:50 PM
If I was in charge of this team I'd be more concerned with moving JO than Tinsley. I think Jamaal is the starter next season. That has nothing to do with my man love of JT either. I'm just being realistic.



http://www.users.bigpond.com/prodigalson/bass.htm

ABADays
05-28-2008, 03:16 PM
I would agree that the Washington Wizards would be a good spot for Tinsley, however I think it would be because they lose Arenas in free agency. I think the organization realizes he is not worth the hype, just the jersey sales. He can score but he takes so much away from the rest of the team offensively and is not a great defender. The team looked 10x better when he wasn't on the floor. I live in VA and go to a couple games a year... including all pacers games. And HAVE to watch those ugly uni's on Comcast when there's no other games on.

I also think Washington's roster would be good for Tinsley because they do have Antonio Daniels to share time with, alleviating Tinsley having to play more than 25-30 minutes a game. Plus Daniels is small and can't handle much bigger guards.

I actually could see Arenas in Charlotte. Especially if they lose Okafor.

The players in Washington LOVE Songaila. I doubt they would trade him.

Just my thoughts.

Washington wouldn't do it because they would have to take the Bullets nickname back.

Justin Tyme
05-28-2008, 07:05 PM
Speaking of Al Harrington...they say the third time's a charm.

Who are they?

The prof I had in college who divorced and married his wife 3 times that taught the course "courtship and marriage!"

Please please,the thought of Harrington being a Pacer again dredges up sour memories of losing last years 1st pick, taking on 2 albatross contracts, and the jewel of the trade(Ike) turning out to be a zircon. Just thinking of the possibility of Harrington ever being a Pacer again makes me want to puke.

Golden State needs him, and the Pacers should have let them have him in a sign and trade instead of giving up a 1st, 7.5 mil TE, and taking on Edwards million $ contract. I'll bet TPTB never even got kissed on that one by BK.

To think the Pacers could have picked Thronton, Stuckey, or a dozen others with that pick. It absolutely makes me shutter in anguish at the thought of Baby Al being a Pacer ever again! NO 3rd TIME, EVER!

Shade
05-28-2008, 07:33 PM
I think I have already adequately expressed how I would feel about bringing Al Harrington back here again.

Here's a hint:

http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~barnes/ast110_06/bhaq/Black_Hole_Milkyway.jpg