PDA

View Full Version : Buy out of Tinsley's contract...best thing for the pacers to do ?



aero
06-29-2008, 10:03 PM
so rumor has it the Pacers are going to buy out Tinsley's contact if we cant trade him. Is that the best thing to do ?

I hear New York is looking for a point guard...would donnie help us out by taking him ?

ABADays
06-29-2008, 10:05 PM
I'm sure Donnie hates him as much as we do. Oh man, can you imagine the trouble he could get into in the Big Apple?

Ownagedood
06-29-2008, 10:06 PM
Donnie won't take him.. He doesn't love us anymore.. He's now a Knick. ;)

And.. I think a buyout would be a bad idea.. But if they seriously can't trade him for ANYTHING.. I'm not really sure what else they can do.. He is probably a cancer in the locker room.

aero
06-29-2008, 10:07 PM
yeah Donnie has crossed over to the dark side...the Knicks :p

mrknowname
06-29-2008, 10:07 PM
if thats what it takes to get tinsley off the team and away from this franchise then yes it it.

ChadR11
06-29-2008, 10:12 PM
The problem is, the Pacers have pretty much come out and said they will buy him out. Now every other team is just going to wait until that happens. They aren't going to take his horrible contract, and his alleged extra 30 lbs since the season ended, when they can pick him up as a free agent to a much more cap friendly deal after the Pacers cut him. And Donnie has already said that he doesn't want to take on any contracts that last longer than the 09-10 season because he wants to be a player in the Lebron sweepstakes. We'll probably pay Tinsley about $10 million just to go away.

Anthem
06-29-2008, 10:17 PM
We'll probably pay Tinsley about $10 million just to go away.
Are you kidding? That would be a no-brainer. If we buy him out, we'll pay Tinsley 23mil to go away.

I continue to think he's movable. The 30 pounds has to be a rumor... if he was going to start packing on the pounds he'd have started earlier, and he didn't look super heavy during the season.

I'd much rather not buy him out.

Ownagedood
06-29-2008, 10:24 PM
Are you kidding? That would be a no-brainer. If we buy him out, we'll pay Tinsley 23mil to go away.

I continue to think he's movable. The 30 pounds has to be a rumor... if he was going to start packing on the pounds he'd have started earlier, and he didn't look super heavy during the season.

I'd much rather not buy him out.
Ya, that must be a rumor.. The only way its even close to being possible if he had been working out non stop, which is the exact opposite of what people think when they hear a guy gains 30 lbs... But unless he is on roids (actually wouldn't surprise me) then there is no way he gained that much so quickly.

Slick Pinkham
06-29-2008, 10:26 PM
Buying him out is far preferable to giving up somebody good along with him to offset his negative trade value.

the negatives: the buyout counts against the cap for the remainder of his existing contract, looks bad that you couldn't pull off some kind of deal somewhere, the ownership has to fork over a lot of cash at once, he can play for a rival at a very low salary and the Pacers can't control where he goes

positives: he's gone!, no need to take a bad salary in return along with giving up a good player (Shawne?), reduction in roster size is required

all in all, I'm fine with the buyout if ownership is fine with forking it over

Cherokee
06-29-2008, 10:36 PM
There always some GM out there who thinks he can change any player into an all-star; I'd be surprised if one of them didn't deal for Tinsley.

Shade
06-29-2008, 10:40 PM
Are you kidding? That would be a no-brainer. If we buy him out, we'll pay Tinsley 23mil to go away.

I continue to think he's movable. The 30 pounds has to be a rumor... if he was going to start packing on the pounds he'd have started earlier, and he didn't look super heavy during the season.

I'd much rather not buy him out.

How do you know he didn't start during the season? After all, it's not like he played or anything. And suits are pretty damn good at giving folks a slimmer appearance.

Roaming Gnome
06-29-2008, 10:43 PM
There always some GM out there who thinks he can change any player into an all-star; I'd be surprised if one of them didn't deal for Tinsley.

The difference is... Those GM's are not going to pay what is owed on Jamaal's contract to do that. After the buyout, a GM will probably look into doing what you speak of, but not a second before.

Anthem
06-29-2008, 10:43 PM
Ya, that must be a rumor.. The only way its even close to being possible if he had been working out non stop, which is the exact opposite of what people think when they hear a guy gains 30 lbs... But unless he is on roids (actually wouldn't surprise me) then there is no way he gained that much so quickly.
I just read another thread where he's supposedly gained 40 pounds. It's fun to watch a rumor grow.

By the beginning of the season he'll be a candidate for stomach stapling.

Shade
06-29-2008, 10:44 PM
I just read another thread where he's supposedly gained 40 pounds. It's fun to watch a rumor grow.

By the beginning of the season he'll be a candidate for stomach stapling.

Pretty soon, Tinsley will also be 7'2" like Jon Bender.

QuickRelease
06-29-2008, 10:46 PM
Donnie won't take him.. He doesn't love us anymore.. He's now a Knick. ;)

And.. I think a buyout would be a bad idea.. But if they seriously can't trade him for ANYTHING.. I'm not really sure what else they can do.. He is probably a cancer in the locker room.

Why do you feel a buyout would be a bad idea?

Hicks
06-29-2008, 10:46 PM
I guess Mike Wells is spreading rumors, then. He said it on JMV recently. Since April, Tinsley has put on at least 20 pounds, according to Wells. That's why you didn't notice; our season was already over.

aceace
06-29-2008, 11:01 PM
I would give up something good to get rid of his bad contract. Tin and Williams together is about 8m I believe. If there was someone out there that had a bad 1yr 8m contract.

DrBadd01
06-29-2008, 11:12 PM
If we bought out Tinsley and the buy out counts against the cap can we somehow use Tinsley bought out contract in a trade? ( I know stupid question)

CableKC
06-29-2008, 11:26 PM
I would give up something good to get rid of his bad contract. Tin and Williams together is about 8m I believe. If there was someone out there that had a bad 1yr 8m contract.
There is no such thing as a bad 1yr 8m contract...especially when you are taking back $21 mil.

If the Kings were potentially interested....I would offer up Tinsley+$3mil in cash for Kenny Thomas. The $2mil in cash is to make the total Guaranteed $$ match ( Tinsley is owed $21 mil and Thomas is owed $17 mil ).

CableKC
06-29-2008, 11:28 PM
If we bought out Tinsley and the buy out counts against the cap can we somehow use Tinsley bought out contract in a trade? ( I know stupid question)
I could be wrong...but I don't think so.

BlueNGold
06-29-2008, 11:46 PM
No, a buyout is not the best thing...but it's not bad either.

The best realistic possibility is to unload him and take on a shorter contract. So, the first order of business is to find any team at all that would be even remotely interested in him...and just try to cut a year off the deal. Whatever they can do to save some money at this point IMO. If they can't save a year of his contract, no point in doing anything at all...

jeffg-body
06-29-2008, 11:53 PM
I'd prefer not a buyout myself. Surely if we add a sweetener in the deal like Shawne or Quis and his expiring someone will take the chance as long as we are taking a servicable PF in the process. Marion comes to mind the most for a good JOB fit.

DrBadd01
06-29-2008, 11:56 PM
I could be wrong...but I don't think so.

Whats the difference then between a player who is bought out and a player who is retired. I seem to remember that a few retired players contracts were included in trades (Like the Pau Gasol deal).

wintermute
06-29-2008, 11:59 PM
If we bought out Tinsley and the buy out counts against the cap can we somehow use Tinsley bought out contract in a trade? ( I know stupid question)

not really a stupid question. but i'm pretty sure the answer is no. the buyout money counts against the cap, but the contractual obligation between tinsley and the pacers would have ended (i.e. he can sign with another team). so there's no contract to trade.

chadr11 is right though, now that other gm's now that the pacers are considering a tinsley buyout, they won't trade for him any more... unless they have problem contracts of their own that they want to ditch.

beast23
06-30-2008, 12:00 AM
Are you kidding? That would be a no-brainer. If we buy him out, we'll pay Tinsley 23mil to go away.

I continue to think he's movable. The 30 pounds has to be a rumor... if he was going to start packing on the pounds he'd have started earlier, and he didn't look super heavy during the season.

I'd much rather not buy him out.
You really think we will pay him the full salary due?

Buyouts are usually somewhere between 50-75% of what's due.

If he has gained that much weight, then hopefully he can somehow be suspended and placed in the physically unable to perform category. Then the negotiations for a buyout can begin.

And, "I'd much rather not HAVE to buy him out." But if that's what it comes down to as camp progresses, then so be it.

wintermute
06-30-2008, 12:01 AM
Whats the difference then between a player who is bought out and a player who is retired. I seem to remember that a few retired players contracts were included in trades (Like the Pau Gasol deal).

in those cases, a semi-retired player was signed to a new contract and traded to the other team in order to match salaries. that was the case for van horn and mckie i believed. it's a different thing altogether.

wintermute
06-30-2008, 12:08 AM
You really think we will pay him the full salary due?

Buyouts are usually somewhere between 50-75% of what's due.

If he has gained that much weight, then hopefully he can somehow be suspended and placed in the physically unable to perform category. Then the negotiations for a buyout can begin.

And, "I'd much rather not HAVE to buy him out." But if that's what it comes down to as camp progresses, then so be it.

buyouts tend to be closer to 80% of what's due.

adonal foyle's buyout (for 2/3 of what was owed) was kind of exceptional.

mike wells has hinted that the pacers may be trying to get tinsley to take medical retirement. that's obviously the best case scenario for the pacers.

TheSauceMaster
06-30-2008, 12:09 AM
It would not be hard to gain 20-30lbs in a few months. All you have to do is eat more and exercise less. Trust me I would know , since I gained about 20lbs in the past 90 days. I was being lazy for awhile cause I twisted my ankle. Once I started exercise back up , I've dropped 15 of those pounds in the past month.

I would say though a buyout would have to be the last thing we do. I'm still thinking someone might be interested in Tinsley. It's early and we have plenty of time to deal Tinsley. No need to even think or talk buyout just yet.

JayRedd
06-30-2008, 07:18 AM
The buy out is inevitable, IMO.

If someone wanted him they would have taken him two years ago when Bird started making daily phone calls. I expect to hear about it by July 15.

aceace
06-30-2008, 07:32 AM
You really think we will pay him the full salary due?

Buyouts are usually somewhere between 50-75% of what's due.

If he has gained that much weight, then hopefully he can somehow be suspended and placed in the physically unable to perform category. Then the negotiations for a buyout can begin.

And, "I'd much rather not HAVE to buy him out." But if that's what it comes down to as camp progresses, then so be it.I always thought buy outs were just stretched out over several years. eg: 21m paid out over 6 years instead of 3.

RWB
06-30-2008, 08:37 AM
I would be surprised if anyone want's Mr. Tinsley so you have to go a different route.

It's time for the Tin man to job shadow at Conseco. Before the season starts the Ps should be able to find his calling. I know several folks would like the cotton candy guy replaced so that's a start. Personally I think he should be turned into the PAcers version of the Wal-Mart greeter and hand out the foam fingers and media guides as you enter Conseco.

count55
06-30-2008, 09:00 AM
I always thought buy outs were just stretched out over several years. eg: 21m paid out over 6 years instead of 3.

Buyouts can be structured as such, but in the case noted, he would basically stay on the books as he currently is.

The reason most buyouts are discounted is because they generally involve a lump sum payment that would accelerate the cash flows to the player. In that case, the team would be foolish to give a lump sum greater than the Net Present Value of the future salary payments. In Tinsley's case, it would be between $17-18 million, depending on discount rate (cost of capital) agreed upon. Adonal Foyle got a buyout for only 70% of his contract value, but that was because only $1 million of his final year was guaranteed, so the unguaranteed portion came right off the top.


It would be foolish for any player to accept a buyout that strings out the payments over a longer period because money in the future is always worth less than money now.

Anthem
06-30-2008, 09:09 AM
You really think we will pay him the full salary due?
Pretty close, yeah.


Buyouts are usually somewhere between 50-75% of what's due.
Gonna need a source for that. Foyle was the biggest discount in recent history at something like 60%, and the union was mad at him for taking it because he hurt their bargaining position. Usually buyouts are on the order of 80%-90%. If you could buy Tinsley out for 50%, it's a no-brainer. But it's not going to happen.

If you've got a link that says otherwise, I'd love to see it. Tinsley's really under no obligation to be bought out... his worst-case scenario is to sit on the sidelines and get a monthly paycheck from the Pacers for the next 3 years. Unless he thinks he can get another job here in the NBA (which has to be doubtful at this point), his best move is to try to get 100% of the money.

DGPR
06-30-2008, 09:09 AM
I wish he'd do us all a favor and retire. Just don't expect his jersey to be hanging from the rafters..... :(

Tom White
06-30-2008, 09:32 AM
The problem is, the Pacers have pretty much come out and said they will buy him out.

When has anyone from the Pacers said this?

I know a NY newspaper and maybe Wells have speculated on the idea, but the only thing we've heard from Pacer brass is Bird saying he had a point guard for sale.

RamBo_Lamar
06-30-2008, 10:06 AM
I don't know how much truth there is to some of the posts I've seen
stating that his basketball career is over anyway due to his continuing
chronic knee condition.

If this were indeed the case, couldn't a Doctor sign off on it, let his
insurance pay the rest of his contract, and get some sort of injured
player exception from the league like what happened with Bender?

I would see this as the best case scenario for parting ways with Tins if it
could be done.

ChicagoPacer
06-30-2008, 10:11 AM
Pretty close, yeah.


Gonna need a source for that. Foyle was the biggest discount in recent history at something like 60%, and the union was mad at him for taking it because he hurt their bargaining position. Usually buyouts are on the order of 80%-90%. If you could buy Tinsley out for 50%, it's a no-brainer. But it's not going to happen.

If you've got a link that says otherwise, I'd love to see it. Tinsley's really under no obligation to be bought out... his worst-case scenario is to sit on the sidelines and get a monthly paycheck from the Pacers for the next 3 years. Unless he thinks he can get another job here in the NBA (which has to be doubtful at this point), his best move is to try to get 100% of the money.

Just to run a sample calculation of what might be going through the head of Tinsley's agent and accountant. They might assume that he could be picked up elsewhere for $1.0 million for the next two years before retiring.

They would request the difference from the Pacers to get out of town with essentially the same money in Tinsley's pocket (when you factor in what he would make elsewhere). This would be $5.75 million this year, 6.25 next year, and $7.5 million the following year. If they take a lump sum, they would use a really low discount rate because the salary stream is essentially guaranteed. Probably something in the neighborhood of 6 percent. The NPV of what needs to be made up (the diff between Tinsley's Ps salary and someone else) comes to about $17.7 million, or a little over 80% of what he will make the next three years from his Pacers contract.

Percentage estimates can't factor in player-specific things, especially how much a player thinks he can get from another team. If Tins could actually get a $3 to $4 million a year deal for three years elsewhere, he would only request about 50% of his current contract. The odds of someone taking a chance on him for three years at that kind of money is practically nonexistent.

JayRedd
06-30-2008, 10:47 AM
Foyle was the biggest discount in recent history at something like 60%, and the union was mad at him for taking it because he hurt their bargaining position. Usually buyouts are on the order of 80%-90%.

This is completely accurate to my knowledge. Aside from Foyle (who did catch hell from the Player's Union), I've never heard of anything under 80-85%.


If you've got a link that says otherwise, I'd love to see it. Tinsley's really under no obligation to be bought out... his worst-case scenario is to sit on the sidelines and get a monthly paycheck from the Pacers for the next 3 years.

Interesting unrelated note on NBA salaries. I believe players actually get two options: Either receive bi-weekly checks like the rest of corporate America (pro-rated for the season, however, they don't get paid in the summer) or they can take a lump-sum at the beginning of the year.

Can't find a link, but I'm pretty sure that's how it works.


Percentage estimates can't factor in player-specific things, especially how much a player thinks he can get from another team. If Tins could actually get a $3 to $4 million a year deal for three years elsewhere, he would only request about 50% of his current contract. The odds of someone taking a chance on him for three years at that kind of money is practically nonexistent.

I disagree.

Why would he take less even if that is the case? He may as well still take the 80% that Indy owes him and then sign for $3 to $4 million anyway. I find it hard to believe someone's position would be "well I will still make just as much as I expected" when the other option is "I'll make more than I expected."

Additionally, Jamaal's minimum salary has to be at least $1.07 million next season...So I don't find it too hard to believe that someone will sign him to a two-year, $4-million contract.

avoidingtheclowns
06-30-2008, 10:54 AM
The difference is... Those GM's are not going to pay what is owed on Jamaal's contract to do that. After the buyout, a GM will probably look into doing what you speak of, but not a second before.

yeah, but if a team is already spending equal money on a piece of junk like say jared jeffries, wouldn't they be willing to trade that contract ($$$ already spent) on a guy that is A) at a position of need and B) has a skill set to be more than he currently is. jeffries has reached his ceiling and has an obscene contract. jamaal has an obscene contract because he hasn't been playing up to his ability.

when you look at starting PGs around the league, tinsley's dollar amount is relatively reasonable for the production. look at TJ: over the span TJ has been in the league their numbers are remarkably similar. but TJ including the 07-08 season, TJ will make around $6mil more total.

right now, jamaal is under contract for 3yrs/$21.6mil and over the last five years has averaged 11.5ppg / 6.5apg / 2.8TO in about 30min for roughly 40 games a season.

jared jeffries is under contract for 3yrs/$19.4mil and over the last five years has averaged 5.4ppg / 4.5rpg in about 23min for roughly 70 games a season.

which player is worth the money to a team like the knicks when the difference is only $2mil? in theory, tinsley would be. so i agree with anthem - i don't think it is impossible to move tinsley, we just have to find the right taker.

JayRedd
06-30-2008, 10:57 AM
so i agree with anthem - i don't think it is impossible to move tinsley, we just have to find the right taker.

What's the saying? The 3rd year of phonecalls is the charm?

Justin Tyme
06-30-2008, 11:11 AM
The one thing that no one has even mentioned yet... does Tinjury really want to ever play BB again?

For some reason, I get the feeling he's done with BB. IF he's put 20-30 pounds on, it sounds to me he's not interested in playing. I just get the feeling he's very content to just collect the paychecks and live his life. I just don't see he's a person with much ambition. Not a type player that wants to show others he can still play at a high level. Apathetic and lazy are words that come to mind.

I truly hate to see Tinjury bought out, and I've said for 2 years the Simons wouldn't spend the money to buy him out, BUT it looks like that will be the end result. If I was a GM, I would never trade for him. If I truly thought he could be redeemed, I would just wait until he's boughtout to try and get him in a low risk high reward scenario on the cheap. Any smart GM will do just that. JMOAA

avoidingtheclowns
06-30-2008, 11:23 AM
What's the saying? The 3rd year of phonecalls is the charm?

i'm saying i'm sure there are deals out there.

i think the wizards would be willing trade him for etan thomas.

denver could use a PG, and would like to dump salary so they take tinsley and foster for k-mart. the problem for the pacers is that a deal like that adds $25mil extra in salary and the pacers just aren't in a position to do that.

as years come off tinsley's deal and as we ask for less and less a GM that has already spent obscene money on a worthless player (see jeffries) might be willing to take a chance on tinsley. the money can either be going to tinsley or to jeffries. i think it is a reasonable chance for a team to take.

tinsley's issues are magnified for the pacers because of off-court trouble and the brawl. to other teams, the only real issues would be tinsley being injury-prone and the length of his contract.

LoneGranger33
06-30-2008, 11:27 AM
Etan Thomas has off-court issues though.

RWB
06-30-2008, 11:33 AM
The one thing that no one has even mentioned yet... does Tinjury really want to ever play BB again?

For some reason, I get the feeling he's done with BB. IF he's put 20-30 pounds on, it sounds to me he's not interested in playing. I just get the feeling he's very content to just collect the paychecks and live his life. I just don't see he's a person with much ambition. Not a type player that wants to show others he can still play at a high level. Apathetic and lazy are words that come to mind.


You think he has Jon Bender on his speed dial? :D

idioteque
06-30-2008, 11:36 AM
Etan Thomas has off-court issues though.

Anything besides not agreeing with the Bush Administration and getting a slap on the wrist from Stern for it? I don't mean that in a dick way I have just never heard anything else about Thomas (on or off the court).

ADMINS: I AM SAYING THIS BECAUSE APPARENTLY THE LEAGUE WAS MAD AT THOMAS FOR ATTENDING AN ANTI-WAR DEMONSTRATION IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS AND SPEAKING AT THE DEMONSTRATION.

LoneGranger33
06-30-2008, 11:44 AM
Take your politics somewhere else hippie.

JayRedd
06-30-2008, 11:46 AM
Etan also fought Brendan Haywood a few times.

And, oh yeah, had open-heart surgury.


i'm saying i'm sure there are deals out there.

Yeah. It's just gonna be hard to convince people. Especially now that it's fairly widely known that Bird is in "trade or buy-out this Summer" mode. A one-for-one, "our trash for your trash" deal seems logical, but I don't know that it will be that easy. As I said somewhere else, you'll probably hafta include at least one of Foster/Marquis/Shawne/pick.


I'm also guessing the Knicks are out of the picture since Donnie is there.

avoidingtheclowns
06-30-2008, 11:49 AM
Etan Thomas has off-court issues though.

he and brendan heywood fight - but most of the team was behind shipping heywood out and keeping thomas until thomas had the whole leaky heart thing.


Yeah. It's just gonna be hard to convince people. As I said somewhere else, you'll hafta include at least one of Foster/Marquis/Shawne/pick.

It's doable...it'll just be difficult. Especially now that it's fairly widely known that Bird is in "trade or buy-out this Summer" mode. A one-for-one, "our trash for your trash" deal seems logical, but I don't know that it will be that easy.

I'm also guessing the Knicks are out of the picture since Donnie is there.

i agree the whole buy-out thing isn't helping matters. donnie is there but it is also new york and no one is gonna care in NYC if tinsley is at a club at 2am. character matters less outside the hoosier state to NBA franchises. abe polin for the wizards places a high value on character (one of the main reasons they matched the offer for etan) but he has deshawn stevenson on the roster too. character has a slightly different meaning when your team wasn't involved in the brawl. i think donnie (who may have been the reason we didn't ship tinsley off before for all we know) would say "if i can't get out of jeffries deal, i can at least turn it into something that will produce." i don't think donnie's time with the pacers would sour him on that when it comes to crap for crap. plus you have the history of pacer rejects (artest, sjax) being less problematic outside of indy -- and as NYK's backup PG why would they care?

LoneGranger33
06-30-2008, 11:54 AM
Call it what it is, ATC, a bleeding heart.

Anthem
06-30-2008, 12:10 PM
If Tins could actually get a $3 to $4 million a year deal for three years elsewhere, he would only request about 50% of his current contract.
Not in a million years.

He'd try to get everything he could from the Pacers, plus more from the other team.

Extra payday FTW.

Anthem
06-30-2008, 12:11 PM
Yeah. It's just gonna be hard to convince people. Especially now that it's fairly widely known that Bird is in "trade or buy-out this Summer" mode. A one-for-one, "our trash for your trash" deal seems logical, but I don't know that it will be that easy. As I said somewhere else, you'll probably hafta include at least one of Foster/Marquis/Shawne/pick.
Quis and Shawne? Definitely. Foster? Maybe. Pick? Probably not.

RamBo_Lamar
06-30-2008, 12:15 PM
I don't know how much truth there is to some of the posts I've seen
stating that his basketball career is over anyway due to his continuing
chronic knee condition.

If this were indeed the case, couldn't a Doctor sign off on it, let his
insurance pay the rest of his contract, and get some sort of injured
player exception from the league like what happened with Bender?

I would see this as the best case scenario for parting ways with Tins if it
could be done.


No thoughts whatsoever on this being at least a remote possibility??

ChicagoJ
06-30-2008, 12:21 PM
No thoughts whatsoever on this being at least a remote possibility??

Is his knee insured?

This part of the topic is 100% speculation, unless someone worked on the legal team for JT's contract. From what was leaked to the press, Bender's knee was insured for his second contract, but not his first.

Most likely, whenever this contract expires, his next contract will be insured for this type of stuff. Maybe for sinus infections, too.

Bball
06-30-2008, 12:37 PM
Most likely, whenever this contract expires, his next contract

Next contract???

Aye yi yi....

I can't picture this contract running its course and someone else re-signing him. I'm sticking by my prediction that within 2 years of Tinsley leaving the Pacers he's done in the NBA.

The only way I envision Tinsley getting another NBA contract is if the Pacers buy him out and he gets a shot with someone for beans. ...Altho I suppose that could be insured...


-Bball

ChicagoJ
06-30-2008, 12:41 PM
When the Pacers buy him out, he'll have to sign for the minimum. Kareem Rush re-hab'ed his reputation this past season, didn't he.

At Tinsley's talent level, there are GMs that would give him the MLE if here were an unrestricted FA and coming off a season where he stayed healthy.

They just aren't going to trade for him.

maragin
06-30-2008, 01:05 PM
I can't see buying him out being the best option. My memory isn't so short that I forget that he was (arguably) the third best PG in the East for the first part of last season. I'm not saying we should keep him, but I don't think he's impossible to move or get some value for.

ChicagoJ
06-30-2008, 01:17 PM
I can't see buying him out being the best option. My memory isn't so short that I forget that he was (arguably) the third best PG in the East for the first part of last season. I'm not saying we should keep him, but I don't think he's impossible to move or get some value for.


I'd like to agree, but that opportunity was at the trading deadline last season, I think. Not now.

ChicagoJ
06-30-2008, 01:23 PM
Do you guys remember the funeral for Roger Brown that Dale Davis and Chuck Person arranged?

That was the season Chuck missed all 82 games with back surgery (from the whole airplane seat mishap). He was back in Indianapolis and had gained 30/40 pounds and was walking with a cane.

And came back the following season to play 20+ MPG.

Tom White
06-30-2008, 01:28 PM
right now, jamaal is under contract for 3yrs/$21.6mil and over the last five years has averaged 11.5ppg / 6.5apg / 2.8TO in about 30min for roughly 40 games a season.

jared jeffries is under contract for 3yrs/$19.4mil and over the last five years has averaged 5.4ppg / 4.5rpg in about 23min for roughly 70 games a season.

which player is worth the money to a team like the knicks when the difference is only $2mil? in theory, tinsley would be. so i agree with anthem - i don't think it is impossible to move tinsley, we just have to find the right taker.

I think you have answered your own question when you pointed out the number of games each player has been available to play (as in healthy). Tinsley's "per game available" salary would be almost double that of Jeffires.

Justin Tyme
06-30-2008, 02:05 PM
I still feel Tinjury is the type that would rather just not play and collect a paycheck. In 10-15 years down the road, I wouldn't be a bit surprised to hear he's broke and destitute. He doesn't make me believe he's one that has been carefully investing his money. JMOAA

ChicagoPacer
06-30-2008, 02:35 PM
I disagree.

Why would he take less even if that is the case? He may as well still take the 80% that Indy owes him and then sign for $3 to $4 million anyway. I find it hard to believe someone's position would be "well I will still make just as much as I expected" when the other option is "I'll make more than I expected."

Additionally, Jamaal's minimum salary has to be at least $1.07 million next season...So I don't find it too hard to believe that someone will sign him to a two-year, $4-million contract.

I think it's possible he gets more than $1 million from someone, sure, but the main point is the Pacers know roughly how much he'll get on the open market and won't be willing to pay much more than the difference. Remember, their economic interests enter into this too. It's not a question of getting more than you expected, but the Pacers only being willing to pay what you were expecting anyway.

Look at it this way: you have a job you absolutely hate and a one-year contract right before you plan to retire. The contract pays you $100K a year. The only other place you can work will only pay you $50K for the year. Your employer hates you as much as you hate him. He's not going to buy you out for the full $100K, because he knows you can walk down the street and get another job for $50K. Your employer knows that if they offer you $50, you'll still get $100 total w/ the other job and you'll be more happy there.

You have two choices:
-Tell your employer to stick it on the $50 buyout, in which case you still make $100, but your boss makes your life miserable for the next year, or
-Take the $50 and get the other $50 from the guy down the street, and get out of your current situation.

You could try option three (split the difference), and if your employer dislikes you as much as you dislike him, he'l probably tell you, "No thanks. You've made me miserable over the past two years and payback this year will be hell. We're relocating your office to the broom closet."

Anthem
06-30-2008, 02:49 PM
Look at it this way: you have a job you absolutely hate and a one-year contract right before you plan to retire. The contract pays you $100K a year. The only other place you can work will only pay you $50K for the year. Your employer hates you as much as you hate him. He's not going to buy you out for the full $100K, because he knows you can walk down the street and get another job for $50K. Your employer knows that if they offer you $50, you'll still get $100 total w/ the other job and you'll be more happy there.
Yeah, but the reality is that Jamaal flat-out knows the team's not going to bring him back this fall. They'll buy him out. That means that he can barter with his boss for 80k or 90k, then walk down the street and get the 50k job.

He walks away with an extra 30-40 grand, plus he gets the job he wants. What's his downside again? There's no reason for him not to do this.

Jamaal's got a great BATNA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_alternative_to_a_negotiated_agreement).

JayRedd
06-30-2008, 02:55 PM
You have two choices:
-Tell your employer to stick it on the $50 buyout, in which case you still make $100, but your boss makes your life miserable for the next year, or
-Take the $50 and get the other $50 from the guy down the street, and get out of your current situation.

You could try option three (split the difference), and if your employer dislikes you as much as you dislike him, he'l probably tell you, "No thanks. You've made me miserable over the past two years and payback this year will be hell. We're relocating your office to the broom closet."

Yeah...But the Pacers really don't have "the broom closet" option.

There are Player Union rules and historic precedents at play here that make simply suspending Tinsley indefinitely for no reason other than "We don't like you anymore" a non-option. With Artest, there was a clear reason, although the longer that went on, the Player's Union had to be more and more upset with it. The Pacers simply cannot just "hold Jamaal hostage" on their roster and not let him suit up. J'OB could bench him all season, but they can't just tell him to "stay home for the next three years."

If they can't trade Jamaal, Herb and Larry's only two options really are (1) let him be a member of the team, or (2) buy him out for the historically established amount of around 80% of his future guaranteed salary.

Jamaal and his lawyers really have all the power here.

Tom White
06-30-2008, 03:01 PM
Does anyone know who Tinsley's agent is?

Do we have any idea of the agent's track record (if there is any) in regard to buy-out or trades in disgruntled player/disgruntled management situations?

If his agent has had a player or players in similar situations, perhaps the result of those situations might give us a clue what to expect from their side.

wjs
06-30-2008, 03:14 PM
I am just wondering ... do the Pacers have the option to send JT out to the D-League?

Arcadian
06-30-2008, 03:14 PM
Raymond Brothers is his agent

http://hoopshype.com/agents/raymond_brothers.htm

Tom White
06-30-2008, 03:17 PM
I am just wondering ... do the Pacers have the option to send JT out to the D-League?

I think a player has to be in his first two years in the league to be able to go to the D league.

ChicagoPacer
06-30-2008, 03:21 PM
I think we're more or less arguing over how the 80% is constructed rather than the 80% estimate of what it would take to buy out Tinsley's contract.

There are two separate adjustments here that lead to the 20% discount. The first is taking salary lump sum rather than receiving it over the next three years. The salary is virtually guaranteed, so the applicable discount is really low (somewhere between 4% and 7% per year.) If you present value Tinsley's contract, he should expect to get about 90% to 93% of his salary, not 80%. Tinsley is not going to get a 90-93% buyout, so what is the other 10 to 13% discount? It means he (like most other players accepting buyouts) MUST be considering something else, namely how much $$$ he will get elsewhere and his general happiness playing here vs. elsewhere. If this were not the case, then guys wouldn't be accepting buyouts in the 80% range--they'd probably only accept buyouts over 90% of full salary.

Union rules or not, a franchise has ways to make a player really, really, unhappy, and Tinsley is smart enough to realize that. Why do you think Bird is commenting on Tinsley right now? He's telling him (as directly as possible) to accept the buyout or expect hell to be paid.

Tom White
06-30-2008, 03:21 PM
Raymond Brothers is his agent

http://hoopshype.com/agents/raymond_brothers.htm

Thanks for the link. I see that he is Zack Randolph's agent, so he does have SOME experience in dealing with a player with problems, and whose team is wanting him gone.

Putnam
06-30-2008, 03:25 PM
Just askin':

What are the chances that the other owners would pass on Tinsley? There is such a thing as a pariah in professional sports (e.g., Spreewell). Mightn't all the other owners agree to help the Simons teach this guy a lesson?

Tinsley isn't anybody's idea of an attractive player. The Pacers have a very high standard now for character, but no team wants what he brings to the community. Plus, remember Tinsley's falling-out with O'Brien after the notorious Phoenix game. That lost him all the friends he had among TPTB very quickly. It wasn't an ordinary difference of opinion -- it was a 5h17 fit! Suppose the other managers and owners decide Tinsley's character is bad enough to make him undesirable for any team?

Tinsley can insist on the present value of his full contract, but he has no guarantee of a new contract with another team.



EDIT: As Arcadian says 2 posts below, Tinsley's poor record of durability also augurs for him not being attractive to any other team.

Fool
06-30-2008, 03:27 PM
Yeah...But the Pacers really don't have "the broom closet" option.

There are Player Union rules and historic precedents at play here that make simply suspending Tinsley indefinitely for no reason other than "We don't like you anymore" a non-option. With Artest, there was a clear reason, although the longer that went on, the Player's Union had to be more and more upset with it. The Pacers simply cannot just "hold Jamaal hostage" on their roster and not let him suit up. J'OB could bench him all season, but they can't just tell him to "stay home for the next three years."

Yes they can. The Knicks did it to Marbury. Barred him from the Garden. The problem is that it doesn't get them $1 back, takes up a roster spot, and doesn't improve any remaining trade possibilities.

Arcadian
06-30-2008, 03:28 PM
It would really be hard to make me unhappy and at the same time pay me some 20 mil dollars over 3 years. Especially considering that will be the last payday like that I will ever get.

Also the NBA doesn't blackball people who they think can contribute. I'm mean look at the number of "accused" rapist, suspended licenses and stories other stories you hear in the league. If tins doesn't make it back it is because teams don't believe he can put together a season.

ChicagoPacer
06-30-2008, 03:44 PM
Just askin':

What are the chances that the other owners would pass on Tinsley? There is such a thing as a pariah in professional sports (e.g., Spreewell). Mightn't all the other owners agree to help the Simons teach this guy a lesson?

Two reasons this won't happen:
1-It only takes one team to give him a contract, and someone will take a chance on him. If not immediately, then when the injury bug hits and they are in desperate need of point guard help.

2-If the other owners did this, they would actually be hurting the Simons' position. If Tinsley has nowhere to turn, then this only increases the cost of the buyout for the Pacers.

avoidingtheclowns
06-30-2008, 03:47 PM
it took a long time and a LOT of offenses for spree to become a pariah. spree was given another chance after choking his coach. i'm pretty sure tinsley hasn't earned that type of label from anyone but the pacers.

CableKC
06-30-2008, 03:53 PM
The best thing to do with Tinsley is try as hard as you can to move him any trade that does not net us a contract ( both in # of years and Salary owed per season ) that is any worse.

But since I doubt that any GM will take on Tinsley....I am guessing the likely thing that the Pacers will do is simply buy him out.

My preference is to make sure that Tinsley is off the Pacers roster...one way or another....by the start of Training camp so that we can get a clean start from Day 1 of Training Camp. This way, the question of what happens with Tinsley is not a distraction ( either as an On/Off Court or PR distraction ) at the beginning of the season.

JayRedd
06-30-2008, 04:01 PM
Yes they can. The Knicks did it to Marbury. Barred him from the Garden. The problem is that it doesn't get them $1 back, takes up a roster spot, and doesn't improve any remaining trade possibilities.

Marbury was also out for the season with ankle surgery anyway. He wasn't on the active roster. He already wasn't traveling with the team because of rehab and had so many public and private altercations/turmoil with Isiah and other Knicks personnel that there was a reason behind not allowing him to come sit in a suit on the bench.

Tinsley, while not on good graces, has really done nothing to warrant such a drastic move. Nor is he (theoretically) medically unfit to play. If he was medically unable to play, I imagine they could find away to keep him away from the team...but not for three years.

And I imagine that come November, Steph will either be back in a Knicks uniform, traded to another team or bought out.

Like I said, you can't keep someone hostage for three years. Six months, sure. Maybe a year under extenuating attitude/medical circumstances. But not three years.

Additionally, from Herb's standpoint, there is no financial reason to do that. It makes more sense to just buy him out and hope to save $5 million. So even if they really, really wanted to stick it to Jamaal and hold him out from playing anywhere else for three years over spite...there's just no reason to go to war with the Player's Union over something that doesn't help you financially and is a huge distraction/blackmark to your franchise.

Jamaal's representatives know this and the Pacers FO know that they know this so it's a non-option.

Hicks
06-30-2008, 08:20 PM
We can tell him to stay home just like we told Ron Artest to stay home after his trade demand.

duke dynamite
06-30-2008, 08:32 PM
We can tell him to stay home just like we told Ron Artest to stay home after his trade demand.
He already does that. Didn't he show up to most of the games while he was benched?

Roaming Gnome
06-30-2008, 10:05 PM
He already does that. He didn't show up to most of the games while he was benched.

Actually, that isn't exactly true. He was on the bench more times then he was actually absent.

As for him being told to stay home...as mentioned earlier, this isn't going to happen if the Players Union has anything to do with it. Fighting the players union isn't something that gets you in well with agents leading their free agents to your team.

As for all suggesting that the Pacers are in any position to suspend, discipline, or find a way out of his contract on what we know now is just fantasy....and this includes telling him to stay home for the next 2 to 3 years.

If a buy out never happened before in the NBA, I could understand all this, but buyouts do happen and I don't see how Jamaal is any different then anyone else that has been bought out.

joeshmoe
07-01-2008, 09:59 AM
The best thing to do with Tinsley is try as hard as you can to move him any trade that does not net us a contract ( both in # of years and Salary owed per season ) that is any worse.

But since I doubt that any GM will take on Tinsley....I am guessing the likely thing that the Pacers will do is simply buy him out.


I think we will have to buy him out because of the size of the contract. But teams are so desperate for a point guard that maybe we will not take too huge of a hit. He does seam to be one of the better pg options available. Calderon is gone, Baron Davis unrealistic for most teams, Udrih a good option, Tinsley a good option, Duhon meh, Telfair meh, etc. A team will take him, and hopefully teams will end up bidding up his contract so it minimizes our salary cap hit.

A blogger for the Clippers was in favor of a Tinsley for Tim Thomas trade. Thomas' salary is about 7 mil. for only two years. Something like this may be possible by teams that don't want to have to wait and bid on him after he becomes a free agent.

But depending on the deal it may be better to just buy him out than take on another bad contract. This deal, for example, would not give any immediate salary cap relief, but in two years you have an extra $7 mill. While buying him out would give us about 2-3 million, purely speculation, over the next three years.

Actually I have little idea what his market value is. How much do y'all think Tinsley will sign for after we buy him out?

pwee31
07-01-2008, 11:22 AM
I think we'll be able to trade Tinsley for something. Even if it includes throwing in a pick... someone will bite

RamBo_Lamar
07-01-2008, 12:00 PM
...best thing for the pacers to do ?
At this point, I would have to say the best thing for the Pacers to do
would be to fully encourage Tinsley to hang out at Cloud-9, unescorted,
at 3:00AM, as often as he possibly can.

:devil:

duke dynamite
07-01-2008, 12:02 PM
Actually, that isn't exactly true. He was on the bench more times then he was actually absent.

As for him being told to stay home...as mentioned earlier, this isn't going to happen if the Players Union has anything to do with it. Fighting the players union isn't something that gets you in well with agents leading their free agents to your team.

As for all suggesting that the Pacers are in any position to suspend, discipline, or find a way out of his contract on what we know now is just fantasy....and this includes telling him to stay home for the next 2 to 3 years.

If a buy out never happened before in the NBA, I could understand all this, but buyouts do happen and I don't see how Jamaal is any different then anyone else that has been bought out.
Sorry, should have said "didn't he?" Somebody tore up a desk chair and a mousepad in one of the rooms this time last night when I posted this.

joeshmoe
07-01-2008, 12:42 PM
If bought out, what do you think Tinsley's market value is?

aero
07-02-2008, 03:54 AM
MLE maybe ? what teams other then maybe the Kings, Warriors, Magic, Hawks would want him ?

count55
07-02-2008, 07:23 AM
If bought out, what do you think Tinsley's market value is?

Right now...1 year at vet minimum...If he plays 70+ games and produces, then he'll get a bigger contract after that.

I seriously doubt anybody's going to risk a longer term investment at this point in time.

Justin Tyme
07-02-2008, 07:56 AM
MLE maybe ? what teams other then maybe the Kings, Warriors, Magic, Hawks would want him ?

Riley/Heat on a 1 year veterans minimum.

BlueNGold
07-02-2008, 09:01 AM
At this point, I would have to say the best thing for the Pacers to do
would be to fully encourage Tinsley to hang out at Cloud-9, unescorted,
at 3:00AM, as often as he possibly can.

:devil:

I doubt he needs much encouragement. We probably need to hang onto Quis just so he has a partner to run with.

Isn't there a potential felony conviction for assault out there? Might that void his contract? In any event, we don't need him to get hurt or anything...we just need out of that contract somehow.

I would think with Baron out and Jack being buds with Tinsley, he would be a great fit in Oakland. Otherwise, GS has to blow it up. PG's are extremely hard to come by and Tinsley fits like a glove there.

duke dynamite
07-02-2008, 11:02 AM
I wish to donate $5 twards buying out Tinsley.

count55
07-02-2008, 11:06 AM
I doubt he needs much encouragement. We probably need to hang onto Quis just so he has a partner to run with.

Isn't there a potential felony conviction for assault out there? Might that void his contract? In any event, we don't need him to get hurt or anything...we just need out of that contract somehow.

I would think with Baron out and Jack being buds with Tinsley, he would be a great fit in Oakland. Otherwise, GS has to blow it up. PG's are extremely hard to come by and Tinsley fits like a glove there.

I thought this had been settled...either nolo contendre with some probation or something to that effect. Unless Jamaal goes out and does something unbelievably serious now, I don't see anyway anybody's voiding his contract.

ChicagoJ
07-02-2008, 11:57 AM
I thought the trumped-up over-hyped charges were thrown out due to lack of evidence and no witnesses that were willing to swear under oath that he actually said something nasty.

This wasn't Stephen Jackson shooting a gun in a crowded parking lot with dozens of witnesses. This was somebody who might have said, "I'll kill you" during a fight. If that's a felony, just about everybody I saw get in a fight in the halls of Greenwood HS from 1985-88 would also be convicted felons.

Well. Maybe they are convicted felons by now... but that's a different story.

Anyway, yes, he should have just said, "I'll kick your @$$" instead of "I'll kill you." There are plenty of reasons for him to be Public Enemy #1 (mostly because the real Public Enemies #1 and #2 play for the Warriors and Kings presently), but this isn't one of them.

count55
07-02-2008, 12:14 PM
I thought the trumped-up over-hyped charges were thrown out due to lack of evidence and no witnesses that were willing to swear under oath that he actually said something nasty.

This wasn't Stephen Jackson shooting a gun in a crowded parking lot with dozens of witnesses. This was somebody who might have said, "I'll kill you" during a fight. If that's a felony, just about everybody I saw get in a fight in the halls of Greenwood HS from 1985-88 would also be convicted felons.

Well. Maybe they are convicted felons by now... but that's a different story.

Anyway, yes, he should have just said, "I'll kick your @$$" instead of "I'll kill you." There are plenty of reasons for him to be Public Enemy #1 (mostly because the real Public Enemies #1 and #2 play for the Warriors and Kings presently), but this isn't one of them.

Well, he actually did kick the guy's ***, but the charges were overhyped. In any case, it's pretty much done except for the probation:


Jamaal Tinsley, Marquis Daniels Avoid Trial
03.18.2008 - Updated on 03.18.2008


Indiana Pacers guards Jamaal Tinsley and Marquis Daniels avoided a trial Monday on charges stemming from a 2007 bar fight.

Prosecutors agreed to drop all charges if the players stay out of trouble for two years.

Tinsley faced a felony charge of intimidation, and misdemeanor counts of battery, disorderly conduct and intimidation in the fight at the 8 Seconds Saloon in February 2007. Daniels was charged with battery and disorderly conduct, both misdemeanors.

"We think this is the appropriate thing," said Tinsley’s attorney, James Voyles, after the 20-minute session in a Marion County court. "We’re grateful and relieved." [ESPN]

Stan Gable
07-02-2008, 09:38 PM
Could we get Denver to bite on this?

Three way trade between Denver, NY, and Indy.
Tinsley to Denver 6.75 and 3 years left on contract.
Steven Hunter and Chucky Atkins to NY 3.4 each and 1 year and 2 years on contracts.
Jared Jeffries to Indy 6 x 3 years on contract.

I think NY would do it b/c Hunter and Atkins are signed for this year and one of the guys is signed for next year at 3.4. They both are off the books in 2010. NY gives up a player they probably don't care about in Jeffries and cuts another 6 million and change off the 2010 payroll in their quest for Lebron or some other superstar in 2010 free agency.

Denver takes on the craptastic Tinsley and adds approximately 11 million more in total salary over the next 3 years of the contract but they get their legit PG who has potential without giving up any quality players or draft picks. He might fit in well with AI and Melo and the only risk Denver takes is some additional salary. They are the team taking a gamble here though.

Indy-Dumps crap for crap but at least it gives some depth at pf, a hometown kid, and who knows maybe he blossoms with some playing time and a comfortable situation. Might also help attendance in the short run.

Anthem
07-02-2008, 09:43 PM
Why bring NY into it? If Denver would take that deal, why not deal directly with them?

aero
07-02-2008, 10:51 PM
is anyone hearing any trade talks about tinsley...or are we only going to do the buy out ?