PDA

View Full Version : Tinsley or Marbury a tough call for the Heat ?



Pacemaker
09-19-2008, 03:07 PM
Based on talk out of Indiana and New York, the Heat soon could be facing two decisions in its convoluted situation at point guard.



With Indiana's Jamaal Tinsley, the situation is pretty basic. If the Pacers are willing to take on Marcus Banks, a deal quickly could be consummated. If the Pacers remain focused on Udonis Haslem, the conversations will remain cursory.



With New York's Stephon Marbury, the issue is a bit more clouded. Unlike Indiana, which insists it will not buy out Tinsley at anything short of pennies on the dollar, New York apparently is moving closer to an outright release of Marbury, at least that's the latest from The New York Times.



If Marbury is waived, the Heat would be first in position to make a waiver claim, because of its league-worst 2007-08 record. Of course, lacking the cap space or financial interest in such a move, the Heat, like each of the other 28 remaining teams, would have to wait until Marbury clears waivers.



Adding Marbury in free agency would mean also remaining on the hook for Banks' three remaining seasons, as well as having four point guards in camp, when counting Marbury, Banks, Mario Chalmers and Chris Quinn.



Common sense would say that if Marbury truly wants to regain his stature, the Heat would be the most logical landing point. Where else, perhaps beyond Indiana, would he have as solid a chance to emerge as an opening-night starter?



Yet is that where a team of the future should be headed? It's a tough call. At a point in the post-Shaq era when the Heat is trying to get everything to again be about team, is adding a veteran trying to resurrect his personal star the way to go?



A tough call? Certainly. But one the Heat soon might have to make.

http://blogs.sun-sentinel.com/sports_basketball_heat/

Smoothdave1
09-19-2008, 03:13 PM
Would anyone be willing to take Banks for Tinsley? There would have to be other players involved (for salary cap reasons) and Miami needs a big too. Any thoughts?

OakMoses
09-19-2008, 03:24 PM
This article loses credibility when the author suggests that Marbury would have a shot at the starting PG job in Indiana. That's as much hogwash as I've ever read. I'm not even sure that Crean would take him at IU.

Speed
09-19-2008, 03:43 PM
This article loses credibility when the author suggests that Marbury would have a shot at the starting PG job in Indiana. That's as much hogwash as I've ever read. I'm not even sure that Crean would take him at IU.

Yep that is stupid for him to say Marbury would start here.

Otherwise, the Pacers would really have to think about a a Banks deal (I think he basically has 3 years 13.3 million left) and expiring contract(s).

Then they'd have the option to waive Banks (maybe even wait until after this season) and then it's essentially like buying out Tinsley for

-one year of Banks on the team
-plus 9 million (what is left on the last two years of Banks contract.
-plus the expiring one year deal of a expiring player for like 3 million (you could keep that player or not, really)

So its like buying out Tinsley sort of, but you save some money and some future cap space and maybe Banks becomes a better asset than Tinsley after a year.

Not the best thing in the world since Banks will still be on your books 3 years from now, but for only 4.7 million v. 7.5 for JT.

Again, not the best thing in the world, but it gets Tinsley out of town and you save some money/capspace. Plus JT on Southbeach is worth it all by itself.

edit, Smush Parker is a free agent now (not available to be expiring contract fodder), I guess, at least according to Wikipedia so it has to be true.

diamonddave00
09-19-2008, 04:12 PM
A Tinsley for Banks trade does not work salary wise. The likely he is referring to is Blount and Banks coming here since he said forget Haslem.

Going to the Heat would be Tinsley and either Nesterovic or Foster. I want no part of Blount. Mark Blount is owed 16 mil over the next 2 seasons while Nesterovic and Foster are both expiring contracts.

Any savings in the Tinsley / Banks part would be lost due to Blount's 8 mil , 2nd year of his deal.

Smush Parker has signed to play overseas next season.

Hicks
09-19-2008, 04:20 PM
Why do they want to get rid of Banks beyond his contract? I thought I'd heard/seen before that he was a bad egg of some sort, too?

Also, if you add Maceo Baston in, you could trade him and Tinsley for Banks and Haslem.

d_c
09-19-2008, 04:28 PM
Why do they want to get rid of Banks beyond his contract? I thought I'd heard/seen before that he was a bad egg of some sort, too?

Also, if you add Maceo Baston in, you could trade him and Tinsley for Banks and Haslem.

They want to get rid of Banks because he still has 3 years left on his deal and he's just not that good of a player.

I don't see the Heat giving up Haslem in any deal with the Pacers. Haslam has been a solid guy for them for awhile now and he's signed to a reasonable deal. He's basically their Jeff Foster.

CableKC
09-19-2008, 04:32 PM
The Heat would take on Marbury without a second thought.

If all Financially considerations are equal.....Marbury is less injury prone, is as good as Tinsley is on Defense, a better scorer then Tinsley is and would probably be considered equal as a Lockerroom presense.

pacergod2
09-19-2008, 05:42 PM
Thats ok. We don't need to send him to the Heat. Let Marbury screw that team up for the next 3-5 years. See the NY Knicks. Wait until a starting PG goes down and they have no viable options. There will be a team whose PG goes down. Think Alston in Hou, Nash in Pho, Fisher in LA, Rondo in Bos, or Kidd in Dal. I dont think it would be the end of the world if Tinsley doesnt get traded until sometime into the season.

Hicks
09-19-2008, 05:53 PM
I guess what I'm going to start telling myself is that the worst case scenario is he's an expiring contract in 2011 to shop.

QuickRelease
09-19-2008, 06:00 PM
A Tinsley for Banks trade does not work salary wise. The likely he is referring to is Blount and Banks coming here since he said forget Haslem.

Going to the Heat would be Tinsley and either Nesterovic or Foster. I want no part of Blount. Mark Blount is owed 16 mil over the next 2 seasons while Nesterovic and Foster are both expiring contracts.

Any savings in the Tinsley / Banks part would be lost due to Blount's 8 mil , 2nd year of his deal.

Smush Parker has signed to play overseas next season.

Wouldn't we be able to do the Tinsley for Banks deal utilizing the JO trade exception?

CableKC
09-19-2008, 06:04 PM
Wouldn't we be able to do the Tinsley for Banks deal utilizing the JO trade exception?
You can't combine Trade Exceptions with Players.

QuickRelease
09-19-2008, 06:11 PM
Why do they want to get rid of Banks beyond his contract? I thought I'd heard/seen before that he was a bad egg of some sort, too?

Also, if you add Maceo Baston in, you could trade him and Tinsley for Banks and Haslem.

I'm thinking the same thing as well. For a team that is limited in point guard options, I think it's telling that they're looking to jettison someone that has Bank's talent.

BlueNGold
09-19-2008, 06:23 PM
It's all good in my opinion.

Marbury should be a great role model for Beasley. To be sure, Marbury at the helm should keep them out of legitimate contention for years. What a mix that would be down there. It reminds me of the failed pile-up of talent in Denver...that amounted to nothing in the playoffs.

The alternative is Tinsley out the door. Another good move in my book. If Banks and Blount keep their nose clean, they are welcome to sit and clap for the rest of the team. It would be better than seeing Tinsley there.

QuickRelease
09-19-2008, 06:56 PM
You can't combine Trade Exceptions with Players.

I thought the trade exception allowed you to take back less incoming trade value. Am I mistaken in thinking we could do Tinsley for Banks straight up due to the $2 million+ TE?

count55
09-19-2008, 07:10 PM
I thought the trade exception allowed you to take back less incoming trade value. Am I mistaken in thinking we could do Tinsley for Banks straight up due to the $2 million+ TE?

You're mistaken.

For one thing, Tinsley has a higher salary, so it would actually be Miami that has the salary problem.

Second, the TE is a slot, not an asset. We can't give it to Miami. We can only use it to place a player who's already under contract to another team.

Finally, since the TE is not a transferrable asset, it cannot be combined with anything. A TE is just like an MLE. It can be broken up to acquire multiple players, but it cannot be combined with anything. (It also can't be used to sign a FA...only to acquire a player who is already under contract to another team.)

Tom White
09-19-2008, 08:29 PM
You can't combine Trade Exceptions with Players.

After so many discussions on this topic, I think CableKC's one line in his post should be a sticky at the top of the first page on this forum.

I don't say that to be mean to the poster who asked the question, it is just that the question (or scenarios where posters try to base a trade on it) keeps coming up over, and over.

QuickRelease
09-20-2008, 12:25 AM
After so many discussions on this topic, I think CableKC's one line in his post should be a sticky at the top of the first page on this forum.

I don't say that to be mean to the poster who asked the question, it is just that the question (or scenarios where posters try to base a trade on it) keeps coming up over, and over.

People keep responding with "You can't combine a TE with a player in a trade." That's not what I'm asking. I guess what I'm asking is if the TE is used to balance incoming/outgoing trade value. Not as a tradeable asset; I know that you can't send out Tinsley + TE for another player. I'm asking what role the TE plays when figuring the salary portion of a trade. Count, I think my problem is that (like you said) I've got the salary backwards. If Tinsley made less than Banks, then we could do the deal due to the TE. Do I finally have it right?

d_c
09-20-2008, 03:40 AM
If Tinsley made less than Banks, then we could do the deal due to the TE. Do I finally have it right?

The fact that Banks makes less money than Tinsley is not affected by the TE at all. It doesn't even come into play. It's a complete non-factor in this case.

Smoothdave1
09-20-2008, 11:07 AM
I wouldn't mind seeing the Pacers add in a 3rd team on this. Perhaps Golden State as they are looking to unload Al?

d_c
09-20-2008, 01:30 PM
I wouldn't mind seeing the Pacers add in a 3rd team on this. Perhaps Golden State as they are looking to unload Al?

The Warriors want to unload Al, but not at the expense of trading Al's remaining 2 years for Tinsley's 3.

If you'd rather have Harrington because his contract his shorter, well so would every other team.

BlueNGold
09-20-2008, 02:50 PM
I recall someone (Bruno maybe?) seriously slamming Al on Pacers.com....to the point I would be surprised we would ever re-acquire him....because the statement was fairly personal in my book. I would like to have Al back regardless because I would start him at PF on this team...

QuickRelease
09-20-2008, 09:47 PM
The fact that Banks makes less money than Tinsley is not affected by the TE at all. It doesn't even come into play. It's a complete non-factor in this case.

I guess I'll never understand this TE thing. :confused:

Hicks
09-20-2008, 10:20 PM
I guess I'll never understand this TE thing. :confused:

As far as I know, it's exclusively used to allow you to absorb a player from another team's roster onto your payroll without giving up someone in return.

I'm not sure if you have to include something (cash, a pick, a tiny salary) to make it legal or if you can just absorb a player another team doesn't want anymore.

Otherwise, it's useless.

Wage
09-21-2008, 12:19 AM
As far as I know, it's exclusively used to allow you to absorb a player from another team's roster onto your payroll without giving up someone in return.

I'm not sure if you have to include something (cash, a pick, a tiny salary) to make it legal or if you can just absorb a player another team doesn't want anymore.

Otherwise, it's useless.

That is pretty much how I understand it. It allows you to trade nothing (consuming the TE) for a player that makes equal or less dollars than your TE is worth. I'm not sure if the 125% rule is also in effect with TEs, but I would doubt it. It's basically picking up another team's player as a restricted free agent(because they want to get rid of his salary), but your salary cap situation is not taken into account.

So it is of no value when trading players for one another (well, if you are creative there are ways if it is multiple players I guess), but is only used when you want to trade nothing for something.

count55
09-21-2008, 09:16 AM
As far as I know, it's exclusively used to allow you to absorb a player from another team's roster onto your payroll without giving up someone in return.

I'm not sure if you have to include something (cash, a pick, a tiny salary) to make it legal or if you can just absorb a player another team doesn't want anymore.

Otherwise, it's useless.


That is pretty much how I understand it. It allows you to trade nothing (consuming the TE) for a player that makes equal or less dollars than your TE is worth. I'm not sure if the 125% rule is also in effect with TEs, but I would doubt it. It's basically picking up another team's player as a restricted free agent(because they want to get rid of his salary), but your salary cap situation is not taken into account.

So it is of no value when trading players for one another (well, if you are creative there are ways if it is multiple players I guess), but is only used when you want to trade nothing for something.

The TE is essentially an instant expiring. It can be used to get a player from a team who is basically looking to cut payroll (a la Harrington), or it can be used to trade something that has no cap value (like a draft pick or the rights to a player) for something that has a cap value.

The 125% rule does not apply because, basically, the TE is the "orphan child" of the 125% rule from another trade. If you use a TE, it is actually considered to be part of the first trade. In the Harrington deal, it was the completion of the Peja deal. We have two TE's that basically represent "trades pending" from the JO and Ike deals. This is why the expiration date on a TE is one year from the date of the trade.

In the vast majority of cases, the TE is actually considered of value not for it's ability to allow a team to pick up another player, but for its ability to allow the team to shed salary. For example, the Pacers were able to reduce their payroll this year by $2.7mm in the JO trade, allowing them to stay under the luxury tax.

This is why TE's expire the vast majority of the time, with the team holding them wishing to keep the salary relief for themselves (or the more mundane reason that they are simply too small to be useful, like the Ike exception). For example, Denver received (actually, created) a $10mm TE when they traded Marcus Camby to the Clippers, but their sole purpose for that trade was salary relief. They will almost certainly let that expire, in whole or in part, because the salary relief (and, in this case, tax relief as well) is likely of much more value to them than any player they could add.

The Harrington deal was an exception. An odd confluence of events where the TE was "created" by Morway & the Simons as a way to keep from losing Peja for absolutely nothing. It is the only time that a TE was created with the express purpose of being used to get another player rather than salary relief.

Generally, you should assume that teams will allow TE's to expire.

Tom White
09-21-2008, 06:59 PM
I guess I'll never understand this TE thing. :confused:

Think of it this way. Consider the TE as a player with no name. This no name player has a salary worth "x" amount, that is a one year salary. You can trade this no name player to another team, but only by himself.

Now, Who's on first?

BlueNGold
09-21-2008, 07:02 PM
Think of it this way. Consider the TE as a player with no name. This no name player has a salary worth "x" amount, that is a one year salary. You can trade this no name player to another team, but only by himself.

Now, Who's on first?

That's how I've viewed the TE. Pretty much as a ghost player....like a trading card with a value...

Hicks
09-21-2008, 07:04 PM
But not really because it's not like the other team receives the TE. It just vaporizes.

Tom White
09-21-2008, 08:16 PM
But not really because it's not like the other team receives the TE. It just vaporizes.

So do some players. Carlos Rogers, for example.

wintermute
09-21-2008, 08:52 PM
But not really because it's not like the other team receives the TE. It just vaporizes.

it's true that the original trade exception vaporizes, but the team that "receives" the trade exception (i.e. sends away a player for nothing) will usually generate a new trade exception out of the transaction.

so the vacant slot analogy is reasonably accurate.



This is why TE's expire the vast majority of the time, with the team holding them wishing to keep the salary relief for themselves (or the more mundane reason that they are simply too small to be useful, like the Ike exception). For example, Denver received (actually, created) a $10mm TE when they traded Marcus Camby to the Clippers, but their sole purpose for that trade was salary relief. They will almost certainly let that expire, in whole or in part, because the salary relief (and, in this case, tax relief as well) is likely of much more value to them than any player they could add.


generally true, but the nuggets are a bad example. there's talk that they will use their $10m exception once iverson's $20m contract expires next year.

which is not a bad plan. assuming that they're not interested in re-signing iverson, they will have some financial space to rebuild a younger roster - a $10m player from trade, and a mle player from free agency.

Hicks
09-21-2008, 09:08 PM
it's true that the original trade exception vaporizes, but the team that "receives" the trade exception (i.e. sends away a player for nothing) will usually generate a new trade exception out of the transaction.

so the vacant slot analogy is reasonably accurate.


I've never heard that. As I understand it, you either have a big enough TE or you don't. If you do, that much is gone to acquire the player. The other team doesn't get a new TE.

BlueNGold
09-21-2008, 09:16 PM
A little help from wikipedia. Not sure if this is accurate of course:

Traded Player Exception: If a team trades away a player with a higher salary than the player they acquire in return (we'll call this initial deal "Trade #1"), they receive what is called a Traded Player Exception, also known colloquially as a "Trade Exception". Teams with a trade exception have up to a year in which they can acquire more salary in other trades (Trade #2, #3, etc) than they send away, as long as the gulf in salaries for Trade #2, #3, etc are less than or equal to the difference in salary for Trade #1. This exception is particularly useful when teams trade draft picks straight-up for a player; since draft picks have no salary value, often the only way to get salaries to match is to use a trade exception, which allows trades to be made despite unbalanced salaries. It is also useful to compensate teams for losing free agents as they can do a sign and trade of that free agent to acquire a trade exception that can be used later. Note this exception is for single player trades only, though additional cash and draft picks can be part of the trade.

wintermute
09-22-2008, 03:44 AM
I've never heard that. As I understand it, you either have a big enough TE or you don't. If you do, that much is gone to acquire the player. The other team doesn't get a new TE.

Well, consider an example. Let's say team A has a TE, which is just enough to absorb player Z from team B. Both teams are over the cap so normal trade restrictions apply. Now, a trade involving player Z going to team A for zero salary (i.e. picks, cash, etc) is perfectly valid. Right? This part should be clear.

But look at the trade from team B's perspective. They just sent out player Z for nothing (zero salary). In order to "balance" the trade (in terms of the CBA), a new trade exception equivalent to player Z's salary slot will be generated for team B.

I can't think of any real life example right now. But I'm pretty sure that's how it works. Let's revisit the Denver Camby trade. In real life, the Clippers used cap space to absorb Camby's salary, thus generating a TE for Denver. However, hypothetically if the Clippers weren't under the cap but instead had a $10m TE, they could have done the same deal (Camby for nothing), with the same TE being generated for Denver. From Denver's perspective, it doesn't matter whether Clippers are using cap space or a TE - what matters is that they are sending away Camby's salary for nothing in exchange, which is what generates the TE for them.

Hicks
09-22-2008, 07:39 AM
I'll let count55 or somebody else confirm or deny but I'm pretty sure it does not work that way. For example, Atlanta did not get a TE after the 06 Al Harrington trade.

Doddage
09-22-2008, 07:43 AM
Yeah, they didn't. We just had the ability to take on his new contract, while sending a 1st round pick the other way.

count55
09-22-2008, 08:51 AM
A little help from wikipedia. Not sure if this is accurate of course:

Traded Player Exception: If a team trades away a player with a higher salary than the player they acquire in return (we'll call this initial deal "Trade #1"), they receive what is called a Traded Player Exception, also known colloquially as a "Trade Exception". Teams with a trade exception have up to a year in which they can acquire more salary in other trades (Trade #2, #3, etc) than they send away, as long as the gulf in salaries for Trade #2, #3, etc are less than or equal to the difference in salary for Trade #1. This exception is particularly useful when teams trade draft picks straight-up for a player; since draft picks have no salary value, often the only way to get salaries to match is to use a trade exception, which allows trades to be made despite unbalanced salaries. It is also useful to compensate teams for losing free agents as they can do a sign and trade of that free agent to acquire a trade exception that can be used later. Note this exception is for single player trades only, though additional cash and draft picks can be part of the trade.

This is kinda, sorta right and kinda, sorta wrong. It gets the broad aspects correct, but the bolded, italicized segment implies that you could combine it to other salaries and take back more salaries (ie $6mm in salaries and a $3mm exception for $10mm in salaries), which is not correct, as discussed, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.


it's true that the original trade exception vaporizes, but the team that "receives" the trade exception (i.e. sends away a player for nothing) will usually generate a new trade exception out of the transaction.



I've never heard that. As I understand it, you either have a big enough TE or you don't. If you do, that much is gone to acquire the player. The other team doesn't get a new TE.



Well, consider an example. Let's say team A has a TE, which is just enough to absorb player Z from team B. Both teams are over the cap so normal trade restrictions apply. Now, a trade involving player Z going to team A for zero salary (i.e. picks, cash, etc) is perfectly valid. Right? This part should be clear....


I'll let count55 or somebody else confirm or deny but I'm pretty sure it does not work that way. For example, Atlanta did not get a TE after the 06 Al Harrington trade.

I don't see, theoretically, why wintermute would be wrong. If Team A sends out $X in salaries (and is above the cap) while receiving $0 back, I would think that would generate an exception. Atlanta did not receive an exception because they were below the cap. Only teams above the cap can recieve a TE.

The only reason that a TE might possibly not be created would be if there were some specific wording forbidding it. In other words, the fact that it was part of a non-simultaneous trade would negate the creation of the TE due to a "technicality" in the wording. However, I can find no such wording anywhere in Larry Coon's FAQ, and a cursory reading of the actual text of the CBA doesn't indication any such prohibition.

Manguera
09-22-2008, 09:42 AM
...Wait until a starting PG goes down and they have no viable options. There will be a team whose PG goes down. Think Alston in Hou, Nash in Pho, Fisher in LA, Rondo in Bos, or Kidd in Dal.

Or maybe Arenas in Washington? Antonio Daniels is their only PG until late Dec, early Jan. Not sure who we would get/want from them though... Etan Thomas?

Anthem
09-22-2008, 10:52 AM
Antonio Daniels is their only PG until late Dec, early Jan.
At the earliest.

Manguera
09-22-2008, 03:17 PM
I know Mike Wells' blog said the Wiz have no interest in Tins, but that was based on him missing 14 games. I'm reading that it may now be late Dec to early Jan before he comes back which would mean he'd miss 30-35 games. They're trying to get Juan Dixon but they're only able to offer a non-guaranteed deal for the minimum. If he turns that down they may start getting desperate... I hope.

d_c
09-22-2008, 03:57 PM
They're trying to get Juan Dixon but they're only able to offer a non-guaranteed deal for the minimum. If he turns that down they may start getting desperate... I hope.

The fact that they're only willing to offer Juan Dixon a non-guaranteed minimum deal says a lot about the chances that they're going to be willing to take on Tinsley's guaranteed $21M. It would take a huge leap of desperation.

If they get desperate, they'll just cave in and offer Dixon a little bit more money under a guaranteed deal.

denyfizle
09-23-2008, 12:36 AM
Yep that is stupid for him to say Marbury would start here.

Otherwise, the Pacers would really have to think about a a Banks deal (I think he basically has 3 years 13.3 million left) and expiring contract(s).

Then they'd have the option to waive Banks (maybe even wait until after this season) and then it's essentially like buying out Tinsley for

-one year of Banks on the team
-plus 9 million (what is left on the last two years of Banks contract.
-plus the expiring one year deal of a expiring player for like 3 million (you could keep that player or not, really)

So its like buying out Tinsley sort of, but you save some money and some future cap space and maybe Banks becomes a better asset than Tinsley after a year.

Not the best thing in the world since Banks will still be on your books 3 years from now, but for only 4.7 million v. 7.5 for JT.

Again, not the best thing in the world, but it gets Tinsley out of town and you save some money/capspace. Plus JT on Southbeach is worth it all by itself.

edit, Smush Parker is a free agent now (not available to be expiring contract fodder), I guess, at least according to Wikipedia so it has to be true.


Banks is not such a bad 3rd PG option either. The only way he can make this trade look bad is if he gets into stupid stuff like JT. I used to see him back in his college days at UNLV Thomas and Mack center, and he seemed like a cool dude. Not the type that would pull off a Jamaal Tinsley. Diener may head elsewhere after this season anyway so yea... I'd rather take Banks than buying JT out.

Manguera
09-23-2008, 09:25 AM
The fact that they're only willing to offer Juan Dixon a non-guaranteed minimum deal says a lot about the chances that they're going to be willing to take on Tinsley's guaranteed $21M. It would take a huge leap of desperation.

If they get desperate, they'll just cave in and offer Dixon a little bit more money under a guaranteed deal.


Dixon is a FA so they can't offer him anymore because they are already at the luxury tax threshold and don't want to go over. They can, however, trade for JT without going over.

count55
09-23-2008, 09:27 AM
http://www.newsday.com/sports/basketball/knicks/ny-spknix235854514sep23,0,3019397.story

Marbury's release is getting closer.

I also think this could be taken as a sign that an expiring could be "too big" to actually have any value, making me more comfortable that we didn't wait on JO under the illusion that he would gain value simply because his contract was one year shorter.

Hicks
09-23-2008, 09:41 AM
http://www.newsday.com/sports/basketball/knicks/ny-spknix235854514sep23,0,3019397.story

Marbury's release is getting closer.

I also think this could be taken as a sign that an expiring could be "too big" to actually have any value, making me more comfortable that we didn't wait on JO under the illusion that he would gain value simply because his contract was one year shorter.

Yep, that was becoming my fear over last season as well. I'm glad we got all that we did for JO.