PDA

View Full Version : Star: Tinsley to Nuggets? Possibly Monday



Putnam
10-04-2008, 08:07 AM
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081004/SPORTS04/810040452/1088/SPORTS04&template=printart


Tinsley to Nuggets? Possibly Monday

Pacers would get guard Adkins, center Hunter in the purported trade

By Mike Wells
mike.wells@indystar.com

Embattled point guard Jamaal Tinsley remained an Indiana Pacer on Friday, but there is a "strong possibility" he could be traded to the Denver Nuggets as early as Monday, a person familiar with the situation said.

A second person confirmed trade discussions were ongoing and said the Pacers will look for another partner if it falls through.

Both teams denied a report Friday morning that the deal already was done, pending Tinsley passing a physical. Nuggets coach George Karl told Denver reporters he laughed at the possibility.

"I don't think there's anything to it," Karl said.

"It's erroneous," Nuggets vice president of basketball operations Mark Warkentien told ESPN.com. "Did Dewey beat Truman?"

Pacers president Larry Bird issued a statement through a team spokesman saying they're "not going to comment on trade rumors" involving their players.

The proposed deal would send point guard Chucky Atkins and center Steven Hunter to the Pacers. Both would have backup roles with the Pacers.

Atkins will make $3.2 million this season and $3.5 million next season, with $760,000 of it guaranteed. He is expected to be out until at least next month following right knee surgery last month. The 7-foot Hunter will make $3.9 million this season and $3.7 million next season. Tinsley will make $21.5 million over the next three seasons. The trade would benefit both teams. The Nuggets need a point guard, and the Pacers would save money, get two players with shorter contracts and, more important, end their relationship with Tinsley.

The trade, however, also would give the Pacers 17 players under contract, two more than the NBA allows. They would have to release or trade two players by the Oct. 27 deadline. They would have to release or trade another if Austin Croshere makes the team.

Tinsley's past three seasons have been marked by injuries limiting his availability and several off-court issues that negatively impacted the franchise. Coach Jim O'Brien lost confidence in Tinsley after last season, and the Pacers told him to stay away from the team while they pursued a trade.

"Unfortunately for Jamaal, some things happened off the court that basically led to this situation," said center Jeff Foster, who has been Tinsley's teammate since 2001. "I think it's best for both parties to go their separate ways, and I think he probably feels the same way. He's probably anxious for something to happen and start new somewhere."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Major Cold
10-04-2008, 08:17 AM
until I get confirmation by Bird I will not accept this as reality.

Unclebuck
10-04-2008, 08:36 AM
What???? - So Vecsey was right.

Speed
10-04-2008, 08:41 AM
Here is what I don't get. Denver lets Hunter practice, everyone in Denver denies this, they apologize to the Denver players for the hubbub. I mean what is the reality.

It seems that maybe there is a sticking point. In the interim you could make the argument that this is a distraction to the Pacers, when one of the main things to avoid is a distraction.

I'm really at a loss here.

Smooth_for_Pres.
10-04-2008, 09:21 AM
There could be a third team?

count55
10-04-2008, 09:31 AM
Well, this is being discussed in the other thread, but the source appears to be Tinsley. He may have jumped the gun on the deal, and Vecsey has a tendency to run his mouth early.

Something is definitely cooking, but may not be completed. I'm struggling to find them, but there were some pretty specific denials from Toronto during the JO discussions.

RamBo_Lamar
10-04-2008, 09:59 AM
Well Vecsey did say in his original report that the deal was contingent
upon Tins passing a physical examination.

Perhaps Tins hasn't made it to Denver yet for Nuggets team doctors to
conduct this examination?

Until the deal is signed and closed, of course the teams involved would
want to remain "mum" and secretive about it...even if it includes denial.

Anything can happen between now and the ink drying if a deal really is
in the works, so nobody (except reporters) will admit involvement until it is
officially a done deal just in case something does transpire to derail things.

It would certainly be interesting to find out who leaked this to Vecsey in
the first place.

Am keeping fingers crossed that this is legitimate.

:pray:

Speed
10-04-2008, 10:22 AM
http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/nuggets/archives/2008/10/tinsley_deal_wo.html

Yes, character issues have to come into play. But what could be the ultimate reason the Nuggets apparently won't acquire banished Indiana point guard Jamaal Tinsley for guard Chucky Atkins and center Steven Hunter?

Money, of course.

The Nuggets last summer gave away center Marcus Camby and his $10 million salary-cap number to the Clippers for next to nothing to avoid luxury-tax hell. Do they really want to risk eventually putting themselves back to where they were?

The New York Post reported Friday the Nuggets would acquire Tinsley pending the point guard passing a physical. The story was refuted by Nuggets coach George Karl and Hunter's agent, Mark Bartelstein, although a source did tell the Indianapolis Star there remains a "possibility'' of the deal going down.
If the Nuggets were to make the trade, they would risk again having serious luxury-tax problems, especially in 2010-11, when Tinsley is making $7.5 million in the final year of his contract and the deals for Hunter and Atkins will have expired. Tinsley is due to make $6.75 million this season and $7.2 million next season.

If the Nuggets were to make the deal, this season pretty much would be a wash since Hunter makes $3.86 million and Atkins $3.24 million (a combined $7.1 million).

Next season, if the Nuggets plan to keep Atkins, it also would be a wash in such a deal were made. Hunter is due $3.7 million and Atkins $3.48 million (a combined $7.18) million. However, Atkins only has $760,000 of his contract guaranteed so the Nuggets would take on an extra $2.74 million if they're planning to let Atkins go and acquired Tinsley.

However, where the Nuggets really could be hurt financially by a Tinsley deal would be 2010-11, when the contracts for Hunter and Atkins will have come off the books.

Consider who's already under contract that season for the Nuggets:


--Carmelo Anthony, $17.15 million.
--Kenyon Martin $16.55 million.
--Nene $11.36 million.
--J.R. Smith, about $6 million.


That's four players making about $51 million. Also consider the Nuggets may have forward Linas Kleiza, who is more likely than not to have a new Denver contract start in 2009-10, making a salary in the neighborhood of Smith's.

If Tinsley's $7.5 million were thrown in that season, the Nuggets could be staring at six players making an amount not all that far from $65 million. And it should be noted none of this considers the possibility, albeit a remote one, that guard Allen Iverson would be on the payroll in 2010-11 at the age of 35.

The Nuggets gave away Camby to regain some financially stability. Do they really want to risk potentially returning to their former state in 2010-11?

Pacers
10-04-2008, 12:27 PM
Someone needs to tell that guy to shut up. :whip:

Roaming Gnome
10-04-2008, 02:39 PM
Someone needs to tell that guy to shut up. :whip:

Quick, where's the duct tape? He is making too much sense.

!Pacers-Fan!
10-04-2008, 02:44 PM
i dont like this trade...its like getting nothing...
its gonna be very good 4 denver...tho...

Roaming Gnome
10-04-2008, 02:49 PM
i dont like this trade...its like getting nothing...
its gonna be very good 4 denver...tho...

Well, getting "nothing" is the best thing you are going to get for Tinsley considering his contract and injury history. That is not even mentioning any "perceived" baggage or lack of character issues.

Also, if getting out from under Tinsley's contract a year earlier and saving nearly $10 million dollars is nothing....I'd imagine the Simons are not going to agree with your assesment.

Speed
10-04-2008, 02:52 PM
Remember, no matter how much you like Tinsley, he is NEVER going to be a Pacer.

And he was never going to garner anything postive for this years team in return, getting nothing back is a huge victory.

Speed
10-04-2008, 03:23 PM
I was looking at Denver's roster, they will have some interesting personalities, if they add Tinsley, I'll have to keep an eye on it. I don't know if they'll be any good, but I bet they know how to throw a party.

Allen Iverson
Ruben Patterson
Kenyon Martin
Carmelo Anthony
JR Smith
Chris Andersen-2 year drug suspension, crazy amount of Tatoos guy

HC
10-04-2008, 03:38 PM
i dont like this trade...its like getting nothing...
its gonna be very good 4 denver...tho...

I don't have any idea how you can equate washing our hands of Jamaal Tinsley to getting nothing.

aero
10-04-2008, 04:03 PM
I was looking at Denver's roster, they will have some interesting personalities, if they add Tinsley, I'll have to keep an eye on it. I don't know if they'll be any good, but I bet they know how to throw a party.

Allen Iverson
Ruben Patterson
Kenyon Martin
Carmelo Anthony
JR Smith
Chris Andersen-2 year drug suspension, crazy amount of Tatoos guy

All their missing is Ron Arest and Steven Jackson in that mix..wow :laugh:

Speed
10-04-2008, 04:05 PM
All their missing is Ron Arest and Steven Jackson in that mix..wow :laugh:

They must not need Milk drinkers

Also, Roy Tarpley must not be available.

d_c
10-04-2008, 04:43 PM
All their missing is Ron Arest and Steven Jackson in that mix..wow :laugh:

On a side note, the other day was Brandan Wright's 21st birthday and he was on a local radio show around lunch hour. Asked what he was doing for his 21st birthday, Wright joked that he was going "to stay away from Stephen Jackson", LOL.

aero
10-04-2008, 04:51 PM
priceless :D

BlueNGold
10-04-2008, 05:13 PM
I was looking at Denver's roster, they will have some interesting personalities, if they add Tinsley, I'll have to keep an eye on it. I don't know if they'll be any good, but I bet they know how to throw a party.

Allen Iverson
Ruben Patterson
Kenyon Martin
Carmelo Anthony
JR Smith
Chris Andersen-2 year drug suspension, crazy amount of Tatoos guy

This list of players is proof the trade rumor is true and the trade must happen. Add Camby to that list and the talent level has been off the charts in Denver. ...but oh, so obvious why they have accomplished nothing. Sending Tinsley to Denver is probably my favorite location for him.....it just keeps getting better. Get it done!

d_c
10-04-2008, 05:19 PM
This list of players is proof the trade rumor is true and the trade must happen. Add Camby to that list and the talent level has been off the charts in Denver. ...but oh, so obvious why they have accomplished nothing. Sending Tinsley to Denver is probably my favorite location for him.....it just keeps getting better. Get it done!

The reason they haven't accomplished anything is simple: they keep getting beat by teams that are better than them in the 1st round of the playoffs. You weren't really expecting them to beat the Spurs and Lakers, were you?

Smoothdave1
10-04-2008, 05:59 PM
Writers reference the Camby deal, but a few things to consider:

-- Camby is 34 years old and has 2 years left on his deal. As far as a center, that's pretty old, especially when you're going up against Shaq, Duncan, Yao, etc. day in and day out

-- Nuggets haven't had a starter quality point since Andre Miller left. Not to knock Carter, Atkins, etc. but those guys are role players and backups

-- Nuggets have Nene riding the bench making starter money (about 10 mil a year) and I think the Nuggets are looking for more from Nene this year and expect him to be back healthy and putting up solid numbers.

-- Perhaps the Nuggets knew they could sign a veteran (as they did yesterday in Howard) to add depth to the front court? Always a few bigs available for the min ever year

If and when a deal goes through, I envision a Nugget (or should I say Thugget ;)), lineup of:

Tinsley, AI, Melo, K-Mart, Nene
Carter, Smith, Kleiza, Andersen, Howard

You've got 5 starters who will all most likely average 10+ ppg, with AI and Melo at 25+ ppg. The Nuggets would have a solid bench with Smith leading the way and may fill in some holes with some role players. I think that team could be competitive if everyone stays healthy.

d_c
10-04-2008, 06:04 PM
Writers reference the Camby deal, but a few things to consider:

-- Camby is 34 years old and has 2 years left on his deal. As far as a center, that's pretty old, especially when you're going up against Shaq, Duncan, Yao, etc. day in and day out


Well, the main reason they moved Camby was because out of all the big salaries on the team, his was easily the most movable.

If they could have moved Kenyon Martin instead of Camby, believe me, they would have done it, but I doubt the Clips would have.

Smoothdave1
10-04-2008, 06:15 PM
I definitely agree. Camby is making around 16 million for the next 2 seasons. No one is taking guys like Nene (another 4yrs/43 mil) or K-Mart (3yr, 45 mil) off your hands for free unless they're able to dump a bad contract or two on you. Camby is a servicable big man who won't give you a lot of offense, but plays pretty good defense and will help compliment Kaman.

Dece
10-04-2008, 06:45 PM
It's kind of ironic that people on this board would question what the Nuggets have won. They've been far more successful than us recently, and while they haven't had playoff success, playing against the eventual western conference champions each year is pretty harsh. Still, they've had 50 win seasons, it's real tough to knock that when you're looking at our 35-40 wins seasons.

CableKC
10-04-2008, 07:32 PM
I was looking at Denver's roster, they will have some interesting personalities, if they add Tinsley, I'll have to keep an eye on it. I don't know if they'll be any good, but I bet they know how to throw a party.

Allen Iverson
Ruben Patterson
Kenyon Martin
Carmelo Anthony
JR Smith
Chris Andersen-2 year drug suspension, crazy amount of Tatoos guy


All their missing is Ron Arest and Steven Jackson in that mix..wow :laugh:

Outside of where SJax falls into this......both of you are right....I don't see why charecter issues would be a concern for the Nuggets. They have flirted with acquiring players like Artest.....and have had players like Ruben Patterson and Chris Anderson on their roster.

It would make sense that what Chapman would balk at would be the $$$ concerns. If that's the case....then I would consider throwing $3 mil in Cash considerations to try to balence it out as much as possible.

Or maybe that's the holdup......the Nuggets are asking Bird to look for a 3rd team to get involved....where they would send Atkins/Hunter to a 3rd team while sending back something more useful to the Nuggets ( along with Tinsley ) and the Pacers getting saddled with more Contracts.

Pacers
10-04-2008, 08:04 PM
It's kind of ironic that people on this board would question what the Nuggets have won. They've been far more successful than us recently, and while they haven't had playoff success, playing against the eventual western conference champions each year is pretty harsh. Still, they've had 50 win seasons, it's real tough to knock that when you're looking at our 35-40 wins seasons.


Because we've totally got the same talent level as Denver. :hmm:

Kemo
10-04-2008, 08:29 PM
I don't have any idea how you can equate washing our hands of Jamaal Tinsley to getting nothing.

we get clean hands lol

BlueNGold
10-04-2008, 10:07 PM
The reason they haven't accomplished anything is simple: they keep getting beat by teams that are better than them in the 1st round of the playoffs. You weren't really expecting them to beat the Spurs and Lakers, were you?

No, I certainly did not expect them to beat the Spurs or the Lakers. But that's the point. While their talent level is sky high...arguably as high as those teams, they are not a great team and without Camby will be a big nothing. Taking a good hard look at the type of personnel the Spurs acquire versus the type the Nuggets acquire tells you a whole lot about what it takes to build a contender...and what's a dead end street.

d_c
10-04-2008, 10:45 PM
No, I certainly did not expect them to beat the Spurs or the Lakers. But that's the point. While their talent level is sky high...arguably as high as those teams, they are not a great team and without Camby will be a big nothing. Taking a good hard look at the type of personnel the Spurs acquire versus the type the Nuggets acquire tells you a whole lot about what it takes to build a contender...and what's a dead end street.

Their talent level is good, but not as good as the Spurs (who have 3 all-stars) or Lakers. Both those other teams always had the best player in the series whenever they played the Nugz.

The problem with the Nugz is that they've seemed to be VERY injury prone (particularly their frontcourt) and they've lacked consistent outside shooting. They've been a good team in a tough conference. There are simply better teams out there with better players.

Kid Minneapolis
10-04-2008, 11:06 PM
It's kind of ironic that people on this board would question what the Nuggets have won. They've been far more successful than us recently, and while they haven't had playoff success, playing against the eventual western conference champions each year is pretty harsh. Still, they've had 50 win seasons, it's real tough to knock that when you're looking at our 35-40 wins seasons.

They were awful before this current 4-5 year run (and I mean awful, as in a few "teen"-win seasons, which makes Indy's 35-win "bad" seasons look a whole lot better). During this current mini-"run" of success they're in, they've had a single 50+ win season --- last year, when they won exactly 50 games, which was their first 50-win season in two decades. And they've never won a playoff series during this current stretch. It's not that they haven't done anything.... it's just that.... they really haven't... wellll...

Done anything. Since 1984, in fact.

Indy's last few years haven't been pleasant, but don't forget the ~15 years before that (Thank you, Reggie)... making the playoffs 15 of 16 years, 4 conference trips, 1 finals trip, 5 50+ win seasons...

But you're right --- Denver "has us" over the past 3-4 years. ;)

Dece
10-04-2008, 11:27 PM
Well, I did say recently, didn't I?

MillerTime
10-04-2008, 11:32 PM
Is it true that only $700,000 of Atkins contract is guarenteed? So if we were to wavie him, is that only due? Or do we have to pay him the whole $3.2 million?

Kid Minneapolis
10-04-2008, 11:33 PM
Well, I did say recently, didn't I?

Oh you sure did, and it was a wonderful point.

Eindar
10-04-2008, 11:43 PM
Am I insane for thinking that, at this point, I'd trade Jamaal and filler for Nene, or even Jamaal and Murphy for K-Mart? Neither one of those guys are going to be worth what they're paid, but either one would immediately become a starter on this team. I'd much rather have Nene, because his contract is the same length. I'd just like to have a productive player, at this point or expiring contracts, at this point.

MillerTime
10-05-2008, 12:05 AM
Am I insane for thinking that, at this point, I'd trade Jamaal and filler for Nene, or even Jamaal and Murphy for K-Mart? Neither one of those guys are going to be worth what they're paid, but either one would immediately become a starter on this team. I'd much rather have Nene, because his contract is the same length. I'd just like to have a productive player, at this point or expiring contracts, at this point.

I dont think we want to touch Nene's contract. He owed about $40 million over the next 4 years. Kmart is owed about $50 million over the next 3 years. I wouldnt want either one of those contract, considering that both players are injury prone, just like Jamaal

Doddage
10-05-2008, 12:25 AM
Am I insane for thinking that, at this point, I'd trade Jamaal and filler for Nene, or even Jamaal and Murphy for K-Mart? Neither one of those guys are going to be worth what they're paid, but either one would immediately become a starter on this team. I'd much rather have Nene, because his contract is the same length. I'd just like to have a productive player, at this point or expiring contracts, at this point.
Jamaal and Murph for K-Mart and Hunter/Atkins, I'd consider. K-Mart would be an upgrade defensively over Murph, and he'd work in a fast-paced offense like he did in New Jersey and he does in Denver. His deal runs the same amount of time as Murph too, so that wouldn't be a problem. He'd be able to work with some good PGs again, which would make the most of his skills. The problem is his alleged attitude and health, which are pretty sizable as it relates to us and our past with them.

Speed
10-05-2008, 12:28 AM
Is it true that only $700,000 of Atkins contract is guarenteed? So if we were to wavie him, is that only due? Or do we have to pay him the whole $3.2 million?

The way I understand it is that only 700k of the second year, so 3.2 plus the 700k the second year, if he's cut before then. If not, you'd have to pay the full amount of year 2, which is like 3.5, I think.

MillerTime
10-05-2008, 12:36 AM
Jamaal and Murph for K-Mart and Hunter/Atkins, I'd consider. K-Mart would be an upgrade defensively over Murph, and he'd work in a fast-paced offense like he did in New Jersey and he does in Denver. His deal runs the same amount of time as Murph too, so that wouldn't be a problem. He'd be able to work with some good PGs again, which would make the most of his skills. The problem is his alleged attitude and health, which are pretty sizable as it relates to us and our past with them.

JOB said that his ideal PF would be one that shoots 3's...I dont see KMart capable of that. And with all the injuries surrounding Kmart, it would be risky to have another PF making tons of $$$$$$ sitting on the bench, looking good in Armani suit (like JO)

Doddage
10-05-2008, 12:43 AM
I personally don't think K-Mart would look good in an Armani suit. But with that aside, we'd still have a 3-point shooting big if we keep Croshere. And even if we don't, we still have ample 3-point shooting from our wings that I think we can afford to trade for K-Mart (only at the price of Murph and Tins though). I'm willing to accept the tradeoff of shooting and softness for defense and toughness.

Speed
10-05-2008, 12:56 AM
The New Jersey Nets Kmart I'd take, not the one of the last few years. I just don't think he's close to the same player he was. He just doesn't play with the same intensity.

MillerTime
10-05-2008, 12:58 AM
I personally don't think K-Mart would look good in an Armani suit. But with that aside, we'd still have a 3-point shooting big if we keep Croshere. And even if we don't, we still have ample 3-point shooting from our wings that I think we can afford to trade for K-Mart (only at the price of Murph and Tins though). I'm willing to accept the tradeoff of shooting and softness for defense and toughness.
What about constant injuries? If we could do a Tinsley + Murphy + Graham for KMart + Hunter + Atkins http://games.espn.go.com/nba/features/traderesult?players=2832~1013~1024~26~1002~515&teams=7~7~7~11~11~11&te=&cash=, it wouldnt be that bad. I just hope KMart can stay on the floor and remain consistant. Last season he played and started in 71 games, but the season before, just played in 2 games. He would fit in JOBs system before of his defense and athletic ability.

PROS
We get an athletic big man that can play touch dee, and will help out our low post offence. Hes a solid rounder and has the ability to block shots. KMart and Murphy's contract both go for 3 years but KMart's expiry will free more cap space

CONS
His contract his HUGE and his injuries have been plaguing him.

Overall, it can go both ways. If he can stay healthy, this trade will definately benefit us. If he gets injured again, we're screwed. But I guess in this league, you got to get take gambles sometimes when you're in this situation.

Ford/Jack/Diener/Atkins
Dunleavy/Rush
Granger/Williams
KMart/Hunter
Rasho/Foster/Hibbert

CableKC
10-05-2008, 01:03 AM
Is it true that only $700,000 of Atkins contract is guarenteed? So if we were to wavie him, is that only due? Or do we have to pay him the whole $3.2 million?
Atkins has a guaranteed contract in the 2008-2009 season.....he only has partially guaranteed contract in the 2009-2010 season.

I would much rather keep him since he would fit a certain role on this team...and then try to use him as trade bait for the 2009-2010 offseason. Partially guaranteed contracts seem to be worth a lot nowadays...especially when we get close to the 2010-2011 FA Sweepstakes.

CableKC
10-05-2008, 01:05 AM
The New Jersey Nets Kmart I'd take, not the one of the last few years. I just don't think he's close to the same player he was. He just doesn't play with the same intensity.
Kmart is still a solid PF that could meet our needs for a Low-Post scoring / Rebounding intimidator that can play some solid defense. When the Nuggets plays the Lakers.....KMart is sometimes used to guard Kobe.

Regardless....I doubt that the Nuggets would be interested in a KMart for Tinsley+Murphy trade.

MillerTime
10-05-2008, 01:08 AM
Kmart is still a solid PF that could meet our needs for a Low-Post scoring / Rebounding intimidator that can play some solid defense. When the Nuggets plays the Lakers.....KMart is sometimes used to guard Kobe.

Regardless....I doubt that the Nuggets would be interested in a KMart for Tinsley+Murphy trade.

I totaly forgot about that. But from what I remember, KMart wasnt that successful

Eindar
10-05-2008, 01:57 AM
Good, sounds like I'm not completely insane. I just think that Murphy isn't a solution for us, so if we can basically make a sideways trade for someone that better suits the team's needs, while simultaneously getting rid of Tinsley, that's something we should look at.

Ideally, we'd dump Tinsley for nothing, or possibly even a very, very small something. However, if that doesn't look like that's possible, I think we should be looking at scenarios where we take on someone else's bad contract (but no lockerroom cancer!) in exchange for Tinsley, as long as their contract isn't any longer than Tinsley's. Just seems to me that if we can manage to turn Tinsley's salary into a salary that will actually be in the rotation, that would be a step up, and I think either Kmart or Nene would be in our rotation.

MillerTime
10-05-2008, 02:21 AM
Good, sounds like I'm not completely insane. I just think that Murphy isn't a solution for us, so if we can basically make a sideways trade for someone that better suits the team's needs, while simultaneously getting rid of Tinsley, that's something we should look at.

Ideally, we'd dump Tinsley for nothing, or possibly even a very, very small something. However, if that doesn't look like that's possible, I think we should be looking at scenarios where we take on someone else's bad contract (but no lockerroom cancer!) in exchange for Tinsley, as long as their contract isn't any longer than Tinsley's. Just seems to me that if we can manage to turn Tinsley's salary into a salary that will actually be in the rotation, that would be a step up, and I think either Kmart or Nene would be in our rotation.

please not Nene. His contract is for 4 years and is making about $10 million per season. I dont see all the hype behind Nene. I dont even know how he deserved that contract

Eindar
10-05-2008, 02:56 AM
please not Nene. His contract is for 4 years and is making about $10 million per season. I dont see all the hype behind Nene. I dont even know how he deserved that contract

Fair enough, there were some conflicting reports here about the lengths of the contracts. I'd still be interested, but then Denver would have to sweeten it. Allow me to play devil's advocate. As a for instance, if Denver didn't want to do Tinsley for Atkins and Hunter, wouldn't you consider including Murphy for Nene in order to get them to do it? Sure, we'd take on an extra year of Nene to the tune of roughly 10-11 million over Murphy, but assuming we didn't keep Hunter or Atkins, we'd basically be chopping 7 million (Tinsley) off the payroll for 2 of the 3 years we're currently on the hook for, in addition to being able to sever ties, and allowing fans to breathe a huge sigh of relief.

I think if you did that trade, you'd still come out ahead in terms of total salary commitment, while getting a decent interior player. As have been said by others, it's not like we're some huge FA player, and the money we save on Tinsley should allow us to comfortably re-sign Granger.

MillerTime
10-05-2008, 03:18 AM
Fair enough, there were some conflicting reports here about the lengths of the contracts. I'd still be interested, but then Denver would have to sweeten it. Allow me to play devil's advocate. As a for instance, if Denver didn't want to do Tinsley for Atkins and Hunter, wouldn't you consider including Murphy for Nene in order to get them to do it? Sure, we'd take on an extra year of Nene to the tune of roughly 10-11 million over Murphy, but assuming we didn't keep Hunter or Atkins, we'd basically be chopping 7 million (Tinsley) off the payroll for 2 of the 3 years we're currently on the hook for, in addition to being able to sever ties, and allowing fans to breathe a huge sigh of relief.

I think if you did that trade, you'd still come out ahead in terms of total salary commitment, while getting a decent interior player. As have been said by others, it's not like we're some huge FA player, and the money we save on Tinsley should allow us to comfortably re-sign Granger.

I would rather have KMart over Nene.

Eindar
10-05-2008, 03:52 AM
I would rather have KMart over Nene.

Me too, but more than likely, so would Denver. Also, keep in mind that we're in "no attitude" mode, and with KMart there have been rumblings of him not being a very good teammate, whereas the only knock (other than stats) about Nene that I've heard is that he's very injury prone.

MillerTime
10-05-2008, 04:18 AM
Me too, but more than likely, so would Denver. Also, keep in mind that we're in "no attitude" mode, and with KMart there have been rumblings of him not being a very good teammate, whereas the only knock (other than stats) about Nene that I've heard is that he's very injury prone.

If the case was to take Nene, I would have to pass. I would like KMart, but if we cant get him, I'd rather keep Murphy.

Justin Tyme
10-05-2008, 08:13 AM
With all this talk about getting K-Mart, not one mention of why would Denver want Murphy. They wouldn't, subject dead!

Major Cold
10-05-2008, 10:03 AM
erggg!

avoidingtheclowns
10-05-2008, 11:17 AM
Kmart is still a solid PF that could meet our needs for a Low-Post scoring / Rebounding intimidator that can play some solid defense. When the Nuggets plays the Lakers.....KMart is sometimes used to guard Kobe.

to be fair, karl does that because he's an idiot.

MillerTime
10-05-2008, 11:43 AM
to be fair, karl does that because he's an idiot.

:laugh: its so true. How successful was Kmart guarding Kobe

Doddage
10-05-2008, 01:41 PM
With all this talk about getting K-Mart, not one mention of why would Denver want Murphy. They wouldn't, subject dead!
It's not like they play defense anyway...

Los Angeles
10-05-2008, 05:49 PM
Kobe smokes everybody.

Justin Tyme
10-05-2008, 06:10 PM
It's not like they play defense anyway...

Defensive is only a part of the whole! What is it that Murphy has that is so great Denver needs?

Doddage
10-05-2008, 06:16 PM
To be fair, his long range shooting could be a nice compliment to the game of AI, who likes to drive to the basket. Once defenses collapse, it would be a good opportunity for Murph's skills to be of use. This also could apply to Carmelo, but he likes to shoot jumpshots primarily. Also, Nene likes to play inside so having Murph out there would open up the floor for him as well.

MillerTime
10-05-2008, 08:32 PM
The deal seems to be dead, due to Tinsley large contract



Price isn't right: One NBA general manager said the Nuggets were very interested in trading for Pacers guard Jamaal Tinsley but his hefty contract ultimately kept the deal from happening. Tinsley, who has been barred from Pacers training camp because of off-the-court issues, is making $6.75 million this season and has three years and $21.45 million left on his contract.


http://www.boston.com/sports/basketball/articles/2008/10/05/still_sour_around_apple/?page=3

d_c
10-05-2008, 08:46 PM
The deal seems to be dead, due to Tinsley large contract

http://www.boston.com/sports/basketball/articles/2008/10/05/still_sour_around_apple/?page=3

Could be that the coach/GM like the deal but it got shot down when they sought approval from the owner.

Wouldn't be the first time it's happened in this league.

MillerTime
10-05-2008, 09:01 PM
Could be that the coach/GM like the deal but it got shot down when they sought approval from the owner.

Wouldn't be the first time it's happened in this league.

I hope this isnt true. This will give all of our hopes up :( Man I thought finally Tinsley was gone. Theres rumors that Miami is using Marion as trade bait because he is not in their long term plans

HC
10-05-2008, 09:14 PM
Denver has been aware of Jamaal's contract situation long before trade talks heated up. It isn't like this is a new revelation.

MillerTime
10-05-2008, 09:42 PM
Denver has been aware of Jamaal's contract situation long before trade talks heated up. It isn't like this is a new revelation.

good point. Maybe one side is trying to sweeten the deal for the other

Bball
10-05-2008, 09:47 PM
Denver has been aware of Jamaal's contract situation long before trade talks heated up. It isn't like this is a new revelation.

True enough, but the comments about another entity (such as the owner) nixing the deal is still very possible. GM works out best deal he feels Indy will give him and tells Indy he'll run it by ownership... and ownership says "How much??? Tinsley???? No thanks!"

-Bball

MillerTime
10-05-2008, 09:55 PM
True enough, but the comments about another entity (such as the owner) nixing the deal is still very possible. GM works out best deal he feels Indy will give him and tells Indy he'll run it by ownership... and ownership says "How much??? Tinsley???? No thanks!"

-Bball

im surprised it leaked so far out to the media, if it hasnt even been run by ownership.

Bball
10-05-2008, 10:08 PM
im surprised it leaked so far out to the media, if it hasnt even been run by ownership.

It's not all that surprising if this line of speculation is true... Tinsley himself could be the initial source... or his agent. They might not know or care if ownership hasn't signed on yet. They might even assume ownership would fine with the deal.

BlueNGold
10-05-2008, 10:10 PM
Standard negotiation tactics. The Nuggets are biting like a hungry fish.

If they really were not going to do the deal because of Tinsley's character, they would just say so definitively. So throw that one out.

They know that if he plays to his potential he is worth the money....and they know he has no career threatening issues physically...and that he was out last year due to off court issues that they don't care too much about.

The reality is, they are trying to squeeze a bit more out of the Pacers...and they will be successful unless they ask for too much. So, I expect this deal is going to get done because there are not many other options for the Pacers and Tinsley is coming to them pretty cheap. If they need to, AI can man the point...so this is a good gamble for them.

JayRedd
10-05-2008, 10:15 PM
If they really were not going to do the deal because of Tinsley's character, they would just say so definitively.


You mean something like:


"It's erroneous," Nuggets vice president of basketball operations Mark Warkentien said of the report in Friday's New York Post. "Did Dewey beat Truman?"

John Hollinger
ESPN.com

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3623836&campaign=rss&source=NBAHeadlines

BlueNGold
10-05-2008, 10:26 PM
You mean something like:



John Hollinger
ESPN.com

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3623836&campaign=rss&source=NBAHeadlines

Yes, that quote said nothing about his character.

Actually, the Dewey - Truman reference indicates serious talks have been happening. Sure, it may mean that a deal some thought might get done did not and will not...but it still tends to indicate the race was close (i.e that talks were advanced). I think the Nuggets are just looking for a few more votes from the Pacers...

JayRedd
10-05-2008, 10:56 PM
Right on. Didn't really register "the character" part. Me bad.

Squirrelz
10-05-2008, 11:44 PM
If this trade goes through, I just pray that Croshere still makes the team. :(

aero
10-05-2008, 11:46 PM
Its doubtful that this will go through. Tisnley's contract is 1 more year then what Denver would like.

Id say the % of this going through is about 20%....

MillerTime
10-06-2008, 12:01 AM
Its doubtful that this will go through. Tisnley's contract is 1 more year then what Denver would like.

Id say the % of this going through is about 20%....

that would suck...i really want this trade to go through

Naptown_Seth
10-06-2008, 12:01 AM
Right on. Didn't really register "the character" part. Me bad.
Yeah, I actually think BnG has a solid point here. No way that Denver was surprised to learn the details of a player they were considering trading for, not if it got far enough to be the thing that killed the deal.

Negotiating. Deal might not get done, but both sides are definitely interested in feeling it out

Look at it this way, if the deal brought them Granger, Rush, Ford, Hibbert and next year's first for the same basics they have to give up (ignoring contract matching for now) they'd do it. Tinsley's contract is not a "deal breaker", it's a "this particular deal breaker". They want more if they are taking on his contract. Negotiating, and perhaps it's a make or break point for them, but it's still negotiating to get what they'd really like.

CableKC
10-06-2008, 12:17 AM
The deal seems to be dead, due to Tinsley large contract


Price isn't right: One NBA general manager said the Nuggets were very interested in trading for Pacers guard Jamaal Tinsley but his hefty contract ultimately kept the deal from happening. Tinsley, who has been barred from Pacers training camp because of off-the-court issues, is making $6.75 million this season and has three years and $21.45 million left on his contract.

http://www.boston.com/sports/basketball/articles/2008/10/05/still_sour_around_apple/?page=3


Denver has been aware of Jamaal's contract situation long before trade talks heated up. It isn't like this is a new revelation.


good point. Maybe one side is trying to sweeten the deal for the other

This is what I've been thinking........IMHO, charecter doesn't appear to be an issue for the Nuggets since they have no problem inviting Ruben Patterson to camp while trying to trade for Artest.....so it had to be concerns over $$$ and contract.

As many have mentioned....Tinsley having a huge contract isn't something that is unknown. IMHO......the news that the Nuggets having concerns about Tinsley's contract is code for "Bird, we want you to sweeten the deal".

MillerTime
10-06-2008, 12:28 AM
This is what I've been thinking........IMHO, charecter doesn't appear to be an issue for the Nuggets since they have no problem inviting Ruben Patterson to camp while trying to trade for Artest.....so it had to be concerns over $$$ and contract.

As many have mentioned....Tinsley having a huge contract isn't something that is unknown. IMHO......the news that the Nuggets having concerns about Tinsley's contract is code for "Bird, we want you to sweeten the deal".

Makes sense. For sure Denver's head office knew about Tinsley's contract. They probably just want Indiana to sweeten the deal. Right now, its kind of for the benefit of us. We basically save a year for cap releif

CableKC
10-06-2008, 01:58 AM
My guess is that they are holding out for a future 1st. If it were anything else that we could reasonably part with....then it would have happened already.

I know the easy thing to suggest is to include either Rush or Hibbert as sweetner.....but given what the Pacers gave up to acquire them......they are not going to include either of them even if it meant moving Tinsley.

The most that I would add as sweetner would be a future 2nd rounder, Shawne Williams, $3 mil in Cash considerations ( I know, it's not my $$$ but I don't really care ) OR the right to swap Draft picks.

Things to consider:

- Given the liklihood that the Pacers could be stuck in Lotteryland for the next couple of seasons....trading a future 1st round pick is not an option ( as Bird has stated he will not do after that Harrington trade ).

- Swapping picks may not be preferable...but as long as the Pacers have a 1st round pick...even if it's later...I'm okay with it.

- As for the Cash Considerations....it's mainly to make up ( as much is allowed by the CBA ) for the additional $$$ that is owed to Tinsley.

- Shawne Williams ( despite the known PR issues ) is the closest thing that we have to a prospect that we could part with. On top of that, it's unknown how much the Nuggets would take to take on in additional Contracts.

I know that it isn't much for the Nuggets, but that's the best that I think the Pacers could add as sweetner. I would have no problem taking on additional contracts to make the $$$ coming in / going out more balenced.....but outside of Atkins, Hunter and filler.....the Nuggets does not have any Players that they would be willing to part with that they can send out that would make any difference.

Since none of these would likely satisfy the Nuggets......I'm thinking that Bird is trying to find a 3rd team to get something of value from them in exchange for the Pacers taking on some Bad contracts.

MillerTime
10-06-2008, 04:36 AM
Theres no way we add a 1st rounder. I'd give up 2 2nd rounders, but never a 1st rounder for the type of players were getting back. I'd rather give up a few 2nd rounder than Shawne Williams, once (or if) he can get his head in the game and mind off the streets, hes going to be a valuable player for the Pacers.

HC
10-06-2008, 08:04 AM
I would definitely throw in Williams, but who do we take back in that scenario?

Roaming Gnome
10-06-2008, 08:52 AM
Nah...
I don't like any of the "sweetner" situations. JT can just sit and wait.

Move on to the next possibility.

docpaul
10-06-2008, 11:07 AM
Nah...
I don't like any of the "sweetner" situations. JT can just sit and wait.

Move on to the next possibility.

Nah... this is a "cash considerations" issue. I betcha that they're just trying to offset his contract with some $ from the Simons. In that way, it'll be a "junior" buyout. I bet this gets done. There's no way that picks will be involved.

I will do a little dance when we hear the news.

HC
10-06-2008, 11:56 AM
Short of getting fleeced, the Pacers are going to have to take what they can get. No team is going to call up and offer Bird some extraordinary deal. The Pacers have absolutely no leverage in the matter.

Justin Tyme
10-06-2008, 12:23 PM
Nah... this is a "cash considerations" issue. I betcha that they're just trying to offset his contract with some $ from the Simons. In that way, it'll be a "junior" buyout. I bet this gets done. There's no way that picks will be involved.

I will do a little dance when we hear the news.

IIRC, one of the reasons the Harrington trade took so long to get done was Atlanta wanted some cash and the Simons' said no. It might be the Simons just aren't willing to give any cash to complete this deal either.

indygeezer
10-06-2008, 12:46 PM
Do we still have a Trade Exemption? Could we take a mil or two player off their books and give them an exemption back?

d_c
10-06-2008, 12:52 PM
Do we still have a Trade Exemption? Could we take a mil or two player off their books and give them an exemption back?

You could theoretically do that, but IIRC the Pacers are sort of close to luxury tax territory and depending on how the numbers add up (too lazy to check) the Simons probably wouldn't sign off on using the TPE.

count55
10-06-2008, 12:52 PM
IIRC, one of the reasons the Harrington trade took so long to get done was Atlanta wanted some cash and the Simons' said no. It might be the Simons just aren't willing to give any cash to complete this deal either.

This is accurate, and may be true in this case, but it strikes me as foolish for the Simons not to part with $3mm in a deal that would still, in the long run, save them about $7mm (assuming they only pay the $760 guaranteed to Atkins next year...it'd be about $5mm if they kept Atkins.)

I think, if the deal dies or is dead, it will be because Denver doesn't want to take on the longer contract for Tinsley rather than the Simons picking at a $3mm holdup.

Jonathan
10-06-2008, 12:52 PM
I would definitely throw in Williams, but who do we take back in that scenario?

Shawne is going to be our best scorer off the bench this season why trade him for two players who have zero potential? Shawne is a better player than both of these so isTinsley. Denver should be very happy getting Tinsley in a 2-1.

count55
10-06-2008, 12:55 PM
You could theoretically do that, but IIRC the Pacers are sort of close to luxury tax territory and depending on how the numbers add up (too lazy to check) the Simons probably wouldn't sign off on using the TPE.

Pacers have around $2mm left under the tax, but Cro, if signed, would take up part of it.

We have a $2.7mm exception, but the only players under that amount that they have are Kleiza (unavailable), Carter, Andersen, & Dahntay Jones.

There's no way we'll go over the tax threshold, and I can't see us turning it into a 3- or 4-for-1 deal, resulting in us having to cut even more guaranteed contracts.

CableKC
10-06-2008, 01:03 PM
Shawne is going to be our best scorer off the bench this season why trade him for two players who have zero potential? Shawne is a better player than both of these so isTinsley. Denver should be very happy getting Tinsley in a 2-1.
In make-believe world...this is true.....but in the world we live in.....Tinsley has ZERO value and a negative value Contract that no one wants to take on.

I even admit that IF this trade were to ever happen the way it was reported......it would be widely viewed that we came out ahead. For us...it's a low-cost/low-risk/low reward trade and for the Nuggets it's a high-cost/high-risk/medium reward trade. Adding in Shawne IMHO isn't a deal breaker cuz of his potential....this is Bird that we are talking about...not Walsh who IMHO has overvalued his players with potential.

docpaul
10-06-2008, 02:01 PM
In make-believe world...this is true.....but in the world we live in.....Tinsley has ZERO value and a negative value Contract that no one wants to take on.

I even admit that IF this trade were to ever happen the way it was reported......it would be widely viewed that we came out ahead. For us...it's a low-cost/low-risk/low reward trade and for the Nuggets it's a high-cost/high-risk/medium reward trade. Adding in Shawne IMHO isn't a deal breaker cuz of his potential....this is Bird that we are talking about...not Walsh who IMHO has overvalued his players with potential.

You know, I personally feel this way about Tinsley, but frankly, I'm not seeing this language in the press and in public. They're also seeing his strong numbers prior to his fallout with JOB.

Additionally, the folks we're getting in return are not good players. Think about it... they have a huge void @ the 5 now that Camby is gone, and they're still want to trade Hunter?

I think the trade will be seen as a win-win for both teams, as it's clear that Denver needs a starting-level PG. Tinsley, in the right structured environment that he subscribes to, will play like a starting level PG.

He just simply doesn't want to be here. That's the only explanation for what happened in Phoenix last December. The illness and missed games in the past, IMO, were largely a manifestation of his unhappiness.

Once again, JMHO.

Justin Tyme
10-06-2008, 02:20 PM
Denver if they want to go anywhere this year "needs" a quality PG. The Pacers have the best PG on the market. In reality, Denver isn't giving up much to get a quality PG in Tinsley.

I'm not over valuing the Tinman, b/c he has faults. The answer really lies in the question of how far do the Nuggets think they can go with the PG's they have now. How badly do they want to keep Melo happy?

I never understood why they ever let Steve Blake leave. It was a large mistake, and one I'm guessing they wish they hadn't done. Oh well, there is always Smush Parker coming to the rescue if they choose not to take Tinsley.

RamBo_Lamar
10-06-2008, 02:23 PM
Well if this deal doesn't go through, Peter Vecsey needs to be loaded onto
a ship (hopefully an old one with lots of barnacles attached to its underside),
taken out to sea, and keelhauled.

duke dynamite
10-06-2008, 03:01 PM
Well if this deal doesn't go through, Peter Vecsey needs to be loaded onto
a ship (hopefully an old one with lots of barnacles attached to its underside),
taken out to sea, and keelhauled.
To Davy Jones' locker.
http://www.sqpn.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/07/SOC01_davyjones.jpg

Or

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/e/ea/Dj3.jpg

CableKC
10-06-2008, 03:17 PM
You know, I personally feel this way about Tinsley, but frankly, I'm not seeing this language in the press and in public. They're also seeing his strong numbers prior to his fallout with JOB.

Additionally, the folks we're getting in return are not good players. Think about it... they have a huge void @ the 5 now that Camby is gone, and they're still want to trade Hunter?

I think the trade will be seen as a win-win for both teams, as it's clear that Denver needs a starting-level PG. Tinsley, in the right structured environment that he subscribes to, will play like a starting level PG.

He just simply doesn't want to be here. That's the only explanation for what happened in Phoenix last December. The illness and missed games in the past, IMO, were largely a manifestation of his unhappiness.

Once again, JMHO.
Is getting back quality Players a requirement for you if we trade Tinsley?

IMHO......breaking "even" is a requirement for me....which means getting players in a trade where we come out even from a Financial/Salary POV.

If Tinsley did not have guaranteed 3 year / 21 mil contract....if Tinsley did not have an injury past.....if Tinsley did not have a history of on-off court issues that has led to bad PR.....then I can see a need to get back some quality players.

The problem is that there are too many "If Tinsley did not" concerns for us to expect anything of quality back much less a trade where we can come out ahead.

Honestly, the way that the trade rumor looks.....I myself can see the need for giving up additional sweetner to make this deal more palateable....simply for the reasons I mentoined about. Remember.....financial and Salary Cap concerns is a huge deal for teams nowadays....including one that just traded one of their better Defensive ( but aging ) Centers for a 2nd round pick.

In a vacuum.....if I were to look at the quality of the players involved....I totally agree.....Tinsley is the best player being moved.....but just like the rumored ZBo to Grizzlies trade that fell through....I think that the Nuggets realize that they can and should get back more.

Again....I don't mind including sweetner ( as I mentioned earlier in this thread ) as long as the price does not exceed what I am comfortable of giving up ( such as 1st round pick, giving up Rush/Hibbert or taking on significantly more Salary then we need ).

Jonathan
10-06-2008, 03:23 PM
Is three years at 21 million that much money for a teams starting PG in the NBA? Where does Tinsley rank in pay as starting PG out of the thirty teams in the NBA?

CableKC
10-06-2008, 03:30 PM
Is three years at 21 million that much money for a teams starting PG in the NBA? Where does Tinsley rank in pay as starting PG out of the thirty teams in the NBA?
Yes, IMHO....$21 mil for a 3 years for a team that just traded one of their best Trading assets for a 2nd round pick due to financial concerns is alot......it's alot to ask for a PG that is injury prone.......has a history of on/off court issues...and is coming from a team that won't buy him out nor play him.

He probably is a top 15-25 PG in the league.....but does that matter when the PG ( despite what many of us think ) has a history of missing at least 1/3 of the season? It sure does.

Again....don't look at Tinsley in a vacuum.....in Yahoo NBA Fantasy BBall....you're right.....people could care less about on/off court issues....they just look at production. But when you factor in all the "negatives" that accompany Tinsley.....the answer to whether he is worth $21 mil at 3 years is sobering.

HC
10-06-2008, 03:36 PM
Shawne is going to be our best scorer off the bench this season why trade him for two players who have zero potential? Shawne is a better player than both of these so isTinsley. Denver should be very happy getting Tinsley in a 2-1.

I would give Shawne away for free, so I have no problem throwing him in this deal.

count55
10-06-2008, 03:48 PM
Is three years at 21 million that much money for a teams starting PG in the NBA? Where does Tinsley rank in pay as starting PG out of the thirty teams in the NBA?

Are we ranking him based only on the games he plays, or are we considering the fact that he's missed 40% of his team's games over the past five seasons.

Forget all of the off-court stuff. If this guy could be counted on to play 70+ games, then we probably wouldn't be looking to move him. Denver (and any other teams) are weighing the possibility that a new venue would get his 13 & 8 performance for 70+ games vs. the likelihood indicated by the last five years that he'd only be a part time player.

I would bet that if you asked polled 30 GM's in the league as to whether they thought they would feel comfortable banking on JT as their starting PG for 70+ games, you'd recieve very close to 30 "No's". It's not just ability, but reliability as well. Tinsley's contract is fair-to-cheap for a starting NBA point guard. However, until Jamaal can prove that he can be counted on to make it through a full season and the playoffs, he simply will not and should not be considered worth that contract.

d_c
10-06-2008, 04:11 PM
Is three years at 21 million that much money for a teams starting PG in the NBA?

For a team who's owner is looking to cut costs, it might be.

Justin Tyme
10-06-2008, 04:29 PM
Shawne is going to be our best scorer off the bench this season


OMG! Wow just WOW!

You might want to re-think that statement. You might want to seriously revise it!

d_c
10-06-2008, 05:09 PM
Hoopshype keeps chugging along with updates. Says (big surprise) that the Nugz are simply holding out for more cash and compensation. This was not very specific in details.

http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?story_id=10178

CableKC
10-06-2008, 05:18 PM
Hoopshype keeps chugging along with updates. Says (big surprise) that the Nugz are simply holding out for more cash and compensation. This was not very specific in details.

http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?story_id=10178
The speculation from the writer of the article from Hoopsworld ( I know...it's Hoopsworld ) is that the deal on the table involves getting a protected Draft pick ( I presume a 1st ) and Cash Considerations.

Although it is speculation.....I would include Cash considerations ( since we would still be on the hook for $21 mil even if we kept him ) to balence out the $$$ owed for Tinsley's contract....but not any 1st round pick.

I would hope that IF the deal involve SIMPLY cash considerations and that it's up to the Simons to approve it....that they pull the trigger....which is one of the reasons why I think that the Nuggets are holding out for a 1st rounder. Any sweetner less then a 1st rounder, Rush/Hibbert or taking on additional Contracts...IMHO is reasonable.

Hicks
10-06-2008, 05:54 PM
It'd better be heavily protected. Even then I'm uneasy.

Roaming Gnome
10-06-2008, 05:54 PM
anything more then a cash considerations...they can jump in a cold lake of Coors, as far as I'm concerned.

CableKC
10-06-2008, 06:58 PM
It'd better be heavily protected. Even then I'm uneasy.
I'm not even giong to go that far......the farthest that I would go with anything related to a 1st rounder is the right to swap the picks.

GO!!!!!
10-06-2008, 07:02 PM
hmmmm as the days go on... i fear it won't happen.. no links, no stats.. just a feeling...

I diden't like it much from the start n don't see a real need for the Nugs to do it...

I stand to be corrected tho..

speakout4
10-06-2008, 07:16 PM
Three or four months from now when some elite PG go down and that team's season is in jeopardy, JT's contract won't look so bad. Either wait for this to happen or buy him out at the lowest cost possible. No reason to be concerned about him if he is not in the buidling. When the season starts no one will be thinking or preoccupied by him.

rexnom
10-06-2008, 08:05 PM
Denver's getting greedy if they want a pick.

Justin Tyme
10-06-2008, 09:32 PM
Three or four months from now when some elite PG go down and that team's season is in jeopardy, JT's contract won't look so bad.

Totally agree.

I hear Marbury can be available to Denver for 22 mil, and he's an expiring. Oh yeah, Denver can't afford him. They can afford Tinsley. If Tinsley plays well and plays 70+ games this year, Denver can always trade him next year when his contract is only for 2 years. There is no written rule that says they have to keep him until his contract expires. AI's contract expires after this season, so they need to make their move this season while they can. W/o a quality PG, Denver is going no place this year, and how happy is Melo going to be then?

Young
10-06-2008, 09:58 PM
If Bird throws in a first or even the right to swap picks it is a big risk and not worth it. You might as well just buyout Jamaal at that point.

This team is in no situation to trade away a first round draft pick. At least not to deal one without getting back a good player.

When we traded our draft pick for Al Harrington that wasn't bad. If you know you have a pretty good core and you trade your pick to get a solid player then I am ok with it. But when your team is unproven and at best an average team and you just give your pick away to dump a contract it's not a wise move, IMO.

Roaming Gnome
10-06-2008, 10:13 PM
To the contrary of a lot of you, I believe the team is just going to sit on Jamaal before they give up the store just to move him. Any type of horseing with the draft pick is...well, giving up the store.

Personally, as long as Jamaal stays in the ATL, I don't think he is a risk. IMHO, I think the fear of him getting in trouble down there to the point it will get back up here is a little overstated. As mentioned before... as soon as these new guys start making plays on the court... Jamaal will just be a bad memory until he is traded amoung the casuals. Between 3 other Major league franchises and 2 Major colleges of their own, Jamaal wouldn't even raise an eyebrow with stuff like 8 secs.

HC
10-07-2008, 07:12 AM
Well according to the New York Post the trade has hit a snag. They are saying it all hinges on 3 million in cash from the Simon's. If the Simon's don't get this done, I think they are making a mistake. I do agree with speakout and gnome as well though. Eventually there will be a better offer. The operative word being eventually.

count55
10-07-2008, 07:24 AM
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10072008/sports/knicks/knicks_scout_really_knows_his_stuff_132470.htm?pag e=2


Jamaal Tinsley trade is on hold while the Pacers and Nuggets argue over money. Denver demands $3 million to defray one-seventh of the locked-out point guard's 3-year obligation.

Well, if this falls apart because the Simons are unwilling to give the $3mm cash, that's amazingly short-sighted. Even paying out the cash, they're saving $5-7mm (depending on what they do with Atkins next year).

Hicks
10-07-2008, 08:01 AM
Yes, they need to bite the bullet here. I know it's their money, but the way I see it they're getting something for that money.

A) The chance to be rid of Jamaal Tinsley

B) Steven Hunter

C) Chucky Atkins

D) Even if both are not cracking this rotation, they're both more tradeable and collectively cost less money.

BoomBaby33
10-07-2008, 08:04 AM
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10072008/sports/knicks/knicks_scout_really_knows_his_stuff_132470.htm?pag e=2



Well, if this falls apart because the Simons are unwilling to give the $3mm cash, that's amazingly short-sighted. Even paying out the cash, they're saving $5-7mm (depending on what they do with Atkins next year).

Maybe they havent thrown the idea out the door yet. Maybe they have Jamaal on the phone right now. I can hear the conversation.

Jamaal: Hello
Simons: Hey Jamaal, Mel and Herb here. How's the weather in the ATL today?
Jamaal: Its great, how about Indy?
Simons: Its great, hey do you like to play basketball?
Jamaal: I love bball, its my true love. Why wont you guys let me play?
Simons: Well frankly you dont fit in my coach and GM's plans and we already have 4 other point guards, but ive got a deal on the table that I can get you to play with AI and Melo. They need a PG you know.
Jamaal: No kidding! I love those guys. they play my style of bball.
Simons: well the kicker is the nugs gm wants $3M also, and frankly, we only have $1M left in our bank account. We were wondering if you could cover the other 2, that is if you want to play bball this year.
Jamaal: OK!

Serious note / question: If we sit Jamaal all year, does he count against the roster? I know he counts against the cap, but if he counts as a roster spot, we have to cut 3 players (including josh davis)?

Doddage
10-07-2008, 08:06 AM
Let's just give them the damn money. It's not like we're going to get offers for Jamaal like this without giving up better assets. It is well worth it for JT to be off the roster and to a lesser extent, make the most out of a ~7 million investment.

Raskolnikov
10-07-2008, 08:08 AM
I'd say, what counts against the cap, counts against the roster, but who am I?

Not a bad idea, letting Jamaal cover part of the cash :p

Hicks
10-07-2008, 08:10 AM
Couldn't they dig deep into Home Court inventory and raise the price of 300,000 individual units of Pacer merchandise by $10 at the Home Court Gift Shops? :D

Have fun with it. Call it the Tinsley Counter-Sale. :D

count55
10-07-2008, 08:24 AM
Serious note / question: If we sit Jamaal all year, does he count against the roster? I know he counts against the cap, but if he counts as a roster spot, we have to cut 3 players (including josh davis)?

If we sit JT all year, he will count as one of our roster spots. Keeping Jamaal effectively means we'll only have 14 roster spots.


I'd say, what counts against the cap, counts against the roster, but who am I?

While this is generally correct, it is not true 100% of the time. Players with guaranteed contracts who retire, are cut, or are bought out will still count against the cap, but will not be on the roster. The most recent example of this for the Pacers was James White, who was on the Pacer payroll (and cap figure) for the past two years despite being cut.

aero
10-07-2008, 08:24 AM
we need to have a fund raiser....the fans wanted him out..well nows the time to pay up lol

Unclebuck
10-07-2008, 08:33 AM
Wells confirms that it is all about the money now. In his blog today

Hicks
10-07-2008, 08:43 AM
I'd chip in $30. Are there 100,000 other Pacers fans that would do the same? :D

Raskolnikov
10-07-2008, 08:47 AM
If we sit JT all year, he will count as one of our roster spots. Keeping Jamaal effectively means we'll only have 14 roster spots.

While this is generally correct, it is not true 100% of the time. Players with guaranteed contracts who retire, are cut, or are bought out will still count against the cap, but will not be on the roster. The most recent example of this for the Pacers was James White, who was on the Pacer payroll (and cap figure) for the past two years despite being cut.
In that case, let me rephrase to: what sits and counts against the cap, counts against the roster.


I'd chip in $30. Are there 100,000 other Pacers fans that would do the same? :D
:wave:

count55
10-07-2008, 09:03 AM
Look, I know $3 million is a lot of money, but, if the deal is as reported then we're talking about this math:

2008-2009: $10,103 (Atkins, Hunter, $3mm) less $6,750 (Jamaal)= $3,353 more payout for Pacers (only $353 increase in payroll)

2009-2010: $7,176 (Atkins full salary, Hunter) less $7,200 (Jamaal) = ($24) less payout for Pacers. (If they release Atkins, as I expect they would, then his salary drops from $3,480 to $760, meaning the Pacers save an additional $2,720, for $2,744 total.)

2010-2011: $0 (Hunter, Atkins expired) less $7,650 (Jamaal)= ($7,650) less payout for the Pacers.

So, worst case scenario is $3,353-$24-$7650 = ($4,321) savings for Pacers. That would be right at the edge of making sense from an NPV perspective. However, the Pacers have full control over the second year of Atkins, meaning that the sound scenario is $3,353-$2,724-$7,650 = ($7,021) in savings. Rough math says that's a 25% return on the $3,000 outlay.

The Simons successfully held out in the Atlanta negotiations because Atlanta had no other options. I think the roles are reversed here, and I would become seriously concerned about the fiscal stability and commitment of Pacers ownership if they aren't willing to make a "cost savings capital investment" that has this kind of guaranteed return.

In other words, I hope we're really not getting an accurate picture of the hold up here, because I have a hard time seeing this "truth" being a good sign.

JayRedd
10-07-2008, 09:07 AM
Are there 100,000 other Pacers fans

Not a chance.

Justin Tyme
10-07-2008, 09:28 AM
I have always been a pro-ownership poster when it came to fans trying to spend the Simons' money, BUT in this case it is only prudent that ownership spend the $3 mil to make this trade happen.

I agree with Count that $3 mil is alot of money. He even showed how they would come out ahead by spending the $3 mil. I have another view about that $3 mil. The league every year gives teams that don't go over the LT 3-4 mil. The Pacers will receive this money, so in essence here is the $3 mil the Simons can use to make this deal happen. It's a gift from the league, so PLEASE allow the league to pay the $3 mil in order to get this deal done. Look at it this way, the league paid $3 mil for the Pacers to get rid of Tinsley!

Jonathan
10-07-2008, 09:29 AM
1. I would not do the deal if it meant giving up a first round pick. Even protected Atkins & Hunter are not worth a first round pick.
2.The Simon's Have to give up 3 million dollars. No Big deal. They will sell more tickets if Tinsley is not on the Pacers. Quit being Stingy.

avoidingtheclowns
10-07-2008, 09:37 AM
Well, if this falls apart because the Simons are unwilling to give the $3mm cash, that's amazingly short-sighted. Even paying out the cash, they're saving $5-7mm (depending on what they do with Atkins next year).

co-sign. seems reasonable enough - even with having to cut two people.

docpaul
10-07-2008, 10:03 AM
Wells confirms that it is all about the money now. In his blog today

I continue to believe this is going to get done for a couple of reasons:

1) Roster spots seem to be a bigger and bigger issue with the team (Croshere's strong camp, desire to commit to McRoberts, etc), and absolutely 0 commitment to Tinsley at this point

2) Not a lot of good destinations for Tinsley anymore if they're hoping to trade him before the season starts... those teams needing PGs have made their selections

3) Overall financial savings...

My guess is that TPTB know and expect that Tinsley will perform well for Denver once he gets there, and they feel he's worth more than what they're offering. They also don't want to compromise on their basic principle that they don't "buy" anyone out, which is what this basically is.

However, given how lopsided the fanbase will feel this trade is in their favor will ultimately get this done. It's probably the best PR they could hope for before the season starts.

count55
10-07-2008, 10:08 AM
Side financial note: the stock price for Simon Property group has dropped from a 2008 high of around 106 to around 81 at yesterday's close...in the last 2 1/2 weeks.

BoomBaby33
10-07-2008, 10:19 AM
Side financial note: the stock price for Simon Property group has dropped from a 2008 high of around 106 to around 81 at yesterday's close...in the last 2 1/2 weeks.

:cry::( Thats not a good sign for our Pacers.

Buy low, sell high. Maybe we can convince Denver that Jamaal is high.

docpaul
10-07-2008, 10:25 AM
The new training camp roster in this potential post-Tinsley world:

1 - Ford, Jack, Diener, Atkins
2 - Dunleavy, Daniels, Rush
3 - Granger, Williams, Graham
4 - Murphy, Baston, McRoberts, Croshere
5 - Nesterovic, Foster, Hibbert, Hunter

Three need to be off the list... those in the bold seem like obvious keepers...

Graham almost certainly is a casualty (Hoopshype has him below a million)...

Hunter seems like an odd man out (except as the occasional shot blocker).

Baston also seems expendable now if they're considering a commitment to McRoberts and Croshere...

Wonder if there are any plausible many-to-one player trades being considered?

Major Cold
10-07-2008, 10:47 AM
ummm Rasho, Foster, and Murphy are keepers. That is a given. Diener as well.

MillerTime
10-07-2008, 10:53 AM
Side financial note: the stock price for Simon Property group has dropped from a 2008 high of around 106 to around 81 at yesterday's close...in the last 2 1/2 weeks.

that most likely has to do with the sub-prime financial crisis that US and the world is going through more than anything. To drop that much is only a short term domino affect from what is happening today. If or when the bail-out gets approved, we'll see a rise for sure

Hicks
10-07-2008, 10:57 AM
Not a chance.

:unimpress

Hicks
10-07-2008, 10:59 AM
I hope the Simons also consider the fan support they will gain by being able to say Tinsley is officially, not unofficially, gone. Season ticket sales should start to go up a little bit.

count55
10-07-2008, 11:00 AM
that most likely has to do with the sub-prime financial crisis that US and the world is going through more than anything. To drop that much is only a short term domino affect from what is happening today. If or when the bail-out gets approved, we'll see a rise for sure

Well, I wasn't probing the reasons for the drop, though I largely suspected that it was more related to the general financial and economic upset than to any specific problems with SPG as an entity. It was more to highlight that there had been a significant loss in shareholder value recently that (granted, I am assuming) put a pretty nasty hit on the Simon's personal net worth.

Yes, they're still obscenely rich, but less so than just a month ago.

rexnom
10-07-2008, 11:41 AM
Well, I wasn't probing the reasons for the drop, though I largely suspected that it was more related to the general financial and economic upset than to any specific problems with SPG as an entity. It was more to highlight that there had been a significant loss in shareholder value recently that (granted, I am assuming) put a pretty nasty hit on the Simon's personal net worth.

Yes, they're still obscenely rich, but less so than just a month ago.
Perhaps, relatively, the Simons' accountants figure that 3 million now is worth more than 7 million over three years, which makes sense. They might need as much money as possible right now. Oh it's good to be a small-market team in a financial crisis.

travmil
10-07-2008, 11:52 AM
Maybe we can convince Denver that Jamaal is high.

This explains EVERYTHING! Jamaal is high.

NuffSaid
10-07-2008, 11:58 AM
If the hold up is just about $3M, I say you get 'er done! Like others have already said, the Pacers would recoup that $3M lose by releasing any 1 or both of the players they would acquire. The draft pick issues, if it is an issue, that's another story.

You don't necessarily want to give up a future draft pick while your team is still in rebuilding mode. Nonetheless, if a future draft pick is being held over their head, I'd make sure it's protected (for next year's pick) or that it's far out into the future (2-3 years out) so that by the time it comes up my core players have shown some signs of gelling. Otherwise, you've sold yourself short.

Regardless, MAKE THIS TRADE HAPPEN!

d_c
10-07-2008, 12:14 PM
If the hold up is just about $3M, I say you get 'er done! Like others have already said, the Pacers would recoup that $3M lose by releasing any 1 or both of the players they would acquire.

Not true. You would still owe all guaranteed portions of Atkins and Hunter's contracts. Still, they would come out ahead and it would essentially be the equivalent of a well priced buyout of Tinsley.

If it's just about $3M, the Paacers should absolutely do this deal.

Speed
10-07-2008, 12:15 PM
I would rather have JT's contract until it has value in the last year than give up a 1st rounder. I don't think you give up a 1st rounder ever in this situation. I don't think you have to.

3 million dollars seems like a reasonable request to get rid of 6-7 million in salary tied into JT for 3 years.

count55
10-07-2008, 12:16 PM
Perhaps, relatively, the Simons' accountants figure that 3 million now is worth more than 7 million over three years, which makes sense. They might need as much money as possible right now. Oh it's good to be a small-market team in a financial crisis.

This might be what you're saying, put differently, but:

You're going to have a really hard time finding an accountant that will tell you that $3mm now is better than $7mm over the next three years. However, you might find one that will tell you, "the $7mm is a great return, but you don't have $3mm."

That's what scares me.

Rationally, I think that's an exceedingly unlikely scenario. I suspect that it's more likely that they are playing chicken because (a) they believe Denver will eventually blink or (b) they are confident they have other options that will be better than throwing the $3mm.

Regardless, this is all just idle speculation based on rumors. I wish I could see the actual negotiations. Odds are, we have no clue what's really happening.

Major Cold
10-07-2008, 12:19 PM
This speculation of money has me more worried about the future of the organization than with the trade.

Would you expect more tickets sold if Tinsley is traded? Get the deal done. 3 million now could put money owed, money earned in the future.

CableKC
10-07-2008, 12:32 PM
IF this is true....and all the Nuggets are asking for is $3 mil in Cash Considerations......then you do it before the Nuggets Owners/GM gets irritated.

Assuming that all the Nuggets are asking for is Tinsley+$3 mil for Atkins+Hunter....FRAK...this is a NO-BRAINER.....just do it already.

Speed
10-07-2008, 12:33 PM
The new training camp roster in this potential post-Tinsley world:

1 - Ford, Jack, Diener, Atkins
2 - Dunleavy, Daniels, Rush
3 - Granger, Williams, Graham
4 - Murphy, Baston, McRoberts, Croshere
5 - Nesterovic, Foster, Hibbert, Hunter

Three need to be off the list... those in the bold seem like obvious keepers...

Graham almost certainly is a casualty (Hoopshype has him below a million)...

Hunter seems like an odd man out (except as the occasional shot blocker).

Baston also seems expendable now if they're considering a commitment to McRoberts and Croshere...

Wonder if there are any plausible many-to-one player trades being considered?

Definitely Grahm, I think the other 2 are Maceo and Atkins.

It almost comes down to Atkins and Deiner to me. Deiner has a player option for another year though. I think it may be a race to see who has the best medical prognosis too. Does Atkins want to be the 3rd PG? Lots of questions.

Cut: Grahm 800k, Maceo 1.9 m, Atkins 3.4 & 700k

bottom 4 are Hunter 3.4 & 3.7, Deiner 1.6 & 1.7, Croshere 1.3, and McBob 700k

Only thing that probably makes more sense financially is keep Atkins and maybe cut McBob, this limits how much you are paying for guys who aren't on the team. Also, you may be able to move Atkins semi expiring contract at the trade deadline for value, since it is a second year option. And you don't owe Croshere anything.

So financially you Cut:

Grahm, Croshere, and McBob = 1.5 million wasted

Court wise you Cut:

Grahm, Maceo, and Atkins = 6.8 million plus Austins 1.3 for a whopping 8.1 spent, yikes!

IMHO

To me, keeping Austin really complicates things because you are paying him, plus whoever you cut to keep him. If I was TPTB I guess you ask Obie if Austin will be a rotation player or not dress on most nights and that will have alot to do with what you decide. Also, you have to think is having Austin for one year worth giving up on a McBob?

One answer is to give Denver the 3 million and have them take Grahm (trade still works as someone has already pointed out). Then you're only looking at 2 guys to cut.

It's going to be interesting.

CableKC
10-07-2008, 12:39 PM
Rationally, I think that's an exceedingly unlikely scenario. I suspect that it's more likely that they are playing chicken because (a) they believe Denver will eventually blink or (b) they are confident they have other options that will be better than throwing the $3mm.
Honestly, given today's Financial conscious GM/Owners......it's not a good idea to play chicken with a Team that are in cost-cutting mode while asking them to take on $10+ mil in additional guaranteed $$$ that could benefit from an upgrade of their PG situation but doesn't necessarily need to.


Regardless, this is all just idle speculation based on rumors. I wish I could see the actual negotiations. Odds are, we have no clue what's really happening.
This is what I'm thinking........any rational person would think that IF it was about $$$ ( and nothing else )....then you would assume that something would have been done.....you just bite the bullet and move on. Assuming that we have some rational people up there running the show....then it's safe to assume that something else is going on.....or more specifically, the Nuggets are askng for something else here....which could be the "bump in the road" that we are trying to get over.

CableKC
10-07-2008, 12:49 PM
Definitely Grahm, I think the other 2 are Maceo and Atkins.

It almost comes down to Atkins and Deiner to me. Deiner has a player option for another year though. I think it may be a race to see who has the best medical prognosis too. Does Atkins want to be the 3rd PG? Lots of questions.

Cut: Grahm 800k, Maceo 1.9 m, Atkins 3.4 & 700k

bottom 4 are Hunter 3.4 & 3.7, Deiner 1.6 & 1.7, Croshere 1.3, and McBob 700k

Only thing that probably makes more sense financially is keep Atkins and maybe cut McBob, this limits how much you are paying for guys who aren't on the team. Also, you may be able to move Atkins semi expiring contract at the trade deadline for value, since it is a second year option. And you don't owe Croshere anything.

So financially you Cut:

Grahm, Croshere, and McBob = 1.5 million wasted

Court wise you Cut:

Grahm, Maceo, and Atkins = 6.8 million plus Austins 1.3 for a whopping 8.1 spent, yikes!

IMHO

To me, keeping Austin really complicates things because you are paying him, plus whoever you cut to keep him. If I was TPTB I guess you ask Obie if Austin will be a rotation player or not dress on most nights and that will have alot to do with what you decide. Also, you have to think is having Austin for one year worth giving up on a McBob?

It's going to be interesting.
Understandably.....IF this happens....given the likely cost that will be involved in moving Tinsley....you make the Financial move. You cut the lowest cost players.

Graham and McRoberts are givens since they are the bottom hanging fruit.

Does Croshere have a guaranteed Contract?

I'm guessing that either Baston ( who is owed $1.97 mil Expiring ) or Croshere ( more then likely ) will get cut.

But my guess is that Bird will go out to go look for some "2 for 1" deal to consolidate the Contracts....it may mean that we take on deal where we send out 2 Expiring Contracts for 1 that lasts beyond this season....but I'm okay with that.

Anthem
10-07-2008, 12:49 PM
That's a big chunk of cash to go throwing around. Sure, the Simons have plenty of assets in real estate, but you've got to wonder if the Pacers have that kind of liquid cash laying around.

count55
10-07-2008, 01:05 PM
IMHO

To me, keeping Austin really complicates things because you are paying him, plus whoever you cut to keep him. If I was TPTB I guess you ask Obie if Austin will be a rotation player or not dress on most nights and that will have alot to do with what you decide. Also, you have to think is having Austin for one year worth giving up on a McBob?

Yes...at this point, the only thing McBob has in his favor is that he hasn't absolutely proven he sucks, yet. It's the 15th roster spot. Unless I actually think the guy will be a good player some day (which I don't), I'd rather have the veteran.

I think if the deal goes through, (and you can't dump other guys in trades) McBob and Graham are cut out of hand. Croshere is most rationally the last cut, but it would come down between him, Baston, and possibly Atkins.



One answer is to give Denver the 3 million and have them take Grahm (trade still works as someone has already pointed out). Then you're only looking at 2 guys to cut.

It's going to be interesting.

It's difficult to say whether Denver would want any additional players. They are over the tax, but they only have 12 players under contract (11 if this deal goes through.) I guess guys like Graham or McBob would be as cheap as anybody they'd pick up to fill out their roster, but they'll be paying 2x for those guys.

I'm surprised they haven't tried to expand the deal to include a KMart for Murphy swap...we'd have to add another filler, but a deal could be worked out that would knock a couple mill off their payroll number. It would also neutralize the long term salary situation, even put it in their favor. (However, it would put us at or over the tax.)


Honestly, given today's Financial conscious GM/Owners......it's not a good idea to play chicken with a Team that are in cost-cutting mode while asking them to take on $10+ mil in additional guaranteed $$$ that could benefit from an upgrade of their PG situation but doesn't necessarily need to.

Perhaps "playing chicken" may not be the right term. However, it does appear that the Simons may be willing to walk away from this deal, for whatever reason. I don't agree, but they probably have a different calculus than I do.

CableKC
10-07-2008, 01:11 PM
That's a big chunk of cash to go throwing around. Sure, the Simons have plenty of assets in real estate, but you've got to wonder if the Pacers have that kind of liquid cash laying around.
As far as I am concerned........we're gonna walk away from a Tinsley deal with the following options:

A ) Break even....where the Simons somehow pay...one way or another...the $21 mil to Tinsley ( literally by doing nothing ) or whoever else we can get for him with an equal contract.
B ) Pay more....where we acquire Player(s) that have more guaranteed $$$ owed to them.
C ) Pay less.....where we acquire Player(s) that have less guaranteed $$$ owed to them.

In the end.....the obvios best option is C.....which ( as far as we know ) is what we have now.

The only reasoning that I can think of why the Simons wouldn't do this is IF they think that taking the Nuggets deal comes out to be the same amount of $$$ that they would have likely bought out Tinsley with. Loosely putting it.......if it costs "X" amount to buy out Tinsley ( which the Simons were refusing to do ) and the bottomline cost in taking on Atkins+Hunter+$3mil in Cash+"whatever cost it is to likey waive the additional players on the roster" is pretty much the same as buying Tinsley out.....then why do it at all?

But I can then counter that the main difference is the Salary Cap hit in the 2010-2011 season. In the end...we essentially pay the same for a buyout of Tinsley....but we have the benefit of clearing Tinsley's contract from the 2010-2011 Salarycap.

Either way......there must be something else to this that Vescey does not know about. I'm guessing that the Nuggets are asking for a pick. Asking for $3mil to cover costs...given Tinsley's baggage/history/additional guaranteed $$....is IMHO reasonable...or at the very least not a deal breaker. As someone else said.......if the Nuggets are asking for a 1st rounder on top of the $3mil, then they are getting greedy.

CableKC
10-07-2008, 01:14 PM
Perhaps "playing chicken" may not be the right term. However, it does appear that the Simons may be willing to walk away from this deal, for whatever reason. I don't agree, but they probably have a different calculus than I do.
Wait a sec.....is calculus taught differently in Indy then it is in the rest of the US? ;)

If so....then that may explain why the Simons don't want to do it...their calculations are off :chin: :laugh:

CableKC
10-07-2008, 01:42 PM
I'm surprised they haven't tried to expand the deal to include a KMart for Murphy swap...we'd have to add another filler, but a deal could be worked out that would knock a couple mill off their payroll number. It would also neutralize the long term salary situation, even put it in their favor. (However, it would put us at or over the tax.)
If it were a straight up KMart for Murphy+Tinsley trade.......although the trade could work from a 2008-2009 Salary POV.......but financially, the Nuggets would have to take on more guaranteed $$$ in the end ( about $6 mil more ) over the 3 year period....which I doubt that they would want.

The only trade that I can figure would work out where both teams end up coming out ( pretty much ) even from a Financial and Salary POV is a trade that expanded to include everyone mentioned:

Tinsley+Murphy+Graham+McRoberts+Baston
2008-2009 Salary : $20.38mil
Total Guaranteed $$ Sent out : $58.1 mil


for

KMart+Atkins+Hunter
2008-2009 Salary : $21.05 mil
Total Guaranteed $$ Sent out : $56.66 mil to 60.14 mil ( depending on how Atkin's 2009-2010 Partially Ungauranteed contract is handled )

Financially, this trade suggestion would not put either team ahead or behind financially where both parties would pretty much "break even".

I could be wrong...but I think that this would leave us at 15 Players including Croshere. The only problem is that I have no clue how this would affect us from a 2009-2010 Salary POV. My initial guess is that it would allow us to still resign Granger and Jack while acquiring the Low-Post tough-nosed PF in KMart and keep a "poor man's" version of Murphy by allowing us to retain Croshere.

I'm guessnig that this is too convoluted....but IF there was a trade that were to be expanded to include KMart...this is the only one that would make sense for both teams.

count55
10-07-2008, 01:53 PM
I could be wrong...but I think that this would leave us at 15 Players including Croshere. The only problem is that I have no clue how this would affect us from a 2009-2010 Salary POV. My initial guess is that it would allow us to still resign Granger and Jack while acquiring the Low-Post tough-nosed PF in KMart and keep a "poor man's" version of Murphy by allowing us to retain Croshere.

I'm guessnig that this is too convoluted....but IF there was a trade that were to be expanded to include KMart...this is the only one that would make sense for both teams.

For Pacers:

2009-2010 salary would be $1.8mm higher
2010-2011 salary would be $3.1mm lower.

I know the principles of this deal (K-Mart/Atkins for Murph/Tins) have been floated several times over the summer on the RealGM trade board, and been generally accepted by fans of both teams. That doesn't really mean anything, and it's always hard to tell how the FO's would view such a swap.

Effectively, this would leave us gambling on a healthy K-Mart as our FA pick up next year. It probably helps us in terms of absorbing Danny's new contract, long-term.

EDIT: However, I don't think Denver would find a Murph/K-Mart swap pallatable unless it took a bite out of this year's luxury tax. I don't think they'd want all of that filler (Graham, McBob, Baston). Probably just one (preferrably, for them, McBob).

OakMoses
10-07-2008, 02:05 PM
While I'm as excited about getting rid of Tinsley as anyone could be, I really don't like the idea of a Murphy for KMart swap. Murphy is a much better player right now than KMart is.

Unclebuck
10-07-2008, 02:45 PM
Murphy is a much better player right now than KMart is.

Really? I suppose you could make the case that Murphy is as good when you consider KMart's history of injuries and considering KMart's often troublesome attitude. (not that his attitude is really bad, but for this Pacers franchise anything approaching a bad attitude needs to be avoided). Having said that though, I think Martin is the better player - his defense is so far superior it trumps everything else anyone could mention.

But KMart probably isn't the right player for the Pacers right now. So I probably don't want to trade Murph or Martin either

Speed
10-07-2008, 02:54 PM
While I'm as excited about getting rid of Tinsley as anyone could be, I really don't like the idea of a Murphy for KMart swap. Murphy is a much better player right now than KMart is.

I agree, right now. Pre Denver Kmart was physical hungry and athletic, Denver Kmart is average at alot of things. I think it probably has to do with getting a crazy big contract and probably moreso microfracture surgury, I believe.

To me, Kmart doesn't seem like a real coachable guy or at best a little headstrong, maybe I'm wrong.

His contract is poison.

His production is average, alarmingly so.

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/kenyon_martin/career_stats.html

He seems like a guy in year 3 you would be paying 16.5 million dollars to for 40 games of average numbers at 34 years old. We've been down that road, no thanks.

I could be wrong, but those are my impressions.

HC
10-07-2008, 04:22 PM
How much longer can they possibly draw this out? I am getting tired of it already. Are the Simons seriously fretting over 3 million vs getting rid of Tinsley and winning back some more fans? Seriously if its that big of a deal, someone set up a paypal thing. Perhaps we can get enough donations going to cover some of the 3 million.

HC
10-07-2008, 04:25 PM
Really? I suppose you could make the case that Murphy is as good when you consider KMart's history of injuries and considering KMart's often troublesome attitude. (not that his attitude is really bad, but for this Pacers franchise anything approaching a bad attitude needs to be avoided). Having said that though, I think Martin is the better player - his defense is so far superior it trumps everything else anyone could mention.

But KMart probably isn't the right player for the Pacers right now. So I probably don't want to trade Murph or Martin either

I agree with you KMart is the better player. Correct me if I'm wrong though, didn't Kmart usually check his attitude once he stepped off of the court? As long as he kept it clean off the court, I don't think he would have a problem here.

CableKC
10-07-2008, 04:26 PM
How much longer can they possibly draw this out? I am getting tired of it already. Are the Simons seriously fretting over 3 million vs getting rid of Tinsley and winning back some more fans? Seriously if its that big of a deal, someone set up a paypal thing. Perhaps we can get enough donations going to cover some of the 3 million.
I' think that something else other then what Vescey has outlined is the hold up. My money is on the Nuggets asking for $3mil in Cash and some future 1st round pick for Tinsley as sweetner.

If that is the case.....we're in the same boat as Walsh was when the Grizzlies ( supposedly ) asked the Knicks for a future 1st along with some Cash to cover ZBo's contract.

HC
10-07-2008, 04:35 PM
I' think that something else other then what Vescey has outlined is the hold up. My money is on the Nuggets asking for $3mil in Cash and some future 1st round pick for Tinsley as sweetner.

If that is the case.....we're in the same boat as Walsh was when the Grizzlies ( supposedly ) asked the Knicks for a future 1st along with some Cash to cover ZBo's contract.

You are right, it almost has to be. I wouldn't give up a 1st rounder at all in this deal, not unless they are giving something of value back. Seems like an example of what happens when you don't have leverage.

RamBo_Lamar
10-07-2008, 04:43 PM
How much longer can they possibly draw this out? I am getting tired of it already. Are the Simons seriously fretting over 3 million vs getting rid of Tinsley and winning back some more fans? Seriously if its that big of a deal, someone set up a paypal thing. Perhaps we can get enough donations going to cover some of the 3 million.


I'm not so sure I can agree with giving them 3 mil to do this trade.

While I would like to see this get done like just about everyone else, Tins
for Adkins and Hunter, talent-wise, is already clearly tilted in Denver's
favor, and they are getting the better end of the deal to start with. A
starting caliber PG for 2 end of the bench guys who might get cut
anyway? C'mon...

I do share your anxiety about this deal dragging out, but anything above
and beyond trading Tins for these guys and we would be getting outright
fleeced - big time. I would rather see Tins sit at home until someone who
really does need a good starting caliber PG (which it seems Denver does
not) come along than get totally ripped-off altogether.

The Pacers could come up with 3 Mil if they had to, but I think it is coming
down to the principle of it - it being Denver is trying to get unrealistically
greedy.

CableKC
10-07-2008, 04:55 PM
I'm not so sure I can agree with giving them 3 mil to do this trade.

While I would like to see this get done like just about everyone else, Tins
for Adkins and Hunter, talent-wise, is already clearly tilted in Denver's
favor, and they are getting the better end of the deal to start with. A
starting caliber PG for 2 end of the bench guys who might get cut
anyway? C'mon...

I do share your anxiety about this deal dragging out, but anything above
and beyond trading Tins for these guys and we would be getting outright
fleeced - big time. I would rather see Tins sit at home until someone who
really does need a good starting caliber PG (which it seems Denver does
not) come along than get totally ripped-off altogether.

The Pacers could come up with 3 Mil if they had to, but I think it is coming
down to the principle of it - it being Denver is trying to get unrealistically
greedy.
Sorry, I'll have to disagree. IMHO........I don't think that it is too unrealistic when you take all of Tinsley's Negative into consideration. Asking for $3mil in Cash AND a 1st rounder is IMHO greedy....but asking for $3mil in Cash for a player with a history of injuries that is owed way more $$$ then what is being sent out....isn't entirely unrealistic.

pacergod2
10-07-2008, 05:04 PM
My opinion on this situation is this. We are all aware that this is a two for one. I bet there will be some cash considerations sent to Denver. There is a two month period before we could trade Hunter or Atkins. I am SURE we probably came to an agreement with Denver (last Thursday) and the caveat with giving them the money is based on Denver letting us go find a third team to take on three players' deals for an expiring some where else. That way we have the roster flexibility to keep McRoberts and Croshere. Croshere had met with Bird before coming into camp and Bird HAD to have told him there is a deal in place to move Tinsley along with a few others, so he wouldn't be wasting his time to just get cut. (I don't believe his contract is guaranteed unless he makes the team.)

I could see something like having Graham, Maceo, and Atkins sent to NYK who were considering buying out Malik Rose anyway. We would take on the extra ~800K, which would save them 1.6M this year due to the luxury tax for dealing with the extra bodies. I know we would be taking on more money than we should be for the Simon's, but in reality they will still be ahead. We will gain the roster and cap flexibility and get rid of Tinsley for an expiring.

Tom White
10-07-2008, 05:22 PM
Denver's getting greedy if they want a pick.

Yeah, who do they think they are, Atlanta?

Justin Tyme
10-07-2008, 07:14 PM
Yeah, who do they think they are, Atlanta?


That's the exact reason why Bird isn't going to give up a 1st round pick......... he doesn't want to have to hear about it.... again!

Anthem
10-07-2008, 10:05 PM
How much longer can they possibly draw this out?
See also: Harringon, Al.

JayRedd
10-07-2008, 10:46 PM
See also: Harringon, Al.

Also: Warier, Tru

MillerTime
10-07-2008, 11:26 PM
Also: Warier, Tru

you mean....

Warrior, True

MagicRat
10-07-2008, 11:34 PM
you mean....

Warrior, True

you mean......
http://espn.go.com/media/nba/2005/1127/photo/a_artest_268.jpg

MyFavMartin
10-08-2008, 01:10 AM
Just wait Denver out... trade deadline isn't too far off and some playoff-bound team is going to get desperate when their starting PG gets hurt.

RamBo_Lamar
10-08-2008, 07:22 AM
Just wait Denver out... trade deadline isn't too far off and some playoff-bound team is going to get desperate when their starting PG gets hurt.


Isn't the trade deadline in the middle of February? That is still over 4
months away. I hope we don't see this dragging out for that long, but
it definately could, or even go well beyond that.

Tinsley already knows from experience that all he has to do is go out
and do something to make himself more of "damaged goods" than he
is already perceived, and the Pacers are on the hook.

Hmmm.... I guess when looking at it that way, maybe the Pacers should
go ahead and cough up the 3 Mil and get this thing over with.

It's like Tinsley is holding us hostage, with the team offering to pick him
up being the ones making the ransom demands.

MillerTime
10-08-2008, 08:56 AM
man...i just want this deal to go through, just to get Tinsley officially off the team

Speed
10-10-2008, 12:17 PM
Hoopsworld update:

http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?story_id=10218

Morning Report: Latest On TInsley

The Latest On Tinsely: The Indiana Pacers still have not found a taker on Jamaal Tinsley. Talks with the Denver Nuggets seem to be over, according to one source close to the situation. That source said the Nuggets insistence on cash or a first round draft pick being included in the deal killed the talks with the Pacers, who have been talking to other teams. Pacers' sources refused to name the teams the club is talking with as to "not pollute the talks" in the press. It's believed the Pacers are closed to the idea of taking on garbage contracts in exchange for Tinsley. They are obviously not looking for star caliber players, but they at least want someone who could play for them, ruling out chronically injured or over the hill types, which seem to be what's being offered the most. The Pacers' source indicated the thought process is it's smarter to hold onto Tinsley and wait for the right deal rather than rush into something that handcuffs the team in the future or brings on assets that limit the team's flexibility going forward. Technically the Pacers do not start paying Tinsley's contract until the start of the regular season - we'll see if the Pacers' stance changes once checks start flowing. The Pacers have set no timetable for moving Tinsley, but are still engaged in talks according to sources close to this situation.

CableKC
10-10-2008, 12:26 PM
Seriously....IF ( that's a big IF since this info comes from an alleged "source ) the Pacers had the choice of Cash OR a Draft pick....and they chose not to give up $3mil in cash....then they dropped the ball on this BIG TIME.

Major Cold
10-10-2008, 12:41 PM
it is all JOs fault.

Kuq_e_Zi91
10-10-2008, 12:44 PM
Hoopsworld update:

http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?story_id=10218

Morning Report: Latest On TInsley

The Latest On Tinsely: The Indiana Pacers still have not found a taker on Jamaal Tinsley. Talks with the Denver Nuggets seem to be over, according to one source close to the situation. That source said the Nuggets insistence on cash or a first round draft pick being included in the deal killed the talks with the Pacers, who have been talking to other teams. Pacers' sources refused to name the teams the club is talking with as to "not pollute the talks" in the press. It's believed the Pacers are closed to the idea of taking on garbage contracts in exchange for Tinsley. They are obviously not looking for star caliber players, but they at least want someone who could play for them, ruling out chronically injured or over the hill types, which seem to be what's being offered the most. The Pacers' source indicated the thought process is it's smarter to hold onto Tinsley and wait for the right deal rather than rush into something that handcuffs the team in the future or brings on assets that limit the team's flexibility going forward. Technically the Pacers do not start paying Tinsley's contract until the start of the regular season - we'll see if the Pacers' stance changes once checks start flowing. The Pacers have set no timetable for moving Tinsley, but are still engaged in talks according to sources close to this situation.

That's what's up. Don't give up, and don't take back garbage. It might take a while, but I'd rather be patient. Props to Larry for not giving in to Denver for a pick.

Hicks
10-10-2008, 12:50 PM
I'm glad we didn't give up a pick, and I agree with their stance moving forward, but I am slightly disappointed we wouldn't give them cash to make this happen.

Justin Tyme
10-10-2008, 01:19 PM
It looks like the Simons aren't willing to spend 3 mil to get rid of Tinsley. If they did, then they would have to cut some guaranted contracts which would cost them even more money. Money seems to be a big issue to the Simons.

It pretty clear in the long term the Simons come out ahead, but the short term seems to be what's important. Well, if they keep holding on to Tinsley it will cost them 7 mil this year, or whatever until they can trade him. It sounds to me the are being penny wise and pound foolish. JMOAA

Anthem
10-10-2008, 01:28 PM
It pretty clear in the long term the Simons come out ahead, but the short term seems to be what's important. Well, if they keep holding on to Tinsley it will cost them 7 mil this year, or whatever until they can trade him. It sounds to me the are being penny wise and pound foolish. JMOAA
Not if they think they have another deal on the table that can get what they want without giving up the cash.

Shade
10-10-2008, 02:07 PM
Demanding a first-rounder is just plain insanity. Denver can suck it...like Trebek. :D

My main concern with Tinsley still being on the roster is the spot we lose. We already have our work cut out for us paring it down to 15 players (hopefully we won't be stupid enough to cut Williams).

blanket
10-10-2008, 02:09 PM
So if the Pacers can't trade JT (or make another roster-trimming trade) by opening day then they need to cut 3? Presumably Davis and 2 of McRoberts/Graham/Croshere? (I think Baston is owed too much for the team to consider cutting him)

Justin Tyme
10-10-2008, 02:11 PM
Not if they think they have another deal on the table that can get what they want without giving up the cash.


I'll believe it only after it happens!

count55
10-10-2008, 02:45 PM
Hoopsworld update:

http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?story_id=10218

Morning Report: Latest On TInsley

The Latest On Tinsely: The Indiana Pacers still have not found a taker on Jamaal Tinsley. Talks with the Denver Nuggets seem to be over, according to one source close to the situation. That source said the Nuggets insistence on cash or a first round draft pick being included in the deal killed the talks with the Pacers, who have been talking to other teams. Pacers' sources refused to name the teams the club is talking with as to "not pollute the talks" in the press. It's believed the Pacers are closed to the idea of taking on garbage contracts in exchange for Tinsley. They are obviously not looking for star caliber players, but they at least want someone who could play for them, ruling out chronically injured or over the hill types, which seem to be what's being offered the most. The Pacers' source indicated the thought process is it's smarter to hold onto Tinsley and wait for the right deal rather than rush into something that handcuffs the team in the future or brings on assets that limit the team's flexibility going forward. Technically the Pacers do not start paying Tinsley's contract until the start of the regular season - we'll see if the Pacers' stance changes once checks start flowing. The Pacers have set no timetable for moving Tinsley, but are still engaged in talks according to sources close to this situation.

First, there's a significant value difference between cash & a 1st round draft pick, so I'm not sure what's up there. It would seem far more likely that it was a pick that was the sticking point.

The second position seems to be overplaying our hand a bit. I can appreciate not wanting to get worse, but they should probably recognize that "about equally bad" is probably as good as we could hope.

Justin Tyme
10-10-2008, 03:41 PM
Shawne is going to be our best scorer off the bench this season

Hum!