PDA

View Full Version : Dare I say it?? (Tinsley related...)



ChicagoJ
02-19-2009, 03:43 PM
Sooo....

No trade.

Greivance filed.

Abritration pending.

Who's ready to see Tinsley back in uniform before the season ends?

:zip:

grace
02-19-2009, 03:44 PM
They'll cut him before they put him back in a Pacer uniform.

rexnom
02-19-2009, 03:44 PM
Sooo....

No trade.

Greivance filed.

Abritration pending.

Who's ready to see Tinsley back in uniform before the season ends?

:zip:
We'll never see him in uniform. He'll be on the injured reserved (at worst).

duke dynamite
02-19-2009, 03:48 PM
We'll never see him in uniform. He'll be on the injured reserved (at worst).
Not if they find arbitration in his favor.

PaceBalls
02-19-2009, 03:48 PM
I wouldn't mind, let's see if he has some game still and can get along. Are they worried they are going to alienate the fans? lol..

ChicagoJ
02-19-2009, 03:49 PM
They'll cut him before they put him back in a Pacer uniform.

Then they have to pay him his full salary, and they've said they won't buy him out.

At some point soon, after the arbitrator rules in Tinsley's favor, they will either have to buy him out or let him return to the team. At that point, one of thier two statements becomes false.

I think its a likely outcome that letting him return is more palatable to the Simons, as a business decision, than buying out his contract.

Pig Nash
02-19-2009, 03:49 PM
Even if he gets to come back to the team, they don't have to dress him.

Brad8888
02-19-2009, 03:50 PM
Mysterious "career ending injury" might occur in "private workout session" in preparation for a return to action after arbitration is entered into :devil:. Fortunately, there might be insurance coverage for such an occurance :-p

We could hope, couldn't we?

mrknowname
02-19-2009, 03:51 PM
bring him back and make him earn that paycheck.

who knows, maybe he's a changed man now

ChicagoJ
02-19-2009, 03:52 PM
Even if he gets to come back to the team, they don't have to dress him.

I doubt that's one of the choices for arbitration, and I suspect the NBPA would scream if the Pacers tried to pull a stunt like that if the arbitrator rules in Tinsley's favor.

I'm sure J'OB could leave him sitting on the end of the bench, but I don't know how much longer they'll be able to leave him in exile, away from the team.

circlecitysportsfan
02-19-2009, 03:56 PM
Why in the world would tinsley want to play for us?

ChicagoJ
02-19-2009, 03:59 PM
I'm sure he doesn't, but the greivance has been filed on his behalf so he's got to follow through on it now.

jeffg-body
02-19-2009, 04:00 PM
:suicide3:
Sooo....

No trade.

Greivance filed.

Abritration pending.

Who's ready to see Tinsley back in uniform before the season ends?

:zip:

31andonly
02-19-2009, 04:03 PM
Why in the world would tinsley want to play for us?


Good question...who thinks that Tins would still give 100 % may raise his hand!

Evan_The_Dude
02-19-2009, 04:03 PM
Well at least if Tinsley does play then he only has to play 26 (?) games. That's below his career average.

count55
02-19-2009, 04:03 PM
It seems from this article:

http://www.indystar.com/article/20090217/SPORTS04/902170351/1088/SPORTS04

that Billy Hunter may not be particularly sanguine about this grievance succeeding.


"I'm concerned about any player who might be constructively terminated and or discharged because a team tells him to stay away," Hunter said during the All-Star Weekend. "I do not know what the outcome of the litigation will be. It can go one of several ways, and we've explained that to Jamaal.

"He's inclined and anxious to roll the dice. We're concerned about the precedent it might set because more and more guys it might be happening to."


"If they warehouse him for three years and he can't play, it pretty much terminates his career. I'm not inclined to stand by and let that happen without some judgment being rendered by some arbiter," Hunter said.

"The arbiter could very well say Indiana is within its rights, and all it has to do is honor and pay his contract and he has no other remedies."

Pressed on Tinsley's multiple misdeeds and asked if a team owed it to its fans to get rid of such a player, Hunter responded, "Without getting into the intricacies of the law, in some states, there is a principle called good faith and fair dealing," Hunter said. "I think it might be punishment that goes beyond what they're entitled to do."

Clearly, I have no legal expertise, but it would seem to me that the union would have to prove that the Pacers intend to keep Tinsley on the shelf for the whole time. They'd have to prove that the Pacers have turned down reasonable deals. Here are the problems:

- The Pacers are paying Tinsley's contract in full. It may be true that they are denying him access to the Pacer facilities, but that can be remedied by actions well short of forcing a waiver or buy out.
- The Pacers are not bad mouthing him publicly. All that they've said is that they no longer want him to play for them. They have said he is healthy and in good shape, and they have said that he is a good player. Now, people can infer what they want from their actions, but it is questionable how far that can be prosecuted. As long as the Pacers are actually making good faith efforts to trade him, I think the union claim that the Pacers intend to "warehouse" him for three years.

Of course, the Pacers face the problems of the access to the facilities, and they further face the issue of what is a "good faith effort" to trade him. This is a subjective issue, and an arbiter could decide what would constitute an acceptable offer. I know no details, but it does leave open the possibility that the arbiter could really lower the bar. For example, pretend that Charlotte offered Felton, Nazr, and May for Tinsley, Foster, Rush, and a 1st. That seems reasonable to turn down to most of us, but an arbiter might say that it was a good offer and that the Pacers were obligated to take it. Now, we have a can of worms.

Until he's gone, you can't absolutely rule anything out. However, I would say the chances of Tinsley ever suiting up for the P's to be infinitessimal, at best.

Peck
02-19-2009, 04:11 PM
We'll never see him in uniform. He'll be on the injured reserved (at worst).

There is no longer an injured reserve list. You are either active or not active.

He is already not active so there is nothing else to do with him other than activate him, buy him out, trade him in the off-season or whatever the arbitrator says we have to do.

Roaming Gnome
02-19-2009, 04:16 PM
The only way Tinsley suits up for the Pacers is if the team decides that playing Tinsley is beneficial. I highly doubt any arbitration in Tinsley's favor does anything more then forces the Pacers to a discount buy out at best or to waive him at worst.

ReginaldWayne
02-19-2009, 04:19 PM
Why dont we just play him, thats if he is willing to do so.

We dont have dun for the rest of the season(prob), granger is gna be out a while most likely.

We like to have multiple pg's on the court at the same time anyway. (by We I mean the coach)

Give teams a chance to see he still has some value so we can eventually trade him.

I know this all isnt going to happen, but if hes on the floor i dont think its out of the realm of possibilities that he plays better than tj or jack anyway.

Roaming Gnome
02-19-2009, 04:31 PM
Why dont we just play him, thats if he is willing to do so.

We dont have dun for the rest of the season(prob), granger is gna be out a while most likely.

We like to have multiple pg's on the court at the same time anyway. (by We I mean the coach)

Give teams a chance to see he still has some value so we can eventually trade him.

I know this all isnt going to happen, but if hes on the floor i dont think its out of the realm of possibilities that he plays better than tj or jack anyway.
Yeah, let's take all the good will and inroads that PS&E has made with the community by going back on what they declared last off season. Bringing back Tinsley into a Pacer's Jersey does that faster then anything I can think of other then trading Danny Granger for Ron Artest.

Putnam
02-19-2009, 04:38 PM
trading Danny Granger for Ron Artest.


The sun passed behind a cloud just as I was reading those words, and somebody somewhere kicked a dog. :shudder: Yikes! I had to remind myself that I'm casual.



.

BRushWithDeath
02-19-2009, 04:51 PM
They won't ever have to activate him. They will have to let him be a part of the team.

Wage
02-19-2009, 04:51 PM
Yeah, let's take all the good will and inroads that PS&E has made with the community by going back on what they declared last off season. Bringing back Tinsley into a Pacer's Jersey does that faster then anything I can think of other then trading Danny Granger for Ron Artest.

Yes, because that good will has the fans flooding back to the fieldhouse in record numbers...

I'm probably crazy, and I am sure I am alone on this, but imho Tinsley is the best PG on our roster, and should have been playing all year.

I simply do not buy into the "clean up the image" line, as it clearly has not done anything to bring fans back. I believe that if we had a roster full of the greatest evils the world had ever seen, yet they were competing for a championship, the Filedhouse would be full every night.

Shade
02-19-2009, 04:55 PM
I, for one, would be fine with suiting Tinsley up. His "exile" has been poorly handled by TPTB, anyway.

I can understand why TPTB wouldn't want to do it, but I, personally, would not mind. My only major problem with Tinsley has been his injuries (and the Phoenix debacle, but I blame that more on JOB, anyway).

PaceBalls
02-19-2009, 04:55 PM
Yes, because that good will has the fans flooding back to the fieldhouse in record numbers...

I'm probably crazy, and I am sure I am alone on this, but imho Tinsley is the best PG on our roster, and should have been playing all year.

I simply do not buy into the "clean up the image" line, as it clearly has not done anything to bring fans back. I believe that if we had a roster full of the greatest evils the world had ever seen, yet they were competing for a championship, the Filedhouse would be full every night.

You are absolutely correct on that. I am glad there is someone else on this board that understands this.

Shade
02-19-2009, 04:58 PM
Yes, because that good will has the fans flooding back to the fieldhouse in record numbers...

I'm probably crazy, and I am sure I am alone on this, but imho Tinsley is the best PG on our roster, and should have been playing all year.

I simply do not buy into the "clean up the image" line, as it clearly has not done anything to bring fans back. I believe that if we had a roster full of the greatest evils the world had ever seen, yet they were competing for a championship, the Filedhouse would be full every night.

Sad, but true.

Roaming Gnome
02-19-2009, 05:04 PM
Yes, because that good will has the fans flooding back to the fieldhouse in record numbers...

I'm probably crazy, and I am sure I am alone on this, but imho Tinsley is the best PG on our roster, and should have been playing all year.

I simply do not buy into the "clean up the image" line, as it clearly has not done anything to bring fans back. I believe that if we had a roster full of the greatest evils the world had ever seen, yet they were competing for a championship, the Filedhouse would be full every night.

Rome wasn't built in a day. Yeah, the fans are not back into the stands, but they are not burning the team in effigy either. At least the reason folks are not going to games has less to do with the team being seen as a group of undesirables. Anyway, attendance has improved, so leaving Tinsley at home has shown something of a positive.

Anyway, Tinsley isn't talented enough to risk bringing him back.

Roaming Gnome
02-19-2009, 05:05 PM
Sad, but true.

Come on, Shade... This is a reach, even for you!

Los Angeles
02-19-2009, 05:12 PM
Not if they find arbitration in his favor.

And what exactly is the arbiter empowered to do? The only true option here is forced buyout with a small salary concession to the Pacers. I'm guessing they save about 10% of the total contract worth.

2minutes twowa
02-19-2009, 05:12 PM
I say let him play. Tell him he has 26 games to show the rest of the league that he still has value. Or we could just start him at center for 26 games and watch them beat the crap out of him:D

ChicagoJ
02-19-2009, 05:13 PM
I simply do not buy into the "clean up the image" line, as it clearly has not done anything to bring fans back. I believe that if we had a roster full of the greatest evils the world had ever seen, yet they were competing for a championship, the Filedhouse would be full every night.

The reality is that we were pretty close to both parts of that definition in 2003-05, and while the Fieldhouse wasn't exactly full it was much closer to being full than it is now.

Wage
02-19-2009, 05:14 PM
Rome wasn't built in a day. Yeah, the fans are not back into the stands, but they are not burning the team in effigy either. At least the reason folks are not going to games has less to do with the team being seen as a group of undesirables. Anyway, attendance has improved, so leaving Tinsley at home has shown something of a positive.

Anyway, Tinsley isn't talented enough to risk bringing him back.

I guess I just don't believe that people were ever staying away because it was a team of undesireables. That was just the easy answer.

"Hey buddy, why don't you follow the Pacers anymore?"


"Because I am a fairweather fan. I only like the team if they are winning."

or

"Um, because they are thugs! Yeah, that's it. I want to like em, but they are just thugs, so who cares. Who is on the roster again?"

ReginaldWayne
02-19-2009, 05:14 PM
Rome wasn't built in a day. Yeah, the fans are not back into the stands, but they are not burning the team in effigy either. At least the reason folks are not going to games has less to do with the team being seen as a group of undesirables. Anyway, attendance has improved, so leaving Tinsley at home has shown something of a positive.

Anyway, Tinsley isn't talented enough to risk bringing him back.

What is the risk exactly? That from now until the end of the season he has an off court issue, though hes been quite quiet all yr?

If he never sees the court, I have a feeling no one is gna want him next year as well. We may literally have to wait until he is an expiring to get rid of him, barring what happens with the grievance.

Doddage
02-19-2009, 05:20 PM
Yes, because that good will has the fans flooding back to the fieldhouse in record numbers...

I'm probably crazy, and I am sure I am alone on this, but imho Tinsley is the best PG on our roster, and should have been playing all year.

I simply do not buy into the "clean up the image" line, as it clearly has not done anything to bring fans back. I believe that if we had a roster full of the greatest evils the world had ever seen, yet they were competing for a championship, the Filedhouse would be full every night.
Agreed. Tins isn't going to make a huge difference in attendance and I guarantee if we were winning because of him, the attendance would actually improve. Fans can care about and talk about baggage all they want, but at the end of the day what they care about the most is the number of W's there are in our record.

Herb just needs to swallow it up, let Tins back on the team and maybe we can actually get something of value for him by next year.

ChicagoJ
02-19-2009, 05:20 PM
And what exactly is the arbiter empowered to do? The only true option here is forced buyout with a small salary concession to the Pacers. I'm guessing they save about 10% of the total contract worth.

I'm guessing the choices are (a) cut him before the playoff roster deadline with no discount, (b) premium buy-out after the playoff roster deadline (based on punitive damages), or (c) let him be on the active roster and part of the team for the remaining games to boost his chances of a trade to extend his career. Clearly at this point the aribtrator can't force the Pacers to complete a trade.

Now that the greivance is filed, the likelihood of a discounted buyout is much smaller - Tinsley has more negotiating leverage now and he's never had to be willing to accept a discounted buy-out in the first place.

There is no part of a union greivance that strengthens the Pacers' position here.

PacersRule
02-19-2009, 05:20 PM
Why in the world would tinsley want to play for us?

I say we should think about it, we don't have much to lose anyway, and we might even get a little surprise! You never know. He won't play for us, but maybe he will play for "himself". One of the reasons teams don't want him is because his off-court reputation isn't good. What if JT could use this time to prove to them that he can still play and has changed over one year of sitting out? Maybe teams will think his talent outweighs his troubles and trade for him. Thing is, there's a lot of teams out there that could use another PG.

Wage
02-19-2009, 05:21 PM
The reality is that we were pretty close to both parts of that definition in 2003-05, and while the Fieldhouse wasn't exactly full it was much closer to being full than it is now.

As usual, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

A competitive team full of great people is definately the best scenario. The point is, you have to win games, or no one cares who is on the team.

Roaming Gnome
02-19-2009, 05:26 PM
I guess getting laughed at for being a fan of those thugs went to my heart a little more then the rest of you. I guess I don't want to hear management get "tarred and feathered" by the local media and casual fans for lying about wanting to change the culture. Everything they do would just be viewed as lip service. I just don't have the stomach to go thru another year where it's open season on the Pacers as far as public opinion goes.

Carry on wishing that Jamaal Tinsley was allowed back. I'll just take it that I'm in the minority on this issue.

BRushWithDeath
02-19-2009, 05:32 PM
Carry on wishing that Jamaal Tinsley was allowed back. I'll just take it that I'm in the minority on this issue.

Far from it. You're in the vast majority for not wanting him anywhere near the team.

ChicagoJ
02-19-2009, 05:35 PM
I'll just take it that I'm in the minority on this issue.

No you're not. But the Pacers have handled this in such a strong-armed way that it may be forced on them (especially if they remain unwilling to buy out his remaining contract at full value.)

They can play the sympathy "the arbitrator/ union is forcing us to do this" card. Of course, that will hurt his trade value. But at this point, its not like they are prolonging the amount of time until he's traded. Unless he's involved in a draft-day trade, he'll be here until July at the earliest.

BPump33
02-19-2009, 05:35 PM
I guess getting laughed at for being a fan of those thugs went to my heart a little more then the rest of you. I guess I don't want to hear management get "tarred and feathered" by the local media and casual fans for lying about wanting to change the culture. Everything they do would just be viewed as lip service. I just don't have the stomach to go thru another year where it's open season on the Pacers as far as public opinion goes.

Carry on wishing that Jamaal Tinsley was allowed back. I'll just take it that I'm in the minority on this issue.

I'm with you. We've "turned the corner" as far as PR goes and there is no looking back. Granted, it hasn't gotten the "casual" fan back, but why give them more "thug" ammunition. Let me also say that I don't like the "casual" fan, but unfortunately economically we need them.

Also, I'm not a Tinsley basher but that's the brush he's been painted with and it's unfortunate. The guy could end world hunger and the "casual" fan would still have some made up story about Jamaal hanging out a car window downtown shooting at people. His time with this team and with this city is over.

31andonly
02-19-2009, 05:37 PM
I'm with you Roaming Gnome. They'll find a solution for the Tinsley problem, but I don't think they'll ever let him play again in a Pacers uniform.

I'd say it's more likely that he'll be bought out than that he ever plays again for our team.
At the moment we have 3 solid Point Guards, adding Tinsley would not make us a better team, especially with Granger out for maybe 3 weeks.

Even if he played in some games from now on, he would not have more value in the offseason than he has now since every team knows that we're still trying to get rid of him.

Tinsley will not play again for the Pacers.

Mourning
02-19-2009, 05:41 PM
I don't EVER want to see Jamaal on the floor for the Pacers again. Not ever!

grace
02-19-2009, 06:22 PM
I say let him play. Tell him he has 26 games to show the rest of the league that he still has value. Or we could just start him at center for 26 games and watch them beat the crap out of him:D

He's had the last 3 years to show the league he has value. Obviously no one values him much.

ABADays
02-19-2009, 06:39 PM
The only way Tinsley will suit up for the Pacers is if they relocate to another city.

count55
02-19-2009, 06:41 PM
Again, I'm no expert, I still find the grievance relatively weak, particularly asking for such severe remedies, and Hunter's comments seems to make think he's none to confident about it, either.

ABADays
02-19-2009, 06:43 PM
I'll just take it that I'm in the minority on this issue.

Was that a pun? :laugh:

Roaming Gnome
02-19-2009, 06:45 PM
Was that a pun? :laugh:

Secretly, it was... I was chuckling over it as I typed it. :D

Bball
02-19-2009, 07:36 PM
I guess getting laughed at for being a fan of those thugs went to my heart a little more then the rest of you. I guess I don't want to hear management get "tarred and feathered" by the local media and casual fans for lying about wanting to change the culture. Everything they do would just be viewed as lip service. I just don't have the stomach to go thru another year where it's open season on the Pacers as far as public opinion goes.

Carry on wishing that Jamaal Tinsley was allowed back. I'll just take it that I'm in the minority on this issue.


You bring the chips and I'll bring the sodas... I'm on your side here.

Los Angeles
02-19-2009, 07:37 PM
I'm guessing the choices are (a) cut him before the playoff roster deadline with no discount, (b) premium buy-out after the playoff roster deadline (based on punitive damages), or (c) let him be on the active roster and part of the team for the remaining games to boost his chances of a trade to extend his career. Clearly at this point the aribtrator can't force the Pacers to complete a trade.

Now that the greivance is filed, the likelihood of a discounted buyout is much smaller - Tinsley has more negotiating leverage now and he's never had to be willing to accept a discounted buy-out in the first place.

There is no part of a union greivance that strengthens the Pacers' position here.

I don't know the particulars of the CBA or the contractual obligations of either the Pacers or Jamaal "Machine Gun" Tinsley.

I do know that if this does in fact go to arbitration, that this will get very, very nasty for Jamaal. Far nastier for him than any other participant. Every behind-closed-door event that created this situation will be laid out in plain english. Every bad word, every missed game. Every off-court incident. Every association with drugs. Every association with thugs. Every day he mailed it in. Every pound he gained or lost. Every nagging injury. Every cross look. Every time he refused to run a play for the coach. Every bad pass. And each and every one of them is a reason to keep him off the court.

Everyone needs to keep in mind that Tinsley continues to get paid to do his job - and his job is to be a good teammate, and the definition of what you need to do to be a good teammate is not determined by the player, it is determined by the coaches and management.

That was just as true in high school as it is in the NBA.

Tinsley should thank the lucky stars that this isn't going to be in open court, or he would have a hard time making a single dime after the Pacers' attorneys have had their way with him.

Lucky for him, the transparent "secrecy" of arbitration will save his bacon in that regard.

One last thought, before anyone starts to talk about punitive damages, please take a breath. In order to be punished, you have to do something wrong. Focus now on whether or not the Pacer's handling of the situation equals breaking the contract. (In other words, if you don't do anything wrong, then you can't get punished.)

Doug
02-19-2009, 07:46 PM
IF Tinsley does suit up for the Pacers again, I am definitely getting tickets for his first game back. Even if it costs me thousands of dollars from a scalper.

His reception would make the one Custer got at The Little Big Horn seem like a tupperware party.

able
02-19-2009, 07:57 PM
Jay under your short posts I detect far more insight in the matter then anyone here has shown.

People all seem to forget a few things, and no I am not talking the bended straight but let's not forget facts;
"The parking incident" Jackson was facing charges, Tinsley was there, but so was Marquis Daniels yet he is playing, Tinsley was NOT charged with anything.
The 8 seconds, again not only Tinsley and whatever happened to the charges ?
the shooting, HE was SHOT AT, but so was the "trainer" who was with him, in fact HE (trainer) got hit by those bullets.

Tinsley is whispered to abuse the substance, yet Harrisson in his short stint was banned for 10 games, like Brad Miller btw, Tinsley never.

That trainer out of a job ?
Marquis Daniels sitting at home ?
Brad Miller sitting at home ? oh NO we wanted him traded here

Effectively Tinsley's career is jeapordized quite seriously, he can now be bought out and take a paycut elsewhere (what he gets will be deducted of what PSE has to pay him) and try to show ppl he has the handles and can play at this level, or he can be forced to sit alone and not have that chance for the next 2 years.

Fact is that he is stopped from working, likened to the "berufsverbot" of old, something that a lot of courts looked at and all came to the same conclusion, that is was not legal to do so.

No he is not paid to do nothing, he is paid but he can not make his full earnings (bonus, side-income) and he can not secure the twilight of his career.

He is by far the best pointguard on the roster, like him or not.

the 1500 or so more ppl on average flocking the gates of the Fieldhouse ar far more likely due to the amounts of discount and free tickets that are given away PLUS for the new season the ticket prces are down so i can honestly say i doubt sincerely that revenue is up one penny.

The trade deadline came and went and nothing happened, now that says more about the capacity of Bird as man in the front office then anything else.

The only chance this team had was to trade to improve.
The only valuable assets to trade were the expiring, also a need. because you can not sign FA's as we are on or just below (few mil tops) the cap for the coming year.
we have some very interesting contracts to pay while we are so religious about JT's buy out, we are paying the coming year murphy 11 mil, dundun 9.8 DG 9.9 and TJ 8.5 mil IF we keep MD he gets 7.4 and Tins 7.2 oh and Foster 6

Now there is some room between cap and LT (approx 15 mil) that CAN be used and in fact based upon history and the rest of the league that is the ONLY way to improve via trades.
Expiring contracts have proven of great value to many a team, only we manage to "let them expire"

We can ont even replace that money on our payroll if we wanted, we will be in the one position no team in the league wants to be in, just over the cap with only the MLE available.

We have enough MLE type players adn we have no option other then draft to get any kind of sidekick for Danny
How long is he gonna "hang around" before he can do what he wants; win ?

The "no action" day by the frontoffice added to the Tinsley situation is not good, in fact it is a very dangerous and dumb precedent.

in short:

we should have traded those expiring
we should let tinsley play or buy him out, at least that way we get "some" discount on our payroll

Doug
02-19-2009, 08:06 PM
abel - nice to see you posting again.


For what it's worth, I think the field house crowds are much more into the games than last year. They seem to actually care about the team. That's not insignificant. It seemed last year the crowds were apathetic at best, and sometimes surly or worse.

Depending on your point of view, Tinsley is either the poster child for what was wrong with the franchise, or the scapegoat made to serve as the focus of the fan base's dislike.

As usual, the truth is somewhere in the middle of those two extremes.

able
02-19-2009, 08:09 PM
I agree Doug, and where it should be and where adults usually end up making amends and fixing what is broke, iow buy him out after you made him posterchild for not quite what he did and was. a bit like the Pacers are now the scapegoat for the out of hand crowd in the palace.

Hicks
02-19-2009, 08:11 PM
To add to what Doug said about the fans, I'll add that I was part of a recent round of fan surveying that took place at Conseco. The kind where you sit with about 20 other people and they pick your brain about the team, the franchise, its direction, etc.

I can tell you that the opinions they've gotten during these surveys has swung 180 degrees since the ones they took last season. From almost completely negative to almost completely positive.

The Pacers have been making good steps.

Furthermore, I'd care to say that the fact that attendance has gone up over 1,000 per night (isn't it about 1,500 actually?) with this kind of season and in this economy is a STRONG testimony to the success the franchise is starting to have when it comes to PR.

Sure, it's not that simple. They've done a lot of ticket discounts/giveaways. But I don't think that's all there is to it. And I can again echo Doug in saying the crowds have been more into it this year than they were last year.

Things are far from fixed, but the PR moves made since June have been helping, and I can speak as a witness.

grace
02-19-2009, 08:29 PM
His reception would make the one Custer got at The Little Big Horn seem like a tupperware party.

Does Tupperware sell dust pans? :D

speakout4
02-19-2009, 08:31 PM
I believe there is a method to the Pacers' madness with regard to their treatment of tinsley. Everyone knows he will be bought out because of the Pacers unwillingness to pay him for 3 years and the inevitable grievance just filed. The Pacers stance is that they certainly will not pay top dollar to get rid of him and when desperate enough Tinsley will take a buyout roughly in the mid range of 60% or therabouts.

Tinsley at this moment in time probably does not want to see his entire career end not on his own terms and that is exactly what will happen if he just sits. The arbitrator IMO will seek a compromise and won't judge for or against either party so the compromise is how much the two sides settle for.

focused444
02-19-2009, 08:39 PM
imagine they fold and let tinsley back...and he gets injured 10 games in...pr disaster..

can teams put a " if you get arrested for these things we can terminate your contract " clause in...i mean if i can think of this why is it no being done???

the longer we hold on to tins contract the more value it gains...buying him out now is worse then doing it at the beginning of this season...

although i am concerned for the state of the franchise as of today, when we have murphy and duns contract expiring we can do a lot of things. its just larry birds refusal to admit that the pacers were in rebuilding mode a long time ago... which has caused our rebuilding process to take a couple extra seasons then normal... i would like to see bird and JOB replaced after this season... we need some fresh minds higher up... and i dont mind JOBs offensive heavy style as much as the rotations. they have been mind boggling...why does he not see... or what is he seeing???

why cant we have these questions asked by a reporter... larry bird should do a monthly press conference... no one wants to be accountable... i just want to know if larry agrees with JOBs rotations...if he does so be it...

NuffSaid
02-19-2009, 09:02 PM
Here's the irony of Tinsley's situation...

We now have 3 starters injured - a deja vu moment for the Pacers if ever there was one! - and Tinsley is available. If the arbitrator rules in Tinsley's favor, I think Bird/Morray would be better off eating crow and letting him play. I mean, he's an available "healty" body and there are only 25...26 games remaining in the season(?). What have they got to lose at this point?

Odds are they won't make the playoffs, and it's apparent they weren't able to move Tinsley. And since they have to pay him (something) anyway and the team's season is in the balance, why not just let the man play ball.

At worse, he gets injured again and you still can't move him. Second to that, he has another off-court incident that further hampers his trade value. And since Bird/Morray won't let him play as things currently stant nor will they buy him out, and the trade deadline has passed with no takers, I say let the man suit up and earn his money or atleast show other GMs he still has skills.

Someone said it in an earlier post maybe Tinsley has changed. I won't believe it until I've heard and seen it from him myself. Earlier on it was a good idea to sit him and let him squirm far, far away from the Fieldhouse. Now, I'm not so sure that's a wise move considering 3/5th of our starting lineup is down w/injuries and at least one of the players no one has a clue as to when he will return - if he does return. Now, granted, Tinsley would make the 4th PG, but considering that Jack is really a SG and Deiner is sometimes used as a SG, I say suit Tinsley up and show me what he's got. And then if he performs well throughout, his trade stock would only increase and he could be off-loaded much easier. Besides, they could always bench him if he goes rouge again.

Pacerized
02-19-2009, 09:02 PM
I really do wish we had packaged a player with an expiring contract to bring in an impact player. The number of teams looking to shed salary was unprecedented.
I just don't understand why people think that Tinsley filing a grievance means that the Pacers are in the wrong or are in trouble. It just means he's filed a grievance, and the odds are still with the Pacers. I seriously doubt if the grievance even makes it to the arbitrator for a hearing. If it's reviewed by an arbitrator he'll most likely rule that the issue isn't subject to arbitration due to several factors, mostly the fact the the grievance isn't timely enough according to the cba. Even if it makes it to a hearing I'd put a sizable bet on the Pacers winning this one. I can see the point of view that Tinsley not being allowed to play is hurting his long term career chances, but I'll bet if he offered to void his contract and give up any remaining salary the Pacers would let him. The fact that he still wants his salary kind of kills that argument. Let's put it this way, would anyone rule in Tinsleys favor if they were sitting on a jury, knowing that he's still getting paid for nothing. I might be willing to rule to void his contract, but I certainly wouldn't think it was justice to force the Pacers to buy him just so he could play for another team on the Pacers payroll. The Pacers need to rid the team of Tinsley only if it doesn't mean giving a player that hurts the team. Otherwise they need to sit on him until the final year of his contract when he should at least as much value as a retiring player with an expiring contract. Once Tinsley loses his grievance he'll either offer a low ball buyout to the Pacers, or the situation will continue with very little distraction to the team.

ChicagoJ
02-19-2009, 09:23 PM
I do know that if this does in fact go to arbitration, that this will get very, very nasty for Jamaal. Far nastier for him than any other participant. Every behind-closed-door event that created this situation will be laid out in plain english. Every bad word, every missed game. Every off-court incident. Every association with drugs. Every association with thugs. Every day he mailed it in. Every pound he gained or lost. Every nagging injury. Every cross look. Every time he refused to run a play for the coach. Every bad pass. And each and every one of them is a reason to keep him off the court.

All this, and everything Mr. Bird has said to him in private, too!!

This could be a lot of fun for everyone not named Tinsley and Bird.

I'm not going to bother defending Tinsley. But something tells me that he's not the only bad guy here.

Tinsley's case is entirely this: "I'm willing to go back there and play. I'm willing to go whereever they trade me and play. The only reason I'm not being allowed to honor my contract is that they won't let me do the job I agreed to do when I signed the contract."

I'm not sure the contract calls for him to be a good teammate. The arbitration isn't about whether or not he deserves for the Pacers to say "stay away." But keep in mind he's probably got incentives to pad his individual stats, just like nearly every other player in the league. Its a miracle that any of them ever turn into good teammates with an incentive structure like that.

The union filed the greivance on his behalf because he's being denied an opportunity to work. Yeah, he's gotten paid, but it won't be hard for him to paint of a picture of having been black listed and held hostage from the entire league by Mr. Bird.

The Pacers may not have liked the trade terms that were available, but even if someone offers them a second round draft pick in 2018 for Tinsley... how long can they deny him the opportunity to play?

The refusal to pay him fair value for his contract so that he just goes away is likely to be a big problem in the coming weeks for the Pacers - the bad press will probably not be as one-sided as many of you seem to think it will be. Tinsley, to his credit, has never bad-mouthed Bird, Walsh, Carlisle, O'Brien or anyone in the organization publicly. Its not like we've really even heard one full side of the story - only what Bird and O'Brien have wanted us to hear to justify what they've done to him.

But the aribitration is exactly about that - the defacto blacklisting.

count55
02-19-2009, 09:23 PM
in short:

we should have traded those expiring


For what?

We've got $58mm in contracts tied up in 9 players for next season.

The most recent NBA projections estimate the Luxury Tax Threshold at about $69.4mm for next season.

We'll spend somewhere around $2.0mm on our 1st round pick next year.

So, $9.4mm to cover 5 roster spots.

What deal should they have made?

What player or players could they have gotten that would have improved this team, but still kept them under the tax?

What player could they have gotten that would have made it worthwhile, both on the court and on the books, to pay the luxury tax? What package do we put together that will entice a team to give us this player?

How would you have reacted to the fact that when you training camp, you were expecting the 2009-2010 LT threshold to be about $75.0mm, but now it's down to $69.4?

ChicagoJ
02-19-2009, 09:28 PM
Depending on your point of view, Tinsley is either the poster child for what was wrong with the franchise, or the scapegoat made to serve as the focus of the fan base's dislike.

As usual, the truth is somewhere in the middle of those two extremes.

I think that's exactly right. Especially since the real culprits - Artest, Jackson, perhaps even Harrington and Bender - were gone but the cancer (as some of us predicted back in 2002/ 03/ 04) has spread to other organs and there was no other possible cure.

I can understand why they made him appear the scapegoat and served his head on a silver platter to the fans.

But buy him out or trade him, and let him get on with his life. Whether he destroys another team or gets his act together and is a model citizen is not relevant. Don't hold him hostage like this.

PS, in a few years, when the Pacers can't convince any free agent to come here and have trouble resigning their own players, it just might be because THIS is the way they've decided to treat players.

grace
02-19-2009, 09:29 PM
I don't care how healthy Tinsley is at the moment. If they let him back into the game I guarantee in a week he'll be sick and or injured.

Bball
02-19-2009, 09:35 PM
Somewhere in all the news that come out recently regarding the Pacers' finances, it was said that Herb Simon dictated that he did not want Tinsley to take the court as a Pacer again. So, blame Bird if anyone wants but I'm not sure we can ignore this edict came from the highest mountain in the Pacer Kingdom.

IMO Tinsley didn't get banished as a scapegoat nor did he get banished because some fans didn't like him. He got banished because he was the proverbial "Bad Egg" Reggie referred to many moons ago on TNT.

You don't banish a player unless you have a very good reason (or reasons). The arbiter is about to hear those reasons... I'm sure of that.

ChicagoJ
02-19-2009, 09:41 PM
But if another team is willing to take him via a trade (any trade, even if Bird doesn't particuarly like said trade), that stuff becomes irrelevant. There are still 29 other teams out there that could be the other half of his contract. This became much bigger than either Jamaal or the Pacers when the NBPA got involved.

If the Pacers weren't worried about the NBPA at all, they would have suspended him indefinitely at the beginning of training camp and let the NBPA challenge that. They've tried thier best to tiptoe around this risk. If they could have succeeded at overcoming an NBPA challenge to an indefinite suspension, his contract likely would have been voidable. But thed didn't suspend him, they shipped him off to limbo-land.

pacergod2
02-19-2009, 09:49 PM
I can't wait to see WHAT comes out in arbitration that further depletes his respectability.

Do the Pacers lambaste him for the things that nobody knows to gain leverage in arbitration or do they keep quiet in hopes of leverage in trading him. Do they get an exception from the league to be able to trade him after the trade deadline?

Los Angeles
02-19-2009, 09:49 PM
All this, and everything Mr. Bird has said to him in private, too!!

This could be a lot of fun for everyone not named Tinsley and Bird.

I'm not going to bother defending Tinsley. But something tells me that he's not the only bad guy here.

Tinsley's case is entirely this: "I'm willing to go back there and play. I'm willing to go whereever they trade me and play. The only reason I'm not being allowed to honor my contract is that they won't let me do the job I agreed to do when I signed the contract."

I'm not sure the contract calls for him to be a good teammate. The arbitration isn't about whether or not he deserves for the Pacers to say "stay away." But keep in mind he's probably got incentives to pad his individual stats, just like nearly every other player in the league. Its a miracle that any of them ever turn into good teammates with an incentive structure like that.

The union filed the greivance on his behalf because he's being denied an opportunity to work. Yeah, he's gotten paid, but it won't be hard for him to paint of a picture of having been black listed and held hostage from the entire league by Mr. Bird.

The Pacers may not have liked the trade terms that were available, but even if someone offers them a second round draft pick in 2018 for Tinsley... how long can they deny him the opportunity to play?

The refusal to pay him fair value for his contract so that he just goes away is likely to be a big problem in the coming weeks for the Pacers - the bad press will probably not be as one-sided as many of you seem to think it will be. Tinsley, to his credit, has never bad-mouthed Bird, Walsh, Carlisle, O'Brien or anyone in the organization publicly. Its not like we've really even heard one full side of the story - only what Bird and O'Brien have wanted us to hear to justify what they've done to him.

But the aribitration is exactly about that - the defacto blacklisting.
I don't know for sure, but I can guess that player contracts do not require minutes on the court either during a game or during practice. Can you imagine such a thing - a guarantee for minutes?

Until anyone can prove otherwise, the Pacers have not broken the contract.

All that said, I agree that Larry has made considerable blunders in his time with the Pacers and I also agree with many of Able's points about the Pacers getting the Tinsley issue resolved before now. I had to read past a couple of bull-**** insults to get to the parts I agree with, but hey, I've dished out plenty of those myself over the years, so I can take it.

So the Pacers have all but made it official that Tinsley's career is over.

Sure, he can still have a place somewhere in the NBA. He wants to play, he claims to be healthy enough for it. This reminds me of another guy. His name was Spreewell. Nobody wanted him either.

Your worth as a player is based on far more than your raw ability. Tinsley has proven that his physical presence has no actual worth to this team. The other teams are proving that he represents no value to them, otherwise we would have accepted any reasonable offer.

Yes, I wish he were bought out long ago, and we were over this, but here we are.

In closing, I remain unconvinced that the Pacers are REQUIRED BY CONTRACT to give the man a uniform - on this team or any other. Until someone proves otherwise - the player's association or his attorneys or anyone else - he can sit where he sits and make himself useful by volunteering for the Red Cross or something.

ChicagoJ
02-19-2009, 09:58 PM
I think the Pacers front office needs to be prepared for Billy Hunter to throw everything imaginable at him.

It is objectively true that the union has a prima facie case that the Pacers are denying their client the opportunity to prove that he's changed. He doesn't even have to be a changed man for that to be true.

Remember, this is coming from the guy that always wanted the Pacers to force Ron to put on a uniform at sit on the end of the bench but never allow him to play. It is the coaches right to decide who to play and who sits out. But to permanently bar him from the team, while also turning down any available trades (they pretty much just have to prove the team turned down one trade) is such extremely unclassy behavior from the Pacers organization that its no surprise this is heading to arbitration.

sloopjohnb
02-19-2009, 10:10 PM
I would have liked to see Tinsley with the Pacers this year. It might ever so slightly have increased his midseason trade value. At the same time, I get it, a little bit. I don't agree with the organization for the way they've handled this situation, that's for sure.

When is the hearing? The reason I ask is because we very well might have a different coach come June or July and he may have a different idea about Tinsley.

An arbitration ruling in his favor would make it interesting to see how things pan out.

Los Angeles
02-19-2009, 10:12 PM
I don't think the Pacers have a contractual obligation to give Tinsley his 65th "second" chance. (Maybe the first 64 are required, though. ;))

Tinsley has been on the court year after year, headache after headache (sinusitis pun intended).

"Play me or trade me" is a very familiar phrase in the NBA, and as far as I am aware, no player in the history of the league holds the power to enforce such a hilariously childish demand.

speakout4
02-19-2009, 10:12 PM
In closing, I remain unconvinced that the Pacers are REQUIRED BY CONTRACT to give the man a uniform - on this team or any other. Until someone proves otherwise - the player's association or his attorneys or anyone else - he can sit where he sits and make himself useful by volunteering for the Red Cross or something.
i would suggest that the team must treat JT as they would all other players and not single him out for treatment that denies him any chance of practicing his craft. By denying him a chance to practice his craft they are in effect destroying his career beyond the terms of the present contract. If he sat at the end of the bench and never played I would agree that he has no grievance.

Doug
02-19-2009, 10:17 PM
but even if someone offers them a second round draft pick in 2018 for Tinsley...

IMO, that didn't happen because they would have taken a second rounder in a heartbeat. I believe every deal they were offered for Tinsley involved the Pacers giving up another player of value (Foster, etc) and/or taking on a worse contract. In other words, Tinsley had negative trade value. Now, the point of contention would be that the Pacers themselves created that negative trade value by treating Tinsley unfairly. But, I suspect they believe they did everything they could to maintain some semblense of trade value until they felt they had no choice to 'banish' him.

I also suspect every team in the league was aware the Pacers would trade Tinsley for anybody at any position as long as the contract wasn't any worse than Tinsleys.

count55
02-19-2009, 10:18 PM
Tinsley's case is entirely this: "I'm willing to go back there and play. I'm willing to go whereever they trade me and play. The only reason I'm not being allowed to honor my contract is that they won't let me do the job I agreed to do when I signed the contract."

I'm not sure the contract calls for him to be a good teammate. The arbitration isn't about whether or not he deserves for the Pacers to say "stay away." But keep in mind he's probably got incentives to pad his individual stats, just like nearly every other player in the league. Its a miracle that any of them ever turn into good teammates with an incentive structure like that.

The union filed the greivance on his behalf because he's being denied an opportunity to work. Yeah, he's gotten paid, but it won't be hard for him to paint of a picture of having been black listed and held hostage from the entire league by Mr. Bird.

And the Pacers' case is this: We are paying him contract and actively trying trade him. We have no intention of keeping him out of the league for the length of his contract, and would like nothing more than to see Jamaal in someone else's uniform, but also feel no obligation to put ourselves in a worse situation, on the books, or on the floor, by either taking on more salary or by sacrificing other assets (picks and players) to trade him.


The Pacers may not have liked the trade terms that were available, but even if someone offers them a second round draft pick in 2018 for Tinsley... how long can they deny him the opportunity to play?

If somebody had offered the Pacers a second round draft pick in 2018, they would have taken it and probably had a week long party to celebrate. This is the other issue here is the CBA. The Pacers are forced to hold Tinsley's salary against their cap. Their options for making trades are limited by the agreement with the union.

As to denying him the opportunity to play, a more accurate statement would be that the Pacers are denying him the opportunity to play somewhere else on their dime. Again, the CBA rears its ugly head. This is that rare occasion where the guaranteed contract cuts the other way. Usually, it means that the team is stuck with the player, regardless. That's true in this case, but doesn't that also mean that the player is stuck with the team?


The refusal to pay him fair value for his contract so that he just goes away is likely to be a big problem in the coming weeks for the Pacers - the bad press will probably not be as one-sided as many of you seem to think it will be.

I'm assuming you mean a buyout, because I find it confusing how actually paying him his contract, as they are now, isn't, in fact, paying him fair value for his contract.


Tinsley, to his credit, has never bad-mouthed Bird, Walsh, Carlisle, O'Brien or anyone in the organization publicly. Its not like we've really even heard one full side of the story - only what Bird and O'Brien have wanted us to hear to justify what they've done to him.

But the aribitration is exactly about that - the defacto blacklisting.

See, this is what I find to be a really weak part of the argument. Essentially, to believe that the Pacer are blacklisting Tinsley, wouldn't you have to prove that the Pacers actually intend to sit on Jamaal for the length of his contract, purely for retribution? I find this to be highly unlikely. If it's true, and it can be proven, then the Pacers are stone ****ing stupid and deserve to get reamed over it. However...

I find it much more likely that they merely do not want to play him anymore, but are prevented by the size of his contract from simply severing the relationship. There is little question that they are trying to trade him, as it has been consistently reported that the Pacers have contacted anybody and everybody about trading Tinsley. There is also little question that the Pacers would gladly release Tinsley to go elsewhere and ply his trade, if they could terminate the contract. Again, I ask why the guaranteed contract protects only the player, and not the team? They do not wish to prevent Jamaal from playing for another team. They just don't want him to play for them, and they don't want to pay him to play for another team.

If their somewhat ham-handed approach has reduced his value to the point that they have been unable to find a trade that would not do more harm than good, then they're paying the price by continuing to have to pay him.

It seems to me that in order to force the Pacers to release him with pay or buy him out, Tinsley and the union would have to prove malicious intent on the part of the Pacers. Citing berufsverbot seems to be a tortuous stretching of the case here. I'm pretty sure that the Nazi's weren't paying the Jews to not be in certain professions. There seems, to me, to be a significant difference between a German teacher being prohibited from teaching for being a Communist (in the '90's), and Jamaal Tinsley being paid in full but being told to stay away from the team. (BTW...when the EU courts found in favor of the teacher, she was given her back pay and pension to make her whole for the time she was unemployed, along with some minor damages.)

The Pacers are on poor footing in relation to denying access to team facilities and any possible incentives. However, these can be remedied by simply allowing access or by forcing the Pacers to pay the incentives in full. (Tinsley would have a very, very hard time convincing anyone that he has significant revenue opportunities for endorsements, as those were likely non-existent while he was still playing.)

Clearly, I have no legal expertise, and an arbiter is, almost by definition, arbitrary. However, I would think a competent lawyer could reasonably and successfully argue that imposing what would amount to a $15mm penalty on the Pacers is way out of proportion to the violations committed by the Pacers, assuming no malicious intent is proven.

Of course, I clearly lack any insight into this at all, and I'll simply, like the rest of us, have to wait for the actual arbitration ruling.

Doug
02-19-2009, 10:23 PM
i would suggest that the team must treat JT as they would all other players and not single him out for treatment that denies him any chance of practicing his craft. By denying him a chance to practice his craft they are in effect destroying his career beyond the terms of the present contract. If he sat at the end of the bench and never played I would agree that he has no grievance.

Lets say I have an exclusive 4 year contract with a client. It is guaranteed - I get paid no matter what for 4 years as long as I show up 40 hours a week. I can't work for any other client.

Then say I decide to show up, but not do any real work. And worse, I start bothering other people so they can't get any work done. People don't like having me around. Their productivity is dropping. And some of their customers have left because of my behavior.

It might be in my client's best interest to just tell me to stay home.

Is there a problem with that?

ChicagoJ
02-19-2009, 10:25 PM
Yeah, I think the likely resolution is a buyout at full contract value.

But if the Pacers still refuse, something else has to give. The current situation can't be acceptable to the NBPA.

ChicagoJ
02-19-2009, 10:28 PM
Lets say I have an exclusive 4 year contract with a client. It is guaranteed - I get paid no matter what for 4 years as long as I show up 40 hours a week. I can't work for any other client.

Then say I decide to show up, but not do any real work. And worse, I start bothering other people so they can't get any work done. People don't like having me around. Their productivity is dropping. And some of their customers have left because of my behavior.

It might be in my client's best interest to just tell me to stay home.

Is there a problem with that?

In this case, are you restricted from serving other clients? Other clients overseas?

That might be a material difference.

count55
02-19-2009, 10:31 PM
By the way, I find it unlikely, and exceedingly unwise for the Pacers to go "weapons free" in the arbitration.

While they may be required outline their reasons that they no longer wish to play Tinsley, they should keep it factual and to the point. It seems to me that their strongest case centers not around what Tinsley may or may not have done wrong, but on proving that they are making a good faith effort to find Tinsley new environs.

Also, NBPA has something to lose here. I would be curious to know what the position of the other owners and the NBA have on this situation. I would think none of the owners would be happy if precedent was set forcing the Pacers to release JT with full salary, or buy him out without significant discount.

The CBA is coming up, and I would think this is going to create even more focus on the nature of the guaranteed contracts. I think that the union is going to be in a very difficult situation come the new negotiations. I believe the economy will still be struggling come 2011, and if there is a lockout, I would not be surprised to see it result in both contraction among teams, and the significant neutering of the NBPA.

Doug
02-19-2009, 10:32 PM
In this case, are you restricted from serving other clients? Other clients overseas?

That might be a material difference.Any client. I have an exclusive agreement to only work for the one.

ChicagoJ
02-19-2009, 10:37 PM
Also, NBPA has something to lose here. I would be curious to know what the position of the other owners and the NBA have on this situation. I would think none of the owners would be happy if precedent was set forcing the Pacers to release JT with full salary, or buy him out without significant discount.

That precedent was set when the owners agreed to guarantee the contracts several CBAs ago.

ChicagoJ
02-19-2009, 10:39 PM
Any client. I have an exclusive agreement to only work for the one.

One could certainly make the case that Tinsley would have been better off "eating cheetos" for the next three years instead of filing a greivance stating that he's ready and willing to play.

He must really want to play instead of just sit around and collect a huge paycheck.

count55
02-19-2009, 10:41 PM
That precedent was set when the owners agreed to guarantee the contracts several CBAs ago.

The precedent that was set then was that the team would have to pay the full salary if they elected to release him.

Where is the precedent of a team being forced to release a player?

count55
02-19-2009, 10:43 PM
One could certainly make the case that Tinsley would have been better off "eating cheetos" for the next three years instead of making a case that he's ready and willing to play.

He must really want to play instead of just sit around and collect a huge paycheck.

Or, this is a union play on principle, while Tinsley is OK with it, because he sees at as a chance to collect two paychecks while completely ****ing the Pacers.

Who wouldn't want to do that for a living?

ChicagoJ
02-19-2009, 10:45 PM
Good point. That's the likely outcome of arbitration.

In general, the point of arbitration is to have a looming threat overhead whiel the two sides negotiate in good faith toward a settlement.

Jamaal has indicated (via the grievance) that's he is ready and willing to return to the team and contribute. What have the Pacers done in good faith?

count55
02-19-2009, 10:47 PM
Good point. That's the likely outcome of arbitration.

In general, the point of arbitration is to have a looming threat overhead whiel the two sides negotiate in good faith toward a settlement.

Jamaal has indicated (via the grievance) that's he is ready and willing to return to the team and contribute. What have the Pacers done in good faith?

Signed his paycheck.

ChicagoJ
02-19-2009, 10:47 PM
Or, this is a union play on principle, while Tinsley is OK with it, because he sees at as a chance to collect two paychecks while completely ****ing the Pacers.

Who wouldn't want to do that for a living?

The NBPA doesn't exactly sound like they are thrilled with defending Jamaal here, so I don't think this is thier idea. Just like they didn't really want to try to defend Ron's and Stephen's actions in Detroit a few years ago. JO, of course, they felt differently about and were successful at reducing his penalty back when everybody loved JO because he was classy.

Bball
02-19-2009, 10:47 PM
One could certainly make the case that Tinsley would have been better off "eating cheetos" for the next three years instead of filing a greivance stating that he's ready and willing to play.

He must really want to play instead of just sit around and collect a huge paycheck.


Or he wants a buyout higher than the team is offering (if they are even offering one at all or willing to even discuss it).

-Bball

ChicagoJ
02-19-2009, 10:50 PM
Signed his paycheck.

That's not good faith. That is merely honoring the existing contract.

count55
02-19-2009, 10:53 PM
The NBPA doesn't exactly sound like they are thrilled with defending Jamaal here, so I don't think this is thier idea. Just like they didn't really want to try to defend Ron's and Stephen's actions in Detroit a few years ago. JO, of course, they felt differently about and were successful at reducing his penalty back when everybody loved JO because he was classy.

I can't tell whether the Union isn't thrilled about Tinsley, or if they (Hunter) think they're on shaky ground, and are very worried about what a loss (likely or unlikely) would mean to them.

I also have no clue what motivates Tinsley, good or bad. I was merely taking an opposite POV, because it didn't seem that it was entirely necessary for Tinsley to have a burning desire to play for this to go forward.

I'm also merely speculating about what is going through JT & Hunter's head.

I recognize the possibility that the Pacers could be force to release Tinsley with full pay.

It simply baffles me as to why, and I'd never consider it an actually fair or appropriate (or more accurately, proportionate) decision.

ChicagoJ
02-19-2009, 10:53 PM
Or he wants a buyout higher than the team is offering (if they are even offering one at all or willing to even discuss it).

-Bball

Well yeah, if they are lowballing him, then he's got two choices... wait it out over three years or file the grievance. Either way, it doesn't cost him anything.

It certainly is not unreasonable of Jamaal to expect the Pacers to honor thier full contractual commitment to him.

count55
02-19-2009, 10:55 PM
That's not good faith. That is merely honoring the existing contract.

So, how is being ready and willing to return to the team and contribute anything more than honoring the existing contract?

Bball
02-19-2009, 11:01 PM
It's very possible the arbiter will say:
"How much are you willing to pay Jamaal in a buyout?"

Then tell the Jamaal his options are take that amount or wait the full 3 years and continue to collect checks.

I really doubt Jamaal Tinsley is the player the union wants as the test case for this type of situation... and they know it.

ChicagoJ
02-19-2009, 11:05 PM
So, how is being ready and willing to return to the team and contribute anything more than honoring the existing contract?

I knew that was coming.

He's being told to stay away.

count55
02-19-2009, 11:19 PM
OK, I doubt that this covers the union's entire case, but here are some key comments from Hunter:


"The arbiter could very well say Indiana is within its rights, and all it has to do is honor and pay his contract and he has no other remedies."

Pressed on Tinsley's multiple misdeeds and asked if a team owed it to its fans to get rid of such a player, Hunter responded, "Without getting into the intricacies of the law, in some states, there is a principle called good faith and fair dealing," Hunter said. "I think it might be punishment that goes beyond what they're entitled to do."

I'm inferring from this that the union is acknowledging that the Pacers are, in fact, fully honoring his contract. (I know that may be something of a leap, but it is the union head's statement.)

It also seems that the union is reaching beyond the specifics both the CBA and Jamaal's contract to prove violation of the "good faith and fair dealing" clause. Here's a very rough explanation:

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/employment-good-faith-and-fair-dealing.html


The Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
When an employee has an employment contract, whether express or implied, that contract contains a covenant of good faith and fair dealing. This means that you owe the employee a duty to act in good faith and to deal fairly with him/her. The covenant goes both ways, meaning the employee has the same duty to you.

What Does it Mean to Act in Good Faith and Deal Fairly with an Employee?
The duty you owe an employee with an employment contract requires you to treat him/her fairly. If the employee has a written employment contract, it likely has provisions as to what circumstances you can terminate the contract. Acting in good faith means that you would honor these provisions and not terminate the contract for other reasons. If the employee's contract is implied, the covenant of good faith and fair dealing requires you to only fire the employee when you have good cause.

What Is Good Cause?
In order to have good cause, you must have a legitimate reason for firing the employee. This usually means that the reason must be job or business related in some way. For example, if an employee brings a gun to work you have good cause for firing him/her. On the other hand, you don't have good cause to fire an employee because he has illegitimate children. Other examples of good cause include:

* Poor work performance (such as low productivity, showing up late, missing meetings)
* Harassing other employees
* Threats of violence
* Stealing from work
* Insubordination
* Revealing trade secrets
* Lying to supervisors and other forms of dishonesty

Other Tips about the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
It is important to note that this covenant applies to all aspect of employment, not just terminating a contract. For example, if there are provisions as to pay or benefits in a written contract, you must honor those as well as any other provisions. It takes serious wrongful conduct to violate the covenant. Some examples include:

* Firing an employee just before his/her pension vests so you don't have to pay
* Making up reasons for firing an employee when you are just trying to replace the employee with cheaper labor
* Firing an employee in order to prevent him/her from collecting commissions.

It's somewhat helpful. Regrettably, it speaks primarily of firing, and does not address this situation specifically.

This article is more in depth:

http://www.butlerpappas.com/showarticle.aspx?Ref=list&Show=448

It's arcane, but this is an interesting section:


The implied covenant to perform on a contract in good faith is historically an element of the contractual obligation.[FN12] “[A] party's good-faith cooperation is an implied condition precedent to performance of a contract; where that cooperation is unreasonably withheld, the recalcitrant party is estopped from availing himself of his own wrong doing.”[FN13] Consistent with this traditional approach, Florida Courts have held unequivocally that the rights conferred by the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing are limited to the agreed terms of the contract. In Florida, the implied covenant of good faith cannot be maintained in the absence of breach of an express contract provision.[FN14] Moreover, in Florida, “[t]he implied obligation of good faith cannot be used to vary the terms of an express contract.”[FN15] By contrast, in New Jersey a party's performance under a contract may breach that implied covenant even though that performance does not violate a pertinent express term.[FN16]

I'm inferring from this that the Union must prove that the Pacers are "unreasonably withholding cooperation," and prevent the Pacers from benefiting from it. My question, in this case, is what is benefiting? How do you go from preventing the Pacers from benefiting to actively penalizing them (by forcing them to release Tinsley and pay him all or a substantial part of his remaining contract)?

cinotimz
02-19-2009, 11:21 PM
I knew that was coming.

He's being told to stay away.

While certainly out of the ordinary, that doesnt necessarily constitute a breach of contract.

They arent obligated to play him. They arent obligated to even have him around. The question is what is in the contract that obligates them to do something they arent doing?

Now if he doesnt have the proper facilities to workout at, that could be an issue(but fairly easily rectified). But there is no obligation to even permit him to practice with the team.

I think you will be somewhat hard pressed to come up with things that the Pacers arent doing that they are obligated to do.

Tinsley may not like it-though early on he sure did. But in the end, he probably doesnt want to play for the P's any more than they want him to play.

And they certainly arent obligated to make a bad deal just to satisfy his desire to play somewhere else. Hes welcome to void the contract if hes solely interested in playing anywhere else....but obviously this isnt what thats all about.

He wants his cake and eat it too...and theres no obligation to do that.

And my guess is with all his past transgressions, his morals clause in his contract is probably a bit on thin ice....meaning the P's will certainly bring that up-they havent pursued that aspect-they continue to pay him. So instead of trying to break his contract via the morals/conduct issue and deal with the obvious lawsuit and grievance that would bring, they just continue to pay him-much like would happen if they did sue for breach of contract based on the morals clause-and lost.

ChicagoJ
02-19-2009, 11:23 PM
I agree that the contract is not being breached by the Pacers, assuming they are paying him.

The issue is that he can't "earn" his next contract if he's not allowed anywhere near the court. There are teams that would let him play, and the Pacers are denying him that opportunity.

It really is in the Pacers interest to hurry up and buy him out for 100 cents on the dollar.

sloopjohnb
02-19-2009, 11:37 PM
I don't think the Pacers have a contractual obligation to give Tinsley his 65th "second" chance. (Maybe the first 64 are required, though. ;))

Tinsley has been on the court year after year, headache after headache (sinusitis pun intended).

"Play me or trade me" is a very familiar phrase in the NBA, and as far as I am aware, no player in the history of the league holds the power to enforce such a hilariously childish demand.

I don't remember Jamaal making this demand until now, especially the "trade" part. He has stayed away, but has kept his trade request in-house (like many players across the league do and something Artest and O'Neal did not do).

This could have been solved if, after the trade to attain Ford, then the trade to attain Jack and extras, etc. Larry Bird would have come out and announced that this was the beginning of several changes. He would then invite Tinsley to participate and "compete." Have him come out with O'Brien all smiles, we've healed our wounds and on and on. When we all know it would be a last ditch effort to move Tinsley.

All of a sudden, the Pacers have 4 point guards in pre-season, etc. Maybe, just maybe they get a phone call or two a little earlier.

I'm just saying what if.

count55
02-19-2009, 11:39 PM
And my guess is with all his past transgressions, his morals clause in his contract is probably a bit on thin ice....meaning the P's will certainly bring that up-they havent pursued that aspect-they continue to pay him. So instead of trying to break his contract via the morals/conduct issue and deal with the obvious lawsuit and grievance that would bring, they just continue to pay him-much like would happen if they did sue for breach of contract based on the morals clause-and lost.

I've read the Uniform Players contract, and there really isn't enough teeth in the "morals clause" for such action.

http://www.nbpa.com/cba_exhibits/exhibitA.php


I agree that the contract is not being breached by the Pacers, assuming they are paying him.

The issue is that he can't "earn" his next contract if he's not allowed anywhere near the court. There are teams that would let him play, and the Pacers are denying him that opportunity.

It really is in the Pacers interest to hurry up and buy him out for 100 cents on the dollar.

But, if that's the case, then he can terminate the contract. At least that's what I got from the reading of the boiler plate.


5.TEAM DEFAULT.
In the event of an alleged default by the Team in the payments to the Player provided for by this Contract, or in the event of an alleged failure by the Team to perform any other material obligation that it has agreed to perform hereunder, the Player shall notify both the Team and the League in writing of the facts constituting such alleged default or alleged failure. If neither the Team nor the League shall cause such alleged default or alleged failure to be remedied within five (5) days after receipt of such written notice, the National Basketball Players Association shall, on behalf of the Player, have the right to request that the dispute concerning such alleged default or alleged failure be referred immediately to the Grievance Arbitrator in accordance with the provisions of the CBA. If, as a result of such arbitration, an award issues in favor of the Player, and if neither the Team nor the League complies with such award within ten (10) days after the service thereof, the Player shall have the right, by a further written notice to the Team and the League, to terminate this Contract.

followed by:


(g) Upon any termination of this Contract by the Player, all obligations of the Team to pay Compensation shall cease on the date of termination, except the obligation of the Team to pay the Player’s Compensation to said date.

There you have it.

All settled. Jamaal can just terminate his contract, and seek employment elsewhere.:p;)

sloopjohnb
02-19-2009, 11:43 PM
Furthermore, I wonder why they didn't just trade Charlotte for Mohammed straight up? I mean, if it were an option. Obviously he's nothing to write home about, but his contract is slightly cheaper. And again, a new coach next year? You never know, could be utilized in some way.

ChicagoJ
02-19-2009, 11:43 PM
They aren't defaulting on their payments. I know they've lost a lot of money, but I guarantee you that Troy, Jeff, Mike, Danny, T.J., Jarrett, Marquis, Maceo, hell, all of them would be *****ing like crazy if the Pacers started defaulting on thier payroll.

count55
02-19-2009, 11:49 PM
They aren't defaulting on their payments. I know they've lost a lot of money, but I guarantee you that Troy, Jeff, Mike, Danny, T.J., Jarrett, Marquis, Maceo, hell, all of them would be *****ing like crazy if the Pacers started defaulting on thier payroll.

A) I'm clearly joking.

B) Team Default isn't limited to payments:


In the event of an alleged default by the Team in the payments to the Player provided for by this Contract, or in the event of an alleged failure by the Team to perform any other material obligation that it has agreed to perform hereunder,

Tangentially, the union and Tinsley are claiming that allowing him access to the team facilities and the opportunity to play for them are material obligations. Simplistically, I might suggest that they're angling for the "good faith and fair dealing" treatment, because the contract's remedy seems to be termination of the contract, which would result in termination of payments. Again, that's way too simplistic to probably be accurate.

count55
02-19-2009, 11:52 PM
Furthermore, I wonder why they didn't just trade Charlotte for Mohammed straight up? I mean, if it were an option. Obviously he's nothing to write home about, but his contract is slightly cheaper. And again, a new coach next year? You never know, could be utilized in some way.

I doubt that was on the table, from Charlotte's side. I think they were motivated by the fear of having to overpay Felton, so they were wanting to avoid that, were willing to send Mohammed to offset Tinsley's contract, and wanted Foster and Rush as the value.

The rumors I heard about Mohammed was that they wanted to dump his contract. They may have taken Tinsley's back as part of a bigger deal, but the straight up trade would have left them with three point guards, Felton's contract looming, and it would have actually inflated the Mohammed contract problem (as JT's is slightly larger).

ChicagoJ
02-19-2009, 11:53 PM
If they file Chapter 11/ 7 and lose access to practice facilities for their players, I can see this. As long as the Pacers are solvent, I just don't see where default comes into play.

count55
02-19-2009, 11:59 PM
If they file Chapter 11/ 7 and lose access to practice facilities for their players, I can see this. As long as the Pacers are solvent, I just don't see where default comes into play.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm taking "default" to mean that the team is not living up to it's obligations. Yes, the checks are part of it, but that's not all.

In fact, while the section is entitled "Team Default", the actual wording below is failure of the team to perform...

The Pacers can be solvent, and (stupidly) refuse to provide travel, practice facilities, uniforms.

Essentially, this clause isn't so much about making sure the checks don't bounce, it's the broad comment on the fact that the contract obligates the Team to certain things as well.

cinotimz
02-20-2009, 12:05 AM
I agree that the contract is not being breached by the Pacers, assuming they are paying him.

The issue is that he can't "earn" his next contract if he's not allowed anywhere near the court. There are teams that would let him play, and the Pacers are denying him that opportunity.

It really is in the Pacers interest to hurry up and buy him out for 100 cents on the dollar.

Are they obligated to 'earn' his next contract? How will sitting on the bench every game help him earn his next contract? Are they denying him the ability to play? Seems so. But are they obligated to let him play. No way. Is Josh McRoberts earning his next contract? Hell, hes a free agent to be.

At least Tinsley has a great contract that guarantees hes paid whether he plays or not for the next 2 plus years. Josh and others arent in that boat.

Now if he is so concerned about playing, then he can waive his current contract and go sign with some team where he can indeed play.

But to pay him the balance of his contract so that he can just play...well that seems to make little sense. Both sides are bound by contract, like it or not.

The Pacers are paying him, despite theyre not wanting to. But they have to, because thats the conditions of the contract. Like it or not.

And doing that, that is depriving the Pacers from using that money on a player that would be much better for the organization. But tough luck. They signed the contract.

What is the arbitrator going to do? Say to the Pacers you are not nice for paying the guy while hes not playing? And you should play him. I seriously doubt that. Their stance will be pretty simple. Hes got a checkered past that has caused problems on the team and we have no intention of playing him-which is our prerogative- and instead of having him around wasting his time and ours, we allow him to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants and we will pay him just the same.

The players union may not like it and the player may not like it, but this situation wasnt instigated by the team based on no merit. It sucks for the Pacers as well. As for a buyout, theyre already paying him for this year. And will continue to do so until such time they can find a taker for him.

And considering the buyout stays on the cap and prevents them from replacing him, why bother? Why do favors for the player and other teams?? Since when did the Pacers become a philanthropic organization? I think we more than paid our debt to society and the NBA with the fallout from the brawl.

ChicagoJ
02-20-2009, 12:08 AM
No, the "first class operations" clause is in the league's franchise agreement, along with a number of prohibitations on actual default.

This is just the part of the player contract to protect them if the franchise agreement does not prevent default.

I probably need to draw a line in the sand at some point that I don't go over.

Meanwhile, can you imagine how nasty of a PR event it would be if they got into a preference payment situation where some players were paid and others were defaulted against? Yikes.

ToasterBusVIP
02-20-2009, 12:17 AM
I'm going to say here, that for reasons having nothing to do with the Pacers I hope Tinsley doesn't win this fight.

Because if he comes up empty, that will effectively set the standard for any other team who has a player with attitude problems (see: Marbury) that make him a detriment to their team's image and chemistry. In other words, if you become a blight on this organization then we have the right to send you home, pay your contract out over the length of the deal, thus seriously jeopardizing your professional career. Players might think twice before acting up, when they understand that their career and any future contracts would be sabotaged by disappearing from the league for a couple years.

able
02-20-2009, 09:09 AM
I'm going to say here, that for reasons having nothing to do with the Pacers I hope Tinsley doesn't win this fight.

Because if he comes up empty, that will effectively set the standard for any other team who has a player with attitude problems (see: Marbury) that make him a detriment to their team's image and chemistry. In other words, if you become a blight on this organization then we have the right to send you home, pay your contract out over the length of the deal, thus seriously jeopardizing your professional career. Players might think twice before acting up, when they understand that their career and any future contracts would be sabotaged by disappearing from the league for a couple years.

They have this right now, it is called suspension and all the reasons for it and the possible appeals procedures against it are written in the CBA.
What they (in this case the Pacers) are doing is circumventing that part of the CBA, hence the union steps in, to prevent this becoming a "habit" as you describe.

As for Tinsley being paid;
He is unable to reach "milestones" which would garner him further pay (and possible league recognition, for instance he has no chance to be voted on the All star Team (considerable financial reward) etc etc
Tinsley had a Nike endorsement and if I'm not mistaken also a Coke one, but the latter one I am not sure about.
He wont have that anymore or if he has it will be rendered valueless because he can not play and this not do his part of that agreement, wear the shoes on the court and on tv.

The team has no "obligation" to play him, but when they signed a contract it was for "his playing" on the team, they dont want that anymore, whic is their right but to make him then sit at home is vengeance and not reasonable, hence what J is saying.
JT wont get "double" when he signs elsewhere, as it will also have cap consequences if he does, (our cap hit will be lowered for the money he signs elsewhere and I am sure an agreement can be reached that whatever he is gonna earn elsewhere during the term of his Pacers contract can for an x percentage be reduced on the payoff of that contract) or the Pacers can ofcourse trade him and take on other salary to replace his, then we dont pay him anymore but someone else does, that does not play either?

ABADays
02-20-2009, 09:22 AM
Sorry, I had to laugh at the "coke" endorsement.

Tom White
02-20-2009, 09:40 AM
For example, pretend that Charlotte offered Felton, Nazr, and May for Tinsley, Foster, Rush, and a 1st. That seems reasonable to turn down to most of us, but an arbiter might say that it was a good offer and that the Pacers were obligated to take it. Now, we have a can of worms.


I would think not, simply because the example deal includes other players from the Pacers. Now, if the other team made an offer solely for Tinsley, then you might have a point. Remember, the arbitrator would (or will) be trying to determine Tinsley's worth, not the worth of Foster, Rush or a 1st round pick.

Unclebuck
02-20-2009, 09:55 AM
Don't we need to know what is in the contract. Are there any obligations on the pacers besides paying JT's salary. Do they have to allow him to be around the team, use the facilities, practice, be on the active roster.

I highly doubt it - I am purely guessing, but as long as JT receives his paycheck twice a month - I'm not too sure what his gripe is

count55
02-20-2009, 10:10 AM
I would think not, simply because the example deal includes other players from the Pacers. Now, if the other team made an offer solely for Tinsley, then you might have a point. Remember, the arbitrator would (or will) be trying to determine Tinsley's worth, not the worth of Foster, Rush or a 1st round pick.

I'm sure you're right...or more accurately, I'm wrong. However, I was just trying to come up with a possible example of the arbitrary nature of arbitration, and I may have pulled a muscle reaching for that one.

BillS
02-20-2009, 10:16 AM
I guess getting laughed at for being a fan of those thugs went to my heart a little more then the rest of you. I guess I don't want to hear management get "tarred and feathered" by the local media and casual fans for lying about wanting to change the culture. Everything they do would just be viewed as lip service. I just don't have the stomach to go thru another year where it's open season on the Pacers as far as public opinion goes.

Carry on wishing that Jamaal Tinsley was allowed back. I'll just take it that I'm in the minority on this issue.

I'm in there with you, Gnome.

I can't believe that no one is allowing themselves to see the change in how the Pacers are viewed between last year and this year. I've pointed out before that it was a struggle to find Pacer merchandise on display anywhere but Home Court last year - this year it is in the forefront of anyplace carrying sports gear in Indy. In particular, last year the airport gift shops gave the impression that there was one sports franchise in Indianapolis - the Colts. This year Pacer gear is on the front racks.

No, it hasn't translated immediately to sold-out arenas, but I think that is asking the impossible given the timeframe and the economy.

I say that making Tinsley stay home was the piece that showed the fan base that this was not just another "One Goal" lip-service slogan but that the team really meant what it said.

Regarding the arbitration, I do not think the arbitrator has the power to force the Pacers to activate Tinsley. The most he could do is force them to lift their exile of him from the Fieldhouse and practice (such exile harms his ability to stay in shape and pursue his career). If he was able to force them to put a player on the active roster the entire ownership and coaching staffs of the NBA would rise up in arms and riot.

ChicagoJ
02-20-2009, 10:39 AM
I highly doubt it - I am purely guessing, but as long as JT receives his paycheck twice a month - I'm not too sure what his gripe is

Then why would any player voluntarily show up for practices, games, and PR events? Just collect the paycheck and enjoy life!

ChicagoJ
02-20-2009, 10:44 AM
Regarding the arbitration, I do not think the arbitrator has the power to force the Pacers to activate Tinsley. The most he could do is force them to lift their exile of him from the Fieldhouse and practice (such exile harms his ability to stay in shape and pursue his career). If he was able to force them to put a player on the active roster the entire ownership and coaching staffs of the NBA would rise up in arms and riot.

Yep, that's why I said "in uniform" back at post #1. He wouldn't play, because that is properly a coaches decision. But to banish him...

Look, Pacers fans may be glad that management finally, after years of letting the inmates run the asylum, took a stand. But to prospective players... why would you ever play for a team President that totally alienated his star play (destroying his trade value) and told his starting PG, "stay away, I don't ever want to see you again!" (thus destroying his trade value).

The Pacers are not exactly viewed as "player friendly" or an attractive place to be, and the way Bird treats players has a lot to do with that. I wonder how many potential trades in the past two weeks were nixxed because some other player, "F that! I don't want to go there!"??

Bird has been strong-handed and petty. If this comes to arbitration, he can really tarnish the franchise's image even if he wins the case.

ChicagoJ
02-20-2009, 12:06 PM
There are two differences, Pat Riley got players because he was a champion, and while Pat was difficult/ demanding at times he recognized that to get the most out of his players he had to treat them like humans and with respect. There is a third difference, Pat would could his losses instead of hold a petty grudge. Have you read Pat's books? He is/ was a unique combination of highly motivated personal leadership.

Outside of playing 20 years ago, what has Bird won at the championship level? And where are the examples of Bird striking a connection with players and leading/ motivating them on a personal level? Jalen Rose is probably the only good example you can come up with. Ah, the irony of that.

count55
02-20-2009, 12:08 PM
Jalen Rose is probably the only good example you can come up with.

I wonder what kind of career Jalen could have had if he'd played for Coach Bird for 10 years. There's no question he blossomed under Bird and was never the same after.

ChicagoJ
02-20-2009, 12:11 PM
Since I moved to Chicago in 2000 - during the week of the NBA Finals no less, and didn't find PD until the 03/04 season, I was just blown away to find the online hatred for Jalen, who remains one of my all-time favorite Pacers players.

I understand its origins, but that is not the way I remember Jalen. I remember the 98-00 Jalen that really did earn the max contract as the best player on an NBA Finals team. I digress...

count55
02-20-2009, 12:20 PM
Since I moved to Chicago in 2000 - during the week of the NBA Finals no less, and didn't find PD until the 03/04 season, I was just blown away to find the online hatred for Jalen, who remains one of my all-time favorite Pacers players.

I understand its origins, but that is not the way I remember Jalen. I remember the 98-00 Jalen that really did earn the max contract as the best player on an NBA Finals team. I digress...

Well, it never ceases to amaze me how hard fanbases work at hating their own players.

I was never a fan of Jalen prior to his stint with the Pacers, primarily because of being and IU fan, etc. I wasn't particularly thrilled when we got him, but I cheered for him because he was a Pacer. He really won me over in that first year under Bird, as I thought he became a completely different player than who I thought he was. By the time 2000 rolled around, I thought he was one of the top SF's in the league.

However, it became apparent to me that Isiah failed where Bird had succeeded. Jalen became kind of a charicature. I didn't hate him when he left, but I was kind of disappointed...maybe similar to how I felt about JO. I just kind of viewed it as a missed opportunity on everyone's part.

Both Jalen and JO's contracts were certainly market, and certainly earned prior to their signing. It was just after the fact that caused the disappointment.

beast23
02-20-2009, 12:55 PM
As usual, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

A competitive team full of great people is definately the best scenario. The point is, you have to win games, or no one cares who is on the team.
Sorry - but I gotta call BS on that one.

Not true at all.

Folks loved our 61 win team... that is true. But from the following summer on, it was one episode of bad publicity after another. I believe a lot of people stayed away for the same reason I began staying away.

And that is because of the players that were on this team. Artest, Jackson, Tinsley... and to a degree Jermaine. I personally wanted Jermaine gone, but didn't see him as a bad person at all. However, there was no way I was coming back with Tinsley as an active part of this team.

And, before you challenge that, let me say that I've been a fan of this team since its first ABA game. I've been there almost every single year with either season tickets or a suite since their beginnings... totalling somwhere around 1000 games. And that includes many poor seasons, even 21-win seasons... certainly much worse than the performances we have seen recently.

But when the values of our players are no longer consistent with my own, then sacrifices have to be made. I was taping and watching most games on television, but was not attending.

And if anyone was looking in Suite 56 (Club level, far corner from Pacer bench) for the past couple of years, its emptiness, including the absence of George McGinnis himself, speaks sginficantly regarding the lack of character on our team.

We love the team and the franchise, but the presence of a few bad apples just totally destroyed the joy of being at the games... for many of us... not just the inhabitants of Suite 56. Some of suite owners that I have known for years have pretty much echoed my sentiments regarding whey there suites are often emply as well.

Make no mistake. Indiana fans, as knowledgeable as we are, are still fickle. We want a winner and we always want 1-2 players that become favorites that we can rally behind. But we also want good people. We don't want our court converted into a boxing ring and we would just as soon watch our Westerns on TV as opposed to having shoot-em-up re-enactments on our city streets that involve our players.

P.S.... What I should also have included is that this team, and the decision made last summer regarding Tinsley, speak wonders about the character of the executives and what they are now demanding from their players. I believe that the team is well on its way to regaining its pride. The only continuing problem with attracting more fans is an economic issue and not a character issue.

beast23
02-20-2009, 01:27 PM
i would suggest that the team must treat JT as they would all other players and not single him out for treatment that denies him any chance of practicing his craft. By denying him a chance to practice his craft they are in effect destroying his career beyond the terms of the present contract. If he sat at the end of the bench and never played I would agree that he has no grievance.

I would imagine that this is THE issue of the grievance.

But, I believe the Pacers are living up to their obligation to Tinsley by paying him.

As an example, let's look at any employee in corporate America. Companies kick bad apples to the curb every day of the year. They just say "See-ya, our company is better off without the turmoil that is caused by your presence." They kick them to the curb, with or without a minimal severance the employee is free to seek other opportunities.

The Pacers would be more than willing to do just that, if it weren't for that damned guarantee contract. The contract basically says that we gotta pay you no matter what. However it doesn't say that we gotta put up with the problems caused by you shenanigans, no matter what.

Tinsley is a bad apple for their business, that much cannot be disputed. Because of the value of his contract, they won't just kick him to the curb (at full value anyway) because the economics of the situation compels them to attempt to get some return for him. However, I believe they are perfectly within their rights to segregate him from their business while they continually attempt to arrange something in return for him. His presence certainly would mean no hope of fixing their attendance problem, which would translate directly into continued harm of the business.

I believe it was Jay that mentioned that Tinsley is now in a position of strength. I don't believe this to be the case. I don't believe that the filing of the grievance changes his status one bit. A judgement regarding the grievance will... but not the grievance itself.

If the Pacers prevail, they are still under the burden of Tinsley's contract for at least one more year. However, I believe if Tinsley really wants to play, he would then be willing to make MAJOR concessions on a buy-out.

If the Pacers lose, I don't think they will be forced to buy him out. Since the grievance probably centers on the practicing of his craft (as has been previously stated), I think the most the Pacers would be forced to do is to make their facilities available to Tinsley.

Country Boy
02-20-2009, 01:38 PM
When teachers or Police officers are suspended with pay, they are not allowed to go to their places of employment and practice their trade, and I think that they have a contract with their employer, so why should Tins be allowed to hang around Conseco and practice? Answer, he shouldn't.

ChicagoJ
02-20-2009, 01:39 PM
But, I believe the Pacers are living up to their obligation to Tinsley by paying him.

That's a possible outcome, but it is difficult since he can't go to Europe to play (under FIBA rules), isn't eligible for the D-League, etc.

"Our" situations just don't apply. His alternatives are contractually restricted.

Los Angeles
02-20-2009, 01:42 PM
Is it possible that the organization isn't buying Tinsley out because they can't afford to give him all of the cash at once?

count55
02-20-2009, 01:44 PM
When teachers or Police officers are suspended with pay, they are not allowed to go to their places of employment and practice their trade, and I think that they have a contract with their employer, so why should Tins be allowed to hang around Conseco and practice? Answer, he shouldn't.

Tinsley is not suspended. To be suspended, they'd have to show cause. There position is that they simply do not want him to play, and therefore, there is no reason for him to be around the team.

However, I think that the Pacers have no real basis upon which to deny him access to team facilities or staff.


That's a possible outcome, but it is difficult since he can't go to Europe to play (under FIBA rules), isn't eligible for the D-League, etc.

"Our" situations just don't apply. His alternatives are contractually restricted.

Well, without going down a rabbit hole, so are the Pacers'. This situation is grossly complicated by the CBA.

ChicagoJ
02-20-2009, 01:46 PM
When teachers or Police officers are suspended with pay, they are not allowed to go to their places of employment and practice their trade, and I think that they have a contract with their employer, so why should Tins be allowed to hang around Conseco and practice? Answer, he shouldn't.

Bingo!!

But guess what, he's not suspended!!

When police officers are suspended with pay, they are entitled to a hearing.

When basketball players are suspended beyond a certain lenghth, they are also entitled to a hearing/ arbitration.

The Pacers are trying to circumvent the hearing, just as they've done since training camp begun.

Why is that?

Could it be that they don't want both sides of the story out there? We generally know thier side even if we don't have every spicy detail.

Its too bad they couldn't trade him in a timely fashion and avoid this. The lenght of time that this has gone on is utterly remarkable.

ChicagoJ
02-20-2009, 01:47 PM
Is it possible that the organization isn't buying Tinsley out because they can't afford to give him all of the cash at once?

And how is that Tinsley's problem? Take a loan and pay him.

count55
02-20-2009, 01:47 PM
Is it possible that the organization isn't buying Tinsley out because they can't afford to give him all of the cash at once?

It's possible, but the timing of the actual payout is negotiated separately from the amount. (Well, they're interconnected, or should be, but they are two separate agreements.) That is to say that the Pacers could agree to a 100% payout, but could use a "Dolgoff Plan" to pay it out over the next 20 years.

Of course, the player would be unlikely to agree to such a deal.

The cash absolutely is a consideration to the Pacers, at least equal to, if not greater than the continuing cap hit.

Country Boy
02-20-2009, 01:59 PM
Bingo!!

But guess what, he's not suspended!!

When police officers are suspended with pay, they are entitled to a hearing.

When basketball players are suspended beyond a certain lenghth, they are also entitled to a hearing/ arbitration.

The Pacers are trying to circumvent the hearing, just as they've done since training camp begun.

Why is that?

Could it be that they don't want both sides of the story out there? We generally know thier side even if we don't have every spicy detail.

Its too bad they couldn't trade him in a timely fashion and avoid this. The lenght of time that this has gone on is utterly remarkable.

Technically he is suspended and I am sure that the Pacers would have a very strong case in a court of law. Tins through his off court and on court behavior in the real world would be more than enought to terminate his employment. Let's not forget, he is an employee and he is obligated to abide by his contract both with his on court play or behavior and moraly with his off court behavior.

The case could be made that he actually owes the Pacer's for lost revenue from lower attendance dollars and by not having the services of a good point guard and having to pay for not playing due to his effect on fan's attitudes. He should just keep his mouth shut and hope the Pacers trade him sometime before he is elegible for social security.

grace
02-20-2009, 02:10 PM
Jamaal has indicated (via the grievance) that's he is ready and willing to return to the team and contribute. What have the Pacers done in good faith?

They've put up with his load of crap for years.

I'll be the first to admit the Pacers have probably handled this whole thing badly, but I don't trust Jamaal as far as I can spit. Everyone involved would be a whole lot better off if the Pacers just bought him out, cut him or whatever it takes to get him off the roster and keep him away from the team.

Dr. Goldfoot
02-20-2009, 02:16 PM
Technically he is suspended and I am sure that the Pacers would have a very strong case in a court of law. Tins through his off court and on court behavior in the real world would be more than enought to terminate his employment. Let's not forget, he is an employee and he is obligated to abide by his contract both with his on court play or behavior and moraly with his off court behavior.

The case could be made that he actually owes the Pacer's for lost revenue from lower attendance dollars and by not having the services of a good point guard and having to pay for not playing due to his effect on fan's attitudes. He should just keep his mouth shut and hope the Pacers trade him sometime before he is elegible for social security.

Wow, I haven't contributed to this board in forever. I assumed it wouldn't be about JT when I came back around but.....The Pacers would have no case in a court of law, just like the court of law had no case against Jamaal. He hasn't been an upstanding citizen but he hasn't actually been a criminal either. He was a witness and a victim and nothing ever came of the 8 Seconds Saloon thing. There is no moral clause or they'd be able to say so long to Jamaal. The reason nobody is going to see Pacer games can be traced back to the fact that they've gone 73-106 since they made the GS trade.

Tinsley probably wont suit up for the Pacers but I've always felt that was a silly way to deal with this. He's been sidelined for disciplinary reasons since mid-season last year. Jamaal still has value as a player but every other team knows the Pacers have put themselves between a rock and a hard place. I imagine this will eventually be a buyout and Jamaal will go to a contender and be a productive player for that team.

On another note, those who think he should take less money or just void the contract are forgetting about the PU. They're not gonna let him do that as it will set a precedent for future negotiations with other players.

This isn't about how much Pacer fans like or dislike Tinsley it's about contracts and whether they're being upheld.

beast23
02-20-2009, 02:17 PM
This situation is grossly complicated by the CBA.That's probably the only statement in this entire thread that is unquestionable.

You can bet you hiney that the next CBA will address situations like Tinsley's in much more detail. There might even be a mechanism included to enable a team to cancel a player contract under extreme circumstances.

If such circumstances had been defined in the prior CBA, I believe that Tinsley's contract would have been cancelled some time ago and that the Pacers would no longer be liable for salary and that Mr. Tinsley would be free and clear to seek a contract elsewhere.

However, you then have the touchy situation where a player acts out just to be released because his value is much more on the open market than his current contract pays. Attempting to cover this situation certainly presents a double-edged sword.

Putnam
02-20-2009, 02:17 PM
The only continuing problem with attracting more fans is an economic issue and not a character issue.


No.

Every time this topic comes up, we discuss it as if supporting the Pacers is the major decision that people make from year to year. But it isn't. Even the term "fanbase" assumes the relation to the team is the primary descriptor of the population. Calling people "fickle" and saying they are "responsible for supporting the team" assumes a relationship that simply isn't there for most of us.

The effort to revive Pacers tickets sales isn't happening in a vacuum. Even it the organization were doing everything right, they'd still be in competition with many other entertainment options.


People have disposable income, and many possible uses for that income. Buying tickets to view spectator events is a very small part of the economy. Fees and admissions to ALL kinds of events captures barely 1% of people's incomes. In cities the size of Indianapolis, where you can assume one or more pro sports franchises, theater and concerts, fees and admissions takes up about 1.4% of all income. In nonmetro areas where those amenities don't exist, fees and admissions still gets 0.9% of income. Fees and admissions (for all spectator events) is between 14% and 25% of total spending on amusements. They are spending money on their pets, on exercise and camping equipment, on all kinds of stuff.

People are not going to Pacders games becfause they'
ve found other stuff they like doing better. They are not sitting at home holding their breath until the Pacers prove something. and they are not sitting at home hoarding their money. They are still out there getting entertainment -- just not the NBA product. (Remember this is a credit-induced recession. Construction and durable goods sales are off much more than entertainment spending.) And they are happy don't what they are doing.

All you die-hards need to remember that there aren't enough of you to support this team. There never has been. The challenged for PS&E will always be to keep you happy, and then get on to the critical business of attracting enough of the casual fans to attend a handful of games a season. You are superior to the casual fans in every way. But the team can't survive without them.

Dr. Goldfoot
02-20-2009, 02:19 PM
Also to stifle any "Jamaal didn't uphold his end of the contract" talk, the contract doesn't stipulate a player be good just that they be available. As far as I can tell, he's been available.

count55
02-20-2009, 02:29 PM
Also to stifle any "Jamaal didn't uphold his end of the contract" talk, the contract doesn't stipulate a player be good just that they be available. As far as I can tell, he's been available.

It's been my view that both sides have honored the contract, strictly speaking. It is a reasonable complaint if he's been denied access to team facilities, but I don't personally consider that sufficient enough offense to warrant forcing the Pacers to buy him out or release him at full pay. (Regrettably, I have no say in the issue.)

In fact, as noted earlier, I don't even think the union is claiming that the Pacers violated the contract, though we have only a very limited view of their legal strategy, and the Pacers don't appear to be claiming JT violated his, as they are not seeking relief from payment.

Dr. Goldfoot
02-20-2009, 02:44 PM
said stuff

That was directed more to those speaking from the heart instead of the mind. No matter what people think of Tinsley, this has become a legal matter. One that involves nearly 15 million dollars at that. Neither side is likely to fold without some sort of pressure.

I'm of the opinion that the Pacers may be violating some sort of unwritten rule, possibly even written I don't know. Professional basketball (especially the NBA) isn't like a regular job. One can't just sit out for a couple of years and pick it right back up like a truck driver or store clerk or teacher etc..This is a job based on physical ability and they may be putting Tinsley in a position where they are directly influencing his future career. He can't play competitively for anyone but the Pacers thus forcing him to just sit there and wither away. I assume at some point that becomes excessive punishment?

And for those who want to make McRoberts comparisons....Josh is lucky to be in the NBA while Jamaal is actually starting material. There is a pretty big difference between the two.

ChicagoJ
02-20-2009, 02:54 PM
Not to mention that a professional basketball player's skills and career deteriorate much more rapidly than us "regular job"/ employed at-will folks.

beast23
02-20-2009, 03:06 PM
People are not sitting at home holding their breath until the Pacers prove something. and they are not sitting at home hoarding their money. they are still out there getting entertainment -- just not the NBA product.

(Remember this is a credit-induced recession. Construction and durable goods sales are off much more thanb entertainment spending.)
You are correct that their are other options for discretionary spending. I really haven't intended to address that. I'm not saying that folks are "staying home" since they choose not to attend games. Of course they are seeking their entertainment elsewhere. Although I would disagree if you were stating that folks are spending just as much now for entertainment as they did a year ago... because reportedly family budgets on average are being tightened.

All I am looking at is one very simple fact. We have far fewer fans now than we had "pre-problems". Why is that? And if the problem is cured, would many of those fans come back?

You are correct that Pacer fans that were attending games have chosen to spend their money on other things. But why? If the reason is not economic as you seem to be contending (which I don't totally agree with... I believe the economy is a factor), then why?

I'm not certain about your into regarding fans and their compulsion to support the Pacers. But for me and my history of following this team, knowing some of the former players and some of the office folks, following this team never required a conscious decisions. I loved the team form day one and it was something I always enjoyed doing.

Until a couple of years ago. At that time, I have to conciously decide NOT to economically support the team.

So, no I do not in any way believe anything about anyone's "responsiblity" to support the team.

All I am saying is that players with poor character or differing values have caused alienation of some fans. IF those issues were addressed, as they obviously have been, will folks that regularly attended games previously return to Conseco? Or will their attendance only be attracted by several more game in the win column?

Country Boy
02-20-2009, 03:16 PM
That was directed more to those speaking from the heart instead of the mind. No matter what people think of Tinsley, this has become a legal matter. One that involves nearly 15 million dollars at that. Neither side is likely to fold without some sort of pressure.

I'm of the opinion that the Pacers may be violating some sort of unwritten rule, possibly even written I don't know. Professional basketball (especially the NBA) isn't like a regular job. One can't just sit out for a couple of years and pick it right back up like a truck driver or store clerk or teacher etc..This is a job based on physical ability and they may be putting Tinsley in a position where they are directly influencing his future career. He can't play competitively for anyone but the Pacers thus forcing him to just sit there and wither away. I assume at some point that becomes excessive punishment?

And for those who want to make McRoberts comparisons....Josh is lucky to be in the NBA while Jamaal is actually starting material. There is a pretty big difference between the two.

Yeah right Mr. no it all. Have you a degree in contractual law? If not don't talk down to me. You do realize he is being paid and is not losing a penny while he is not playing. He can stay in shape on his own, as if he ever cared about staying in shape. Talk about a red herring, what does McRoberts have to do with Tins's situation? The Pacer's owe him nothing beyond his paycheck and they are paying him, so what the hell is your point.

Country Boy
02-20-2009, 03:21 PM
Not to mention that a professional basketball player's skills and career deteriorate much more rapidly than us "regular job"/ employed at-will folks.

Would his health and skill not deteriorate if he was playing? A case could be made that his career has been extended by not having to endure the rigors of playing all the while by making more money that he could make on the open market. Besides there are many examples of ex players going on to have successful careers in their sports after their playing days are over.

count55
02-20-2009, 03:31 PM
Mr. no it all.

Classic

Los Angeles
02-20-2009, 03:32 PM
And how is that Tinsley's problem? Take a loan and pay him.

He IS getting paid.

:banghead:

Since86
02-20-2009, 03:36 PM
He IS getting paid.

:banghead:

That smilie is exactly the perfect represation of this discussion.

Once again, pro-Tinsley fans are in his camp and then there is everyone else.


What I don't get, is the feeling like it's a right for him to play basketball for a living. Like they're taking away his ability to actually work.

beast23
02-20-2009, 03:41 PM
Not to mention that a professional basketball player's skills and career deteriorate much more rapidly than us "regular job"/ employed at-will folks.A case could be made that the Pacers have actually helped Tinsley stay healthy. After all, I'm certain that he has experienced far few bouts with headaches and sinusitis now that he is not playing.

count55
02-20-2009, 03:47 PM
What I don't get, is the feeling like it's a right for him to play basketball for a living. Like they're taking away his ability to actually work.

If there is an argument that will win it for Tinsley, it will center around this. It doesn't matter that he can go work at UPS or Charles Schwab or wherever and make a living. The argument that they'll advance is that he has the requisite skills to be a professional basketball player, but he is being unfairly prevented from pursuing it. This is why able claimed berufsverbot, which was a German law banning someone from a profession, generally a civil profession like teaching, for either a criminal record or membership in certain associations (such as the Communist party) that was deemed a breach of the social contract with it's citizens by an EU court.

Of course, the Pacers have counters to this, including the belief that they are not violating their contract, but it really all comes down to who can most effectively convince the arbitrator of the merit of their position.

BillS
02-20-2009, 03:52 PM
All I am looking at is one very simple fact. We have far fewer fans now than we had "pre-problems". Why is that? And if the problem is cured, would many of those fans come back?

Habit.

It took something major (as you say about yourself) to get many of those people to start choosing an option other than the Pacers for their entertainment dollars. I'd say it was a combination of the Pacer players' character and the success of the Colts, but the reasons are going to be individual.

It will take time to get those people back from whatever they have chosen. The economy will limit the ability of most people to try a game in addition to their other new habits, which will extend the amount of time it takes to rebuild the attendance.

Bottom line is that going in the right direction (the numbers have increased this year, though it remains to be seen what happens when no one plays well during the last games) is the best we can hope for. Getting people back into the fold a little at a time is the proper way to look at it, not going from last in attendance to sold-out in one season.

Hicks
02-20-2009, 03:55 PM
He may have the skills to be a professional basketball player, but unlike other professions, unless I'm highly mistaken, there is no licensing involved or otherwise any certification to declare him a professional basketball player beyond the fact that the NBA has agreed to pay him. It's not like he went to Iowa State for a Basketball License and now cannot practice his trade. It's an entertainment contract. More show business than professional.

count55
02-20-2009, 04:02 PM
He may have the skills to be a professional basketball player, but unlike other professions, unless I'm highly mistaken, there is no licensing involved or otherwise any certification to declare him a professional basketball player beyond the fact that the NBA has agreed to pay him. It's not like he went to Iowa State for a Basketball License and now cannot practice his trade. It's an entertainment contract. More show business than professional.

This is true, but he could argue, as J has mentioned, that other teams would let him play, as demonstrated by the trade offers made. He could say that the sole reason that he is not playing is because the Pacers are preventing it.

To the response that the Pacers are paying for that pleasure, he would likely respond that the Pacers are preventing future earnings. If he is "warehoused" for too long, his reputation could be damaged to the point that no one will sign him at any price. Or, a simpler argument could be made that it certainly would impair his value and cost him money.

Now, I think the problem in this is that it assumes that the Pacers are intent on warehousing him, and that it implies that the Pacers should make every effort to find Tinsley a place to play, even if it is harmful to the Pacers, as would be the case in a bad trade (bringing either longer salaries, or costing the Pacers other players). I think this makes it weak, but there's enough traction for both sides to dig in.

As noted, it's a legal question now, which means logic and reason has left the building.

OakMoses
02-20-2009, 04:02 PM
I really think the Pacers should get creative in how they deal with this situation. In soccer, where there are multiple high-level international leagues, interleague transfers (trades) are common. If I were the Pacers, I'd be looking for a European team that is willing to sign Jamaal to a contract and to pay part of a buyout of his NBA contract to do so. As long as Jamaal was willing to go to Europe, this could be a good solution to the problem. In a few years, I think trades like this will be common. We could be a front-runner in paving the way.

I wonder if there's anything in the CBA that would prohibit us selling his contract to a European team?

count55
02-20-2009, 04:04 PM
I really think the Pacers should get creative in how they deal with this situation. In soccer, where there are multiple high-level international leagues, interleague transfers (trades) are common. If I were the Pacers, I'd be looking for a European team that is willing to sign Jamaal to a contract and to pay part of a buyout of his NBA contract to do so. As long as Jamaal was willing to go to Europe, this could be a good solution to the problem. In a few years, I think trades like this will be common. We could be a front-runner in paving the way.

I wonder if there's anything in the CBA that would prohibit us selling his contract to a European team?

I am sure there is something...well, probably

Problem is, would the NBAPA consider that just another form of banishment?

Speed
02-20-2009, 04:06 PM
As noted, it's a legal question now, which means logic and reason has left the building.

I don't think this has been tested ever, legally. Or not exactly this situation. However it turns out, it could become the "Tinsley rule" and change things in a big way.

If he is paid in full and let go, it could open the flood gates and shift the power to the players.

If he has to take substantially less OR they don't have to do anything different than right now, it solidifies a teams ability to manage these situation in a very firm way.

I'm, obviously, rooting for the team, not just as a Pacer fan, but as a precident that players have to give full effort in how they conduct themselves after signing big long term contracts.

Dr. Goldfoot
02-20-2009, 04:09 PM
Yeah right Mr. no it all. Have you a degree in contractual law? If not don't talk down to me. You do realize he is being paid and is not losing a penny while he is not playing. He can stay in shape on his own, as if he ever cared about staying in shape. Talk about a red herring, what does McRoberts have to do with Tins's situation? The Pacer's owe him nothing beyond his paycheck and they are paying him, so what the hell is your point.

What is this about?


Since 86....I've clearly always been a Jamaal fanboy. In this case I'm not really taking sides just trying to look at it objectively and with my head instead of "that guy screwed my fav team for years with his injuries & attitude probs, so he can rot in hell as far as I'm concerned". Let's be honest, that's not what the Pacers reps are gonna bring to this hearing. It's become a situation where they are literally keeping him from continuing his career. I realize Indiana has a side to this story too. That's why there's a stalemate at this point.

I want this to be resolved so the Pacers can move forward not so JT can get more money. The bigger picture is sometimes a contract is more than just about the money it promises. It may not promise playing time but it's understood that playing time is available to at least be earned does it not?

count55
02-20-2009, 04:12 PM
I don't think this has been tested ever, legally. Or not exactly this situation. However it turns out, it could become the "Tinsley rule" and change things in a big way.

If he is paid in full and let go, it could open the flood gates and shift the power to the players.

If he has to take substantially less OR they don't have to do anything different than right now, it solidifies a teams ability to manage these situation in a very firm way.

This definitely could be a pattern case, but I think that's why the union is nervous.

While Tinsley may win, I would say that there is virtually no chance that the power will shift to the players, at least not long term. The retribution for any significant Tinsley/Union win will come in 2011 with the new CBA. It will occur, most likely, after three years of flat or declining income and salary caps. It will likely be centered around a new, probably less lucrative TV deal.

I fully expect there to be a lockout, and I expect the owners to end up pushing the union to accept a labor agreement much closer to the NFL's. There may not be a hard cap, but signing bonuses and smaller guarantees will replace the current contractual monsters. The owners will be looking for more financial flexibility, and they'll probably have plenty of ammunition to go for it.

beast23
02-20-2009, 04:24 PM
Getting people back into the fold a little at a time is the proper way to look at it, not going from last in attendance to sold-out in one season.True. I believe the handling of Tinsley helped. Hopefully, however arbitration alters this decision will not negatively affect the progress that has been made.

I am in agreement regarding the Colts. Their success while the Pacers were declining certainly pulled more local fans from the Pacer. And the Colts have so many approachable and likeable players whereas that type of player seemed to be declining after 2000 (and certainly after Reggie's retirement) with the Pacers.

Now that the character issues have been addressed, if the economy were to remain as is, the only thing that could help the Pacers make a marked jump in attendance would be better success on the court. Without that, I believe, as you statue, that the improvement will remain gradual.

WhatCouldHaveBeen
02-20-2009, 04:26 PM
remember how well tinsley played when jackson/jo/artest got suspended? he played like a man on a mission....why not? I realize he has had some problems...but right now maybe he could be a spark...Jamaal is very talented, we all know this...and when on his game only guy who can stop jamaal is jamaal....The phx game you guys overrate because no one in that game would step up and do anything anyway...
bring Tins back!
consider me the 1% on here that wants jamaal on this team and playing...I remember the boston playoff series in reggies last year...that game 5 he played to put the pacers up 3-2 was amazing...had it not been for him (and stephen jackson) we would have ended up losing to the c's in 6....

beast23
02-20-2009, 04:31 PM
I fully expect there to be a lockout, and I expect the owners to end up pushing the union to accept a labor agreement much closer to the NFL's. There may not be a hard cap, but signing bonuses and smaller guarantees will replace the current contractual monsters. The owners will be looking for more financial flexibility, and they'll probably have plenty of ammunition to go for it.

I've always felt like we've gone down the road of ridiculous salaries and too much power in the hands of the union and the players for too long. But, if there ever was an opportunity for the beginnings of contraction in salaries (which I believe would eventually be beneficial to fans and the ticket prices) it would be in the next CBA negotiation following a few down years.

The owners may not get a labor agreement similar to the NFL's because I doubt they will be able to get rid of guaranteed contracts, but at the very least I believe there will be stiffer ethics/character guidelines and some provision for going through arbitration to void contracts with players that habitually get "out of bounds".

beast23
02-20-2009, 04:38 PM
remember how well tinsley played when jackson/jo/artest got suspended? he played like a man on a mission....why not? I realize he has had some problems...but right now maybe he could be a spark...Jamaal is very talented, we all know this...and when on his game only guy who can stop jamaal is jamaal....The phx game you guys overrate because no one in that game would step up and do anything anyway...
bring Tins back!
consider me the 1% on here that wants jamaal on this team and playing...I remember the boston playoff series in reggies last year...that game 5 he played to put the pacers up 3-2 was amazing...had it not been for him (and stephen jackson) we would have ended up losing to the c's in 6....From a business perspective, this will never happen. No how, no way. The reason... one word. RISK.

The Pacers aren't about to risk whether Jamaal will behave as desired, on the court or off. And more importantly, they aren't about to risk whether the fans, who were so vocal in surveys taken last spring and summer, would accept his return.

And I think this is one area that will be addressed by the Pacers during arbitration. It won't just be about contractual law. The Pacers are certain to bring up their perceived risks for any outcome that can result from arbitration.

And, I believe the Pacers would point out forcing the team to re-install Tinsley back on the active roster and for him to at least occassionally be in uniform would be a potential risk to their financial well-being due to a probably decline in attendance.

Putnam
02-20-2009, 05:02 PM
All I am looking at is one very simple fact. We have far fewer fans now than we had "pre-problems". Why is that? And if the problem is cured, would many of those fans come back?


Thanks for the nice reply, beast. I mostly agree with you and my comment, though spurred by your post, was really aimed at other, earlier ones.

My point is that improvement to the Pacers attendance is not going to be automatic. It wasn't automatic after they traded away the bad guys. That had to happen first, but it wasn't enough. And it won't be automatic when and if the Pacers start to win regularly. The process of making Pacers games a preferred thing to do will really only start when the record gets good. The marketing department has a terribly difficult, multi-year task ahead of it, with a not-very-good product to sell in the meantime.

Certainly the recession is causing some reduction in entertainment spending. I wouldn't say it is not. But there is still plenty of money being spent around here on nights out. When you are capturing only a single digit share of the entertainment market, your problem is your market share -- not the size of the market.

Dece
02-20-2009, 05:28 PM
I've stayed out of this because at this point anything I say gets written off as biased beyond reason, but it's been cool to see some people writing from an objective viewpoint on this.

I just want to be able to watch and root for him again, whatever it takes for that to happen.

beast23
02-20-2009, 06:04 PM
I just want to be able to watch and root for him again, whatever it takes for that to happen.I know.... I'm rooting for Danny's quick recovery as well.

;)

Roaming Gnome
02-20-2009, 06:09 PM
IMO, this isn't worth discussing until a decision is made. No matter what is decided, I'm convinced that Jamaal will not play for us again. Even though I strongly stated I don't want Tins back with the team, I honestly have nothing against Jamaal. Personally, I don't necessarily subscribe to the rhetoric about Jamaal, but most of Central Indiana does subscribe to the notion that Jamaal is the "harbinger of trouble".

I'm not in lock step agreement with the banishment, especially if it last longer then this upcoming off-season. IMHO, I feel the Pacers need to "fish or cut bait" with Jamaal. Dragging this out longer then this off-season "seems" like the wrong thing to do.

Will Galen
02-20-2009, 06:18 PM
I don't think this has been tested ever, legally. Or not exactly this situation. However it turns out, it could become the "Tinsley rule" and change things in a big way.

I don't think think there will be any Tinsley rules. It's my understanding it's going to arbitration, it's not establishing anything legally. Using an arberatrator just means both sides agree to do what the arberatrator decides.

Another case could come along just like this one and the arberatrator could decide just the opposite.

That I think is the whole thing in a nut shell, the arberatrator could decide anything.

speakout4
02-20-2009, 07:17 PM
I don't think think there will be any Tinsley rules. It's my understanding it's going to arbitration, it's not establishing anything legally. Using an arberatrator just means both sides agree to do what the arberatrator decides.

Another case could come along just like this one and the arberatrator could decide just the opposite.

That I think is the whole thing in a nut shell, the arberatrator could decide anything.
I don't have the impression that this is voluntary for the pacers so agreeing with the arbitrators decision is not part of the deal.

It doesn't help the team to have tinsly in the shadows. Resolve this somehow.

owl
02-21-2009, 05:30 AM
This whole issue was within 5 minutes of the trade deadline of being a non issue with Tinsley going to Orlando. I can see why Bird wanted to barf.

Hicks
02-21-2009, 09:15 AM
This whole issue was within 5 minutes of the trade deadline of being a non issue with Tinsley going to Orlando. I can see why Bird wanted to barf.

What did I miss? He was almost traded to Orlando?

Doug
02-21-2009, 09:28 AM
What did I miss? He was almost traded to Orlando?Yes, talks broke down because they were offering Pluto and we held out for Goofy.

Justin Tyme
02-21-2009, 09:41 AM
If I was the arbitrator, I'd rule that the Pacers have until the start of next season to trade Tinsley. If by that time, The Pacers hadn't traded Tinsley they would have to buy him out at 80% of his contract. This would end the issue for both parties.

That would allow the Pacers the offseason to get a trade done, and it would allow Tinsley, either thru a trade or being bought out the opportunity, to play again next season.


Being a Pacers fan and not the arbitator, I'd like to see Tinsley have to take a settlement of 50% for all the problems he has created the Pacers. It would be poetic justice as far as I'm concerned. JMOAA

BillS
02-21-2009, 01:04 PM
What makes me sick about a buyout is that with the cap and tax taking a huge drop, the Pacers will end up with a salary that is impossible to get off the books if they have to do a buyout.

Given our recent luck (or lack thereof), I'd say having to carry 80% of Tinsley's salary against the cap over the next two years would be about right.

Will Galen
02-21-2009, 08:33 PM
Can an arbitator really make Tinsley give up 20% of his pay? Somehow I don't see an arbitator cutting Tin's salary or making the Pacers buy him out. I think he will just decide the Pacers are within their rights and Tinsley can either sit out, try to get the Pacers to buy him out, or give up his contract.

Then again if both sides agree to binding arbatration they will have no choice, but is binding aebatration going to happen?

Putnam
02-21-2009, 09:07 PM
arbitration
arberatrator
arberatrator
arberatrator
arberatrator
arbitator
arbitator
arbatration
aebatration

You got it right the first time.

beast23
02-21-2009, 11:49 PM
The more I think about possible outcomes, the more I think there is a solution that would benefit both Tinsley and the Pacers.

If the arbitrator would rule in Tinsley's favor, forcing the Pacers to release him at full salary or even 80-90% of full salary, then what about the following:

The Pacers are forced to pay and release him, and the league grants the Pacers special treatment by immediately removing Tinsley's salary from counting against the salary cap.

count55
02-21-2009, 11:56 PM
The more I think about possible outcomes, the more I think there is a solution that would benefit both Tinsley and the Pacers.

If the arbitrator would rule in Tinsley's favor, forcing the Pacers to release him at full salary or even 80-90% of full salary, then what about the following:

The Pacers are forced to pay and release him, and the league grants the Pacers special treatment by immediately removing Tinsley's salary from counting against the salary cap.

It won't happen. There are too many precedents of buy outs, and their treatment is clearly outlined in the CBA. What would the league's motivation and rationalization of this? Wouldn't it cause more teams to just mothball players, wait for the arbitration ruling, and then demand the same relief given the Pacers?

No, if the league intervenes, it will be to get a negotiated settlement before the arbitration. I think both sides are concerned about what happens in arbitration, and the possibility of a ruling that one side or the other chokes on. I think that concern is evenly split, too.

ToasterBusVIP
02-22-2009, 12:53 AM
Originally Posted by Will Galen

arbitration
arberatrator
arberatrator
arberatrator
arberatrator
arbitator
arbitator
arbatration
aebatration

Did someone say Arbitater?

http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/image.php?u=10527&dateline=1235281834

ChicagoJ
02-22-2009, 11:16 PM
Why would the arbitrator (now I'm not even sure I can spell it right... thanks...) rule for less than 100 cents on the dollar for Tinsley? 100 cents on the dollar is the worst possible outcome for the NBPA, because that's just status quo.

Everyone agrees that the Pacers are paying the contract in full. The question is how long the Pacers can deny to Jamaal NBA-quality training and practice facilities if he is willing and able to play, and how long they can keep him in limbo and de-facto banished from the professional basketball all over the globe (thanks to FIBA rules), instead of just banished by one team.

HC
02-23-2009, 08:26 AM
Tinsley needs to learn some accountability. He dug his own hole, and is still being rewarded with a fat paycheck. He needs to shut his mouth and wait.

Sollozzo
02-23-2009, 08:45 AM
The trade deadline came and went and nothing happened, now that says more about the capacity of Bird as man in the front office then anything else.



No, that says more about a bad economy where no one (Pacers included) wanted to take on more money. I'm sure that saved money from Rasho is important to the Simons next season. Notice how not many teams got anything big done?

If Bird didn't have the capacity to make deals then he wouldn't have made those deals last summer.

count55
02-23-2009, 09:47 AM
Does anybody have any idea when this will actually go to arbitration? I really have no idea what the outcome will be, and I'd just as soon get it behind us, one way or the other.

Bball
02-23-2009, 02:20 PM
No, that says more about a bad economy where no one (Pacers included) wanted to take on more money. I'm sure that saved money from Rasho is important to the Simons next season. Notice how not many teams got anything big done?

If Bird didn't have the capacity to make deals then he wouldn't have made those deals last summer.

If we're looking at deadline deals as an indicator of the capacities of a team exec then it isn't going to say much about Bird's predecessor either.

-Bball

DocHolliday
02-23-2009, 03:08 PM
Stupid question, surely it has been answered in the past:

Why can't the Pacers send him to the D-League?

Since86
02-23-2009, 03:14 PM
Teams can only send rooks and sophs down. Players like Eddie Gill who don't have an NBA contract can go play in it, but teams can't send them down.

DocHolliday
02-23-2009, 03:15 PM
Kinda what I thought.

CableKC
02-23-2009, 05:49 PM
Does anybody have any idea when this will actually go to arbitration? I really have no idea what the outcome will be, and I'd just as soon get it behind us, one way or the other.
Yeah...no kidding.

Assuming that a buyout is the route to go.....what realistic amount would any of you be happy to accept?

I have no clue if it's a realistic $$$ amount, but I'd be happy with a 3/5 buyout....that would be about $4.3 mil a year on the books for the next 3 seasons. That should clear about $2.5-3 mil a year off the books and allow us to sign some role-player.

I just want this to end.....

count55
02-23-2009, 06:00 PM
Yeah...no kidding.

Assuming that a buyout is the route to go.....what realistic amount would any of you be happy to accept?

I have no clue if it's a realistic $$$ amount, but I'd be happy with a 3/5 buyout....that would be about $4.3 mil a year on the books for the next 3 seasons. That should clear about $2.5-3 mil a year off the books and allow us to sign some role-player.

I just want this to end.....

Whatever the buyout is, the cap hit will be prorated over the course of the contract, so it will finish this season, then be for the two years following.

If he is awarded cash value, or NPV, it will probably be a relatively high percentage of the total. I would guess approaching 90%, saving us only about $0.7 to $0.8 per year.

I don't know that the arbitrator could order a 100% payout, with immediate cash payment in full, as that would have greater cash value than the actual contract. I would assume the worst case scenario would be forcing the Pacers to cut him outright, which would leave the full amount on the books for the balance of the contract.

It's all a wild *** guess, but I would think either it will be an outright win for the Pacers or and outright win for Tinsley, as opposed to something in between like you scenario.

Los Angeles
02-23-2009, 06:05 PM
Arbitration is much more likely to result in a compromised decision. Trials are more likely to be either/or situations.

Just my experience.

count55
02-23-2009, 06:11 PM
Arbitration is much more likely to result in a compromised decision. Trials are more likely to be either/or situations.

Just my experience.

Well, I did say it was a wild *** guess, not a sophisticated wild *** guess.;)

ChicagoJ
02-23-2009, 06:24 PM
But the low and high end of the "range of compromise" is the basically the NPV of the contract. You're only discounting it for two years, at the risk free rate. For all practical purposes, it is the face value of the contract.

This is not an arbitration about the dollars and sense of the current contract - he'll get paid either over time or bought out in a lump sum. This is about when he'll be allowed to play for another team or to jump across the ocean to another league - both of which he's forbidden from doing right now as the Pacers hold his career hostage.

I think I've said this dozens of times, but it keeps coming up and it is wrong:

This arbitration is not about whether the Pacers did the right thing by moving on without him, or whether or not he deserves punishment. They have circumvented the CBA's rules for suspensions with a de facto suspension, and that might have been okay if they found a destination for him in a timely fashion. This is about, "how long can this carry on this suspension without making it an actual suspension?" Which, of course, carries an appeals process to ensure that no team nor any player abuse their power.

Its reasonable to say, "stay away." Its reasonable to buy out his contract shortly after you tell him to "stay away", especially if you can't find a trade you like. Five months later, and after the trading deadline, the unofficial suspension is no longer reasonable.

CableKC
02-25-2009, 01:33 PM
With Marbury finally bought out....what is the deadline for waiving/buying out players so that they can be signed for the Post-Season?

Is it this upcoming Monday?

I'm not sure how long any arbitration will take....but I'm wondering if Tinsley's Agent and the Player's Union is pushing to get a deal done before that deadline.

count55
02-25-2009, 01:35 PM
What is the deadline for waiving/buying out players so that they can be signed for the Post-Season?

Is it this upcoming Monday?

March 1st.