PDA

View Full Version : I guess Tinsley won't be bought out...



naptownmenace
02-27-2009, 01:56 PM
It's February 27th and the last day before players can sign with a team and still be eligible for the playoffs. Even if the Pacers bought him out or cut him today, Tinsley wouldn't be able to sign with another team.

If the Pacers were going to buy him out, they would've probably done so before today so that Tinsley could clear waivers and another team could sign him and eliminate some of the cost for this season and the following 2.

In other words, there's no need for Tinsley to agree to a buyout today since his hopes of signing with another team (playoff contending team) are done. I can't really see him wanting to sign with a non-playoff team. I don't think he wants to play bball that badly.

Prepare yourselves for arbitration Pacers fans. I think TPTB are about to be royally screwed by Tinsley and the arbitrator.

count55
02-27-2009, 02:21 PM
Actually, the rule says that the player must be waived by March 1st to be eligible, not necessarily signed...but that probably doesn't matter in this case.

Cherokee
02-27-2009, 03:36 PM
Let's hope Tinsley doesn't retire a "technical" Pacer.

special ed
02-27-2009, 03:42 PM
I know it's been discussed here, but I still believe the Pacers have fumbled the whole thing. They should/could have had him here at training camp, busting his boot in practice, dressed in a nice suit behind the bench for games, and stepping in the (very few) times Diener and Ford were injured.
It would have been like displaying what you've got for sale. Any disruptions by Tins would have only worked in the Pacers favor with an arbitrator.
I can still dream, I guess. And I'm guessing this is working out in Tinsley's dream, too.

BRushWithDeath
02-27-2009, 03:45 PM
Hasn't Bird been pretty clear they wouldn't buy him out? At least not this year?

Doug
02-27-2009, 04:11 PM
Does a buy-out have anything to do with waivers?

I thought if we buy him out, his contract is basically torn-up.

Waivers means we release him and some other team can pick him (and his contract) up.

If he clears waivers, then we'd still be on the hook for his contract AND he could sign with another team.

Do have that wrong?

Will Galen
02-27-2009, 04:34 PM
If he clears waivers, then we'd still be on the hook for his contract AND he could sign with another team.

Do have that wrong?

That's right. Here's what we need to know as per Larry Coon.

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q54

If no team claims a waived player, he is said to have "cleared waivers." The player may sign with a new team of his choice, and the player's prior team continues to pay the guaranteed portion of the terminated contract (see question number 91 (http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q91) for more information). The player's salary with his new team is a matter of negotiation. Few players are actually claimed while on waivers, since the team claiming a waived player inherits his entire contract. It is far more common for teams to wait for the player to clear waivers, and then sign him to a much smaller (even minimum salary) contract.
If a player is waived after March 1, he is ineligible to be included in the playoff roster of any team that signs him for the remainder of that season.


Do released players count against the cap? What is set-off?

Released (waived) players with guaranteed contracts continue to be included in team salary. Players whose contracts are not guaranteed are included in team salary in the amount they made while they were with the team. Players on non-guaranteed "summer contracts" are not included in team salary unless they make the regular season roster.
The team and player may negotiate a revised payment schedule to be utilized in the event the player is waived. This revised payment schedule may call for the guaranteed portion of the player's contract to be paid over a longer or shorter period of time than originally specified in the contract, or even as a lump sum. This is often referred to as a "spread provision." Also see question numbers 59 (http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q59) and 60 (http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q60). Even if the payment schedule is altered, the team's team salary is charged for the same number of seasons as specified in the original contract.
If another team signs a released player who had a guaranteed contract (as long as the player has cleared waivers -- see question number 54 (http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q54)), the player's original team is allowed to reduce the amount of money they still owe the player (and lower their team salary) by a commensurate amount (this is called the right of set-off). This is true if the player signs with any professional team -- it doesn't even have to be an NBA team. The amount the original team gets to set off is limited to one-half the difference between the player's new salary and the minimum salary for a one-year veteran (if the player is a rookie, then the rookie minimum is used instead).

pacersgroningen
02-27-2009, 04:36 PM
I'm not really up to speed here, but why do so many people thing the arbitrator will rule in favour of tinsley? I mean there are two sides to each story and he has hurt the franchise with all the off-court incidents.

CableKC
02-27-2009, 04:58 PM
I'm a pessimist...so I'm going to assume that things will always go against us....in this case, rule in favor of Tinsley.

The only thing that we have going in our favor is that TPTB can show that they tried their best to move Tinsley before the Trade Deadline. The real question is whether the Arbitrator will decide whether they are going to force us to buy him out or not.

At best, I can hope for a forced buyout but at a reduced price. Anyone know of any precedent/history when it comes to NBA Arbitrations between Players and Teams?

I'm guessing that if there is a similiar buyout situation like Marbury had...it will happen by Sunday morning March 1st at the latest. There is incentive for Tinsley to get a deal done ( and possibly accept less in a buyout ) before he can be waived/cleared before the deadline. If nothing happens before then.....we maybe screwed....which is probably going to be the case either way.

Bball
02-27-2009, 07:42 PM
I have a feeling the only thing the arbiter will decide is whether Tinsley gets to come to practice, can use the team facilities, and sit in a suit behind the bench during games.

I question whether he can force a buyout and it's terms. But I don't question whether he can tell the Pacers:
"Either buy him out (at whatever the two side can agree upon) or let him practice and participate in team events and have the same access and rights as other players (which doesn't mean the team has to put him on the active roster)."


...Or else the arbiter says "He's getting paid his full contract... If that changes see me then."

speakout4
02-27-2009, 08:41 PM
I'm a pessimist...so I'm going to assume that things will always go against us....in this case, rule in favor of Tinsley.

The only thing that we have going in our favor is that TPTB can show that they tried their best to move Tinsley before the Trade Deadline. The real question is whether the Arbitrator will decide whether they are going to force us to buy him out or not.

At best, I can hope for a forced buyout but at a reduced price. Anyone know of any precedent/history when it comes to NBA Arbitrations between Players and Teams?

I'm guessing that if there is a similiar buyout situation like Marbury had...it will happen by Sunday morning March 1st at the latest. There is incentive for Tinsley to get a deal done ( and possibly accept less in a buyout ) before he can be waived/cleared before the deadline. If nothing happens before then.....we maybe screwed....which is probably going to be the case either way.
I think the pacers have a great deal to say about tinsley that is not public information and will help their case.

Pacerized
02-27-2009, 09:26 PM
NY had nothing to loose in buying out Marbury since he was in the last year of his contract and they couldn't find a trade for him. The Pacers still have 2 years to trade Tinsley. Even if they have to wait almost 2 years to package Tinsley as an expiring contract, they're still better off not buying him out.
I still think Tinsley has almost no case if this goes to Arbitration. The union knows this which is why they've told him that they don't know how this will go. If they thought they had a good case that would say so. Tinsley probably pushed the grievance against the advise of the union. They have to file it or they're guilty of collecting his dues while not truly representing him.

CableKC
03-01-2009, 01:39 PM
It's the last day that a player can be waived and eligble for the Playoffs. Any news on any possible buyout of Tinsley?

PacerGuy
03-01-2009, 01:48 PM
It's the last day that a player can be waived and eligble for the Playoffs. Any news on any possible buyout of Tinsley?

Unless JT takes .50 cents on the dollar, I say fat chance. Besides, what playoff team would want him? Miami is the only one.

If I'm Jammal (&/or his agent), I might take a low buyout a year from now, but not till then. See, if JT accepts a buyout around this time n/y, he will have received most of another years full salery, he could sign for the minimum somewhere & in the end still not loose out on much pay for n/y, & he would have 2 months to prove he is valuable to a team just before he would be a FA when everyone has all that mad cap room in '10.
Just my thoughts....

CableKC
03-01-2009, 03:20 PM
Unless JT takes .50 cents on the dollar, I say fat chance. Besides, what playoff team would want him? Miami is the only one.

If I'm Jammal (&/or his agent), I might take a low buyout a year from now, but not till then. See, if JT accepts a buyout around this time n/y, he will have received most of another years full salery, he could sign for the minimum somewhere & in the end still not loose out on much pay for n/y, & he would have 2 months to prove he is valuable to a team just before he would be a FA when everyone has all that mad cap room in '10.
Just my thoughts....
It all depends on what the Arbitrator rules. For all we know, they can rule completely in favor of Tinsley and for TPTB to force a buyout that would be way more then the Pacers would be willing to pay.

As for proving himself to be valuable to a Team, if any Team ( specifically the Heat ) were interested in him...they could sign him for a minimal contract just to see if he still has skillz or not. If he works out, great...they got him for cheap.....if not and he's out of shape...the cost is minimal to let him sit on the bench or play some minimal role on the Team. Either way, it's a high reward / low risk gamble for any team taking on a bought-out Tinsley.

Los Angeles
03-01-2009, 05:08 PM
It's a very long shot to think the arbiter will side 100% either way. These guys are famous for waffling their way to compromise, even when there is an extremely clear cut case where the winner would be indisputable in a court of law. When you are obviously in the right, fear the arbiter. when you are obviously in the wrong and have no case, the arbiter is your friend.

That said, the only absolute truth in litigation is that there IS NO absolute truth. ;) EDIT: meaning you never know what the hell is going to happen, you can just have a general guess.

ChicagoJ
03-02-2009, 01:56 PM
I think the pacers have a great deal to say about tinsley that is not public information and will help their case.

Which would support a long suspension. Maybe even a 62-game suspension (time served to date.)

But they haven't suspended him, so that argument is out the door.

They've decided to "move in another direction."

The reasonable remedies seem to be:

1.) As long as he's being paid there is nothing actionable against the Pacers. Anything less than that and Tinsley has "won."

2.) Pacers must end the de-facto suspension and give him an actual suspension within the terms of the CBA, and when it ends welcome him back to the team/ open up its training facilities to him or release him outright.

3.) Sub-point to #2, the 62-game suspension may be deemed long enough, and point #2 may be required to take place immediately.

4.) Additional sub-point to #2, this does not mean the Pacers are required to play him in any games. That is, after all, the head coach's decision.

5.) Additional sub-point to #2, will the NBPA seek a unique/ special injunction so that Tinsley might be playoff-eligible if the Pacers elect to waive him.

6.) I would expect the probability of a forced buy-out at something less than the present value of the full contractual amount to be very, very small (approaching 0%). Among other things, I doubt that the NBPA listed that as a potential remedy in the first place. That would be such a major win for the owners/ defeat for the players that I think the NBPA might consider an immediate walk-out type of vote.

Additional thoughts:

1.) Having a lousy attitude does not mean Tinsley has violated his contract. The Pacers were working for a while to try to void Ron's contract after the Auburn Hills disaster, and found they didn't have any grounds to do so (or would potentially lose a messy fight with the NBPA). If Tinsley were as bad as some say he is/ was, the Pacers would have found a platform for voiding his contract. He's public enemy #1 only because he lasted longer than the more vile offenders that preceeded him. In fact, for a bit of perspective that seems to be long gone around here, while Ron and Stephen were suspended, nearly everyone agreed that Tinsley was doing a valient job of holding the ragtag Pacers together.

2.) Really, the aribitration is about figuring out who is "less wrong" in their handling of the contract. What Tinsley did in the past may only be relevant in discussion how long of a suspension he merits, but since he hasn't been suspended...

"If you don't want me, that's fine. Honor the contract we agreed to and then release me so I can go to work somewhere that I am wanted."

Since86
03-02-2009, 02:25 PM
2.) Really, the aribitration is about figuring out who is "less wrong" in their handling of the contract. What Tinsley did in the past may only be relevant in discussion how long of a suspension he merits, but since he hasn't been suspended...

"If you don't want me, that's fine. Honor the contract we agreed to and then release me so I can go to work somewhere that I am wanted."

Which is exactly why the rest of us see it clearly.

Tinsley isn't suspended. He is getting FULL pay. He is getting paid the exact same amount to sit at home than he would be for playing right now.

The only thing the arbitrator should be able to do is give him access to the Pacers facility. He can't force playing time, because that decision right there would ruin the league, completely.

Because you have a contract, doesn't mean you have the right to play. Outside of not letting him into the facilities (which I think was wrong in the first place), the Pacers have honored their side of the contract.

naptownmenace
03-02-2009, 02:40 PM
That's right. Here's what we need to know as per Larry Coon.

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q54

If no team claims a waived player, he is said to have "cleared waivers." The player may sign with a new team of his choice, and the player's prior team continues to pay the guaranteed portion of the terminated contract (see question number 91 (http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q91) for more information). The player's salary with his new team is a matter of negotiation. Few players are actually claimed while on waivers, since the team claiming a waived player inherits his entire contract. It is far more common for teams to wait for the player to clear waivers, and then sign him to a much smaller (even minimum salary) contract.
If a player is waived after March 1, he is ineligible to be included in the playoff roster of any team that signs him for the remainder of that season.


Do released players count against the cap? What is set-off?

Released (waived) players with guaranteed contracts continue to be included in team salary. Players whose contracts are not guaranteed are included in team salary in the amount they made while they were with the team. Players on non-guaranteed "summer contracts" are not included in team salary unless they make the regular season roster.
The team and player may negotiate a revised payment schedule to be utilized in the event the player is waived. This revised payment schedule may call for the guaranteed portion of the player's contract to be paid over a longer or shorter period of time than originally specified in the contract, or even as a lump sum. This is often referred to as a "spread provision." Also see question numbers 59 (http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q59) and 60 (http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q60). Even if the payment schedule is altered, the team's team salary is charged for the same number of seasons as specified in the original contract.
If another team signs a released player who had a guaranteed contract (as long as the player has cleared waivers -- see question number 54 (http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q54)), the player's original team is allowed to reduce the amount of money they still owe the player (and lower their team salary) by a commensurate amount (this is called the right of set-off). This is true if the player signs with any professional team -- it doesn't even have to be an NBA team. The amount the original team gets to set off is limited to one-half the difference between the player's new salary and the minimum salary for a one-year veteran (if the player is a rookie, then the rookie minimum is used instead).

I assume that a bought out player would still need to clear waivers because Marbury was bought-out and still had to clear waivers in order to become a FA. The waiver period is the time needed for the NBA offices to receive and process the paper work for a released player.

So unless they extended the cut-off date to today (3/2/2009) because of the end of February occuring during the weekend, a player released now wouldn't be eligible to play in the playoffs.

I guess I'm dissapointed they haven't been able to end this saga but at the same time I have to at least remember that it could be that Tinsley is just being un-cooperative in the Pacers efforts to buy him out of the rest of his contract. If I had a garaunteed contract with $14 million left on it for the next 2 years, I'd be reluctant to give any of it away.

ChicagoJ
03-02-2009, 03:06 PM
Which is exactly why the rest of us see it clearly.

Tinsley isn't suspended. He is getting FULL pay. He is getting paid the exact same amount to sit at home than he would be for playing right now.

The only thing the arbitrator should be able to do is give him access to the Pacers facility. He can't force playing time, because that decision right there would ruin the league, completely.

Because you have a contract, doesn't mean you have the right to play. Outside of not letting him into the facilities (which I think was wrong in the first place), the Pacers have honored their side of the contract.

Which is why I started the thread after the trading deadline expired - I purposely did not say he would play again but that he could be "back with the team".

Which is probably the exact punishment the Pacers deserve for letting this fester so long without a resolution. A 62 game suspension does not seem like "good faith" on their part. He's had enough time to finish a 12-step progam, find Jesus, find a jumpshot, find Budda, attend the Dale Carnegie class of how to win friends and influence people, finish another 12-step program, and work on his lateral footspeed so he doesn't get taken off the dribble so easily.

Bball
03-02-2009, 03:51 PM
He's had enough time to finish a 12-step progam, find Jesus, find a jumpshot, find Budda, attend the Dale Carnegie class of how to win friends and influence people, finish another 12-step program, and work on his lateral footspeed so he doesn't get taken off the dribble so easily.

Or he's had time to throw some hallacious parties! :D

ChicagoJ
03-02-2009, 03:53 PM
Hypothetically, of course!

Speed
03-02-2009, 03:54 PM
Which is why I started the thread after the trading deadline expired - I purposely did not say he would play again but that he could be "back with the team".

Which is probably the exact punishment the Pacers deserve for letting this fester so long without a resolution. A 62 game suspension does not seem like "good faith" on their part. He's had enough time to finish a 12-step progam, find Jesus, find a jumpshot, find Budda, attend the Dale Carnegie class of how to win friends and influence people, finish another 12-step program, and work on his lateral footspeed so he doesn't get taken off the dribble so easily.


Sure he's had time for all of that, but I'd guess it was more like, hang out with the crew, eat cheetos, work on a new between the legs around the back dribble move, watch and one video collection, eat cheetos, perfect no arc/knuckle ball set shot, work on shouting And One M Fer more loudly, and lastly eating Cheetos off of Cinnamon and Cherry Forever's Navals without getting teeth caught in Naval ring..... oh wait, imo. :D

Bball
03-02-2009, 04:01 PM
I'm sure he's been working on his 'bounce the ball into the hoop from the sidelines' shot.

ChicagoJ
03-02-2009, 04:12 PM
and lastly eating Cheetos off of Cinnamon and Cherry Forever's Navals without getting teeth caught in Naval ring..... oh wait, imo. :D

That's very descriptive. But not exactly a healthy breakfast. You never know what dangers are in belly button lint these days.

Just my opinion.

Justin Tyme
03-02-2009, 04:14 PM
Why is it everyone thinks Tinjury is wanting to play BB? Who is to say that he's not content receiving his checks and doing as he pleases? Why couldn't it be the Players Union that is really the one pushing this issue with Tinsley himself? They don't want a Tinsley/Marbury situation setting an example for other teams to do in the future. They want/need to get it resolved.

I have felt all along Tinjury would rather sit at home being his own boss rather than have to earn his salary. When this Players Union thing with Tinsley came up, I knew it wouldn't get solved by March 1, so he could be signed by a playoff team. The Pacers reg season is over in 20 games, so why rush to get it settled this season? He's sure not missing any checks. If Tinsley had a deep burning desire to play, he'd have given the Simons an offer they couldn't refuse. Since he hasn't, I just don't see Tinsley that motivated to be playing again. JMOAA

CableKC
03-02-2009, 04:54 PM
Why is it everyone thinks Tinjury is wanting to play BB? Who is to say that he's not content receiving his checks and doing as he pleases? Why couldn't it be the Players Union that is really the one pushing this issue with Tinsley himself? They don't want a Tinsley/Marbury situation setting an example for other teams to do in the future. They want/need to get it resolved.

I have felt all along Tinjury would rather sit at home being his own boss rather than have to earn his salary. When this Players Union thing with Tinsley came up, I knew it wouldn't get solved by March 1, so he could be signed by a playoff team. The Pacers reg season is over in 20 games, so why rush to get it settled this season? He's sure not missing any checks. If Tinsley had a deep burning desire to play, he'd have given the Simons an offer they couldn't refuse. Since he hasn't, I just don't see Tinsley that motivated to be playing again. JMOAA
I doubt that Tinsley is content with sitting at home, collecting a full paycheck and doing nothing. Although I would have ZERO problem earning $21 mil for doing nothing.....for Tinsley and his Agent.....knowing that Teams are likely interested in him, I don't see why they wouldn't be pushing for a trade and ( as a last resort ) a buyout so that they can get the majority of his $21 mil while going out and earning a new contract. I don't doubt that if Tinsley hit the FA market this offseason that he could get some $2.5+ mil a year / multi-year contract. There are some GMs out there that wouldn't mind having Tinsley as a backup PG...they just don't want him at the tune of $21 mil.

shockedandchagrined
03-02-2009, 05:37 PM
Why is it everyone thinks Tinjury is wanting to play BB? Who is to say that he's not content receiving his checks and doing as he pleases? Why couldn't it be the Players Union that is really the one pushing this issue with Tinsley himself? They don't want a Tinsley/Marbury situation setting an example for other teams to do in the future. They want/need to get it resolved.

I think it's pointless to pretend we know what Tinsley desires at this point, one way or the other. I do tend to think he probably wants another chance to play though, as basketball is one thing that he obviously has wanted to do his entire life.

However, I do think you have a point about the Player's Union being more responsible for the recent complaint. That could be true, because nothing that Tinsley was quoted as saying (at least that I read) had any time context to it. It could have been October or November of last year that he was on record as saying such things. It could have simply been the result of it being on someone's calendar to file, so as to make sure they are doing everything in their power for a member of their union.

Now that March 1 has passed, is there any reason for there to be an arbitration ruling on this, say before the end of the year? It seems not, which puts this into the summer and now Tinsley only has two years left. Will someone take a chance now that only two years remain? My only hope is that his contract can be split into two end of the bench players (Houston I'm waiting for you).

Justin Tyme
03-02-2009, 07:29 PM
I doubt that Tinsley is content with sitting at home, collecting a full paycheck and doing nothing. Although I would have ZERO problem earning $21 mil for doing nothing.....for Tinsley and his Agent.....knowing that Teams are likely interested in him, I don't see why they wouldn't be pushing for a trade and ( as a last resort ) a buyout so that they can get the majority of his $21 mil while going out and earning a new contract. I don't doubt that if Tinsley hit the FA market this offseason that he could get some $2.5+ mil a year / multi-year contract. There are some GMs out there that wouldn't mind having Tinsley as a backup PG...they just don't want him at the tune of $21 mil.


Are you sure Tinsley can get 2.5+ mil after a buyout? Maybe 1/2 that? As a veteran, isn't there a rule he can only sign for X amount each year for the contract duration to avoid a huge double salary?

count55
03-02-2009, 07:34 PM
Are you sure Tinsley can get 2.5+ mil after a buyout? Maybe 1/2 that? As a veteran, isn't there a rule he can only sign for X amount each year for the contract duration to avoid a huge double salary?

He can sign for any amount offered to him, and the limitation on the individual team's offer is only their cap position.

If he were bought out by the Pacers, the Pacer contract would have absolutely no bearing on what he could sign for, or what he could be offered.

However, best guess is that he won't see much more than vet min for at least a season, which would be about $1.2. Any years or dollars beyond that would probably have to be unguaranteed.

Haggard
03-02-2009, 07:38 PM
1.) As long as he's being paid there is nothing actionable against the Pacers. Anything less than that and Tinsley has "won."

Arbitration isn't about winning, it's about compromise.



2.) Pacers must end the de-facto suspension and give him an actual suspension within the terms of the CBA, and when it ends welcome him back to the team/ open up its training facilities to him or release him outright.

What can they give him an 'actual suspension' for? What has he actually done to warrant that?

BillS
03-02-2009, 07:54 PM
Arbitration isn't about winning, it's about compromise.

You're thinking about <i>mediation</i>. Arbitration is about "tell me your side ... tell me your side... OK, this is what is going to happen."

ChicagoJ
03-02-2009, 08:07 PM
Arbitration isn't about winning, it's about compromise.

See Bill's post.


What can they give him an 'actual suspension' for? What has he actually done to warrant that?

Why do you think they've avoided it. If he's half the slimebag that everybody around here thinks he is, he'd be suspended and there would be numerous reasons to have the lawyers researching ways to void his contract. He wouldn't just be told, "go away, but we'll keep paying you".

The internet legend of the guy's problems is amazing. You'd think he had "earned a 473 season" suspsenion from all of the evil things he's allegedly done.

Justin Tyme
03-02-2009, 08:24 PM
He can sign for any amount offered to him, and the limitation on the individual team's offer is only their cap position.

If he were bought out by the Pacers, the Pacer contract would have absolutely no bearing on what he could sign for, or what he could be offered.

However, best guess is that he won't see much more than vet min for at least a season, which would be about $1.2. Any years or dollars beyond that would probably have to be unguaranteed.



This makes sense now that I think about it b/c with Joe Smith the Cavs have like 3.5 mil they can spend vs the Spurs who only had 1/2 that available to spend for Smith. I'm thinking they have part of the MLE and LLE to spend. Thanx for the info.

Bball
03-02-2009, 08:28 PM
All I know is this season has been much more enjoyable for me with Tinsley nowhere around it. ...and I bet I'm not alone.

Until we parked Tinsley we couldn't move on with our PG situation. And that is something we had to do. We couldn't keep pretending Tinsley would remain healthy and suspension free (pick one or both) nor could we believe he'd no longer be the cancer he's been. As stated before, even Isiah wanted Tinsley gone so it's not like there hasn't been issues for some time. ...And I swear there were questions about his coachability in a draft preview somewhere.

I suspect at the end of the day the Pacers will be told to trade Tinsley, buy him out at whatever they can negotiate, or sit him on the bench and let the coach decide to activate him or not... and none of it will be on the clock until summer.

Anthem
03-02-2009, 08:29 PM
Why is it everyone thinks Tinjury is wanting to play BB? Who is to say that he's not content receiving his checks and doing as he pleases?
If that's what he wanted, why would he be trying to force the Pacers to trade him?


When this Players Union thing with Tinsley came up, I knew it wouldn't get solved by March 1, so he could be signed by a playoff team.
The Union thing was to try to give the Pacers some extra incentive to make a trade. If the rumors are even remotely true, the Pacers seem to be expecting far more than is reasonable in return for Tins. The arbitration was an attempt to make sure he got moved.

Bball
03-02-2009, 08:34 PM
If that's what he wanted, why would he be trying to force the Pacers to trade him?


The Union thing was to try to give the Pacers some extra incentive to make a trade. If the rumors are even remotely true, the Pacers seem to be expecting far more than is reasonable in return for Tins. The arbitration was an attempt to make sure he got moved.

I think an angle that needs to be considered is Tins and his agent thinking they could paint the Pacers into a corner where a buyout would be on the table and Tinsley could get a healthy enough buyout that he could make even MORE (than he's currently making) by signing with another team (plus having the Pacer buyout). Keep in mind he could invest the buyout cash in something safe and also have interest payments to consider.

So, huge chunk of cash up front, invested in a safe interest-bearing account, AND a new contract with another team....

Haggard
03-02-2009, 08:35 PM
See Bill's post.

I plead temporary stupidness on the arbitrations thing...
was reading through some other legislation at work at the time...



Why do you think they've avoided it. If he's half the slimebag that everybody around here thinks he is, he'd be suspended and there would be numerous reasons to have the lawyers researching ways to void his contract. He wouldn't just be told, "go away".

The internet legend of the guy's problems is amazing. You'd think he had "earned a 473 season" suspsenion from all of the evil things he's allegedly done.

thats more or less it, it's internet legend. Is Larry going to walk up to Jamaal and say 'Tinman, we're gonna suspend you for what's written on the internet'?
If there were to officially suspend Tins then they will need to have a good reason to. Surely what happened off the court more than a year ago can't be taken into account.

Country Boy
03-02-2009, 08:36 PM
See Bill's post.



Why do you think they've avoided it. If he's half the slimebag that everybody around here thinks he is, he'd be suspended and there would be numerous reasons to have the lawyers researching ways to void his contract. He wouldn't just be told, "go away, but we'll keep paying you".

The internet legend of the guy's problems is amazing. You'd think he had "earned a 473 season" suspsenion from all of the evil things he's allegedly done.


Jay, who's idea do you believe it is or was to pay Tins and tell him to stay away? Honestly, do you think Bird made this decision on his own? The Simon boys finally had it up to their ears with Pacer players running afoul of the law and put their collective foot down. Do you think they don't have the best lawyers that money can buy? Tins may have not shot anyone, however I believe that they have enough goods on him, some that is not public knowledge as of now, to make their case agianst him being around the team. You are trying to make the case for Tins without having all the facts of the case, whether you know it or not.

madison
03-02-2009, 10:24 PM
No one in the league wants the distraction that goes with having JT on a team, especially when the price for it is $21M. That's why TPTB didn't/couldn't trade him. He's not worth the trouble. Now, as his contract moves towards its termination date, he becomes tradable because someone may want his expiring contract but leave him in street clothes and out of the locker room. Give it another year, then he's tradable.

ChicagoJ
03-02-2009, 10:34 PM
You are trying to make the case for Tins without having all the facts of the case, whether you know it or not.

The same as everyone that is making the case against Tinsley is doing. I just happen to be enough of a contrarian to speak up for the other guy.

Not to mention that it seems to be a foregone conclusion that everything the Pacers have done regarding Tinsley is on the up-and-up. And I don't believe that for a second.

Doug
03-02-2009, 11:41 PM
If the rumors are even remotely true, the Pacers seem to be expecting far more than is reasonable in return for Tins. Are they? I really haven't seen any rumors where the Pacers turned down a reasonable offer for Tinsley.

And to me a reasonable offer is anybody with a equal contract or better, no matter what position, age. Nazr Mohammed or Shane Battier or Dan Gadzuric straight up, for example.

IMO, the Pacers shouldn't be expected to hurt the team just to get rid of Tinsley.

Anthem
03-03-2009, 12:47 AM
Are they? I really haven't seen any rumors where the Pacers turned down a reasonable offer for Tinsley.

And to me a reasonable offer is anybody with a equal contract or better, no matter what position, age. Nazr Mohammed or Shane Battier or Dan Gadzuric straight up, for example.

IMO, the Pacers shouldn't be expected to hurt the team just to get rid of Tinsley.
You wouldn't trade Foster straight up for Felton?

Will Galen
03-03-2009, 01:12 AM
You wouldn't trade Foster straight up for Felton?

Foster's a big, Felton's a 4th point guard. So as things stand now, no. Same before the deadline.

Jose Slaughter
03-03-2009, 02:19 AM
Ya know, I thought of a couple things while reading thru this thread.

First, Could the arbitrator say something like... Indiana, release him & continue to pay the man his contract as scheduled. Once he signs with another team, you're done paying.

Second, and I guess this is kinda directed at J but I think most will understand. Lets say you have an ice cream store. You've decided to clean up your ice cream store and make it more presentable for those in the neighborhood. You know, try to sell a little more ice cream. Well, I know how this is gonna sound but this is how I thought of it. If a dog keeps dumping by your front door... how many times do you clean up the "mess" before you do something about the dog?

naptownmenace
03-03-2009, 10:32 AM
Ya know, I thought of a couple things while reading thru this thread.

First, Could the arbitrator say something like... Indiana, release him & continue to pay the man his contract as scheduled. Once he signs with another team, you're done paying.


I doubt an arbitrator can alter the terms of the NBA collective bargaining agreement. That would definitely be in violation of the CBA, I I understand it correctly.

BillS
03-03-2009, 10:39 AM
I doubt an arbitrator can alter the terms of the NBA collective bargaining agreement. That would definitely be in violation of the CBA, I I understand it correctly.

Hmm, is that completely true? Depending on the power of the arbitration clause in the CBA, there might be more leeway there than we think.

I've seen arbitrators in sports bend contracts in all sorts of directions to get renegotiations and other non-contract actions done.

ChicagoJ
03-03-2009, 11:43 AM
how many times do you clean up the "mess" before you do something about the dog?

If he's actually done something that makes the contract voidable, they would not be so willing to pay for his "vacaction from basketball." They'd be fighting to get out of thier obligations to pay him.

Here's the crux of the issue: Tinsley has baggage. Clearly. But not at the Ron Artest or Stephen Jackson level, maybe more baggage than Jermaine.

But he's the last guy standing from the Pacers "Bad Person" era (our failed attempt at becoming the Bad Boys), so he's the scapegoat. They are making an example out of him because of the confluence of several factors: (a) they didn't respond quickly enough to make an example of out Ron or Stephen so they appeared "soft" for too long on discipline issues; (b) during an earlier era, repeated use (misuse) of The Star to print a series of lies to hide the non-criminal, but huge problems; (c) when they finally realized the tide of public sentiment had shifted, the real bad guys were gone; Remember the laughable "One Goal" ad campaign? Remember Walsh saying with a straight face, "We've really changed the roster this summer" when the two players everyone wanted gone - Tinsley and Jackson - were still on the roster. TPTB were badly out of touch and were struggling to figure out how to both fix the team and their bad reputation; (d) Trouble still found Tinsley way too often, even when he wasn't looking for it, and he ended up on the police blotter in a number of ways - bystander when Jackson fired his gun, victem of theft and accused of battery with charges that couldn't stick, chased around town by thugs, etc.; (e) they've overreacted about Tinsley to compensate for previous mistakes to placate a blood-thirsty crowd that was demanding "action". What is that, five wrongs? Do five wrongs make a right?

Am I glad they finally decided to get serious about discpline? Yes, its never too late even though it was waaayyy too late. Get rid of Tinsley, that's fine. There is plenty of justification for that. Its a universally-understood given, and it doesn't need to be discussed here/ again or these posts would be 437 paragraphs long. But you do that by buying him out or trading him (and it never hurts to showcase a player before you trade him, his value was never higher than it was in December 2007 when he was healthy and playing well - that is thier blown opportunity right there.)

The fact that he's still in the equation and arbitration is pending is just another sign that mangement doesn't "get it."

You see, Jose, in your example, you own the dog and the ice cream store. The dog is a mixed breed, but you bought him at a pet shop and paid a lot of money for it. And now you refuse to get rid of the dog unless somebody pays you top dollar for it, as if it were a purebred.

Are you really trying to revitalize the ice cream store, or are you trying to get top dollar for your dog? Because your actions are contradictory.

BillS
03-03-2009, 12:17 PM
You see, Jose, in your example, you own the dog and the ice cream store. The dog is a mixed breed, but you bought him at a pet shop and paid a lot of money for it. And now you refuse to get rid of the dog unless somebody pays you top dollar for it, as if it were a purebred.

Are you really trying to revitalize the ice cream store, or are you trying to get top dollar for your dog? Because your actions are contradictory.

I don't think they want a superstar, they just want something that won't be worse than what they have. Worst is that they pay Jamaal AND pay someone else at the same time. Currently, they pay Jamaal and (for practical purposes) have an empty roster slot. By not trading, they roll the dice to see if they can get something resembling a basketball player.

In other words, you're not trying to sell the dog for top dollar, you're just locking the dog in the back yard until you can get something other than a pork rind for it.

Anthem
03-03-2009, 12:20 PM
I don't think they want a superstar, they just want something that won't be worse than what they have. Worst is that they pay Jamaal AND pay someone else at the same time. Currently, they pay Jamaal and (for practical purposes) have an empty roster slot. By not trading, they roll the dice to see if they can get something resembling a basketball player.

In other words, you're not trying to sell the dog for top dollar, you're just locking the dog in the back yard until you can get something other than a pork rind for it.
Nazr Mohommed would have been a fine trade, then.

Bball
03-03-2009, 12:26 PM
Since none of us know exactly what each side is going to do or present in this case there's also the possibility that the Pacers feel they could have the goods to void Tinsley's contract but know that is an uphill climb no matter what the reason plus would not look good to the union and other players. So maybe they opted for this route instead.

Plus, if that happened that certainly would damage Tinsley's career, much more than what is happening now is (if it is at all).

So instead of thinking the Pacers are royally screwing the pooch (in keeping with the dog analogy! ;) ) it's also possible they are bending over backwards for Tinsley to avoid airing dirty laundry and a protracted union fight.

In any case, I continue to believe the Pacers have enough of a legal team that they didn't go down this road blindly and already have a good idea of what to expect and what is good for the franchise overall. And if keeping Tinsley away from the franchise is their decision then that speaks volumes to me (who believes Tinsley is problem child as much as Sjax, JO, or Artest ever was... and probably moreso). IMHO... of those guys, with whatever else Tinsley has for strikes against him, representing the Pacers with pride and dignity was also not high on his list.

-Bball

BillS
03-03-2009, 12:50 PM
Maybe Tinsley wasn't willing to take the videotaped Oath of Loyalty that they show at the beginning of the game, so he had to be purged.

count55
03-03-2009, 01:24 PM
Maybe Tinsley wasn't willing to take the videotaped Oath of Loyalty that they show at the beginning of the game, so he had to be purged.

Tinsley? Who is this Tinsley you speak of? There is no record of any Tinsley.

Speed
03-03-2009, 01:31 PM
I pledge to get as many "And One MFer"s as possible as an Indiana Pacer.
-------------
I'd even be for "And One MFer" night, give out T shirts, no one under the age of 17 permitted without being accompianied by a bad parent.

Better yet, NBA on a nationally televised game where JT is miked up. And One, BEEP BEEPer, HEY Thats a Beep Beeping BeepBeep call, man.

That's Turrible Kennay, turrible.

Kuq_e_Zi91
03-03-2009, 06:02 PM
There's a video of the "And 1 MFer" on youtube but I don't know if I can post it on here without an infraction.

It is hilarious, though.