PDA

View Full Version : Jamaal Tinsley: Arbitration Hearing Set



Trophy
05-19-2009, 08:34 PM
Date set July 27th.

http://www.nba.com/fantasy/fantasy_playernews.jsp#jamaal_tinsley

Something on nba.com I felt worth sharing with everyone.

Los Angeles
05-19-2009, 08:36 PM
That's great.

Hopefully we'll get a settlement (or at long shot it will go all the way to a ruling) before the start of next season.

Haggard
05-19-2009, 08:43 PM
its a shame it has come to this but this thing has gone on for far to long.. Lets hope this is sorted before next season.

Hicks
05-19-2009, 09:05 PM
Link didn't say anything about Tinsley when I clicked it. What is the date that was set?

Shade
05-19-2009, 09:06 PM
For some reason, my brain read "abortion" when I scanned the thread title. :lol: :blush:

MillerTime
05-19-2009, 09:07 PM
Link didn't say anything about Tinsley when I clicked it. What is the date that was set?


Update: An arbitration hearing between Tinsley and the Pacers has been set for July 27 in New York, the Indianapolis Star reports.

July 27th

MillerTime
05-19-2009, 09:07 PM
For some reason, my brain read "abortion" when I scanned the thread title. :lol: :blush:

:laugh:

Trophy
05-19-2009, 09:08 PM
Link didn't say anything about Tinsley when I clicked it. What is the date that was set?

July 27th.

If you go to nba.com and click on where it says players scroll down and you'll see on the right under player news click where it says Jamaal Tinsley: Arbitration Hearing Set.

NapTonius Monk
05-19-2009, 09:14 PM
I wonder if the Qatano trial will coincide with the arbitration?

Los Angeles
05-19-2009, 09:27 PM
I'm guessing the arb will last a day or so.

I just want everyone to realize that once it's over, arbitrators do not generally have a deadline to give a ruling. It can sometimes take months and months depending on the complexity of the case and the old farts' summer vacation schedules.

The nature of this case will get everyone begging for a fast ruling, but who knows.

Trophy
05-19-2009, 09:31 PM
This is very similar to the Stephon Marbury-New York Knicks case that went on. If I were Boston I would've signed Tinsley. If Bird heard word on if we bought him out they would take him, he would do it realizing that no one is willing to trade for him.

I just think he would make the better player for them and is a whole lot cheaper.

count55
05-19-2009, 09:35 PM
This is very similar to the Stephon Marbury-New York Knicks case that went on. If I were Boston I would've signed Tinsley. If Bird heard word on if we bought him out they would take him, he would do it realizing that no one is willing to trade for him.

I just think he would make the better player for them and is a whole lot cheaper.

Actually, it's really not particularly similar.

And...neither Bird nor the Simons are going to pay him to play somewhere else unless somebody puts a gun to their heads.

Trophy
05-19-2009, 09:39 PM
Actually, it's really not particularly similar.

And...neither Bird nor the Simons are going to pay him to play somewhere else unless somebody puts a gun to their heads.

A release? Bird and the Simons draw the line and stop paying him and he becomes a FA.

MillerTime
05-19-2009, 09:39 PM
Count maybe you could explain this:

If we buy him, will that salary count to our salary? If so, suppose we agree to buy Tinsley out for $15 million (for example) and he has about 2 more full seasons left on his contract, how will that $15 million be spread out over those 2 years on our books?

Does my question make sense?

LG33
05-19-2009, 09:49 PM
Actually, it's really not particularly similar.

And...neither Bird nor the Simons are going to pay him to play somewhere else unless somebody puts a gun to their heads.

It's a good thing Tinsley has guns then?

Trophy
05-19-2009, 09:51 PM
It's a good thing Tinsley has guns then?

:rotflmao:

Jose Slaughter
05-19-2009, 11:15 PM
Count maybe you could explain this:

If we buy him, will that salary count to our salary? If so, suppose we agree to buy Tinsley out for $15 million (for example) and he has about 2 more full seasons left on his contract, how will that $15 million be spread out over those 2 years on our books?

Does my question make sense?

The agreed to buy out amount is divided up evenly over the remaining years of the contract.

If the Pacers & Tins agree on a $10M buy out the Pacers would take a cap hit of $5M for the next two seasons.

I hope C55 corrects me if I'm wrong.

Will Galen
05-20-2009, 12:41 AM
According to ShamSports, Tinsley makes $7,200,000 next year and $7,650,000 the year after.

If we were forced to buy Tinsley out for 90% of his contract, which is the usual buyout. It would look like this.

$7,200,000
$7,650,000
------------
$14,850,000 minus 10% = $1,485,000 savings for the Pacers.

Spread evenly over the life of the contract, (2 years) we would save $745,000 both years.

That means Tinsley would be on the books for $6,682,500 for each of the remaining two years.

MyFavMartin
05-20-2009, 07:23 AM
I thought previous articles said the arbitration would be in June but now it is late July.

Is it better to have it after the draft and start of FA or before?

count55
05-20-2009, 08:07 AM
A release? Bird and the Simons draw the line and stop paying him and he becomes a FA.

He has a guaranteed contract. If we released him, we'd owe him the full amount, just like with James White.

Any buyout would result in us effectively paying for him to play somewhere else.


It's a good thing Tinsley has guns then?

While it's a strong possibility that he, like many others have guns, to be fair to Tinsley, I don't recall him ever being involved in an incident where he had a gun. The fact that he couldn't figure out a way to stay on the floor is enough for me to want him out of here, I don't think we need to be loose with other charges. (Plus, I find the *****ing about inaccurate charges from the few remaining JT dead enders to be every bit as annoying as not knowing whether Droopy was going to play from one night to the next.)

Besides, having a gun hardly makes him a bad guy. You have to remember that the old ABA Pacers (Mel, Roger, etc) used to dress up like cowboys and ride horses out at Mel's "ranch". They included six-shooters and holsters in their outfits, and you could walk into the Pacer locker room before games and see an arsenal arrayed on the wall.


Count maybe you could explain this:

If we buy him, will that salary count to our salary? If so, suppose we agree to buy Tinsley out for $15 million (for example) and he has about 2 more full seasons left on his contract, how will that $15 million be spread out over those 2 years on our books?

Does my question make sense?


The agreed to buy out amount is divided up evenly over the remaining years of the contract.

If the Pacers & Tins agree on a $10M buy out the Pacers would take a cap hit of $5M for the next two seasons.

I hope C55 corrects me if I'm wrong.


According to ShamSports, Tinsley makes $7,200,000 next year and $7,650,000 the year after.

If we were forced to buy Tinsley out for 90% of his contract, which is the usual buyout. It would look like this.

$7,200,000
$7,650,000
------------
$14,850,000 minus 10% = $1,485,000 savings for the Pacers.

Spread evenly over the life of the contract, (2 years) we would save $745,000 both years.

That means Tinsley would be on the books for $6,682,500 for each of the remaining two years.

These answers are close, but not quite right. The buyout amount replaces the contract amount for cap purposes, but it takes on the same timing as the contract.

Therefore, in Jose's example, our cap hit would be $4,848 in 2010, and $5,152 in 2011. In Will's example, we would save $720,000 in 2010 and $765,000 in 2011.

Though I'm sure there will be disagreement, and I am no expert, I still find it pretty unlikely that the arbitrator will force a buyout or waiver. Billy Hunter himself acknowledged that the Pacers were probably not violating the contract. I also find it impractical to force a trade.

IMO, it is far more likely that the Pacers will be forced to grant Jamaal access to all team facilities and services. But, what do I know. I guess we'll all find out sometime in August.

BTW...I also think the arbitration hearing makes it pretty unlikely that people will trade for Tinsley prior to the results. Most teams will probably wait to see if, in fact, the Pacers are sever ties so they can try to pick him up on the cheap. I find it unlikely that there will be a bidding war.

Jonathan
05-20-2009, 08:26 AM
I thought previous articles said the arbitration would be in June but now it is late July.

Is it better to have it after the draft and start of FA or before?

I believe it is better for the Pacer organization to have this down ASAP because with the Tinsley situation in limbo it slows down progress. I really hope the Pacers can trade him b4 JULY but if you were another team's GM wouldn't you wait to pull the trigger to see what the arbitrator rules?

Jonathan
05-20-2009, 08:28 AM
Count 55 -Tinsley had a licensed gun in his SUV after he was pulled over after the Club Rio incident.

count55
05-20-2009, 08:52 AM
Count 55 -Tinsley had a licensed gun in his SUV after he was pulled over after the Club Rio incident.

OK...I didn't recall that. My apologies for the earlier response. At this point, I can't remember what actually happened and what was innuendo...

I'm just tired...so tired.

ABADays
05-20-2009, 08:57 AM
You have to remember that the old ABA Pacers (Mel, Roger, etc) used to dress up like cowboys and ride horses out at Mel's "ranch". They included six-shooters and holsters in their outfits

Really? Where were the strip clubs?

count55
05-20-2009, 09:14 AM
Really? Where were the strip clubs?

I don't know...was the Red Garter around back then?

I'm pretty sure they spent a fair amount of time at Neto's.

Tom White
05-20-2009, 10:37 AM
You have to remember that the old ABA Pacers (Mel, Roger, etc) used to dress up like cowboys and ride horses out at Mel's "ranch". They included six-shooters and holsters in their outfits, and you could walk into the Pacer locker room before games and see an arsenal arrayed on the wall.



Yeah, but they needed those to protect themselves from Slick and his hockey stick.

:laugh:

ChicagoJ
05-20-2009, 10:52 AM
I don't know...was the Red Garter around back then?

According to Springsteen it was definitely there by '78. Not sure about the ABA era.

http://www.brucebase.org.uk/gig1978.htm#12

count55
05-20-2009, 10:59 AM
According to Springsteen it was definitely there by '78. Not sure about the ABA era.

http://www.brucebase.org.uk/gig1978.htm#12

A friend of mine and I saw him in a solo acoustic show years ago, and he talked somewhat extensively about visiting the Red Garter.

PacerGuy
05-20-2009, 11:34 AM
Though I'm sure there will be disagreement, and I am no expert, I still find it pretty unlikely that the arbitrator will force a buyout or waiver. Billy Hunter himself acknowledged that the Pacers were probably not violating the contract. I also find it impractical to force a trade.

IMO, it is far more likely that the Pacers will be forced to grant Jamaal access to all team facilities and services. But, what do I know. I guess we'll all find out sometime in August.

BTW...I also think the arbitration hearing makes it pretty unlikely that people will trade for Tinsley prior to the results. Most teams will probably wait to see if, in fact, the Pacers are sever ties so they can try to pick him up on the cheap. I find it unlikely that there will be a bidding war.

I tend to agree w/ count here on several points, & will go a bit further...

-I agree that there is little-to-no chance the arbitrator will force a buyout, nor find reason to void the contract, but I do think he could suggest to both sides that a buyout would be in everyones best interest.

-I too do not see any team willing to make a move on JT until this case is settled. The results will help clearify the bargining position that both we & Jammall have. If we "win" & things stay as status quo, then JT has some decisions to make, & it might be more likely he will accept less to get a buyout rather then sit for 2 more yrs. If JT "wins" & we have to let him "join the team" (participate in practice, be on the sidelines) then we will likely have to pay more $ (close to all) or accept less/ accept a higher degree of c**p in return to move him. If the answer is as count suggest, something I too think is likely, I think will I still lose bargining position, but not as much. Bottom line is any result other then the status quo increases the likelihood of a buyout & makes it less likely anyone will trade fo JT & that contract (IMO).

-If a buyout happens, the results of this hearing will set the price. As stated above, a status quo makes it more likely JT accepts a buyout, & more likely we play hardball to get a "good price". My guess would be (if we "win") we will lowball hard, but would do something in the 8-10mil range. That would save us +/- 5-7 mil (2.5-3.5/yr) & place us in a buch better position this yr & next. JT will need to think that if he does not get on the floor t/y, he is likely playing his last contract in the NBA. If he were to take 8-10 mil, & get w/ a new team t/y (likely for the min.) he would have a chance to rebuild his rep & value for the 2010 off season, when all these teams will have $ to spend, but not enough FA's to spend it on. If he could show something, esp on a team that wins, he could land a contract for 3-4 yrs in the range of 4 mil-MLE'ish, he would be much better off over the long haul (low end 21+ mil vs the 15 by staying put).

IMO, I am starting to smell buyout more & more as time goes on.
I think the Pacers want & need that cap space (esp n/y), & taking back comparible contracts doe not help in that cause. That, & the Pacers want to build on the momentum they are currently riding. If they could get further under the cap to get a player that could really help us, they would have to do it. An extra 1.5-2.5 mil (or more) savings t/y could be the difference in getting "that guy" that fills out this core.

Just my thoughts...

beast23
05-20-2009, 12:13 PM
If the Pacers win the arbitration and are allowed to keep Tinsley in exile, I don't believe the Pacers will make a buyout offer at all.

Instead, I believe that they will inform Tinsley and his agent that if Jamaal wishes to resume his career that they are free to seek an offer from another team. Then if the offer is high enough, the Pacers choose whether they want to buy Tinsley out for the difference between his offer and his present salary. If the difference is still to high for the Pacers, then they tell him he can continue sitting or make concessions himself to lower the Pacers buyout down to a more desirable level.

If the Pacers were extremely lucky, maybe they can come up with a way to get compensated with a 2nd round draft choice from the other team in some sort of secondary deal using a non-guaranteed player.

ChicagoJ
05-20-2009, 12:31 PM
A friend of mine and I saw him in a solo acoustic show years ago, and he talked somewhat extensively about visiting the Red Garter.

He mentioned it again during the 2008 concert at Conseco Fieldhouse.

"The Red Garter!! Its still there! How??"

"And Candy!! She's still there..."

Anthem
05-20-2009, 12:37 PM
If the answer is as count suggest, something I too think is likely, I think will I still lose bargining position, but not as much.
"I" lose bargaining position?

Larry, is that you?

PacerGuy
05-20-2009, 12:58 PM
"I" lose bargaining position?

Larry, is that you?

:blush:
BUSTED!



;)

Los Angeles
05-20-2009, 12:59 PM
I tend to agree w/ count here on several points, & will go a bit further...

-I agree that there is little-to-no chance the arbitrator will force a buyout, nor find reason to void the contract, but I do think he could suggest to both sides that a buyout would be in everyones best interest.

-I too do not see any team willing to make a move on JT until this case is settled. The results will help clearify the bargining position that both we & Jammall have. If we "win" & things stay as status quo, then JT has some decisions to make, & it might be more likely he will accept less to get a buyout rather then sit for 2 more yrs. If JT "wins" & we have to let him "join the team" (participate in practice, be on the sidelines) then we will likely have to pay more $ (close to all) or accept less/ accept a higher degree of c**p in return to move him. If the answer is as count suggest, something I too think is likely, I think will I still lose bargining position, but not as much. Bottom line is any result other then the status quo increases the likelihood of a buyout & makes it less likely anyone will trade fo JT & that contract (IMO).

-If a buyout happens, the results of this hearing will set the price. As stated above, a status quo makes it more likely JT accepts a buyout, & more likely we play hardball to get a "good price". My guess would be (if we "win") we will lowball hard, but would do something in the 8-10mil range. That would save us +/- 5-7 mil (2.5-3.5/yr) & place us in a buch better position this yr & next. JT will need to think that if he does not get on the floor t/y, he is likely playing his last contract in the NBA. If he were to take 8-10 mil, & get w/ a new team t/y (likely for the min.) he would have a chance to rebuild his rep & value for the 2010 off season, when all these teams will have $ to spend, but not enough FA's to spend it on. If he could show something, esp on a team that wins, he could land a contract for 3-4 yrs in the range of 4 mil-MLE'ish, he would be much better off over the long haul (low end 21+ mil vs the 15 by staying put).

IMO, I am starting to smell buyout more & more as time goes on.
I think the Pacers want & need that cap space (esp n/y), & taking back comparible contracts doe not help in that cause. That, & the Pacers want to build on the momentum they are currently riding. If they could get further under the cap to get a player that could really help us, they would have to do it. An extra 1.5-2.5 mil (or more) savings t/y could be the difference in getting "that guy" that fills out this core.

Just my thoughts...

While history, policies and case law might support any of these scenarios, also keep in mind that arbitrators are generally known for waffling and compromising even when one side has clearly lost.

"We side with you, but we're splitting the difference and giving you half of what you're asking for" is such a common ruling, I should get an armband tattoo of it. That way I can have something to point at whenever a client gets cocky during an arb.

count55
05-20-2009, 01:10 PM
While history, policies and case law might support any of these scenarios, also keep in mind that arbitrators are generally known for waffling and compromising even when one side has clearly lost.

"We side with you, but we're splitting the difference and giving you have of what you're asking for" is such a common ruling, I should get an armband tattoo of it. That way I can have something to point at whenever a client gets cocky during an arb.

Nothing hammers this home more than the definition of arbitrary.


1. subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision.
2. decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute.
3. having unlimited power; uncontrolled or unrestricted by law; despotic; tyrannical: an arbitrary government.
4. capricious; unreasonable; unsupported: an arbitrary demand for payment.

ABADays
05-20-2009, 01:48 PM
According to Springsteen it was definitely there by '78. Not sure about the ABA era.

http://www.brucebase.org.uk/gig1978.htm#12

It was.

count55
05-20-2009, 02:11 PM
It was.

At least, that's what you heard...right?

Naptown_Seth
05-20-2009, 02:27 PM
A release? Bird and the Simons draw the line and stop paying him and he becomes a FA.
A release means being sent to waivers. If a player lasts on the waiver wire without being claimed for a set period of time, which varies based on time of year (in season vs off season, typically a week), then that player becomes a free agent and the waiving team MUST PAY HIS FULL CONTRACT OUT. This is regardless of him being signed by a new team.

However, if a player is claimed from waivers then his contract moves to the new team and the waiving team is relieved of financial and cap responsibility.

For obvious reasons players are only claimed off of waivers in the rare case that their value vs contract is so high that a team feels as though it is in direct competition to get the player at that rate and they are willing to take on that extra financial responsibility.

Normally you can sign the guy for much cheaper after he's cleared, so why rush out to help the waiving team get off the hook and cost yourself extra money. That player is getting paid by the waiving team and is therefore more willing to sign dirt cheap.

A trade exception space can be used to take on the existing contract of a waived player, whereas that same space cannot be used to create a new contract, ie sign a free agent. So perhaps if you had a big TE but no other space for free agent signings, then grabbing a waiver guy is huge. Effectively that would be basically the same as one of those dummy trades where the rights to a non-NBA guy are swapped for the other player because the team simply wants to get out of the contract.

The Pacers have been looking for that team for a long time now. They don't exist. A waived Tinsley would cost the Pacers 100% of the contract and Tins would then get paid by a new team too.

Tins will only play for another team if his contract runs out, he agrees to a really cheap buyout, or the Pacers are forced to accept some moderate buyout from the arbitrator.

Tinsley's worth to the Pacers is only the small PCT of his deal they hope to remove from their books.


The Pacers used a TE space to take on Orien Greene's contract from waivers, removing it from Boston's books.

beast23
05-20-2009, 02:36 PM
At least, that's what you heard...right?

I can assure you the Red Garter dates back to at least 1974. At that time, it was on the site of the present Westin hotel, next to Loughmiller's. Conveniently located across the street from the State Capitol.

Candy was not one of the dancers, she was a mid-50s unkempt old hag that was treated by everyone like one would treat a mascot. One of her tricks once she delivered drinks was to tuck some unlucky chaps head under her sweatshirt. According to a friend who was the guest of honor at a bachelor's party, that was an experience that absolutely no one should have to endure.

In the mid- to late 80s, the Garter sold its former site for a nice chunk of change and the Najem family relocated it to its present site.

Naptown_Seth
05-20-2009, 02:47 PM
If they could get further under the cap
People keep saying this as though Dunleavy and Murphy left the team somehow. Forget the cap, forget FAs other than mid-level exception deals (and those are iffy).

The Pacers are up against the hard cap almost, ie the lux tax limit. They want to clear space just to stay safely clear of tax, and along that same line a small bump with the Tins deal could be what helps resign J Jack.

aceace
05-20-2009, 03:31 PM
I honestly don't see where Tinsley has a leg to stand on here. The Pacers could just park his arse at the end of the bench and not play him. I am sure he will be traded this summer having only 2 years now. How can you make a team buy someone out so they can go sign a contract elsewhere.

d_c
05-20-2009, 03:44 PM
I honestly don't see where Tinsley has a leg to stand on here. The Pacers could just park his arse at the end of the bench and not play him.

Agreed, but the problem is that the Pacers haven't been doing that. They've been preventing him from sitting at the end of the bench, entering the arena, going to practice, getting treatment from the training staff, etc...

If they had been doing all those things and just sat him at the end of the bench during games, then Tinsley would have no case and this wouldn't even be going to arbitration at all.

billbradley
05-20-2009, 04:30 PM
if there is a judgment in the area of either let tinsley use facilities and sit on the bench or trade/buyout, would anyone object to tinsley playing away preseason games, or all of them to showcase something tangible? or can you lend a player to another summer league team? and if not could the pacers request that tinsley be allowed to play for an interested teams summer league squad? im reaching for anything to prove tinsley can still play because a trade would be the best thing for everyone

Pacers
05-20-2009, 04:58 PM
I'd LOVE to see Tinsley out there playing 48 minutes a game in the preseason. Every minute; every game. Then have him run laps all practice and tell him that he can go home whenever he wants. Then don't dress him and parade him out in street clothes to sit down by the water boys. If there's a way they could make him be one of those guys that mops up the sweat when players fall, do it.

We're not getting any team to trade for him (at least not until next year as an expiring), and we're not getting out of his salary, so you might as well get some entertainment out of him.

Count, is there any way the arb could say, "Pacers have to pay Tinsley all his money from the contract right now, but it is taken off the cap number"? Does he have that sort of power?

Los Angeles
05-20-2009, 06:40 PM
Agreed, but the problem is that the Pacers haven't been doing that. They've been preventing him from sitting at the end of the bench, entering the arena, going to practice, getting treatment from the training staff, etc...

If they had been doing all those things and just sat him at the end of the bench during games, then Tinsley would have no case and this wouldn't even be going to arbitration at all.

I think they may have been weighing risks: legal risk of denying these things vs. risk to the team's chemistry by doing what you suggest. I can imagine how disruptive it would be to have your former PG sit on the bench sulking and pulling the spirit of the team down. And when I imagine that, I can also imagine that taking his name off the locker was the safer choice.

speakout4
05-20-2009, 08:19 PM
Does anyone know how JT spent the season? Did he work out and keep in shape or did he just sit and get fat? If the latter he may just get use to sitting and getting $7M. I am not sure he even cares whether he plays or not. Extending himself physically, particularly unsupervised and without teammates present, was not one of his attributes.

It is not easy to figure out what makes him tick.

billbradley
05-20-2009, 08:36 PM
Does anyone know how JT spent the season? Did he work out and keep in shape or did he just sit and get fat? If the latter he may just get use to sitting and getting $7M. I am not sure he even cares whether he plays or not. Extending himself physically, particularly unsupervised and without teammates present, was not one of his attributes.

It is not easy to figure out what makes him tick.

i'm sure he's fine with not working even if it is playing basketball. however given the level of intelligence he's represented thus far, i'm willing to bet he's already borrowed beyond the money that's left in his contract and needs to continue working after these two seasons.

but who knows maybe he saves all his money and has zero debt and owns very reasonable items :rolleyes:

Anthem
05-20-2009, 10:24 PM
Does anyone know how JT spent the season? Did he work out and keep in shape or did he just sit and get fat? If the latter he may just get use to sitting and getting $7M. I am not sure he even cares whether he plays or not. Extending himself physically, particularly unsupervised and without teammates present, was not one of his attributes.
The word was (from non-Pacer sources) that he was in excellent shape and ready to play.

I get that people dislike the kid, but it's not as if he doesn't know how work out. He's done quite well for himself "unsupervised and without teammates present." His problems have nothing to do with knowing how to work out in the (extended, in his case) offseason.

Pacerized
05-20-2009, 10:32 PM
I honestly don't see where Tinsley has a leg to stand on here. The Pacers could just park his arse at the end of the bench and not play him. I am sure he will be traded this summer having only 2 years now. How can you make a team buy someone out so they can go sign a contract elsewhere.


I agree with you 100%. The argument that he has any right under contract to anything other then his salary is paper thin. I can't even believe that the union is willing to take this to arbitration when there's been no violation of the cba. I think the odds of a positive outcome for the Pacers are very high.

CableKC
05-21-2009, 01:19 AM
IMO, I am starting to smell buyout more & more as time goes on.
I think the Pacers want & need that cap space (esp n/y), & taking back comparible contracts doe not help in that cause. That, & the Pacers want to build on the momentum they are currently riding. If they could get further under the cap to get a player that could really help us, they would have to do it. An extra 1.5-2.5 mil (or more) savings t/y could be the difference in getting "that guy" that fills out this core.

Just my thoughts...
I disagree here......I think that TPTB are doing their best not to buy him out and was hoping to move Tinsley for any Contract that is ( at worst ) equal or less. I totally understand the reason why the Pacers do not want to buy him out and are hoping for a trade.....buying out a player essentially lowers your SalaryCap and will ultimately further erode what little flexibility that we have to make any future trades/FA signings....which is the only way that we will stay competitive for the next 2 season before MurphLeavy/Foster/Ford comes off the books.

I would much rather get back a Player with a comprable contract ( 2 years at a total of $14 mil ) that we ( at least ) have the option to move....instead of buying out Tinsley at $10-12 mil and essentially having a "dead" contract sit on our books affecting our Salarycap that we can't do anything about.

I'm hoping that the Arbitrator does what count55 suggests....simply open up the facilities to Tinsley.....which I think is a "best case scenario". But I suspect that we will encounter the "worst case scenario" and be forced into some buyout. I'm not sure if the Arbitrator can force the FO to accept whatever buyout amount that Tinsley and his lawyer is asking for......but I'm guessing and hoping that IF it comes to it....that it's a fair amount for the Pacers.

able
05-21-2009, 07:18 AM
I've been silent long enough on this, read your opinions and swallow:

1. Pacers have violated the standard NBA contract with a player and the CBA not once but a full season long.
They have not given him access to all those facilities of which most are mentioned in the cba and which is why a large part of CFH is just that; training facility.
2. Pacers have seriously undermined his earning capacity in years to come in a way that is "vindictive" to say the least, and essentially have curved the cba (circumvented) by actually suspending him with pay, paying him to avoid the trouble of losing an appeal on whjy they would suspend him in the 1st place.
3. As the latest remnant of the Pacers of the past years, he is now made the blackest sheep on the squad, all without cause and without a shread of evidence, FFS he was shot AT, not the one shooting, like some players we had, and those we treated better.
4. Based upon the fact that the Pacers have circumvented the CBA they can not now, in arbitration, call upon reasons for a possible suspension as justifiable means to the outcome of the arbitration, in other words they have made their bed and will have to sleep in it, no matter how bad JT has been behind closed doors, they chose NOT to use that avenue, now they can not use it's arguments.
5. Arbitration is something that is described in the cba, as well as in the unifiorm player contracts, if the arbitrator decides he is qualified to rule (which will be the first question) you can count on the fact that the Pacers as well as JT are bound by his/her ruling.

Based upon the hard fact that the Pacers have treated JT over the past year as they have by telling him to stay away, they will find little understanding from an arbitrator, legally if yout want to achieve one thing within the confines of the law(contract + cba) you either stick to the law or take a chance on being slapped on the wrist at least.
This is also the main reason the union wanted this ruling, like in the case of Marbury, they can not allow owners to pull these stunts, next you know it they can suspend players effectively without due course or fair hearing and appeal options, not gonna happen.

I can not predict the outcome of the arbitration, but i can tell you this:
JT will not be "forced to play in the nbdl or overseas"
JT will not be made to clean the toilets
JT will not be "riding the end of the bench" next year

Most likely the ruling will have several items, as in; you can not deny they suspended him this year with pay but still, a move likely to be judged going againt the ruling principle of the UPC and the CBA, so that is 1-0 to JT
The likely next conclusion will be that it has become clear that maintaining the contract is not a tennable situation, therefore it is best for both parties to end that contract, since according to contract and the cba the financial outcome of the contract is guaranteed, there will have to be compensation for termination.

Pacesr will probably have to say grace a million times if the arbitrator rules that JT has to accept any less then 100%

If it is less then 100% then the number is dependant on how bad the arbitrator thinks the Pacers have violated the spirit of the CBA.

Los Angeles
05-21-2009, 12:13 PM
While I have a few nit-picks with minor issues in your post, able, I still commend you for providing an excellent counter-balance in the discussion.

d_c
05-21-2009, 01:12 PM
The only thing I can say is that there is some gray area in this situation where Tinsley has a case, at least to some extent. If he has no case at all, why is this going to arbitration in the first place? It would have been settled by the league very quickly if that was the case.

This is an unprecedented situation. I don't remember the last time a team told a player to stay away from the team, the practice facility and the arena altogether. There is some gray area that might not be clearly defined enough in the CBA and that's why an arbitrator has been called in.

RWB
05-21-2009, 01:27 PM
I do wonder if anything was written up by HR before this final incident like a written warning about Tinsley's behavior. We know managment apparently had spoken verbally with the players about things, but how far did they really go and what consequences were explained to the player?

Los Angeles
05-21-2009, 01:31 PM
The only thing I can say is that there is some gray area in this situation where Tinsley has a case, at least to some extent. If he has no case at all, why is this going to arbitration in the first place? It would have been settled by the league very quickly if that was the case.

This is an unprecedented situation. I don't remember the last time a team told a player to stay away from the team, the practice facility and the arena altogether. There is some gray area that might not be clearly defined enough in the CBA and that's why an arbitrator has been called in.

Actually, the only one with the power to say he has no case at all is the arbitrator. The league cannot throw out grievances at their own whim, without both parties coming to an agreement, arbitration is a necessary step regardless of the merits.

Putnam
05-21-2009, 01:57 PM
What I find most striking in Abel's post is this:


4. Based upon the fact that the Pacers have circumvented the CBA they can not now, in arbitration, call upon reasons for a possible suspension as justifiable means to the outcome of the arbitration, in other words they have made their bed and will have to sleep in it, no matter how bad JT has been behind closed doors, they chose NOT to use that avenue, now they can not use it's arguments.

I believe this, as far and the law and the legal process goes. But I wonder if the Pacers aren't going to be tempted to appeal to the court of public opinion.

If the complaint againt Tinsley is ordinary, the Pacers are going to be hard pressed to justify their extraordinary actions against the player. But if the reasons involve any criminal activity or threat of criminal action by Tinsley, then the NBA and the arbitrator might find it difficult to find in his favor.

Los Angeles
05-21-2009, 02:07 PM
I want to posit a few questions:

1) What's the worst possible thing that could happen to the Pacers? My best guess: that they have to pay Jamaal the money they already owe him anyway. [edit] but don't get anything back by way of a trade.

2) What's the worst that can happen to Jamaal? The Pacers never find a trading partner and Jamaal has to start from scratch once he's finally released into the world.

But here's a critical 3rd question:

3) What's the worst that can happen to the Players Union and therefore all players? This makes it all the way to a ruling and the Pacers win. We now have an established set of conditions that act as precedent. Now any player that fits within loosely similar situations can be blackballed. Uh Oh. But don't fear too much, but this situation pretty much lasts as long as the current CBA. Look for a whole new section in the next CBA that will try to work out the "ifs and thens". It could very well be called the Tinsley rule.

Can a butterfly wing create a thunderstorm? I don't know.

gph
05-21-2009, 02:54 PM
Able-

the only large complaint I have with your post is that we don't know if the Pacers denied access to Tinsley from the facilities. More importantly, the Pacers could have "banned him" by making him unwelcome or going so far as to be negative in comments-but, you will note in the similar case of Steve McNair from the NFL-the Titans didn't get called to the carpet until they physically barred him from the facility-and put security on notice to prevent entry/remove him.

If the Pacers didn't do something similar, nor notify him in writing that he wasn't allowed at the facilities, they didn't deny access. You can most certainly say, "we would prefer you came nowhere near the facilities as we are hoping to trade you-you will be paid, that ok?" and make it clear that they don't want him, without denying him access and thus staying within the letter of the CBA. I do seem to recall an article where his agent said he had been "banned" but I don't believe he said that he was denied access. I assume the Pacers wouldn't be dumb enough to bar him forcefully or in writing from the facilities.

Arbitration will decide, but that seems to be where the Pacers are falling on the issue.

I really don't remember reading of Tinsley being removed or having a in-person stare down or receiving any letters instructing him to stay away or risk being removed, but I could be mistaken.

I think you are spot on to mention that they seem to be interfering in his right to work, which I would argue the CBA already does. Regardless of that opinion of mine, I think this might be the crux of Tinsley's case that has legal merit.

I assume the Pacers will counter-argue that they are happy to release Tinsley, assuming he agrees to it, and allow him to pursue new employment. That gives the Pacers what they want-no more payments on the contract, and gives Tinsley free agency ala Derek Fisher and the Jazz.

So, while technically both sides can agree to a release, versus a waiver, and void the contract-I just don't see Tinsley doling that with more than the mid level remaining. Too much incentive to fight it out and take the money. Unless you believe he can get more than the mid-level, or could get a multi year deal at the mid to offset the money lost. I don't, because of his time out of basketball.

On the other hand, by now the CBA could have closed the derek fisher loophole.

PacerDude
05-21-2009, 03:02 PM
My feeling is that the Pacers have consulted with legal types on this and have something that justifies their actions here. I doubt that they would be doing all this in defiance.

It certainly will be interesting to see how the arbitration plays out.

count55
05-21-2009, 03:07 PM
I think there's little doubt that the Pacers told Jamaal that he wasn't welcome at the facilities. Jamaal probably said OK, and never tested it, so it's unlikely there was ever any physical confrontation.

PacerDude
05-21-2009, 03:16 PM
I think there's little doubt that the Pacers told Jamaal that he wasn't welcome at the facilities. Jamaal probably said OK, and never tested it, so it's unlikely there was ever any physical confrontation.And it could very well be as simple as that.

I'd do an awful lot of nothing for 7+mill a year.

Los Angeles
05-21-2009, 03:18 PM
And it could very well be as simple as that.

I'd do an awful lot of nothing for 7+mill a year.

You don't need $7 million to do nothing. Look at my cousin. He's broke, don't do s***.

http://www.zvents.com/images/internal/8/6/2/4/img_64268_primary.jpg

d_c
05-21-2009, 03:19 PM
I think there's little doubt that the Pacers told Jamaal that he wasn't welcome at the facilities. Jamaal probably said OK, and never tested it, so it's unlikely there was ever any physical confrontation.

And he was probably just fine with that because he was fairly confident, just like the Pacers, that a trade would eventually be worked out and he'd be on his way playing for some other team.

Once everyone realized that the trade oppurtunities had dried up and the deadline passed with no movement, then that's probably when he and his agent decided to file a grievance.

able
05-21-2009, 03:33 PM
LA, as far as worst case goes, spot on, and that is why that is not likely to happen and as far as worst for Pacers goes that would be that they are forced to release JT immediately (forget buyout)
Worst for JT in fact = worst case scenario.

GPH it is clear and beyond a doubt that they have demanded he stay away from the team and the facilities, it has been mentioned several times all over the place and once that is done, a physical confrontation is not a required.

Pacerdude, you forget one far more simple scenario, they took the risk, assuming they could move him before the deadline.
As soon as you say (and they, in front of an arbitrator) (for putnam too) this behaviour or these actions are our grounds to justify our actions, you admit you were circumventing the agreement as in the contract and the cba, in that case you are in most cases laughed out of the room.

Finally d_c the case was brought forward well before the deadline, and on instignation by both Tinsley and the Union.

Los Angeles
05-21-2009, 03:43 PM
able, I'm pretty sure that the Pacers will walk in guns blazing with several stories of Jamaal failing to hold up his end of the contract first. The best defense is often a well crafted bludgeoning offense.

This will be a sealed proceeding and I'm saddened yet resigned to the fact that none of us will ever know the full story or if there even is a story beyond what we read in the blotter.

count55
05-21-2009, 03:50 PM
I only mentioned physical confrontation because of the McNair scenario that was brought up in the earlier post. I did not mean to imply one was necessary.

Pacers
05-21-2009, 04:08 PM
Count, maybe you missed this Q, but can the arbitrator rule on what money does and doesn't count against the salary cap? Is he given that sort of power?

count55
05-21-2009, 04:19 PM
Count, maybe you missed this Q, but can the arbitrator rule on what money does and doesn't count against the salary cap? Is he given that sort of power?

I don't know for sure.

There are decisions he could make that could change the cap number, but it would have to be through changing the actual contract.

An extreme example (which will not happen) would be if he ruled in favor of the Pacers and voided Tinsley's contract. That would change the cap number.

If he were to order a buyout for less than the contract owed (most likely, NPV of the future payments), it could reduce the cap number.

However, I don't think he has the power to decide what does and does not count against the cap.

ChicagoJ
05-21-2009, 04:23 PM
able, I'm pretty sure that the Pacers will walk in guns blazing with several stories of Jamaal failing to hold up his end of the contract first. The best defense is often a well crafted bludgeoning offense.

"Your Honor, the following is our list of grievances against Jamaal. Yes, we know the CBA actually has a procedure for grievances and suspensions such as these, but we wanted to do it our way."

Good luck with that.

If that's thier opener, they'll be buying out Jamaal at 100% AND making a large "contribution" (fine) to the charity of the NBPA's choosing. This makes Cuban with his outrageous stunts look like a conformist in comparison.

owl
05-21-2009, 04:36 PM
Pacerdude, you forget one far more simple scenario, they took the risk, assuming they could move him before the deadline.
As soon as you say (and they, in front of an arbitrator) (for putnam too) this behaviour or these actions are our grounds to justify our actions, you admit you were circumventing the agreement as in the contract and the cba, in that case you are in most cases laughed out of the room..


Your above statement makes no sense. They believe they had grounds to suspend him.
That is not circumventing any agreement.
Bottom line is the Pacers obviously felt Tinsley was a hazard to the organization.
Who knows who is following Tinsley around waiting to shoot him up.
I am sure that would go over well in Conseco and basically doom this franchise for
sure at least in Indiana.

Los Angeles
05-21-2009, 04:39 PM
"Your Honor, the following is our list of grievances against Jamaal. Yes, we know the CBA actually has a procedure for grievances and suspensions such as these, but we wanted to do it our way."

Good luck with that.

If that's thier opener, they'll be buying out Jamaal at 100% AND making a large "contribution" (fine) to the charity of the NBPA's choosing. This makes Cuban with his outrageous stunts look like a conformist in comparison.

Hey, I haven't read a single brief or watched a single deposition. I'm just spitballing here.

More spitballing: what if it's not an according-to-hoyle grievance? asking him to stay away for his own safety sounds like something that wouldn't be black-and-white in the CBA. Is there a section in there when your disabled equipment manager wants your point guard to go to hell in a handbag and the team is bound to draw lines and take sides? What system is set up for that scenario?

PacerDude
05-21-2009, 05:00 PM
Pacerdude, you forget one far more simple scenario, they took the risk, assuming they could move him before the deadline.
As soon as you say (and they, in front of an arbitrator) (for putnam too) this behaviour or these actions are our grounds to justify our actions, you admit you were circumventing the agreement as in the contract and the cba, in that case you are in most cases laughed out of the room.Do we know what the wording is in the contract ??

I would guess there are various clauses that might pertain to this. Then again - maybe not. Until we have a copy of his contract in our hands, it's all speculation.

Hicks
05-21-2009, 05:06 PM
There's some fascinating arguments from both sides on this. I'll leave that to better able posters than myself.

I will say this: I highly doubt the Indiana Pacers are doing this just to do it. I truly believe they feel justified in what they are doing, and when you consider how they DIDN'T do this kind of thing with the other "whipping boys," I think that suggests a lot about Tinsley, and not in a good way.

I will also say this: Surely the Simons aren't stupid enough to allow this to happen without feeling at least moderately secure that what they're doing is something they can justify with whomever they might need to justify it with.

Los Angeles
05-21-2009, 05:22 PM
There's some fascinating arguments from both sides on this. I'll leave that to better able posters than myself.

I will say this: I highly doubt the Indiana Pacers are doing this just to do it. I truly believe they feel justified in what they are doing, and when you consider how they DIDN'T do this kind of thing with the other "whipping boys," I think that suggests a lot about Tinsley, and not in a good way.

I will also say this: Surely the Simons aren't stupid enough to allow this to happen without feeling at least moderately secure that what they're doing is something they can justify with whomever they might need to justify it with.

While the old adage "where there's smoke, there is fire" comes to mind, let's be careful not to condemn Tins without solid information.

He may very well be receiving harsher treatment even if his behavior was no worse. This could just be management "finally cracking down and sending a message" to the other players.

We just have no way of knowing.

Trophy
05-21-2009, 05:23 PM
After July 27th. I don't see Tinsley on our roster anymore. I know Mr. Bird and the Simons don't really like making buyouts or releases of a player but by now I think they'll finally give in and just get rid of him. One season passed and no trades were made so this is a sign that teams don't want to trade their player(s) for him. I agree. Tinsley is more worthy as a free agent signing.

able
05-21-2009, 05:42 PM
Owl: if they had or have sufficient grounds then from a 1 day suspension (wihtout pay even) to a termination of contract is covered in the Uniform Player Contract and the CBA (and yes we know what is in both, they are available online)
In defense of that Tinsley can appeal and in favour of the Pacers in that case would be the fact they can save a bomb of money that way.

They did not do that, perhaps (Hicks?) because they did not have "solid" ground to even want to attempt that and (all) took the gamble that with the way they did it now, they
A: gave of a clear signal to future players, and
B: were condemned to the cost and cap consequences anyway so why not take a gamble on either trading him or getting a forced discount in an arbitration, whilst waiting for the other side (JT and Union) to start that part.
C: made a bomb in the meantime by increasing attendance whilst "scoffing" JT and in doing so made back part or all of those cost

I'd say financially the risk is zero, the maximum cost is having JT on the payroll the rest of the contract, and any discount is profit.
Based upon the cost of the arbitration, which is very low certainly when you have inhouse legals or retained ones, this is not such a sillt scenario that fits in the mindset of LB and he may well have sold it that way to the Simons.

d_c
05-21-2009, 05:44 PM
I will also say this: Surely the Simons aren't stupid enough to allow this to happen without feeling at least moderately secure that what they're doing is something they can justify with whomever they might need to justify it with.

I think the way the Pacers approached the Tinsley situation (beginning with last summer) was largely based on the assumption that they'd be able to get a trade done. Back then, I don't think they thought Tinsley would still be on the payroll by now.

ChicagoJ
05-21-2009, 05:51 PM
There's some fascinating arguments from both sides on this. I'll leave that to better able posters than myself.

I will say this: I highly doubt the Indiana Pacers are doing this just to do it. I truly believe they feel justified in what they are doing, and when you consider how they DIDN'T do this kind of thing with the other "whipping boys," I think that suggests a lot about Tinsley, and not in a good way.

I will also say this: Surely the Simons aren't stupid enough to allow this to happen without feeling at least moderately secure that what they're doing is something they can justify with whomever they might need to justify it with.

"Feeling justified in what they are doing" is not the same thing as "acting in good faith and fair dealing."

I don't think the Simons are dumb. But they may have taken a calculated risk that a better resolution (trade) would occur before the dirty laundry gets aired. I believe they are working with the assumption that the worst-case scenario in the arbitration is to pay Tinsley in full this summer, and that the best case scenario is to continue to pay Tinsley in full over the next couple of seasons. Their financial risk is limited. Their reputational risk, on the other hand, is much greater if they have not been "acting in good faith and fair dealing" from the perspective of players and agents.

speakout4
05-21-2009, 07:27 PM
The word was (from non-Pacer sources) that he was in excellent shape and ready to play.

I get that people dislike the kid, but it's not as if he doesn't know how work out. He's done quite well for himself "unsupervised and without teammates present." His problems have nothing to do with knowing how to work out in the (extended, in his case) offseason.
I don't know how you can say this. I agree that for a part of the season when it appeared that he may be finding a new home he was working out but now and since February I would like to see some credible verification and then I will accept that "word".

In your opinion is he still staying out till bar closing time? Staying away from junk food which was the knock on him?

speakout4
05-21-2009, 07:38 PM
"Feeling justified in what they are doing" is not the same thing as "acting in good faith and fair dealing."

I don't think the Simons are dumb. But they may have taken a calculated risk that a better resolution (trade) would occur before the dirty laundry gets aired. I believe they are working with the assumption that the worst-case scenario in the arbitration is to pay Tinsley in full this summer, and that the best case scenario is to continue to pay Tinsley in full over the next couple of seasons. Their financial risk is limited. Their reputational risk, on the other hand, is much greater if they have not been "acting in good faith and fair dealing" from the perspective of players and agents.
Not only are the Simons not dumb but they have some pretty good lawyers and I wouldn't be surprised that Stern and friends are not abetting this in some fashion. This may be a means of weakening the union and set a precedent for dealing with players not regarded as good citizens.

Justin Tyme
05-21-2009, 08:49 PM
Not only are the Simons not dumb but they have some pretty good lawyers and I wouldn't be surprised that Stern and friends are not abetting this in some fashion. This may be a means of weakening the union and set a precedent for dealing with players not regarded as good citizens.


Personally, I'd love it if this truly was the case!!!

Justin Tyme
05-21-2009, 09:47 PM
I can't believe the Simons with access to the best legal minds available didn't think they had a solid case to do what has been done. This wasn't done on a whim or spur of the moment. This was carefully thought out. No, not by Bird either as has been suggested.

I also feel there is more about Tinsley than has been published to the public. Why bring it to the attention of the public causing more bad PR for the Pacers who are trying to repair the damage Tinsley and cohorts have caused them? If there is more to the story and it got out, it would cause teams to not even want to talk to the Pacers about a trade for him. If the information of a problem was acknowledeged by the Pacers, they'd be shooting themselves it the foot with any chance to get rid of Tinsley in a trade. If there is more about Tinsley, it behooves the Pacers to keep it quiet, so as not to damage any positives they have achieved with the public in their image rebuilding.

I believe the Simons have a case that Tinsley's detrimental actions has caused them great damage and loss of income. I can see where the Simons might have damaged Tinsley's capability for future earnings. What I'd like to see come from arbitration is that both are equally at fault and have to share the damage equally. The Pacers have to pay Tinsley 50% of his remaining salary, and Tinsley would have to take a 50% cut in salary that's owed him for his part. I feel that is fair for both sides. Tinsley is then immediately available to further his BB career, and the Pacers save somewhere around 3.5 mil each of the next 2 years that could be used to replace Tinsley with another player. Now, if the arbitrator will just see it that way as well.

I truly believe there has to be changes in the next CBA to guard against players causing harm to their teams. Teams need to be able to not be stuck with a players contract when their actions are detrimental to the team. JMOAA

Anthem
05-21-2009, 10:24 PM
In your opinion is he still staying out till bar closing time? Staying away from junk food which was the knock on him?
Dude, at some point people need to come to grips with the fact that NBA players have a different schedule than their fans. Maybe it's because I used to live in Vegas and know so many fine upstanding people who worked second and third shift, but the assumption that NBA players should be in bed with a glass of milk by 10:30pm and up at 7am just strikes me as assinine.

So he's up late. It DOESN'T MATTER. If you're living a schedule where you're regularly playing ball until after midnight (which you are on every west coast trip), you end up adjusting your bedtime until the wee hours of the morning. That's just normal. So it weirds me out when people criticize him for being out late.

As for the junk food, that WAS the knock on him his rookie season: he ate chicken fingers and fries during the season. It's not been a knock on him for half a decade. He went to Abussanar's camp, learned how to work out, learned how to eat, and it hasn't been a problem since.

Mr. Sobchak
05-21-2009, 11:43 PM
Dude, at some point people need to come to grips with the fact that NBA players have a different schedule than their fans. Maybe it's because I used to live in Vegas and know so many fine upstanding people who worked second and third shift, but the assumption that NBA players should be in bed with a glass of milk by 10:30pm and up at 7am just strikes me as assinine.

So he's up late. It DOESN'T MATTER. If you're living a schedule where you're regularly playing ball until after midnight (which you are on every west coast trip), you end up adjusting your bedtime until the wee hours of the morning. That's just normal. So it weirds me out when people criticize him for being out late.

As for the junk food, that WAS the knock on him his rookie season: he ate chicken fingers and fries during the season. It's not been a knock on him for half a decade. He went to Abussanar's camp, learned how to work out, learned how to eat, and it hasn't been a problem since.


I've been as critical of the guy as most people but this is also drives me crazy.

Sollozzo
05-21-2009, 11:48 PM
Marvin Harrison had a pretty decent career off of junk food.

able
05-22-2009, 05:36 AM
Justin, the question is not what you can believe, but what is true.

Fact of the matter is that there are a multitude of sanctions in the contract that could have been invoked upon the behaviour you describe, rightfully and also ending all payment responsibility.

As far as knowledge about it and other teams goes, most teams have investigators on their payroll or a contract with well known firms, there is little to nothing they don't know, and for transgressions to occur there have to be more ppl around with knowledge, or paticipants, how else would the pacers know.

Any way if any real transgressions took place, PS&E would have been all over it and save themselves a bundle of money, AND get rid of a contract easy.

They have chosen the hard way because they had no case the easy way.
They now ride the waves of luck, and it doesn't look that brilliant for them.

But is also doesn't look grim, as I said before, they may end up paying him a little
bit earlier then anticipated and they "could" perhaps have saved themselves a million or so by buying him out, sometimes if you can afford it you can rest on your "principles"

ChicagoJ
05-22-2009, 10:33 AM
As far as knowledge about it and other teams goes, most teams have investigators on their payroll or a contract with well known firms, there is little to nothing they don't know, and for transgressions to occur there have to be more ppl around with knowledge, or paticipants, how else would the pacers know.

Players talk to each other. Coaches talk to each other. GMs talk to each other. The good ole' gossip grapevine eliminates the need to pay for private investigators.

They also know there are huge differences between what really goes on, what "spin" is given to the public, what the media knows to be true, and what the media can get multiple independent sources to confirm on the record so that they can actually report it.

The bitter truth is that most players are closer to our low opinions of the Artests, Tinsleys, and Jacksons of the world than our idealism of the Reggies and Grangers of the world. But at both extremes, the media manipulation and spin has a lot to do with our opinions. Well, maybe not Artest and Jackson, they deserve our disdain.

First and foremost, these guys are managing a career with a short period of maximum income production. They are interested in acheiving a championship as well, but financial security comes first. Have you ever seen a young player turn down a max contract with any team in order to take a smaller contract and smaller role with a contender? Just look at Dwight Howard as an example, if he really wanted a championship, he could have signed a smaller contract with the Lakers or Cavaliers instead of choosing to take the most money the Magic would offer him.

Since86
05-22-2009, 01:14 PM
As for the junk food, that WAS the knock on him his rookie season: he ate chicken fingers and fries during the season. It's not been a knock on him for half a decade. He went to Abussanar's camp, learned how to work out, learned how to eat, and it hasn't been a problem since.

Wasn't it just two years ago the Star ran an article talking about how Jamaal was going to hire a personal chef and just start resistance training for the first time in his career?

I remember having quite the discussion about it, because there were thoughts that it wasn't a big deal, and it absolutely floored me a professional athlete wasn't on a workout routine. I mean, Jr. High kids have training routines.

It lasted a lot longer than just his rookie year.

ChicagoJ
05-22-2009, 01:27 PM
Probably closer to four or five years ago. Time is flying.

Clearly, that was the missing piece and Jamaal has been a model of durability and consistency ever since then, right? Or maybe that wasn't really the problem in the first place even though the article made his "doing something a little different this offseason" plan seem like "I just figured out that I need to eat healthy!! Who knew?!". Come on.

Los Angeles
05-22-2009, 01:41 PM
Probably closer to four or five years ago. Time is flying.

Clearly, that was the missing piece and Jamaal has been a model of durability and consistency ever since then, right? Or maybe that wasn't really the problem in the first place even though the article made his "doing something a little different this offseason" plan seem like "I just figured out that I need to eat healthy!! Who knew?!". Come on.

I've got to take 'the under' on this one. The "Jamaal is actually taking care of himself" story happened two summers ago, IIRC.

ChicagoJ
05-22-2009, 01:45 PM
When O'Brien arrived? Nah. Definitely during the Rick Carlisle era. Pretty sure it was before Club Rio, although it may have been that particular offseason before Club Rio.

When O'Brien arrived it was the, "this is Jamaal's very, very, very, very last chance at redemption" story. I know they're all running together into one long, tragic novel.

Since86
05-22-2009, 01:52 PM
When O'Brien arrived? Nah. Definitely during the Rick Carlisle era. Pretty sure it was before Club Rio, although it may have been that particular offseason before Club Rio.

When O'Brien arrived it was the, "this is Jamaal's very, very, very, very last chance at redemption" story. I know they're all running together into one long, tragic novel.

I know it wasn't 5 years ago, becauase I haven't even been a part of this site for five years. It was the summer before RC's final, so 3. I've lumped JOb's tenure into one memory.

Also, there was never a noticeable difference in appearance, or on the court, so I would question what he was actually doing when he "started." I'm not saying he didn't do it, nor was he committed to it, but you should see a big difference in someone that goes from a bad diet/no resistance training, to a healthy diet and a routine.

Then again, he would actually have to be on the court playing to have any difference noticed.

Bball
05-22-2009, 02:18 PM
As far as I'm concerned it's great that Tinsley is on the shelf. And, AFAIC, he put himself there and left the team with only a decision as to how it was best to eradicate him from the team. The only thing that will be better is when he's no longer a part of the team in any way shape or form and end the last of this drama once and for all.

Putnam
05-22-2009, 02:21 PM
When O'Brien arrived? Nah. Definitely during the Rick Carlisle era. Pretty sure it was before Club Rio, although it may have been that particular offseason before Club Rio.

When O'Brien arrived it was the, "this is Jamaal's very, very, very, very last chance at redemption" story. I know they're all running together into one long, tragic novel.



Well, c'mon. Look in your Springsteen database and tell us when it happened!

Los Angeles
05-22-2009, 02:36 PM
I know they're all running together into one long, tragic novel.

Indeed they have.

Which is why a thirty-fill-in-the-blank win team of boyscouts is something to be optimistic about. :)

Doug
05-22-2009, 03:27 PM
Fact of the matter is that there are a multitude of sanctions in the contract that could have been invoked upon the behaviour you describe, rightfully and also ending all payment responsibility.

able, one of the themes - forgive if I have misunderstood - that you've been hitting on is that the Pacers, perhaps LB in particular, have been at least unfair, and even vindictive in their actions with Jamaal.

Assuming that Jamaal has done things that would warrant the voiding of his contract...

Perhaps they didn't go the sanctions route because they were trying to give Jamaal a break - that they were really trying to spare him the probable career damage that would have caused?

That they basically said "We could take you to court to void it, and have a very good chance of winning. But you don't want that, and we don't want the publicity. So just stay home while we try to trade you."

The scenario I lined out seems to be as likely as the "Larry Bird going rogue with a vendetta against Jamaal." Perhaps even more so.

NOTE: I'm still a proponent of the "truth is somewhere in the middle" on this. Also, there is no doubt in my mind that the Pacers are worse without Jamaal Tinsley's talent, but better without Jamaal Tinsley. It's not even close.

Trophy
05-22-2009, 03:34 PM
Good player. Bad guy.

That's the motto he leaves everyone to think. Now that we banned him from coming to play for us, he's probably looked at as a bad player and a bad guy.

He did this to himself. Didn't use his head and that's the problem with a lot of athletes, they think they can get away from things they do because they make millions and they take advantage of their talent in pro sports.

Los Angeles
05-22-2009, 03:34 PM
Thank you, Doug.

You just described a scenario where the Pacers can argue that they have acted in Good Faith and you've opened the door again for the "guns blazing" scenario I brought up earlier.

ChicagoJ
05-22-2009, 03:57 PM
Well, c'mon. Look in your Springsteen database and tell us when it happened!

:laugh:

Speechless. You've clearly retaken the lead.

Dece
05-22-2009, 03:57 PM
So the Simons are really just some kind of saints trying desperately to give Jamaal 20M dollars, and that nasty old Jamaal is trying his hardest to make them void it out.

I'm pretty sure if I let my eyes roll the appropriate amount in response to this angle, they would fall out.

ChicagoJ
05-22-2009, 04:04 PM
I know it wasn't 5 years ago, becauase I haven't even been a part of this site for five years. It was the summer before RC's final, so 3. I've lumped JOb's tenure into one memory.

Also, there was never a noticeable difference in appearance, or on the court, so I would question what he was actually doing when he "started." I'm not saying he didn't do it, nor was he committed to it, but you should see a big difference in someone that goes from a bad diet/no resistance training, to a healthy diet and a routine.

Then again, he would actually have to be on the court playing to have any difference noticed.

Wasn't Rick's final season the Club Rio season? If so, we're agreeing. I don't believe this was a guy with a bad diet and no resistance training before that, I think the article overstated the amount of change to his new routine. I don't know how someone plays 80 games as a rookie, 73 in his second year, and after a 30-game non-injury related benching in his third year plays the last 52 with a bad diet and no resistance training. If this was the 06-07 season (and I think we agree it was), he did play 72 games that season, so that is a helluva lot better than the 40 and 42 in the preceeding seasons.

Since86
05-22-2009, 04:24 PM
It is a lot better than 40 and 42 games the seasons before, but there are some of us that think that he missed those games to other reasons than to injury.

I think the article was just another fluff piece trying to repair some of his image. I think he probably went from very little work to just plain little work.

Quite honestly, I don't know how Jamaal can use his banishment from using the Pacers facilities, when he didn't take advantage of them when he did have access. It's a well known fact that during the offseason he spent his time in Atlanta, working individually apart from the franchise. Then again, I'm no where near competent in legal/civil procedings, nor pretend to be. Common sense and legal/civil are hardly on the same side of the subject.

EDIT: I've said it since Day 1. I'm a big fan of personal responsibility. If you are so bad that a team has to forcefully tell you to stay away, then you need to take a look in a damn mirror instead of crying foul. What team would actually WANT a player like that? None, obviously or someone would have offered something of value, hell 10cents on the dollar would have been a good deal for the Ps at this point. I think most teams have came to the realization that players like Tinsley, Sprewell, and Marbury just aren't worth their on court production.

Doug
05-22-2009, 04:39 PM
So the Simons are really just some kind of saints trying desperately to give Jamaal 20M dollars, and that nasty old Jamaal is trying his hardest to make them void it out.

I'm pretty sure if I let my eyes roll the appropriate amount in response to this angle, they would fall out.

Clearly, your eyes would not fall out because you haven't opened them enough to comprehend my point...

Suing a player for breach of contract to void his deal would be a very bad thing in the eyes of other players. Much worse, IMO, than telling Tinsley to stay home until he's traded.

I'm not saying the Simons would take that approach because they love writing checks to Jamaal, even though I bet they put cute little hearts in the memo field.

Anthem
05-22-2009, 05:09 PM
I remember having quite the discussion about it, because there were thoughts that it wasn't a big deal, and it absolutely floored me a professional athlete wasn't on a workout routine. I mean, Jr. High kids have training routines.
He's been training with Abunassar (sp?) since before the end of his rookie contract. He might have changed his workout routine 2 years ago, but he had an existing one before that.

As far as the personal chef, I think it's a good idea (seems like a no-brainer, actually) but there's plenty of NBA players without one that don't get criticized for it.

Anthem
05-22-2009, 05:17 PM
It's a well known fact that during the offseason he spent his time in Atlanta, working individually apart from the franchise.
You know who else spent most of their offseason training somewhere else?

Reggie Miller.

:lynchmob:

Putnam
05-22-2009, 07:23 PM
:laugh:

Speechless. You've clearly retaken the lead.


Except I should have called it the "Encyclopedia Bruce-tanica."


.

Pacers
05-23-2009, 01:01 PM
FTR Tinsley hired his trainer and chef in the offseason before the 06-07 season.

speakout4
05-23-2009, 04:23 PM
He's been training with Abunassar (sp?) since before the end of his rookie contract. He might have changed his workout routine 2 years ago, but he had an existing one before that.

As far as the personal chef, I think it's a good idea (seems like a no-brainer, actually) but there's plenty of NBA players without one that don't get criticized for it.
You stated that nonPacer sources say he is in great shape and that might be true some time ago. Do you have a link that is still true now? A name? Anything to suggest that JT wants to play when for the last few years he did hid best to convince the team that any little ouchy would mean just the opposite. As J said the nba is a small world and surely he is working out and practicing with someone. We aren't talking about alien sightings are we?

Anthem
05-23-2009, 04:37 PM
You stated that nonPacer sources say he is in great shape and that might be true some time ago. Do you have a link that is still true now?
Nope. It was true in February, and we haven't heard anything about it one way or another since then.

An argument from silence isn't convincing. You're welcome to cling to the belief that he's ballooned up to 300 lbs in the last 4 months, but you're just as uninformed as I am.

speakout4
05-23-2009, 04:47 PM
Nope. It was true in February, and we haven't heard anything about it one way or another since then.

An argument from silence isn't convincing. You're welcome to cling to the belief that he's ballooned up to 300 lbs in the last 4 months, but you're just as uninformed as I am.
Agree 100% but I did not claim that he was still in great shape just that he might not be. I simply argued that he might be content to take his money and just spend his time doing other things. To repeat who is he working out with and where? There should be some Tinsley sitings that he is active. More people have seen Elvis in the last four months than Tinsley.

Pacers
05-23-2009, 07:56 PM
The local media can barely cover the events in this town, let alone chasing around one man three states away.

imawhat
05-23-2009, 08:49 PM
He's been training with Abunassar (sp?) since before the end of his rookie contract. He might have changed his workout routine 2 years ago, but he had an existing one before that.

As far as the personal chef, I think it's a good idea (seems like a no-brainer, actually) but there's plenty of NBA players without one that don't get criticized for it.

As Pacers said, it was the 06-07 offseason.

As you say, Tinsley has been training every offseason.

As Since86 says, there was a big debate about his training habits, but specifically, the debate that somehow got misinterpreted was that Jamaal had just started training with free weights (I believe?) for the first time in his career (which was true, and slightly crazy).

pwee31
05-24-2009, 05:03 PM
There's a small tidbit from the Miami Hearald stating the HEAT are interested in the outcome of the Tinsley hearing

http://www.miamiherald.com/sports/football/story/1062950.html


• The Heat -- which has auditioned several potential second-round point guards (France's Rodrique Beaubois , Arkansas/Ukraine's Patrick Beverley , BC's Tyrese Rice, Gonzaga's Jeremy Pargo) --- will watch for Jamaal Tinsley's July 27 grievance hearing. He could be set free in late summer if an arbitrator forces the Pacers to play him (which they won't) or buy him out.

Maybe Jo is trying to get his running mate back? haha

Trophy
05-25-2009, 01:35 PM
There's a small tidbit from the Miami Hearald stating the HEAT are interested in the outcome of the Tinsley hearing

http://www.miamiherald.com/sports/football/story/1062950.html


Maybe Jo is trying to get his running mate back? haha

Hopefully something works out in a trade.

Thanks for the article.

Since86
05-26-2009, 01:07 PM
He's been training with Abunassar (sp?) since before the end of his rookie contract. He might have changed his workout routine 2 years ago, but he had an existing one before that.

As far as the personal chef, I think it's a good idea (seems like a no-brainer, actually) but there's plenty of NBA players without one that don't get criticized for it.

So your just going to totally dismiss an argument, that everyone else is in agreement with, and offer up zero proof of it?

Well, I couldn't find the indystar article, but I did find a hoopshype thread that had the quotes.


Tinsley took a different approach to this offseason. At age 28, he finally discovered the wonders of weightlifting. He worked with a personal trainer daily and ran three to four miles on his own every other day. He changed his diet by hiring a personal chef. Fried foods were replaced with fish and chicken.
"I was really impressed with his regimen," Carlisle said. "I got to spend some time with his personal trainer. It shows here because he's doing terrific."
http://forums.hoopshype.com/forums/index.php?topic=2796.0

The date? Oct. 2006.


You know who else spent most of their offseason training somewhere else?

Reggie Miller.

:lynchmob:

Why the mob icon? I didn't say it's a bad thing. I think players should go to major cities, where other players are, and train/play with against them. Players going to LA and playing against other NBA players, and college players, is a GOOD thing.

What I'm saying is, if you don't want to use something when you have the opportunity to do so, don't ***** and moan when that opportunity is taken away from you.

Anthem
05-26-2009, 01:30 PM
http://forums.hoopshype.com/forums/index.php?topic=2796.0

The date? Oct. 2006.
I'm not saying he's been doing weights the whole time, I'm saying that his previous workout regimen didn't put a high emphasis on free weights. And since Abunassar/ImpactSports designed his previous one, and he broke down more often after he started doing weights, I'd say he was better off with his previous regimen.

Check the date.

http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/showthread.php?t=5824

Also, I thought this was funny in retrospect.

http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/showthread.php?t=35036

Since86
05-26-2009, 02:03 PM
Okay, so he's been training with IMG since 2004.

Obviously he didn't take much from the experience, considering this is straight from their goal statement:

and the nutritional knowledge and lifestyle habits necessary to unleash potential and maximum performance
http://www.imgacademies.com/basketball-academy/philosophy/

I know a kid that had his parents spend a ton of money on a shooting coach, read Billy Keller, and didn't change his shot one bit. It was horrible to watch.

Just because you go, doesn't mean you do the things they preach. The proof is in the pudding, and in this case, I think we're talking Bill Cosby style Jello.

Jamaal Tinsley isn't, wasn't, and never has been the definition of in shape, unless you count being round as 'in shape.' We have two articles, or just straight fluff pieces, about him and his 'workouts.' The first reports how he is going to a very highly touted academy, that preaches resistance training and nutrition, and the second tells us that he just started weightlifting and just now got serious about nutrition. (BTW, the academy site lists players like Quincy Douby, Julius Hodge, Michael Ruffin, and James White but don't list a player like JT. I don't know what it means, I just think it's a bit odd. I still see him as a higher touted name than those 4, that would carry more weight)

Quite frankly, I don't believe either article. I think JT is and always has been a complete slacker in offseason preperation, and I believe that because of my own two eyes. The second completely contradicts the first, so they're both rubbish in my mind.

And BTW about the missing games issue, like I said before, I'm firmly in the camp that JT missed those games to other reasons than for legit medical reasons. Until sinuspoutis shows up in a medical dictionary, color me skeptical.

EDIT: Oh yeah, I did briefly mention it, but didn't expand on it. IMG does in fact emphasize lifting weights. This is also from their mission statement:

The IMG Basketball Academy and Pro Training Center staff will focus on each individual player, creating a customized program to maximize his/her total development as a basketball player. Through detailed analysis of individual skills, goals and needs, every drill on the court, each prescribed exercise, lift or movement,

Los Angeles
05-26-2009, 02:05 PM
The timelines still don't line up. Tinsley was injured often between his injury in the 2004 Conference finals and Summer 2006, so blaming his injuries on use of free-weights does not make sense. (not saying it wasn't a contributor, I have no idea if it was or not.)

ChicagoJ
05-26-2009, 03:44 PM
The timelines still don't line up. Tinsley was injured often between his injury in the 2004 Conference finals and Summer 2006, so blaming his injuries on use of free-weights does not make sense. (not saying it wasn't a contributor, I have no idea if it was or not.)

Prior to that?
2001-02 23 IND 80 2440 30.5 mpg + 5 playoff games
2002-03 24 IND 73 2237 30.6 mpg + 6 playoff games
2003-04 25 IND 52 1378 26.5 mpg + 16 playoff games

He did not miss 30 games due to injury in 2003-04. He was benched and he worked his way back into the starting lineup by staying disciplined, in shape, and ready.

The 2004/05 and 2005/06 seasons were clearly disasters. I'm not sure his offseason regimine mattered. His best success came with what is believed on PD to be a couch-potato diet and lifestyle prior to trying to his later efforts to be in shape.

After he turned 25, he was injury prone, period. He probably could have done more to take care of himself, as the fact that the played 72 games in 2006/07 and played in 39 of the first 49 games in 2007/08 before playing in 0 of the last 33 would confirm that.

Regardless, he did better "not taking care of himself at all" prior to 2004 - which might just be a PD urban legend - than any iteration of "NEW OFFSEASON TRAINING REGIMINE!!" from 2005 and beyond.

Since86
05-26-2009, 04:09 PM
He did better staying out of the police blotter, if you want to get down to the nitty gritty.

His attitude on and off the court isn't even comparable now than what it was to his first few seasons. He might be the same exact person off the court, and doing the same exact things, I don't know, but he wasn't showing up on the police blotter and he wasn't getting shot at while in a high speed chase through downtown Indy.

There have always been some, myself, that have never really liked his game on the court, even without the "sinus" problems mudding the waters. I'm just not a big fan of the NYC brand of basketball, getting in one-on-one games. I think the team that was established during his early years helped curve that aspect of him, and when he became a vet on the team, he let his hair down and started doing things his way.

Outside of his rookie year, I've always felt he was a major disappointment. He had flashes of being a very good PG, then he would do a couple things that would make me want to vomit.

The tipping point for me to never ever see him on the floor for the Pacers was the game against PHO. His display of pure selfishness was embarassing, not only for himself, but for JOb. That happens to be the day that I completely wrote JOb off, eventhough I will fully admit I was never enamored with him to begin with. (The fact that JOb sat by and let it happen, and then didn't "suspend" him until two games after the fact let me know all I needed to know that he was full of it. That, and his speech about you earn playing time in practice all while JO not practicing and still getting his burn.)

To get back to the original point. Jamaal's ability to play, or sitting out, was questionable even at the time. I will never believe he is/was injury prone until I see his medical records, and/or he has sinus surgery. The fact that we have coined the term "sinuspoutis" for him, and sinus infection was used only a couple of times as the official reason he sat out (Dr. Goldfoot had a site that listed official reasonings a few months ago) says more about the situation than anything.

Whatever the outcome of this hearing is, I hope it's the end. The arbitrator can come out and make the Ps pay him in full, then release him because they violated his contract by not giving him access to their facilities, and for hindering his ability to work (which is full of **** IMHO), and I would still pat TPTB on the back for them andling the situation, right after I smacked them upside the head for waiting so damn long.

Jamaal was, and is, a complete cancer on and off the court. As far as I'm concerned, 2003-2007 never happened. I wish we could just take a marker and completely black out that time period. Danny Granger is the only positive I can think of out of those 4-5years,off the top of my head.

Anthem
05-26-2009, 04:13 PM
Great gravy the legend even grows in this thread.

It doesn't matter enough to me to continue the conversation. I want him gone as much as anyone, so it's not like I have a vested interest in "defending" him.

I surely can't be the only one who remembers all of the September "holy cow look at Jamaal he looks great he's in really good shape" threads from half a decade ago. But apparently it's not trendy to remember those things these days.

Trophy
05-26-2009, 04:16 PM
My favorite Tinsley memory is when he made the game winner at home 2 years ago against the Spurs 100-99.

Sollozzo
05-26-2009, 04:20 PM
Jamaal was, and is, a complete cancer on and off the court. As far as I'm concerned, 2003-2007 never happened. I wish we could just take a marker and completely black out that time period. Danny Granger is the only positive I can think of out of those 4-5years,off the top of my head.


Well, I can think of one other positive, and that's watching Reggie Miller have flashes of his old self at the end of 04-05 (the Lakers game, the Knicks game where we lost at the buzzer to the tip in are 2 that really stick out to me, along with being the best player on the court in his final game). If there's one positive you can take from the brawl it's that the incident allowed Reggie to have more opportunities to score and entertain the fans one final time.

But your point is well taken and I agree with the premise of it. Those years were horrible and were a disgrace to those of us who grew up watching classy Pacer basketball. I long for the day when I never have to see a Jamaal Tinsley thread again.

But thanks to some moves by Bird there is hope. I have a feeling that Granger, Rush and Hibbert are a threesome that will be together for 10 or so years and give us plenty of good memories.

Anthem
05-26-2009, 04:20 PM
The timelines still don't line up. Tinsley was injured often between his injury in the 2004 Conference finals and Summer 2006, so blaming his injuries on use of free-weights does not make sense. (not saying it wasn't a contributor, I have no idea if it was or not.)
That was more snark than anything else, but the point remains that the new regime didn't help him stay healthy.

ChicagoJ
05-26-2009, 06:01 PM
To get back to the original point. Jamaal's ability to play, or sitting out, was questionable even at the time. I will never believe he is/was injury prone until I see his medical records, and/or he has sinus surgery. The fact that we have coined the term "sinuspoutis" for him, and sinus infection was used only a couple of times as the official reason he sat out (Dr. Goldfoot had a site that listed official reasonings a few months ago) says more about the situation than anything.

Which is it? Did he not have any injury at all and constantly used "sinuses" as an excuse (which you admit is not factual), or did he miss a couple of games because of some sinus issue and then PD ran with it and created an urban legend?

There are plenty of legit issues with Tinsley. His time with the Pacers is over and the Pacers need to still concern themselves with the quality of his replacement(s). However, there never has been a reason for PD to make up its own alternate reality. Let alone good, reputable posters to take it the alternate reality so seriously/ literally.

As the over-the-top criticism continues to grow, it really would help some people to think thier position through. If you utterly dispise the guy, fine. Just say, "I can't stand him or his game". Plenty of people will agree. No need to embellish the facts or repeat an embellishment of the facts.

Los Angeles
05-26-2009, 06:23 PM
I am 98% sure that Jamaal's sinus issue wasn't a sinus problem at all.

If I had the talent to write a song about it, I would make sure the Boss sang it and played a Harmonica solo in the middle. But it would be a Harmonica solo rich with complexity that lasts 45 minutes and performed live in front of me at an LA bar.

This ain't no urban legend.

beast23
05-26-2009, 07:24 PM
Which is it? Did he not have any injury at all and constantly used "sinuses" as an excuse (which you admit is not factual), or did he miss a couple of games because of some sinus issue and then PD ran with it and created an urban legend?

There are plenty of legit issues with Tinsley. His time with the Pacers is over and the Pacers need to still concern themselves with the quality of his replacement(s). However, there never has been a reason for PD to make up its own alternate reality. Let alone good, reputable posters to take it the alternate reality so seriously/ literally.

As the over-the-top criticism continues to grow, it really would help some people to think thier position through. If you utterly dispise the guy, fine. Just say, "I can't stand him or his game". Plenty of people will agree. No need to embellish the facts or repeat an embellishment of the facts.I can honestly say that "I can't stand him". I can also say that perhaps as much as 2/3 of the time, I can't stand his game.

But I would agree that the trivial details of his various afflictions have probably grown over the past couple of years. However, I would sum them up by stating that beyond his persona and "game", I question his leadership abilities and his toughness.

It got so bad that JO finally even made some comment regarding the toughness of some of the players that were not playing... it's been too long ago, but I took it at the time that he was calling out Tinsley.

Tinsley did have a few games where his afflication was announced as a sinus infection... not an inner ear infection or migraines or something else that you would think might keep a player from playing.

At the time, my interpretation was that Tinsley just wanted to make up some semi-legitimate excuse for being benched, and picked a pretty minor affliction for some reason. I also thought that if he truly did have a sinus infection and that was his reason for not playing, then I just felt that he was an immense weenie.

speakout4
05-26-2009, 07:55 PM
More often than not when JT did not play no one could say when he would return from these mysterious ailments. Does anyone know exactly what his ailment was the last half of the season he did play and how that ailment mended. Even JO said that he took himself out to save his career. Too much of players deciding to not play and likely the pacers just decided that they had enough of that nonsense. Sit JT and trade JO.

The feeling is that people who don't want to see or hear about JT feel he betrayed the team by not doing his share. Not that complicated.

Los Angeles
05-26-2009, 07:56 PM
A beast sighting. My day is complete.

:we'renotworthy:

ChicagoJ
05-26-2009, 10:37 PM
Look, I'm not saying he's a saint. But he's also not as bad as the current urban legend makes him out to be. Remember, we talked about "missed potential" because he had a ton of upside that he never realized. This ain't Jamison Brewer we're talking about where we had our fingers crossed that he might someday turn into a decent backup.

Since86
05-27-2009, 01:06 PM
So basically, either Peck is mistaken with his story, or it was just a one time incident?

The 'urban legend' grew, as you say, because the initial story would come out that he was sitting due to a sinus infection, then the reasoning that they sent to the league for the official injury report would list some other injury.

I'm 99.9% positive that at one time they even switched thigh injuries on him, meaning one week it was listed as a right thigh injury, then the next it was a left thigh injury.

Atleast with JO's injuries, we could actually see him hyperextend his knee or shoulder. We could see him hobbling up and down the court.

With Tinsley, he would be playing a few games, then all of a sudden be out for extended time.

Over the top criticism? Hardly. He deserves every shot at him.

ChicagoJ
05-27-2009, 01:22 PM
So basically, either Peck is mistaken with his story, or it was just a one time incident?

Since when is Peck a beat writer covering the Pacers? I like what he writes on PD, but I don't think he has near as much access as the beat writers. And I don't think the beat writers have much access to the actual facts either.

I have no idea what Peck saw, and I don't care what he had to say about it. I have no opinion on whether he's "telling the truth" or not.

I know what he says he saw on the court, but neither he nor any of the beat writers have any idea what was also taking place in the training room. Four days before my first knee surgery, I was doing flips off a diving board. Then the cortisone wore off, and I realized just how bad it was. The guy was testing his foot and somebody - doesn't even matter who it was - decided he wasn't ready to go. Period.

Look - I get that everybody has made him out to be a villian. That's fine. There are plenty of documented, universally accepted reasons to make him a villian. I didn't like his shot selection or how often he shot the ball either. And it drove me crazy the season where he kept coming back to soon, breaking down, and missing games again. Ugh... just stay away until you are really ready to play.

Focus on those, instead of the second-hand partial story stuff. When talking about Artest, I went out of my way to point out that I wasn't making stuff up on my own but was relying on media reports - mostly out of Chicago where they didn't try to cover up for his problems like the Pacers always did, and also Kravitz who, like him or not, isn't interested in being reduced to a PR-mouthpiece. I don't recommend relying on Peck as a news source, even though I do enjoy his Odd Thoughts.

ChicagoJ
05-27-2009, 01:24 PM
With Dunleavy, he would be playing a few games, then all of a sudden be out for extended time.

How is that different?

For that matter,


With McKey, he would be playing a few games, then all of a sudden be out for extended time.

and


With Smits, he would be playing a few games, then all of a sudden be out for extended time.

???

Since86
05-27-2009, 01:54 PM
SiFocus on those, instead of the second-hand partial story stuff. When talking about Artest, I went out of my way to point out that I wasn't making stuff up on my own but was relying on media reports - mostly out of Chicago where they didn't try to cover up for his problems like the Pacers always did, and also Kravitz who, like him or not, isn't interested in being reduced to a PR-mouthpiece. I don't recommend relying on Peck as a news source, even though I do enjoy his Odd Thoughts.


I am so glad you said the highlited portion.

The Pacers cover up for their problem children. You can obviously admit it. Why in the world you can't even admit the possibility that they would cover for Tinsley, like they did with Artest.

You can easily write off any scenario that doesn't jive with your idea of how things are, because you dislike Ron and you like Jamaal. Jamaal has taken on a Steelers role for you. You defend them blindly.

Why in the world you would expect them to report what's really going on with Jamaal, when they didn't with Ron, is beyond me. I am eagerly awaiting that explaination.

EDIT: With Dunleavy we have documented surgery.

McKey, I can't really comment on. I was young during his tenure and details/following the team closely on off days I didn't do.

However, with Smits is a different story. His foot problems were widely known.

Jamaal? Still nothing.

ChicagoJ
05-27-2009, 02:43 PM
I'm sure Jamaal "deserves" his banishment, whether or not the banishment violates the CBA or not. When Bird and O'Brien sent him away from the team, my view has been "okay, it must be really bad, since they never did this with Artest or Jackson." That isn't the point. I don't think they've handled his banishment well. They should have just bought him out on the spot or formally suspended him in hopes of eventually voiding his contract. They did neither. By not doing the latter, it certainly makes you wonder if he was actually as bad as his reputation, which clearly was hurting the team from a PR-perspective. It is fair to wonder whether the banishment was driven by PR motives ("best for the franchise") or whether it was "best for the team (that we put on the court)." It could be both, but that still means that PR moves were dictating basketball-related moves, which is generally a bad idea.

However, with Artest and even SJax, we got info from their previous stops or via the natoinal press that painted a different picture than the Pacers' PR-machine. I'm sure the same would be true for Tinsley IF there were actually anything out there. But there isn't. Other than the fact that he was injury prone and turned into a ballhog under Carlisle, it is 100% fiction. That's the difference. That's my point. Okay, his lousy footspeed on defense isn't urban legend, that's clearly true as well.

Believe what you want to believe. That's fine. But don't act like the myth that PD has created is the truth. (Including, the possibility that the actual truth could be far worse than the PD myth, just like it was for Artest - although the PD myth took the opposite approach with him and made him into a mis-understood saint.)

I'm not closed minded at all. In fact, I'm open minded enough to try to discern between PD's fiction and media/ PR-created fiction.

But since Jamaal seems to dislike the media even more than PD dislikes Jamaal, we have no idea what's true.

ChicagoJ
05-27-2009, 02:50 PM
Missed this...


Jamaal has taken on a Steelers role for you. You defend them blindly.

And the rest of PD attacks him blindly. As a contrarian that gets mis-labeled as a pessimist/ darksider, that drives me crazy.

The opinion may be well-thought, but there are nearly no reported facts to base the opinion on in the first place.

Since86
05-27-2009, 03:03 PM
I took out the close minded part. That's not the phrase I wanted to use, and on a personal note, I have a lot more respect for you than to use something like that and be comfortable with it.

But back on topic...

There is no myth that PD created. The Pacers created this situation by covering everything up. They continually switched reasonings for why he wasn't playing, and from Peck's story, even when Jamaal would warm up before games he wouldn't even be on the bench supporting the team.

He has the PHO fiasco, plays two games, then SJax of all people tell us that he is 'suspended.' Well the team says he isn't suspended, eventhough he was asked to stay away, and that he was out for personal reasons. Then 10games later he's shut down for the season never to be seen from again, so far.

Only so much can be kept from the public eye. Only so many excuses can be used before slipups are made, or the truth comes out. Well, TPTB and Jamaal used all of them up.

There are too many questions, too many slipups, to sit back and believe that he was injury prone. What has came out, either from other players (Sjax) or mistakes made (switching which thigh was injured) to digest what the Pacers have been selling.

What we do know, is whatever he did was finally enough to make TPTB tell him to stay away for good. I'm sure legal action has been threatened, and it's been enough for them not to blink.

The incidents that we do know 100% as fact are enough for most of us to want him to be gone.

Like I said before. JOb played Jamaal two games AFTER the PHO showing. So whatever he did to merit a 'suspension' had to be worse than that even. SJax said that him and JOb got into it. He had to do something pretty wild to make JOb fed up enough to boot him, if Jamaal didn't even do enough for Jim to pull his *** during OT.

But again. We, PD, didn't create the myth. We are merely filling in the blanks left from bad stories that were spoon fed to us over the past 6seasons.

Putnam
05-27-2009, 03:15 PM
.

Someday we'll look back on this and it will all seem funny.


.

ChicagoJ
05-27-2009, 03:35 PM
I took out the close minded part. That's not the phrase I wanted to use, and on a personal note, I have a lot more respect for you than to use something like that and be comfortable with it.

No worries. Give me your "A" game.


But back on topic...

There is no myth that PD created. The Pacers created this situation by covering everything up.

Fair enough.


-snip-The incidents that we do know 100% as fact are enough for most of us to want him to be gone.

Like I said before. JOb played Jamaal two games AFTER the PHO showing. So whatever he did to merit a 'suspension' had to be worse than that even. SJax said that him and JOb got into it. He had to do something pretty wild to make JOb fed up enough to boot him, if Jamaal didn't even do enough for Jim to pull his *** during OT.

And we learned this year that the incident that broke the camel's back was not the PHO game but that Jamaal was barking orders to the team in practice, attempting to lead them, and chiding Granger a bit (or perhaps a lot) for whatever reason. And O'Brien didn't want Jamaal taking that role, especially if he was being critical of Danny. For whatever reason. And then apparently Bad Jamaal came back with a vengeance. My hunch is that Jamaal didn't deal well with Rick never really communicating his role/ expectations, but that he dealt even worse when O'Brien tried to reign him in. That's a bad trend. But a permanent banishment? Its not like Jamaal is the first "uncoachable" guy in NBA history.


But again. We, PD, didn't create the myth. We are merely filling in the blanks left from bad stories that were spoon fed to us over the past 6seasons.

Fair enough. But there is more than one way to fill in those blanks, and I can create equally-plausible "good Jamaal" and "bad Jamaal" scenarios. Now, you wouldn't beleive the "good Jamaal" scenario period. I'd look at the "bad Jamaal" scenario and "maybe."

ChicagoJ
05-27-2009, 03:36 PM
.

Someday we'll look back on this and it will all seem funny.


.

Don't. Make. Me....

ChicagoJ
05-27-2009, 03:44 PM
But now you're sad, and Tinsley's mad
And Billy Hunter says he knows that I don't have any money
Tell him this is last chance to get his Tinsley on a good ball team
Because the Arbitrator, Rosie, just gave me my release

My sinuses were slashed and I almost crashed but the Lord had mercy
My old PG's a dud, stuck in the mud somewhere in the swamps of Georgia
Hold on tight, stay up all night 'cause Rosie I'm comin' on strong
By the time we get to July 27 you will be my new point guard

I know a pretty little place in Southern Florida down Miami way
There's a little arena where DWade plays all night and day
You can see them in the back court ballin'
So hold tight baby 'cause don't you know Larry's comin'

Tinsalita jump a little lighter
Jim O'Brien come sit by my fire
I just want to be your PG, ain't no lie
Tinsalita you're my stone desire

Trophy
05-27-2009, 03:50 PM
I always thought that Jamaal would be the better player for the Celtics than Stephon Marbury and a hell of a lot cheaper too.

I'm sure if Bird heard that the Celtics would pick up Jamaal only if we were to cut him and he became a FA he would release him.

Since86
05-27-2009, 04:13 PM
That wouldn't have done anything, because he would have cleared waivers, still keeping him on the Pacers cap.

If they would have picked him up before he cleared waivers, then they would have been responsible for his salary. That would have been a HUGE win for the pacers. Get rid of him and his contract without taking anything back? Bird wouldn't have been able to sign fast enough.

Putnam
05-27-2009, 04:21 PM
But now you're sad, and Tinsley's mad
And Billy Hunter says he knows that I don't have any money
Tell him this is last chance to get his Tinsley on a good ball team
Because the Arbitrator, Rosie, just gave me my release

My sinuses were slashed and I almost crashed but the Lord had mercy
My old PG's a dud, stuck in the mud somewhere in the swamps of Georgia
Hold on tight, stay up all night 'cause Rosie I'm comin' on strong
By the time we get to July 27 you will be my new point guard

I know a pretty little place in Southern Florida down Miami way
There's a little arena where DWade plays all night and day
You can see them in the back court ballin'
So hold tight baby 'cause don't you know Larry's comin'

Tinsalita jump a little lighter
Jim O'Brien come sit by my fire
I just want to be your PG, ain't no lie
Tinsalita you're my stone desire



Where's the nomination thread to 2010 Post of the Year?


.

Major Cold
05-27-2009, 04:47 PM
But now you're sad, and Tinsley's mad
And Billy Hunter says he knows that I don't have any money
Tell him this is last chance to get his Tinsley on a good ball team
Because the Arbitrator, Rosie, just gave me my release

My sinuses were slashed and I almost crashed but the Lord had mercy
My old PG's a dud, stuck in the mud somewhere in the swamps of Georgia
Hold on tight, stay up all night 'cause Rosie I'm comin' on strong
By the time we get to July 27 you will be my new point guard

I know a pretty little place in Southern Florida down Miami way
There's a little arena where DWade plays all night and day
You can see them in the back court ballin'
So hold tight baby 'cause don't you know Larry's comin'

Tinsalita jump a little lighter
Jim O'Brien come sit by my fire
I just want to be your PG, ain't no lie
Tinsalita you're my stone desire

You're a genius.

PacerDude
05-27-2009, 04:49 PM
I always thought that Jamaal would be the better player for the Celtics than Stephon Marbury and a hell of a lot cheaper too.The Pacers are still on the hook for his contract. Whatever a player signs for after a buyout/release, it's bonus money.

Wish it were as simple as releasing him, but alas, there's still the matter of $14+ mill to deal with.

Los Angeles
05-27-2009, 05:29 PM
But now you're sad, and Tinsley's mad
And Billy Hunter says he knows that I don't have any money
Tell him this is last chance to get his Tinsley on a good ball team
Because the Arbitrator, Rosie, just gave me my release

My sinuses were slashed and I almost crashed but the Lord had mercy
My old PG's a dud, stuck in the mud somewhere in the swamps of Georgia
Hold on tight, stay up all night 'cause Rosie I'm comin' on strong
By the time we get to July 27 you will be my new point guard

[Harmonica Solo]

I know a pretty little place in Southern Florida down Miami way
There's a little arena where DWade plays all night and day
You can see them in the back court ballin'
So hold tight baby 'cause don't you know Larry's comin'

Tinsalita jump a little lighter
Jim O'Brien come sit by my fire
I just want to be your PG, ain't no lie
Tinsalita you're my stone desire

That's better.

count55
05-27-2009, 07:40 PM
There's no harmonica in Rosalita.

Major Cold
05-27-2009, 09:00 PM
There is no harmonica solo in Tinsalita either.

CableKC
05-27-2009, 11:04 PM
I always thought that Jamaal would be the better player for the Celtics than Stephon Marbury and a hell of a lot cheaper too.

I'm sure if Bird heard that the Celtics would pick up Jamaal only if we were to cut him and he became a FA he would release him.
Along these lines....I was thinking about the "Tinsley to Magic" deal that fell through. Could you imagine Tinsley hitting those 3pt shots in Game 4 that Alston hit?

Tinsley's a good player....probably better then Alston in certain facets of his game just like Alston is better at others over Tinsley......but the Magic live off of their 3pt shooting.....I can't see Tinsley being a better fit for the Magic over Alston.

Trophy
05-28-2009, 03:22 PM
Along these lines....I was thinking about the "Tinsley to Magic" deal that fell through. Could you imagine Tinsley hitting those 3pt shots in Game 4 that Alston hit?

Tinsley's a good player....probably better then Alston in certain facets of his game just like Alston is better at others over Tinsley......but the Magic live off of their 3pt shooting.....I can't see Tinsley being a better fit for the Magic over Alston.

That's when the Magic were in desperate need of a PG when Nelson went down with the injury.

I do agree with you that Alston is the better fit for Orlando because he's more of a 3 point shooter than Tinsley.

On the other hand, Tinsley is more of that dribble to the basket if he can or he looks for an open man similar to what Boston tends to run for their PGs.