I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.
Tinsley played very well under Mike Brown, and under such a demanding leader like Lebron James, I could really see him turning his life around!
"They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.
"'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."
wow, dude. you okay?
This is the darkest timeline.
I like the deal. It gets JO off the books quickly and I believe Wally's contract expires next year. IMHO, Pacer fans overvalue JO and we are not going to get solid value for him. This is not the year 2003.
We get younger and start anew. BTW, can we lump Tins in this some how?
In one year, JO becomes a $22 million expiring contract. If he reverts anywhere near to form this year, that's a lot of icing on the cake.
Trading JO for crap one year before his value would be near it's peak would just be stupid.
We pray that JO stays healthy (3rd or 4th year in row we will do this) and Tin man as well. Yeah!
That is just stupid.
No, we could trade Tinsley for an equally or slightly more horrible contract. While nobody has any respect for Tinsley anywhere, we get someone blinded by the towering hatred we have for him here.
Somewhere else, he's just a bad contract, not Droopy McTinsleberry...and if somebody has a bad contract on a par with Tinsley's with someone they're getting zilch out of, why not take a flyer on Tinsley? They have nothing to lose.
All that being said, I think it's highly likely that Cleveland would balk at the inclusion of the Tinsley/Snow swap, and I don't know that I'd blame them. I suggested it because I had so little regard for the Wally/Varejao/19 package that I had no problem risking it being torpedoed.
However, I agree with the poster who said anyone could be traded.
Tinsley for Gazuric, for Jeffries, Tinsley and Daniels for Zack Randolph, I'm sure I could come up with more...it's all about how much pain you want to absorb coming back.
There is absolutely no solid evidence, anywhere, that JO's value will peak next year.
Seems to that we'll end up making a pretty similar deal a year from now
as the ones being kciked around now. A soon to exp contract, a young
talent, a mid-1st draft pick and filler. The only difference is that w/
only a year left on J.O.'s deal, we'd see a few other teams trying
to positin for the 2010 FA Lottery get involved. On the off chance
that J.O. plays alot and plays well this coming year, we might get
a bit better young talent and a bit better draft pick.
That's not far from a wash.
I like the Toronto trade 100 times better than the Cleveland trade.
"I've got an idea--an idea so smart that my head would explode if I even began to know what I'm talking about." - Peter Griffin
I have to agree with Shade on this issue. Sure discussing trades is fun and I think for many intangible reasons JO needs to be moved and the sooner the better.
But here is what I posted back in April
Trading JO this summer, might be the worst move the Pacers ever make
I have posted these thoughts before, so I will keep it short and sweet. But after reading Kravitz column, I decided to start a thread on this topic.
Trading JO this off season would probably be the worst move the Pacers have ever made. Jo's trade value has never and will never be lower than this summer. He has two years left on his deal, so starting around the trade deadline (next February)his trade value increases slightly, and then next summer it increases by the day, and continues to increase each day during the following regular season. (and of course there is always the long shot that perhaps JO can stay a little healthier next season and that will also increase his trade value) The fact of the matter is that JO's trade value will never be any lower than it is right now.
So of course Kravitz wants the Pacers to trade JO now, and he'll be the first one to criticize the Pacers when a bad deal is made.
Sure, I think it would be best for the franchise if JO is playing somewhere else next season - but I truly believe in this situation, waiting to trade him in a year or two will help the Pacers franchise in the long run. In fact trading JO at the right time will likely be a more important decision than any draft pick the Pacers take over the next two years.
I believe this to be an assumption based on very little, if any, evidence. A very, very dangerous assumption, at that.
This argument doesn't work at all for the Cleveland deal, where they'd be taking on about $15mm more in guaranteed contracts, including $14mm additional in 2009-2010.
The teams that are thinking expiring are NY and NJ, who are trying to foist Zach Randolph or Richard Jefferson on us. Those will get worse if JO spends another injury plagued year. It is very easy to see a point sometime in the next year where JO's maximum value to us comes in simply letting his contract expire and getting it off the books rather than taking back huge, onerous contracts that extend our misery.
If JO"s sole value becomes as an expiring contract, then the offers we get will make the current rumors look like spun gold.
Ok Mr. Buck,
I agree with your assessment of JO, basic business rules are "buy low sell high".
However, what are the other ramifications besides just having JO be at his lowest trade value ever. I think there are other things to factor in, which I don't really know all the ins and outs of, and could use some help from you guys with.
The main issue I see is one Danny Granger. Would JO's massive chunk of the Pacer's salary effect resigning him? I don't really think signing anyone else is a huge priority, but that also hinders being able to sign any free agent as well... Would it not be best to try to work out a deal where we can get back a big expiring deal, like Marbury to ensure we have enough cap room to resign Danny and get any nice looking free agents that might be worth pursuing.
Am I correct seeing JO and Danny's future deal possibly at odds?