Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: McDyess For Tinsley an Option?

  1. #1

    Default McDyess For Tinsley an Option?

    McDyess doesn't want to go to Denver, his salary is as exactly the same as Tinsley. McDyess does not want to accept a buyout if he has to restructure his deal. I see it as a win-win for both teams.

    http://www.nba.com/2008/news/11/03/n....ap/index.html

  2. #2
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

    Default Re: McDyess For Tinsley an Option?

    If he doesn't want to go to Denver, he probably doesn't want to go here, either.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    921

    Default Re: McDyess For Tinsley an Option?

    Strange that he wouldn't wanna go to Denver considering his good history there and the fact that they're a probable playoff team that he should get minutes on.

    As for the deal, sign me up in a heartbeat.

  4. #4

    Default Re: McDyess For Tinsley an Option?

    Quote Originally Posted by eldubious View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    McDyess doesn't want to go to Denver, his salary is as exactly the same as Tinsley. McDyess does not want to accept a buyout if he has to restructure his deal. I see it as a win-win for both teams.

    http://www.nba.com/2008/news/11/03/n....ap/index.html


    LOL! I posted this same trade on the Detriot and Denver trade thread 1 minute b4 you started your thread.

  5. #5

    Default Re: McDyess For Tinsley an Option?

    Denver took care of their pg situation with Billups. They also could get Marbury if he is released. There is no pressing reason to take an extra year on Tinsley's deal.

    The Pacers would have to be involved now since Dice could not be involved in a multiple player trade for awhile, but a package of expirings (Baston/Danials) and Tinsley for Adkins, Carter, Hunter, and Dice would be a possibility if they are still unhappy at pg.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,436

    Default Re: McDyess For Tinsley an Option?

    Quote Originally Posted by eldubious View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    McDyess doesn't want to go to Denver, his salary is as exactly the same as Tinsley. McDyess does not want to accept a buyout if he has to restructure his deal. I see it as a win-win for both teams.

    http://www.nba.com/2008/news/11/03/n....ap/index.html
    Why? They just got the PG they needed. He costs $12M a year and he's good. Do they want another one that costs $7M a year and isn't as good?

    What owner wants to commit $19M/year over 3 years for two players who are over 30 years of age and play the same position?

  7. #7
    Administrator/ The Real Jay ChicagoJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Chicago
    Age
    44
    Posts
    17,000

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: McDyess For Tinsley an Option?

    Dice and Mark Jackson made a GREAT combination in Denver for 1/2 a season.
    Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
    Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
    Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
    Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
    And life itself, rushing over me
    Life itself, the wind in black elms,
    Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you


  8. #8

    Default Re: McDyess For Tinsley an Option?

    Quote Originally Posted by d_c View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Why? They just got the PG they needed. He costs $12M a year and he's good. Do they want another one that costs $7M a year and isn't as good?

    What owner wants to commit $19M/year over 3 years for two players who are over 30 years of age and play the same position?
    What owner wants to commit 13 mil for a 34 year old PF and waive him after getting him in a trade with a 26 mil 32 year old PG for 3 years? At least with taking Tinsley for the same money for 2 years as McDyess, who is being waived, Tinsley will be a insurance policy at PG, and an expiring the year after that at a greater need position than McDyess. Not to mention this year or next, some team might need a PG where they can get a player/players in return for the same money that owner is going to spend waiving McDyess that could really benefit them in the future. It isn't really that crazy if you look at it in terms of Denver waiving McDyess. If they aren't planning on waiving him, then that is a horse of a different color.

  9. #9
    Member Moses's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Athens, GA
    Posts
    3,565

    Default Re: McDyess For Tinsley an Option?

    I'd love it, but I don't see it happening.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,436

    Default Re: McDyess For Tinsley an Option?

    Quote Originally Posted by Justin Tyme View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    What owner wants to commit 13 mil for a 34 year old PF and waive him after getting him in a trade with a 26 mil 32 year old PG for 3 years? At least with taking Tinsley for the same money for 2 years as McDyess, who is being waived, Tinsley will be a insurance policy at PG, and an expiring the year after that at a greater need position than McDyess. Not to mention this year or next, some team might need a PG where they can get a player/players in return for the same money that owner is going to spend waiving McDyess that could really benefit them in the future. It isn't really that crazy if you look at it in terms of Denver waiving McDyess. If they aren't planning on waiving him, then that is a horse of a different color.
    Keep trying to convince yourself that Tinsley is good for everyone else even though he's the same guy you want to throw over a bridge.

  11. #11

    Default Re: McDyess For Tinsley an Option?

    Quote Originally Posted by d_c View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Keep trying to convince yourself that Tinsley is good for everyone else even though he's the same guy you want to throw over a bridge. It's fun watching.

    Tinsley isn't good for everyone else, but keep convincing yourself throwing away 13 mil by waiving a player, so that player can go back to the team that traded him is a good move. Why not get something in return that can be turned into a future asset? Is that concept too hard to grasp?

  12. #12

    Default Re: McDyess For Tinsley an Option?

    Tinsley is more like a liability than he is an asset. If anyone wanted to give much of anything for him he would be long gone by now.

    Even if the Nuggets felt that McDyess for Tinsley was fair value they don't need Jamaal with Billups there. They are in salary cutting mode right now. Thats why they gave up one of the best defensive players in the league for nothing. They are not going to want Jamaal there to backup Chanucey.

  13. #13
    Member idioteque's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    washington dc
    Age
    28
    Posts
    9,512

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: McDyess For Tinsley an Option?


  14. #14

    Default Re: McDyess For Tinsley an Option?

    Quote Originally Posted by rommie View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Tinsley is more like a liability than he is an asset. If anyone wanted to give much of anything for him he would be long gone by now.

    Even if the Nuggets felt that McDyess for Tinsley was fair value they don't need Jamaal with Billups there. They are in salary cutting mode right now. Thats why they gave up one of the best defensive players in the league for nothing. They are not going to want Jamaal there to backup Chanucey.

    I realize the trade isn't final, and McDyess hasn't been waived. But how is trading for McDyess and cutting him consided a salary cutting mode?

    I don't feel that Denver will win anymore games with Billups than with AI. If they had kept AI, they would have lost 20 mil in salary at seasons end. Instead they are picking up 18 mil in salary next year by trading for a 32 year old Billups and a 34 year old McDyess.

  15. #15

    Default Re: McDyess For Tinsley an Option?

    Quote Originally Posted by Justin Tyme View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I realize the trade isn't final, and McDyess hasn't been waived. But how is trading for McDyess and cutting him consided a salary cutting mode?

    I don't feel that Denver will win anymore games with Billups than with AI. If they had kept AI, they would have lost 20 mil in salary at seasons end. Instead they are picking up 18 mil in salary next year by trading for a 32 year old Billups and a 34 year old McDyess.
    What I was mostly refering to was the Marcus Camby trade. Tinsley's contract is a year long, I think. And unless they wanted Billups at the two they are paying good money for Jamaal to be a backup.

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Dillon, Co
    Posts
    3,917

    Default Re: McDyess For Tinsley an Option?

    Denver 9 local news is reporting that McDyess isn't expected to play for the Nuggets. No info on where he's expected to be shipped. Is any team under the cap enough to offer a pick for McDyess?

  17. #17

    Default Re: McDyess For Tinsley an Option?

    It was reported in another thread that the Nuggets are keeping McDyess, so the trade thought of Dice for Tinsley is really moot now.

  18. #18
    Member pacergod2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    2,885
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: McDyess For Tinsley an Option?

    Here is what happens when Denver buys out McDyess... He is owed 6.8M this and next year. If he takes say 75% in a buyout. His cap hit would be 5.1M for each year as it is spread out evenly between the two years. Denver will almost definitely be over the cap this year and next. That 1.7M difference each of the two years is actually 3.4M in savings per year due to the $ for $ Luxury Tax. In essence, assuming a buyout somewhere around 75-80% of his contract, they are saving his second year of salary in real dollars, although it will still be a cap hit for next year.

    The Nuggets are posturing, as we did with Eddie Jones, that they want him on the team so that he agrees to a lesser buyout and he has his discretion of where to play. Now if the Nuggets were smart, they would get a team like Charlotte or Memphis, where they have a serious need at PF and are under the salary cap to show interest in a possible trade for him and hold that against him in negotiations. He only wants to play for a contender and therefore leverage as low a buyout number as possible.

    They have a bigger interest in buying him out than taking back Tinsley for him. The only way that would be feasible is if McDyess won't agree to a buyout. Then the Pacers would have to take back an extra 1.6M in salary on top of McDyess in order for the Nuggets to maximize a current year reduction in their payroll. They would still have to deal with Tinlsey's third year of salary and thus makes it that much more unlikely.

Similar Threads

  1. Raptors pick up fourth-year option on Bargnani [ESPN]
    By RoboHicks in forum NBA Headlines (RSS Feeds)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-27-2008, 07:50 PM
  2. Kings pick up Hawes' option for 2009-10 season [ESPN]
    By RoboHicks in forum NBA Headlines (RSS Feeds)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-20-2008, 01:10 PM
  3. Celtics to pick up Rondo's option for 2009 season [ESPN]
    By RoboHicks in forum NBA Headlines (RSS Feeds)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-15-2008, 11:20 AM
  4. Positive sign: Redick's option picked up by Magic [ESPN]
    By RoboHicks in forum NBA Headlines (RSS Feeds)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-07-2008, 04:00 PM
  5. Do the Pacers have a team option on JO
    By esabyrn333 in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-16-2008, 10:28 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •