And then there were 3.....

[HicksvsKnicks08]

"Denver, Golden State, Houston, Orlando"

Scoot,

How many teams starting PG's do you think (in strictly b-ball ability) JT is equal to or better than?

[bballpacen]

"Denver, Golden State, Houston, Orlando"

Scoot,

How many teams starting PG's do you think (in strictly b-ball ability) JT is equal to or better than?

I would say that JT is arguably a top 10 pg and easily top 15, there are MANY teams that Tinsley would be an upgrade for interms of production/talent... but that is not the only thing to consider... I mean, there are reasons as to why we are wanting to deal him... and it is those reasons why teams will stay clear of him... His contract would be a non issue if the other two big issues were not present... His inability to stay healthy is a HUGE concern, not to be overlooked, and the same goes for his inability to abide by laws... But believe me at some point, someone will give him a good look, and think that he is worth the risk, but at this point, he simply is not... and I think that he will be a Pacer untill at least the trade deadline, and quite possibly as next offseason rolls around...

[Kuq_e_Zi91]

Man, I just really hope we don't lose a 1st round draft pick over trading Jamaal.

[bballpacen]

Man, I just really hope we don't lose a 1st round draft pick over trading Jamaal.

There is absolutely NO WAY that we package a lottery pick just to move JT... That would be a terrible deal, and I think that Bird knows this... I would rather play the guy than lose a draft pick over it...

[count55]

Man, I just really hope we don't lose a 1st round draft pick over trading Jamaal.

There is absolutely NO WAY that we package a lottery pick just to move JT... That would be a terrible deal, and I think that Bird knows this... I would rather play the guy than lose a draft pick over it...

There's no scenario under which I play the guy. To me that is one of the things that is worse than a buyout. I'd also consider dealing our 1st rounder as worse than a buyout, unless it was heavily, heavily protected.

[bballpacen]

Man, I just really hope we don't lose a 1st round draft pick over trading Jamaal.

There is absolutely NO WAY that we package a lottery pick just to move JT... That would be a terrible deal, and I think that Bird knows this... I would rather play the guy than lose a draft pick over it...

There's no scenario under which I play the guy. To me that is one of the things that is worse than a buyout. I'd also consider dealing our 1st rounder as worse than a buyout, unless it was heavily, heavily protected.

Sorry, did not mean to imply that I would actually in reality play him if I were TPTB... I just meant that if I was forced to deal him with a pick, or play him, I would rather play him... Dealing our pick, protected or not, with JT is ABSOLUTELY WORST CASE SCENARIO, IMO...

[Scoot McGroot]

"Denver, Golden State, Houston, Orlando"

Scoot,

How many teams starting PG's do you think (in strictly b-ball ability) JT is equal to or better than?

Hmm....if we're talking Tinsley at his absolute best, he's probably in the top half of the league. However, we're only talking about Tinsley at his best for about maybe a 7 minute stretch every 3 weeks, so I honestly think we can just throw that out right now.

Once you add in Tinsley's baggage, lack of defense, lack of focus, etc, I think Tinsley falls to being maybe a starter around the league. I know I'd rather start a less talented Delonte West, but not have to deal with any baggage, rather than having Jamaal Tinsley on my team. I'd also rather stick with my own player with baggage that has a shorter contract in Rafer Alston than I would in taking on a longer term deal on Tinsley.


I just don't think we can play the "but he's more talented" card right now. That's honestly the only reason why many of us are even thinking he could be traded. If he wasn't more talented than most other guys, he'd have already been bought out now and would be sitting at home with no one willing to sign him.

[count55]

Sorry, did not mean to imply that I would actually in reality play him if I were TPTB... I just meant that if I was forced to deal him with a pick, or play him, I would rather play him... Dealing our pick, protected or not, with JT is ABSOLUTELY WORST CASE SCENARIO, IMO...

No, it's really not. Most draft picks, particularly protected ones, are that girl you see from across the bar that looks really hot, but turns out to be really disappointing when you get up close. In most cases, throwing the pick in with JT would be bad, but I'd have to see what the deal is first. Consider the "Protected First Rounder" NJ got for Marcus Williams:

So what do the Nets get? Maybe a first round pick.

If the Warriors are in the playoffs in 2011, the Nets get their first round pick. So it’s lottery-protected in 2011.

If the Nets are still waiting for the pick in 2012, they get G. State’s first rounder, as long as it’s not 1-through 11. If they’re still waiting in 2013, they get the first rounder as long as it’s not 1-through-10. But 2013 is the cutoff. If they haven’t gotten the pick by then they get two second rounders, in 2013 and 2015.

Maybe they can draft Williams’ grandkid or something.

It also depends on the asset we get back.

There is only one worst case scenario, and that's playing Jamaal again. You do that, and you might as well wad up everything we've done this summer, payroll, personnel, and PR-wise, and throw it in the trash.

[bballpacen]

If a team is going to except such a highly protected first rounder... well then ok... but we are talking about the Tinman here... Not someone on a rookie contract... And I dont think that adding a first rounder is going to offset the amount of baggage that JT has, at least not yet... Furthermore, as a team that is now looking to build for the future, being of a small market, and having salary cap concerns... The draft picks are going to be critical in how we are able to build...

After we lost our pick to ATL, and were unable to improve, I am not at all willing to trade a pick without similar potential is coming back... ESPECIALLY with the 7-17 range where we could be picking... Now if we were likely to be near the end of the first round, then I would have less of a problem, but certainly not in the middle of the draft...

[HicksvsKnicks08]

Hmm....if we're talking Tinsley at his absolute best, he's probably in the top half of the league.

Scoot,

I agree. I think thats my whole point. Yes he is a risk but ask yourself this : which is more "risky" taking on Tinsley's 2 more years at roughly 14mil? or Paying an average guard like Igodola (sp?) 80+ million over 5 years?

The other thing I dont get is who Artest was admonished by TPTB for demanding a trade and lowering his value, when Bird and Co. have done the exact same thing with Tinsley.

Little hypocritical, no?

[cdash]

Hmm....if we're talking Tinsley at his absolute best, he's probably in the top half of the league.

Scoot,

I agree. I think thats my whole point. Yes he is a risk but ask yourself this : which is more "risky" taking on Tinsley's 2 more years at roughly 14mil? or Paying an average guard like Igodola (sp?) 80+ million over 5 years?

The other thing I dont get is who Artest was admonished by TPTB for demanding a trade and lowering his value, when Bird and Co. have done the exact same thing with Tinsley.

Little hypocritical, no?

Well, first off, he has 3 years and $21 million left on his deal. That is a long time, and that is especially meaningful now, because every team in the league is trying to get under the cap for the big free agent class of 2010. His situation really doesnt compare to Iguodala's either. Iggy is well above average for a guard, and while I dont think he is worth $80 million over 6 years, Philly is in it to win it now with Brand on board. With their young guys developing, they see a window in the East and they are going for it. They had to resign Iggy, even if they did overpay him.

The Artest thing wasnt just the fact that his demands for a trade lowered his value. I dont think that was much of a concern for the front office. What pissed them off somethin nasty was that they stuck with him throughout the entire brawl process and showed a tremendous amount of loyalty to their player in the face of the greatest black eye in NBA history...all for him to turn his back on the organization and demand a trade from a team that could have contended. Besides, there isnt a front office person in the league who doesnt know Tinsley is available. Its common knowledge. So really, they arent doing a whole lot to diminish his "value".

[count55]

Hmm....if we're talking Tinsley at his absolute best, he's probably in the top half of the league.

Scoot,

I agree. I think thats my whole point. Yes he is a risk but ask yourself this : which is more "risky" taking on Tinsley's 2 more years at roughly 14mil? or Paying an average guard like Igodola (sp?) 80+ million over 5 years?

The other thing I dont get is who Artest was admonished by TPTB for demanding a trade and lowering his value, when Bird and Co. have done the exact same thing with Tinsley.

Little hypocritical, no?

First of all, Iguodala's rumored contract is six years, not five. It's also been reported that it may be structured more Deng's, with a base of around $72 and incentives taking it to $80.

Second of all, it's ridiculous to refer someone coming off of a 19.9pt, 5.4 reb, 4.7 ast season as the best player on a team that made the playoffs as "average". Particularly when that season comes on the heels of an 18.2pt, 5.7 reb, 5.7 ast campaign in 2007. Over his career, he's only missed 6 of his teams 328 games, and shoots at a 47% clip from the floor and 77% from the line. He also brings solid perimeter defense, and, to my knowledge, has never been suspended or had run-ins with coaches, teammates, or the law.

Tinsley on the other hand, has missed an average of 33 games per season over the last five years (40%). In three of those years, including last season, he missed 40 or more. He has a career shooting percentage of just under 40% and FT% of barely over 71%. He has been suspended by both the league and (reportedly) the team. He has been involved in two major off-court incidents (Club Rio and Eight Seconds).

There is no question that Tinsley is a far riskier proposition than Iguodala. Iguodala has demonstrated his worth far more consistently than Tinsley. More to the point, Tinsley has demonstrated his lack of reliability with alarming consistency.

Regarding Artest, his value was destroyed by multiple suspensions, a brawl, and the general reputation for being a honey crusted nutbar long before his demand for a trade. We kept him so long because we hoped we could get more value from him on the floor than through a trade. The demand was just the final straw that made TPTB and his teammates say "screw this guy...get him the hell out of here."

While Tinsley "could be" a starting quality point guard in the NBA, occasionally on a high level, what he "is" is an oft-injured, inconsistent player with poor shooting ability, questionable judgment on the floor, and considerable question concerning both his locker room and off-court presence. Teams may make deals based on what a guy "could be" if he's in his teens or early twenties. With 30-year olds, they make deals based on what he "is". This is why it (a) is so hard for us and (b) probably won't work out too well for us in the end.

[HicksvsKnicks08]

I knew I had Tinsley's numbers wrong, my bad. Compare Iggy's numbers with Dunleavy's. Everyone rips the salary he makes right? You may point out Tinsley's flaws, and I understand that, but his 8.4 assists per game can not be ignored. Look at how the bulls dealt with Rodman. Can you say that he was less of a risk then Tinsley?

Sorry I realize that "salesman" in me starting to kick in, lol

I agree about Artest, but am I not correct that the Pacers TPTB criticized him for making it public he wanted to be traded? Yet are doing the same thing now? Please dont tell me the differences because the rule should apply to both. Iam not trying to nitpick, but If they kept all things Tinsley internal, and promoted positive things in the media, it wouldn't have hurt his value, and I believed it would have helped at least a little.

agree or no?

[Wizop]

but If they kept all things Tinsley internal, and promoted positive things in the media, it wouldn't have hurt his value, and I believed it would have helped at least a little.

agree or no?

no. I'll grant you that it might have made it easier to trade him but it wouldn't have made the same public statement that has tickets starting to sell again. do the math. 5,000 empty seats times 41 games is 205,000 seats. say $35 average and voila it's Tinsley's salary ... and we haven't even mentioned concessions or product sales or even the fact that the tickets they were selling were going way cheaper than they were 2 seasons ago. the real revenue drop is probably over 10 million. getting right with the community is way more important than what we might get back for him in a trade.

[count55]

I knew I had Tinsley's numbers wrong, my bad. Compare Iggy's numbers with Dunleavy's. Everyone rips the salary he makes right?

If you want to understand the criticism of Dunleavy's contract, you have to look at his numbers prior to this year. Junior's contract was signed as an extension to his rookie contract (as we hope to do with Danny). Over the course of his rookie contract (the first four years of his career), Dunleavy averaged 10.5 pts, 4.7 rebs, 2.4 asts, while shooting 43% from the floor (35% 3's) and 77% from the line. Iguodala's career numbers are also four years, but he's averaged 14.8 pts, 5.7 rebs, and 4.1 asts while shooting 47% from the floor (33% 3's) and 77% from the line. These include the last two seasons that were highlighted in a previous post. In Dunleavy's first year of his contract (with GS/Indy), he only averaged 12.8/5.3/2.8, while shooting 45%/31%/78%. (The one thing that can't be factored statistically is Iguodala's strong defense vs. Dunleavy's relatively weak defense.)

Coming into this season, Dunleavy had a pretty much well-earned reputation of being a "bad contract". However, his quantum leap this past season (19.1/5.2/3.5 on 48%/42%/83%) has moved him from "grossly overpaid" to "probably slightly overpaid", and if he can demonstrate that it was not a fluke, he'll probably be considered "fairly paid" in the coming years.

You may point out Tinsley's flaws, and I understand that, but his 8.4 assists per game can not be ignored.

His 8.4 assist are an attention grabber, but they immediately get drowned out by any number of other negative statistics. First, looking at assists alone, they appear to be an outlier, as his career numbers coming into this season were only 6.1 per game. Second, his career high shooting percentage for a season is just shy of 42%, and he's never shot even 75% from the line. Last season, he averaged 3.6 3pt attempts per game, despite hitting only 28% of them.

But the numbers that make the most noise are still the games missed. The 11.9 pts, 8.4 asts, and 1.7 stls lose all of their lustre when you see that he did them in only 39 games. His numbers look even more questionable when you realize he basically turned into a pumpkin after the first of the year. Through December 31, Jamaal played in 29 of 32 (91%) games, averaged 13.8 pts, 8.7 asts, & 1.8 stls on 39% shooting (31% 3's) and 75% FT's. After the 1st of the year, Tinsley played in only 10 of 50 (20%) games, averaged 6.5 pts, 7.5 asts, and 1.3 stls on 35% shooting (14% 3's) and 59% FT's.

Now, if there were a specific event that caused an injury that was resolved or addressed through surgical or medical means, that would help explain this issue. However, Jamaal's injury, on the surface, appeared to be a nagging, chronic type injury, bringing into question how or if he could overcome it in the future. Further, if this had been an isolated season, you could explain it away. However, Jamaal had missed 30, 42, 40, and 10 games in the preceding four seasons.

So in the end, Jamaal's assist numbers take on a shimmery appearance, not unlike a mirage. Worse, even if they were not a mirage, they appear to be numbers that you cannot count on for 82 games. Further complicating matters are the remaining 3-years and $21.6mm left on Jamaal's contract. A team may be willing to hope JT can keep it together for 70+ games if they've only got a one-year commitment, or if the dollars were more like, say, a Marcus Banks-level. However, three years at starting pay is going to engage the gag reflex on pretty much any team that doesn't have any equally bad or worse contract that they can swap for it.

Look at how the bulls dealt with Rodman. Can you say that he was less of a risk then Tinsley?

One thing I can't do is compare the structures of the contracts, as I don't know the details of Rodman's contract. However, while it's not unreasonable to say that Rodman was a greater risk, it's an absolute fact that he offered a greater reward. By the time the Bulls acquired Rodman in 1997, his resume included:

- 2 DPOY's
- 7 1st Team All Defense, 1 2nd Team All Defense
- 2 3rd Team All NBA
- 8 Top Ten Total Rebounds (incl League Leader 3 times)
- 9 Top Ten Off Rebs (incl LL 5 times)
- 6 Top Ten Def Rebs (incl LL twice)
- 6 straight seasons leading the league in rebounds per game.

Jamaal, on the other hand, can only boast a 2nd Team All Rookie and is five years removed from his two top 10 assist seasons. Rodman offered the opportunity to get an all-time great rebounder and one of the best defenders of his generation. Jamaal offers the opportunity, best case, to get an above average starting point guard.

Leaving aside the fact that the Bulls had Jordan, Pippen, and Jackson to wrangle Rodman, let's look at what they risked. They traded Will Perdue and cash considerations for Rodman. Will was coming off a career year of 8 pts and 7 rebs, and, in his six seasons with the Bulls, had amassed career averages of 5 pts and 4 rebs.

Sorry I realize that "salesman" in me starting to kick in, lol

I agree about Artest, but am I not correct that the Pacers TPTB criticized him for making it public he wanted to be traded? Yet are doing the same thing now? Please dont tell me the differences because the rule should apply to both. Iam not trying to nitpick, but If they kept all things Tinsley internal, and promoted positive things in the media, it wouldn't have hurt his value, and I believed it would have helped at least a little.

agree or no?

I do not recall specifically who made what quotes at the time of the Artest debacle. Generally, I'm of the opinion that you share as little information with the "customer" as possible, short of lying or intentionally misleading him, so I'll not dispute that any comments made by the Pacers' FO may have had some sort of negative impact on this situation. At the very least, they had no positive effect. However, two things must be considered here:

1. The level of knowledge in other Front Offices: I just sat here in my office with a laptop and basketball-reference.com and outlined any number of reasons that Jamaal is a huge risk, particularly under the NBA CBA as it exists. NBA teams have entire scouting organizations devoted to breaking down players. Yes, there are a considerable number of mistakes made, but these are generally related to projecting how players not currently in the league (HSers, College, Internationals) will play in the NBA. It's highly likely that after 7 seasons, every team in the league has a very sound book on Jamaal's pluses and minuses. They also likely have a decent handle on most internal/lockerroom issues. The NBA is a small community, and somewhat incestuous. I'm guessing that there are very few secrets.

Communications issued from the Pacer's front office can only impact the negotiating position of the team, not necessarily the player's perceived value. In other words, while teams might think they can get a player for less than they think he is worth, it won't make teams think players are better or worse than they really are.

2. The Pacers are not talking to the rest of the league alone when they make these statements. - They are talking to us. The organization is undergoing the opening moves of reinventing themselves. They believe, and I agree, that convincing the fanbase that "the times, they-are-a-changin'" is of far more value to the franchise than any damage done to their negotiating position.

Also, when you consider point one, pretending that Jamaal has a future with this team ends up being a negative in two ways. First, other teams will be forced to consider that our FO are composed of idiots or that our FO considers them all to be idiots, capable of swallowing some load of tripe about Jamaal being in our plans. (Even if no statements came out, don't you think the fact that we've acquired two PG's this summer might speak even louder about JT's future?) Second, the fanbase will scratch their heads during the summer season-ticket purchase period. Some, perhaps not many, but some, will wonder what the hell the Pacers are thinking. Though it will take sustained wins and effort to get fans to flock back to the Pacers, any sign of wavering on changing the image (of which Jamaal is the poster boy) will certainly keep fans away.

From my point of view, I actually believe they'll be able to swing some kind of a deal this summer, ugly though it may be, to get JT out of town. However, I also believe the team should be prepared to buy Jamaal out prior to the start of the season. There are no object lessons to be learned, and the value of putting an end to that particular chapter in Pacer history (and saving maybe $3-5mm over the next three years) is worth more, to me, than any pride lost or any dead cap space we'd have to live with through 2011.

Edit: Didn't see Wizop's post...it hit the nail on the head regarding point 2 above.

[basketballwacko2]

So what are we gonna do with this turkey? Eat him for Thanksgiving Dinner? Is there any way to get Jamaal out of town? Who might take him and how much is it gonna cost us. Denver? Kmart maybe, Tinsley and Murphy for Martin? I don't see much else unless you want to get really stupid and talk about Zach Randlolph. I'd take Jeffries in a heartbeat but I'd rather keep JT and send him home than to take on Randolph.

[Wizop]

we may have to let him sit at home for half the season to let other teams no we are serious about not playing him or buying him out so they can have him cheaply. if it comes to that, we'll have to eat a contract to get down to 15 and someone else will suffer but maybe they can get a team with cap room to take on one of the bottom guys for a conditional draft pick to buy us some time.

[floppymoose]

I knew I had Tinsley's numbers wrong, my bad. Compare Iggy's numbers with Dunleavy's. Everyone rips the salary he makes right?

If you want to understand the criticism of Dunleavy's contract, you have to look at his numbers prior to this year. Junior's contract was signed as an extension to his rookie contract (as we hope to do with Danny). Over the course of his rookie contract (the first four years of his career), Dunleavy averaged 10.5 pts, 4.7 rebs, 2.4 asts, while shooting 43% from the floor (35% 3's) and 77% from the line. Iguodala's career numbers are also four years, but he's averaged 14.8 pts, 5.7 rebs, and 4.1 asts while shooting 47% from the floor (33% 3's) and 77% from the line. [/color]

Not only that, but Dunleavy put up those numbers while being the third (at best) option. Iggy was the number one gun drawing the toughest defenders and being asked to put up the bail-out shots. Dunleavy's rookie deal shots were all cherry picked wide open looks.

It's great news for the Pacers that he has found his game since arriving. He still should not be your bail-out man and that will always be a bad role for him, but as a complimentary player who gets to make decisions with the ball, he's come a long way.