Wizards Have No Interest In Tinsley

[HicksvsKnicks08]

Im sorry but I put this squarely on TPTB. They completely lowered the value of Tinsley by their going public on the subject. It was a poor descision to come out and say he will not be with the team. They act like the guy is an anti-christ. He still averaged 8.4 assists per game. If they dont have Tinsley moved , that will really irratate me.

[HicksvsKnicks08]

What if we took a big hit only the first year. Tinsley is owed roughly 21 million over the next 3 years.

What if we bought him out for like 14-16 million,eat it for one year, then would he be off our cap number the following yar?

[FreeRon]

Can't do that. You buy out a player for a number. Whatever percentage of his original salary he was due that year counts that much against your cap. For instance, if it was broken up so he was paid 25% of the $20 million his first year, 35% the next, and 40% in his 3rd year and we buy him out for $16 million, we have to pay those percentages for those years...so $4 million the first (instead of $5 million), $5.6 million the second (instead of $7 million), and $6.4 million his third year (instead of $8 million). That's about the best scenario I can think of, and while I'm all for saving $1.6 million in that third year that's the most it saves us and we're paying $6.4 million for him while he's not playing. if I'm not mistaken, though, 1 more arrest and his contract can be voided?

[floppymoose]

FreeRon is correct. All you can do with a buyout is reduce the cap hit by some %, the same % each year of the contract. Adonal Foyle is still on the books for the Warriors for this reason. We are paying him millions to play for the Magic. Or practice for the Magic, to be more accurate.

[MillerTime101]

I read the report this morning but on sportsnet (Canadian sporting network) They had a small segment saying the Wizards ARE interested in Tinsley and that a deal is in place, this is exactly what they did when JO was traded. Not sure if theres any relevance but it made me spill my cheerios.

[Kuq_e_Zi91]

I read the report this morning but on sportsnet (Canadian sporting network) They had a small segment saying the Wizards ARE interested in Tinsley and that a deal is in place, this is exactly what they did when JO was traded. Not sure if theres any relevance but it made me spill my cheerios.

WHAT?!!?!?! Don't get my hopes up!

[Dunthreevy]

Ok fellas, maybe we need to do some reverse psychology here. I'll start...

Jamaal Tinsley is not a bad guy. He's an asset to the community and a real team player. Any other team would be lucky to have him on their squad and could legitimately increase the cohesiveness as a team. Tinsley is the type of player who is going to do all of the little things on the court to make your team a winner.


Now if only we could spread this wonderful opinion of Tinsleberries to the GM's around the league.

[Scoot McGroot]

eddie gill was not in the first 2 years of the nba. so im confused do we have to buy them out and anyone can go or can only 2 years or under players can go?

Eddie Gill was not under contract to any NBA teams when he played in the D-League. He was under contract with the D-League. Players under contract to an NBA team can only be sent down to the D-League if they have 2 years or less of service in the NBA. Rush, Hibbert, McRoberts, and Graham are the only players on the Indy roster that could be sent down to the D-League if they're all on the roster at the start of the year. Every other player on our team could only play in the D-League if they were free agents and signed to play in the D-League. That is why Patty O'Bryant played in the D-League as well as guys like Kosta Perovic. Eddie Gill played because he was a free agent and had no where else to play.

[Scoot McGroot]

What if we took a big hit only the first year. Tinsley is owed roughly 21 million over the next 3 years.

What if we bought him out for like 14-16 million,eat it for one year, then would he be off our cap number the following yar?

Several things.

1) As already pointed out, that simply cannot be done.
2) Why would Tinsley give up $5-7 million? He doesn't have to give up a dime, and with his situation would probably not agree to a buyout unless it was 90-95% of what he was owed anyway. I doubt he'd give up $5-7 million out of the goodness of his heart (not that I'm saying he's a bad guy, just a fiscal guy).
3) Why would the Pacers even be interested in putting an additional $14-16 million on our salary cap this year? That would mean that we'd be WAY over the luxury tax, and have to pay a dollar for dollar penalty on ALL the salary we added to this cap. That means we would have to pay around $7-9 million extra in luxury tax payments, and we'd lose around $6 million in luxury tax redistribution payments. This deal would cost the Pacers an extra $24 million in this season ALONE.

[count55]

If Tinsley has a good financial advisor, he'd make sure that Tinsley's buyout would be paid up front, but he'd recognize that there would be an NPV discount of some kind. Before the meltdown of major financial institutions, I would've argued that a 12-14% discount rate would've been reasonable. That would've put the buyout at somewhere between 16.6mm and 17.2mm. (77-79% of total)

However, now, 6 to 8% might be pretty reasonable, which would put it between $18.5 & $19.2. (86-88% of total).

The principle being that money today is worth more than money tomorrow. I would generally think a decent financial guy should be able to get a better return than 6-8%, so I'd probably jump at a lump sum offer in that range. (Again, the payout is lump sum, but the cap hit flows over the three years, prorated.) Plus, if I'm Tinsley, I'm pretty damn sure I can at least land a min contract, which would get me $1+ plus back.

While it's certainly possible that Tinsley would hold out for nothing less than the full amount, it would probably be somewhat foolish of him to do so...the Pacers would never give him a lump sum settlement for that amount, and he'd probably be costing himself a good opportunity at some decent return over the next three years.

[dc]

The principle being that money today is worth more than money tomorrow. I would generally think a decent financial guy should be able to get a better return than 6-8%, so I'd probably jump at a lump sum offer in that range. (Again, the payout is lump sum, but the cap hit flows over the three years, prorated.) Plus, if I'm Tinsley, I'm pretty damn sure I can at least land a min contract, which would get me $1+ plus back.

While it's certainly possible that Tinsley would hold out for nothing less than the full amount, it would probably be somewhat foolish of him to do so...the Pacers would never give him a lump sum settlement for that amount, and he'd probably be costing himself a good opportunity at some decent return over the next three years.

If a player still has more than one year left on his deal, a buyout can't come in one lump sum. If a guy still has 3 years left on his contract and he's bought out, the buyout payments will be over a 3 year period and the payments will be in proportion to his original deal.

[count55]

The principle being that money today is worth more than money tomorrow. I would generally think a decent financial guy should be able to get a better return than 6-8%, so I'd probably jump at a lump sum offer in that range. (Again, the payout is lump sum, but the cap hit flows over the three years, prorated.) Plus, if I'm Tinsley, I'm pretty damn sure I can at least land a min contract, which would get me $1+ plus back.

While it's certainly possible that Tinsley would hold out for nothing less than the full amount, it would probably be somewhat foolish of him to do so...the Pacers would never give him a lump sum settlement for that amount, and he'd probably be costing himself a good opportunity at some decent return over the next three years.

If a player still has more than one year left on his deal, a buyout can't come in one lump sum. If a guy still has 3 years left on his contract and he's bought out, the buyout payments will be over a 3 year period and the payments will be in proportion to his original deal.

No, that's not correct. The cap hit will be spread proportionally over the original deal, but the actual cash transaction is subject to negotiation.

The agreed-upon buy-out amount (see question number 59) is included in the team salary instead of the salary called for in the contract. If the player had more than one season left on his contract, then the buy-out money is distributed among those seasons in proportion to the original salary. For example, say a player had three seasons remaining on his contract, with salaries of $10 million, $11 million and $12 million. The player and team agree to a buyout of $15 million. The $15 million is therefore charged to the team salary over the three seasons. Since the original contract had $33 million left to be paid, and $10 million is 30.3% of $33 million, 30.3% of the $15 million buyout, or $4.545 million, is included in the team salary in the first season following the buyout. Likewise, 33.33% of $15 million, or $5 million, is included in the team salary in the second season, and 36.36% of $15 million, or $5.455 million, is included in the team salary in the third season.

The distribution of the buy-out money is a matter of individual negotiation. Changing the number of years in which the money is paid does not change the number of years in which the team's team salary is charged. In the above example in which the player's contract is bought out with three seasons remaining, the buyout amount is always charged to the team salary over three seasons. It does not matter if the player is actually paid in a lump sum or over 20 years (a spread provision).