Tinsley's buyout = 10.7 million....

DWCP2 · Post #1 » by **DWCP2** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 1:56 pm

Tinsley left 4 million on the table to be released from the Pacers.

This is my guess as to the so called resolution....

He gets all of his salary this year, 7.2 million, the Pacers are under the cap and can take it on with ittle to no problems of being near the luxury tax threshold.

However he only took 3.5 of his 7.5 million salary for 2010, allowing the Pacers to escape the luxury tax fully if not temporarily depending on the remaining moves ahead.

Thoughts???

greenway84 · Post #2 » by **greenway84** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 1:57 pm

i already posted this with link in the tinsley resolution thread.

Post #3 » by **mizzoupacers** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 3:44 pm

Thanks for the link in the other thread Greenway, I appreciated that. :thumbsup:

I think the terms of the buyout deserve a separate thread though. It's a confusing subject, and I'm not sure I have a clear sense of all the implications involved.

For example, how does it work against the Pacers' future salary cap? From what I've read, it sounds like with the buyout, Tinsley will now count roughly $5.3 million against the cap in 2009-2010, and roughly $5.4 million in 2010-2011. But I'm not sure that's actually the way it works. Does anyone know better than I do?

cinful · Post #4 » by **cinful** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 3:59 pm

If the buyout amount is 10.7 million then 5.24 will count against the cap this coming season and 5.46 in 10-11. Doesnt matter how its paid out.

DWCP2 · Post #5 » by **DWCP2** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 4:23 pm

Buy Outs are carefully planned out.

I've seen buyouts where players gets 70% of their salary in the first year and only 50% of their salary the second year.

The thing about contracts is the terms...

cinful · Post #6 » by **cinful** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 4:53 pm

DWCP2 wrote:Buy Outs are carefully planned out.

I've seen buyouts where players gets 70% of their salary in the first year and only 50% of their salary the second year.

The thing about contracts is the terms...

In this case, the terms of the buyout have no bearing on the salary cap hits for the 2 years. Only 2 things matter-as dictated by the CBA-the total buyout amount and what the original scheduled payout of the initial contract was.

Example: The Pacers and Tinsley agree that the Pacers will pay it out over 20 years. They arent permitted to spread the salary cap hit over those 20 years. They take a look at how the original contract was structured over the remaining years. Tinsleys was about 49% in 09-10 and about 51% in 10-11. So thats how the buyout will be disbursed as far as the salary cap hit goes.

8305 · Post #7 » by **8305** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 4:57 pm

If this in fact the amount of the buy out this is about as good as the Pacers could hoped. Clearly there was no one out there willing trade a shorter contract. This is better than taking back a contract of equal length tied to a player of marginal value.

Post #8 » by **floppymoose** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 5:10 pm

Dang. I was hoping they would just sit on Tins. That way at least he would be a nice expiring down the road. Buyouts can't be traded. They are just a cap hit with no upside, other than saving the owner some money. I guess the economy got to the Pacers.

fienX420 · Post #9 » by **fienX420** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 6:19 pm

Wow. I am very surprised that we were able to save so much. I guess he was even more anxious to put the Pacers behind him than vice-versa. He must feel he is in really great shape to continue his career elsewhere.

Post #10 » by **mizzoupacers** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 6:37 pm

floppymoose wrote:Dang. I was hoping they would just sit on Tins. That way at least he would be a nice expiring down the road. Buyouts can't be traded. They are just a cap hit with no upside, other than saving the owner some money. I guess the economy got to the Pacers.

The Pacers DID sit on him for an entire year, and they couldn't find anyone willing to trade for him. What it may have accomplished, though, is to get Tinsley to agree to a fairly significant buyout (if $10.7 is accurate). Would Tinsley have taken that last August? I doubt it.

As a fan, I'm satisfied with buying out Tinsley and knocking a couple million a year off the payroll. I don't think he would have had any value to the team as an expiring contract--the contracts of Dunleavy, Murphy, Foster, and Ford all expire the same year that Tinsley's would have, and how many dollars worth of expiring contract can you really use? Besides, the Pacers would have to a wait yet another year before Tinsley reached the last year of his contract. It just wasn't worth the wait for so little likely benefit.

DWCP2 · Post #11 » by **DWCP2** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 7:09 pm

mizzoupacers wrote:
floppymoose wrote:Dang. I was hoping they would just sit on Tins. That way at least he would be a nice expiring down the road. Buyouts can't be traded. They are just a cap hit with no upside, other than saving the owner some money. I guess the economy got to the Pacers.

The Pacers DID sit on him for an entire year, and they couldn't find anyone willing to trade for him. What it may have accomplished, though, is to get Tinsley to agree to a fairly significant buyout (if $10.7 is accurate). Would Tinsley have taken that last August? I doubt it.

As a fan, I'm satisfied with buying out Tinsley and knocking a couple million a year off the payroll. I don't think he would have had any value to the team as an expiring contract--the contracts of Dunleavy, Murphy, Foster, and Ford all expire the same year that Tinsley's would have, and how many dollars worth of expiring contract can you really use? Besides, the Pacers would have to a wait yet another year before Tinsley reached the last year of his contract. It just wasn't worth the wait for so little likely benefit.

True but it still buries the Pacers against the luxury tax come 2010.

granger05 · Post #12 » by **granger05** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 8:40 pm

Most of the outlets are still reporting that the buyout details aren't fully known yet, but hoopshype has already updated the Pacer's salaries to reflect tinsley's buyout.

LINK

fienX420 · Post #13 » by **fienX420** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 9:18 pm

The $2 million in savings on our cap the next two years is actually very significant. However, it has dawned on me that had we worked this out sooner and not signed Jones, we should have been able to afford Jack... grr...

Post #14 » by **PR07** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 9:45 pm

It was never Jones vs. Jack. Pacers weren't going to want Jack back at the offer sheet he signed, whether Jones was here or not.

slickrickstyles · Post #15 » by **slickrickstyles** » Thu Jul 23, 2009 9:54 pm

fienX420 wrote:The $2 million in savings on our cap the next two years is actually very significant. However, it has dawned on me that had we worked this out sooner and not signed Jones, we should have been able to afford Jack... grr...

my fellow blue and gold friend...you have been rather disgruntled over the last 6 weeks have you not? I like criticism because as fans of a team like this and all that we have been through there is simply no reason to look at this with rose colored glasses...we are a rebuilding franchise and all opinions count...start a thread with your 6 week run down fien I'd be very likely to debate or agree with you...im intrigued...maybe its just the off season