7/22: Pacers & Tinsley Reach Resolution (he's finally gone)

[Miller4ever]

Have you seen the movie?

The golf course gets exploded.

[Scoot McGroot]

The way I think it is, and maybe one of our salary cap gurus, can better clarify (Scoot or Count); but his salary will still count in full against the cap in dead money. However, the Pacers will be able to save a little money by actually paying him less than they previously were obligated to, if they reached any sort of buy-out at all.

Depends. If he was just waived, then his full salary will count against the salary cap and luxury tax.


If we reached a buyout with him where he received less than what he was contractually owed, then whatever amount we reached per that buyout would be equally spread across the remaining 2 years of his contract and that number would count against our salary cap and luxury tax numbers.


No matter what, this is a good thing though. Just good to finally be resolved.

[fienX420]

http://www.indystar.com/article/20090722/SPORTS04/90722046/1088/Pacers+buy+out+remainder+of+Tinsley+s+contract

Ouch... Tinsley even comes out classier in the quotes. Come on Bird! Although I am almost positive Tinsley's people threatened litigation and reamed us on the buy-out. Seems like their might be some bitterness.

I wonder where Tinsley ends up..

[greenway84]

^
eventually....prison.

[Scoot McGroot]

IndyStar reports it as a buy-out. After all the Larry Bird-$#!t spewed about not buying out players (right before we bought out Eddie Jones) and how it was against their principles, blah, blah, blah, somebody needs to come out and explain this immediately. I hope something in the buy-out agreement involves surrendering any right to litigation (I would assume it does) because Tinsley has a damn good case. We could have bought him out long ago and he could be on his merry way with another team and it would've all been behind us. I bet that we didn't even buy him out at much of a discount (or any) because of the threat of litigation.

Not sure what I think of the Pacers leadership's 'decision-making' and 'character' at this point... from hypocrisy to bad-mouthing a player, from tanking an assets' value to letting a good player go, from drafting Shawne Williams to drafting Tyler Hansbrough/AJ Price, from overpaying an over-rated 'stopper' to picking up another team's 'cancer' - just not sure.

I'm optimistic though.

Buyouts always go in the players favor. Contractually, there's got to be a helluva reason for a player's contract to get terminated and not get the money they were owed per the contract. Hell, when Latrell Sprewell choked his coach, arbitrators reversed the fine that he was owed, and wouldn't let the Warriors just tear up his contract like they wanted to. GS ended up trading him, I believe, or possibly reaching a buyout.


Any number under his full salary that they reached is a positive. Yeah, it'd be nice for the Pacers to have been able to trade him and not just waste his salary, but it just wasn't possible. No one was trading anything of value, or even of no value, for Jamaal Tinsley. We probably just decided that we'd rather be able to hold onto an AJ Price, or a Bill Walker type player and give them a shot at the roster, rather than have to hold onto Tinsley on the roster.

[basketballwacko2]

The way I think it is, and maybe one of our salary cap gurus, can better clarify (Scoot or Count); but his salary will still count in full against the cap in dead money. However, the Pacers will be able to save a little money by actually paying him less than they previously were obligated to, if they reached any sort of buy-out at all.

I'm not a cap guru but if we bought him out for say $12 million he counts against the cap at $6 million per yr. The Suns recently bought out Ben Wallace who was owed about $14 million for $10 million, so I'm williing to bet that the break in the JT saga was his agreement to take between $10 and $12 million. Now the question is if someone picks him up after he clears waivers and pays him say $1.5 for the season does that $1.5 come off of what we have to count?

It's a good day but I wish we could have moved him even if it was for a kenny Thomas or Narz Mohammad/Gadzuric type. At least we'd have a player who we might get a little use out of and maybe could trade off next season when his deal became expiring. Otherwise bye bye JT don't let that door hit your behind!

[fj20]

WOO WOO ILL HAVE A BEER FOR THAT

[glasket]

I say good luck to JT.
He did hurt our team but at least both parties can move on

[basketballwacko2]

Have you seen the movie?

The golf course gets exploded.

License to kill gophers by the government of the United Nations. Man, free to kill gophers at will. To kill, you must know your enemy, and in this case my enemy is a varmint. And a varmint will never quit - ever. They're like the Viet Cong - Varmint Cong. So you have to fall back on superior intelligence and superior firepower. And that's all she wrote.


In the immortal words of Jean Paul Sartre, 'Au revoir, gopher'

[chatard5]

Hahaha, what a thread. Finally Tinsley is gone. VROOOM VROOOM PARTY STARTER!

[freeman]

The Pacers got a big weight off its shoulders.
And Jamaal can finally move on and play ball.
Glad it was all over.

[count55]

....

[count55]

Buyouts always go in the players favor. Contractually, there's got to be a helluva reason for a player's contract to get terminated and not get the money they were owed per the contract. Hell, when Latrell Sprewell choked his coach, arbitrators reversed the fine that he was owed, and wouldn't let the Warriors just tear up his contract like they wanted to. GS ended up trading him, I believe, or possibly reaching a buyout.

No, this isn't true.

A buyout is a negotiated settlement. There have been very favorable ones for the players, like Chris Webber getting $39 of his $43mm. There have been very favorable ones for the teams: Adonal Foyle took only about $12 of the $18mm owed, Antonio McDyess took a $6mm buyout from Denver when he was owed over $15.3mm.

A buyout is not the same as terminating a contract. The Warriors literally tried to void the contract, and that simply didn't fly.

I will be interested to see the terms, but it would not surprise me to see a decent discount.

[Scoot McGroot]

True. I was thinking more of the situations where the team desperately wanted rid of the player, i.e. Marbury, Tinsley, Francis, etc.


I ignored the situations where the players have a positive vested interest in changing their situation, a la McDyess and Foyle.


Yeah, the Warriors said they terminated the contract, and after arbitration the courts basically said they couldn't just tear it up. I can't remember if GS traded Sprewell after that or if they ended up buying him out.

[jrandis04]

Glad to finally see him gone. Who cares if Bird said he didnt want to buy him out, we got rid of him. If it was a buy out this is a good thing. I was hating the thought of trading him for a bench warmer.

So, if he was bought out, does that mean we have extra money to go out and sign someone? Possibly a solid back up PG or a rebounder/shot blocking big man?

[Wizop]

the email I got as a season ticket holder reports it as a straight waiver rather than a buy-out. reading the CBA FAQ I see that means, if 100% accurate, that we pay his full base salary but can set-off dollar for dollar any amount he receives to play elsewhere whether in the NBA or elsewhere.

[kdawg531]

the email I got as a season ticket holder reports it as a straight waiver rather than a buy-out. reading the CBA FAQ I see that means, if 100% accurate, that we pay his full base salary but can set-off dollar for dollar any amount he receives to play elsewhere whether in the NBA or elsewhere.

So essentially we should pray that he gets a huge contract from somewhere in Europe, where he would easily get paid more than he would in the NBA?

[Scoot McGroot]

Tough financial hit then. I'd think they would've at least been able to get a million or two out of him, since he's likely to get that much for the vet minimum, but we'll just save that money on the backend then, as we'll just have to wait for someone to sign him rather than get it up front.

[basketballwacko2]

the email I got as a season ticket holder reports it as a straight waiver rather than a buy-out. reading the CBA FAQ I see that means, if 100% accurate, that we pay his full base salary but can set-off dollar for dollar any amount he receives to play elsewhere whether in the NBA or elsewhere.

So essentially we should pray that he gets a huge contract from somewhere in Europe, where he would easily get paid more than he would in the NBA?

Well that's thought I hadn't considered he could be headed over to Europe, but I'm betting it's a buyout in the $10 to $12 million range. Based on the fact that the Suns gave Ben Wallace $10 million to buy his $14 mill for this coming season. I'd like to see $10 million and then see him go to Barcelona or Isreal, or Greece.

[count55]

No, no, no...It is technically a waiver...as all buyouts are. The fact that they used the term "waiver" is simply the correct terminology and does not preclude a buyout.

The Indiana Pacers announced Wednesday that a resolution has been reached between the team and guard Jamaal Tinsley, and as a result the grievance arbitration scheduled for next week has been canceled.

Tinsley will be waived by the Pacers Wednesday, and if he clears waivers, he will become a free agent.

“This ends a very difficult period for all parties involved,” said Larry Bird, President of Basketball. “We are pleased to have this resolved.”

Pursuant to team policy, details of the resolution will not be disclosed. The team will have no further comment.

“Jamaal and I would like to thank the Pacers for working on a resolution to this and Jamaal and I are sorry things didn’t work out,” said Tinsley’s agent, Raymond Brothers. “We both wish the Pacers the best of luck in the future.”

We will have to find out about the "resolution" (read: buyout) through other channels. Expect there to be speculation in the media in the next few days...it won't come from the Pacers.

Scoot: a note on Marbury...it was always reported that the Knicks got a $2mm reduction on the $20-21mm contract. However, at the time of the buyout, the Knicks only owed about $6mm, which was the amount for the balance of the year. The buyout was actually for about 1/3 of the remaining amount.