My new take on Tinsley situation

fienX420 · Post #1 » by **fienX420** » Fri Jun 26, 2009 6:52 pm

I now think that the arbitration scenario was planned all along. We tanked Tinsley's remaining trade value by publicly dissing him and refusing to play him or buy him out so it was Tinsley's only option. We didn't want to trade him, because there were no options that saved us money. Now, in arbitration, we'll be forced to buy him out. The arbitration will probably be better than we could've negotiated ourselves. And we get to save face with the fans with the line, "We didn't want to buy him out. We don't believe in buying players out. But we want to put the situation behind us, so we aren't going to fight this." We save a couple million or more, which is crucial to re-signing Jack and some other cheap free agents this season. It was dirty, but it was the only way.

FreeRon · Post #2 » by **FreeRon** » Sat Jun 27, 2009 2:33 am

I really don't think so. Should we be forced to buy him out, we're not going to save a lot of money. When the arbitrator finally decides, we'll essentially be buying out the last year of his contract. Expiring deals have value in and of themselves, and Tinsley's not a bad player, just a bad person.

Post #3 » by **Gremz** » Sat Jun 27, 2009 5:58 am

FreeRon wrote:I really don't think so. Should we be forced to buy him out, we're not going to save a lot of money. When the arbitrator finally decides, we'll essentially be buying out the last year of his contract. Expiring deals have value in and of themselves, and Tinsley's not a bad player, just a bad person.

Probably the main reason why I'd not want a buyout.

clown60hacker · Post #4 » by **clown60hacker** » Sat Jun 27, 2009 8:34 am

I do not see where the Pacers will be ordered to buy him out. All that will do is set up players to do the same thing to get off a team and still get paid .
My personal thought would be they tell J.T. GIVE UP YOUR LAST 2YEARS AND WALK or Pacers can sit you until they can work out a trade.

fienX420 · Post #5 » by **fienX420** » Sat Jun 27, 2009 4:59 pm

No way an arbitrator screws a player like that. You can't just ruin a guy's career by keeping him out of the league while you wait a couple years for his contract to expire. The only compromise is a buy out. Arbitration will probably be finalized by September. I expect a buy out of probably his contract value minus two years at the minimum - maybe a little bit better in our favor. Saves us a couple million. Good deal for us.

8305 · Post #6 » by **8305** » Sat Jun 27, 2009 9:20 pm

Wondering if this arbitration hearing is "Binding Arbitration?" Where the parties argee going in to abide with what the arbitrator decides. If yes, this will be interesting as I would think the Pacers for buying out JT would need to be compensated for the potential asset his expiring contract would be in a year or so. I would hope the haircut Jamal would have to absorb would be more than two years X the NBA vetern minimum.