RealGM

it has been obvious for a couple of years that jamaal tinsley and the pacers need to break up. earlier this season he was putting up all-star numbers under jim o'brien. but it is time for both teams to get all Journey and go separate ways.

so... how the hell does that happen? where is jamaal's value at?

the facts:
contract: 4yrs left on his deal, about $7mil per year
07-08: 13.1ppg/4rpg/8.6apg, #5 apg
career: 10.5ppg/3.5rpg/7apg
off-court: shot at after leaving nightclub, fight at night club
on-court: pass-first PG with attitude concerns

so... who could possibly want a PG?

atlanta... obvious PG issues, would they want that contract?
boston... needs depth, not the contract. cheaper options available
charlotte... probably happy with their rotation
chicago... kirk hasn't played well and duhon isn't really starting material. semi-possible
cleveland... need a PG, tinsley could be option if bibby falls through
dallas... happy with harris, could improve backup but tinsley too expensive
denver... could use a pass-first PG but who to trade?
detroit... nope
golden state... could use a backup for baron, unfortunately they gave all their crappy contracts to us the last time around.
houston... not happy with james but have head, brooks and francis if healthy that can play PG probably not looking for another street-baller like alston
clippers... need a PG, unless they decide to destroy the whole thing and rebuild
lakers... probably not
memphis... nope
miami... quinn isn't the answer and jwill's time is over in south beach but tinsley and riley????
milwaukee... nope
minnesota... nope
new jersey... probably not
new orleans... nope
new york... could be now that stephon is out for the year, isiah likes jamaal
orlando... need an improved backup, but not looking for more luxury tax issues
philadelphia... thinking about moving miller but wouldn't want a long contract back
phoenix... they want to get rid of banks deal but wouldn't want tinsleys
portland... nope
sacramento... nope
san antonio... nope
seattle... nope
toronto... probably not unless they want to move ford to commit to calderon, tinsley is slightly cheaper and puts up equal numbers
utah... need backup improvement, jerry sloan and jamaal tinsley HA!
washington... could use a PG with gil sidelined but wouldn't want a big contract to hinder re-signing gil

so lets look at possible deals with teams that could be interested...

atlanta

a.johnson, lue, wright for tinsley, harrison
claxton for tinsley

i think the 2nd deal is probably more favorable to the hawks. the pacers would probably prefer the 1st.


chicago

tinsley, murphy for wallace

this is really the only part i think the bulls would trade for tinsley and ultimately that would mean taking murphy's deal too. chicago says no.


cleveland

snow, s.brown for tinsley, diogu

the talent disparity between snow and tinsley is big, so they trade prospects too: give pacers a SG and Cleveland a scoring post player.


denver

atkins, najera for tinsley, harrison
atkins, martin for tinsley, murphy, harrison

the first deal isn't bad for the pacers, might not be enough for the nuggets. martin, given his injury history would be a major risk with so many years left on the contract. pacers probably say no.


golden state

harrington, pietrus for tinsley, foster

third times the charm for baby al in indy, right? i don't see either team doing it.


clippers

cassell for tinsley
thomas, knight for tinsley, harrison
mobley for tinsley, harrison

really doubt the first deal would happen. the second deal possibly. gives you insurance if shaun can't return as quickly as they'd like. ultimately probably ruled out. the third, if they're looking to move mobley then it seems okay considering where they need help (PG and C), if not probably not a good idea.


new york

rose, collins for tinsley, harrison

~~~~


am i really off-base about tinsley's value? he is a starting caliber PG who is 5th in the league in assists but doesn't have much trade value (ala sjax and artest). do the deals i lay out and the reasoning make sense? which of these deals makes the most sense for both teams or are there other deals i overlooked?

I was just thinking of posting something like this in response to another thread, but you've done an excellent job.

Anyway, to add to this I'll give some thoughts on some of these teams and deals.

Houston: I think that they would deal Mike James straight up for Tinsley, which cuts a year off Tinsley's contract. You're right that they have an abundance of other PGs, but a healthy Tinsley with a good attitude is easily better than all of them. As it is now none of them can consistently get Yao the ball in the post against a good fronting defense. James has barely played for the last few weeks, so I think they'd take a chance on Tins and would probably add something to him.

Milwaukee: Considering that they at least seriously considered Randolph, I think they might take a chance on Tins. As it is now, they don't have a real PG on the roster and they have plenty of fungible players to deal. Tinsley for Gadzuric and sweetener might make sense if JO or Foster gets moved in another deal. Bell, CV and Voskuhl for Tinsley and Diogu could work. Basically, I don't know the exact deal here but there are plenty of players on varyingly bad contracts or that are bad fits on both of these teams and I think that Tins might actually help.

Chicago: I might be crazy, but I think that Heinrich might become available eventually. It would probably take more than Tinsley to get him and he has a longer contract, but it might be another option.

Cleveland: Tinsley and Murphy for Hughes and Marshall. This saves about $20 million and shortens contracts, but it doesn't do much for the Pacers on the court. Cleveland might do it if they can't get Miller or Bibby and it would allow them to move Gooden for a SG more easily.

Golden State: I agree that he would be a great back-up for Baron but they're looking for about 15 minutes at most for that player and I don't think Tinsley would accept that role. Plus, there is no trade that would make sense for GS without adding payroll next year which they can't do.


Overall, I think you're sense of Tinsley's worth is pretty spot on. I think he's a very capabale PG who desperately needs a fresh start, much like Jackson last year. I don't know which team would take a chance on him, but it would be worth it to someone. As far as what the Pacers get in return, unless it's a clearly superior player they should not take back a contract bigger than Tinsley's.

Ya Id say a Cleveland deal of Tinsley/Murphy for Hughes/Snow would be the best possibility... or a Houston PG swap of Tinsley for James and maybe a few smaller pieces thrown in. Houston might take Murphy as well since theyre weak at PF.

I'd do either deal.

You're right about the Warriors, we can't take on Tinsley's salary, especially for a 10-15 mpg player.

Denver would do tinsley/murphy for kmart/hunter

Yeah Cleverland seems like the most logical destination because of their lack of a real PG and the good relation between Mike Brown and Tinsley back in Indy.

I would even do this one with JO in it:

Cavs get JO/Tinsley/Murphy
Heat get D. Jones/Marshall/Diener
Pacers get J. Williams/Hughes/Gooden/Snow/Gibson

Cleveland gets the better talent to surround LBJ, Miami gets Jones back to provide 3point shooting and Indy gets shorter contracts and Gibson.

yunggunz wrote:Denver would do tinsley/murphy for kmart/hunter

Swap Hunter to Atkins and I think Pacers will do it.

Oomph wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Swap Hunter to Atkins and I think Pacers will do it.

They can have Atkins and Hunter, but I think Denver is taking in more total salary, so Hunter is a must.

Doubt Atlanta does your first deal. No point in giving up all those expirings and getting back Tinsley, who might be better than AJ, but once the contract is factored in is probably the same or worse.

The second deal is what Atlanta would do, but the Pacers wouldn't.

WarFan wrote:I was just thinking of posting something like this in response to another thread, but you've done an excellent job.

Anyway, to add to this I'll give some thoughts on some of these teams and deals.

Houston: I think that they would deal Mike James straight up for Tinsley, which cuts a year off Tinsley's contract. You're right that they have an abundance of other PGs, but a healthy Tinsley with a good attitude is easily better than all of them. As it is now none of them can consistently get Yao the ball in the post against a good fronting defense. James has barely played for the last few weeks, so I think they'd take a chance on Tins and would probably add something to him.

Milwaukee: Considering that they at least seriously considered Randolph, I think they might take a chance on Tins. As it is now, they don't have a real PG on the roster and they have plenty of fungible players to deal. Tinsley for Gadzuric and sweetener might make sense if JO or Foster gets moved in another deal. Bell, CV and Voskuhl for Tinsley and Diogu could work. Basically, I don't know the exact deal here but there are plenty of players on varyingly bad contracts or that are bad fits on both of these teams and I think that Tins might actually help.

Chicago: I might be crazy, but I think that Heinrich might become available eventually. It would probably take more than Tinsley to get him and he has a longer contract, but it might be another option.

Cleveland: Tinsley and Murphy for Hughes and Marshall. This saves about $20 million and shortens contracts, but it doesn't do much for the Pacers on the court. Cleveland might do it if they can't get Miller or Bibby and it would allow them to move Gooden for a SG more easily.

Golden State: I agree that he would be a great back-up for Baron but they're looking for about 15 minutes at most for that player and I don't think Tinsley would accept that role. Plus, there is no trade that would make sense for GS without adding payroll next year which they can't do.


Overall, I think you're sense of Tinsley's worth is pretty spot on. I think he's a very capabale PG who desperately needs a fresh start, much like Jackson last year. I don't know which team would take a chance on him, but it would be worth it to someone. As far as what the Pacers get in return, unless it's a clearly superior player they should not take back a contract bigger than Tinsley's.

Eh, that's not accurate about Houston. They're looking to dump James' contract, not trade it for something longer. Houston is very happy with the development of Aaron Brooks and the play of Rafer Alston of late. We don't have any more minutes to give to guards anyway, especially not for that price tag.

I'm not sure why the Pacers would do most of those deals. Tinsley is our only PG, a lot of those deals we don't get one back.

As long as he is a pass first PG(like last game) we really need him. We can't just give him away for pieces that won't help us, just to do it.

yunggunz wrote:Denver would do tinsley/murphy for kmart/hunter

that seems fair

except martin's constantly questionable health and uninsured contract plus another 3yr deal in hunter would be a nightmare. if martin can't play the rest of it (which is certainly likely) then the pacers just traded a completely useable part (in murphy) for a more expensive 3.5yrs of DNP (3.5 because he has a player option on the last year and unless he is playing at an allstar level, i can't see him opting out). if the pacers have to take back a 3yr deal on top of that on a piece they don't need (a big) then the pacers walk away and keep tinsley and murphy -- it would just be a terrible deal.

ultimately the tinsley/murphy for atkins/martin deal leaves denver with $5mil more the final two years (for two players instead of just kmart) but is cheaper for them the first two. by then both contracts will be more tradable and iverson's $21mil will be off the books. pacers wouldn't do this deal and take on a major risk like martin without a PG and some amount of financial relief.

hunter has a 3yr deal and would only save the pacers in total about $500k without solving their PG issue. the hunter issue would be a deal breaker.

what about

Kmart and Ridnour to Indy

Wafer and Tinsley to SEA

Watson and Murphy to DEN

DGrangeRx33 wrote:I'm not sure why the Pacers would do most of those deals. Tinsley is our only PG, a lot of those deals we don't get one back.

As long as he is a pass first PG(like last game) we really need him. We can't just give him away for pieces that won't help us, just to do it.

well there is a lot to say for just agreeing to see other people and move on. many of the proposed deals do include a PG of some kind but most are designed for cap room more than anything else. even someone like speedy, if you trust some of the salary websites out there, show his deal getting smaller each year (as opposed to most which go small to big).

the point is, this is where i think tinsley's value is. sure he could turn it around and bump it up quite a bit but in reality i'm not sure if a breakup (much like stephen jackson flourished outside of indy) isn't the best thing for everyone right now.

fdefore wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



well there is a lot to say for just agreeing to see other people and move on. many of the proposed deals do include a PG of some kind but most are designed for cap room more than anything else. even someone like speedy, if you trust some of the salary websites out there, show his deal getting smaller each year (as opposed to most which go small to big).

the point is, this is where i think tinsley's value is. sure he could turn it around and bump it up quite a bit but in reality i'm not sure if a breakup (much like stephen jackson flourished outside of indy) isn't the best thing for everyone right now.

To me it seems like Obie may have gotten through to him. The last 2 games Tinsley has taken very little shots and has put up 12 and 13 assists, if he continues to do that, I'd want to keep him rather than trading him for a 3rd string PG with a shorter contract.

Phoenix would prefer Banks' contract to Tinsley's, but they'd much rather prefer Tinsley's production to Banks's....

I've never heard a Pacers fans opinion on this....but

what do you guys generally think about a

Curry/Marbury(expiring)/Balkman

for

Tinsley/O'neal deal


substitute Balkman for Nate or Collins doesn't really matter

personally I think you guys are getting raped, but apparently not everyone realizes that Eddy Curry's mother should have swallowed him

From this thread, I can't get a handle on what people think Tinsley's value is.

Here's a Milwaukee deal I thought of if his value is in the tubes.

Bobby Simmons (1 year shorter than Tinsley)
Charlie Villanueva

for

Jamaal Tinsley
Maquis Daniels

You guys could have Charlie Bell as well for whatever if you wanted. He's been playing well since the new year.