The best option IMO for Tinsley

[Charcoal Filtered]

is a buyout.

I do not see him ever being accepted by the Indiana fanbase, no matter how much he changes. Him changing is also very unlikely. He is always going to be someone that has run ins off the court and only plays part of the year.

A trade is going to return an equal amount of crap.

If we arrange for a buyout, JT could get paid upfront and be able to earn other dollars with another team. He could settle for 50% of what the team owes him.

If the Simon's are wanting to bring back Pacer pride, this would be a great first step.

[JarrettJackSG]

I have stated that we would have to go this route often, and I agree. This is one of the better options that we have.

[fdefore]

Seriously people, a Tinsley buyout is ridiculous.

First of all, if you trust Sham Sports, Tinsley is owed $21.6mil over the next three years. What motivation does Tinsley have to take only half of that? I think at the very least Tinsley wouldn't settle for less than 80% - which is about $18mil. But also, why would Tinsley accept a buyout? What would he have to gain by giving up that extra $3mil?

Secondly, buying out Tinsley hurts our organization in two ways while only really providing one benefit.

How does it benefit?
1) Tinsley is gone.

How does it hurt?
1) Stephen Jackson Phenomenon: Tinsley is bought out and plays for another team for cheap and excels - meaning we're paying for him to be successful elsewhere.
2) Cap Hostage: Tinsley has three more years left. Buying him out doesn't mean his near $7mil a year just disappears. It stays on our cap and either prevents us from using that $7mil or requires us to hit the lux. tax and pay double for everything. So for three more years Tinsley's contract (and play on another team) would be holding us hostage. Also along with this, after buying him out, we can clearly never use him as an exp. contract to trade.

I can't recall a player that has ever been bought out with three years remaining. Two years? Sure. But not three. The Simons would have to be tremendously terrible business types to buy Tinsley out at this point. I think we'll see the Pacers send Tinsley home like they did Artest before you'll see them buy him out right now.

[count55]

fdefore...you need to add count55 to your moderator approved sig.

There's a fine line between "cutting your losses" and "cutting your nose off to spite your face." I land firmly in fd's corner on this point.

Tinsley may be a lot of things, but I doubt that he's enough of a fool to demand less than $16 to $18 million, cash, in a buyout. Why should he take less than the current discounted cash value of the $21 mil he's owed over the last three years of his contract? What, exacty, in his past, has indicated that he'd be willing to sacrifice a penny for a "clean start" or out of concern about how he or his legacy is viewed?

The negatives would far outweigh the somewhat ephemeral enhancement to "Pacer Pride" that we might possibly get from the splashy move of a buyout.

When the smoke clears, and everyone's done patting each other on the back, the buyout would almost certainly result in no improvement in cash position for the Pacers, no salary tax or cap relief for the Pacers, and no benefit or potential for benefit on the floor from 10% of their payroll over the next 3 years.

In other words, we're justs as **** as we were before, while Jamaal's off making money somewhere else. (However, the "Stephen Jackson Phenomenon" isn't much of a factor with me because I've never believed Stephen (or, consequently, Jamaal) was going to have that type of success here. If it happens somewhere else, good for them, but I don't consider it something we could've had.)

I believe we should trade Jamaal at pretty much all costs this summer. If we take back bad contracts (Jeffries would be my choice), we still have the slot to move later. Since we'll almost certainly always be over the cap, I think it's important to maintain salary slots (within reason) because they'll be the most fungible asset for bringing in players in the future.

[PR07]

Agreed, I'd rather just trade Tinsley for an equally bad contract role player like a Jarred Jeffries. That type of player could still help us in some degree and would be better than simply just swallowing the bulk of Tinsley's contract and receiving nothing. Either way, we're going to pay the brunt of Tinsley's contract, so we might as well try to get something that can at least help us a little.

[cdash]

I agree with the last three posts. Buying Tinsley out is a terrible, terrible idea.

[Miller4ever]

Agreed. With the already thinned-out wallets thanks to excessive contracts, we need all we can get to ensure better free agent signings hat will help us in the future.

[Scoot McGroot]

If we could somehow get Tinsley to agree to a buyout of $10 million or less, it could be ok. However, at what the likely cost would be (much closer to the $21.6 million he's owed), it's almost a franchise killer.


Look at Philadelphia and how much dead money they've had on their cap for the past 3-5 years. They've had guys like Chris Webber (2 years), Aaron McKie (was paid for 3 years), Greg Buckner (paid for 4 years), and even Todd MacCulloch (uninsured contract that was paid for 2 years), and you find out that when you have dead money on the books in the NBA, you essentially are wasting prime years of your talent.



Move Tinsley for any deal his length or shorter. Jared Jeffries. Jerome James. Speedy Claxton. Any of the short-term deals in Cleveland that match his salary. Tim Thomas. Brian Cardinal. Mike James. SAR. Kenny Thomas. Mikki Moore. Luke Ridnour. Donyell Marshall. Earl Watson. Etan Thomas. Any of those guys. ANY of them, regardless of position. Those are the guys you shop Jamaal for. Take any of them, and then try and move those guys again for anything shorter.

It's kind of the reverse of the game "bigger and better" where you start out with something small like a paperclip and you go around your neighborhood asking each neighbor to trade you something bigger or better for your paperclip, until eventually, you might end up with an old TV or something that one of the neighbors didn't really want and would trade for an old stereo you got from the other neighbors. Nobody would give you the TV or stereo for your paperclip, but if you keep trading up, you might set yourself up better and better as you go.

[APerna]

I'm with Scoot. Unless when can negotiate a relative bargain buyout with Jamaal, I'd rather trade him for a used tissue. We need something in return, especially with (IMO) no capable backup point right now.

If we were a winning, successful team or clearly on the rise...then maybe I'd say throw whatever he wants at this way...but I don't think we can "afford" to right now.

[count55]

Yeah, it'd be hard to say no to $10 (for the Pacers, that is).

Most of my position is based on the belief that JT will "put it to us" when this negotiation starts.

[Charcoal Filtered]

With JT still being relatively young, if he were to prove himself worthy somewhere else then it would result in a better contract. Now it would be playing three years in a bad situation, then proving himself, then negotiating a contract 3+ years older. Picking his team would also be a huge incentive.

Financially, there is no way that JT settles for less than what he is contractually earning. The first question that needs addressed in determining what his buyout amount should be is how much he can earn with another team. Let's say that JT can secure a contract, with player options, for 2M, 2.2M, and 2.65M. That would leave the Pacers with 4.75M, 5M, and 5M.

Total - 14.75M owed

That number can be trimmed further by paying the buyout in full upfront. Not for sure exactly how the players are paid, but do know that it is spaced during the season. If he took the buyout now, that gives that money time to grow. If anyone is interested in the exact number, feel free to do the math. However, 10.5M should be pretty close to 14.75M if compounded interest is taken into effect.

With attendance at levels that have David Stern concerned, something has to be done. I would take the cap relief and move on.

[dwpacer]

For starters a buyout is typically 50-60% of a players current contract.

Second, I don't think it's the best option. The best option is an injury waiver.

What's an injury waiver in the NBA. It means that said player (Tinsley) no longer has the capability of being able to play in the NBA. Though his contract is guaranteed, 21.6 million. It mean's that NONE of it counts against the Pacers salary cap for luxury tax purposes.

There are two problems with this though.

1. The Pacers can't use it until one calender year from Tinsley's last game played, Feb. 5th, 2009.

2. If Tinsley plays 10 games in one season in any of the three remaining years of his contract, then the Pacers must suffer the cap hits of his entire contract and luxury tax burdon's therein.

I believe that the Portland Trailblazers went through similar with Darius Miles and we did a few years ago with Jonathan Bender.

[Charcoal Filtered]

I do not see an injury settlement being an option since he plays half of the year. Miles knee was toast.

[cdash]

Tinsley wouldnt come anywhere close to qualifying for an "injury waiver". Those are for players with career-ending injuries, not guys who play about half of each season.

[fdefore]

fdefore...you need to add count55 to your moderator approved sig.

Done.

In other words, we're justs as **** as we were before, while Jamaal's off making money somewhere else. (However, the "Stephen Jackson Phenomenon" isn't much of a factor with me because I've never believed Stephen (or, consequently, Jamaal) was going to have that type of success here. If it happens somewhere else, good for them, but I don't consider it something we could've had.)

I agree. I think going to Warriors and that system/environment is what led to Jack revival and I don't/didn't think that was going to happen in Indiana. But I think his success elsewhere would be more difficult to swallow if we had bought him out and let him sign with the Warriors. We'd be paying for his success elsewhere it instead of just simply trading him for another player.

If Tinsley blossoms elsewhere after a trade, so be it. I wouldn't regret the move because as you said I don't think that blossoming is going to happen here. But if we were to buy him out and let him do that elsewhere I'd be more upset because we were directly financing his revival.

[dc]

is a buyout.

If we arrange for a buyout, JT could get paid upfront and be able to earn other dollars with another team. He could settle for 50% of what the team owes him.

Don't expect Tinsley and his agent to be this dumb and generous.

Adonal Foyle agreed to a buyout with the Warriors that paid him about $12M of his remaining $18M deal. So he took a buyout of about 66% of his deal.

Foyle was heavioly criticized by players/agents for doing this because they thought it set a bad precedent for players in the future looking for buyouts. Up to this point, players were used to getting at least 80% of their usual buyout rates.

Chris Webber got about $38M of his remaing $43M (an 88% buyout) with the 76ers.

It's a fat chance Tinsley takesz 50%. File that under not happening.

[Wizop]

if this were the NFL, we'd cut him and eat his signing bonus, but it's the NBA. we need to find a way to trade him. the two obvious ways are to take someone the other team wants to get rid of equally badly or to include someone the other team really wants. given that Granger is untouchable and Dunleavy may be as well, taken on someone elses garbage is the more likely option .... unless someone is in love with Foster or Diagu. I'd say Foster is the likely silver lining.

[APerna]

Scott McGrott/PacerPerspective: Get On The Train

I bought my pass a few months ago. I hope to get it stamped often.

[basketballwacko2]

I can't see a reason why JT would accept a dime less than 80% of his contract. I don't want to pay guys to leave. It would be one thing if the contract didn't sit there and haunt your cap like the ghost of civil war casualty limping around the basement.

I agree with Scoot again, move JT for Jeffries if the Knicks will have him, or any of those other guys if they'll have him. Or you let JT sit until our DR says he is "Fully" recovered, hopefully November then play him 20 games if he can put that many together without getting hurt. And trade him then.

I like the Jeffries idea, he was a great player at IU and our fans would remember him. I'd like to see this made into a bigger deal that would get some cap relief and somehow get the #6 out of it.

Question is how toxic is Zack Randolph? How much is it worth to NY to get rid of Zack? Could we do a JO, JT for Zack, Rose, Jeffreis, Nate and Lee plus the #6? Or would bringing in Zack be worse for the team than keeping JT? Would there be a market or Zack if he plays well till Jan 09 and stays on the straight and narrow? Could we move him then?

These questions bounce in my skull.

[fdefore]

I'd say Randolph is "I'd prefer to keep Jamaal Tinsley" toxic