Grievance

[bballpacen]

I totally agree on the fact that we can't have either Lee or Pietrus for Tinsley. Orlando may be needing a point guard but for them to like Tinsley, Larry should have a really pretty offer. Seems to me that Indiana's running out of hope and would, in the end, settle for the best among the bad offers. The need to unload Tinsley is far more greater than the other teams' desire to try on Tinsley so i wouldn't be surprised if Kenny Thomas becomes a Pacer.

Battie would be nice, but i doubt if O'Brien can make use of him. I mean, if Indiana would deal Tinsley, it would be for a guy who can play immediately and effectively under Obie's system. In short, a guy who can help instantly. But should it come down the last minute, Battie's gonna be fine. I just hope some practice would bring him back to his shot-blocking days.

I couldnt disagree more... I dont think that we are in a position that we have to at any cost trade JT... If I am to have a choice between Battie or Thomas, give me Battie 10 times out of 10... Heck, if I would take Cook from the Magic before I would Thomas... In any deal involving JT, we are not really looking for a servicable player, more than trying to unload him, and be done with him... If we can trim off a year of the salary obligation, that is IMO, the best that we could hope for... Battie would be ideal, IMO

[JarrettJackSG]

The problem here is that Tinsley should be allowed to be with the team. If he is not on the team, why not waive him? Why not give him a buyout amount (which no one has publicly stated has been offered). If he is treated as not part of the team, then why not show it via buyout?

He recently made an effort by trying to go to the fieldhouse to practice. As a team member he should be at least allowed to sit on the bench as an inactive player. If it is not on the team, show an action that is allowed under CBA.

This is where Tinsley's case is the strongest. If the Pacers were serious about cutting ties, then they should have cut him a long time ago. I mean, look at how long Artest sat out. This might break the time, and this could also mean there is a really weak market for Tinsley.

If that is the case, and Tinsley thought he would be playing by now, this would force the issue.

At least he isn't a John Starks homer like cdash.

[bballpacen]

Straight from Larry Coon's FAQ...

The CBA does not give a complete list of reasons for which a player can be suspended. A few reasons are specified, such as for prohibited substances and disciplinary reasons. Teams sometimes suspend players for other reasons, but those suspensions are often grieved. For example, Toronto once suspended Oliver Miller for being too heavy, and the LA Clippers once suspended Keith Closs for being too light! The CBA does not specify the length of suspensions

A team can suspend a player for any thing they so choose, and for what ever length they desire, save for a few circumstances that are specifically addressed (ie. drug use, felonies, ect)... Now There is no real wording on a "Stay the hell away from my team" type suspension like JT or Starbury are on... But as I understand from reading the CBA, the Pacers nor Knicks are in any kind of wrong from what they are doing, so long as they are paying the player thier salary...
No doubt that there is a weak market for JT, I mean look at the reasons that we dont want him around the team, and tell me what a team is going to give up to get that... Not a whole lot...

[Boneman2]

I agree that we should have just bought JT out, trading him is like splitting hairs. We have every right to set him because of his past indifferences with the law, but as time passes he will gain the argument that this layoff is punitive to his ability to perform his job effectively. And he'll win.

Bottomline is the NBA really needs to address guaranteeing these deals because a lot of guys show their true unprofessionalism after they get complacent in their work ethic.

[granger05]

This recent bought of injuries may help us move Tinsley. Orlando, and New Orleans may be real possibilities now. Utah may be without Deron as well. There's no way they trade for Tinsley, but with the Jazz (maybe Portland as well) in the market for PG that takes other guys off the market and makes Tinsley more attractive. I agree with bballpacen that a shorter contract is our best case scenario. I think that helps make Tinsley more attractive as well. Is he really any worse than Earl Watson for example? OKC will expect something of value in exchange for Watson and we won't. Tinsley had issues last year, but this isn't a Pacman situation. He hasn't been in trouble at all during this dismissal, and last year was the first time I remember him having off-court issues. I think the idea that he's a cancer is a bit overblown and we're making it worse by telling him to stay away.

[cdash]

At least he isn't a John Starks homer like cdash.

Slander!

I'm actually glad Tinsley is threatening to file a grievance. Perhaps it will be a call to action to resolve this thing once and for all.

[Gremz]

Themz Fighting Words!!!

I really don't understand the point of this grievance suit whatsoever. Unless there is a factor of no communication in months, i hardly see what his case is here.

I don't claim to be an expert on NBA contracts, but what right does a player have to hold owners to ransom? It surely can't have anything to do with playing time, or we would have heard about this earlier. If he wants to play, he has no one to blame but himself (and maybe his agent for his current deal) for the choices he has made. We have shown utter patience with him in the past time and time again. I'm actually more surprised that teams don't have leverage over players who cause the club harm. What does it take? Someone to be imprisoned for 10 years before a contract can be voided?

If it's a problem with "no being able to perform his job" then give him the keys to the training facilities when the rest of the boys aren't there. Hell, send Boomer out there for a game of 1 on 1, I don't care. If it's game time he's concerned about, then send him to the D-League to play 1mpg.

Here's an option, we let him come back and train and play with us, then sue him for emotional and monetary damages when the rest of the players refuse to play with him and the stands are empty.

Maybe it's a case that a buyout hasn't even been discussed. Bird had claimed in the past that a buyout was simply "not an option" so perhaps it's not even on the table. If this is the case, then perhaps things might be looking up for us.

In any case, I'm completely done with this situation, it's ridiculous to concern ourselves with it further. He's simply a player watching his premium years fade and is realizing that he's running out of time to secure an option of where he can ply his trade. What are the odds that the remaining years of his career after this deal, are all played out on minimum salary?

[basketballwacko2]

The problem here is that Tinsley should be allowed to be with the team. If he is not on the team, why not waive him? Why not give him a buyout amount (which no one has publicly stated has been offered). If he is treated as not part of the team, then why not show it via buyout?

He recently made an effort by trying to go to the fieldhouse to practice. As a team member he should be at least allowed to sit on the bench as an inactive player. If it is not on the team, show an action that is allowed under CBA.

This is where Tinsley's case is the strongest. If the Pacers were serious about cutting ties, then they should have cut him a long time ago. I mean, look at how long Artest sat out. This might break the time, and this could also mean there is a really weak market for Tinsley.

If that is the case, and Tinsley thought he would be playing by now, this would force the issue.

At least he isn't a John Starks homer like cdash.

I don't believe we have made any buyout offer to JT. Bird has said time after time that we don't like buyouts. Let me go over this again, if we buy him out for $18 million for this yr and his 2 remaining that is 3 yrs, he hits our salary cap and lux tax at $6 million per yr. That can never be traded and will be there until 2011. Bird wants to trade him, JT wants to play the idea was someone would need a PG and JT would be shape and we'd deal him for some piece of crap like Battie or Thomas or anyone who isn't named Jamaal Tinsley.

We could bring JT back to the team and give him the same deal IU gave Bobby Knight. Mess up once and your out and you agree to void your contract. That way if he gets in trouble once he's fired and we don't owe him a damn dime. Players Association prob wouldn't allow it.