Holding Tinsley Deal Over Dollars Doesn't Make Sense

According to Peter Vecsey and Mike Wells, the Jamaal Tinsley-to-Denver trade is hung up over the Denver Nuggets' desire for additional cash considerations from the Indiana Pacers in order to offset some of the remaining salary left on Tinsley's 3-year contract. This can't possibly be the only issues remaining, can it? From Vecsey's Tuesday column:

Jamaal Tinsley trade is on hold while the Pacers and Nuggets argue over money. Denver demands $3 million to defray one-seventh of the locked-out point guard's 3-year obligation.

I have a hard time believing the Simons are holding this deal up over $3 million dollars. I'm not just diminishing the cash in someone else's bank account, either. Over the long term, the Pacers would still save money with this deal even if they kept Chucky Atkins and his remaining salary next year. If they don't keep Atkins there's even more savings available. Plus, Atkins and Steven Hunter are added to several other bargaining chips that are easier to deal with should the Pacers want to make more moves down the road.

If the Simons' reluctance to part with the $3 million is truly the only problem, it's time to put Slick Leonard to work. In the spirit of the turn-back-the-clock ABA-style game tomorrow night, it's time to relive the summer of 1977 and have Slick host another telethon to come up with enough money to help out the Simons. How much would you pay to help the Pacers move Jamaal?