Finally your man-crush on Tinsley has subsided to the point where you are ready to see him go. It’s the same thing I’ve been saying for two years, for the fans to accept the Pacers again and for the team to start winning we have to see Tinsley gone. Bird knows it, JOB knows it and finally Cornrows knows it. Lets get this done.

Larry Bird’s style has been more open and straightforward than was that of Donnie
Walsh. In retrospect, it has often become clear that Bird’s statements about the future
should have been taken pretty much at face value.

BUT NOT ALWAYS! For instance, when Bird pointed at Mike Wells and said, “you’re
wrong” on June 24 (regarding that Toronto-Indy trade rumors), Bird was clearly trying
to obfuscate the situation.

Regarding Bird’s statement to Kravitz and Eddie about not believing in buying out
contracts, there may be less than meets the eye here as well. Some points:

1) Bird may have simply been stating that Shawne Williams won’t be bought out.

2) The comment may have been a calculated “shot across the bow” for the Tinsley
situation. By taking this stance, Bird sends a message to the other teams not to
make any plans that revolve around picking up Tinsley on the cheap and to con-
sider making a trade for him. He also send s a message to Tinsley and his agent
that they might want to think in terms of a substantial discount on any buyout—
otherwise, the Pacers might just “let him sit at home” for three years.

The latter is somewhat of an empty threat, though. The players association has made
it clear in the past that they won’t just allow someone to be “Keyshawned” for an
extended period of time. A grievance would likely be filed, and if nothing else, that
would serve to keep Tinsley’s name in the headlines at the beginning of the season.
This would be the last thing the franchise needs.

I guess we just stay tuned.

As things stand right now, Larry Bird will have to buy out someone on the team,
whether he believes in it or not.

The only way this could be prevented would be if the Pacers would make a trade which
brings back one fewer player than they send away. And maybe this is the avenue
the Pacers are exploring.

Efforts to imagine Tinsley being traded for this guy or that guy seem to present a pretty
bleak landscape. And even if they manage such a trade, they are still left with the task
of eliminating one of their 16 guaranteed contracts. Maybe it would be more productive to imagine JT being moved as part of a 3-for-2 or 4-for-3 blockbuster.

I don’t know if this scenario is realistic, but a larger trade involving Tinsley sure seems to
expand the list of possible trading partners and solves an existing problem. Just a thought.