How Does Tinsley Earn His Money?

by Tom Lewis on Jul 28, 2008 6:36 AM EDT in News Comment 6 comments

In his latest Pacers Insider post, Mike Wells updates us on Jamaal Tinsley's status and the search for a power forward.

In past radio discussions, Wells has indicated that Tinsley's weight ballooned toward the end of the offseason. Now he reports that folks within the organization confirm he's been shedding that weight this summer.

Also, while they'd like to add an upgrade at power forward, they're not against mixing and matching the front court from the group of Jeff Foster, Troy Murphy, Rasho Nesterovic, Roy Hibbert, Maceo Baston and Josh McRoberts. Plus Shawne Williams or Danny Granger could slide to PF in small ball situations. This makes me pretty happy because I'm not interested in tying up any money in a middle-of-the-road type of PF. Flexibility isn't far away, but as of today, the cap situation is tight.

Back to Tinsley, Wells brought up the option of Tinsley actually playing for the Pacers this year despite all the harsh rhetoric which would seem to make it impossible. Bob Kravitz and Jim O'Brien have both said they'd walk to Kokomo if Tinsley started the season on the roster. Since Bird appears set on not buying out Tinsley, how else could he "earn his money." As Wells put it:

I don't see Tinsley wearing a Pacers uniform again, especially after some of the comments Bird and coach Jim O'Brien made in the past month, but Bird did say players should earn their money.

There's no doubt in my mind that if the Pacers couldn't move him and Tinsley showed up in stellar shape that Bird wouldn't be opposed to letting him compete for minutes. There are two problems with that theory, though. First, it would seem to undermine JOB's authority with the team since he's basically said he's done relying on Tins. Also, Tinsley would have to show up in stellar shape. That would be a surprise.

Everyone knows I love Tinsley's game, but even I have a hard time accepting the scenario of seeing 11 in the blue and gold next year. The team is trying to move into a new era and that has to be without Tinsley in tow.

0 recs | Comment 6 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

It's Almost Over

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.

by ThirtyOne on Jul 28, 2008 8:42 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Ha ha

When I type ‘everyon’ I was actually thinking of you 3-1.

by Tom Lewis on Jul 28, 2008 8:46 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

everyone

ya know

by Tom Lewis on Jul 28, 2008 8:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

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.

by fanaticus on Jul 28, 2008 9:35 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

one other point

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.

by fanaticus on Jul 28, 2008 8:01 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Great points

I agree that Bird is a straight shooter for the day he’s talking but his public words are more for setting the landscape for his private dealings. Of course, Tinsley might think the paid time off is a good deal and not fight it. : )

As for the roster, if Tinsley remains (and the buyout rhetoric holds) I could see McRoberts being the odd man out and getting released.

by Tom Lewis on Jul 28, 2008 9:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs