Jamaal Tinsley for Stack straight up

by freestylekyle on Nov 16, 2008 12:48 AM CST

According to the Indianapolis Star "The agent for Jamaal Tinsley has approached the Indiana Pacers about possibly buying out the point guard's contract, a person familiar with the situation said Friday." Both Tinsley and Stackhouse have relatively similar contracts, however Tinsley has yet to play this year. His contract does not expire until 2010. I think adding Tinsley would give the Mavs some help for when Kidd is off the floor. Even though he is not the most high character person he could still be an asset off the bench. Also the Pacers could then save themselves some money and buy out Stack and we could get him back after 30 days. This could be used as a good opportunity to see some more off Gerald Green or increase Bass's minutes. If the Mavs play good during the month then we are better of without Stack.

http://www.indystar.com/article/20081115/SPORTS04/811150445 - article on buyout

Reader Submitted

Tweet Comment 8 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I like it

It’s no secret the Pacers want Tinsley gone badly, so they can’t expect to get a lot from a team taking him off their hands. They even removed his nameplate from his locker and asked him to stay away from the training facility. By all accounts he is in good shape. He is not a born team leader, and he had issues off the court (not on, e.g. he was one of the few guys not getting involved in the fight in Detroit). But there is no denying he would instantly be a much more dangerous point guard than Barea on the court. Stack doesn’t contribute much during most games now. The Mavs can’t be too picky anymore. And the connections with Indy seem to work (Jones deal). The biggest downside would be his contract, which runs through 2010/11.

by Norsktroll on Nov 16, 2008 9:31 AM CST reply actions

Or...

We could just wait until Indianapolis buys out Tinsley’s contract, and offer him a deal that doesn’t run through 2010…?

This team is on the brink of a SERIOUS rebuilding process. Jamaal Tinsley isn’t the missing piece. He isn’t going to right this ship. Why take on a contract that’s far too expensive for that caliber player, especially considering it runs through 2010?

Makes no sense, IMO…

by N41D on Nov 16, 2008 2:01 PM CST reply actions

Basically...

Why offer another team an opportunity to save money when we don’t have to? If they’re looking at buying him out anyways, why should we take on an overpriced contract and sacrifice our own rebuilding process in doing so?

by N41D on Nov 16, 2008 2:03 PM CST up reply actions

Be Aggresive

But if we choose to sit back and wait we could lose him to another team. By being proactive and aggressive we can insure that we can get him.

by freestylekyle on Nov 16, 2008 10:16 PM CST reply actions

Can Tinsley really be worse than Stackhouse

and some of our other bench players?

I have witnessed time and time again.

by srdmad on Nov 16, 2008 11:12 PM CST reply actions

Yes.

by jonthefon on Nov 16, 2008 11:29 PM CST up reply actions

i went to school in indiana for 4 yrs

and watched almost every pacer game…
tinsley is a good player… he can hit the 3… dish the ball… has good on-ball defense, quick hands
he’s a decent player… BUT….

he shoots a really low percentage… been known to jack up ill advised 3s (we don’t need another player like this)

and thing i hate most is… he can’t stay healthy… if we have to give him an extra year… i don’t like the sound of that… getting him for the minimum would be ideal…

by kkengvib on Nov 17, 2008 3:04 AM CST reply actions