We’re not quite sure when the trend of paying players millions of dollars to stay as far away from a team as possible started, but in the case of Indiana point guard Jamaal Tinsley, we have to say we don’t quite get it. The Pacers have been paying him to please not bring his 10 points and 7 assists into the mix this season. They told him before the season started that they were seeking to trade him; now, with the NBA trade deadline approaching (and with the Wolves at Indiana tonight), Tinsley is considering filing a grievance. We get that the guy hasn’t exactly been durable (he played 42 games or fewer in three of the past four seasons), but having a soon-to-be 31-year-old point guard ride the pine — instead of, say, showcasing him and letting him help your team — doesn’t seem to make much sense in the overall scheme of a trade. If he gets hurt, so be it. It’s not like other teams don’t already know about his injury history, so sitting him doesn’t help in that regard. The above linked ESPN story indicates Tinsley is expensive (about $7 million per year owed for two more years after this) and he is the last remaining Pacers player from the “brawl” game with the Pistons in 2004. We consider that pretty minor baggage in the grand scheme of things — particularly when we’re not talking about relegating someone to a backup role (T.J. Ford was anointed the starter) but instead banishing him altogether. Is Tinsley a great player? Nope. Are we advocating that he should play for the Wolves? Not really. Could he help a team this year? Absolutely.

Completely unrelated, we were working up an angry lather earlier today over the Terrell Brandon era and we wish to commission Stu to perform a “They Were Who We Thought They Were … Or Were They?” on him. Thanks.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, February 3rd, 2009 at 12:05 pm and is filed under Main. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.