New Al rumors EMPHASIZE rumors

[Final_quest]

I've quite enjoyed checking out the Pacers Digest forums for news on Al. Latley the speculation is that the deal got done on Thursday, but either Tinsley or AJ refused to go along with the deal. Plan B is being worked out presently.

Here is the link:

http://www.pacersdigest.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22781

[macdaddy]

Yeah. That looks like more BS. I like how the Pacer fans are begging us to take Tinsley. I would be too. We don't need another point guard. We have 3 if you count Ivey, 4 if you count Salim, 5 if you count JJ.

I do believe that the Pacers are screwing around thinking they can try to cheat us at the last minute. Al ain't just going to walk to the Pacers. They wouldn't be able to pay him squat without the snt. Just another reason to hate the Pacers. I wish Al was going to a better team.

[mrhonline]

It would make sense that if AJ refused to go to Atlanta, because Tinsley has more than 4 years remaining on his contract.

[Sothron]

If you guys saw my posts at realgm.com I have a friend that is friend with the Pacers training staff and has a small business he co-owns with one of the assistant trainers. He told me last week that the deal that was going to go down was Tinsley/2007 1st rounder for Harrington.

The problem?

Tinsley heard about it and he refused to come in for a physical. In point of fact he ducked out of town and is currently MIA to avoid taking the physical. It is his way of protesting a trade to Atlanta.

Atlanta then changed its mind about taking on Tinsley and as of yesterday the Pacers pulled their current players off the table, offering only the TE and picks/cash for Harrington.

I don't know what bothers me more: the fact Tinsley was almost a Hawk or he effectively pulled a Kenny Anderson and refused to BE a Hawk.

[mrhonline]

Sothron, I have no reason to doubt you, but that means that Belkin would have had to approve of a five-year contract for an injury-ridden player.

[tmac13]

How many picks?

[BBallPrincess]

Quote:

---

Sothron, I have no reason to doubt you, but that means that Belkin would have had to approve of a five-year contract for an injury-ridden player.

---

Agreed. I would seriously doubt that. No offense to you sothron...

From my understanding is that the hold up could be behind the scense with the owners coming to an agreement on whats best for the team. The adendum to the ruling says that both parties would need to be in agreement, if said transaction goes beyond what the judge allows

If you remember with the JJ trade Belkins whole issue was that he felt that we were giving up to much to aquire JJ (love JJ). With him more than likley becoming the Hawks new owner (per the legal paperwork)he has a strong say so on what happens with this situation if whats on the table does not stand within the the parameters of the court ruling.

So thats just IMO.......

[Sothron]

That is what he told me. He broke the Stephen Jackson for Harrington deal three days prior to it being announced in the media two years ago. He did not understand, as we do, why the Hawks would want Tinsley but he said the trade was cleared and paperwork signed on Indiana's end. It was on Atlanta's end by the end of the workday on Thursday that things went screwy on our end.

As far as the court order he had heard that there were no legal or ownership objections (that includes Belkin) to getting Tinsley/1st round for Harrington. He does not know if Tinsley's injury history and refusal to take a physical was the reason we did not sign off on it but Indiana internally believes that to be the case.

His own trainer friend said Tinsley might be simply scared to take a physical because of his own injury history. Internally the Pacers were celebrating that they could dump Tinsley off to us. But then Tinsley threw a fit and wouldn't take the physical and on Atlanta's end we simply refused to take Tinsley.

As of my writing this post the last I heard from him was that yesterday Indiana took all of their players from the table and are offering picks and yes that is with a "s" at the end and cash considerations. I hate to say this but the owners may care more for the cash than we as fans want to admit.

The picks are a 2007 first round pick and it sounded like a second round pick in 2008 or 2009. The cash would be 3 million. He does not know what lottery protection if any the first round pick would have and it sounds like that is part of the negotiations. He also said the Pacers were extremely frustrated with dealing with BK who keeps changing his mind on rather or not he wants players back, involve more teams, or just get picks without adding salary.

He believes the ownership squabble is obvoiusly playing a hand in those sudden changes but that's just an informed opinion from inside the Pacers. All of this wait could also be because we (atlanta) have another deal on the side that we need to complete first or that we are waiting for a signed player or draft pick to be part of the deal. Which would be AFAIK August 10th to make it legal to trade.

[mrhonline]

Quote:

---

It was on Atlanta's end by the end of the workday on Thursday that things went screwy on our end.

---

That very well could have been Belkin...

...Taking on Tinsley would have been a huge mistake IMO, so I'm glad it fell through.

Thanks, Sothron.

[mrhonline]

Oh, and by the way, a Pacers' "insider" on the PD.com essentially corroborated Sothron's view of things.

It does make me wonder, though, if Tinsley would have been moved again to somewhere else...

[macdaddy]

There are so many different rumors in that its a little crazy. My favorite is that the Pacers are frustrated dealing with BK changing his mind when the whole point of the thread is that supposedly the Pacers offered a player who now is 'MIA' in protest of the trade. So BK is just supposed to say oh well since you can't contact your player to get a physical lets just not include a player. Sounds like crap from both sides. I hope we work a deal with another team.

[Sothron]

I hate to say it but I do believe that Belkin was the one who at the last second looked at Tinsley's contract, injury status and attitude about being a Hawk and nixed the deal by refusing to sign off on it.

It also may have been BK vetoing the Spirit owners as well. Remember two months ago when it was leaked that the Iverson to Hawks rumor came from two of the Spirit owners throwing the idea to Knight and BK shooting it down? I have to wonder if the Spirit wanted an "impact" player at a position of weakness and wanted Tinsley and it was BK who said no.

The fact is that Bk has presented Indiana with at least three different scenarios and has backed out of all of them to date. The Pacers internally believe some of this at least is due to the ownership squabble. But since BK is who they are dealing with they are fixating it all on him.

Take it for what it is worth. Either: Knight just keeps getting cold feet; Belkin at the last second refused to take Tinsley; Knight vetoed Spirit wanting Tinsley; there is a third team involved in this (just a thought of mine, not reported to me) or we are waiting for a signed player/draft pick on Aug 10th to become legal to trade for (another thought of mime, not reported to me).

[Sothron]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

It was on Atlanta's end by the end of the workday on Thursday that things went screwy on our end.

---

That very well could have been Belkin...

...Taking on Tinsley would have been a huge mistake IMO, so I'm glad it fell through.

Thanks, Sothron.

---

Again, no problem and most welcome. My friend would hit the roof if he knew I was reporting this but all Hawks fans deserve to know what's going on IMO. Its nice to see another "insider" on the Pacers Digest also has heard the same things regarding Tinsley to Atlanta.

FWIW if Tinsley was not a guaranteed 30 games a year IR stop I'd like to see him in Atlanta. But that's neither here nor there...just like Tinsley, whose ducking the Pacers to keep from taking a physical lol

[KB21]

Working with Indiana on this is more beneficial to us long term though, because Indiana has the means of giving us draft pick without having us taking on bad contracts.

[Final_quest]

Somehow even if this is all true it doesn't make the present situation any more clear.

[DJlaysitup]

Quote:

---

I hate to say it but I do believe that Belkin was the one who at the last second looked at Tinsley's contract, injury status and attitude about being a Hawk and nixed the deal by refusing to sign off on it...

---

That would make some sense...

Unlike our other owners, Belkin has shown that he's not averse to actually READ a contract :-)

[Blunt91]

Why would we want to take on another PG? Billy Knight couldn't convince them to give us Harrison or Foster? Since another bigman is what we need.

[macdaddy]

I'm missing the point. It says BK has backed out of 3 deals, and maybe Belking wouldn't sign off on the Tinsley deal, but the orginal post was that Tinsley won't show for a physical. So I don't consider that BK backing out of the deal. He has to pass a physical for there to be a deal.

[GST]

If Tinsley is refusing to go along with the trade, wouldn't that be grounds for Indy voiding his contract? I kind of think Indy would like to do that, if they couldn't get something in a trade for him.

[Sothron]

Technically Tinsley isn't refusing to be traded he simply has went into hiding to avoid taking the physical. Its his way of protesting the trade without doing something actionable against his contract. It also lets the Hawks know he has zero interest in playing for the Hawks and Tinsley already has a rep for his fueds with Carlisle. We wouldn't want to bring in another malcontent player after living with JR Rider that one season.