# Are you in favor of trading Tinsley?



## Tactics (Mar 6, 2003)

It seems like alot people want Tinsley on a different team, I for one want to keep him because he is the ideal PG IMO, well without the shot but I think he will be real good.


----------



## PacersguyUSA (Sep 1, 2002)

I'd only trade him if we got a better PG in return or else we're looking at Fred Jones starting.


----------



## texan (Jul 10, 2003)

tinsley jus needs time to develop he will be a top ten pg in the future IMO


----------



## PacersguyUSA (Sep 1, 2002)

He already is:

1. Marbury
2. Kidd
3. Payton
4. Francis
5. Baron Davis
6. Nash
7. Bibby
8. Andre Miller
9. Cassell
10. Tinsley


----------



## texan (Jul 10, 2003)

no he isnt
chauncey billups is better
gilbert arenas is a whole lot better
and tony parker is also better


----------



## TLR (May 28, 2003)

Parker isn't. :no: He may have had a better year but overrall tinsley is the better PG.


----------



## texan (Jul 10, 2003)

both years he has been in the L he has had a better year makin him BETTER. yes tinsley has better passin and pg skills but parker is a better player. Period


----------



## PacersguyUSA (Sep 1, 2002)

> no he isnt
> chauncey billups is better
> gilbert arenas is a whole lot better
> and tony parker is also better




:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: 

Tinsley:
PPG	7.8
RPG	3.6
APG	7.5
SPG	1.71
BPG	.25
MPG	30.6

Arenas:
PPG	18.3
RPG	4.7
APG	6.3
SPG	1.51
BPG	.21
MPG	35.0

Billups:
PPG	16.2
RPG	3.7
APG	3.9
SPG	.85
BPG	.20
MPG	31.4

Parker:
PPG	15.5
RPG	2.6
APG	5.3
SPG	.87
BPG	.05
MPG	33.8


Tinlsey 1st in assists, 1st in steals, 1st in blocks, 2nd in rebounds, all in the least amount of playing time. Sure he's last in scoring but he showed improvement in the playoffs and the Pacers dont really need him to score.


----------



## PacersguyUSA (Sep 1, 2002)

> both years he has been in the L he has had a better year makin him BETTER. yes tinsley has better passin and pg skills but parker is a better player. Period


We are debating who are the best point guards. That being said, see above.


----------



## AstheFranchiz2K2 (May 24, 2003)

Tinsley is a very good PG. He jsut needs time. His game is just like T.J. fords to bad hes nowhere near as athletic.


----------



## Xavier8 (Jun 13, 2003)

All he needs is a vet to tutor him, he will be good, just give him time.


----------



## texan (Jul 10, 2003)

ok u may be right about us debating who the better pgs are but can you honestly tell me you would rather have Tinsley as your PG rather than Arenas, Parker or Billups. Tinsley isnt a TOp 10 PG even though his assist numbers are nice


----------



## Xavier8 (Jun 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>texan</b>!
> ok u may be right about us debating who the better pgs are but can you honestly tell me you would rather have Tinsley as your PG rather than Arenas, Parker or Billups. Tinsley isnt a TOp 10 PG even though his assist numbers are nice


Actually, the only one of those I would take over Tins is Arenas. There is no way I would want parker.


----------



## PacersguyUSA (Sep 1, 2002)

> ok u may be right about us debating who the better pgs are but can you honestly tell me you would rather have Tinsley as your PG rather than Arenas, Parker or Billups. Tinsley isnt a TOp 10 PG even though his assist numbers are nice


The only one I would consider is Billups because of the clutch, but hopefully Reggie still is able to at least contribute that aspect of the game for us. Still those three point guards are more score first point guards where Tinsley is more of a distributer. We need him to feed the ball to Artest, Harrington, Bender, and O'neal.


----------



## Xavier8 (Jun 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>PacersguyUSA</b>!
> 
> 
> The only one I would consider is Billups because of the clutch, but hopefully Reggie still is able to at least contribute that aspect of the game for us. Still those three point guards are more score first point guards where Tinsley is more of a distributer. We need him to feed the ball to Artest, Harrington, Bender, and O'neal.


A passing PG is the kind I think we are best with right now.


----------



## texan (Jul 10, 2003)

whats wrong with parker? he has decent pg skills and he isnt a liability taking shots. also the tj ford to tinsley comparison is wayyyyyyy off. tj has iversonesque quickness and tinsley aint even close. IMO ford is a better passer and ball handler. his lack of bein able to make a shot really hurts him, EVEN as a PG


----------



## texan (Jul 10, 2003)

tinsley may be a better fit for your team but he isnt a better PG. tha way you are sayin things makes him better than baron davis and steve francis cuz those guys are pass first pure point guards.


----------



## Xavier8 (Jun 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>texan</b>!
> whats wrong with parker? he has decent pg skills and he isnt a liability taking shots. also the tj ford to tinsley comparison is wayyyyyyy off. tj has iversonesque quickness and tinsley aint even close. IMO ford is a better passer and ball handler. his lack of bein able to make a shot really hurts him, EVEN as a PG


Parker is just plain bad IMO, bad at court leadership, passing, decision making, and somtimes shooting


----------



## texan (Jul 10, 2003)

obviously you havent watched too many spurs games(other than the finals)
he is a very good passer and he is a great court leader. his shootin only dropped durin the finals but he is still a good reliable shooter. his decision making has gotten alot better from his first yr to second and is ever improving. also he has really superb quickness that tinsley doesnt possess


----------



## PacersguyUSA (Sep 1, 2002)

> tinsley may be a better fit for your team but he isnt a better PG.


*points to stats*


----------



## texan (Jul 10, 2003)

no way hes top 10. keep dreamin that hes the best cuz by ur standards he the 3rd best PG in the L behind kidd and dre miller cuz they are the only pass first points. think whatever u want


----------



## TLR (May 28, 2003)

whether he's a top 10 point or not is all in someone's opinion but it is FACT that Parker is the most inconsistent game to game player in the league. In the playoffs he would go from being Nate Archibald to being garbage over the course of one game. 26 points to 2 points. no other player does that. also Parker is a shoot first point guard and when his shot is off he is worthless.


----------



## Xavier8 (Jun 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>texan</b>!
> obviously you havent watched too many spurs games(other than the finals)
> he is a very good passer and he is a great court leader. his shootin only dropped durin the finals but he is still a good reliable shooter. his decision making has gotten alot better from his first yr to second and is ever improving. also he has really superb quickness that tinsley doesnt possess


Actually I watched every Spurs playoff game, and I watched a couple in the season. Everytime Parker had a good game I was like "ok he may be pretty good", but then the next couple games he was horrible. He is the most inconsistent PG in the league.


----------



## texan (Jul 10, 2003)

ill admit he is inconsistent especially in the playoffs but he is a 2nd year guard and has so much pressure put on him cuz he was the 2nd option on the best team in the NBA. Tinsley also was inconsistent the whole year and during the playoffs. If Tinsley was put in Parkers situation then the Spurs wouldnt have made the finals


----------



## Xavier8 (Jun 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>texan</b>!
> ill admit he is inconsistent especially in the playoffs but he is a 2nd year guard and has so much pressure put on him cuz he was the 2nd option on the best team in the NBA. Tinsley also was inconsistent the whole year and during the playoffs. If Tinsley was put in Parkers situation then the Spurs wouldnt have made the finals


Uhh, no. Parker is more inconsistent then Tins. But I really dont want to argue about it cause we are both using bias opinions.


----------



## PacersguyUSA (Sep 1, 2002)

> no way hes top 10. keep dreamin that hes the best cuz by ur standards he the 3rd best PG in the L behind kidd and dre miller cuz they are the only pass first points. think whatever u want


Ok, the stats prove he's better than Arenas, Parker, and Bilups, so who else do you think is better than Tinsley? Bobby Jackson?

Tinsley:
PPG	7.8
RPG	3.6
APG	7.5
SPG	1.71
BPG	.25

Jackson:
PPG	15.2
RPG	3.6
APG	3.1
SPG	1.20
BPG	.05


----------



## Xavier8 (Jun 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>PacersguyUSA</b>!
> 
> 
> Ok, the stats prove he's better than Arenas, Parker, and Bilups, so who else do you think is better than Tinsley? Bobby Jackson?
> ...


Actually IMO Jackson is better. Jax did all that as a backup, Tins was a starter.


----------



## PacersguyUSA (Sep 1, 2002)

> Actually IMO Jackson is better. Jax did all that as a backup, Tins was a starter.


He maybe a worthy candidate but Jackson only played 2 mins and 20 seconds more, and Tinley played a lot after his mother died.


----------



## DetBNyce (Jul 23, 2002)

Tinsley is not a top 10 PG and he definitely is not better than T. Parker, Billups, or Arenas. Billups has Michael Curry and Ben Wallace in his starting lineup. Tinsley has J. O'neal, Al Harrington, Artest, B. Miller, and a few others to pass the ball to. He is no doubt a better passer than Billups, but numbers don't always tell the whole story.


----------



## Xavier8 (Jun 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DetBNyce</b>!
> Tinsley is not a top 10 PG and he definitely is not better than T. Parker, Billups, or Arenas. Billups has Michael Curry and Ben Wallace in his starting lineup. Tinsley has J. O'neal, Al Harrington, Artest, B. Miller, and a few others to pass the ball to. He is no doubt a better passer than Billups, but numbers don't always tell the whole story.


Sorry, he is better then Billups.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

You got to be kidding me right?


Better than Billups? Better than Parker? Better than Arenas?

Top 10 PG?

Kidd, Payton, Marbury, Francis, Arenas, Snow, Terry, Crawford, Parker, Nash, Van Exel, Cassell, Jason Williams(Mem.), Andre Miller, Bibby, Jackson, Barry(when he ran the point) are all better than Tinsley.

Thats 17 PGs better than Tinsley.

And stats do not tell the whole story either. Sure, Tinsley may be a pass first PG and therefore his apg are higher, but if you asked someone who'd they rather have, Tinsely or Nash, they'll tell you Nash every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

Tinsley has a long way to go to be a top 10 PG. Can he be? Sure. But he needs to work on his shot. He also needs to improve and be more consistent.


----------



## Xavier8 (Jun 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Vintage</b>!
> You got to be kidding me right?
> 
> 
> ...


LMAO, you have some points, but you put way too many player over Tins, makes me crack up...

Tins is better than Snow, Arenas, Billups, Barry, Willams, and most definetly Crawford. So the 10 spot is between Parker and Tins.


----------



## clownskull (Jun 21, 2002)

yeh, some of these guys listed over tinsley are a bit of a stretch.
sure jamal can't do the glamorous jams like francis but, i don't want him to. williams of memphis over jamal? -- not a chance. memphis can have that guy.


----------



## jvanbusk (Jun 9, 2002)

Honestly this thread is a joke. You are claiming stats to mean WAY too much.

Jamaal Tinsley:

PPG: 7.8
RPG: 3.6
APG: 7.5
SPG 1.71
BPG .25

Steve Nash:

PPG: 17.7
RPG: 2.9
APG: 7.3
SPG: 1.04
BPG: .1

Stephon Marbury:

PPG: 22.3
RPG: 3.2
APG: 8.1
SPG: 1.33
BPG: 0.2

So apparently because Tinsley is better than Nash in 4 out of 5 categories and Marbury in 3 out of 5 categories, he's the better player. Sorry fellas, but that's not how it works. You can't base everything on statistics. Indiana fans have a history of overrating their players, but to sit there in good concience and say Jamaal Tinsley is a top 10 PG at this point of his career? That's just insane. You put so much emphasis on statistics, but there is not one category in his statistical numbers that truely stands out except his assist numbers, and maybe points per game, because it is so low. 

Since statistics are apparently so important, heres another statistic that hasn't been mentioned:

Jamaal Tinsley: 2.6 Turnovers per game. This ranks 4th worst among starting NBA point guards, and doesn't take into account the fact he played fewer minutes per game than those players that ranked behind him on this list.


----------



## PacersguyUSA (Sep 1, 2002)

> Better than Billups? Better than Parker? Better than Arenas?
> 
> Top 10 PG?
> 
> ...


I listed Kidd, Payton, Marbury, Francis, Nash, Andre Miller, Bibby, and Cassell ahead of him. Snow, you're joking right? Terry, not a PG. Crawford, not better. Parker, not better (see previous statements). And not only are the stats better than a lot of those guys, but he is also a good fit for our team, which makes him a good player.


----------



## Xavier8 (Jun 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>PacersguyUSA</b>!
> 
> 
> I listed Kidd, Payton, Marbury, Francis, Nash, Andre Miller, Bibby, and Cassell ahead of him. Snow, you're joking right? Terry, not a PG. Crawford, not better. Parker, not better (see previous statements). And not only are the stats better than a lot of those guys, but he is also a good fit for our team, which makes him a good player.


All true, but what is this about Terry not being a PG?


----------



## TLR (May 28, 2003)

I don't put him over Arenas.


Kidd
Starbury
Francis
Baron Davis
Gary Payton
Arenas
Bobby Jackson
Steve Nash
Chauncey Billups
Jamal Tinsley

Left off of the list:
Andre Miller - The guy has no heart. He goes into a situation where the Clips could definately have made the playoffs this year but instead him and the rest of the upcoming free agents tank the season. The only thing this guy has ever done in his whole career is lead the league in assists. But nobody realizes that was a product of the system he was in. Jason Kidd would probably have averaged 14 or 15 assists in that system but they would still have missed the playoffs. They had Lamond Murray and Wesley Person and anyone else caped out at the three point line and everytime they came down Miller would penetrate and dish to someone to shoot a three. Well, you see how many games they won. The guy is also an inconsistent shooter and is not a playmaker unless he is pounding the ball.

Tony Parker - Has the potential to be in the top 10, but is a shoot first, shoot second point guard that has an inconsistent shot. When his shot is on it opens everything up for San Antonio. But every other game his shot is off and it makes San Antonio's offense stagnent when he is on the floor. That's why Speedy Claxton was so important last year.


----------



## TLR (May 28, 2003)

And Terry is a combo guard, but if he is playing PG then I would put him ahead of Tinsley.


----------



## Xavier8 (Jun 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>TLR</b>!
> And Terry is a combo guard, but if he is playing PG then I would put him ahead of Tinsley.


Me too, I would start Terry at PG and then towards the second half I would play Tins. And somtimes put Terry at the 2.


----------



## PacersguyUSA (Sep 1, 2002)

> All true, but what is this about Terry not being a PG?


Terry is a SG, and even when he plays the PG position, his game suffers.


----------



## TLR (May 28, 2003)

No it doesn't. He played point guard all of last year and he averaged around 8 assists while still hovering around 19 points a game. If he played on any other team he would have been an all star.


----------



## Xavier8 (Jun 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>TLR</b>!
> No it doesn't. He played point guard all of last year and he averaged around 8 assists while still hovering around 19 points a game. If he played on any other team he would have been an all star.


Yea, no matter where he goes he should sstay a PG, although he can still play a little SG nontheless.


----------



## mr_french_basketball (Jul 3, 2003)

*the stats tell us...*

One way of assessing players production is to look at their Efficiency/48min stat. If your referer to it, last season we had the following ranking:

1	Jason Kidd
2	Steve Nash
3	John Stockton
4	Sam Cassel
5	Gary Payton
6	Steve Francis
7	Gilbert Arenas
8	Stephon Marbury
9	Bobby Jackson
10	Mike Bibby
11	Jason Terry
13	Chauncey Billups
14	Jason Williams
15	Baron Davis
16	Eric Snow
17	Tony Parker
18	Alvin Williams
19 Jamaal Tinsley
20	Troy Hudson
(21. Andre Miller - 22. Nick Van Exel)

An interesting stat give an assessment of players consistency. Mathematicly, it simply consists in the standard deviation of the average Efficiency value. Then we would have :

1	Gary Payton
2	Eric Snow
3	John Stockton
4	Jason Kidd
5	Steve Nash
6	Sam Cassel
7	Baron Davis
8	Jason Terry
9	Mike Bibby
10	Steve Francis
11	Gilbert Arenas
13	Bobby Jackson
14	Alvin Williams
15	Stephon Marbury
16	Troy Hudson
17	Andre Miller
18	Chauncey Billups
19	Tony Parker
20	Jamal Tinsley
(22.Jason Williams - 24.Nick Van Exel)

So, there is no way we can consider either Jamaal Tinsley or Tony Parker one of the 10 top PG in the League!!!

PS: I'm a big fan of Tony, but I must admitt he benefits a lot playing for the NBA Champs... Parker looks better because he perfectly fits with his team. Jamaal is close to Parker in those rankings, and deserves more media and fan consideration!


----------



## Jason The Terryble (Jul 22, 2003)

*For Those Who Say Parker's Better Than Tinsley!*

Why? Care to explain?
Parker rides Duncans 4" to a championship and all of a sudden he's a great point guard? Thats rediculous. Parkers stats are AVERAGE. He is an AVERAGE player.
And I dont care that he averaged 15 ppg. Any player who shoots such a low % yet still scores 15 ppg is a selfish moron who puts his own stats before team success. Put Parker on any non-playoff team and you'd never hear his name mentioned again.
Now, why do you all think he's so great? Is it because he's supposedly a "lil' hottie"? I don't wanna question anyones sexuality, but that's the only explanation I can think of.


----------



## PacersguyUSA (Sep 1, 2002)

> I don't wanna question anyones sexuality, but that's the only explanation I can think of.


No offense, but aren't you the one who dates out side your species?


----------



## Jason The Terryble (Jul 22, 2003)

Watch what you say, try to keep it clean!


----------



## Xavier8 (Jun 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Jason The Terryble</b>!
> I have experimented in beasitality, but every animal I have had sexual relations with has been female.


Please tell me that was a joke. :|


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

back on topic. We shouldn't trade Tinsley. DON'T LOSE HOPE! I still see Tins as a future star and in his best season getting 17/10/5/2 only offer i'd consider would be for Andre Miller


----------



## starvydas (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: For Those Who Say Parker's Better Than Tinsley!*



> Originally posted by <b>Jason The Terryble</b>!
> 
> And I dont care that he averaged 15 ppg. Any player who shoots such a low % yet still scores 15 ppg is a selfish moron


You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Parker made 46.4 % of his shots in the regular season, which placed him ahead of all the top tier PG, except Nash : 

Kidd 41.4%
Marbury 43.9%
Francis 43.5% 
Nash 46.5%
Payton 45.4%
Davis 41.6%

Next time get your fact straight before you make yourself look stupid.


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

Hi all.

A bulls fan here, and came across this thread, and thought I'd contribute a little, since an outside perspective might help.

Here's my take:
Jamaal is a nice pg, and one of the better passers in the league, but I think there's probably a lot of homerism going around, when a lot of people on this board would argue that he's a top ten pg. I'm sorry, but I just don't think that's true. Of course, it's only my opinion though.

Regardless, if I had a gun to my head, I would rather have these players play PG for my team than Jamaal:

Gary Payton
Jason Kidd
Stephon Marbury
Steve Francis
Steve Nash
Sam Cassell
Mike Bibby
Eric Snow
Bobby Jackson
Baron Davis
Gilbert Arenas
Jason Williams
Andre Miller
Tony Parker
Nick Van Exel
Jason Terry

That is sixteen players. And I would say with players like Troy Hudson, Chauncey Billups, and Alvin Williams, it is a wash, it would just depend on what your team needs. 

I know I'll probably get some flak for some of the players I put on the list, like Jason Williams, Andre Miller, Eric Snow, Bobby Jackson, and Tony Parker, but like I said, if I had a gun to my head and had to choose between one of those guys or Jamaal, I would take them. 

Now I know I have not seen him play as much as some of you guys have, but IMO, Jamaal is a slightly above average pg, who is average/slightly below average as a starter. Take my opinion for what it's worth.

One more thing to consider -- if he really is a top ten pg, why are the Pacers trying to replace him?


----------



## Xavier8 (Jun 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rosenthall</b>!
> Hi all.
> 
> A bulls fan here, and came across this thread, and thought I'd contribute a little, since an outside perspective might help.
> ...


Very good post, if Tinsley could improve his shooting I see no reason why he couldent be a top 10 PG. But untill then we have to get a guy who can produce with points, atleast that is what Walsh and Bird thinks.


----------



## Tactics (Mar 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Xavier8</b>!
> 
> 
> Very good post, if Tinsley could improve his shooting I see no reason why he couldent be a top 10 PG. But untill then we have to get a guy who can produce with points, atleast that is what Walsh and Bird thinks.


We do need a scoring PG, maybe Eric Snow would be a good idea? He does a bit of everything.


----------



## Xavier8 (Jun 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>TicN9neZ8</b>!
> 
> 
> We do need a scoring PG, maybe Eric Snow would be a good idea? He does a bit of everything.


Yea but I dont see him being much better. He would be a slight improvment though.


----------



## PacersguyUSA (Sep 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rosenthall</b>!
> Hi all.
> 
> A bulls fan here, and came across this thread, and thought I'd contribute a little, since an outside perspective might help.
> ...


All those PGs can be debated to be better than Tinsley except Eric Snow, that I don't understand. Tinsley and Snow are the same type of player, pass first, except Tinsley does it so much better. I don't think the Pacers are looking to replace Tinsley anyway.


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PacersguyUSA</b>!
> 
> 
> All those PGs can be debated to be better than Tinsley except Eric Snow, that I don't understand. Tinsley and Snow are the same type of player, pass first, except Tinsley does it so much better. I don't think the Pacers are looking to replace Tinsley anyway.


Understandable. On offense, they are very similar players, I'd say Eric is quicker and more explosive, while Jamaal is a better passer. In fact, Jamaal is probably better offensively, IMO. The only reason I put Eric Snow on the list is because of his defense. Not that Jamaal is necessarily really bad, but Eric Snow is probably one of, if not the best defensive pg's in the league. 

And you're right, a lot of those players could be debated, like I said, it's just my opinion.


----------



## Xavier8 (Jun 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>PacersguyUSA</b>!
> 
> 
> All those PGs can be debated to be better than Tinsley except Eric Snow, that I don't understand. Tinsley and Snow are the same type of player, pass first, except Tinsley does it so much better. I don't think the Pacers are looking to replace Tinsley anyway.


Actually all signs are pointing to Tinsley's departure. Some people at IndyStar were saying we were looking to either trade for Terry or Snow.


----------



## Tactics (Mar 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Xavier8</b>!
> 
> 
> Actually all signs are pointing to Tinsley's departure. Some people at IndyStar were saying we were looking to either trade for Terry or Snow.


Tinsley is either gonna get traded or we are gonna pick up a vet PG, Anthony Johnson can't be the PG Bird was talking about.


----------



## Xavier8 (Jun 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>TicN9neZ8</b>!
> 
> 
> Tinsley is either gonna get traded or we are gonna pick up a vet PG, Anthony Johnson can't be the PG Bird was talking about.


Most likely not, im beginning to think he will be traded.


----------



## PacersguyUSA (Sep 1, 2002)

I'm pretty sure he's staying here next season.


----------



## Tactics (Mar 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>PacersguyUSA</b>!
> I'm pretty sure he's staying here next season.


unlike many other Pacers fans I'm praying we keep Tinsley :gopray: you just don't give up on someone after two years.


----------



## TLR (May 28, 2003)

I read in an article that was talking about Bird quotes on Indystar.com that they haven't given up on Tinsley they are just looking for a talented veteran to be the equalizer.


----------



## Tactics (Mar 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>TLR</b>!
> I read in an article that was talking about Bird quotes on Indystar.com that they haven't given up on Tinsley they are just looking for a talented veteran to be the equalizer.


Thats really good news, I was really thinking they gave up on Tinsley, which IMO would come back to bite them in the future.


----------



## Xavier8 (Jun 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>TicN9neZ8</b>!
> 
> 
> Thats really good news, I was really thinking they gave up on Tinsley, which IMO would come back to bite them in the future.


Me too, im afraid just as soon as we give him up he will magicly get his shooting touch and become a star.


----------



## Tactics (Mar 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Xavier8</b>!
> 
> 
> Me too, im afraid just as soon as we give him up he will magicly get his shooting touch and become a star.


yep thats what I'm thinking will happen, but TLR said he read something that we wanna keep him and get a better PG as an equalizer.


----------



## Xavier8 (Jun 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>TicN9neZ8</b>!
> 
> 
> yep thats what I'm thinking will happen, but TLR said he read something that we wanna keep him and get a better PG as an equalizer.


Thats cool, as long as we get a good PG.


----------



## Tactics (Mar 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Xavier8</b>!
> 
> 
> Thats cool, as long as we get a good PG.


yeah hopefully, I really hope Anthony Johnson wasn't the vet PG he was talking about though.


----------



## Xavier8 (Jun 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>TicN9neZ8</b>!
> 
> 
> yeah hopefully, I really hope Anthony Johnson wasn't the vet PG he was talking about though.


Me too, but its likely he is cause I just dont know who else we could get.


----------



## PacersguyUSA (Sep 1, 2002)

random comment:

Tinsley's game is very exciting. He is a flashy player and with a little more speed he could run an awesome fast break.


----------



## Tactics (Mar 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>PacersguyUSA</b>!
> random comment:
> 
> Tinsley's game is very exciting. He is a flashy player and with a little more speed he could run an awesome fast break.


yep, all he needs is some motivation, hopefully O'Neal will help him with that.


----------



## Xavier8 (Jun 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>TicN9neZ8</b>!
> 
> 
> yep, all he needs is some motivation, hopefully O'Neal will help him with that.


I think O'Neal will motivate everyone this year, he wants to win so bad.


----------



## Jermaniac Fan (Jul 27, 2003)

I would say yes if we get Wagner and/or Snow!


----------



## TLR (May 28, 2003)

I would trade him for Wagner straight up... Wagner played PG in college and I think he could do it on this level. I don't think the Cavs would do this unless they got real desperate for a true point, which they don't have at this point.


----------

