Professional and College Basketball Forums banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
670 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
This is an exerpt from Sean Deveney (SportingNews.com) regarding the upcoming expansion draft.

The first problem for general managers is obvious. If you have nine players you'd like to keep, you're going to lose one of them. Or, if you're Memphis, for example, and have 12 players you'd like to protect, you're up the river. "That is the price of being deep in an expansion year," says Pistons president Joe Dumars.

The second problem with expansion is the opposite -- not having enough players to protect. This is where Charlotte's roster presents an opportunity, as a dumping ground for bad contracts. Expansion rules allow the Bobcats to select a player, waive him and have the money taken off their payroll (they would continue to pay the player, but his salary would not count against the cap). The idea behind that rule is to give the Bobcats flexibility. Because Charlotte is forced to pick over the league's scraps, the team should be able to change its mind without killing its cap situation. Teams that have only eight players with contracts heading into next year must protect all eight and have no opportunity to expose bad contracts.

Take Portland, for example. Entering last week, the Trail Blazers had nine players with contracts heading into next season. But suppose they want to expose both Damon Stoudamire and Ruben Patterson, two players with bad contracts. Because the Blazers must protect eight players, they would be able to leave only one player unprotected. Perhaps with that scenario in mind, when the Blazers signed guard Eddie Gill last Thursday, they included a second year on the deal. Now, with Gill, they have contracts for 10 players -- and can leave Stoudamire and Patterson unprotected. Adding a wrinkle to this is that the Bobcats can be bribed. Expansion rules allow teams to offer the Bobcats draft picks and up to $3 million to select certain players. In the Portland example, the Bobcats, theoretically, could draft Patterson, waive him and receive a pick and cash from Portland.
Could this be why Eddie Gill was offered a multi-year contract...to allow us to leave more than one high priced player unprotected??? Perhaps Nash is smarter than we give him credit for. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,878 Posts
Ahhhh the plot thickens a bit...

very clever... :reporter:

:gopray: Damon :wave:
 

·
Banned member
Joined
·
28,452 Posts
this is pure bologna. Patterson and Nash have no plans, and they are ruining this team. Despite the fact they might be thinking ahead (and fiscally) I say we tar and feather em!
 

·
Schilster Supreme
Joined
·
13,610 Posts
Hmmm...I was under the impression that a team could only protect a maximum of 8 players, not that they were required to protect 8 players.
 

·
Player Salary Geek
Joined
·
4,380 Posts
I don't buy it either. This is Deveney speculating.

What, is the league going to FORCE Utah to cut two of their expiring contracts and sign 2 more multi-year players this year so that they have 8 players to protect in June?

I've read nothing that even hints that each team MUST protect 8 players, only that they can only protect that many and no more.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,946 Posts
It's an interesting thought, but it seems poorly implemented. Under that explanation, signing Gill royally screws our chances of getting rid of Damon. Patterson should not be a top priority to get rid of. He's a very valuable player with a contract nowhere as ridiculous as many regularly insist. Damon, on the other hand, should be moved the first chance that comes along...

Without Gill, Portland could protect everyone but Damon and give Charlotte no choice but to pick (and cut) him. As it stands, they'll probably be able to choose between Gill, Damon, and Patterson. Anyone really think they'll take Damon off our hands?

Dan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,878 Posts
just a reminder... I do not think they have to take a player at all from us... right?

29 teams.. they do not need 29 players after all....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,963 Posts
Originally posted by <b>Trader Bob</b>!
just a reminder... I do not think they have to take a player at all from us... right?

29 teams.. they do not need 29 players after all....
They only have to take a certain number, 12 maybe? They are allowed to take up to 29 (cutting some later), but they don't have to take 29.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,946 Posts
Hmm, that's a good point. Sort of makes the point from the original article highly questionable. If they don't have to take a player from every team, then there's really no issue.

Dan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,465 Posts
bobcats must select 14 players in the expansion draft.

Charlotte will receive lists from each of the 27 teams not competing in the NBA Finals 10 days prior to the scheduled Expansion Draft (June 12) and those from the competing teams in the Finals within two days of the conclusion of the Finals. Team lists will designate a maximum of eight protected players for that team’s players under contract or restricted free agents for the 2004-05 NBA season. The unprotected players are eligible for selection by the Bobcats, who will draft a minimum of 14 players from NBA rosters.
http://www.nba.com/bobcats/news/expansion_draft.html

that article doesn't say much more, but I was under the impression that every team must leave at least one player unprotected, even if they don't have 8 players under contract. I'm not so sure about this though, I couldn't find any article that would confirm it...

after gill's signing the blazers have 9 players (if Miles' qualifying offer counts...) under contract through 2004/5.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,708 Posts
The article is speculative, but it makes sense. We went from 1 near NBA PG to 2 NBA PG's & 1 near NBA PG. We won't carry three next season and Cook seems like a good enough player to make a roster.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top