Re: Griffin's contract status for next year

[CeltsSteve@aol.com]

In a message dated 11/25/99 8:58:17 PM Pacific Standard Time, awang@mit.edu 
writes:

<<  There are two possibilities:
 
 1. The Celtics signed Griffin to a one-year contract and will have
 right of first refusal like you said. This is what happened with Nesby
 and the Clippers and Spurs.
 
 2. They signed him to a one-year contract with an option for the
 second year. At the end of the season, they just have to exercise the
 option at the previously agreed salary.  Other teams will not be able
 to make him an offer because he will never be a free agent. This is
 what happened with Bruce Bowen after his first year with us.
 
 I believe that the second possibility is actually the reality based on
 media reports, and it fits in with what Pitino did with Bowen. By the
 way, Pitino seems to get criticized for many of his personnel moves
 but gets no praise for the ones that work out successfully. Anyone who
 blames him for all the "bad" personnel moves should be giving him credit
 for acquiring Griffin, for instance.  >>


Alex,

Nesby's deals - his initial contract with the Clippers last year and the new 
extension he signed over the summer - were both under the new CBA ("right of 
first refusal").

Bowen's deal with the C''s with the team's option for a second year (ala 
David Wesley's original contract with the C's) was under the old CBA.

I guess that begs the central question: Are one year contracts with the 
team's option for a second year for players with less than three years of 
experience still permitted under the new CBA ? Or do they fall under the 
domain of "right of first refusal" meaning that team's can match a 
counter-offer provided they tender a qualifying offer by June 30th?

Re: criticizing/praising Pitno for personnel moves, I concur totally with 
your comment.