re: expansion ideas

["Thomas Murphy" <tfmiii@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Blount does have a player option at the end of this season according to Pat
Bender's site http://www.dfw.net/~patricia/contracts, so he would not have
to be protected. Right now I think it would have to be Battie, not LaFrentz
that gets left unprotected. I think that is another reason why Danny may be
looking to deal Battie, in order to get *something* (i.e., draft picks) in
return, rather than potentially lose him for nothing in the expansion draft.

On the other hand though, I'm not also so sure that you have to protect
Hunter, as much as I love what I have heard about him and his style of play
he was after all only a second round pick. If Baker continues his resurgent
play, do you leave him or Hunter available...?

So unprotected: McCarty for sure, Battie (if still around), and one out of
the trio of Hunter, Baker and LaFrentz -- depending on how things work out
this season. Baker's been playing better than anyone had any reason to
expect (and don't kid yourself that that may well be one reason why -- no
pressure of expectations) but d--n he pulls down a lot of cash -- so he may
well be the one left unsecured.

Interesting thread,

Cheers -- TomM

> Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 13:03:53 EST
> From: Celtic4Hire@xxxxxxx
> Subject: Expansion ideas
>
> See the quote below from Danny from the 11/2 Herald. It has been
previously
> reported that Mark Blount was signed for a multi-year deal that was
> undisclosed. Yet, the quote below indicates that he will be a free agent.
Perhaps Blount
> has an option out. If true and the Cs and he had mutual interest, they
could
> tell him to opt out but resign. You got to be thinking that Danny has been
> considering the expansion draft when he is doing his dealing....
>
> <     ``This isn't a knock on Antoine, but for players like Kedrick and
> Marcus, more movement of the ball this year is going to be important in
> their development. If everyone develops, then maybe we won't need that
> mid-level exception. Maybe it will leave us more money to re-sign Eric
> (Williams) or Mark Blount.''>
>
> Also, James is on a one-year deal per HoopsHype so he will also be a free
> agent. So here is my thinking on the expansion draft unless we make
further
> trades:
>
> Free agents: James, EWill, Blount, Mills
> Keep: Jones, Welsch, Kedrick, Kendrick, Banks, Hunter, PP and Battie is
no.
> 8. He is the bubble man.
> Available: Baker, LaFrentz, McCarty.
>
> Explanation: The Bobcats as an expansion team would love any of the
players
> we are keeping as they are cheap and have upside. I grant that we have too
many
> small forwards and guards in this list. Another way to go would be to
figure
> out the odd man and make him available instead of LaFrenz.
>
> But here is the thinking on Baker and LaFrentz. If they take Baker, we
> instantly go from 50 million in salaries to 35 million. That would allow
us 10
> million for a free agent plus another 5 million for the mid-level
exception. If
> they take LaFrenz, it allows us 4 to 5 million for a free agent plus
another 5
> million for the mid-level exception. Even though his contract is for five
years
> and he has not been incorporated in our offense, he might be the guy to
keep
> if we can move Battie for an expiring contract. Baker is obviously playing
> better and has a shorter contract length of two years, but the possibility
of
> getting a big time player using the 10 million makes it a no-brainer....
>
> This also amplifies the problem of EWill and Battie. We don't want to
spend
> anything other than the minimum to resign EWill but he will likely demand
more.
> Battie is sucking down dollars (although at not to unreasonable numbers)
at a
> position where we have cheaper players available who are better. That is
why
> it is best to trade them to get value (draft picks) and resolve the roster
> problems....
>
> DJessen33