re: Dampier? Speculation from ESPN Insider

[wayray@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Markster et al.
This is the God's honest truth. I was pondering yesterday as to 
who Ainge might go after (apres Rahim) and I thought Dampier 
and Van Exel. Widebody and veteran PG. Every need wrapped up 
in one package. Why not?

Did the Real GM thing then, and while you'd have
to trade off half the Celtics including Ricky Davis (but not Jiri, LaFrentz,
Pierce, Banks, or Perkins) and a draft pick or two, it can be done. 
And the C's do have those two trade exceptions ($3.6 mil. combined) they can use. 

Another Dampier trade possibility, which would be easier on the C's and
free up a goodly amount of Cap Space for the Warriors would be Dampier 
and Robinson for Mills, Mihm, and Stewart; and use a trade exception or two.  

Dampier would be a nice pick-up for Ainge, because Blount is 
likely to flee; Perkins apparently is still a couple of years away; and other than
Araujo, there aren't really any centers in the draft who can contribute right away.

Ainge would have to re-sign Dampier. To lose him after the season would be
Rodney Rogers redux and C's managemnt can't afford another hit like that.
They're on thin ice as it is, and the Media and fans are in savaging mode.  

So, I say go for it Danny because Dampier and a healthy Van Exel
make an immediate impact.

Ray 


> ** Original Subject: Dampier? Speculation from ESPN Insider
> ** Original Sender: "Berry, Mark  S" <berrym@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ** Original Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 08:33:55 -0800 (PST)

> ** Original Message follows... 

>
> Well, this is interesting, I guess. Dampier is 29 years old, 6-11, 270
> pounds, and he's averaging 12 points and 11.6 rebounds per game in the
> best season of his career. The big difference this season is minutes.
> He's averaging 32 minutes per game, whereas in the past he's had trouble
> staying on the court more than 24 mpg because of foul trouble (sound
> familiar?). This season's improved production coincides with a contract
> option he has this summer. He can become a free agent. If he doesn't
> exercise the option, he is under contract two more seasons at about $8
> mill per season.
> 
> 
> 
> Would he opt out? Probably. He's huge and his production this season has
> been tremendous. He has been healthy for three straight seasons, so it
> seems maybe the injuries that plagued the early part of his career are a
> thing of the past. Teams will overpay for productive big men, and he
> qualifies. Would I give him $10 mill or more in a long-term deal? No
> way.
> 
> 
> 
> This one's a risk, but probably one worth taking. If he opts out after
> this season and you don't re-sign him, you really only lose Mihm and the
> opportunity to turn an expiring contract into a player. If he doesn't
> opt out, you get a reasonably priced center (and great complement to
> Lafrentz) who solves many of your rebounding problems for two more years
> until Kendrick is ready. At which point, you either have a great trading
> chip, or cap room if you let his contract run out.
> 
> 
> 
> The worst case scenario is the Celtics pay him big money after this
> season to keep him and then he dogs it for the duration of a longer-term
> contract. That would be bad. But even then, big guys seem to get second
> chances. Someone traded for Vin Baker, after all.
> 
> 
> 
> But, as Chad Ford says, what's in it for the Warriors (assuming the
> trade isn't expanded to include Van Exel - which would be almost
> impossible, I think)? Do they want the cap room that badly? Are they
> that worried about him not opting out? If they want an asset, is the
> Dallas pick enough to get it done? Would the Celts part with Marcus
> Banks, who you would think would have some appeal for the Warriors?
> Would that be smart? Geez... I don't know.
> 
> 
> 
> The bottom line is a Dampier who plays like he's playing this season
> would be the best center in the East and drastically change the makeup
> of the team. A Dampier-Lafrentz front line combo next season would be
> formidable in the East, and you'd still have Pierce, Welsch and Davis.
> This is one to watch. It's a risk, but I'd go for it.
> 
> 
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Around the league
> 
>             Word is the Warriors are still trying to figure ways to kick
> Nick
>             Van Exel to the curb. The bait, as it was a few weeks ago,
> is Erick
>             Dampier. The problem is, there isn't another team out there
> with the
>             type of expiring contracts or cap room the Warriors are
> looking for.
> 
> 
> 
>             The closest could be the Celtics, who are trying to combine
> the
>             expiring contracts of Chris Mills ($6.6 million) and Chris
> Mihm
>             ($2.8) to convince someone to make a deal. That's enough to
> get
>             Damp, but why would the Warriors give him up without also
> getting
>             rid of Van Exel? Then again, this is the Warriors we're
> talking
>             about.
> 
> 
>             The Grizzlies have interest, but they would have to send
> half their
>             team to Golden State to make a deal work. Are Van Exel and
> Damp,
>             even in Hubie Brown's great system, really worth what it
> would take
>             to get them? Concerns about Van Exel's attitude and
> Dampier's knees
>             say no.
> 
> 
>             If neither Dampier or Iverson go anywhere, where does that
> leave us?
>             Probably with an active trade deadline filled with much
> smaller
>             deals. Who has the best chances of being moved? Juwan
> Howard, Marcus
>             Fizer, Melvin Ely, Corliss Williamson, Michael Doleac and
> some wacky
>             combination of low-level Raptors players. Wake me up when
> it's over.
> 
> 
> 
>             Here's the latest on the developing Vin Baker situation in
> Boston.
>             Baker's agent, Aaron Goodwin, keeps claiming Vin is able to
> play,
>             but the Celtics claim they've had no contact with him. Baker
> missed
>             his 10th consecutive game, which means the team can now
> attempt to
>             void the remaining two years on his contract. With Baker due
> nearly
>             $30 million over the next two seasons, a lot is at stake for
> both
>             parties. While dumping Baker and his contract would save a
> lot of
>             money, it really doesn't get the Celtics that far under the
> cap. A
>             lower payroll and roster flexibility will be nice. But
> that's about
>             all they'll see until the summer of 2006.

>** --------- End Original Message ----------- **