Re: Dampier? Speculation from ESPN Insider

["David A Wickerham" <aw623@xxxxxxx>]

So, NVE plays here for a year, helps Banks improve, then retires, giving us a little cap relief.  That doesn't sound like the worst scenario I've ever heard.

Hey, we might even be able to make a profitable trade with one of the Texas teams next year.


On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 09:05:22 -0500 Shawn Niles <shizzjr@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I couldn't find the article, but NVE recently said that he only wanted to 
play for one of the Texas teams so he could be closer to his family. Said he 
was willing to stick it out for the rest of this year even if he is traded, 
but that if he does not start next year on one of the Texas teams, he would 
probably just retire. I don't know if you want to use up all of our 
bargaining chips on a guy that would only be here a few months.


>From: Celtic4Hire@xxxxxxx
>To: berrym@xxxxxxxxxxxx, Celtics@xxxxxxxx, 
>Celticsstuffgroup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: Dampier? Speculation from ESPN Insider
>Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 05:35:25 EST
>
>Danny has to go as hard as he can after Dampier and Van Exel. They would 
>make
>an immediate impact. Van Exel would be the locker room and on the floor
>leader. He would get the ball to the people when and where they needed it. 
>This
>would allow Banks to mature over time. Dampier would solidify the center 
>spot and
>give us a center who defensively could hold his own against Shaq. We would
>immediately become one of the top teams of the East. The only thing lacking
>would be power foward and Raef would fill that next year.
>
>First, let's remember that Atlanta showed that if a team was willing to 
>take
>two of their big contracts, all they needed to get back is expiring 
>contracts.
>We don't have enough expiring contracts to get Van Exel and Dampier
>completely clean. However, we come close.
>
>Mills 6.6, Stewart 4.5, trade exception 3.6, Blount 1.1, James .6 would put
>us within 15% of Van Exel 10.9, Dampier 7.8.
>That is all expiring except for one extra year of Stewart and you don't 
>even
>have to pay Mills (insurance) or the exception. Now you are just adding 
>draft
>picks to get it done.
>
>If they insist on Mihm, who I don't want to give up, instead of Stewart, 
>you
>would add JJ,  Walta  and Hunter and reduce the draft picks. But if GS
>insisted on getting a young player back (Mihm) to get this done and you 
>knew that
>could keep Dampier, I would make this all day.....
>
>Go for it Danny! The rebuilding would be complete except for the backup 
>power
>forward spot which you could fill with the MLE and or a draft pick....
>
>I have to think that Dallas would be give up a Finley to get Dampier. But 
>why
>wouldn't they have done that with Atlanta for Ratcliff? Very interesting
>times......
>
>DJessen33
>
><< 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. >>

_________________________________________________________________
Click here for a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee. 
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963