PDA

View Full Version : Pacer's won't reveal Expansion list.



Will Galen
06-12-2004, 01:22 AM
http://www.indystar.com/articles/5/154077-2085-179.html

Pacers won't reveal expansion list

By Mark Montieth
mark.montieth@indystar.com
June 11, 2004

The Indiana Pacers today turned in their list of protected players for the NBA expansion draft.

Unless names leak from Charlotte, however, the list will remain a secret. Neither the Pacers nor the NBA will reveal the players available to the Bobcats in the expansion draft.

"I'm not going to confirm or deny anybody on the list," Pacers CEO Donnie Walsh said Thursday from Chicago, where he and other team officials are viewing the league's pre-draft camp.

The expansion draft is June 22, or on the 23rd if the NBA Finals goes seven games. Charlotte must take at least 14 players from the other 29 teams, and can't select more than one from any roster.

The deadline for submitting protected lists is Saturday, although most teams were expected to do so today. Detroit and the Los Angeles Lakers have until the day after the NBA Finals end to submit their lists.

Existing teams can protect no more than eight players, excluding free agents.

Pacers officials believe they have nothing to gain from revealing players they make available because they might not lose anyone.

The protected lists are complicated by the fact teams can make deals to secure unprotected players as well. They can pay the Bobcats up to $3 million or future draft picks, for example, not to take a certain player. Or, for that matter, to take a high-salaried player.

Charlotte's general manager and coach Bernie Bickerstaff, however, has stated he will be hesitant to accept cash payments to allow teams to in effect protect a ninth player.

Walsh refused to comment on how the Pacers will handle the status of 38-year-old guard Reggie Miller. Miller probably wouldn't be attractive to the Bobcats given his age, but the Pacers wouldn't want to risk losing the franchise's all-time leading scorer and most popular player.

Walsh gambled that neither Vancouver nor Toronto would select Byron Scott in the previous expansion draft, in 1995, but Vancouver did.

"I was surprised they took him, but that doesn't have anything to do with this situation," Walsh said. "Our team is different."

The Pacers lost Clinton Wheeler to the Charlotte Hornets in the 1988 expansion draft.

Pacers most likely to be protected include Ron Artest, Jonathan Bender, Jeff Foster, Al Harrington, Fred Jones, Jermaine O'Neal and Jamaal Tinsley.

If they compensate Charlotte for not selecting Miller, they could protect another player from the group of Primoz Brezec, Austin Croshere, Anthony Johnson, James Jones and Scot Pollard.

Croshere and Pollard are unlikely to be drafted because of their high salaries, unless Charlotte has a prearranged trade. Bickerstaff has stated his team will avoid players with high salaries.

Johnson might not be attractive to the Bobcats because he can opt out of his contract this summer. If they selected him and he chooses to become a free agent, he would be available to every NBA team but the Pacers.

The Pacers' two free agents, Kenny Anderson and Jamison Brewer, are not eligible to be selected.

Snickers
06-12-2004, 01:28 AM
Hmm....

I didn't really expect them to make it public, it's a good business move to keep it quiet. Especially if Reggie's not protected; not the best PR.

This part is news to me:
The protected lists are complicated by the fact teams can make deals to secure unprotected players as well. They can pay the Bobcats up to $3 million or future draft picks, for example, not to take a certain player. Or, for that matter, to take a high-salaried player.


So you can "bribe" them into not taking somebody or taking a crap contract.... I wonder if anyone will do that?

Will Galen
06-12-2004, 01:29 AM
Nothing new here. I did notice the Star is still indicating JJ is not a free agent. Bruno on Pacers.com said he was. I expect JJ to be chosen.

Hicks
06-12-2004, 01:30 AM
Pussies. :p ;)

Kegboy
06-12-2004, 01:35 AM
So you can "bribe" them into not taking somebody or taking a crap contract.... I wonder if anyone will do that?

It sounds good in theory, but I don't see it happening much, especially where crap contracts are concerned. Yes, you can give them $3M, but they're still stuck paying the rest of the contract, and it counts against their smaller cap, too. I don't know, maybe I'm just thinking in terms of Austin or Pollard. If there are contracts out there that would be more feasible under this scenario, I just don't see it.

Will Galen
06-12-2004, 01:51 AM
Hmm....

I didn't really expect them to make it public, it's a good business move to keep it quiet. Especially if Reggie's not protected; not the best PR.

This part is news to me:
The protected lists are complicated by the fact teams can make deals to secure unprotected players as well. They can pay the Bobcats up to $3 million or future draft picks, for example, not to take a certain player. Or, for that matter, to take a high-salaried player.


So you can "bribe" them into not taking somebody or taking a crap contract.... I wonder if anyone will do that?

They might be able to bribe Charlotte into NOT taking someone. For instant the Pacer's could offer a bribe to Charlotte to not take Reggie. One Charlotte would jump at!

What teams won't be able to do is bribe Charlotte to take a high priced player. For instant it has been speculated that Chicago would offer Charlotte a $3 million bribe to take Eddie Robinson. Eddie makes $6.7 and $7.2 million the next two years.

You think that's not to bad, they are really only paying Eddie $3.7 the first year. The fly in the ointment is the full $6.7 goes into Charlotte's salary cap of a projected $30 million. Charlotte's never going to do a deal that will cost them over a sixth of their salary cap.

Snickers
06-12-2004, 02:03 AM
Yeah, it wouldn't make sense for them to take on a big contract player, unless it were for one of those pre-arranged trades. But I could see lots of scenarios where bribing them to not take somebody could be useful.