[WNBA News] Expansion on the horizon?

[Monty'sBiggestFan]

It is expected that on Wednesday, WNBA President Donna Orender will announce that a new franchise, located in Atlanta, GA will join the league in the 2008 season.

http://www.womenshoops.blogspot.com/ (see Friday's and today's blog entries)


eh..yay..expansion drafts rock!

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

You don't think that Whisneant would be so classless as to expose Newton again, do you?


... Because I do...

 

[Monty'sBiggestFan]

As much as that man still mentally kicks himself over exposing her the last time? And he had to reach in his pocket and hand over a 1st round pick to get her back? That's a big fatty NO. He has no reason to expose her, he's got more slots to work with right now than he had the last time around

He does have some decisions tho. I talked to coach in at an event in April and she said Whiz was already strategizing since at that time they were being told by the league to possibly expect two teams to come in for 2008.

 

[Purple Reign]

Players on the Expansion Bubble in my mind are LaTangela Atkinson and Kim Smith. Do they have contracts for 2008?

 

[MamaBristow]

Players on the Expansion Bubble in my mind are LaTangela Atkinson and Kim Smith. Do they have contracts for 2008?

For obvious reasons, I don't see either one of those players being protected. I also don't see either of those players being selected in the expansion draft. I think we will have a much more attractive player available to an expansion team.

There are many factors that will come into play when Whiz selects his protected players. First, with the new CBA, will we still be able to protect 6 players? Will he still have the ability to core players? If he can't core players, then he can't protect DeMya (or Ticha, or Yo, but I don't really think he has to worry about them) since she is a free agent.

For our purposes, lets just assume the rules stay the same. There are four players that I would consider "musts" to protect.

Rebekkah Brunson
Nicole Powell
Kara Lawson
Chelsea Newton

After that, things are tougher. With or without Yolanda Griffith in 2008, our post rotation needs serious help. Can Whiz risk losing DeMya Walker to free agency? Will she even be healthy? If Griffith retires and Walker isn't ready to go, do we now protect Williams? She may not be the long term answer in the post, but who are we going to be able to pick up that will be better? So if we protect one of those players, that leaves us with one more slot and we still have Kristen Haynie and Scholanda Robinson exposed.

Best case scenario, DeMya comes back healthy and we don't have to use one of our slots to protect her. We will still lose one of Williams, Haynie, or Scho. Any one of those players is going to be far more attractive than Atkinson or Smith.

 

[Purple Reign]

Oh I get it, you have an allotment of players to protect. Any players you don't protect is exposed to being selected. So if there are six to protect based on us signing everybody back my six are:

Rebekkah Brunson
Nicole Powell
Kara Lawson
Chelsea Newton
DeMya Walker
Ticha Penichero
And if there is a seventh......Scholanda Robinson.

 

[Monty'sBiggestFan]

Williams' contract may make her an unattractive pick for an expansion club, Haynie is more desirable (a young vet with a low(ish) salary cap hit) which is why I don't think he leaves her unprotected. I wouldn't let her walk for nothing if she has any sort of value whatsoever. I think Whiz has an idea if Yo is coming back for another year and has contingencies either way.

We lose Williams' cap slot to an expansion team? that's money you have to make a run at someone else - so from a financial point of view I'm willing to roll the dice there. That seemed to be the concept behind them stocking up on draft picks. Williams was brought here maybe to eventually move into the #3 slot in the rotation, maybe...I'm not convinced she's a long term 20+ minute per night solution. She might be, but I'm not convinced yet. If we lose both DeMya and Yo in the same year, I think we're screwed more than AW can fix. I'd leave her unprotected with the idea that Scho and Smith are more attractive to Atlanta. (Maybe throw Atkinson in there as well, but I think Scho and Smith are the two most desirable). If I'm banking on that and don't have to protect DeMya, maybe I do roll the dice and use a protection slot on AW. I dunno.

If the core designation is not available you get the slot you would have to use on DeMya. I'm sorta hoping that's what plays out and then the new CBA puts something else in where we get to snag a player we don't want on the FA market. Or maybe you don't do anything with DeMya even if the core designation is available and figure that teams will have a hard time committing money to her with her knee track record.

 

[MamaBristow]

Oh I get it, you have an allotment of players to protect. Any players you don't protect is exposed to being selected. So if there are six to protect based on us signing everybody back my six are:

Rebekkah Brunson
Nicole Powell
Kara Lawson
Chelsea Newton
DeMya Walker
Ticha Penichero
And if there is a seventh......Scholanda Robinson.

There's a catch to that, which is somewhat of a benefit to us. If the players are unrestricted free agents, you can't protect them. However, if you plan on coring any of those UFAs, you have to protect them. We have 3 UFAs: Ticha Penicheiro, Yolanda Griffith, and DeMya Walker. The only one of those three players that I would think Whiz might be tempted to core is DeMya.

So you could probably replace Ticha with Scho on your protected list. And if the league decides to get rid of the core designation, then you can replace DeMya too.

 

[MamaBristow]

Ok, scratch that. According to the article posted in the thread from SPM, the rules may be changing this year.

This time around, someone working for Atlanta appears to be using his or her head to try to close these loopholes. Atlanta is currently negotiating with the Players’ Association to be allowed to select one UFA in the expansion draft who would then immediately be ‘cored’ in order for Atlanta to retain her rights.

So, with that in mind, this is how SPM broke down the Sacramento roster.

Sacramento Monarchs
Obviously protected: Rebekkah Brunson, Nicole Powell

​

Short list, but those are the only absolute definites I see. Ticha Penicheiro is an UFA again but was left un-cored last offseason because they were so confident that she wouldn't sign anywhere else. That probably would have been the case again, but with the potential new rule and the shocking scarcity of point guards in the WNBA, they may well feel the need to protect her. Yolanda Griffith may retire and probably would be pushed further towards that move if Atlanta tried to bring her over, so there’s no real need to protect her.

DeMya Walker is an UFA with a blown-out knee - she'll probably be protected and cored because of the value she still holds, but just leaving her off the list wouldn't be entirely unreasonable. That may well leave only two spots to cover Kara Lawson, Chelsea Newton, Kristin Haynie, Scholanda Robinson, Adrian Williams and La'Tangela Atkinson. Lawson and Newton will probably both be protected, the former because she is so valuable to the Monarchs and the latter because her loss was felt so strongly when she was taken from Sacramento in the last expansion draft (she later returned in a trade). Williams is probably an UFA and might be re-signed but is unlikely to be protected. Haynie was protected ahead of Newton last time around, a situation which could repeat itself, but I doubt they’ll make the same mistake twice. Robinson and Atkinson are reasonable backups in Sacramento but there just isn’t room.

Probable other protected players: Penicheiro, Walker, Lawson, Newton.

Pick: Haynie, I suppose. She had a poor season last year, but point guards are hard to find. I’ve tried to look at each roster on an individual basis, but this pick may depend on the player left available by Connecticut. If Atlanta gets Carey or Phillips to run its offense, they could decide they don’t need Haynie. If the Monarchs find a way to open another spot and protect Haynie (by deciding either Walker or Penicheiro is ‘safe’ to leave unprotected) then I’d take Atkinson over Robinson.

If that's going to be the new rule, then I agree with the 6 players they have listed. That definitely makes it much more difficult to protect the roster.

 

[Purple Reign]

That was my list too. Which means there is a strong possibility we may lose Haynie or Robinson. If you had to choose one to keep who would it be? That is very hard.

 

[StevenHW]

That was my list too. Which means there is a strong possibility we may lose Haynie or Robinson. If you had to choose one to keep who would it be? That is very hard.

If I were Whiz, and given a choice between Haynie and Scho, I would give up Haynie. Her play this past season was disappointing. She actually regressed, which is not what a third-year player should be doing.

 

[6th]

Haynie or Robinson to protect? Absolutely no question in my mind. I'll let MBF guess, and then I'll make my comments.

 

[Monty'sBiggestFan]

Eh, LaTangela Atkinson 6th?

I'm going to express my complete and utter disgust at the rule changes being requested or negotiated to this new franchise. They clearly are angling for a team that's ready-made out of the box. Which they could have freaking had if they had dropped their bags of money on Donna's desk LAST October. Hell, they could have had their choice between one of TWO teams last year.

Why should they be allowed to draft a UFA? Hell, they can already sign any of the ones out there once free agency opens. Oh, and player's union? If you agree to this, you essentially are defacto saying you want the core designation to continue in this next CBA, so you *MIGHT* want to consider the implication of this, ESPECIALLY for a team that did not have rights to any player last year. Do you really want that? Just a thought. You already have no leverage, so you will probably just sign on the dotted line anyway, but again...consider the implications of this.

Oh, and Donna...do you like a new owner implying that you did not do your job and did not appropriately slap the Connecticut folks for whatever wink wink deal they may have done with Sales? You did look into that right? But let's say for the sake of argument there was no wink wink under the table stuff going on, why the hell is Atl trying to get around making offers to free agents like everybody else? Because nobody wants to voluntarily go there? Well, tough cookies I guess, because Chicago was in contention much of their second year of their existence without needing to "negotiate" their way into the lottery or trying to get awarded a UFA of their choice. As free agents there was never a guarantee they would leave their damn teams ANYWAY, there is not a financial incentive to move only situation. So sorry expansion team, if nobody wants to voluntarily go to an expansion situation. Life gives you lemons sometimes.

If I were to counter this rule change...when Atlanta picks a UFA, each team would get to protect one additional player.

Now that I've gotten that off my chest....

I'm going Walker, Penichiero, Lawson, Brunson, Powell and Newton. Again, I dont see Whiz letting Newton go again. And Penicheiro, I don't think we technically need to protect - like the arguments with some of the other UFA in the SPM piece, Ticha has said she's not playing anywhere but Sacramento at this stage in her career. DeMya's situation I think is as mentioned above and predicated on who more wants to roll the dice on her knee in 2008.

Haynie to me is still the most valuable piece, but Scho makes a good deal of sense too.

 

[6th]

When it comes to energy and improvement on defense, no way am I giving up Scho-time. We protected Haynie once and it was a mistake. Don't do it again.

 

[Monty'sBiggestFan]

What is seems like it will boil down to for Sacramento at least is whether or not Whiz (and other GMs for that matter) lets Atlanta bully them into protecting players they didn't intend to protect under the threat that they might take a UFA that used to belong to them. (It STILL kills me that this is the case)

If its the case that Atlanta only wants to draft one UFA, you probably are ok not protecting Ticha and that would give you a slot back. I have a feeling that Atlanta has someone in mind they hope is left exposed. They can't just be trolling for a FA. I haven't looked at who all is an UFA but it would seem there would be higher priority/better long term prospects than either Yo or Ticha would seem to be who also might be left uncored.

But its down to Haynie or Scho being gone to me at this point regardless.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

That can't possibly be legal under the CBA... what would they do if said UFA refused to sign? Would they even have a leg to stand on?

 

[Monty'sBiggestFan]

If they refuse to sign you still have their rights and can trade them to parlay their rights into somebody you either can actually get to suit up for you or draft picks. Which is why I can't understand why the union would sign off on this, it doesn't do anything to advance their standing. Unless the 13 new jobs is all they are looking at. I'm wondering if the league told them "if you can get the union to sign off on your wacky scheme...then..." Or if they've already bought off on it (like the #4 pick leap frog stupidity) and the players union in the last line of reasonableness. I don't think ATL actually cares if the player actually suits up really, they win either way.

 

[MamaBristow]

That can't possibly be legal under the CBA... what would they do if said UFA refused to sign? Would they even have a leg to stand on?

It's practically what they have in the CBA right now with the core designation. If a cored player refuses to sign with that team, they can hope for a trade or sit the year out/retire.

The fact that SPM already had someone draft an article analyzing what each existing team might do makes me think that this new rule is going to happen. It seems like Atlanta is trying to find a way to take the excitement out of this year's free agency pool. The Swin Cash scenario has piqued the interest of many W fans because she is the first "star" that wants out and will likely be free to decide where she wants to go. With Detroit's list of free agents this off-season, it's unlikely that Laimbeer can afford to core Cash and force someone to trade for her. So she is the biggest true free agent on the market. Bill might actually prefer losing her to Atlanta than to a team like Connecticut. There is also the crazy possibility that Atlanta would choose to take a gamble and draft Holdsclaw.

 

[Monty'sBiggestFan]

I'll believe this is a done deal when I read that the players signed off on it in the new CBA. I just have a hard time believing they will sign away the "free" part of their free agency in expansion years for the life of this new agreement. I can believe it got to the point that it can be speculated about because the owners have no problem with it (of course since they want to still have the capability to core folk). Not only does it kill the free agent market next year, it also screws up cap decisions for teams with free agents they'll now need to core. They are likely going to need to max players they may not have intended to max. (Which may be the reason the players union would bite on it). Which means they'll AGAIN be signing on to a process that makes it harder for midlevel players to hold onto jobs.

If I'm Laimbeer, I still core Cash and if Atlanta wants her, make them hand over that nice lil #4 pick they just got handed. You can roll the dice with not coring Smith for the same reason I think you can maaaaaaaybe get away with not coring Ticha and why we likely won't core Yo. If a player is close to retiring or said they'd retire rather than play somewhere else, do you waste a pick on her? Not if you only get one shot at a UFA if that's the way this proposed rule would work.

Re: Mique, is she a free agent? If she is, more power to Atlanta if they want to use their pick on her and hope she miraculously unretires using the Dales playbook.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

If I'm Laimbeer, I still core Cash and if Atlanta wants her, make them hand over that nice lil #4 pick they just got handed. You can roll the dice with not coring Smith for the same reason I think you can maaaaaaaybe get away with not coring Ticha and why we likely won't core Yo. If a player is close to retiring or said they'd retire rather than play somewhere else, do you waste a pick on her? Not if you only get one shot at a UFA if that's the way this proposed rule would work.

How the hell do you "core" an unrestricted free agent? If Laimbeer cores Cash, does that mean that she's compelled to re-sign?

I don't like what I've heard about this CBA. At all. It's ****ing bass-ackwards, and it's going to set a horrible precedent for professional sports in general.

 

[Monty'sBiggestFan]

Exactly.......

But subjective commentary aside, it's a process they agreed to in 2003 for the last CBA which expired at the end of this season. I figured they (the players) would bow out of the process this time because, it well..was stupid to have agreed to in the first place. Unless they figured it was an easy way for them to get a couple of players per team each season max money.

I haven't looked at it too deeply, but it seems like it is VERY similar to what exists in the NFL with the franchise tagging that owners can do there and restrict the movement of one of their players, so it's not that novel a concept. Just doesn't seem that until the W players agreed to it that any other sport wanted to touch it.

Here's what happens according to the expired CBA if a team uses the core designation on a player.

[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]

Section 7 Core Players.​

[/FONT]Each Team shall be permitted to designate no more than two (2) of its Veteran Free Agents as Core Players. Such a designation can apply to any Veteran Free Agent who would otherwise be an Unrestricted Free Agent or a Restricted Free Agent.​

....Any Team that designates a Core Player shall be the only Team with which such Core Player can negotiate or sign a Player Contract. Such Core Player Designation shall continue to apply until it terminates pursuant to Section 7 (c) below.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I'm not up to speed with the NFL's Collective Bargaining Agreement, but my understanding was that a player had to be under contract in order to be franchised.

 

[Monty'sBiggestFan]

You may very well be correct, but it seems like the period during which teams make the decision on whether or not to tag and who they will tag takes place before before the free agency period begins and seemingly happens to players who are about to become FAs otherwise there is no reason to restrict anybody's ability to negotiate with any other team. So it may just be a matter of timing when it happens.

However we are in complete agreement about its application in the W. Players who technically are not under contract with a team are able to be claimed by a team that technically no longer has her rights. And even potentially dumber, could potentially be drafted and cored by a team that had even LESS of a claim to her rights (less as in Z E R O). The entire concept that the union would sign off on that is sooooooo beyond my ability to wrap my head around its ridiculous. If you're going start agreeing to stuff like that, just do away with free agency all together because that's essentially what you've done for the vast majority of players worth caring about who have that designation.