RebKell's Junkie Boards

[pilight]

http://www.wnba.com/voices/offseasonblog.html

[MNfan22]

[cherrystreet]

I think the premise was they could wait until after the expansion draft and keep that player you want to core plus another player the team would wish to keep. The way pilight is talking about, the team would have to protect that player to be cored and give up another they also want to hold on to.

Teams were getting two for the price of one. Now they have to choose between their players. I don't believe that the Comets will have that problem. They feel confident Staley is coming back. And according to Van will protect Snow, Swoopes, Thompson, Canty, Lyttle, and Hodges.

I think they will probably have no players chosen with the exception of maybe Lawson. It will definitely affect some teams.

[styxfan22]

It's different because this is the first expansion draft since the advent of free agency. Before, there were no cored players to protect.

This will certainly impact the Mystics.

[stever]

So this is to Chicago's advantage, right? It will give them a little better talent pool to choose from?

_________________
She's Got Game
Women's hoops, and nothin' but the hoops.

[Slovydal]

[bullsky]

Yeah for Chicago! I was already bitter that they got the lowest possible lottery pick in the college draft but now they'll get better talent!

_________________
JENNASMITH13.com

2009 WNBA Draft Net - Contributor
Fine In '09 Blog - Contributor

"We will play defense for 94 feet of the court.
We are going to have an up-tempo style and
We are going to make people fear the Fighting Illini."
-Illinois Head Coach Jolette Law

[womens_hoops]

yeah, it's too Chicago's advantage. they don't want to let teams protect more than 6 by signing UFAs without competition after the Expansion Draft.

it will probably be broader than the core rule suggested by Wurst, too. part of the worry, i think, is that teams will reach under-the-table deals with UFAs (like: both sides agree that even though the player is unprotected, she will come back for sure).

(doesn't help when teams run around saying in the press that they're gonna be signing people regardless of protection.)

but it's a tricky problem. a team shouldn't be able to protect more than six, but at the same time, the league can't do much that puts further restrictions on UFAs.

this issue is gonna be a primary topic of discussion at the competition committee meeting on Monday. not exactly clear what system of enforcement and sanctions the league has in mind...

[bluewolfvii]

Makes sense to me to force a team to use a slot for a player whose contract it intends to hold. It's a good thing for the league. The WNBA needs a competitive Chicago franchise out of the gate.

In terms of free agents whose former teams don't bother to core them because they are confident about getting them back, look at the examples of other professional leagues. Sometimes it works out, but sometimes it doesn't work out the way you planned it. I wouldn't risk an important cog of the team doing it.

[pilight]

[pilight]

[PalaceAthena]

Can someone help me understand this better? This new rule doesn't prevent teams from taking the risk of leaving a player unprotected though, right? For instance, if the Sun and Sales really have a wink-wink, nod-nod agreement, they could choose not to core her and still sign her for the max once the free agent signing period begins, correct? Obviously a risky strategy, but something a team could still do under the rules, yes? So under this hypothetical situation, the Sun could protect six other players, not including Sales? It would seem this rule would come into play more with regards to UFAs like Delisha Milton-Jones, who may not want to return to the Mystics, but who would likely core her regardless; then they would have to include her in the protected list. Am I understanding this correctly?

[pilight]

[bluewolfvii]

Yes, to everything you said, PalaceAthena. Your understanding and mine are the same.

[PalaceAthena]

But if Sales is an unrestricted free agent, how can the Sky select her? I thought they weren't allowed to select UFAs? I understand they could sign her as an UFA, but still don't see how they can select her? Am I missing something?

[pilight]

[PalaceAthena]

Ah, Gotcha. Thanks, Pilight, for clearing that up. I had heard a few different things from different people, so I wasn't sure who and what was right. Can you answer another question for me? If the Sky select a UFA in the expansion draft who isn't on a team's protected list, does that player have to sign with the Sky? Doesn't that invalidate the free agent status?

[bluewolfvii]

Teams have to protect players they intend to core. So they are free agents who would have been restricted.

Free agents who are not going to be cored/ restricted cannot be drafted.

That' s my take.

[bluewolfvii]

Here's a hypothetical on a type of deal I've seen done in other leagues.

Chicago approaches a team and says 'Your Player A is a player we'd love to have, but don't want to draft because we think she would sit out or retire rather than play for us. But if you slap a core designation on her and don't use a slot to protect her, we'll take her right anyway. Maybe we can find a team to take her rights off our hands and give us something.

Your Player B is a player we'd really love to have, but suspect that you are going to protect. Your Player C is a player you want to keep because she is a prospect you are high on, but you most likely will have to expose her if you take us seriously about drafting Player A's right off of you.

So, here' the deal. You can't afford to risk player A, don't want to lose player C, so how about we make a deal to draft player C but trade her back to you with another player/ draft pick for Player B? That way you keep Player A, keep Player C, and still look good to the people who would have thought you stupid if you exposed Player B and got nothing in return for her..

[pilight]

[bluewolfvii]

I fail to see how UFAs can be drafted. The league would be in violation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

JMO, but ain't gonna happen.

[PalaceAthena]

Thank you, Pilight and Blue. I feel immeasurably smarter.

[bluewolfvii]

I get dumber every time I try to figure it out, Palace Athena.
We need to come up with a new term for an UFA who has been cored, so as to follow the logic of it.

A CUFA?

[pilight]

[pilight]

[peaceplease]

[TDAO]

[bluewolfvii]

[bluewolfvii]

[womens_hoops]

[womens_hoops]

[pilight]

[pilight]

[womens_hoops]

[pilight]

[caune]

[bluewolfvii]

[PUmatty]

[PalaceAthena]

Damn. For a while, this seemed to be making sense. Now, I'm not so sure anymore. Still don't understand how the expansion draft applies to unrestricted free agents who are not cored? And is it based on the previous year's core designation or who teams decide to core now for next season?

I'm getting a headace. Grrr.

[MNfan22]

IF the Sky are indeed able to select UFA, the only way they would be able to hold on to that player would be to core the player after selection. Assume like everyone else the max would be 2 cored players.

Without doing that there would be no reason for the Sky to select an UFA unless they wanted to keep her (or possible trade later), otherwise they would have no rights to the player for the 2006 season w/out coring them.

I'm w/plight in that they should have taken care of the fine print on this sooner.

_________________
Land of broken hearts & shattered dreams

[pilight]

[oddball8450]

it can't be this difficult.... can it? oh wait.... it could...

[dtsnms]

I think this is meant really for RFAs, or risky UFAs.

There is no way a UFA can be selected. It defeats the entire purpose of the CBA and I don't think the league wants a law suit.

However, if you have a DMJ you think will walk and you want to core, you have to core her now and put up someone else. That makes sense.

If you have a Nykesha who you are confident will stay, then you don't core her, and you keep your fingers crossed.

That's my understanding.

[womens_hoops]

[Keegan]

Core designations give you exclusive negotiating rights with a player. So yes, Chicago would gain something by drafting an unprotected core player. Core players aren't your vanilla UFAs anymore because by giving core designations, the team has essentially asserted a right or obligation on the player.

Is there any provision in the CBA for the acceleration in the timeline of core designations? From my understanding, the league is trying to get teams to essentially declare their core designations now.

_________________
Beware of snarky monotremes...

[womens_hoops]

[pilight]

[bluewolfvii]

The window to designate Core Players in Jan 1 - Jan 14, no exception according to my understanding.

Then again, the 2005 Core Player designations should still be in effect when Chicago drafts (they are in effect through Dec. 31). Since we are hearing that teams don't have to protect those people (haven't we?) then yes, it would seem that the Players Union has agreed to some sort of acceleration timetable.

[bluewolfvii]

Who has Pam Wheeler's emaill?

[womens_hoops]