Thread Tools

Display Modes

Big John · 01-26-2004, 01:15 PM

The possible termination of Vin Baker's contract is fascinating, and could have wide ramifications for the current collective bargaining agreement and future agreements. Here are just a few of the issues:

1. Can the Celtics really prove that Baker is "unfit to play" based solely on alcoholism? Even when Vin was on the sauce, he could go out there and score a few baskets. How unfit does a player have to be to have his contract voided under that provision? Are the standards for "fitness" tighter for a highly compensated player like Baker?

2. As most people know, alcohol is not covered under the league's substance abuse policy. Should it be? How much drinking is too much? I note in passing that the league banned Roy Tarpley for life because he used alcohol, which violated the terms of his league-mandated aftercare program. However, if memory serves, Tarpley initially got into trouble for cocaine, which of course is covered under the league's policy.

3. Under the Americans for Disability Act (ADA) alcoholism is considered to be a disability. Did the Celtics' "three strikes and you're out" agreement with Baker satisfy the conditions of the ADA?

4. It is rumored that the players association signed off on Vin's aftercare agreement with the Celtics. In doing so, has the union waived its right to object to the termination in a subsequent arbitration proceeding or its right to claim that it was an unfair labor practice before the National Labor Relations Board?

5. Suppose the Celtics terminate Baker's contract. When does Vin's money come off the books for cap and luxury tax purposes? Does it come off immediately or only after the arbitrator has ruled? Who decides if and when it comes off the books? If this is David Stern's decision, what rights (if any) do the Celtics have if they don't like his determination as to timing or amount? What rights (if any) would the Union have if they don't like it? Could they file a separate grievance?

6. Could Stern refuse to give the Celtics any cap relief on the theory that Vin might sober up a year from now? That appears to be the rationale used to deny relief to Orlando in the case of Grant Hill. Like Hill, Vinnie could swear, "I'll be back."

7. Suppose the contract is voided and the money comes off the books, but then Baker wins in arbitration. Obviously the Celtics would have to pay Baker. But does the money also go back on the books for cap and luxury tax purposes? When does it go back? Do the Celtics lose 30 million (or whatever the number is) of cap room retroactively? Could they be held liable for luxury tax retroactively? Is there any precedent for this? And who decides all of this?

8. In the same scenario as #7 (Baker wins), suppose the league instead penalizes the Celtics going forward. How much cap space do the Celtics lose and over what period of time? Would there be a penalty for cap violations that would not have occurred but for this penalty in those future years? And who decides all of this?

9. Suppose the league and the players union negotiate a new contract before the arbitrator has rendered a decision about Baker. The arbitration itself would of course be held under the rules of the old agreement. But suppose the new agreement eliminated the luxury tax. Could the league still retroactively impose the tax? Would the Union have any say in the matter?

Does anyone here think he or she actually knows the answers to some of these questions?

**MJG** · 01-26-2004, 01:17 PM

I don't know the answer to any, but I appreciate the post anyways. I never really even thought about there being that much to it, and I too am curious about some of those answers.

**walkon4** · 01-26-2004, 01:28 PM

mjg, check your PM'S.

RP McMurphy · 01-26-2004, 06:02 PM

I suggest you go to the CBA / Business Related board on RealGM and make this post. Larry Coon posts there every couple of days and I'm sure he would do his best to find an answer for you.

**BEEZ** · 01-26-2004, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ArtestFan!
I suggest you go to the CBA / Business Related board on RealGM and make this post. Larry Coon posts there every couple of days and I'm sure he would do his best to find an answer for you.

Well you could post this on our CBA board and NCBullsfan will surely have an answer for you

**Dan Rosenbaum** · 01-26-2004, 06:48 PM

These are all good questions that I did not answer, because I did not know the answer. The Vin Baker case is quite unique, so a lot of these questions are treading new ground.

Big John · 01-26-2004, 07:01 PM

I have no doubt that counsel for the NBA, the Players Association, the Celtics and Baker will be looking into these questions. I do not think that any of them are answered under the CBA.

Thanks all for looking at my post and if anyone can shed any light, please feel free to do so. When Baker's suspension reaches 10 games we may have a better idea of how things will shake out.

Big John · 02-09-2004, 06:34 AM

ESPN is reporting that Nate Huffman won his arbitration case against the Raptors.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?id=1730729

It will be interesting to see how this affects Toronto's cap situation. I read somewhere that Huffman's money was taken off the cap at the time of termination. Will it be put back on? If so, how?

Big John · 02-14-2004, 06:49 AM

The battle lines have been drawn between Vin Baker and the Celtics. Baker did not receive clearance to play (for what reason was clearance denied?) from the designated physician following the 10th game of his indefinite suspension. Yesterday at 10:00 am Baker was placed on waivers (a necessary precondition for termination under the uniform players contract), and it is expected that the Celtics will terminate his contract next Wednesday at 10:00 am, following the expiration of the waiver period (48 "business" hours). For those interested in reviewing the Uniform Players Contract that is part of the CBA, here is the link: http://www.nbpa.com/cba/articleII.html

Baker's attorney and agent maintain that Vin has been ready, willing and able to play, and that he should have been reinstated. And, as expected, Billy Hunter, the president of the NBA Players Association said yesterday that the union is "coming after" the Celtics. Meanwhile, the Celtics' attorney, Neil Jacobs, claims that the Celtics arre entirely within their rights under the agreement they signed with Baker last year with the approval of the league and the union (Hunter concedes that he agreed to "go along for the moment").

For further information, read: http://celtics.bostonherald.com/celt...?articleid=370

Thread Tools Display Modes

Thread Tools

Display Modes