Professional and College Basketball Forums banner
1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,722 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
For those dreamers who thought that the agreement between Baker and the Celtics would give the Celtics the right to terminate Vin's contract without a protracted arbitration proceeding, here is an exerpt from Peter May's column in today's Boston Globe:

"The agreement that Vin Baker and the Celtics reached in February 2003 does not by itself give the Celtics the power to terminate his contract. According to someone who has seen the document, there is no such language in the agreement. But here's what it does do: It sets up a very specific aftercare program with testing and consequences. And if Baker does not stay in compliance, there is a mechanism in place (after his suspension reaches 10 games) whereby the Celtics could terminate the contract by going to the Uniform Player Contract. As such, Baker's deal could be terminated not because of his alcohol problems, or his failure to comply, but because he would be deemed unfit to play and thus in breach of the contract. The Celtics would have by then a baseline of evidence to use -- including the documentation of the independent doctor overseeing the aftercare -- when the Players Association takes the matter to arbitration."

As I suspected, they would have to terminate under the "unfit to play" provision in the Uniform Player Contract that is part of the collective bargaining agreement, and if the Celtics do that, it is a 100% certainty that the Players Association will fight it.

May goes on to point out that Toronto terminated Nate Huffman's contract a year ago (he allegedly lied about an injury), and the arbitrator in that case has still not rendered a decision. If the union will go to bat for a nobody like Huffman, it will certainly fight to the very end for a high profile player like Baker.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,817 Posts
Originally posted by <b>Big John</b>!
For those dreamers who thought that the agreement between Baker and the Celtics would give the Celtics the right to terminate Vin's contract without a protracted arbitration proceeding, here is an exerpt from Peter May's column in today's Boston Globe:

"The agreement that Vin Baker and the Celtics reached in February 2003 does not by itself give the Celtics the power to terminate his contract. According to someone who has seen the document, there is no such language in the agreement. But here's what it does do: It sets up a very specific aftercare program with testing and consequences. And if Baker does not stay in compliance, there is a mechanism in place (after his suspension reaches 10 games) whereby the Celtics could terminate the contract by going to the Uniform Player Contract. As such, Baker's deal could be terminated not because of his alcohol problems, or his failure to comply, but because he would be deemed unfit to play and thus in breach of the contract. The Celtics would have by then a baseline of evidence to use -- including the documentation of the independent doctor overseeing the aftercare -- when the Players Association takes the matter to arbitration."

As I suspected, they would have to terminate under the "unfit to play" provision in the Uniform Player Contract that is part of the collective bargaining agreement, and if the Celtics do that, it is a 100% certainty that the Players Association will fight it.

May goes on to point out that Toronto terminated Nate Huffman's contract a year ago (he allegedly lied about an injury), and the arbitrator in that case has still not rendered a decision. If the union will go to bat for a nobody like Huffman, it will certainly fight to the very end for a high profile player like Baker.
So...Anyway you look at it we have Vin for two more seasons.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,722 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Re: Re: The Truth Comes Out

Originally posted by <b>Celts11</b>!


So...Anyway you look at it we have Vin for two more seasons.
No, they could terminate the agreement whenever the "third strike" occurred and kick Baker off the team. The union would grieve, and we'd wait two years for a decision. If the Celtics win the arbitration they would save at least 26 million. If they lost, Baker would be entitled to all of his money whether he played or not.

But there will be NO cap relief or luxury tax relief until 2005 at the earliest. Win or lose, Baker's salary would stay on the books until then.

As a practical matter, the best option IMHO would be to negotiate a buyout. Vin would get a chunk of money and the union couldn't complain, because he'd become a free agent. The market would determine whether he was "fit to play" and how much his services were worth going forward.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
800 Posts
Re: Re: Re: The Truth Comes Out

Originally posted by <b>Big John</b>!
As a practical matter, the best option IMHO would be to negotiate a buyout. Vin would get a chunk of money and the union couldn't complain, because he'd become a free agent. The market would determine whether he was "fit to play" and how much his services were worth going forward.
So how would that affect our cap situation?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,722 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Truth Comes Out

Originally posted by <b>theBirdman</b>!


So how would that affect our cap situation?
My understanding is that the cap relief from the savings created in a buyout is prorated over the life of the contract.

Let's say Baker's contract is terminated with two years remaining, and the Celtics would have owed him 27 million under the contract. The buyout is for 17 million. The Celtics would get 5 million of cap relief in each of the next two years.

I think that is how it is supposed to work but I'm not 100% sure, so don't quote me.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,261 Posts
So was I the only one who read this thread and initially thought that Paul Pierce was coming out and saying he was gay?

Anyway. We'd have to wait for his suspension to get to three games before we can terminate the contract? That will probably take a while. I think all of us would rather just see him come back and be the 15 and 7 guy he was at the start of the year.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,070 Posts
Originally posted by <b>agoo101284</b>!
So was I the only one who read this thread and initially thought that Paul Pierce was coming out and saying he was gay?
lol:laugh: . I thought it was about Paul Pierce, but didnt even think of that
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,849 Posts
Originally posted by <b>agoo101284</b>!
So was I the only one who read this thread and initially thought that Paul Pierce was coming out and saying he was gay?






LMAO
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top