RE: Vin Baker etc.

["Ravi Singh" <kelticsfan@xxxxxxxxx>]

Joe, the issue is, as Alexander Wang has pointed out in a very
insightful previous post, that Gaston will not get $$ back from the
escrow fund if he is too far over the tax threshold.  So he may lose
only $2 million out of his pocket, but the opportunity cost associated
with not getting $$ back could be huge assuming the NBA were to disburse
the escrow funds to the teams that were under the threshold. 

By staying close to the tax threshold, Gaston and any other owners could
reap a sizable winfall from those clubs that are severely over the
threshold. That kind of added revenue and subsequent increase in profits
might do more for the stock price than a couple rounds of playoff wins.
Don't know for sure as it would depend on what disbursements if any
could be expected.

I do agree that it makes no sense Baker would be coming this way, since
adding his long term $$ doesn't jive with Boston's desire to have cap
room in 2004. 

-Ravi  

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-celtics@igtc.com [mailto:owner-celtics@igtc.com] On Behalf
Of hironaka@nomade.fr
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 2:23 PM
To: celtics@igtc.com
Subject: Vin Baker etc.


>>>I personally don't believe one iota of the published 
report that Gaston refuses to take one season's hit worth 
of luxury tax to offer Rodney Rogers more than one 
million. That's saying he's not worth two million to the 
Boston franchise in salary and total taxes. Gaston's 
signed bigger checks than that to ink Randy Brown or 
Calbert Cheaney.