[no subject]

But here is why I think the owners might do this (pay a 
guy to do nothing).

Say Boston "cuts" Baker after two seasons. Then Vinny has 
the option of signing for much less to play the game he 
loves while he still is able, or kicking back in style at 
owner's expense while letting the team to replace his 
roster spot should they wish. As long as his millions are 
still guaranteed, I doubt he can sue the organization for 
not letting him play or even enter the locker room.

Getting to my point, this seems like a stealthy way to 
transform guaranteed contracts into anything but. In the 
end, some affected players (perhaps many) might choose to 
re-sign/renegotiate for less in exchange for the chance 
to compete again, rather than suffer the boredom and peer 
humiliation of being excluded from the locker room and 
put out too early to pasture. Preposterous? Maybe.

What would you do if you were in that situation? If you 
were receiving a huge alimony and child support, would 
you refuse to remarry or date for the rest of your life? 
To me, that would be a fair analogy.

I'm sure someone can tell me why this idea is completely 
wacky. I'm just desperate for any ideas that can turn 
Chris Wallace's summer moves into something we can get 
out of if need be. 

Bring in a hard cap with the next CBA and the Celtics 
seems even more screwed. It won't help at all. Any team 
with two or three max contracts is screwed unless they 
are already a championship team. A third max contract 
seems like the most dangerous thing to hand out so 
flippantly, like Chris Wallace did. What he did is almost 
worse than what Seattle did in signing Baker in the first 
place.

Best case scenario is 55 wins and being the fourth best 
team in the NBA if everything clicks. That's what the 
Knicks are hoping for. That's what the Celtics should 
hope for. It would be good enough for me at this point. 

I noticed that Peter May for ESPN and Michael Holley both 
are pushing for cheap owners to sell. You can't avoid 
feeling this way about Gaston.

If you are going to commit to 3 longterm max contracts, 
you better bet the house to win.

Offer Rodney Rogers 2 million and Boston would address 
their horrid bench and have most of the ingredients to 
win big this year. Two million would probably do it, 
which makes it seem like a rare bargain opportunity. 

Instead Boston has the three max contracts, a greatly 
weakened bench, no pointguard, no sixth man, no cap 
flexibility through 2006. Those are too many obvious 
handicaps to compete. If Gaston is going to make a 4-year 
gamble on Baker, than he should go for it all at this 
point. Sign the best bargains out there like a Rodney 
Rogers or Keon Clark, since there are no point guard 
bargains.

Joe

*** 









 





-------------------
L'e-mail gratuit pas comme les autres.
NOMADE.FR, pourquoi chercher ailleurs ?