Baker return is a long shot

["Stephen Beauregard" <sb@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

ON BASKETBALL

Baker return is a long shot


By Peter May, Globe Staff, 3/6/2003

ou may have read otherwise. You have heard otherwise. But you have a better
chance of seeing Bill Russell rejoin the Celtics this season than Vin Baker.
Russell last played in 1969. Baker may have played his last game as a Celtic
and no one even knew it - 11 minutes against the Warriors Feb. 18.



Baker's agent, Aaron Goodwin, thinks his client will be back this season with
the Celtics. Without equivocation, he said, ''absolutely.'' That was after he
had ripped the management for being dishonest and then added, ''This kid is
under a tremendous amount of pressure and 75 percent of it is because of the
Boston Celtics.'' Sounds like a match made in heaven.

But let's suppose Baker does everything the Celtics ask him to do and does so
religiously. Then, let's say, in a month, he feels he's ready to play
basketball again. What do you think the chances are that Jim O'Brien, coaching
for playoff positioning with a set rotation, will use him even if he did
rejoin the team? Once Mark Blount blew into town, Baker became utterly
dispensable and remains so. In fact, Baker was dispensable before Blount blew
into town, as we saw when O'Brien started Walter McCarty.

Do you think that after missing games and practices for a month, albeit for a
legitimate reason, that there is going to be any rush to get Baker back on the
floor? With the playoffs looming? If he does come back, do you think there's a
chance in you-know-what that Baker will be on the playoff roster? The answers
are no, no, and no. It stretches the imagination to conjure up any scenario
where we'll see No. 42 again this season, unless Kedrick Brown takes back his
old number.

The larger issue, of course, is what will happen to Baker, his contract, and
his situation down the road in Boston. Right now, general manager Chris
Wallace is taking the brunt of the heat for the deal, which is part of the job
description. Still, there are rumblings around the league that the expansion
franchise in Charlotte has Wallace on its list of people to interview for the
GM's position. Ed Tapscott was hired to be the Charlotte CEO. (Tapscott
drafted Frederic Weis, the draft equivalent of the Baker deal.)

Meanwhile, there was continuing dialogue yesterday between the parties that
drafted the document resulting in Baker's suspension. Unless some of the more
stringent (and perhaps, illegal) language is changed, the Celtics will find
themselves before an arbitration hearing. If the document is amended to the
satisfaction of the players' union, then Baker will proceed with his rehab,
not lose a ton of money, and still be beholden to the Celtics.

The Celtics publicly have said little about Baker, only that they hope he gets
the treatment he needs and gets his health back. You'd love to see some
''Annie Hall'' subtitles for those statements. Of course they want him to get
better. But they also have a huge incentive to try and wriggle out of the
contract, because it is a financial straitjacket for the next three years.
That's why the language in the document is so restrictive.

Prior to last night's game, Celtics broadcaster Cedric Maxwell likened the
Baker trade to buying a bad car. A lemon. Then he made the point that there is
no Lemon Law in the NBA, so the Celtics basically have no recourse.

There is a drug agreement, however, with very specific guidelines. But alcohol
is not covered by the agreement, which allowed the Celtics the freedom to
construct their agreement with Baker. That agreement was not woven out of
whole cloth. There had been incidents leading up to the signing, troubling
ones. You miss games, you have heart palpitations, you underperform to a
ridiculous degree and, well, it's time to do something. The Celtics, to their
credit, did something. Sure, their motives may be elsewhere, but at least they
got Baker off the court and into rehab.

In the end, if the revamped agreement is deemed to be within the confines of
the Collective Bargaining Agreement, it may give the Celtics the needed
flexibility to do something should Baker waver. But contracts don't get
terminated every day, especially ones like Baker's. And if the Celtics were to
take that bold of a step, you can be sure it would lead to a bloodbath with
the union. (One union official already is calling the Baker agreement `The
Grousbeck Massacre,' a reference to Celtics principal owner Wyc Grousbeck.)

We may not know Baker's future for some time - where's Dan Issel when you
really need him? But, for the remainder of the 2002-03 season, the season that
supposedly was going to reinvigorate and rejuvenate Baker, the Celtics will
carry on and do so without him. Any other scenario simply doesn't make sense.

This story ran on page C6 of the Boston Globe on 3/6/2003.
) Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company.

Thanks,

Steve
sb@maine.rr.com

[demime 1.01b removed an attachment of type image/gif which had a name of Y.gif]