Re: Baker return is a long shot

["Dan Forant" <dforant1@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I say screw Charlotte, let's get Wallace in the Philly or Net organization
where he could be disruptive and helpful to the Celts at the same time.

Baker may be a closet drinker but since joining the Celts may have gone full
blown. Maybe he's off somewhere working on his 3's. He knows OB's
weaknesses.

DanF

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Beauregard" <sb@maine.rr.com>
To: <celtics@igtc.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 7:47 AM
Subject: Baker return is a long shot


> 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]