[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Latest on Baker via ESPN.com

On Feb 23, 2004, at 9:14 AM, Shawn Niles wrote:

Kim (or anyone who knows),

Can you help me out on this? What is the difference between the C's cutting Vin and the C's cutting Lindsey Hunter? IF all contracts are guaranteed, then how are they allowed to cut Hunter without issue while cutting Baker is such a huge issue? Is the issue simply payment? In other words, if you are willing to pay a guy the full amount that he is owed, then you can cut him?

Shawn --

I think its b/c L. Hunter is a FA after this season -- so cutting/waiving him doesn't do much except free up a roster spot in case of injury. The reason you can do that now is b/c L. Hunter can't be traded (like Mills could have) before he becomes a FA.


From: Snoopy the Celtics Beagle <snoopy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Celtics@xxxxxxxx, Celticsstuffgroup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Latest on Baker via ESPN.com
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 22:01:06 -0500

By Darren Rovell, ESPN.com

<snip>

After Baker was cut, the NBA Players Association filed a grievance on
Baker's behalf last week claiming it was impossible to determine that Baker
was unfit to play, especially given the number of teams interested in
signing him since he cleared waivers.


While I start off taking the "workers" side in these types of disputes (being a union organizer and all...), doesn't this seem a bit weak of an argument? I mean if the Magic cut Grant Hill right now, you don't think a bunch of teams would line up to sign him -- but that doesn't make him any closer to being physically able to perform.

i'm wishing Vin (the person) all the best, but am hopeful that Vin (the contract) will be rid from the Celtics soon.

(the other) mark