RE: Latest on Baker via ESPN.com

[Kim <kimmalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yeah, that's why I said it was misleading. What they mistakenly call a contract clearly refers to details of the agreement signed last spring, which is where the 10 games came into it. Here's are a couple of old Globe (Shira and Peter May) articles laying some of this stuff out and specifying that the failure to comply creates a presumption of unfit to play and the 3rd strike under the agreement leads to an indefinite suspension, with termination merely one of the options. They'd still have to make that legal under the CBA to get away with it, hence the unfit to perform clause being involved

http://tinyurl.com/2fgfc
http://tinyurl.com/3bmbd

-----Original Message-----
From: John Lyell <jlyell@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Feb 23, 2004 11:36 PM
To: Kim Malo <kimmalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Celtics@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Latest on Baker via ESPN.com

Per the article below it sounded like a special clause was inserted in his
contract possibly when he came from Seattle or after the last incident. If
this was true I don't think this would have been at Vin's request.

John



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-celtics@xxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-celtics@xxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
Kim Malo
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 9:16 PM
To: Celtics@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Latest on Baker via ESPN.com


At 10:13 PM 2/22/2004, John Lyell wrote:
>Wouldn't they have had to take exception to this clause initially?

John-
If you mean the unable to perform clause, that's not actually part of
Baker's agreement, that's in the CBA and pretty standard. Where they
intersect is that the Cs intend to use the evidence/track record of Baker's
failure to abide by his aftercare plan as laid out in the agreement to
prove that he fulfills the unable to perform clause, allowing them to
terminate the contract. The article below is alightly misleading, as
termination has to be in accordance with the CBA, not any special agreement
trying to circumvent it. In the absense of a CBA alcohol policy the unable
to perform clause was determined to be most applicable.

>If we away with this whomever got us out of this should get as bonus!

Why would you want to give Baker a bonus <g>, as it's his own actions that
will have done so.


>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-celtics@xxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-celtics@xxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
>Snoopy the Celtics Beagle
>Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 7:01 PM
>To: Celtics@xxxxxxxx; Celticsstuffgroup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Latest on Baker via ESPN.com
>
>
>By Darren Rovell, ESPN.com
>
>Former <http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/clubhouse?team=bos>Boston Celtics
>forward <http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/profile?statsId=1279>Vin
>Baker might have a new home by the end of the week.
>
>Billy Hunter, executive director of the NBA Players Association, told
>ESPN.com on Sunday that union officials will determine by Tuesday if
>Baker's possible signing with another team would interfere with the union's
>action against the Celtics on his behalf.
>
>Baker's contract with $36 million remaining was terminated last week after
>the veteran forward missed his 10th consecutive game following another
>violation of his alcohol rehabilitation program.
>
>Baker signed a contract with the team stating that the Celtics could
>unilaterally terminate him after he missed 10 consecutive games following
>another mishap. Baker was suspended indefinitely on Jan. 23.
>
>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.
>
>"Once the union makes their decision on this, we can move forward," said
>Baker's agent Aaron Goodwin, who insists that his client has no lack of
>offers from high-caliber teams. Hunter said that should the union allow
>Baker to proceed, there still would be an effort to recover some of his
>promised compensation from the Celtics.
>
>The grievance is expected to be heard within the next month.