Baker on ESPN last night

["Berry, Mark S" <berrym@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Have I mentioned how much I can't stand Vin Baker? Did anyone else see
him on ESPN Fast Break last night? They interviewed him and he,
predictably, didn't take an ounce of responsibility for anything. He
said the Celtics were just casting him aside for financial reasons and
that he didn't understand how you could support someone's recovery for a
year but not for a lifetime. Hello???? You had FOUR STRIKES!!!!!! Good
luck finding another employer out there who will let you show up drunk
four times before firing you.



Anyway, I hope Vin signs with the Knicks or Lakers so he can torpedo
their teams. He's a great risk ... He couldn't stay sober when $30
million were on the line, but I'm sure he'll never touch a drink after
he signs for the league minimum. Suuurre ...



During the discussion about Baker last night, a couple of the NBA
analysts said the union was going to claim Vin was pressured into
signing this agreement without representation - that the Celtics showed
up at his house with a bunch of lawyers and told Vin he had to sign it
or he'd never play again. But even if that were true of the first
agreement, didn't they spend months renegotiating the final agreement
with his representatives? I hate this. There's no way Baker should win
this arbitration case, but I have this sinking feeling he will. It makes
me sick.



A few other things ...



... They were breaking down the race for the final few playoff spots in
the Eastern Conference and, not surprisingly, no one (Bucher, Anthony,
Legler, Stein, Aldridge, Stephen A. Smith) thought the Celtics had a
shot. Most of them expect Miami, New York and Cleveland to get the last
three spots, but they all were hesitant in writing off Philly. Why?
Iverson. All of them (except for Stein) said Philly had a shot because
Iverson was one of the most competitive players since Jordan and that he
might just will the Sixers into the playoffs. Would anyone say the same
thing about Paul Pierce?



... Do any of you watch the ESPN Fast Break on Tuesday nights? It's
really a pretty good show. The host is in studio with Greg Anthony and
Tim Legler (and this week with Ric Bucher), and they have Stein,
Aldridge and Smith via satellite. They spend the night talking about NBA
issues and updating games in progress and occasionally going to live
looks of games in progress. Pretty good show. They also have a segment
called "Put Up or Shut Up" that is designed to force each guy to make a
bold prediction. I enjoy it. Anyway, Aldridge, in his Put Up or Shut Up
last night, said two California coaches would leave/be fired from their
jobs after the season, and one of them isn't Mike Dunleavy. That leaves
Phil Jackson, Rick Adelman and Eric Musselman. Would anyone else be
interested in Adelman or Musselman if they were available. Adelman,
especially, is interesting because he'd bring Pete Carill with him and
he coaches the style Ainge wants to see. For that reason, I'm rooting
for Sacramento to lose early in the playoffs this season.



... Legler was on Mike and Mike in the Morning this morning. (Yes, I'm a
basketball junkie ... ) He was talking about Detroit and said the
Pistons have weakened themselves because they've destroyed their bench.
He said the starting five is good, but they lost Sura, Rebraca and he
said Chucky Atkins is much better than Mike James. Small Celtic content,
but significant. I'm wiling to give Chucky 30 minutes a night to see
what he can bring that James can't. Of course, anyone who read today's
Herald knows that John Carroll is planning to give him 35 minutes a
night. I'm guessing that's going to rub the "PLAY BANKS" crowd the wrong
way, which I can understand. I don't think anyone really wants to see
Banks' time cut as we wind down the season. But Carroll made it pretty
clear that was what would happen. He said the minutes were pretty evenly
distributed between James and Banks, but that Chucky would play 35
minutes a night and Banks would get the rest.



... One more thing on the "Charlotte Option" ... Here's another
Charlotte Option - Didn't Chad Ford write a piece on the expansion draft
a while back that indicated Charlotte could draft a player, cut them,
and not have the salary count against the cap? I'm almost sure he did.
I'm not sure exactly how that would work. I assume Charlotte would still
have to pay the salary, but it wouldn't count against the cap. But would
they take on a high-salaried player that a team wanted to dump in
exchange for a draft pick? In other words, if the Celtics wanted to dump
Raef LaFrentz, could they send LaFrentz and the Detroit first-rounder to
the Bobcats in exchange for the Bobcats taking Raef in the expansion
draft? Charlotte could then cut Raef, who would be free to sign
elsewhere, while not losing any cap space? Would Ainge consider this?
Should he? It would be brilliant on his part if he made that deal with
Charlotte, then re-signed Raef to a smaller contract. Raef would still
get his money, Ainge would still get a player he wants, the Bobcats
would still have their cap space. Everybody's happy except the Bobcat
owner stuck playing Raef's salary. I just checked the archives ... I was
right. I'll post what Chad Ford wrote below. This could be a very
interesting development.



Mark





To many GMs, the expansion draft is a very rare opportunity. The Bobcats
eventually are projected to have a salary cap of $29.7 million next
season
(two-thirds of an estimated $45 million cap), but they won't be bound by
that number during the expansion draft. The Bobcats will be free to
select
as many contracts as they like. If new owner Bob Johnson wants to draft
$50
million in salaries, the league will let him.
Combine that with a little-known rule in the collective bargaining
agreement
that allows expansion teams to get salaries off their cap early by
waiving
players selected in the expansion draft before the first day of the
regular
season, and many GMs believe that a large, one-time loophole has been
blown
through the league's strict cap rules.
For you hardcore fans out there, here's the rule:
               The Salary of any player selected by an Expansion Team in
an
expansion draft and terminated in accordance with the NBA waiver
procedure
before the first day of the Expansion Team's first Season shall not be
included in the Expansion Team's Team Salary, except, to the extent such
Salary is paid, for purposes of determining whether the Expansion Team
has
satisfied its Minimum Team Salary obligation for such Season. (Article
VII,
Section 4)
There is no question teams will try to capitalize on this obscure
provision.
The Wizards, for example, could offer their first-round pick in the
regular
draft and $3 million (the maximum allowed by the collective bargaining
agreement) to the Bobcats in exchange for Charlotte selecting someone
like
Christian Laettner
<http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/profile?statsId=837>  in the
expansion draft.
The move would take Laettner's $6.2 million salary for next season off
the
books in Washington, giving the Wizards roughly $10 million in cap room
for
Ernie Grunfeld to use in free agency. The Bobcats then could waive
Laettner
and preserve all of their cap space for free agency (though Johnson
would
still be on the hook to pay Laettner's salary minus the cash he gets
from
Washington).
Is cap room really worth cash and a pick?
"Absolutely," one Eastern Conference GM told Insider. "A pick, a player
and
$3 million in cash for $5- or $6 million or more in cap room? That's
priceless. Ed Tapscott will be fielding a ton of offers the next few
months."
In essence, now that the regular season has begun, the Bobcats suddenly
are
holding all of the leverage. So far, executive vice president Ed
Tapscott
and Bickerstaff aren't showing their hand.
There are numerous ways a team can go in an expansion draft. Most of it
depends on what Johnson is willing to spend.