Re: Baker on ESPN last night

[Douglas342@xxxxxxx]

    Amen to that, Mark.  During my legal years, including those on the bench, I have always been astonished when I see that batteries of high-powered and high-priced lawyers can negotiate contracts so full of holes and ambiguities that other batteries of high powered and high priced lawyers can drive trucks through them.  For example, we are told that if Baker were "unable to perform" within ten games, he's out, right?  Well, who defines "unable to perform" or "out of compliance" or whatever it is?  Does any side deal with Baker cross-reference itself to the CBA so he can't claim it violates his CBA rights?  And if the Cs show up at his house with deal in hand, that's an invitation to void the agreement.  During my family law years, I took the position (unfortunately) that unless there were lawyers on both sides of a deal, you might as well chuck it in the trash.  So if they did indeed show up and say "sign or else," then the Cs should pay Baker and not the lawyers who put them into the mess.
 - Doug

In a message dated 2/25/2004 8:33:44 AM Eastern Standard Time, berrym@xxxxxxxxxxxx writes:

> 
> 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.