Re: Baker

[Kim Malo <kimmalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 07:54 PM 3/4/2004, Douglas342@xxxxxxx wrote:
>    Well, I can't imagine why anyone else would sign him unless they have a
> contract so ironclad that 10,000 lawyers couldn't attack it.  Only if they 
> have
> a clause that he plays well or some such would I even think about signing 
> him.
>  I'm no capologist, but would anyone want him for cap reasons?  It's a sad
> day when that becomes the case.

Douglas, I would guess you're making a wrong assumption. They get him for 
the veteran's minimum, same as any other waived player. The old contract is 
either the responsibililty of the Cs if the arbitrer rules against them 
(different hearing, not the Monday one) or is completely invalidated. That 
decision won't be for a few more weeks at least,  but in no case does it go 
to the new team.
Kim