Baker a free agent

[sunsfn]

ESPN.com news services
NEW YORK -- Vin Baker won his arbitration case against the NBA on Thursday, freeing him to sign with the team of his choice for the remainder of the regular season.


In a case that was argued Monday, arbitrator Roger Kaplan invalidated an NBA memo barring the other 28 teams from signing Baker until his other grievance -- against the Boston Celtics -- is settled.


No date has been set yet for Baker's case against the Celtics, who terminated the remaining 2½ years of Baker's contract -- worth $35 million -- after he missed 10 games while on suspension for violating terms of his alcohol treatment program.


Arguments on the termination -- and the fate of the $35 million -- have been scheduled for April 12-13, and then April 25-26, if necessary.


Aaron Goodwin, Baker's agent, has said the New York Knicks, Miami Heat and Toronto Raptors have shown interest in signing his client.


"We're happy with the decision," Goodwin said.


The NBA had argued that if Baker were to win his case against Boston, he'd have to return to the Celtics because his contract would be reinstated. The Players Association argued that Baker should have a right to seek employment elsewhere while his case against the Celtics is pending.


The NBA said it would not appeal the ruling.


Kaplan ruled that the NBA's March 1 memo violated articles 11 and 14 of the collective bargaining agreement, which deal with free agency and collusion, union spokesman Dan Wasserman said.


"We obviously disagree with the arbitrator's decision, but have elected not to appeal and to allow Mr. Baker to sign a contract with another team," Rick Buchanan, NBA senior vice president and general counsel, said in a statement.


Baker, a member of the 2000 U.S. Olympic team, was averaging 11.0 points and 5.7 rebounds for Boston before being suspended.


The former All-Star's production has dropped significantly over the past several seasons, but there are at least three teams that believe he can help them reach the postseason in the tightly contested Eastern Conference playoff race.


"We will move forward with Vin signing with a team in the next couple of days," Goodwin told


http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1756752

 

[scotsman13]

you know if i were vin i would have been happier if he had ruled that i couldnt sign, this tells me that vin isnt going to have much of a chance of getting the 30+ million that the boston owed him.

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

Originally posted by scotsman13
you know if i were vin i would have been happier if he had ruled that i couldnt sign, this tells me that vin isnt going to have much of a chance of getting the 30+ million that the boston owed him.

I think it could give him a better chance. If he performs well the first few weeks, it could prove he wa medically capable of playing, making his intial waiver illegal.

 

[George O'Brien]

The union and his agent are going to try to use the fact that other teams are willing to sign him as evidence that he was cut for financial reasons rather than because he was unable to play.

Actually the fact that he is an alcholic who fell off the waggon should have been enough without having to mess around with having a doctor sign off on it. The Celtics followed the procedure, but the union is claiming they did not act in good faith.

The economic reality is that Baker was grossly overpaid. The Celtics should have terminated his contract last summer rather than go through this process of setting up an exit strategy. Vin was institutionalized for alcholism, which is grounds for termination under the collective bargaining agreement.

The union objected to the exit feature in the contract when it was written. They are scared to death that there will be exit features in more and more long term contracts, so they do not want a precident set.

I'm not sure the ownership of the teams that are going after Vin are paying attention to the implications of this issue. For them, getting a low post threat for 20 games at the veteran minimum price is too good a deal to pass up.

 

[Joe Mama]

Baker and his agent will try to play this out in the public court, but it really doesn't matter whether he can play or not. Supposedly he signed a clause in his contract giving Boston the right to terminate his contract if he violated certain substance abuse standards. He did it, and they terminated his contract. It really shouldn't matter if he puts up superstar numbers now.

Joe Mama

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

Originally posted by Joe Mama
Baker and his agent will try to play this out in the public court, but it really doesn't matter whether he can play or not. Supposedly he signed a clause in his contract giving Boston the right to terminate his contract if he violated certain substance abuse standards. He did it, and they terminated his contract. It really shouldn't matter if he puts up superstar numbers now.

Joe Mama

THe main arguement is that Baker signed that contract without legal representation. The union stated that the Celts maangers showed up at Bakers door and basically forced him to sign it.

 

[George O'Brien]

Originally posted by thegrahamcrackr
THe main arguement is that Baker signed that contract without legal representation. The union stated that the Celts maangers showed up at Bakers door and basically forced him to sign it.

Since they were in their rights to simply cut him at the time (not able to play), they were in their rights. The union was not concerned about whether he had representation, they objected to the whole idea of an explicit exit clause with a set procedure. The "unable to play" issue was one that could disputed from now to dooms day, but the 10 games without a doctor's OK was too straight forward.

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

It isn't about the waiver. The union is upset Baker didn't have representation when he signed the papers for the exit strategy.

They feel since Baker did not have an attorney, or his agent present when he signed the exit clause, the Celts should be required to pay the rest of the contract. In other words, they want it to be like a normal waiver, not a contract termination.