# Baker On The Way!



## LUMPI-44 (Jan 23, 2004)

By FRANK ISOLA
DAILY NEWS SPORTS WRITER 

NEW ORLEANS - Vin Baker's contract could be terminated by the Boston Celtics tomorrow, which would clear the way for the Knicks to possibly sign the troubled power forward.

*Baker has told at least two NBA players that his goal would be to join the Knicks if he is released by the Celtics.* The Knicks have refused to comment on Baker's status. The 6-10 forward is a low-post scoring presence the Knicks covet, but his troubles off the court make him a risky investment.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/story/163768p-143514c.html

What to say:

I think if he will be relased it is a very good dela to sign him. Still he can be one of the best PF in the game..he simply need change of evironment,new goals, chance to see the ultimate goal-championship. HE CAN MAKE IT IN NY...and all should wish him a lot of luck...

Im not a great fan of him...but he deserves a second chance!

It should be a great addition to the knicks!

This year games against NY:

17.11. in NY: 
VIN BAKER F 34min 7-14 6-6 8r 2as 20p 

24.11. in BOS:
VIN BAKER F 37min 5-11 6-12 12r 1as 16p 

30.1. in BOS:
DNP

TO CONCLUDE...NY TAKE HIM!!!


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

*baker*

2nd chance?????????????

the guy has had way more than 2 chances.....they should sign him to the minimum,and i am not even sure about that...


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

Baker gives the Knicks the flexibility to trade Othella Harrington. I don't think Doleac is drawing much insterest on his own, at least not what the Knicks are looking for. Combined, Harrignton and Doleac make about 5 million, so they could get back a player of value that makes 5 million. Nazr Mohammed anyone? Doleac gives them more cap room, as does Harrington next year. I think Mohammed has a long term deal in place which is why they're trying to move him.

It's not like the Knicks can't use Baker.

Why is it you are so skeptical of Baker, when you were so high on Eddie Griffin, who has far more problems than Baker?


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

Why is it you are so skeptical of Baker, when you were so high on Eddie Griffin, who has far more problems than Baker?

Thats a verrry good question....

1.. Griffin came relatively cheap..
2...Griffin is young,and hopefully can turn it around...Then again he may be another Chris Washburn...
3...Griffin in my opinion is immensely talented ......And he still has his physical skills
4...Griffin,as far as I know is manically depressed and needs guidance..I think there is hope

Baker has been on a steady decline the last few years...Hes not a young buck as Shawn kemp found out the hard way

The most serious issue is,he is an alcoholic..Its a very very serious disease,and its clear its ruining his life to the tune of 17 million dollars per year....

I agree he is worth a cheap shot...Very cheap...Where i completely agree with you is we need to make a 2 for 1 deal so we can sign Baker and keep Demarr Johnson...Ild like to see what he has to ofer


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> 4...Griffin,as far as I know is manically depressed and needs guidance..I think there is hope


Understatement of the year. Griffin is a candidate to get shot on the street before playing in another NBA game.



> Baker has been on a steady decline the last few years...Hes not a young buck as Shawn kemp found out the hard way
> 
> 
> > Baker doesn't weigh 300 pounds like Kemp did either. On the note of careers destroyed by the Lockout, former Knick Dennis Scott is supposed to be down to around 250 pounds and will be trying out with the Spurs after the all-star break.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

Aren't the Celtics terminating him because he's unable to perform? Why would we want to take on dead weight? I mean if he were successfully completing a long rehab that would be one thing, but what has you thinking he's not home downing a litre right now? He'd just be a distraction and an anchor, while we're trying to move up and out.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

No, they're trying to terminate his contract because it's big. That's why they violated his player rights and forced him to sign a clause that would allow them to do such a thing.

Like you said, alcoholism is a disease. That's basically like forcing Allan Houston to sign a clause that says they can terminate his contract if he injures his knee three times in one year.

Boston traded for Baker, mistake or not. They shouldn't be allowed to get off the hook so easily.

It's not like the Knicks are placing their competitive lives in Baker's hands. And they still have Sweetney and Harrington, and supposedly Rasheed wants to join the team.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

*Once upon a time...*

Correct me if I'm wrong (people have gone on record to say I always am) but didn't the Knicks originally trade Patrick Ewing Glen Rice AND Vin Baker?

http://www.canoe.ca/2000GamesBasketball/aug24_ame.html

The Ewing trade originally was
Knicks get Vin Baker, Glen Rice, and Travis Knight
Sonics get Patrick Ewing
Lakers get Christian Laettner, Chris Dudley
Pistons get 2 Draft picks and 7 scrubs.

Joe Dumars pulled out of the trade and ended up trading Laettner to Dallas for Cedric Ceballos, John Wallace, and Eric Murdock. All the GMs involved were pissed at Dumars since his word apparantly doesn't mean much, and they probably haven't picked up the phone to call him since.

The Knicks ended up taking the 7 scrubs instead of Baker. And thus, Scott Layden was doomed.

Then that trade fell apart in the 11th hour. Ewing reconsidered if he still wanted a trade. He decided 
"well, we've gone this far...", and that's how the Knicks ended up with Glen Rice, in a makeup deal forced through by Checketts.

Said Baker...



> "I really had a good 24 hours when I considered myself a Knick. It was a great feeling for my family and friends. But now we have to rethink things," he said. "I'm at a point in my career where I needed a new start and I thought New York would have been a good place to have that start because it was just time to change. We'll see where we go from here."


Baker didn't become an alcoholic until after the trade.

Obviously he still wants to play in NY, and it would be silly not to sign a talented player that wants to play for the team. Baker was fine early this season. How come everybody jumping off his bandwagon now? Boston was talking about Baker being "the feel good story of the year". Now "the feel good story of the year" is getting Baker's contract off their roster. What a wonderful man that Danny Ainge is. That goes for the rest of the bandwagoners who support the move too.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> 
> Boston traded for Baker, mistake or not. They shouldn't be allowed to get off the hook so easily.


I've not followed the Baker story close enough to know who's violating their contractual obligations, so I'm not taking sides in the dispute between Boston and Baker.

I'm only considering if the Knicks want to have to go down a similar path come playoffs. Rememberf Marcus Camby's post season distraction a couple of years ago. I know we'd be less dependant on Baker than we were Camby, but we don't need that kind of emotional termoil at a critical juncture, like say, the post season.



> Like you said, alcoholism is a disease. That's basically like forcing Allan Houston to sign a clause that says they can terminate his contract if he injures his knee three times in one year.


I think a better analogy would be if a team traded for Houston and put a clause in his contract to termine if he doesn't actively rehab his knee. That would seem reasonable, no? Like the J Will mortocycle clause. Players are supposed to take reasonable precautions to enable themselve to perform for the team. Violating the terms of one's rehab program, or getting wasted on game day is not reasonable.

Dolan dumped Spree for breaking a finger in preseason for Christs sake. (Though he didn't complain when he played in the post season, a season or two prior, on a broken toe.)


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> Rememberf Marcus Camby's post season distraction a couple of years ago.


What? Do YOU remember it? Camby's family was HELD HOSTAGE.

Not only is it not Camby's fault, but it doesn't even compare to Baker. Camby's situation was random. Baker is recieving help for his problem, it's a problem that can be controlled. Being brought into a situation he's happy with (New York) would probably help him drink less.

And like I said, it's not like the Knicks competitive life depends on Baker. The Knicks were depending on Camby, which is why it was so huge when that situation popped up out of nowhere. Camby grabbed more rebounds in game one (I think it was 18 boards) than he did in the rest of the series COMBINED.

*Speaking of instability and emotions, Baker will be good insurance come playoff time, in the event Kurt Thomas (someone the Knicks are depending on) decides to headbutt someone again.*


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> I think a better analogy would be if a team traded for Houston and put a clause in his contract to termine if he doesn't actively rehab his knee.


No, because Baker is actively rehabbing his alcoholism, and he is still having his contract terminated. It is well known that patients often have relapses on the road to recovery. It's not an overnight process. If this season is any indicator, it's that Baker is making progress with it. He may not be an all-star anymore, but neither is Penny, and people seem to concede that he helps the team. So is there really a big deal about signing a that WANTS to play on the Knicks to a relatively small contract? If he can't do anything, he won't be back. You're acting like the Knicks are some sort of Championship caliber team. "Baker could hurt us come playoff time". Yeah. You know what else would hurt us come playoff time? Playing the Nets, which is who we'd be seeded against if the playoffs started today.


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

Rashidi, you're more than entitled to your opinion, just don't tryto make it seam like I'm minimizing or trivializing that horrible incident for Camby. The only parallel is that teams can't be expected to perform well when their teammates are under incredible duress. IMO, Baker, is under duress and the team risks being jeapordized (sp?) by it.

The Knicks are a basketball team not a rehab program. If Baker's "disease" is as bad as it would appear, I'm of the mind he tend to that first and hoops second.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

Assuming baker is not a disruptive force,and comes very very cheap,he is worth a shot....And i do mean cheap..

My bigger issue is whose roster spot does he take??
I know i am nuts,but I want to see what Demarr has....If Mookie went,I could live with it.....

I liked your 2 for 1 trade....

As for Baker himself,dont think that a change of scenery will cure his disease,especially when he going to go from making 17 million a year to 400,000????

That could cause anyone to hit the bottle


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

And you don't think that pressure in Boston isn't causing him to drink? When he gets suspended (commits a strike) it brings him one step closer to losing that money. Wouldn't that drive him to drink too?

NY is a situation where Baker can be happy, even if he's not making 17 million. It's not like he doesn't have money already.

Btw, he won't make 400,000. He's a veteran. He gets a million minimum. And depending on how good he is with the team, he could probably get a chunk of some team's mid-level if the Knicks don't re-sign him (though I think he would re-sign with the team).

The Knicks don't need to dump DJ either. Rosters are 15. Knicks only have 13 right now, with Houston on the IL. If they sign Baker, it means Sweetney fakes an injury until Harrington (or Sweetney) is traded.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

You are making a verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry serious mistake.....baker has enough excuses..he doesnt need your help

BAKER is an ALCOHOLIC.....He is one in Boston and he will more than likely be one in NY....

Do you know the expression

Wherever you go,there you are.....


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

BTW,I am all for signing him verrrrrrrry cheap.....The nets are cutting Griffin on Tuesday


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

*On Bakers behalf*

News of the impending fight over Baker's contract hit Celtics captain Paul Pierce [news] hard. 

``I hate to see something like this happen,'' he said. ``Vin is a great guy. Everyone loves being around him. I can't even think about everything he's going through, because I don't understand it. I've just tried to be a guy who is positive with him all of the time. He's been criticized enough by fans and the media. All we can do is be as positive as possible with him.'' 

Perhaps you are dead right Mr rashidi


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

*Re: On Bakers behalf*



> Originally posted by <b>truth</b>!
> News of the impending fight over Baker's contract hit Celtics captain Paul Pierce [news] hard.
> 
> Perhaps you are dead right Mr rashidi


Right about what? you want baker getting this team all woeful and depressed too?


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> 
> Being brought into a situation he's happy with (New York) would probably help him drink less.


If coming to NY is what's going to keep Baker from going off the deep end then he should see what rehab clinics are in the area. But I see no reason why the NY Knicks franchise needs to make Baker's happiness their responsibility.

Here are some basic stats from his last 10 games. In minutes ranging from 7 to 30 per game (most in hight teens and 20's)

Pts Rebs
0 4
12 0
0 0
0 3
6 1
6 8
10 4
13 6
0 2
6 1
-------
5.3 2.9 Ave

Are those really numbers we need to take on a cancer for?


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

it appears that baker has been ready to play,but boston wants to get him off the payroll...I was saying rashidi was right about that.............no more no less..

I have to be fair..I thought griffin was worth the shot and hes getting cut by the Nets on Tuesday..

Baker for 1 million prorated is worth it....In my opinion...Especially after watching Deke ride the pine the whole game


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

oak,pierce made it sound like hes anything but a cancer,just a guy with a problem


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

I actually hate the overused term "cancer", I regrete using it. But he is a distraction. Do you think his situation is doing that struggling club more good than harm? I don't, and I think he'd do more harm than good here too. His minutes would just be cutting into someone elses production.

I'd be much happier giving Sweets those 20 minutes a night. I'm sure in a short while (with those mins) we'd get at least 5.3/2.9 from him too, but with much lower risk. Developing Sweets would be an upswing in my mind, bringing Baker in is a downswing, for me. It's not like this is a tight team with years of great chemistry behind it that makes for an immediate support system. I'd like to see us develop our healthy guy before we try to fit in an ill one. 

But those are just my feelings, what do I know. If they bring him here I'll try to root for him, but I'll always be looking over his shoulder, wondering if every poor outing is sign of a relapse. I'm sure his teammates will too. I've lost count of how many times I've heard someone in the Knicks franchise say that the biggest thing the players are working on now is trusting each other. How easy will it be to trust Baker?


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

I hear you..i just think he is worth a 1 million dollar gamble...If hes trouble,cut him..

My big assumption is that he still has some physical skills and can play the 5..i may be dead wrong...


----------



## Jmonty580 (Jun 20, 2003)

Harrington works hard to be average, and Baker is average while in a drunken state. From a competetive standpoint if rather have Baker coming on the floor for Thomas before harrington. The only problem I have with Baker coming is that he will take time away from sweetney.


----------



## Richie Rich (May 23, 2003)

Don't you guys understand if Baker was able to play and at a high level we wouldn't be letting him go?? I mean if you do sign him I wish him the best, and our owners may be jus trying 2 get his contract off the books at this point becasue it has been dragged out for so long and has been a team distraction, but @ the same time if Vin can play and contribute like he wasin the first month, we wouldn;t let him go b/c he is (was) a dominate inside force and a MASSIVE EXPIRING CONTRACT IN 2005 (I believe 2005).


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> Don't you guys understand if Baker was able to play and at a high level we wouldn't be letting him go??


Baker claims he is in playing shape at the moment, and that Celtics officials have held him back from returning.



> if Vin can play and contribute like he wasin the first month, we wouldn;t let him go b/c he is (was) a dominate inside force and a MASSIVE EXPIRING CONTRACT IN 2005 (I believe 2005).


1. Danny Ainge has made it very well known that he doesn't give a crap about the present. Who cares if Baker was doing well now? He's not in the Celtics long term plans, even if his recovery was 100% successful.

2. If the Celtics get their way, they won't be paying a DIME of his 30 million dollars remaining, insurance companies will. Thus, the Celtics won't have to pay the luxury tax. They save an immense amount of money by cutting Baker. Grant Hill is in a similar situation. He wants to come back this year, but if Hill plays more than 9 games this season, the Magic have to pay his salary this year, the insurance won't be covering it. Thus Hill doesn't have a prayer of being activated this year, just like Baker didn't have a prayer of being unsuspended after his latest "non-compliance" (whatever that means).

3. Baker's salary will be coming off the cap after 2005, something Ainge probably wants. Yes he would have trade value next year, but this is moot if Ainge wants to cut salary, not add.

This is very much a money move. 


http://celtics.bostonherald.com/celtics/celtics.bg?articleid=368&format=



> Baker's representatives have insisted that he could have returned by the deadline.
> 
> ``Vin's ready, waiting on the doctor to tell the Celtics he's ready. He'll continue to work out and continue to pass his tests,'' his agent, Aaron Goodwin said. ``Vin is a basketball player who is ready to play basketball today.''





> In a statement issued late Thursday, Baker said he had done everything required of him to remain in compliance with his program and awaited clearance to play again.
> 
> ``I am surprised and disappointed that I have not been cleared to play as of today, but I remain optimistic knowing I have gone above and beyond what has been asked of me during my absence,'' he said. ``My representatives have and will continue to communicate with team officials on my behalf, until I am reinstated.''
> 
> Celtics basketball boss Danny Ainge said the decision was in the hands of the team's attorneys.


How much more proof do you need? If this were a basketball based decision, wouldn't Ainge be the one making the determination? What do attorney's know about Vin Baker's ability to play the game of basketball?


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> How much more proof do you need? If this were a basketball based decision, wouldn't Ainge be the one making the determination? What do attorney's know about Vin Baker's ability to play the game of basketball?


How quick you rush to jusdgement. Look how selectively you quote before forming an opinion. Did you not find this interesting?



> Baker missed two months and the playoffs last season after he checked into a Connecticut rehab center. He agreed at the time to follow an aftercare program this season and submit to frequent testing.
> 
> But Baker **failed to comply with the terms of the agreement AT LEAST THREE TIMES ** before he was suspended indefinitely last month.


I'm not here to judge Baker, I certainly don't have all the facts. But why are you so certain and so ready to convict the Celtics, when you also don't know the full facts?

And once again you are throwing all your weight and reputation into an underperformer. Why are you fascinated by them?

Also, further up the thread, for whatever reason, you suggested Baker didn't become an alcoholic until after the Ewing trade, as if the failed trade may have led to his demise. But the article you posted says:




> Baker, who said he began binge drinking **during the 1998-99 lockout**, was suspended Feb. 27, 2003, and didn't play again last season.


That was a season before the failed trade.

So I'm just curious, Is it that you really like Baker, or do you really feel he's been wronged, or is this an instance where you've taken a stance and you will defend until your last dying breath, right or wrong?


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> Also, further up the thread, for whatever reason, you suggested Baker didn't become an alcoholic until after the Ewing trade, as if the failed trade may have led to his demise. But the article you posted says:


Somewhat. Baker did suffer a dropoff, but not a large one. He scored 17 ppg that year partially due to struggles with FT shooting.

Seattle was not a happy situation for Baker. More importantly, the Sonics did absolutely nothing about his drinking problem. He would come to practice in crap condition, and nothing would be said about it.

Think that would have happened in NY?

For one, Baker himself states that he would have been much happier in NY. Secondly, there is no way Jeff Van Gundy would have allowed Baker to get away with the drinking. The lockout season was 5 years ago. It is absurd that steps taken to correct his problem did not happen until mid-season last year with the Celtics. You can bet your *** it wouldn't have taken that long in NY. In fairness to Boston, they knew Baker was lazy and unmotivated, but they probably didn't know it was due to alchohol. Blame Seattle. If it were known that Baker had drinking problems, they probably wouldn't have been able to trade him.


----------



## PatBateman (May 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> 
> 
> Boston traded for Baker, mistake or not. .


This comment is a bit disingenuous......it was blatantly a mkstake. In fact, the trade was so bad that the league should have mercy and let us off the hook


----------



## ace25one (Jan 4, 2004)

Actualy it's a third party doctor thats supposed to determine if Baker is ready to return to play. If the doctor had said it was ok for him to return he would of been with the cetlic's. 
And yes there is no doubt in my mind that the celtics would love to get rid of baker without paying him a dime


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> In fact, the trade was so bad that the league should have mercy and let us off the hook


Please. This doesn't come close to Robert Traylor for Dirk Nowitzki and Pat Garrity. Nor does your complaint apply to this board, since 9/10 Knick fans hated everything Scott Layden did (or didn't do) with a passion. Trading for Baker wasn't worse than the Knicks trading Ewing.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

The Baker trade was

Boston gets
Vin Baker
Shammond Williams

Seattle gets
Vitaly Potapenko
Joseph Forte
Kenny Anderson

Potapenko is a scrub making 12 million over this season and next.

The Sonics are paying Forte 1 million dollars not to play for them this season. He's not even in the NBA right now.

The trade comes down to Kenny Anderson for Vin Baker. Anderson isn't exactly lighting it up anymore, he's a backup PG.

Baker is still the best player in the deal. Early in the year he was doing well. When he's at his worst, he's still at least as good as Kenny Anderson. They could have kept Anderson and gotten some cap room, but the team was trying to "win now" and make the playoffs, which is why they needed to take a gamble on Baker in the first place, because they needed a big man to stand up to Kenyon Martin and New Jersey.

Not exactly a "horrible" trade. The only "horrible" thing about it is that Boston is weaseling it's way out of Baker's deal, which means they get to dump not only Baker's contract, but they also got Potapenko's deal off the cap as a result of trading for Baker. Didn't Boston sign him to a ridiculous contract too? Why do the Celtics get special privlidges that other teams don't? Jay Williams violated the terms of his contract (by riding a motorcycle), but the Bulls still bought him out. They didn't terminate his contract. No such attempt at a buyout was even made to Baker. They said "bye, good luck with life, thanks for the luxury tax savings".

Sorry, I think I made a mistake. Did they even wish him luck?


----------



## PatBateman (May 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> The Baker trade was
> 
> Boston gets
> ...


sorry to break it to you, but this trade is openly referred to by many other non-C's posters on this board as being one of the worst ever. Put up a poll in the NBA forum. 

As for weaseling out of it, you don't think the Knicks would to? Well, at least we can face facts and agree that both teams suck.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> sorry to break it to you, but this trade is openly referred to by many other non-C's posters on this board as being one of the worst ever. Put up a poll in the NBA forum.


Sorry to break it to you, but that would make all the non-Celtics posters drama queens. The Celtics didn't trade anything of value for Baker. They traded crap thinking they'd get a rejuvenated star player (sort of like Derrick Coleman). Instead, they got crap in return. They traded crap for crap.

This isn't Robert Traylor for Dirk Nowitzki and Pat Garrity.
This isn't Olden Polynice for Scottie Pippen.
This isn't Otis Thorpe for "future 1st round pick"
This isn't Will Perdue for Dennis Rodman.
This isn't Darius Miles for Andre Miller.
This isn't Rod Strickland for Rasheed Wallace.
This isn't Mitch Richmond for Chris Webber.
This isn't Billy Owens for Mitch Richmond
This isn't Issac Austin for Ben Wallace.
This isn't Raef LaFrentz for Antoine Walker.
This isn't Tyson Chandler for Elton Brand.
This isn't Vlade Divac for Kobe Bryant.
This isn't Gary "half-season" Payton for Ray Allen and Ronald Murray.
This isn't Jalen Rose for Brad Miller and Ron Artest.
This isn't Scot Pollard for Brad Miller.
This isn't Eddie Griffin for Richard Jefferson and Jason Collins.'
This isn't Dale Davis for Jermaine O'Neal.
This isn't Anthony Peeler and Joe Smith for Sam Cassell.
This isn't John Starks, Chris Mills, and Terry Cummings for Latrell Sprewell.
This isn't Glen Rice for Patrick Ewing.
This isn't Kevin Willis and Bimbo Coles for Tim Hardaway and Chris Gatling.
This isn't Kurt Thomas, Sasha Danilovic, and Martin Muursepp for Jamal Mashburn.

This is Vitaly Potapenko, Joseph Forte, and Kenny Anderson for Vin Baker and Shammond Williams. You're going to have a hard time telling me how the Baker trade is worse than any of the trades listed above. The only thing Boston lost was money, nothing more. Unless you think Vitaly Potapenko is an all-star in the making.

In fact, let's pretend Vitaly Potapenko was REALLY Jermaine O'Neal. Considering Dale Davis is about as good(bad) as Vin Baker, do we now see the difference between a bad trade and a nobody gives a crap trade?

As it stands, Tony Delk and Rodney Rogers for Joe Johnson and a 1st round pick has turned out to be a much worse trade for Boston. 

Does Seattle get to void Potapenko's contract too?



> Well, at least we can face facts and agree that both teams suck.


When did I say the Knicks suck? I may have implied in other topics that they haven't improved much, but that doesn't mean I said they suck. Don't forget the Celtics are 0-3 vs the Knicks this year, including 0-2 to the villified pre-Marbury team. A certain "VB" has played better against the Knicks than some nobody named Paul. 

The Celtics are 11-19 since the Ricky Davis trade, including 3-12 in their last 15 games, while the Knicks are 9-5 under Lenny Wilkens. When you say "both teams suck" who is the non-Boston team you are referring to? Orlando?


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

Rashidi,did you get hit with a Lenny Wilkens Valentines day arrow???

"while the Knicks are 9-5 under Lenny Wilkens. When you say "both teams suck" who is the non-Boston team you are referring to? Orlando?"

i see you are warming up to the the Lenny Wilkens 9-5 Knicks..


BTW,your quote

For one, Baker himself states that he would have been much happier in NY. Secondly, there is no way Jeff Van Gundy would have allowed Baker to get away with the drinking

is a little silly...Vin Baker also denied he had a drinking problem..You going to listen to his excuses??Also,what could Van Gundy have done other than suspend him??

I say we sign baker and assume the worst..I love "cheap" bets


----------



## son of oakley (Dec 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> 
> This isn't Robert Traylor for Dirk Nowitzki and Pat Garrity.
> This isn't Olden Polynice for Scottie Pippen.
> ...



Wow, Rashidi at his best, I love it!

Just curious though, where on that list would you put the trade: Kurt Thomas + Shandon Anderson for Baker, that you endorsed last week?


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> Also,what could Van Gundy have done other than suspend him??


A lot more. You all remember Jeff. He wasn't the type to sit on his hands and let something like that happen. Besides, Baker didn't recieve help UNTIL he was suspended by Boston. Had Van Gundy suspended him, this problem wouldn't have festered for 3 years. Furthermore, the Knicks still had Chris Childs, a recovered alcoholic to help Baker through the process. I got the impression that the only person in Seattle who cared about Vin Baker was Gary Payton. If Baker wanted to be in NY, and others wanted him to be there, the team would have much more supportive than Seattle was.



> Just curious though, where on that list would you put the trade: Kurt Thomas + Shandon Anderson for Baker, that you endorsed last week?


Nowhere on that list. If the Knicks can REALLY sign Rasheed for the MIE, then all they are doing in this trade is dumping Shandon's contract. Kinda like the Sonics did when they traded Potapenko. Shandon gets paid less, but his contract runs longer.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

"If Baker wanted to be in NY, and others wanted him to be there, the team would have much more supportive than Seattle was."

Run that by me again..Aryou saying Seattle should have beeb mors accomodating???

The inmates should not run the asylum


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> The inmates should not run the asylum


While that is debatable, the fact is that in the NBA the inmates DO run the asylum.

And by "inmates running things" would that not qualify as Baker drinking and suffering no repercussions? If someone other than the inmates were monitoring his situation, then maybe he could have gotten help earlier than 4 years later.


----------

