的確，兩篇報導的差距頗大。我試著去找出更 確切的消息卻沒有辦法找到。 不過，ESPN的Chad Ford也引用了Boston Globe 的報導內容在他的文章中，並表示不只是 Boston Globe，其他的消息來源也證實Celtics、 Baker以及球員工會的確有這麼一個協議存在。 前兩天的Boston Globe則再一次解釋了這份協議 的內容。 "The agreement that Vin Baker and the Celtics reached in February 2003 does not by itself give the Celtics the power to terminate his contract. According to someone who has seen the document, there is no such language in the agreement. But here's what it does do: It sets up a very specific aftercare program with testing and consequences. And if Baker does not stay in compliance, there is a Mechanism in place (after his suspension reaches 10 games) whereby the Celtics could terminate the contract by going to the Uniform Player Contract. As such, Baker's deal could be terminated Not because of his alcohol problems, or his failure to comply, but because he would be deemed unfit to play and thus in breach of the contract. The Celtics would have by then a baseline of evidence to use -- including the documentation of the independent doctor overseeing the aftercare -- when the Players Association takes the matter to arbitration." 也就是說，當禁賽達到十場之多時，Celtics有權 利終止合約；但是所憑藉的理由不會是因為Baker 的酗酒問題或不遵守復建療程，而是Baker必須被 認定為狀態無法繼續打球，並因此違反合約。 當球員工會申請仲裁時，Celtics必須提出證據， 包括獨立醫生監督此一復建療程的文件。 有一點是值得觀察的。雖然沒有任何一方出面 承認這份協議的存在，但是面對ESPN及 Boston Globe兩大媒體的報導，目前為止卻也沒 有任何的辯駁。先不論球員與球團。通常，牽扯 到球員工會的事情，若是媒體報導有誤，工會應 該會出面澄清才是。所以這是否代表三方面都默 認這份協議的存在？ 其實即使情況演變到Celtics有權終止合約， 球員工會也不會輕易讓步。一但進入仲裁，所 耗費的時間，對急著擺脫薪資上限壓力的Celtics 來說既不划算又沒有幫助。也許買斷合約會是最 簡單快速的解決方法。 不過既然Baker還有至少一次的機會，空想這些 似乎太早些……靜觀其變吧！ --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 61.223.30.46