So, reading the SI article again, Paul didn’t technically say that AD absolutely would not resign in Boston. Rather, what he said is essentially the same thing he said about every other team - that there will be no extension and AD will go into free agency in 2020. Read it again:
“They can trade for him, but it’ll be for one year,” Paul says. “I mean: If the Celtics traded for Anthony Davis, we would go there and we would abide by our contractual [obligations] and we would go into free agency in 2020. I’ve stated that to them. But in the event that he decides to walk away and you give away assets? Don’t blame Rich Paul.”
That second bolded clause is clearly a conditional, not a statement of fact. He’s saying that IF (NOT WHEN) AD LEAVES IN FREE AGENCY, it wouldn’t be his fault for Ainge wasting assets, as he warned them that AD’s preferences are LA or NY. That is much different than what is being reported.
And when combined with the first clause and the “one year” comment, I think that refers to him saying merely that AD is not signing any extensions (with any team), rather than a categorical statement that he will not resign in Boston. It’s just a statement of fact that AD will test free agency, which he’ll do with every team as he’s not signing an extension.
Thus, the more I read this and the more I look at all the other reports, it looks more and more like much of this narrative about AD not resigning in Boston at all is being misinterpreted to fit a more juicy media narrative. Clearly AD and Klutch have preferences for a bigger market and LAL in particular (for obvious reasons given who Rich Paul is), but there really is no base for these claims and reports that AD’s camp is suggesting he will categorically not resign in Boston.
And that’s all beside the fact that even if this was the case that his camp was putting this message out there it’s very likely an empty threat as recent history demonstrates, and teams can definitely win over players by winning and having them in a good and stable environment.