CelticsStrong
Celtics Basketball => Celtics Talk => Topic started by: JSD on July 18, 2018, 04:30:29 PM
-
https://weei.radio.com/blogs/john-tomase/kawhi-leonard-trade-isaiah-thomas-takes-veiled-shot-celtics-after-spurs-and
Enough IT!
-
IT isn’t wrong. Neither is DeRozan. “Loyalty” is a one-way Street. Players are expected to give “home town discounts”, while teams show no loyalty to players.
-
IT isn’t wrong. Neither is DeRozan. “Loyalty” is a one-way Street. Players are expected to give “home town discounts”, while teams show no loyalty to players.
But isnt smart
Money just keeps flying out the window
-
I side with IT on this one. Loyalty is important and until the teams start showing it to players the players are going to keep disrespecting the league (GSW)
-
IT isn’t wrong. Neither is DeRozan. “Loyalty” is a one-way Street. Players are expected to give “home town discounts”, while teams show no loyalty to players.
Teams ask for players to give home town discounts, but this rarely ever happens. Most players look to get the most $$ they can when they become free agents. The CBA is written so that home teams can offer more/longer deals.
But I don't mind IT taking a shot. He has every right, after what he gave us.
-
I'd agree if the players were the ones shelling out millions of dollars to the teams
-
I'd agree if the players were the ones shelling out millions of dollars to the teams
Aren’t they? The players are the product.
Everyone should just cut the word “loyalty” out of their vocabulary when it comes to pro sports.
-
It's right. But a bunch of people will get their hackles up, and wrongly attack him, anyway.
-
IT isn’t wrong. Neither is DeRozan. “Loyalty” is a one-way Street. Players are expected to give “home town discounts”, while teams show no loyalty to players.
I agree, they are right, but you and they need to stop pretending that players are loyal. They want their pay and/or minutes and a large role or they leave! It's a business and there is no loyalty on both sides! How loyal was IT4 when he signed in Phx then immediately starting crying about his role pretty much forcing his way out? Players cry loyalty when they get their way but are the first to jump ship when it isn't perfect for them! Who knows what IT4 would have done if he didn't get the pay he wanted. He can cry about loyalty because the Cs didn't let him have the chance to walk on his own. I highly doubt you talk about loyalty if IT4 took the max from some other team.
IT4 nor any report has ever said DA promised he wouldn't trade him. DD apparently got a promise, totally different circumstances.
Loyalty isn't a one way street.
-
I'd agree if the players were the ones shelling out millions of dollars to the teams
Aren’t they? The players are the product.
Everyone should just cut the word “loyalty” out of their vocabulary when it comes to pro sports.
That's the best way to handle this. Gordon Hayward didn't owe the Jazz anything and Danny Ainge didn't owe Isaiah Thomas anything. Now if Toronto promised Derozan he was not going to be traded and they lied to him, then they are scummy, but it's a business. If it's not in writing it might as well not exist.
-
It's a business not club of friends. After Ainge, traded PP you know anyone could be traded. Especially, an undersized guard, who is injured even though he played his heart out and loved the City, but you knew he could be gone the moment he said the Brinks Truck statement.
-
More players should fight to get trade kickers in their contract.
Supposedly DeMar left $14m on the table when he re-signed with the Raptors to allow the team room to add other players.
Per CBA FAQ, the trade kicker can't exceed 15% of remaining value of contract (not including option years) as long as it won't cause a player to be paid more than the max and is paid by the team trading the player away (but can be waived by the player to make a trade happen, like Kyrie did for the C's).
So the Raptors would have had to pay DeMar an additional $8.3m. I think this would be a good compromise. I think it's a little better for the league than a NTC, still allows movement, players can't hold a team hostage, but a team has to give additional comp to the player if they trade him away.
I wouldn't take a team friendly discount without one (anyone can get a trade kicker, as opposed to a NTC which is harder to qualify for).
-
This feels like a non-story to me. Both Derozan and IT have reasons to feel the way they feel and I don't think either team did anything wrong in either situation. Life frequently doesn't feel good. You're allowed to not like it even when there isn't someone to blame.
-
Lol some of you guys want loyalty to IT? Look were loyalty would have brought the Celtics. Where would they be if they gave a max contract to a 5'9 guard with a bum hip? This team wouldn't be competing for championships if they worried about loyalty. Only the best players will get loyalty because they bring the best chance of winning. IT was great with Celtics but let's be real he was never going to be a corner stone player which made him expendable. Danny used him to get an elite player in Irving and that's the business of trying to win championships. IT screwed himself for whatever happened in Cleveland and LA.
-
The guy who is barking for Brink truck when he is worth 2M$ is talking about loyalty?
-
More players should fight to get trade kickers in their contract.
Supposedly DeMar left $14m on the table when he re-signed with the Raptors to allow the team room to add other players.
Per CBA FAQ, the trade kicker can't exceed 15% of remaining value of contract (not including option years) as long as it won't cause a player to be paid more than the max and is paid by the team trading the player away (but can be waived by the player to make a trade happen, like Kyrie did for the C's).
So the Raptors would have had to pay DeMar an additional $8.3m. I think this would be a good compromise. I think it's a little better for the league than a NTC, still allows movement, players can't hold a team hostage, but a team has to give additional comp to the player if they trade him away.
I wouldn't take a team friendly discount without one (anyone can get a trade kicker, as opposed to a NTC which is harder to qualify for).
More players can fight for it...but few will ever get it.
As for taking a discount willingly, that can also be viewed as putting the team's interest over your own...which is usually a good thing.
-
IT isn’t wrong. Neither is DeRozan. “Loyalty” is a one-way Street. Players are expected to give “home town discounts”, while teams show no loyalty to players.
Absolutely. Both were properly shafted.
-
The guy who is barking for Brink truck when he is worth 2M$ is talking about loyalty?
This. People like Gil Meche are extremely rare
-
IT isn’t wrong. Neither is DeRozan. “Loyalty” is a one-way Street. Players are expected to give “home town discounts”, while teams show no loyalty to players.
What happens in the private sector, if a person is overpaid, performs poorly under pressure, and fails to meet yearly goals (in this case reaching the NBA Finals)?
-
IT isn’t wrong. Neither is DeRozan. “Loyalty” is a one-way Street. Players are expected to give “home town discounts”, while teams show no loyalty to players.
Absolutely. Both were properly shafted.
I’m not sure I get how DeRozan was shafted. He got traded for a better player. They gave him a max contract, no? So it’s not like he took a discount for them.
And unlike IT, he had the opportunity to carry his team and failed multiple times. IT injured himself trying to carry us to the Finals with a pretty thin team. Then there is the whole China and contract situation and all the recruiting he did and profound love for the city/franchise/fanbase. I can’t speak on DD’s situation in Toronto, but they were a deep team and couldn’t beat LeBron by himself. He failed Toronto.
-
It's right. But a bunch of people will get their hackles up, and wrongly attack him, anyway.
Yep.
Self-righteous indignation is an intoxicating, delicious drug. Very popular among bloggers.
-
IT isn’t wrong. Neither is DeRozan. “Loyalty” is a one-way Street. Players are expected to give “home town discounts”, while teams show no loyalty to players.
I agree, they are right, but you and they need to stop pretending that players are loyal. They want their pay and/or minutes and a large role or they leave! It's a business and there is no loyalty on both sides! How loyal was IT4 when he signed in Phx then immediately starting crying about his role pretty much forcing his way out?
This is revisionist. It never happened that way. Dragic is the one who complained publicly and frequently. Everyone expected Dragic to be traded. It was a shock when PHO traded both of them. Thomas was only traded because Danny dangled a 1st round pick for a guy McDonough mistakenly thought of as a bench player. IT never asked to be traded from PHO and if anything was expecting to get more minutes once Dragic was traded.
And Roy never asserted that players are loyal so it's a straw man to tell him to stop pretending such.
And your assertion that they want such-and-such "or they leave" ignores the reality that players can't simply leave unless they are free agents. Which only occurs under certain circumstances once or twice very briefly in the typical player's career. Outside of those brief moments, most players have no control over 'leaving' their situation whereas teams for the most part almost always at least have the ability to trade most players.
-
This is business, not the mafia. There's no such thing as loyalty from either side, people should stop expecting it. For the most part, Danny has always operated by doing what's best for the team instead of showing loyalty to a particular player. He did it with Paul, he did it with KG, he did it with Isaiah. And look at how that's benefiting this team right now?
-
Loyalty isn't a one way street.
Of course it is, and there’s an obvious reason for it: the fans only hold one side accountable.
If a team is “disloyal” by trading / waiving a player, the fans inevitably side with management. They want the best product on the floor, period. It doesn’t matter if a player played hurt, took less in the past, etc. Fans have a “what have you done for me lately” attitude. In other words, fans by and large don’t want franchises to be loyal.
On the other hand, fans take a “how dare he leave” attitude if he goes to another franchise. It’s as if they expect a player to sign for less just to be a Celtic. You see it in some of the criticisms of Marcus Smart, and you see it in continued attacks on Ray Allen. Players get called “traitors”, teams are admired for making nonsentimental decisions.
-
It's a business not club of friends. After Ainge, traded PP you know anyone could be traded. Especially, an undersized guard, who is injured even though he played his heart out and loved the City, but you knew he could be gone the moment he said the Brinks Truck statement.
Those trades aren't really comparable. Pierce was traded only after both he and KG agreed to be traded.
I'm dubious that the Brinks Truck statement had anything to do with any decision Danny made. Thomas' injury and the need to be a contender (due to the signing of Hayward) and the sudden availability of Irving almost certainly had far more to do with why that trade happened than any random comment about a Brinks Truck.
If Irving wasn't suddenly available, no trade happens, regardless of the other things.
If Thomas wasn't injured, no trade happens, regardless of the other things.
But if Thomas never made the Brinks Truck comment, the trade still happens, assuming all the other things.
-
https://weei.radio.com/blogs/john-tomase/kawhi-leonard-trade-isaiah-thomas-takes-veiled-shot-celtics-after-spurs-and
Enough IT!
I can understand why he would be upset, and it's ok for him to feel upset. But the reality is that it IS a business. If he had stayed, and not gotten a max contract and left, well that's not really loyalty either. Human beings feel emotion and I don't begrudge or resent IT for feeling hurt, God knows he did enough for us while he was here, he's earned the right to feel hurt. But the reality is that it is a business, and players are assets, and we traded away a damaged asset for a better, healthy one.
-
IT isn’t wrong. Neither is DeRozan. “Loyalty” is a one-way Street. Players are expected to give “home town discounts”, while teams show no loyalty to players.
Absolutely. Both were properly shafted.
I’m not sure I get how DeRozan was shafted. He got traded for a better player. They gave him a max contract, no? So it’s not like he took a discount for them.
He didn't sign for the max. He did take a discount for them.
-
Loyalty isn't a one way street.
Of course it is, and there’s an obvious reason for it: the fans only hold one side accountable.
If a team is “disloyal” by trading / waiving a player, the fans inevitably side with management. They want the best product on the floor, period. It doesn’t matter if a player played hurt, took less in the past, etc. Fans have a “what have you done for me lately” attitude. In other words, fans by and large don’t want franchises to be loyal.
On the other hand, fans take a “how dare he leave” attitude if he goes to another franchise. It’s as if they expect a player to sign for less just to be a Celtic. You see it in some of the criticisms of Marcus Smart, and you see it in continued attacks on Ray Allen. Players get called “traitors”, teams are admired for making nonsentimental decisions.
The Allen thing is a bit different because it is one of the few times I can remember where the players were openly mad at the player for many years. It may be the only time I can actually even remember that. So fans were put in the position of siding with the players still on the team (pierce and kg) or the guy that no longer did. So that was a very unique situation. Allen was also continuing to bash Boston after he left until Riley finally told him to stop.
-
Loyalty isn't a one way street.
Of course it is, and there’s an obvious reason for it: the fans only hold one side accountable.
If a team is “disloyal” by trading / waiving a player, the fans inevitably side with management. They want the best product on the floor, period. It doesn’t matter if a player played hurt, took less in the past, etc. Fans have a “what have you done for me lately” attitude. In other words, fans by and large don’t want franchises to be loyal.
On the other hand, fans take a “how dare he leave” attitude if he goes to another franchise. It’s as if they expect a player to sign for less just to be a Celtic. You see it in some of the criticisms of Marcus Smart, and you see it in continued attacks on Ray Allen. Players get called “traitors”, teams are admired for making nonsentimental decisions.
Sure, Ray didn't have to be loyal to the team, but he shouldve at least shown respect to his teammates. Instead he slapped then in the face by going to a rival for less money without even talking to them.
-
I'd agree if the players were the ones shelling out millions of dollars to the teams
Aren’t they? The players are the product.
Everyone should just cut the word “loyalty” out of their vocabulary when it comes to pro sports.
yup. IT was dealt as bad of a hand as you can be really. I feel him and it's well within his rights to say something.
-
this guy was/is a turd of the highest standard.
if he didn't get injured he still wasn't worth what he was thinking he was, and this is why he's a bitter fool because he doesn't realize this. anyone else believing he was needs to stay the hell away from this team.
this isn't why he's a turd though, he's a turd for putting this on the Celtics. yes he was dealt a bad hand with the injury and his sister's death. but the Celtics weren't actively shopping him - the cavs called us.
we'll never know for certain if we would've payed him but i'd be surprised if we would have. all signs do point to ownership and danny seeing that IT led team was a dead end team going no where though.
IT's got a bad case of Dwight Howard going on.
-
IT isn’t wrong. Neither is DeRozan. “Loyalty” is a one-way Street. Players are expected to give “home town discounts”, while teams show no loyalty to players.
Players get paid what the market says they're worth at that very moment. Teams are constantly looking to upgrade which frankly, is well within their right.
-
IT is still bitter that he got traded. It is understandable he would feel that way but I don't feel it represents a lack of loyalty by the Celtics that goes beyond the level of loyalty of any trade. The Celtics got IT for Marcus Thornton and the Cleveland Cavaliers' 2016 first-round draft pick. Was that trade disloyal too?
Teams have to make trades in order to get better. Are some trades more disloyal than others? How do you measure the level of disloyalty?
Now if Toronto made some sort of promise that they wouldn't trade Derozan, that wasn't very smart for either party. They have no-trade clauses. I have a feeling this conversation was not as cut and dried as that but if Toronto made that promise, that aspect is not very honest.
-
Loyalty isn't a one way street.
Of course it is, and there’s an obvious reason for it: the fans only hold one side accountable.
If a team is “disloyal” by trading / waiving a player, the fans inevitably side with management. They want the best product on the floor, period. It doesn’t matter if a player played hurt, took less in the past, etc. Fans have a “what have you done for me lately” attitude. In other words, fans by and large don’t want franchises to be loyal.
On the other hand, fans take a “how dare he leave” attitude if he goes to another franchise. It’s as if they expect a player to sign for less just to be a Celtic. You see it in some of the criticisms of Marcus Smart, and you see it in continued attacks on Ray Allen. Players get called “traitors”, teams are admired for making nonsentimental decisions.
so what you're saying is that fans opinions of something makes something a case of loyalty or disloyalty? it doesn't matter what side fans take (FANATIC), it's either being disloyal or it isn't. Don't forget the millions of fans that side with the players, you know, the fans of that player! You're only looking at the fans who side with the organization because it fits your narrative.
-
Loyalty isn't a one way street.
Of course it is, and there’s an obvious reason for it: the fans only hold one side accountable.
If a team is “disloyal” by trading / waiving a player, the fans inevitably side with management. They want the best product on the floor, period. It doesn’t matter if a player played hurt, took less in the past, etc. Fans have a “what have you done for me lately” attitude. In other words, fans by and large don’t want franchises to be loyal.
On the other hand, fans take a “how dare he leave” attitude if he goes to another franchise. It’s as if they expect a player to sign for less just to be a Celtic. You see it in some of the criticisms of Marcus Smart, and you see it in continued attacks on Ray Allen. Players get called “traitors”, teams are admired for making nonsentimental decisions.
so what you're saying is that fans opinions of something makes something a case of loyalty or disloyalty? it doesn't matter what side fans take (FANATIC), it's either being disloyal or it isn't. Don't forget the millions of fans that side with the players, you know, the fans of that player! You're only looking at the fans who side with the organization because it fits your narrative.
Fans drive sports. Without them, there are no giant stadiums, no billion dollar revenues. So yes, their opinion (collectively) is the most important thing in professional sports.
If fans valued loyalty from their organizations of choice, then organizations would be more loyal. But, in that regard, fans generally aren't short-sighted. Most fans value winning over loyalty, which is a completely valid choice.
It becomes a one-way street, though, when you see the general contempt by fans for players who are "disloyal". You don't see burned Wyc Grousbeck jerseys when he doesn't pay what a player wants, but you sure do if an important player leaves for a better situation.
-
this guy was/is a turd of the highest standard.
if he didn't get injured he still wasn't worth what he was thinking he was, and this is why he's a bitter fool because he doesn't realize this. anyone else believing he was needs to stay the hell away from this team.
this isn't why he's a turd though, he's a turd for putting this on the Celtics. yes he was dealt a bad hand with the injury and his sister's death. but the Celtics weren't actively shopping him - the cavs called us.
we'll never know for certain if we would've payed him but i'd be surprised if we would have. all signs do point to ownership and danny seeing that IT led team was a dead end team going no where though.
IT's got a bad case of Dwight Howard going on.
Certain Celtics fans deserve to watch Irving walk to New York for a Durant team-up, I'll say that much.
-
IT isn’t wrong. Neither is DeRozan. “Loyalty” is a one-way Street. Players are expected to give “home town discounts”, while teams show no loyalty to players.
I agree, they are right, but you and they need to stop pretending that players are loyal. They want their pay and/or minutes and a large role or they leave! It's a business and there is no loyalty on both sides! How loyal was IT4 when he signed in Phx then immediately starting crying about his role pretty much forcing his way out?
This is revisionist. It never happened that way. Dragic is the one who complained publicly and frequently. Everyone expected Dragic to be traded. It was a shock when PHO traded both of them. Thomas was only traded because Danny dangled a 1st round pick for a guy McDonough mistakenly thought of as a bench player. IT never asked to be traded from PHO and if anything was expecting to get more minutes once Dragic was traded.
And Roy never asserted that players are loyal so it's a straw man to tell him to stop pretending such.
And your assertion that they want such-and-such "or they leave" ignores the reality that players can't simply leave unless they are free agents. Which only occurs under certain circumstances once or twice very briefly in the typical player's career. Outside of those brief moments, most players have no control over 'leaving' their situation whereas teams for the most part almost always at least have the ability to trade most players.
All of this is your opinion and mine, we weren't there, but I do know I saw IT4 complaining in a lot of videos that season. If he was so willing to speak his mind in interviews, he probably spoke it to the people in charge. They didn't accept what he thought he was and they moved on! Again, when players get what they want, they expect loyalty, when they don't get what they want they move on. When the organization doesn't get what they want they move on. It isn't about being loyal. IT4 wasn't happy with the Cavs (didn't cater to his play), he wanted out, if it isn't about him and the way he wants it, he's done or makes a fuss so the organization will ship him out. But it's disloyalty when the organization employs the same tactic, okay.
-
Loyalty isn't a one way street.
Of course it is, and there’s an obvious reason for it: the fans only hold one side accountable.
If a team is “disloyal” by trading / waiving a player, the fans inevitably side with management. They want the best product on the floor, period. It doesn’t matter if a player played hurt, took less in the past, etc. Fans have a “what have you done for me lately” attitude. In other words, fans by and large don’t want franchises to be loyal.
On the other hand, fans take a “how dare he leave” attitude if he goes to another franchise. It’s as if they expect a player to sign for less just to be a Celtic. You see it in some of the criticisms of Marcus Smart, and you see it in continued attacks on Ray Allen. Players get called “traitors”, teams are admired for making nonsentimental decisions.
so what you're saying is that fans opinions of something makes something a case of loyalty or disloyalty? it doesn't matter what side fans take (FANATIC), it's either being disloyal or it isn't. Don't forget the millions of fans that side with the players, you know, the fans of that player! You're only looking at the fans who side with the organization because it fits your narrative.
Fans drive sports. Without them, there are no giant stadiums, no billion dollar revenues. So yes, their opinion (collectively) is the most important thing in professional sports.
If fans valued loyalty from their organizations of choice, then organizations would be more loyal. But, in that regard, fans generally aren't short-sighted. Most fans value winning over loyalty, which is a completely valid choice.
It becomes a one-way street, though, when you see the general contempt by fans for players who are "disloyal". You don't see burned Wyc Grousbeck jerseys when he doesn't pay what a player wants, but you sure do if an important player leaves for a better situation.
LOL. There are no Wyc jerseys but I'm sure there are a lot of people who don't like him so much so that they would burn them if there were. You are telling me PP's fans don't think Wyc and DA are traitors, you know all his fans that moved on when he did? For every fan that said LBJ wasn't loyal to the Cavs, there is a fan that is mad at the Cs for not being loyal to it4 (well maybe less because Cavs have more fans). When you acknowledge that fans side with who they root for, the better off you will be. It doesn't matter whether its fans of a team or player, people will feel wronged. It doesn't mean that they were. This isn't a business of loyalty, no matter how crazy WE fans get. I know I was p---ed at LA when they chose Kobe, it didn't matter why they did it, it mattered that I was a fan of Shaq. BTW during that time I would have burned down the arena if I could have gotten away with it but I definitely wished that all hell would rain down on that organization.
-
Loyalty isn't a one way street.
Of course it is, and there’s an obvious reason for it: the fans only hold one side accountable.
If a team is “disloyal” by trading / waiving a player, the fans inevitably side with management. They want the best product on the floor, period. It doesn’t matter if a player played hurt, took less in the past, etc. Fans have a “what have you done for me lately” attitude. In other words, fans by and large don’t want franchises to be loyal.
On the other hand, fans take a “how dare he leave” attitude if he goes to another franchise. It’s as if they expect a player to sign for less just to be a Celtic. You see it in some of the criticisms of Marcus Smart, and you see it in continued attacks on Ray Allen. Players get called “traitors”, teams are admired for making nonsentimental decisions.
so what you're saying is that fans opinions of something makes something a case of loyalty or disloyalty? it doesn't matter what side fans take (FANATIC), it's either being disloyal or it isn't. Don't forget the millions of fans that side with the players, you know, the fans of that player! You're only looking at the fans who side with the organization because it fits your narrative.
Fans drive sports. Without them, there are no giant stadiums, no billion dollar revenues. So yes, their opinion (collectively) is the most important thing in professional sports.
If fans valued loyalty from their organizations of choice, then organizations would be more loyal. But, in that regard, fans generally aren't short-sighted. Most fans value winning over loyalty, which is a completely valid choice.
It becomes a one-way street, though, when you see the general contempt by fans for players who are "disloyal". You don't see burned Wyc Grousbeck jerseys when he doesn't pay what a player wants, but you sure do if an important player leaves for a better situation.
LOL. There are no Wyc jerseys but I'm sure there are a lot of people who don't like him so much so that they would burn them if there were. You are telling me PP's fans don't think Wyc and DA are traitors, you know all his fans that moved on when he did? For every fan that said LBJ wasn't loyal to the Cavs, there is a fan that is mad at the Cs for not being loyal to it4 (well maybe less because Cavs have more fans). When you acknowledge that fans side with who they root for, the better off you will be. It doesn't matter whether its fans of a team or player, people will feel wronged. It doesn't mean that they were. This isn't a business of loyalty, no matter how crazy WE fans get. I know I was p---ed at LA when they chose Kobe, it didn't matter why they did it, it mattered that I was a fan of Shaq. BTW during that time I would have burned down the arena if I could have gotten away with it but I definitely wished that all hell would rain down on that organization.
It’s no about individual fans, it’s about vocal majorities. Those majorities are more likely to side with management, whether it be in labor disputes or contract negotiations.
I still hold a grudge that the Sox didn’t re-sign Roger Clemens. My individual opinion means nothing. Collectively fans consider him a villain, instead of chirping about loyalty.
I think we’re in agreement that the “its a business / I’ll act in my own interest” standard should be applied to both teams and players. That’s not how the narratives usually work, though. Good players who leave are scorned; teams that cut ties with former heroes are largely forgiven so long as the team still wins.
-
Loyalty isn't a one way street.
Of course it is, and there’s an obvious reason for it: the fans only hold one side accountable.
If a team is “disloyal” by trading / waiving a player, the fans inevitably side with management. They want the best product on the floor, period. It doesn’t matter if a player played hurt, took less in the past, etc. Fans have a “what have you done for me lately” attitude. In other words, fans by and large don’t want franchises to be loyal.
On the other hand, fans take a “how dare he leave” attitude if he goes to another franchise. It’s as if they expect a player to sign for less just to be a Celtic. You see it in some of the criticisms of Marcus Smart, and you see it in continued attacks on Ray Allen. Players get called “traitors”, teams are admired for making nonsentimental decisions.
so what you're saying is that fans opinions of something makes something a case of loyalty or disloyalty? it doesn't matter what side fans take (FANATIC), it's either being disloyal or it isn't. Don't forget the millions of fans that side with the players, you know, the fans of that player! You're only looking at the fans who side with the organization because it fits your narrative.
Fans drive sports. Without them, there are no giant stadiums, no billion dollar revenues. So yes, their opinion (collectively) is the most important thing in professional sports.
If fans valued loyalty from their organizations of choice, then organizations would be more loyal. But, in that regard, fans generally aren't short-sighted. Most fans value winning over loyalty, which is a completely valid choice.
It becomes a one-way street, though, when you see the general contempt by fans for players who are "disloyal". You don't see burned Wyc Grousbeck jerseys when he doesn't pay what a player wants, but you sure do if an important player leaves for a better situation.
LOL. There are no Wyc jerseys but I'm sure there are a lot of people who don't like him so much so that they would burn them if there were. You are telling me PP's fans don't think Wyc and DA are traitors, you know all his fans that moved on when he did? For every fan that said LBJ wasn't loyal to the Cavs, there is a fan that is mad at the Cs for not being loyal to it4 (well maybe less because Cavs have more fans). When you acknowledge that fans side with who they root for, the better off you will be. It doesn't matter whether its fans of a team or player, people will feel wronged. It doesn't mean that they were. This isn't a business of loyalty, no matter how crazy WE fans get. I know I was p---ed at LA when they chose Kobe, it didn't matter why they did it, it mattered that I was a fan of Shaq. BTW during that time I would have burned down the arena if I could have gotten away with it but I definitely wished that all hell would rain down on that organization.
It’s no about individual fans, it’s about vocal majorities. Those majorities are more likely to side with management, whether it be in labor disputes or contract negotiations.
I still hold a grudge that the Sox didn’t re-sign Roger Clemens. My individual opinion means nothing. Collectively fans consider him a villain, instead of chirping about loyalty.
I think we’re in agreement that the “its a business / I’ll act in my own interest” standard should be applied to both teams and players. That’s not how the narratives usually work, though. Good players who leave are scorned; teams that cut ties with former heroes are largely forgiven so long as the team still wins.
You don't think that's because there are more fans of a team than of an individual player? You are on a team's site and there are no sites for a player that can even compare. The vocal you "hear" is because of where you are.
-
this guy was/is a turd of the highest standard.
if he didn't get injured he still wasn't worth what he was thinking he was, and this is why he's a bitter fool because he doesn't realize this. anyone else believing he was needs to stay the hell away from this team.
this isn't why he's a turd though, he's a turd for putting this on the Celtics. yes he was dealt a bad hand with the injury and his sister's death. but the Celtics weren't actively shopping him - the cavs called us.
we'll never know for certain if we would've payed him but i'd be surprised if we would have. all signs do point to ownership and danny seeing that IT led team was a dead end team going no where though.
IT's got a bad case of Dwight Howard going on.
This, He is demanding Max when he is going to worth 2M, what is Danny supposed to do? GM isn't charity
-
this guy was/is a turd of the highest standard.
if he didn't get injured he still wasn't worth what he was thinking he was, and this is why he's a bitter fool because he doesn't realize this. anyone else believing he was needs to stay the hell away from this team.
this isn't why he's a turd though, he's a turd for putting this on the Celtics. yes he was dealt a bad hand with the injury and his sister's death. but the Celtics weren't actively shopping him - the cavs called us.
we'll never know for certain if we would've payed him but i'd be surprised if we would have. all signs do point to ownership and danny seeing that IT led team was a dead end team going no where though.
IT's got a bad case of Dwight Howard going on.
Certain Celtics fans deserve to watch Irving walk to New York for a Durant team-up, I'll say that much.
::)
I don't know where to go with this. are you ultimately saying IT is better than kyrie? if so, I really don't have the time to tell you how wrong you are.
if you're just being bitter like IT you're looking at the whole situation the wrong way. me personally I will be upset if/when kyrie should leave... but we do have him at least for this yr.
I see kyrie coming here and playing at least 2 seasons as found money. he literally dropped in our lap and all we had to do was give up a bunch of scrubs. we couldn't find a better deal even if we were playing a video game.
and if all we get is 2 seasons then so be it, again we didn't lose anything worth keeping. everyone of those players we got rid of needed to go, they maxed out and got as far as they were going.
and honestly if kyrie wants to go to NY or wherever he's not looking at things clearly either. he'll be 28 when he leaves(in his prime) and on a bad wheel. he'll have a real small window and his career will end abruptly. if he stays here he'd likey get a chance to extend his career and win more championships over a long period of time.
-
Loyalty isn't a one way street.
Of course it is, and there’s an obvious reason for it: the fans only hold one side accountable.
If a team is “disloyal” by trading / waiving a player, the fans inevitably side with management. They want the best product on the floor, period. It doesn’t matter if a player played hurt, took less in the past, etc. Fans have a “what have you done for me lately” attitude. In other words, fans by and large don’t want franchises to be loyal.
On the other hand, fans take a “how dare he leave” attitude if he goes to another franchise. It’s as if they expect a player to sign for less just to be a Celtic. You see it in some of the criticisms of Marcus Smart, and you see it in continued attacks on Ray Allen. Players get called “traitors”, teams are admired for making nonsentimental decisions.
so what you're saying is that fans opinions of something makes something a case of loyalty or disloyalty? it doesn't matter what side fans take (FANATIC), it's either being disloyal or it isn't. Don't forget the millions of fans that side with the players, you know, the fans of that player! You're only looking at the fans who side with the organization because it fits your narrative.
Fans drive sports. Without them, there are no giant stadiums, no billion dollar revenues. So yes, their opinion (collectively) is the most important thing in professional sports.
If fans valued loyalty from their organizations of choice, then organizations would be more loyal. But, in that regard, fans generally aren't short-sighted. Most fans value winning over loyalty, which is a completely valid choice.
It becomes a one-way street, though, when you see the general contempt by fans for players who are "disloyal". You don't see burned Wyc Grousbeck jerseys when he doesn't pay what a player wants, but you sure do if an important player leaves for a better situation.
LOL. There are no Wyc jerseys but I'm sure there are a lot of people who don't like him so much so that they would burn them if there were. You are telling me PP's fans don't think Wyc and DA are traitors, you know all his fans that moved on when he did? For every fan that said LBJ wasn't loyal to the Cavs, there is a fan that is mad at the Cs for not being loyal to it4 (well maybe less because Cavs have more fans). When you acknowledge that fans side with who they root for, the better off you will be. It doesn't matter whether its fans of a team or player, people will feel wronged. It doesn't mean that they were. This isn't a business of loyalty, no matter how crazy WE fans get. I know I was p---ed at LA when they chose Kobe, it didn't matter why they did it, it mattered that I was a fan of Shaq. BTW during that time I would have burned down the arena if I could have gotten away with it but I definitely wished that all hell would rain down on that organization.
It’s no about individual fans, it’s about vocal majorities. Those majorities are more likely to side with management, whether it be in labor disputes or contract negotiations.
I still hold a grudge that the Sox didn’t re-sign Roger Clemens. My individual opinion means nothing. Collectively fans consider him a villain, instead of chirping about loyalty.
I think we’re in agreement that the “its a business / I’ll act in my own interest” standard should be applied to both teams and players. That’s not how the narratives usually work, though. Good players who leave are scorned; teams that cut ties with former heroes are largely forgiven so long as the team still wins.
You are taking this out of the context. Leaving a team to be a man on the other is one thing. Leaving a team you are leading then join a stacked team for easy rings is another.
Nobody blamed Stoudamire when he left for New York, Alonzo with Miami or Shaq with the Lakers because those teams weren't exactly ready to compete until they came.
Lebron and KD, on the other hand joined teams with established alphas and team. This is why I don't hold much grudge against Lebron this time around when he joined the Lakers but he's pretty much the pioneer of FA super teams.
Because of them, most players would rather join a stack team and win an easy ring and put blood and sweat to legitly earn it. No more spirit of competition with these players.
I never hold grudge with Tony Allen leaving for Memphis because I know he is just looking for himself. Neither did on Rondo or Bass for joining the Lakers.
Forget loyalty to the team. But at least be loyal to the fans who supported you through thick and thin of team.
-
this guy was/is a turd of the highest standard.
if he didn't get injured he still wasn't worth what he was thinking he was, and this is why he's a bitter fool because he doesn't realize this. anyone else believing he was needs to stay the hell away from this team.
this isn't why he's a turd though, he's a turd for putting this on the Celtics. yes he was dealt a bad hand with the injury and his sister's death. but the Celtics weren't actively shopping him - the cavs called us.
we'll never know for certain if we would've payed him but i'd be surprised if we would have. all signs do point to ownership and danny seeing that IT led team was a dead end team going no where though.
IT's got a bad case of Dwight Howard going on.
Certain Celtics fans deserve to watch Irving walk to New York for a Durant team-up, I'll say that much.
If Kyrie leave no one will call him a traitor, just disappointing for him to make the wrong choice
People don't call Allen a traitor because of him leaving, it's because him joining the enemy and slap his teammates in the face, shows his snake personality
-
this guy was/is a turd of the highest standard.
if he didn't get injured he still wasn't worth what he was thinking he was, and this is why he's a bitter fool because he doesn't realize this. anyone else believing he was needs to stay the hell away from this team.
this isn't why he's a turd though, he's a turd for putting this on the Celtics. yes he was dealt a bad hand with the injury and his sister's death. but the Celtics weren't actively shopping him - the cavs called us.
we'll never know for certain if we would've payed him but i'd be surprised if we would have. all signs do point to ownership and danny seeing that IT led team was a dead end team going no where though.
IT's got a bad case of Dwight Howard going on.
Certain Celtics fans deserve to watch Irving walk to New York for a Durant team-up, I'll say that much.
::)
I don't know where to go with this. are you ultimately saying IT is better than kyrie? if so, I really don't have the time to tell you how wrong you are.
if you're just being bitter like IT you're looking at the whole situation the wrong way. me personally I will be upset if/when kyrie should leave... but we do have him at least for this yr.
I see kyrie coming here and playing at least 2 seasons as found money. he literally dropped in our lap and all we had to do was give up a bunch of scrubs. we couldn't find a better deal even if we were playing a video game.
and if all we get is 2 seasons then so be it, again we didn't lose anything worth keeping. everyone of those players we got rid of needed to go, they maxed out and got as far as they were going.
and honestly if kyrie wants to go to NY or wherever he's not looking at things clearly either. he'll be 28 when he leaves(in his prime) and on a bad wheel. he'll have a real small window and his career will end abruptly. if he stays here he'd likey get a chance to extend his career and win more championships over a long period of time.
What I'm saying is that Boston has a fringe of bad fans who don't really deserve the success they get to experience, and that the minority of people who got themselves all hysterical over a guy who played a primary hand in pulling the franchise out of Piece and KG's shadow and it putting in the place it is today asking for a commensurate paycheck need to stop celebrating injuries. A guy destroying his body for the betterment of the Cs isn't something to be smug about.
-
Loyalty isn't a one way street.
Of course it is, and there’s an obvious reason for it: the fans only hold one side accountable.
If a team is “disloyal” by trading / waiving a player, the fans inevitably side with management. They want the best product on the floor, period. It doesn’t matter if a player played hurt, took less in the past, etc. Fans have a “what have you done for me lately” attitude. In other words, fans by and large don’t want franchises to be loyal.
On the other hand, fans take a “how dare he leave” attitude if he goes to another franchise. It’s as if they expect a player to sign for less just to be a Celtic. You see it in some of the criticisms of Marcus Smart, and you see it in continued attacks on Ray Allen. Players get called “traitors”, teams are admired for making nonsentimental decisions.
Not the whole truth. Fans showed lots of sympathy both for IT and DeRozan.
-
Loyalty isn't a one way street.
Of course it is, and there’s an obvious reason for it: the fans only hold one side accountable.
No they don't. I was mad as hell at Danny for trading away Perk & Thomas and I said so - several times. Mostly what I got for my opinion on this board was criticism for daring to question Danny Ainge (OMG !!!). I also took exception to the way Danny treated Ray Allen, Leon Powe and most recently, Marcus Smart (to name a few). He treats our players like car parts.
On a related note, the title of this thread is kinda funny - There is nothing "veiled" about Thomas' comments. They are directed at Danny Ainge, no question.
-
Loyalty isn't a one way street.
Of course it is, and there’s an obvious reason for it: the fans only hold one side accountable.
No they don't. I was mad as hell at Danny for trading away Perk & Thomas and I said so - several times. Mostly what I got for my opinion on this board was criticism for daring to question Danny Ainge (OMG !!!). I also took exception to the way Danny treated Ray Allen, Leon Powe and most recently, Marcus Smart (to name a few). He treats our players like car parts.
On a related note, the title of this thread is kinda funny - There is nothing "veiled" about Thomas' comments. They are directed at Danny Ainge, no question.
I think you missed the point, or stopped reading. The side the majority of fans hold accountable regarding loyalty is the players, not management.
-
Loyalty isn't a one way street.
Of course it is, and there’s an obvious reason for it: the fans only hold one side accountable.
No they don't. I was mad as hell at Danny for trading away Perk & Thomas and I said so - several times. Mostly what I got for my opinion on this board was criticism for daring to question Danny Ainge (OMG !!!). I also took exception to the way Danny treated Ray Allen, Leon Powe and most recently, Marcus Smart (to name a few). He treats our players like car parts.
On a related note, the title of this thread is kinda funny - There is nothing "veiled" about Thomas' comments. They are directed at Danny Ainge, no question.
I think you missed the point, or stopped reading. The side the majority of fans hold accountable regarding loyalty is the players, not management.
I'm not sure I follow your logic Roy. If this is the case, IT should be complaining about Celtics fans not Ainge.
-
Every circumstance is different. People hate Allen because he took less to play with the the enemy, people hate Clemens because he eventually played for the Yankees and was part of the steroid generation, people were rubbed the wrong way by IT and the Brinks truck comments since was clearly not worth it. With somebody like Smart, I am not sure what to say - nobody even offered him a contract so we are really only bidding against ourselves. Just because a player perceives something a certain way doesn’t make it fact.
Players don’t have to be loyal to a franchise by giving a hometown discount, but I do think people would (eventually) be a lot more forgiving if a player said he absolutely wasn’t re-signing so that a team could get ‘something’ back in return rather than lose the ‘asset’ for nothing. There is some contention in the moment, but SAS is probably pretty happy they are getting DeRozan over watching Kawhi walk.
-
Glad he’s gone. Has done nothing but whine and moan
-
I'd be really curious to hear what Toronto actually said to DeRozan. I suspect DeRozan heard what he wanted to hear and not what was actually said to him.
-
IT isn’t wrong. Neither is DeRozan. “Loyalty” is a one-way Street. Players are expected to give “home town discounts”, while teams show no loyalty to players.
I don't know if players in the NBA are EXPECTED to take home town discounts or not. I haven't seen it as much anymore in ANY of the sports. There are fewer examples than in the past. If some do take a discount then the least their team and their agents can do is put a no trade clause into their contract. That is what I would do if I took lesser money to stay with a team I wanted to stay with.
-
Isaiah is not bitter about being traded, but rather the realization that he'll never get that max contract he envisioned with his brinks truck comment.
BTW, I do believe Isaiah's brinks truck comment was fairly significant in the grand scheme of things. To me, Isaiah was basically telling the Celtics through the media to pay me or trade me, because he would leave to get paid somewhere. Danny was never going to give IT a max contract, and the Celtics would not have received anything once Isaiah left in free agency.
-
I'd trade IT for Kyrie any day of the week and twice on Sundays. Face the truth, IT. Kyrie is just better than you. This is a business. I want to win. Period.
-
This narrative of us destroying IT’s career is pretty flawed imo. DA traded him to the team that went to the NBA Finals! If he did his part and played team ball in Cleveland, putting aside his personal ego and deferring to the King (who is likely the best player in the NBA), he’d likely be playing for a lot more than the minimum this year. Likely in Cleveland after LBJ bolted for LA. Loyalty (or the lack thereof) had nothing to do with IT not getting paid.
Btw, if Sacramento offered Smart a max contract and he took it, I wouldn’t have viewed it as being disloyal. If Kyrie signed in NY, it wouldn’t be disloyal. I don’t think I’ve heard the word loyalty used by fans much these days. I don’t think people view KD as disloyal. They view him as soft or a ring chasing coward. Quite different from disloyal.
-
One thing that is not being discussed, is how to fix the problem of players with one year remaining on their contracts, making it publicly known that their leaving in free agency and will only go to one team in particular (at the time Paul George, and now Kawhi). Maybe it can be called the LA Lakers rule.
Maybe the team (A) with the player can file some sort of tampering charges. Have the league investigate the claim, where the team (A) tries to prove that their receiving lower than market value trade proposals, because the other teams (B) believe the player will leave in free agency due to the player's desire to play for one particular team (C). To bring this back to the Lakers (C), they didn't even try to trade for George or Kawhi because they strongly felt those players would just sign during free agency, so why give up any assets.
If the league does find merit to those tampering charges, maybe the penalty could be a monetary fine and loss of first round picks to the team (the player's desired team in free agency) that signs the player. In this case, Kawhi signing with the Lakers next off season. It would also give a team like the Lakers, an incentive to make a genuine trade offer the year before free agency, and avoid being fined.
What would you propose, or do you have no problem with what players like George (last year with Indiana) and Kawhi have done?
-
Loyalty isn't a one way street.
Of course it is, and there’s an obvious reason for it: the fans only hold one side accountable.
If a team is “disloyal” by trading / waiving a player, the fans inevitably side with management. They want the best product on the floor, period. It doesn’t matter if a player played hurt, took less in the past, etc. Fans have a “what have you done for me lately” attitude. In other words, fans by and large don’t want franchises to be loyal.
On the other hand, fans take a “how dare he leave” attitude if he goes to another franchise. It’s as if they expect a player to sign for less just to be a Celtic. You see it in some of the criticisms of Marcus Smart, and you see it in continued attacks on Ray Allen. Players get called “traitors”, teams are admired for making nonsentimental decisions.
The fans interests are more alligned with management than the players' interests. As a fan, I want the Celtics to sign an All star squad on minimum deals. Each player wants a maximum deal. Neither conclusion is possible, but we'd rather see the all star team making little $.
-
I have seen a few posters mention Danny being disloyal to Paul Pierce and KG, by trading them away and lumping them with Isaiah. I was a huge fan of Pierce and KG, but I see their trade differently. Was I the only person happy they were traded?
1. The Celtics were ready for a rebuild.
2. Danny sent PP and KG to a team that was trying to win the title, so I was genuinly happy for them. I felt that Danny was looking at PP & KG's best interest and putting them in a position to succeed.
3. I honestly thought both teams and PP & KG benefited from that trade at that time. The fact that the Nets failed that season has nothing to do with Danny.
4. I knew the Celtics were in rebuild mode after the trade, and I followed the Nets team that season, with the hope they would win it all because of PP & KG.
-
I have seen a few posters mention Danny being disloyal to Paul Pierce and KG, by trading them away and lumping them with Isaiah. I was a huge fan of Pierce and KG, but I see their trade differently. Was I the only person happy they were traded?
1. The Celtics were ready for a rebuild.
2. Danny sent PP and KG to a team that was trying to win the title, so I was genuinly happy for them. I felt that Danny was looking at PP & KG's best interest and putting them in a position to succeed.
3. I honestly thought both teams and PP & KG benefited from that trade at that time. The fact that the Nets failed that season has nothing to do with Danny.
4. I knew the Celtics were in rebuild mode after the trade, and I followed the Nets team that season, with the hope they would win it all because of PP & KG.
Danny also had to get their OK to trade them.
-
Isaiah is not bitter about being traded, but rather the realization that he'll never get that max contract he envisioned with his brinks truck comment.
BTW, I do believe Isaiah's brinks truck comment was fairly significant in the grand scheme of things. To me, Isaiah was basically telling the Celtics through the media to pay me or trade me, because he would leave to get paid somewhere. Danny was never going to give IT a max contract, and the Celtics would not have received anything once Isaiah left in free agency.
The Brinks truck comment meant nothing. All it did was get some thin-skinned people riled up online. The two things that got Isaiah dealt were his size being a big liability on defense and the fact that he blew out his hip during the preceding season. Ainge isn't stupid enough to cut ties with a player for wanting a paycheck, but he knew that at that point Isaiah was damaged goods (which, again, he gutted through the injury for the benefit of the franchise and delayed his own recovery in the process, ending in a terrible season and minimum contract, making any Cs fans that can't just appreciate the guy and move on clowns).
-
For the rational and appreciative fans... have we identified the reason for the IT hate yet? Is it simply because Danny said so? Hes no longer a Celtic? Or he answered a reporter's question qbout his value with confidence, as all athletes do.
All the angry an al fans rely dislike Kyrie too, correct? IT has mostly complimented our organization and Brad after he was screwed over, while Kyrie trashed his after making threats to force his 2ay out
The homerism definitely elevated last summer and continues today.
Pls excuse typos. Rushed and on phone.
-
Isaiah is not bitter about being traded, but rather the realization that he'll never get that max contract he envisioned with his brinks truck comment.
BTW, I do believe Isaiah's brinks truck comment was fairly significant in the grand scheme of things. To me, Isaiah was basically telling the Celtics through the media to pay me or trade me, because he would leave to get paid somewhere. Danny was never going to give IT a max contract, and the Celtics would not have received anything once Isaiah left in free agency.
The Brinks truck comment meant nothing. All it did was get some thin-skinned people riled up online. The two things that got Isaiah dealt were his size being a big liability on defense and the fact that he blew out his hip during the preceding season. Ainge isn't stupid enough to cut ties with a player for wanting a paycheck, but he knew that at that point Isaiah was damaged goods (which, again, he gutted through the injury for the benefit of the franchise and delayed his own recovery in the process, ending in a terrible season and minimum contract, making any Cs fans that can't just appreciate the guy and move on clowns).
I didn't say the brinks tuck comment was the only reason. Yes, obviously his size being a liability on defense and his hip were also huge factors. But he's not growing any time soon, and who knows when or if his hip will fully heal. Even with those two things known, Isaiah still felt he was deserving of the max when he made the brinks truck comment.
I don't know the answer to this, but did Isaiah play through the injury for the benefit of the team, or for personal gain to prove despite his size, he can play through an injury and is deserving of a max contract?
-
Even with those two things known, Isaiah still felt he was deserving of the max when he made the brinks truck comment.
...and? Seriously - and? You think this was going to be the first time Ainge had negotiated a contract and got scared?
I don't know the answer to this, but did Isaiah play through the injury for the benefit of the team, or for personal gain to prove despite his size, he can play through an injury and is deserving of a max contract?
So that's what we're going with now? That gloryhound Isaiah very selfishly decided to lead the Boston Celtics to the Conference Finals, which was actually a bad thing?
-
Isaiah has every right to be peeved at the Celtics just like the Celtics had every right to move him along when the opportunity for an upgrade came along.
-
Roy is right....not sure why people are nitpicking his quite accurate main point.
IT:
IT will probably be mad at Danny for years to come....why? Not because he didn't get a boatload of money out of the Celtics. He's mad because he loved being a Celtic, leading the team, his teammates...everything. He's mad because he had some terrible luck and then lost being a part of something very special. Why slam the guy when all he wanted was to be a Celtic??? Of course getting paid by the team he loves would have been nice to...but it's not the money that's causing him to go through this period of bitterness. (he may be bitter about losing out on big money due to bad luck...unrelated to bitterness at cetlics. he knows the Celtics wouldn't have done charity once he got injured)
Danny:
I'm sure trading IT for Kyrie was an easy GM decision for Danny, but that doesn't mean it wasn't hard for him to do on a human level. Danny knew IT loved it in Boston, had just lost his sister, had an historic season for the Celtics. Danny is "cold" strictly on GM level, but let's not act like on a human level he's a robot or something...he's not. No one really likes to inform others of crappy, I mean really crappy news, especially when responsible for that news..
-
IT isn’t wrong. Neither is DeRozan. “Loyalty” is a one-way Street. Players are expected to give “home town discounts”, while teams show no loyalty to players.
I agree, they are right, but you and they need to stop pretending that players are loyal. They want their pay and/or minutes and a large role or they leave! It's a business and there is no loyalty on both sides! How loyal was IT4 when he signed in Phx then immediately starting crying about his role pretty much forcing his way out?
This is revisionist. It never happened that way. Dragic is the one who complained publicly and frequently. Everyone expected Dragic to be traded. It was a shock when PHO traded both of them. Thomas was only traded because Danny dangled a 1st round pick for a guy McDonough mistakenly thought of as a bench player. IT never asked to be traded from PHO and if anything was expecting to get more minutes once Dragic was traded.
And Roy never asserted that players are loyal so it's a straw man to tell him to stop pretending such.
And your assertion that they want such-and-such "or they leave" ignores the reality that players can't simply leave unless they are free agents. Which only occurs under certain circumstances once or twice very briefly in the typical player's career. Outside of those brief moments, most players have no control over 'leaving' their situation whereas teams for the most part almost always at least have the ability to trade most players.
All of this is your opinion and mine, we weren't there, but I do know I saw IT4 complaining in a lot of videos that season.
I've followed IT's career since before he was recruited to my alma mater. He grew up not far from where my father lived. I've followed his whole NBA career and I watched what happened in PHO. It did not at all go down as you are portraying. You are misremembering.
Again, when players get what they want, they expect loyalty, when they don't get what they want they move on.
And again, not unless they are free agents or have enough stature and leverage to actually force a trade to where they want. Neither is a common situation. The latter is especially rare.
Teams, however, almost alway have the ability to trade the majority of players at any time outside of the trade moratorium.
-
Loyalty isn't a one way street.
Of course it is, and there’s an obvious reason for it: the fans only hold one side accountable.
No they don't. I was mad as hell at Danny for trading away Perk & Thomas and I said so - several times. Mostly what I got for my opinion on this board was criticism for daring to question Danny Ainge (OMG !!!). I also took exception to the way Danny treated Ray Allen, Leon Powe and most recently, Marcus Smart (to name a few). He treats our players like car parts.
On a related note, the title of this thread is kinda funny - There is nothing "veiled" about Thomas' comments. They are directed at Danny Ainge, no question.
I think you missed the point, or stopped reading. The side the majority of fans hold accountable regarding loyalty is the players, not management.
I'm not sure I follow your logic Roy. If this is the case, IT should be complaining about Celtics fans not Ainge.
This doesn't make any sense. Roy's point is actually supported by the fact that YOU got "criticism for daring to question Danny".
And as far as I can tell, IT isn't complaining about Ainge. He simply asserted that there is no loyalty. Why that is taken as criticism is puzzling. Because there isn't.
-
Isaiah has every right to be peeved at the Celtics just like the Celtics had every right to move him along when the opportunity for an upgrade came along.
This pretty much is spot on.
-
I see several posters mentioning all the IT hate. While there are always a few negative Nancies out there, I think the vast majority of people appreciate his efforts in Boston and are happy we got such a great return for him (and the pick/Crowder/Zizic). And almost everybody is relieved that we didn't sign him to a huge contract because his market value is apparently the vet min (which seems totally unfair, btw).
If people are still hating on IT, well, that is just kicking a man while he is down. Most of the people I've seen are really pulling for him to make an epic comeback and get at least one big contract. I don't include people who think athletes make too much and we shouldn't feel bad for them - that is obviously a given. Their salaries in comparison to the general public are absurd...but they do generate the revenue, so they are earned.
-
Unfortunately this is accurate and we all know IT will always speak his mind. Not saying that it's always a good thing. Especially when the dig is against your favorite team but it's true. This league is a business and should be on both ends. Players and teams should always do what is best for them. Loyalty in sports is over rated. If a team stays loyal and keeps aging players and don't win the fans revolt. If a team trades a favorite player or doesn't resign them the fans revolt unless the team wins then the fans move on quickly. Players have the short end of the stick.
-
why do I have to feel bad for IT or side with him? he's a player whose game has no substance. what I mean by that for those that need that explained to them is he was a guy who needed the ball in his hand all the time to let you know he was even playing and he needed about 8 picks every possession to be able to score.
he was not a good player. and the reason why smart got the money and IT didn't is because marcus could score 0 pts and have way more of an impact on winning than if IT scored 40.
avery Bradley, Olynyk, amir and crowder along with IT - they were the bridge team. all guys that play so hard but aren't very good. the plan all along was to have a team that entertained the fans - they did that. meanwhile behind the scenes danny was paying attention to the real players JB, Tatum and Smart.
ownership and danny wanted C's fans to like those IT led guys. but you don't have to love them, you're all taking it further than they ever intended. you owe them nothing.
Andrew DeClercq played hard for this team, should we have signed him to a max deal? maybe throw a parade to let him know how much we appreciate him?
-
IT isn’t wrong. Neither is DeRozan. “Loyalty” is a one-way Street. Players are expected to give “home town discounts”, while teams show no loyalty to players.
see Smart, Marcus
-
why do I have to feel bad for IT or side with him? he's a player whose game has no substance. what I mean by that for those that need that explained to them is he was a guy who needed the ball in his hand all the time to let you know he was even playing and he needed about 8 picks every possession to be able to score.
he was not a good player. and the reason why smart got the money and IT didn't is because marcus could score 0 pts and have way more of an impact on winning than if IT scored 40.
avery Bradley, Olynyk, amir and crowder along with IT - they were the bridge team. all guys that play so hard but aren't very good. the plan all along was to have a team that entertained the fans - they did that. meanwhile behind the scenes danny was paying attention to the real players JB, Tatum and Smart.
ownership and danny wanted C's fans to like those IT led guys. but you don't have to love them, you're all taking it further than they ever intended. you owe them nothing.
Andrew DeClercq played hard for this team, should we have signed him to a max deal? maybe throw a parade to let him know how much we appreciate him?
Mr. [GreenWarrior], what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent [post] were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this [thread] is now dumber for having [read] it. I award you no (Tommy) points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
LOL and a TP for you.
-
why do I have to feel bad for IT or side with him? he's a player whose game has no substance. what I mean by that for those that need that explained to them is he was a guy who needed the ball in his hand all the time to let you know he was even playing and he needed about 8 picks every possession to be able to score.
he was not a good player. and the reason why smart got the money and IT didn't is because marcus could score 0 pts and have way more of an impact on winning than if IT scored 40.
avery Bradley, Olynyk, amir and crowder along with IT - they were the bridge team. all guys that play so hard but aren't very good. the plan all along was to have a team that entertained the fans - they did that. meanwhile behind the scenes danny was paying attention to the real players JB, Tatum and Smart.
ownership and danny wanted C's fans to like those IT led guys. but you don't have to love them, you're all taking it further than they ever intended. you owe them nothing.
Andrew DeClercq played hard for this team, should we have signed him to a max deal? maybe throw a parade to let him know how much we appreciate him?
You're just going to keep pretending that Isaiah never got injured and this is just what his actual market was, huh?
-
bring him back using the NBA MM salary
Miget Minimum
-
this guy was/is a turd of the highest standard.
if he didn't get injured he still wasn't worth what he was thinking he was, and this is why he's a bitter fool because he doesn't realize this. anyone else believing he was needs to stay the hell away from this team.
this isn't why he's a turd though, he's a turd for putting this on the Celtics. yes he was dealt a bad hand with the injury and his sister's death. but the Celtics weren't actively shopping him - the cavs called us.
we'll never know for certain if we would've payed him but i'd be surprised if we would have. all signs do point to ownership and danny seeing that IT led team was a dead end team going no where though.
IT's got a bad case of Dwight Howard going on.
Certain Celtics fans deserve to watch Irving walk to New York for a Durant team-up, I'll say that much.
::)
I don't know where to go with this. are you ultimately saying IT is better than kyrie? if so, I really don't have the time to tell you how wrong you are.
if you're just being bitter like IT you're looking at the whole situation the wrong way. me personally I will be upset if/when kyrie should leave... but we do have him at least for this yr.
I see kyrie coming here and playing at least 2 seasons as found money. he literally dropped in our lap and all we had to do was give up a bunch of scrubs. we couldn't find a better deal even if we were playing a video game.
and if all we get is 2 seasons then so be it, again we didn't lose anything worth keeping. everyone of those players we got rid of needed to go, they maxed out and got as far as they were going.
and honestly if kyrie wants to go to NY or wherever he's not looking at things clearly either. he'll be 28 when he leaves(in his prime) and on a bad wheel. he'll have a real small window and his career will end abruptly. if he stays here he'd likey get a chance to extend his career and win more championships over a long period of time.
What I'm saying is that Boston has a fringe of bad fans who don't really deserve the success they get to experience, and that the minority of people who got themselves all hysterical over a guy who played a primary hand in pulling the franchise out of Piece and KG's shadow and it putting in the place it is today asking for a commensurate paycheck need to stop celebrating injuries. A guy destroying his body for the betterment of the Cs isn't something to be smug about.
This!
-
Thomas is sour for a different reason than DeRozan. Thomas can't let it go because he knows Boston is the only place where he ever had, and will ever have, big success. He will never get that star back.
-
One thing that is not being discussed, is how to fix the problem of players with one year remaining on their contracts, making it publicly known that their leaving in free agency and will only go to one team in particular (at the time Paul George, and now Kawhi). Maybe it can be called the LA Lakers rule.
Maybe the team (A) with the player can file some sort of tampering charges. Have the league investigate the claim, where the team (A) tries to prove that their receiving lower than market value trade proposals, because the other teams (B) believe the player will leave in free agency due to the player's desire to play for one particular team (C). To bring this back to the Lakers (C), they didn't even try to trade for George or Kawhi because they strongly felt those players would just sign during free agency, so why give up any assets.
If the league does find merit to those tampering charges, maybe the penalty could be a monetary fine and loss of first round picks to the team (the player's desired team in free agency) that signs the player. In this case, Kawhi signing with the Lakers next off season. It would also give a team like the Lakers, an incentive to make a genuine trade offer the year before free agency, and avoid being fined.
What would you propose, or do you have no problem with what players like George (last year with Indiana) and Kawhi have done?
I have a serious problem with a player forcing his way to another team and in the process weakening the negotiating power of his current team. The player of course has an incentive to do this so he does not go to a gutted team.
-
why do I have to feel bad for IT or side with him? he's a player whose game has no substance. what I mean by that for those that need that explained to them is he was a guy who needed the ball in his hand all the time to let you know he was even playing and he needed about 8 picks every possession to be able to score.
he was not a good player. and the reason why smart got the money and IT didn't is because marcus could score 0 pts and have way more of an impact on winning than if IT scored 40.
avery Bradley, Olynyk, amir and crowder along with IT - they were the bridge team. all guys that play so hard but aren't very good. the plan all along was to have a team that entertained the fans - they did that. meanwhile behind the scenes danny was paying attention to the real players JB, Tatum and Smart.
ownership and danny wanted C's fans to like those IT led guys. but you don't have to love them, you're all taking it further than they ever intended. you owe them nothing.
Andrew DeClercq played hard for this team, should we have signed him to a max deal? maybe throw a parade to let him know how much we appreciate him?
You're just going to keep pretending that Isaiah never got injured and this is just what his actual market was, huh?
he wasn't a max contract guy, that's not "pretending" of any kind.
I wish he didn't get injured... so the irrational portion of the fan base would have that spelt out for them.
-
I don't know the answer to this, but did Isaiah play through the injury for the benefit of the team, or for personal gain to prove despite his size, he can play through an injury and is deserving of a max contract?
no he played through the injury because he knew he was playing for a contract(which he thought was going to be of the max variety).
he could use the injury in the bargaining.
-
One thing that is not being discussed, is how to fix the problem of players with one year remaining on their contracts, making it publicly known that their leaving in free agency and will only go to one team in particular (at the time Paul George, and now Kawhi). Maybe it can be called the LA Lakers rule.
Maybe the team (A) with the player can file some sort of tampering charges. Have the league investigate the claim, where the team (A) tries to prove that their receiving lower than market value trade proposals, because the other teams (B) believe the player will leave in free agency due to the player's desire to play for one particular team (C). To bring this back to the Lakers (C), they didn't even try to trade for George or Kawhi because they strongly felt those players would just sign during free agency, so why give up any assets.
If the league does find merit to those tampering charges, maybe the penalty could be a monetary fine and loss of first round picks to the team (the player's desired team in free agency) that signs the player. In this case, Kawhi signing with the Lakers next off season. It would also give a team like the Lakers, an incentive to make a genuine trade offer the year before free agency, and avoid being fined.
What would you propose, or do you have no problem with what players like George (last year with Indiana) and Kawhi have done?
I have a serious problem with a player forcing his way to another team and in the process weakening the negotiating power of his current team. The player of course has an incentive to do this so he does not go to a gutted team.
One thing I’d like to see the NBA adopt similar to MLB and NFL is compensation picks for teams who lose certain level players in free agency.
-
why do I have to feel bad for IT or side with him? he's a player whose game has no substance. what I mean by that for those that need that explained to them is he was a guy who needed the ball in his hand all the time to let you know he was even playing and he needed about 8 picks every possession to be able to score.
he was not a good player. and the reason why smart got the money and IT didn't is because marcus could score 0 pts and have way more of an impact on winning than if IT scored 40.
avery Bradley, Olynyk, amir and crowder along with IT - they were the bridge team. all guys that play so hard but aren't very good. the plan all along was to have a team that entertained the fans - they did that. meanwhile behind the scenes danny was paying attention to the real players JB, Tatum and Smart.
ownership and danny wanted C's fans to like those IT led guys. but you don't have to love them, you're all taking it further than they ever intended. you owe them nothing.
Andrew DeClercq played hard for this team, should we have signed him to a max deal? maybe throw a parade to let him know how much we appreciate him?
You're just going to keep pretending that Isaiah never got injured and this is just what his actual market was, huh?
he wasn't a max contract guy, that's not "pretending" of any kind.
I wish he didn't get injured... so the irrational portion of the fan base would have that spelt out for them.
So you're honestly of the opinion that had he played this past season with the same production he posted in the 16-17 season he'd still have signed a one-year minimum deal?
-
why do I have to feel bad for IT or side with him? he's a player whose game has no substance. what I mean by that for those that need that explained to them is he was a guy who needed the ball in his hand all the time to let you know he was even playing and he needed about 8 picks every possession to be able to score.
he was not a good player. and the reason why smart got the money and IT didn't is because marcus could score 0 pts and have way more of an impact on winning than if IT scored 40.
avery Bradley, Olynyk, amir and crowder along with IT - they were the bridge team. all guys that play so hard but aren't very good. the plan all along was to have a team that entertained the fans - they did that. meanwhile behind the scenes danny was paying attention to the real players JB, Tatum and Smart.
ownership and danny wanted C's fans to like those IT led guys. but you don't have to love them, you're all taking it further than they ever intended. you owe them nothing.
Andrew DeClercq played hard for this team, should we have signed him to a max deal? maybe throw a parade to let him know how much we appreciate him?
Andy DeClercq wasn't THAT much better than IT.
-
One thing that is not being discussed, is how to fix the problem of players with one year remaining on their contracts, making it publicly known that their leaving in free agency and will only go to one team in particular (at the time Paul George, and now Kawhi). Maybe it can be called the LA Lakers rule.
Maybe the team (A) with the player can file some sort of tampering charges. Have the league investigate the claim, where the team (A) tries to prove that their receiving lower than market value trade proposals, because the other teams (B) believe the player will leave in free agency due to the player's desire to play for one particular team (C). To bring this back to the Lakers (C), they didn't even try to trade for George or Kawhi because they strongly felt those players would just sign during free agency, so why give up any assets.
If the league does find merit to those tampering charges, maybe the penalty could be a monetary fine and loss of first round picks to the team (the player's desired team in free agency) that signs the player. In this case, Kawhi signing with the Lakers next off season. It would also give a team like the Lakers, an incentive to make a genuine trade offer the year before free agency, and avoid being fined.
What would you propose, or do you have no problem with what players like George (last year with Indiana) and Kawhi have done?
I have a serious problem with a player forcing his way to another team and in the process weakening the negotiating power of his current team. The player of course has an incentive to do this so he does not go to a gutted team.
I'm not sure there's much that can be done. I don't like the current landscape but the alternative is that players straight up leave in free agency. At least San Antonio and Indiana were able to receive All-Star players in their trades. In Indiana's case they may have gotten the best player in the deal. Oladipo has eclipsed George if he maintains or improves his current level of play.
At the end of the day the Superstar players will always have the ability to dictate their destinations. I'd rather players speak up before they reach free agency. The three moves that come to mind are Shaq to LA, LeBron to Miami, and KD to Golden State. I bet all three of those franchises would have preferred to move them a year early.
-
why do I have to feel bad for IT or side with him? he's a player whose game has no substance. what I mean by that for those that need that explained to them is he was a guy who needed the ball in his hand all the time to let you know he was even playing and he needed about 8 picks every possession to be able to score.
he was not a good player. and the reason why smart got the money and IT didn't is because marcus could score 0 pts and have way more of an impact on winning than if IT scored 40.
avery Bradley, Olynyk, amir and crowder along with IT - they were the bridge team. all guys that play so hard but aren't very good. the plan all along was to have a team that entertained the fans - they did that. meanwhile behind the scenes danny was paying attention to the real players JB, Tatum and Smart.
ownership and danny wanted C's fans to like those IT led guys. but you don't have to love them, you're all taking it further than they ever intended. you owe them nothing.
Andrew DeClercq played hard for this team, should we have signed him to a max deal? maybe throw a parade to let him know how much we appreciate him?
You're just going to keep pretending that Isaiah never got injured and this is just what his actual market was, huh?
he wasn't a max contract guy, that's not "pretending" of any kind.
I wish he didn't get injured... so the irrational portion of the fan base would have that spelt out for them.
So you're honestly of the opinion that had he played this past season with the same production he posted in the 16-17 season he'd still have signed a one-year minimum deal?
for the cavs or for us?
if us? he might have had the same production. for the cavs? no way, that was a disaster from the start & the type of player that IT is was never going to succeed playing next to Lebron.
-
why do I have to feel bad for IT or side with him? he's a player whose game has no substance. what I mean by that for those that need that explained to them is he was a guy who needed the ball in his hand all the time to let you know he was even playing and he needed about 8 picks every possession to be able to score.
he was not a good player. and the reason why smart got the money and IT didn't is because marcus could score 0 pts and have way more of an impact on winning than if IT scored 40.
You're just going to keep pretending that Isaiah never got injured and this is just what his actual market was, huh?
he wasn't a max contract guy, that's not "pretending" of any kind.
I wish he didn't get injured... so the irrational portion of the fan base would have that spelt out for them.
So you're honestly of the opinion that had he played this past season with the same production he posted in the 16-17 season he'd still have signed a one-year minimum deal?
for the cavs or for us?
if us? he might have had the same production. for the cavs? no way, that was a disaster from the start & the type of player that IT is was never going to succeed playing next to Lebron.
IT had one of the best shooting seasons ever in 2016-17, a fact that was discussed many times on this board. He was up there with Steph Curry in terms of high volume coupled with shooting efficiency.
And what's this "type of player" comment about? You're saying he would have been less effective playing next to the best player in the world - who is one of the best-passing forwards of all time? Lebron is perfectly content playing off the ball or as the screen-setter in P&R, especially at this point in his career.
IT's problem on the Cavs was that his ego and didn't match his post-injury performance and effort. But if he was still capable of giving 25ppg on 62% total shooting, and he gutted things out like he did for us in the playoffs...in what world does he not get a max deal?
-
And what's this "type of player" comment about? You're saying he would have been less effective playing next to the best player in the world - who is one of the best-passing forwards of all time? Lebron is perfectly content playing off the ball or as the screen-setter in P&R, especially at this point in his career.
IT's problem on the Cavs was that his ego
see all you guys in support of IT have the answers and you're still asking "why"? and "how"?.
-
for the cavs or for us?
if us? he might have had the same production. for the cavs? no way, that was a disaster from the start & the type of player that IT is was never going to succeed playing next to Lebron.
Based on what? Don't give me some "Isaiah needed the ball in his hands to be effective" nonsense either, because he was plenty effective filling the two-guard spot in the offense next to Marcus or Evan Turner while in Boston.
Isaiah wasn't some smoke-and-mirrors creation of Stevens, either. Prior to getting to the Celtics Isaiah was pretty consistently a 20 point per 36 minute scorer on 57-58 TS%, and those are roughly the same numbers he put up in his first season in a half in Boston as well. Brad definitely got the best out of him in 16-17, but he was playing at a high level prior to that as well. Coming off two deep playoff runs with Boston and Cleveland as an efficient 20 a night, you still think he'd have gotten a one-year minimum deal?
-
And what's this "type of player" comment about? You're saying he would have been less effective playing next to the best player in the world - who is one of the best-passing forwards of all time? Lebron is perfectly content playing off the ball or as the screen-setter in P&R, especially at this point in his career.
IT's problem on the Cavs was that his ego
see all you guys in support of IT have the answers and you're still asking "why"? and "how"?.
Oh look. Someone used creative snips of what another person wrote on the internet, in order to misrepresent it. That fools everyone!
-
for the cavs or for us?
if us? he might have had the same production. for the cavs? no way, that was a disaster from the start & the type of player that IT is was never going to succeed playing next to Lebron.
Based on what? Don't give me some "Isaiah needed the ball in his hands to be effective" nonsense either
no IT needed the ball in his hand to be relevant, there's a difference.
Isaiah wasn't some smoke-and-mirrors creation of Stevens, either. Prior to getting to the Celtics Isaiah was pretty consistently a 20 point per 36 minute scorer on 57-58 TS%, and those are roughly the same numbers he put up in his first season in a half in Boston as well. Brad definitely got the best out of him in 16-17, but he was playing at a high level prior to that as well. Coming off two deep playoff runs with Boston and Cleveland as an efficient 20 a night, you still think he'd have gotten a one-year minimum deal?
ahhh well the stats have all the answers.... it's thinking like this that makes people believe carmelo was a great player.
-
And what's this "type of player" comment about? You're saying he would have been less effective playing next to the best player in the world - who is one of the best-passing forwards of all time? Lebron is perfectly content playing off the ball or as the screen-setter in P&R, especially at this point in his career.
IT's problem on the Cavs was that his ego
see all you guys in support of IT have the answers and you're still asking "why"? and "how"?.
Oh look. Someone used creative snips of what another person wrote on the internet, in order to misrepresent it. That fools everyone!
no it was just easier to make a point to those not dealing in reality.
you know those people the ones that are siding with a guy who has 'em fooled. the guy that made a big deal about having his video tribute shown on paul pierce night... a real celtic, not a guy just concerned about his next payday.
see this guy knew there was a ceiling to how long he could keep up what he was doing, he's too small and his body was never going to hold up. so he was looking for the big payday, even making known in the media that if he didn't get it that it had nothing to do with him but the team he was on. basically shaming the team because "he plays his heart out" and injured...
all i'll say is if IT was/is as great as everyone thinks certainly his injury couldn't have made him one dimensional and teams should've been lining up to sign him. right?
-
ahhh well the stats have all the answers.... it's thinking like this that makes people believe carmelo was a great player.
Carmelo never achieved the efficiency numbers of Isaiah's pre-Boston seasons, nevermind Isaiah's historically efficient 16-17 season. It's nice to see you admit you don't actually understand the things you talk about, though.
-
ahhh well the stats have all the answers.... it's thinking like this that makes people believe carmelo was a great player.
Carmelo never achieved the efficiency numbers of Isaiah's pre-Boston seasons, nevermind Isaiah's historically efficient 16-17 season. It's nice to see you admit you don't actually understand the things you talk about, though.
My thoughts exactly. IT's lack of size was always going to be an issue but I think some people are forgetting how amazing he was during 16-17. IT's offensive output was far more efficient than any of Carmelo's best seasons. As you mentioned earlier, his overall efficiency was on par with Steph Curry.
To take this even further, let's compare Caremelo's deepest playoff run with IT from 2017. IT's output dropped but he still matched Carmelo in overall efficiency despite having a bad hip. It's fair to assume that he would have outperformed Melo if the hip was 100%.
As for his defensive shortcomings, I think some people are ignoring the same flaws shared by other elite scoring PG's. Kyrie Irving, Damian Lillard, and Kemba Walker have all been a net negative on defense throughout their careers.
I agree that a healthy IT would have received a monster contract. Not sure if it would have been a full max but I could see something similar to the Lowry deal.