Author Topic: Danny. It's not the trade. It's the lying. And the lying has got to stop. Please  (Read 45586 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
So eja117 - do you believe that Boston should've paid Perk what OKC paid him?
No. I don't think it would have taken that much.

I think he and his agent were.....lying  :-*

So how much do you think it would've taken to keep Perk in Boston - if money was the issue?
I didn't say money was the issue.  How much is Nenad and Jeff Green making?  How much to keep them around?

Offline outcry

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1364
  • Tommy Points: 133
I'm not comparing Perk to Brady.

If the Pats trade Brady for Chad Henne and Vonte Davis next week and then Bob Kraft says "We think Chad Henne is a starter in this league" I'll be like "What a big huge liar".

Then the apologists will come out of the woodwork and say "He knows what he's doing. Why do you have such an emotional attachment to Brady? Weren't you the one who said we should trade him"?

Why do you think Nenad is a starter in this league?  Presumably a good one too, because I don't think he wanted us to think he was saying "We think Nenad is a bad stater in this league"

Why do you think Jermaine will be healthy for the playoffs?

One week before the trade did you think Semih was going to be leaving? What changed to make you think this?

One week before the trade did you think Perk was itching to be out of here?  Do you really think Perk was going to try to get every cent he could in free agency?  What makes you think this?

Do you really think it would have been responsible for a GM to trade Bird in 1988?

I guess you believe all this. I want to know why.

I would say Kraft is a liar because that trade involves a player who is one of the best players in his league and, quite frankly, unrealistic because that's what we call a lop-sided trade. The Perkins trade is on a much lower scale and involves players that don't come close to the caliber of Tom Brady.

Who cares about Erden? Sorry, but it's not like this kid had some kind of unreal potential. He's a movable piece. There's no reason to keep him on this team during a time when teams are dumping salary and buying out players that can help you now.

With everything being said about JO, I expect him to be back by the playoffs. What does Ainge get out of lying about JO? I don't understand. You're talking about it as if there's some big conspiracy and that he's a big part of this team.

Every player tries to get every cent they can in free agency. Perkins is no different.

Why are you bringing up Bird being traded when there's absolutely no comparison to the talent in this Perkins trade? Again, don't say you're not comparing because you are. Let me know when Ainge trades away a talent like Bird, then we'll talk.



2011 PAPOUG CHAMPION

Offline GreenFaith1819

  • NCE
  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15402
  • Tommy Points: 2785
So eja117 - do you believe that Boston should've paid Perk what OKC paid him?
No. I don't think it would have taken that much.

I think he and his agent were.....lying  :-*

So how much do you think it would've taken to keep Perk in Boston - if money was the issue?

Well eja117....you stated that "It wouldn't have taken that much."

How much would it have taken to keep Perk in Boston?
« Last Edit: March 04, 2011, 11:45:04 PM by GreenFaith1819 »

Offline LarBrd33

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21238
  • Tommy Points: 2016
lol it's insane how overrated Perk is on this forum.  We fleeced the Thunder.

Erden and Harrogody are nobodies.  Don't give a crap about those scrubs.


Offline Scalablob990

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 715
  • Tommy Points: 83
  • The REAL Pau Gasol
Suppoesedly Erdens mom is sick, that's probably the reason why he wanted to go back home. Can't blame the guy.
True Celtic = Leon Powe

Bring back the show!!!!

Offline SamuelAdams

  • Al Horford
  • Posts: 482
  • Tommy Points: 51
It's okay OP, it wasn't that long ago the crowd was chanting "Fire Ange"  at home games.   In fact, Celtics Blog was a friendly place to opposing thought posters back then too...

Keep your chin up.

Offline BudweiserCeltic

  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19003
  • Tommy Points: 1833
So eja117 - do you believe that Boston should've paid Perk what OKC paid him?
No. I don't think it would have taken that much.

I think he and his agent were.....lying  :-*

So how much do you think it would've taken to keep Perk in Boston - if money was the issue?
I didn't say money was the issue.  How much is Nenad and Jeff Green making?  How much to keep them around?

Keeping them around is a non-issue to justify the Perk trade. Even if we lose on all of them, we already got 1st round pick out of it. We got healthier. We got a restricted free-agent in Green that first increases the chances of a short contract or a cheap one, and it increases the chances of a sign and trade if it came to that.

Bottom line is that we didn't lose on the assets for nothing.

Offline bdm860

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6138
  • Tommy Points: 4624
Ya know, I don’t consider Danny, or most GM’s for that matter to be liar.  Many have called it spinning, well technically I would say it is, I don’t really consider it spinning either (because “spinning” to me has a negative connotation).
I just call it being positive, and I think a lot of our players are the same way.

Like I’ve never heard KG or Ray or Pierce talk bad about a current teammate (although I know there are some stories about KG fighting his teammates, I don’t recall him talking bad about them to the press, maybe I’m wrong though).  I’m pretty sure I’ve heard our guys say Semih is going to be a good player in this league, I remember hearing the Pistons’ players (when they were good) saying Darko was going to be a good player too.  I’m sure there are or have been guys on our team that the Big 3 didn’t like, but you don’t talk bad about them, or even be bluntly honest.  You talk about the positive things.  If KG didn’t like Patrick O’Bryant, he would say things like “Patrick O’Bryant is a good guy and has the tools to be a good player if he works hard”, even if he really thinks POB is lazy, I don’t expect him to call his teammate lazy (to the public).  I don’t consider this lying or spinning or whatever.  I just consider it being positive.  And this goes for the GM too.

Chemistry is important.  I consider being positive part of building good relationships and chemistry. But this is the type of guy I am, so I guess I expect it from others too.

I don’t talk bad about a girl I’m dating when I’m dating her, even if there are things I don't like.  But if we break up, I might say some things I wouldn’t say before.  Dating a girl who might be a little selfish, I’m not going to talk about that to others, I’m going to talk about something positive instead like how funny she is.  Once we breakup, is a little easier to say that she was a little too selfish for me.

I don’t talk bad about my co-workers when I’m working with them.  But if they quit or get fired, I might say some things I wouldn’t say before.  When I work with “Joe” and I don’t like him because he’s lazy or a bad worker or whatever, when asked about “Joe” I might say, “Joe is a really smart guy.”  But when he leaves, I might say, “Joe was smart, but he always came in late and left early and I don’t really think he wanted to be here.  I’m glad we got “Dave” to replace him, Dave is the first one to get here and the last one to leave.”

I don’t talk bad about my teammates when I played sports.  But if we’re not on the same team anymore, I might say some things I wouldn’t say before.  If I’m a Celtic and Perk was my teammate, I’m going to talk about how tough he is, how good of a defender he is when we’re on the same team, I would never talk about how bad an offensive player he is.  If I’m concerned about his injury, I’ll talk about how hard he’s worked to come back, I’m not going to talk about how scared I am he’s not going to ever be 100% again.  When he gets traded for Krstic, I’m going to talk how good an offensive player Krstic is and how how nice it is to play with a Center who can stretch the floor and is active on the offensive glass.

(Lol, hopefully this doesn’t sound two-faced, it’s not saying two different things, it’s being positive).

And this is what I think Danny does, and what most GM’s do. 
If Danny told Perk:  “We are going to do whatever it takes to re-sign you, we want to make sure you retire as a Celtic.  We’re not going to trade you.”  Then I would consider him a liar, but we really have no idea what is said in the locker room.  I do think some GM’s do this, but not all.  I don’t think Danny does this (but that’s just my opinion).

And with the injury thing (like to guys like JO, Shaq, Garnett in the past, etc.), again I don't consider this lying, but focusing on the positive, being an optimist as opposed to a pessimist, and you see it with a lot of posters here. (Just throwing out numbers here), say there's a 25% chance JO returns, some posters focus on that there is a 25% chance he returns, and some will focus on that there is a 75% chance he doesn't return.  Some people focus on the positives of the trade, some focus on the negatives.  Often effective leaders (IMO) focus on the positives of what they have, instead of the negatives.

After 18 months with their Bigs, the Littles were: 46% less likely to use illegal drugs, 27% less likely to use alcohol, 52% less likely to skip school, 37% less likely to skip a class

Offline bdm860

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6138
  • Tommy Points: 4624
I still scratch my head on the Danny was lying about KG line they throw around. The excuse people give is that they wanted to sell tickets... really? Do you think the Celtics will have trouble selling tickets without KG? I don't envision it.

Considering that they held off KG from having surgery until the playoffs were over automatically already tells me that they were more honest than dishonest with the injury.

Wyc confirmed the team lied.  His words:

Quote
We were being Belichickian . . .

Quote
Grousbeck said last week that a heavy dose of gamesmanship went into the trickle of information - or misinformation - regarding Garnett. It might have paid a small playoff dividend to leave opponents - and the media - wondering whether Garnett was coming back, even when the team apparently knew better. . . .

The truth, according to Grousbeck, is the team’s medical staff knew exactly what it would find during the operation on Garnett’s knee last week.

Though Danny Ainge, the executive director of basketball operations, said last week that surgeons “did not have to touch” the tendon during arthroscopic surgery, the inflamed muscle indeed was caused by the bone spur, according to Grousbeck.

Though everyone from Ainge to Doc Rivers intimated during the playoffs that the two knee issues may not be related - that the inflamed tendon somehow was independent of the bone spur - the Celtics managing partner said everyone knew the truth.

“There was no mystery about the problem,” he said. “The only mystery was how (Garnett) was going to be able to do something on it. We just didn’t feel like sharing that with the media at the time.

“It was just a matter of declining to comment on it. I mean, he did come back to play four (regular-season) games, and I believe that he might have tried to play against Cleveland if we had made it that far.

“But this all threw our opponents into some confusion about what was happening.”

In other words, Doc and Danny lied, in an effort to mislead opponents.  Of course, in this specific instance it was a pretty stupid set of lies, since it harmed fan expectations a whole heck of a lot more than it provided any on court benefit.  However, a lot of times it's important for a GM to be "strategically deceptive"; a perfectly candid GM would be disastrous. 

Again, though, it cracks me up that some people do think Danny is candid and honest.  I think Danny is as honest as the average politician. 

See I don't know if I consider this lying.  (Although not really into football, so not sure if being Belichickian means out right lying, being sneaky, being deceptive, not being 100% truthful, etc.)  I read this and I think Wyc is playing part of the Monday morning quarterback.  It's easy to say in hindsight that you knew KG was finished.  I compare it to people in Finance I know.  They say things like "I knew the market was going to crash, or I knew that a particular stock was going to skyrocket or crash.  When really, they were only 75% positive that something was going to happen (or not happen), and that's why you didn't go all in (or all out). 

With this Garnett situation, I believe at the time there was a belief by some in the front office/medical staff that Garnett had a slight chance to come back.  Maybe a 5% chance?  Maybe 10%? Maybe 15%-25%?  Or maybe there's 10 people in the front office/medical staff, etc.  2 of the 10 think there is a slight chance Perk comes back, say 15%, a couple more think there is a very, very remote chance, say 5%, and the other 6 say no way.  This is the kind of thing that easily turns into "we all, 100% thought KG was done and we all knew it." in hindsight.

Comments like "the medical staff knew exactly what they would find"  Does any doctor ever know exactly what they'll find?  I'm sure there are doctors who thought for sure something was wrong, and only to find out it wasn't as bad as they originally thought.  I think this is more of a hindsight, exaggeration kind of thing.

Lol, all in all, I'm just saying I don't take this as absolute proof that Danny was lying.  Maybe it does though.  I just don't take comments like this like they're the absolute truth.  I just know people exaggerate a lot, especially in hindsight.  Or there a things people have been 100% sure about, and ended up wrong.  I've heard "pretty sure", turn into a "100% positive", or "most of us think" to "we all knew." after the fact a lot.  So I'm a little more cautious convicting Danny over this type of comment from Wyc.

But I also tend to give people the benefit of the doubt a lot too :)

After 18 months with their Bigs, the Littles were: 46% less likely to use illegal drugs, 27% less likely to use alcohol, 52% less likely to skip school, 37% less likely to skip a class

Online GreenEnvy

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4673
  • Tommy Points: 1043
They better not change the rules of a RFA in the next CBA. We better be guaranteed a chance to keep Green if we want to.

Taking the locker next to KG is a great sign. Anyone who loves basketball should be around KG. If he doesn't exemplify what this team is about to someone, nobody does.

I wonder whether he is willing to stay a bench player (6th man candidate) for the next several seasons behind Pierce (who looks rejuvinated).

Also, can he be the go-to scorer we may need him to be if we actually get Howard in 2012?


I still miss Perk, but I'm loving what I'm seeing from Jeff Green.
CELTICS 2024

Offline BudweiserCeltic

  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19003
  • Tommy Points: 1833
They better not change the rules of a RFA in the next CBA. We better be guaranteed a chance to keep Green if we want to.

Taking the locker next to KG is a great sign. Anyone who loves basketball should be around KG. If he doesn't exemplify what this team is about to someone, nobody does.

I wonder whether he is willing to stay a bench player (6th man candidate) for the next several seasons behind Pierce (who looks rejuvinated).

Also, can he be the go-to scorer we may need him to be if we actually get Howard in 2012?


I still miss Perk, but I'm loving what I'm seeing from Jeff Green.

If anything I think the new CBA is going to try and make it easier for teams to keep their players, particularly seeing what occurred during the last free-agency.

Offline Lurking Grue

  • JD Davison
  • Posts: 3
  • Tommy Points: 0

How is it possible to know if someone was lying, unless you could read his mind?

Whether JO is actually healthy or still hobbled when the playoffs come around, cannot prove or disprove the contention that Ainge was lying at the time he made those statements. The only way for Ainge to be lying about JO becoming healthy for the playoffs, would be that he firmly believed that JO would NOT be healthy for the Playoffs at the time he made those statements, and then publicly saying the opposite intentionally.

Unless you force him at gun point to admit the truth, or put him to a lie detector test, there is no way any of us will know if he was lying at the time. Time will tell if Ainge was right or wrong on some of his assertions, but it still doesnt tell us if he was lying.


Offline clover

  • Front Page Moderator
  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6130
  • Tommy Points: 315
I still scratch my head on the Danny was lying about KG line they throw around. The excuse people give is that they wanted to sell tickets... really? Do you think the Celtics will have trouble selling tickets without KG? I don't envision it.

Considering that they held off KG from having surgery until the playoffs were over automatically already tells me that they were more honest than dishonest with the injury.

Wyc confirmed the team lied.  His words:

Quote
We were being Belichickian . . .

Quote
Grousbeck said last week that a heavy dose of gamesmanship went into the trickle of information - or misinformation - regarding Garnett. It might have paid a small playoff dividend to leave opponents - and the media - wondering whether Garnett was coming back, even when the team apparently knew better. . . .

The truth, according to Grousbeck, is the team’s medical staff knew exactly what it would find during the operation on Garnett’s knee last week.

Though Danny Ainge, the executive director of basketball operations, said last week that surgeons “did not have to touch” the tendon during arthroscopic surgery, the inflamed muscle indeed was caused by the bone spur, according to Grousbeck.

Though everyone from Ainge to Doc Rivers intimated during the playoffs that the two knee issues may not be related - that the inflamed tendon somehow was independent of the bone spur - the Celtics managing partner said everyone knew the truth.

“There was no mystery about the problem,” he said. “The only mystery was how (Garnett) was going to be able to do something on it. We just didn’t feel like sharing that with the media at the time.

“It was just a matter of declining to comment on it. I mean, he did come back to play four (regular-season) games, and I believe that he might have tried to play against Cleveland if we had made it that far.

“But this all threw our opponents into some confusion about what was happening.”

In other words, Doc and Danny lied, in an effort to mislead opponents.  Of course, in this specific instance it was a pretty stupid set of lies, since it harmed fan expectations a whole heck of a lot more than it provided any on court benefit.  However, a lot of times it's important for a GM to be "strategically deceptive"; a perfectly candid GM would be disastrous. 

Again, though, it cracks me up that some people do think Danny is candid and honest.  I think Danny is as honest as the average politician. 

See I don't know if I consider this lying.  (Although not really into football, so not sure if being Belichickian means out right lying, being sneaky, being deceptive, not being 100% truthful, etc.)  I read this and I think Wyc is playing part of the Monday morning quarterback.  It's easy to say in hindsight that you knew KG was finished.  I compare it to people in Finance I know.  They say things like "I knew the market was going to crash, or I knew that a particular stock was going to skyrocket or crash.  When really, they were only 75% positive that something was going to happen (or not happen), and that's why you didn't go all in (or all out). 

With this Garnett situation, I believe at the time there was a belief by some in the front office/medical staff that Garnett had a slight chance to come back.  Maybe a 5% chance?  Maybe 10%? Maybe 15%-25%?  Or maybe there's 10 people in the front office/medical staff, etc.  2 of the 10 think there is a slight chance Perk comes back, say 15%, a couple more think there is a very, very remote chance, say 5%, and the other 6 say no way.  This is the kind of thing that easily turns into "we all, 100% thought KG was done and we all knew it." in hindsight.

Comments like "the medical staff knew exactly what they would find"  Does any doctor ever know exactly what they'll find?  I'm sure there are doctors who thought for sure something was wrong, and only to find out it wasn't as bad as they originally thought.  I think this is more of a hindsight, exaggeration kind of thing.

Lol, all in all, I'm just saying I don't take this as absolute proof that Danny was lying.  Maybe it does though.  I just don't take comments like this like they're the absolute truth.  I just know people exaggerate a lot, especially in hindsight.  Or there a things people have been 100% sure about, and ended up wrong.  I've heard "pretty sure", turn into a "100% positive", or "most of us think" to "we all knew." after the fact a lot.  So I'm a little more cautious convicting Danny over this type of comment from Wyc.

But I also tend to give people the benefit of the doubt a lot too :)

I wonder if this colossal gaffe (accidental telling of the truth) by Wyc explains why he's gone silent with the media this year.

Offline Global Celtic

  • Jrue Holiday
  • Posts: 349
  • Tommy Points: 84
Great thread, eja.

Offline droponov

  • Jrue Holiday
  • Posts: 378
  • Tommy Points: 16
I still scratch my head on the Danny was lying about KG line they throw around. The excuse people give is that they wanted to sell tickets... really? Do you think the Celtics will have trouble selling tickets without KG? I don't envision it.

Considering that they held off KG from having surgery until the playoffs were over automatically already tells me that they were more honest than dishonest with the injury.

Wyc confirmed the team lied.  His words:

Quote
We were being Belichickian . . .

Quote
Grousbeck said last week that a heavy dose of gamesmanship went into the trickle of information - or misinformation - regarding Garnett. It might have paid a small playoff dividend to leave opponents - and the media - wondering whether Garnett was coming back, even when the team apparently knew better. . . .

The truth, according to Grousbeck, is the team’s medical staff knew exactly what it would find during the operation on Garnett’s knee last week.

Though Danny Ainge, the executive director of basketball operations, said last week that surgeons “did not have to touch” the tendon during arthroscopic surgery, the inflamed muscle indeed was caused by the bone spur, according to Grousbeck.

Though everyone from Ainge to Doc Rivers intimated during the playoffs that the two knee issues may not be related - that the inflamed tendon somehow was independent of the bone spur - the Celtics managing partner said everyone knew the truth.

“There was no mystery about the problem,” he said. “The only mystery was how (Garnett) was going to be able to do something on it. We just didn’t feel like sharing that with the media at the time.

“It was just a matter of declining to comment on it. I mean, he did come back to play four (regular-season) games, and I believe that he might have tried to play against Cleveland if we had made it that far.

“But this all threw our opponents into some confusion about what was happening.”

In other words, Doc and Danny lied, in an effort to mislead opponents.  Of course, in this specific instance it was a pretty stupid set of lies, since it harmed fan expectations a whole heck of a lot more than it provided any on court benefit.  However, a lot of times it's important for a GM to be "strategically deceptive"; a perfectly candid GM would be disastrous. 

Again, though, it cracks me up that some people do think Danny is candid and honest.  I think Danny is as honest as the average politician. 

See I don't know if I consider this lying.  (Although not really into football, so not sure if being Belichickian means out right lying, being sneaky, being deceptive, not being 100% truthful, etc.)  I read this and I think Wyc is playing part of the Monday morning quarterback.  It's easy to say in hindsight that you knew KG was finished.  I compare it to people in Finance I know.  They say things like "I knew the market was going to crash, or I knew that a particular stock was going to skyrocket or crash.  When really, they were only 75% positive that something was going to happen (or not happen), and that's why you didn't go all in (or all out). 

With this Garnett situation, I believe at the time there was a belief by some in the front office/medical staff that Garnett had a slight chance to come back.  Maybe a 5% chance?  Maybe 10%? Maybe 15%-25%?  Or maybe there's 10 people in the front office/medical staff, etc.  2 of the 10 think there is a slight chance Perk comes back, say 15%, a couple more think there is a very, very remote chance, say 5%, and the other 6 say no way.  This is the kind of thing that easily turns into "we all, 100% thought KG was done and we all knew it." in hindsight.

Comments like "the medical staff knew exactly what they would find"  Does any doctor ever know exactly what they'll find?  I'm sure there are doctors who thought for sure something was wrong, and only to find out it wasn't as bad as they originally thought.  I think this is more of a hindsight, exaggeration kind of thing.

Lol, all in all, I'm just saying I don't take this as absolute proof that Danny was lying.  Maybe it does though.  I just don't take comments like this like they're the absolute truth.  I just know people exaggerate a lot, especially in hindsight.  Or there a things people have been 100% sure about, and ended up wrong.  I've heard "pretty sure", turn into a "100% positive", or "most of us think" to "we all knew." after the fact a lot.  So I'm a little more cautious convicting Danny over this type of comment from Wyc.

But I also tend to give people the benefit of the doubt a lot too :)

It was a lie. A charitable or necessary lie, but still a lie. They knew the muscle strain wasn't the (only) injury. No need to overthink this.