Danny Ainge "I feel like Ray left us to go to Miami"

[indeedproceed]

He was the most expendable of the Celtics' cornerstones. The Celtics treated him like it, and he went somewhere that made him feel more wanted.

Business vs. Personal in a nutshell.

I think Tim was right. It depends on definition.

I don't think dissatisfaction with an employer/workplace and going to what you think will be a better working environment is any more or and less legitimate an action than exercising your rights as employer regardless of what your employee wants, which is basically what the Celtics did.

Personal would be Ray slandering Danny in the press, or airing grievances with Rondo, or something like that. Ray acted like a professional, at the end of the day he just didn't want to play for the celtics anymore.

[cman88]

either way, we still dont have to agree with Ray's reasonings for leaving...I dont hate the guy...but I think he came off as abit of a baby and a diva.


his ego was writing checks his skill-set no longer could back up...from being upset that KG was a priority over him to not wanting to come off the bench for Bradley.

Lebron threw out a couple of tweets and Riley blew some smoke up his @$$ while wining and dineing him..and Ray ate it up hook line and sinker

[Reyquila]

When I finally die, which will eventually happen, Ill leave this note: "Like Danny Ainge of the celtics once said: "Reyquila did not leave us; he just went to Heaven". LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

[eugen]

Ray acted like a professional, at the end of the day he just didn't want to play for the celtics anymore.

...or Danny did not like to keep him anymore(attention here: always in trade talks for last 2 seasons)

[blink]

I think there was a part of what Ray did that was personal.  I think there was some 'I will get back at you for the slights that you guys have done to me'.  I don't think it is the only part, but it is a part of it.  How can it not be?

I agree with some of the others in that I think he slighted Doc and his teammates more than anything.

I have really been wondering how KG, PP, RR have been able to avoid having anyone from the press ask them about RA going to the heat?  Maybe they have been laying low, or just been good at avoiding any media.

[kozlodoev]

Ray acted like a professional, at the end of the day he just didn't want to play for the celtics anymore.

...or Danny did not like to keep him anymore(attention here: always in trade talks for last 2 seasons)

Um yeah, I'm sure that's why he offered Ray twice as much as the next highest bidder + a no-trade clause. Whatever. 

[SHAQATTACK]

[Reyquila]

Its hard for me to understand why Fans cannot accept that Allen was a free agent. Many teams that are really interested in not losing a player find the way of working out a contract on time so the player does not become a free agent. When a player gets to be a free agent is because both the player and the team are either playing chicken or are willing to part company, if it gets to that.
In our situation with Ray, it got to that; both parties allowed or agreed to Ray Allen becoming a free agent. Once relations get to that point, anything can happen. Its true that we offered Allen more money thatn the Heat; that is a given. We do not know why Allen decided not to resign with the Celtics so we can only assume the reasons behind his decision.

Why wouldnt he take that opportunity? Havent we had players willing to come play for us because they said we gave them the best chance of winning the big one, like we did in 2008?

I beleieve the main objection og Ray having gone to Miami is that NOW, that team is a lot stronger than they were when they won it all and will make it extremely more difficult for us to try to win it in 2013. Its like we have notchampoinship to look for in 2013, and that feeling is unacceptable cause we have been trying awfully hard to win another one since 2008. Now it kind of looks unatainable. That is what it is all about. In my humble opinion.  

[RJ87]

He was the most expendable of the Celtics' cornerstones. The Celtics treated him like it, and he went somewhere that made him feel more wanted.

Business vs. Personal in a nutshell.

I think Tim was right. It depends on definition.

I don't think dissatisfaction with an employer/workplace and going to what you think will be a better working environment is any more or and less legitimate an action than exercising your rights as employer regardless of what your employee wants, which is basically what the Celtics did.

Personal would be Ray slandering Danny in the press, or airing grievances with Rondo, or something like that. Ray acted like a professional, at the end of the day he just didn't want to play for the celtics anymore.

Here's the issue I'm having with that - you're deciding between 2 employers and both offering the same role. You have history with Company A and you go to them and say, "I might come back if you make it worth it. $27 million dollars total probably get's this deal done." Company A says, "we don't really have the budget for it. We can give you $12 million dollars total, and we're willing to address some of the grievances you have such as long-term stability."

Then Company B - Company A's biggest competition in the current market - comes along and says, "We like what you bring to the table. We can only give you $9 millions dollars total - not as much as your most recent employer, but we can give our word that you don't have to worry about long-term stability. Even if we can't put that in writing."

Who do you choose from a strictly business perspective?

[ImShakHeIsShaq]

He was the most expendable of the Celtics' cornerstones. The Celtics treated him like it, and he went somewhere that made him feel more wanted.

Business vs. Personal in a nutshell.

I think Tim was right. It depends on definition.

I don't think dissatisfaction with an employer/workplace and going to what you think will be a better working environment is any more or and less legitimate an action than exercising your rights as employer regardless of what your employee wants, which is basically what the Celtics did.

Personal would be Ray slandering Danny in the press, or airing grievances with Rondo, or something like that. Ray acted like a professional, at the end of the day he just didn't want to play for the celtics anymore.

Here's the issue I'm having with that - you're deciding between 2 employers and both offering the same role. You have history with Company A and you go to them and say, "I might come back if you make it worth it. $27 million dollars total probably get's this deal done." Company A says, "we don't really have the budget for it. We can give you $12 million dollars total, and we're willing to address some of the grievances you have such as long-term stability."

Then Company B - Company A's biggest competition in the current market - comes along and says, "We like what you bring to the table. We can only give you $9 millions dollars total - not as much as your most recent employer, but we can give our word that you don't have to worry about long-term stability. Even if we can't put that in writing."

Who do you choose from a strictly business perspective?

Team A, for me: More money, same role, guarantee in writing, FRIENDS on the team, and the championship won with the key players that are still here.

Edit: Oh, business standpoint... yea, look to first 3 reasons.

[indeedproceed]

He was the most expendable of the Celtics' cornerstones. The Celtics treated him like it, and he went somewhere that made him feel more wanted.

Business vs. Personal in a nutshell.

I think Tim was right. It depends on definition.

I don't think dissatisfaction with an employer/workplace and going to what you think will be a better working environment is any more or and less legitimate an action than exercising your rights as employer regardless of what your employee wants, which is basically what the Celtics did.

Personal would be Ray slandering Danny in the press, or airing grievances with Rondo, or something like that. Ray acted like a professional, at the end of the day he just didn't want to play for the celtics anymore.

Here's the issue I'm having with that - you're deciding between 2 employers and both offering the same role. You have history with Company A and you go to them and say, "I might come back if you make it worth it. $27 million dollars total probably get's this deal done." Company A says, "we don't really have the budget for it. We can give you $12 million dollars total, and we're willing to address some of the grievances you have such as long-term stability."

Then Company B - Company A's biggest competition in the current market - comes along and says, "We like what you bring to the table. We can only give you $9 millions dollars total - not as much as your most recent employer, but we can give our word that you don't have to worry about long-term stability. Even if we can't put that in writing."

Who do you choose from a strictly business perspective?

That's assuming a lot of things, the biggest of which that Ray Allen thought staying in Boston was the best option for him next year and going forward, and for his family.

He's got a longer-term deal, a team with a longer championship window, and who knows what else Miami offered him. A fresh start can be worth quite a bit as well.

[cman88]

Its hard for me to understand why Fans cannot accept that Allen was a free agent. Many teams that are really interested in not losing a player find the way of working out a contract on time so the player does not become a free agent. When a player gets to be a free agent is because both the player and the team are either playing chicken or are willing to part company, if it gets to that.
In our situation with Ray, it got to that; both parties allowed or agreed to Ray Allen becoming a free agent. Once relations get to that point, anything can happen. Its true that we offered Allen more money thatn the Heat; that is a given. We do not know why Allen decided not to resign with the Celtics so we can only assume the reasons behind his decision.

I think we all accept that Ray allen was a free agent...I think most fans are questioning the reasoning behind his decision..when a key cog to our championship team takes less money to play with a rival, why cant we as fans be upset about it?

Its not like the c's showed 0 interest...ainge offered him more money and a no trade clause!

what would be the point in locking up ray allen early when there was a chance that KG was going to retire??

our Entire offseason plans hinged on what Garnett was going to do...once he decided he was coming back, the c's then went to bring the gang back..so to speak

[Reyquila]

Was Ray forced to sign with the Heat? Has he expressed sorrow for having signed with the Heat? Was he free to sign with the Heat subject to whichever conditions both parties requested from each other? Are free agents forced to sign with specific teams? What does being a "free" agent mean? Did Ray know what he was doing when he signed with the Heat, or was he tricked into signing his contract? Whats the problem then?

[RJ87]

He was the most expendable of the Celtics' cornerstones. The Celtics treated him like it, and he went somewhere that made him feel more wanted.

Business vs. Personal in a nutshell.

I think Tim was right. It depends on definition.

I don't think dissatisfaction with an employer/workplace and going to what you think will be a better working environment is any more or and less legitimate an action than exercising your rights as employer regardless of what your employee wants, which is basically what the Celtics did.

Personal would be Ray slandering Danny in the press, or airing grievances with Rondo, or something like that. Ray acted like a professional, at the end of the day he just didn't want to play for the celtics anymore.

Here's the issue I'm having with that - you're deciding between 2 employers and both offering the same role. You have history with Company A and you go to them and say, "I might come back if you make it worth it. $27 million dollars total probably get's this deal done." Company A says, "we don't really have the budget for it. We can give you $12 million dollars total, and we're willing to address some of the grievances you have such as long-term stability."

Then Company B - Company A's biggest competition in the current market - comes along and says, "We like what you bring to the table. We can only give you $9 millions dollars total - not as much as your most recent employer, but we can give our word that you don't have to worry about long-term stability. Even if we can't put that in writing."

Who do you choose from a strictly business perspective?

That's assuming a lot of things, the biggest of which that Ray Allen thought staying in Boston was the best option for him next year and going forward, and for his family.

He's got a longer-term deal, a team with a longer championship window, and who knows what else Miami offered him. A fresh start can be worth quite a bit as well.

Where do I make that assumption? If you're looking at the Decision from a business, financial perspecive, Ray left money on the table to play the same role. That pretty much invalidates the argument in my eyes.

Ray was uncomfortable being offered in trades by Danny, and he wanted to play somewhere where he felt "wanted", Miami sold that to him and that's where he is. Was he trying to stick it to the C's? Only Ray Allen knows that for sure. But to say its strictly business, is a bit misguided.

With thay said, I feel I should point out that I was amongst those who didn't think Ray was a good fit here any longer, not in the short term or the long term. With Paul still being here, I feel strongly that whatever wing we get to compliment him needs to be more versatile offensively and more athletic. At the end of the day, I think Ray Allen leaving Boston is best for our ballclub.

[indeedproceed]

The reason why it's assuming a lot of things is because youre only using money and role as the assets in question here.