Danny and Doc extremely upset with Ray

[danglertx]

You know what, I take it back.  After reading (b) Allen does have 8yrs of service and 4 to the Celtics so they can give him a prohibition to trade.  I like how they throw that in there right at the end.

[danglertx]

And apparently Seattle and Milwaukee could also give him a "no trade" clause.  Miami however couldn't.  Lots of interesting tidbits in the CBA if you read the whole thing.

[crownsy]

1.  You're independently wealthy beyond most people's wildest dreams;

2.  You feel (rightly or wrongly) that your employer doesn't really appreciate you, as he's threatened to transfer you to undesireable locations numerous time in the past;

3.  You really despise one of your co-workers, who you're required to spend almost all of your time with.

Under those circumstances, is it a rational decision to leave, even if you really like your customers?  If you moved somewhere where it's warmer, more exciting, and has better fringe benefits, does that suggest that you're giving the middle finger to your customer base?

1) 3 years, 27 million.
2a) "threatened" = "tried". This was not a hostage negotiation.
2b) No-trade clause/kicker.
3) Consummate professional. "But he really hated Rondo!". See item #1.

You know, for someone who complains people don't answer your points with a rational argument, you sure didn't do anything like refute Roy's points here.

1) if you've made 200 million in your career, and want to go somewhere else but will stay with your current employer if they make it worth your while, just qouting a higher number doesn't mean anything.

I didn't like to hear about Ray's counter offer either, and am glad the celtics told him to take a hike, but if that's what he felt would be an acceptable number to stay, so be it. I think he's wrong, but i'm not him.

None of that, by the way, refuted Roy's proposition, that Ray is independently wealthy enough to take money out of the equation. Even if your point was, as i surmised above, that Ray sucks for essentially demanding triple, that actually proves Roys point since he idn't actually care about the money, since he took less, he just cared about "sticking it to danny/wyc"

2)Again, this doesn't refute roy's point one bit, it's just you playing semantics because you don't have an Answer to his hypo.

If an employer had "tried" to transfer me to a branch office i didn't want to go to multiple times, and I personally was offend by that conduct (again, rightly or wrongly) then I have the right, when my contract for employment is up, to take that into account.

3)Wait, are you actually saying that a "consummate professional" isn't allowed to "hate" or dislike people he works for/ represents/ works with?

I've worked at places in the past where I've loathed other people who work there. But we were able to work together, because (like Ray from all accounts) I was a professional and put personal feelings aside.

That said, was it a factor in my decision to leave one office i worked at? you bet. I got a competitive offer from another office and you better believe the fact that I didn't like several co workers and thought they were a drain on company resources came into my decision.

That doesn't make you a non- professional, your attitude in the work place does. And by all accounts on the court, They got along well enough to win an NBA finals, go to another, and play in three conference championship series.  

[Interceptor]

You know what, I take it back.  After reading (b) Allen does have 8yrs of service and 4 to the Celtics so they can give him a prohibition to trade.  I like how they throw that in there right at the end.

Well, it was still informative. I didn't know that there was a 15% limit on the trade bonus.

[D.o.s.]

And apparently Seattle and Milwaukee could also give him a "no trade" clause.  Miami however couldn't.  Lots of interesting tidbits in the CBA if you read the whole thing.

Agreed.

[European NBA fan]

Most relationships have their point-of-no-returns - for better or for worse.

I believe that Ray had his with the Celtics, with the Memphis trade that got reversed. It's the only issue of those that have been brought up, that would make me feel really detached from the team. The other stuff is rationalizing about his choice. Being benched, problems with Rondo etc. is something, you can be professional about and work through. But if your perspective gets changed, that other stuff might feel a lot heavier than before.

And I'm not sure that Danny or Doc gets this. But that's the problem with relationships.
 

[LooseCannon]

I think that KG and PP will keep it professional on the surface, but are seething underneath.

If KG is really angry, I'd like to see him express it with some on-court vigilante justice.

[Interceptor]

You know, for someone who complains people don't answer your points with a rational argument, you sure didn't do anything like refute Roy's points here.

I am a free agent forum poster. I am not obligated to make my twentieth post on this subject as detailed as the last nineteen.

Three years for 27M basically speaks for itself, and even you seem to concede that this really undermines Allen's position. You are no longer on the side of the angels when you make an offer than the organization can't accept, and then turn around to accept one that was worse than what they offered.

I'm not saying that you can't make an argument that this is perfectly acceptable, however I would suggest taking a step back and noting the shape of the pretzel that you need to contort yourself into in order to make this situation logically consistent with "Allen didn't deliberately stick it to the Celtics". It would not be comfortable even for a Yoga master, is where I am going with that.

Semantics are important here. Roy doesn't get away with calling Ainge's shenanigans a "threat", because that implies something pretty specific. Maybe I let it slide if I am not arguing with the forum lawyer, but I am, so there you go.

If an employer had "tried" to transfer me to a branch office i didn't want to go to multiple times, and I personally was offend by that conduct (again, rightly or wrongly) then I have the right, when my contract for employment is up, to take that into account.

Here is a list of the people who have argued that Allen didn't have the right to take everything into account in his decision:

Code: [Select]

If you don't see anything there, that might be because said person doesn't actually exist. From where I'm standing, it's mostly people arguing that Allen is a scumbag jerkface, not that he's a scumbag jerkface who doesn't follow the rules.

Regarding Allen as a "professional", I just think that he would suck it up, in terms of dealing with Rondo. He doesn't have to, ofc, and he is professional in all other respects, supposing for a moment that we pretend that rumors of him whispering sweet nothings into the ears of the Boston sports media are baseless. But this isn't Mayo getting punched in the face at 60,000 ft, either, which brings new meaning to "hostile work environment".

[csfansince60s]

Allen's image has taken a whack, not just here but around the NBA. Players don't like traitors.

Just ask Jarret Jack and Marcus Camby.

I think the majority of players are fine with being "traitors".  Players want the right to determine where they work.  

Didn't KG demand a trade?  Didn't Pierce threaten to?  Were they traitors to their teammates, as well?  Probably, but it didn't stop them from doing what they thought was best for themselves.

You are equating "traitors" with the players having the right to determine where they work. (A finely crafted yet contrived proffer, however)

Players should and do have the right to choose where they work and I am sure that Jarret Jack and Marcus Camby also feel that way. Jack and Camby also have a sense of what's morally right and wrong, and obviously they don't go by the same "code" as Benedict Allen does.

[csfansince60s]

Not surprised. If I were Danny or Doc, I'd be upset too. They're one of a very few people with a legitimate beef.

The fans don't have the right to be mad for the same reasons? Why not?

Cuz what Ray did had nothing to do with the fans personally.

Why and for whom did he take out that PR ad for then? The fans?

A little guilt?..remorse?...or is he devoid of those feelings and did it purely as an image saving, self-serving marketing ploy?

[csfansince60s]

I think that KG and PP will keep it professional on the surface, but are seething underneath.

If KG is really angry, I'd like to see him express it with some on-court vigilante justice.

....reading my mind!

[GreenFaith1819]

Ray just posted this to his social networks: http://articles.boston.com/2012-07-10/sports/32606124_1_celtics-ray-allen-avery-bradley


The negative reaction is getting to him.

Well-written article by Bob Ryan.

And I can agree whole-heartedly with it.

The blessing here with CelticsBlog is that we are all allowed to express our views on issues as long as it's within the rules. Oftentimes, even with THAT much freedom, I've seen views here that I don't agree with.

But even with THAT - it reminds me that there are folks out there who just don't think like I do. That's ok. It's refreshing, to be honest.

Here is a song by one of my favorite artists. Listen to the words. I'm guessing that some, maybe most - of it pertains to Ray's situation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbiEZfcbgv0

He had to Move On. The "Weather" for Ray had been changing over the last couple of years.

The difference, though, is that he IS the SAME PERSON we all know from his games in BOS - but THAT, is perhaps WHY he Moves On.

I still wish him the best - just not against BOS.

[csfansince60s]

What I don't understand is the fan argument that Ray "screwed" the team, or left them in a terrible position.  Unless Ray promised Danny that he'd be back, then it's Danny's job to plan for the contingency of Ray leaving.  (Danny did this, by the way, by signing Terry.)  Nobody was "screwed"; this was a business decision that everyone should have known was a possibility.

You know, I expect this viewpoint from a lawyer ("what do you mean? everything was perfectly legal!"), but is this what we've come to in 2012? That nobody bears any responsibility for the consequences of their decisions unless contractually obligated to do so? Do you get mad at Peter Parker for being upset with himself for not stopping the mugger?

It is not even debatable that the team was left in a worse position by Allen's leaving, due to the intricacies of the CBA, so that above point is literally all that this is about.

I think the majority of players are fine with being "traitors".  Players want the right to determine where they work.  

Didn't KG demand a trade?  Didn't Pierce threaten to?  Were they traitors to their teammates, as well?  Probably, but it didn't stop them from doing what they thought was best for themselves.

This is an overly simplistic view of the situation. Players want the right to work where they want, but that's not mutually exclusive with loyalty to team and teammates, although they can come into conflict at times. Players may be fine with being "traitors", but not with being traitors.

Who on planet Earth is going to call KG a traitor? He's one of the most loyal guys in the league. KG didn't pull the ripcord after a rough patch, he gave himself to that inept organization for what, 12 years? If he is going to get criticized for anything, it's for staying too long. Pierce threatened to demand a trade, but he also gave the team a reasonable out: get him some help. He's made good on it.

Allen's kerfuffle is all about the circumstances.

+1....great post

[csfansince60s]

What I don't understand is the fan argument that Ray "screwed" the team, or left them in a terrible position.  Unless Ray promised Danny that he'd be back, then it's Danny's job to plan for the contingency of Ray leaving.  (Danny did this, by the way, by signing Terry.)  Nobody was "screwed"; this was a business decision that everyone should have known was a possibility.

You know, I expect this viewpoint from a lawyer ("what do you mean? everything was perfectly legal!"), but is this what we've come to in 2012? That nobody bears any responsibility for the consequences of their decisions unless contractually obligated to do so? Do you get mad at Peter Parker for being upset with himself for not stopping the mugger?

Only lawyers hold the view that you shouldn't rely on something happening until it's promised? 

If I'm a manufacturer, and I very publicly go looking for a different widget supplier, does my current widget supplier "screw me over" if he chooses to take his business to a different manufacturer once our contract expires?  Of course not.  Nobody got screwed.  Rather, in a free market, the supplier chose to do business with somebody he considered to be a more loyal customer.  That's business.

Some fans want to personalize this.  Go ahead, but realize that Ray didn't owe you anything.

You really don't think that he thought that he owed us just a little something?

Why the ad (PR piece in the Globe) then?

[crownsy]

You know, for someone who complains people don't answer your points with a rational argument, you sure didn't do anything like refute Roy's points here.

I am a free agent forum poster. I am not obligated to make my twentieth post on this subject as detailed as the last nineteen.

Three years for 27M basically speaks for itself, and even you seem to concede that this really undermines Allen's position. You are no longer on the side of the angels when you make an offer than the organization can't accept, and then turn around to accept one that was worse than what they offered.

I'm not saying that you can't make an argument that this is perfectly acceptable, however I would suggest taking a step back and noting the shape of the pretzel that you need to contort yourself into in order to make this situation logically consistent with "Allen didn't deliberately stick it to the Celtics". It would not be comfortable even for a Yoga master, is where I am going with that.

Semantics are important here. Roy doesn't get away with calling Ainge's shenanigans a "threat", because that implies something pretty specific. Maybe I let it slide if I am not arguing with the forum lawyer, but I am, so there you go.

If an employer had "tried" to transfer me to a branch office i didn't want to go to multiple times, and I personally was offend by that conduct (again, rightly or wrongly) then I have the right, when my contract for employment is up, to take that into account.

Here is a list of the people who have argued that Allen didn't have the right to take everything into account in his decision:

Code: [Select]

If you don't see anything there, that might be because said person doesn't actually exist. From where I'm standing, it's mostly people arguing that Allen is a scumbag jerkface, not that he's a scumbag jerkface who doesn't follow the rules.

Regarding Allen as a "professional", I just think that he would suck it up, in terms of dealing with Rondo. He doesn't have to, ofc, and he is professional in all other respects, supposing for a moment that we pretend that rumors of him whispering sweet nothings into the ears of the Boston sports media are baseless. But this isn't Mayo getting punched in the face at 60,000 ft, either, which brings new meaning to "hostile work environment".

The straw man argument you toss up against anyone who disagrees with something you write "twisting themselves into a pretzel" to defend ray Allen gets just as tired to read as posts trying to change your feeling on the matter you know. especially as one who has never actually, you know, defended Ray's decision.

I'm simply stating that the posters such as yourself who want all of us to jump on board with the "RAYS A TRAITOR!!!!" line of logic don't defend it real well, and i don't agree with it.

to be clear, I think he made a bad decision. I don't like the decision. But he was a free agent and able to take his talents to whatever team, for whatever reason he wanted.

I am actually happy he didn't resign. I loved Ray, but it was time to move on at the SG position. What i don't understand is this feeling that Ray Allen is a "traitor" because he chose a team you don't like. This idea that he "owed it" to the celtics to choose to come back or sign with someone other than the heat. He didn't owe the Celtics or the fans anything. I know we all look at it as such an honor and privilege for these guys to be graced with our fan hood, but he is paid to do a job. he did it for 5 years.

Then he chose, wrongly in my opinion, to move on for a different club. He doesn't "owe" me anything. I will cheer him once when he gets back, for the memories he gave me, then proceed to boo him like any other member of a rival team.   

As Roy's hypo pointed out, he made a business decision. Despite your straw man come back that I am "twisting myself into knots" to defend ray allen, i think it was a bad business decision, made on more emotion than logic.

That doesn't make him a traitor worthy of scorn for making a decision i don't agree with.