now we know why Doc acts like he is doing the Celtics a favor

[Ogaju]

I asked the question before and I was excoriated by the Doc defenders. It now turns out that my question was legitimate and insightful. I posed the question because the actions of Doc to me were not typical of that of a coach under contract. Now we know that the five year contract signed by Doc was indeed a farce. That he never planned to coach the five years, and all the talk about seeing the contract through was to lure free agents to Boston (some might call that deceitful).

Fact is the contract was a lie, and this explains why Doc acts like he was doing the Celtics a favor because in a real roundabout way, he was.

[Boston Garden Leprechaun]

I asked the question before and I was excoriated by the Doc defenders. It now turns out that my question was legitimate and insightful. I posed the question because the actions of Doc to me were not typical of that of a coach under contract. Now we know that the five year contract signed by Doc was indeed a farce. That he never planned to coach the five years, and all the talk about seeing the contract through was to lure free agents to Boston (some might call that deceitful).

Fact is the contract was a lie, and this explains why Doc acts like he was doing the Celtics a favor because in a real roundabout way, he was.

good points indeed. KG and PP would stay we know that but DA has to look out for our future now. but doc is a phony and a fake. he is a joke.

[BASS_THUMPER]

he cares

that why he should stay

[Ogaju]

LOL was  he doing the jig?

[j804]

he cares

that why he should stay

Bahahaha not the pelvis pump remember this game

[Ogaju]

that video is hilarious...

It does not show he cares for anything other than Doc.

[connor]

If you are referring to the Herald article it also states that the Celtics were pretty much completely aware of the fact that Doc wasn't intending on sticking around for the rebuild. So its as much of a reflection on the whole organization as it is on Doc.

In fact the idea that the Celtics knew that Doc didn't intend on coaching the full length of the contract and still included a non-complete clause where they control his future seems like Doc kinda got screwed here (well as screwed as you can get when you are getting 7m a year to coach HOFs).

[CelticG1]

If you are referring to the Herald article it also states that the Celtics were pretty much completely aware of the fact that Doc wasn't intending on sticking around for the rebuild. So its as much of a reflection on the whole organization as it is on Doc.

In fact the idea that the Celtics knew that Doc didn't intend on coaching the full length of the contract and still included a non-complete clause where they control his future seems like Doc kinda got screwed here (well as screwed as you can get when you are getting 7m a year to coach HOFs).

Clause makes perfect sense

If Doc wad going to leave they didn't want him going to the lakers or miami and they wantedto fet compensation

[LEHGOCELTICS]

Good points, but still he's evil in my eyes.

[Chris]

While I think there is some truth to the suggestion that Doc had told Danny that he was not interested in staying around for a rebuilding team, I think it is being taken too far here.

First of all, when Doc signed the contract, I think Danny still had hopes of a quick reload (heck, he may still have those hopes), in which case Doc may have stuck around.

Second, that is a LOT of money for Doc to sit there and say he would walk away from years ahead.  That doesn't pass the smell test to me. 

But sure, they put the non-compete in there for a reason.  But I really don't think there was any conspiracy there.

[CelticConcourse]

Were you really excoriated?  It seems all your posts start off that way hahaha

[LooseCannon]

Were you really excoriated?  It seems all your posts start off that way hahaha

I openly admit to doing some excoriating of a point of view that seem to me is a belief that Doc Rivers should treat his contract as if it is an unbreakable bond of slavery.

[Boris Badenov]

Were you really excoriated?  It seems all your posts start off that way hahaha

I openly admit to doing some excoriating of a point of view that seem to me is a belief that Doc Rivers should treat his contract as if it is an unbreakable bond of slavery.

Yeah really, that's how I remember it too. The issue was that the OP seemed to not believe that Doc had the right to walk away from his contract before the full five years was up, subject to whatever non-compete clause it contained or other details. Which is pretty much exactly what is being discussed now.

Revisionist history?

[connor]

If you are referring to the Herald article it also states that the Celtics were pretty much completely aware of the fact that Doc wasn't intending on sticking around for the rebuild. So its as much of a reflection on the whole organization as it is on Doc.

In fact the idea that the Celtics knew that Doc didn't intend on coaching the full length of the contract and still included a non-complete clause where they control his future seems like Doc kinda got screwed here (well as screwed as you can get when you are getting 7m a year to coach HOFs).

Clause makes perfect sense

If Doc wad going to leave they didn't want him going to the lakers or miami and they wantedto fet compensation

I'm not saying it didn't make sense, it was a great move by the C's. I'm just saying that to paint Doc as deceitful is unfair if you aren't painting the rest of the C's involved with the whole situations as deceitful, that includes Danny and ownership, whom it seems were all away of the fact he wasn't going to coach through the entire contract.

[Ogaju]

Were you really excoriated?  It seems all your posts start off that way hahaha

I openly admit to doing some excoriating of a point of view that seem to me is a belief that Doc Rivers should treat his contract as if it is an unbreakable bond of slavery.

Yeah really, that's how I remember it too. The issue was that the OP seemed to not believe that Doc had the right to walk away from his contract before the full five years was up, subject to whatever non-compete clause it contained or other details. Which is pretty much exactly what is being discussed now.

Revisionist history?

Boris your position was quite unfathomable to say the least. You did not think a contract meant anyhting. It was your position that Doc did not have to honor his contract. Pretty out there if you ask me. But now we know why at least Doc felt he was not supposed to becasue like I said at the time it was an ILLUSION tehre was no real contract here. It was deceitful by all concerned. A contract meant to deceive the free agents into thinking Doc was here for the duration. Turns out that was not true, and also explains why ownership did not have a problem with the behavior of Doc. They pretty much had the inmates running the asylum.