Please trade Jeff Green

[tarheelsxxiii]

Imagine going into work every day, knowing that your boss is more than willing to drop you as soon as something prettier comes along?

Most people work under those conditions.

To some extent, but the conditions within the NBA allow for trades where there is no such concept in the 'regular' working world.  For Green, it would be a situation where his boss is willing to move him (not "drop" him) to a better situation where he still gets paid the same amount of money.  It's not necessarily a bad thing for him.  And, again, it's a known part of the business he's in so I don't know why anyone would feel bad for the millionaire NBA player.

I'll agree with that. Also add that it is important to maintain a good reputation as a GM, and organization, if you want to attract FAs and keep the pieces you want to keep.

[tarheelsxxiii]

Imagine going into work every day, knowing that your boss is more than willing to drop you as soon as something prettier comes along?

Most people work under those conditions.

No, they don't. Hypothetically (not the case), if they did, it wouldn't be broadcast for them to see and hear every day. And again... no, they don't.

Sure they do--it's known as being an "employee at will". No guaranteed contracts, no waiting around for some other employer to take them off their hands.

On the flip side, only elite employees like Rondo and Green get guaranteed contracts, in practicality meaning they can't simply walk over to an otherwise willing employer that they're not under contract to.

All told the system makes for a better entertainment product and makes both sides lots of money. Trying to equate the GM of a team offering any and all of his players for a positive trade doesn't really translate into most people's daily lives or work experience IMO.

As a business owner in the US, I assure you that Clover is right.  I could fire anyone, any time for any reason or no reason at all.  I don't do that, of course.  It would be a surefire way to scuttle a small business.  There can also be side effects related to unemployment insurance depending on circumstances and where you live.  "Employee at will" is very real.

Is this the exception, or the norm? What percentage of people are hired as employees "at will?" Seems that'd change the discussion dramatically.

[Chris22]

Crowder and Young and Wallace are fine at the 3.

Dump Green.

Anybody can take bad three point shots and loaf the rest of the time.

[PickNRoll]

Imagine going into work every day, knowing that your boss is more than willing to drop you as soon as something prettier comes along?

Most people work under those conditions.

No, they don't. Hypothetically (not the case), if they did, it wouldn't be broadcast for them to see and hear every day. And again... no, they don't.

Sure they do--it's known as being an "employee at will". No guaranteed contracts, no waiting around for some other employer to take them off their hands.

On the flip side, only elite employees like Rondo and Green get guaranteed contracts, in practicality meaning they can't simply walk over to an otherwise willing employer that they're not under contract to.

All told the system makes for a better entertainment product and makes both sides lots of money. Trying to equate the GM of a team offering any and all of his players for a positive trade doesn't really translate into most people's daily lives or work experience IMO.

As a business owner in the US, I assure you that Clover is right.  I could fire anyone, any time for any reason or no reason at all.  I don't do that, of course.  It would be a surefire way to scuttle a small business.  There can also be side effects related to unemployment insurance depending on circumstances and where you live.  "Employee at will" is very real.

Is this the exception, or the norm? What percentage of people are hired as employees "at will?" Seems that'd change the discussion dramatically.

It is definitely the rule and not the exception.  Some states have tried to use a "good faith" or "just cause" system for wrongful termination, but it's practically impossible to enforce.  An employer can generally say that an employee's performance is unsatisfactory.  End of discussion.  The "exploding fireball exception" to all of this, of course, is to terminate an employee in any way that is discriminatory (race, creed, gender, etc.) which is basically like signing your own death certificate.

[Chris22]

I got fired on the day after Christmas one time.

I took a vacation to Maui and then got a job making twice as much money.

[tarheelsxxiii]

Imagine going into work every day, knowing that your boss is more than willing to drop you as soon as something prettier comes along?

Most people work under those conditions.

No, they don't. Hypothetically (not the case), if they did, it wouldn't be broadcast for them to see and hear every day. And again... no, they don't.

Sure they do--it's known as being an "employee at will". No guaranteed contracts, no waiting around for some other employer to take them off their hands.

On the flip side, only elite employees like Rondo and Green get guaranteed contracts, in practicality meaning they can't simply walk over to an otherwise willing employer that they're not under contract to.

All told the system makes for a better entertainment product and makes both sides lots of money. Trying to equate the GM of a team offering any and all of his players for a positive trade doesn't really translate into most people's daily lives or work experience IMO.

As a business owner in the US, I assure you that Clover is right.  I could fire anyone, any time for any reason or no reason at all.  I don't do that, of course.  It would be a surefire way to scuttle a small business.  There can also be side effects related to unemployment insurance depending on circumstances and where you live.  "Employee at will" is very real.

Is this the exception, or the norm? What percentage of people are hired as employees "at will?" Seems that'd change the discussion dramatically.

It is definitely the rule and not the exception.  Some states have tried to use a "good faith" or "just cause" system for wrongful termination, but it's practically impossible to enforce.  An employer can generally say that an employee's performance is unsatisfactory.  End of discussion.  The "exploding fireball exception" to all of this, of course, is to terminate an employee in any way that is discriminatory (race, creed, gender, etc.) which is basically like signing your own death certificate.

I haven't witnessed this at all. I've seen far more of the contrary, actually... individuals keeping their jobs/positions within a graduate program due to their inclusion in a protected category. But again, my experience has been limited to a handful of businesses, schools, and medical centers over the course of 10 years. Sounds like you all have had different experiences.

From what I'm hearing, though, it sounds like ya'll are disgrunted/uncomfortable/unhappy with the situations you're describing (i.e., being fired at any time, without cause or notice). Therefore, I feel like you're providing even more evidence that Ainge's approach sucks. If you know of another GM, or more, that takes this approach, I'd be interested to read about it. 

edit: Even though I only post periodically, I feel like I'm contending for the least liked poster here. 

[Celtics4ever]

I got fired on the day after Christmas one time.

I took a vacation to Maui and then got a job making twice as much money.

You would probably need three times though with the costs of living in Hawaii.

[PickNRoll]

Imagine going into work every day, knowing that your boss is more than willing to drop you as soon as something prettier comes along?

Most people work under those conditions.

No, they don't. Hypothetically (not the case), if they did, it wouldn't be broadcast for them to see and hear every day. And again... no, they don't.

Sure they do--it's known as being an "employee at will". No guaranteed contracts, no waiting around for some other employer to take them off their hands.

On the flip side, only elite employees like Rondo and Green get guaranteed contracts, in practicality meaning they can't simply walk over to an otherwise willing employer that they're not under contract to.

All told the system makes for a better entertainment product and makes both sides lots of money. Trying to equate the GM of a team offering any and all of his players for a positive trade doesn't really translate into most people's daily lives or work experience IMO.

As a business owner in the US, I assure you that Clover is right.  I could fire anyone, any time for any reason or no reason at all.  I don't do that, of course.  It would be a surefire way to scuttle a small business.  There can also be side effects related to unemployment insurance depending on circumstances and where you live.  "Employee at will" is very real.

Is this the exception, or the norm? What percentage of people are hired as employees "at will?" Seems that'd change the discussion dramatically.

It is definitely the rule and not the exception.  Some states have tried to use a "good faith" or "just cause" system for wrongful termination, but it's practically impossible to enforce.  An employer can generally say that an employee's performance is unsatisfactory.  End of discussion.  The "exploding fireball exception" to all of this, of course, is to terminate an employee in any way that is discriminatory (race, creed, gender, etc.) which is basically like signing your own death certificate.

edit: Even though I only post periodically, I feel like I'm contending for the least liked poster here. 

Don't take it personally.  You get a few contrarians on here, a few know-it-alls, a few sage elders, some young pups.  A little of everything.  Mostly though, CB has some hardcore C's fans and it's a great place.  You have a lot more TP's than me. 

[Neurotic Guy]

Imagine going into work every day, knowing that your boss is more than willing to drop you as soon as something prettier comes along?

Most people work under those conditions.

No, they don't. Hypothetically (not the case), if they did, it wouldn't be broadcast for them to see and hear every day. And again... no, they don't.

Sure they do--it's known as being an "employee at will". No guaranteed contracts, no waiting around for some other employer to take them off their hands.

On the flip side, only elite employees like Rondo and Green get guaranteed contracts, in practicality meaning they can't simply walk over to an otherwise willing employer that they're not under contract to.

All told the system makes for a better entertainment product and makes both sides lots of money. Trying to equate the GM of a team offering any and all of his players for a positive trade doesn't really translate into most people's daily lives or work experience IMO.

As a business owner in the US, I assure you that Clover is right.  I could fire anyone, any time for any reason or no reason at all.  I don't do that, of course.  It would be a surefire way to scuttle a small business.  There can also be side effects related to unemployment insurance depending on circumstances and where you live.  "Employee at will" is very real.

Is this the exception, or the norm? What percentage of people are hired as employees "at will?" Seems that'd change the discussion dramatically.

It is definitely the rule and not the exception.  Some states have tried to use a "good faith" or "just cause" system for wrongful termination, but it's practically impossible to enforce.  An employer can generally say that an employee's performance is unsatisfactory.  End of discussion.  The "exploding fireball exception" to all of this, of course, is to terminate an employee in any way that is discriminatory (race, creed, gender, etc.) which is basically like signing your own death certificate.

I haven't witnessed this at all. I've seen far more of the contrary, actually... individuals keeping their jobs/positions within a graduate program due to their inclusion in a protected category. But again, my experience has been limited to a handful of businesses, schools, and medical centers over the course of 10 years. Sounds like you all have had different experiences.

From what I'm hearing, though, it sounds like ya'll are disgrunted/uncomfortable/unhappy with the situations you're describing (i.e., being fired at any time, without cause or notice). Therefore, I feel like you're providing even more evidence that Ainge's approach sucks. If you know of another GM, or more, that takes this approach, I'd be interested to read about it. 

edit: Even though I only post periodically, I feel like I'm contending for the least liked poster here. 

I definitely see things differently -- but you aren't even in contention for the least liked poster!

My guess is that most professional sports GMs have an unwritten rule that ANY player (with a few exceptions) can be had for the right price.   The GMs job is to continuously work to make the team better.   Players understand, or grow to understand, that it is a pretty cutthroat business and that the team's GM will trade you in a minute if he thinks he can better the team.  It's the way it should be in this type of industry (though not in most other industries).  I'd probably want to fire a GM that didn't approach the job this way.

Of course, managers/owners always want to be cognizent of the impact their actions have on their employees.  But managers of highly paid/ highly skilled professionals should have high expectations.   Of course some employees need more nurturing than others, but for the most part, the expectation should be that highly paid players work hard no matter what.  I know that human emotion plays a role, but leaving players open to trade is only one aspect that influences manager/player relations, and player motivation.   

Also want to point out that there is an interesting difference between businesses that exercise the firing option freely and quickly and those (like education and other unionized occupations) where firing is difficult.  Both approaches have their potential problems and their benefits. 

[Chris22]

I got fired on the day after Christmas one time.

I took a vacation to Maui and then got a job making twice as much money.

You would probably need three times though with the costs of living in Hawaii.

I don't live in Hawaii. I just took a vacation there.

[littleteapot]

From what I'm hearing, though, it sounds like ya'll are disgrunted/uncomfortable/unhappy with the situations you're describing (i.e., being fired at any time, without cause or notice). Therefore, I feel like you're providing even more evidence that Ainge's approach sucks. If you know of another GM, or more, that takes this approach, I'd be interested to read about it.

Sorry if I came off as disgruntled or bitter. I actually am not; I just think capitalism is inherently competitive. Employees and employers are both competing for each other. If I think I can make my life better by switching companies I would absolutely do it. If a company thinks it can improve its productivity by finding something different they would do it.

Jeff Green has worked extremely hard to take advantage of his talent and make himself a guy who's in demand. Unfortunately for him, the team he is on is in flux and would do better by trading him for a long-term asset. That to me is not an excuse to lose focus on your job.

I think every team does this nowadays. The Spurs are praised for sticking with their guys, but they let DeJuan Blair and George Hill go. Being a place people want to play for that is seen as a good organization is absolutely valuable but you have to trade it off for the opportunity to get talent on your team.

[Csfan1984]

I am in no rush to dump Green. I want something good or I keep him because
1. I don't want Young or Turner to start at SF. Like both those guys at SG and PG in truth. (Turner as back up PG and SF)

2. Right now I am willing to pay Green 11 million over 4 years to stay and be a good vet on the team. IF C's land a big in draft such as Okafor, DJohnson, WCS, Turner he is a good SF to have in the lineup.

3. He doesn't hurt our winning % yet he can help the young guys be pros.

4.If we don't land a big in draft and get SJohnson or another top swing man just do a S&T Green.
 
5. Honestly if you ain't getting much now then what is the point. Better to keep him in case of above scenario.

How do you feel about four years at $14M per for Mr. Green? I actually wouldn't mind if Mr. Crowder manned the starting SF spot for the rest of the year--and yes, I want room for Mr. Young to play.

14 would be tough but I might go there if 4th year was team option. Seeing how most C's developing players won't be up for big $ till about 2+ years from now anyways it doesn't hurt. Really prefer 12 or less because then he could be moved in another year. If he over payed it would take assets to move him.

[LB3533]

Appearances can be deceiving......it may look like Jeff is playing his way out of Celtic green, but that statistics suggest that Jeff still cares about winning in the green uniform.

A player who doesn't care about winning won't attempt to try......Jeff Green continues to shoot, continues to post up with whatever hook shot or semi-hook shot he has......attempts to drive to get to the line....free throws only occur if the ref blows the whislte not whether there is contact or no contact....ask Mr. Gorman and Tommy H if there were fouls not called for the C's the last few games....

In Dec. - Jeff Green continues to shoot his 14 shots per game and his 4 three pointers per game. Majority of games (67%) in Dec. were without Rondo.

It's true that in Nov. Jeff did take 15 shots per game and 5 three's per game and got to the line to take about 2 more FTs, but the numbers are virtually the same.

For those of you who like +/- stat.....Green's Dec also was his highest (+0.2) +/- numbers for the monthly average. That number is nothing to brag about, but after a -11 for Nov. the Dec. number is a positive trend. (Jeff's Dec. +/- was 5th ranked for rotational players on the team and higher than Sully's, Turner's & Zeller's Dec.)

As far as rebounding goes.....the team is the better defensive rebounding team when Green is on the floor. So whatever the misses that Green is not getting, his teammates are getting them and that's the whole point....that the Celtics get the miss not the other team. We are at our worst rebounding defensive misses when Jeff Green is on the bench. This means the opposing team is grabbing more of its own misses when Green is resting.

But the Celtics, as a team, are at its worst at rebounding its offensive misses when Green is on the floor. This makes sense since Green, may in fact be the one launching a long distance 2 or 3 pointer and most likely not in the preferred rebounding area for his own miss. Sometimes long range clanks can fall into the own shooter's lap....but rarely.

I am in the boat to trade Jeff Green too, only because I do not believe Danny Ainge deserves to have a high quality player in Jeff Green, if Danny's goal is to play for the lottery and it most likely is Danny's goal.

For the same reasoning, I feel we should move Sully, Bass, Turner, and Nelson too.

[86MaxwellSmart]

Now, can we ALL Finally agree that the Perkins for Jeff Green trade was a FLOP---?

[cb8883]

Danny will take the 1st he can get for Green.  If not a decent young player like Solomon Hill or James Ennis and a 2nd.   

He was doing so well and now is back to playing like he doesn't care.   He is a third option on a good team or a 6th man at best

Ha! That's a laugh. Danny will not get a 1st for Green. Unless of course it's heavily protected. Green might be worth a 2nd rounder and expiring.