New Ringer article on Loyalty and IT trade

[Roy H.]

I still don't understand the "loyalty" aspect of the IT trade.  The Celtics originally traded FOR him.  Also, it is not like IT gave up millions of dollars for a hometown discount and then got traded. 

Why did the Celtics owe him anymore than they already gave him, which was an opportunity to become a star in the league?

They didn't, so long as you also agree that it’s not disloyal for a player to walk away after fulfilling his contract.

That has nothing to do with IT (or others) complaining about the Celtics being disloyal to him by trading him. 

And for the record I have no problem with pros going where they want to go, playing where they want to play, for whatever reason.

I think IT is entitled to his feelings. He felt betrayed. It’s a relationship, and it was ended against his will.

[nickagneta]

I still don't understand the "loyalty" aspect of the IT trade.  The Celtics originally traded FOR him.  Also, it is not like IT gave up millions of dollars for a hometown discount and then got traded. 

Why did the Celtics owe him anymore than they already gave him, which was an opportunity to become a star in the league?

They didn't, so long as you also agree that it’s not disloyal for a player to walk away after fulfilling his contract.

Exactly, it goes both ways. Gotta admit, Danny owed IT nothing but it was pretty cold blooded move to trade IT right after what he did for the team in the playoffs. But Danny did what was best for business. When players leave for more money, they are doing what is best for their business.

being. " the boss ". is a very unpopular job many times.  Ive been a boss and i know .  Danny did what he thought was best to improve the team .  Thats what his job is .  He saw a chance to get Irving and unload a wounded IT in one fell swoop.   Given the exact circumstances , i would have traded too.  I would have tried to trade even if IT was not injuried.   I do admit IT being hurt , and losing his sister and all surely made it tuff on DA.   That said .....i d been the first one fussing  and belly aching about NOT trying to make a trade for Irving  if DA sat on his hands.

one day ....Irving may leave .....so ....i ll try and not bad mouth him.....

TP...having been the boss in the past, sometimes it sucks, but you got to do what you got to do.

[Roy H.]

No players will think ill of Ainge over this

It depends on the player. Danny’s trade of IT has sort of become the players’ example of “the teams have no loyalty, so I’m going to act in my own interest”.  Durant mentioned it, Ray Allen and Kenny Smith said it, Anthony Davis recently brought it up.

[tarheelsxxiii]

I haven't been in such a position, and I'm sure it's very difficult.  But always better to act with grace whenever possible, right?  If the community becomes smaller as you enter the upper echelon of any industry, burning bridges becomes all the more detrimental to future endeavors.

[wayupnorth]

No players will think ill of Ainge over this

It depends on the player. Danny’s trade of IT has sort of become the players’ example of “the teams have no loyalty, so I’m going to act in my own interest”.  Durant mentioned it, Ray Allen and Kenny Smith said it, Anthony Davis recently brought it up.

You are right. "No player" was wrong, as there is almost certainly at least one player it might have an effect on.

That said, I find it hard to believe AD, or most players, wouldn't come here and play with Kyrie and Gordon, just because Ainge made a trade to get a player that is at least as good, younger, and has a better resume.

[jambr380]

I haven't been in such a position, and I'm sure it's very difficult.  But always better to act with grace whenever possible, right?  If the community becomes smaller as you enter the upper echelon of any industry, burning bridges becomes all the more detrimental to future endeavors.

What are you talking about? IT was in the last year of his contract and Danny obviously had no intention of signing him to a max contract. In your example, Danny shouldn't have done what he thought was in the best interest of the franchise (and most fans agree that he did just that) because he was afraid of the ill-will that would come his way?

Just because people are using this as an example of not being loyal doesn't mean it's true as has been discussed in this thread (sent to a top team, we originally traded for him, etc).

[tarheelsxxiii]

No players will think ill of Ainge over this

It depends on the player. Danny’s trade of IT has sort of become the players’ example of “the teams have no loyalty, so I’m going to act in my own interest”.  Durant mentioned it, Ray Allen and Kenny Smith said it, Anthony Davis recently brought it up.

You are right. "No player" was wrong, as there is almost certainly at least one player it might have an effect on.

That said, I find it hard to believe AD, or most players, wouldn't come here and play with Kyrie and Gordon, just because Ainge made a trade to get a player that is at least as good, younger, and has a better resume.

No one is upset that Ainge "made a trade to get a player that is at least as good...etc."  Literally, no one is upset by that decision -- late at night, IT himself can probably understand the move from a business perspective. 

The issue is how he did it.  Getting dumped in a trade without any awareness goes against unspoken rules among NBA stars.  Hence AD's quote, the Ringer article, etc.  It may work out perfectly fine for Ainge in the end -- e.g., maybe IT is a huge jerk that is disliked by most of the NBA community -- but on the surface, Ainge took a chance of hurting his and the Celtics' reputation. 

[tarheelsxxiii]

I haven't been in such a position, and I'm sure it's very difficult.  But always better to act with grace whenever possible, right?  If the community becomes smaller as you enter the upper echelon of any industry, burning bridges becomes all the more detrimental to future endeavors.

What are you talking about? IT was in the last year of his contract and Danny obviously had no intention of signing him to a max contract. In your example, Danny shouldn't have done what he thought was in the best interest of the franchise (and most fans agree that he did just that) because he was afraid of the ill-will that would come his way?

Just because people are using this as an example of not being loyal doesn't mean it's true as has been discussed in this thread (sent to a top team, we originally traded for him, etc).

See my post directly above.  I cannot believe how difficult this concept is to understand, so I must be failing in my explanation.  NBA stars do not expect to be blindsided, especially in a climate where they're the ones often dictating personnel moves (e.g., trade demands).  While the trade was probably a good one for the long-term health of the org, it was executed poorly and may (or may not) hurt the Celtics in future trade/FA endeavors.  And unfortunately, it probably didn't need to be that way.

[Roy H.]

I haven't been in such a position, and I'm sure it's very difficult.  But always better to act with grace whenever possible, right?  If the community becomes smaller as you enter the upper echelon of any industry, burning bridges becomes all the more detrimental to future endeavors.

What are you talking about? IT was in the last year of his contract and Danny obviously had no intention of signing him to a max contract. In your example, Danny shouldn't have done what he thought was in the best interest of the franchise (and most fans agree that he did just that) because he was afraid of the ill-will that would come his way?

Just because people are using this as an example of not being loyal doesn't mean it's true as has been discussed in this thread (sent to a top team, we originally traded for him, etc).

My guess by “grace” etc. is Danny leaving IT completely in the dark on the trade. Ideally, Danny would have called IT before the trade just so he wouldn’t be blind-sided. At the same time, there are risks involved. Look at the Ray Allen situation, where Danny burned a bridge.

[tarheelsxxiii]

I haven't been in such a position, and I'm sure it's very difficult.  But always better to act with grace whenever possible, right?  If the community becomes smaller as you enter the upper echelon of any industry, burning bridges becomes all the more detrimental to future endeavors.

What are you talking about? IT was in the last year of his contract and Danny obviously had no intention of signing him to a max contract. In your example, Danny shouldn't have done what he thought was in the best interest of the franchise (and most fans agree that he did just that) because he was afraid of the ill-will that would come his way?

Just because people are using this as an example of not being loyal doesn't mean it's true as has been discussed in this thread (sent to a top team, we originally traded for him, etc).

My guess by “grace” etc. is Danny leaving IT completely in the dark on the trade. Ideally, Danny would have called IT before the trade just so he wouldn’t be blind-sided. At the same time, there are risks involved. Look at the Ray Allen situation, where Danny burned a bridge.

Yes, thank you.  This is the thought I have clearly failed to effectively portray. 

[wayupnorth]

I haven't been in such a position, and I'm sure it's very difficult.  But always better to act with grace whenever possible, right?  If the community becomes smaller as you enter the upper echelon of any industry, burning bridges becomes all the more detrimental to future endeavors.

What are you talking about? IT was in the last year of his contract and Danny obviously had no intention of signing him to a max contract. In your example, Danny shouldn't have done what he thought was in the best interest of the franchise (and most fans agree that he did just that) because he was afraid of the ill-will that would come his way?

Just because people are using this as an example of not being loyal doesn't mean it's true as has been discussed in this thread (sent to a top team, we originally traded for him, etc).

See my post directly above.  I cannot believe how difficult this concept is to understand.  NBA stars do not expect to be blindsided, especially in a climate where they're the ones often dictating personnel moves (e.g., trade demands).  While the trade was probably a good one for the long-term health of the org, it was executed poorly and may (or may not) hurt the Celtics in future trade/FA endeavors.  And unfortunately, it probably didn't need to be that way.

You have a right to that opinion, but I am going to assume Danny had a reason for doing it the way he did it, and that he has more insight into this than you do.

[Snakehead]

A writer trying to be profound and view one event in too large of a lens, as if the world turns on single events like this.  It's been going on a while and Ainge trading Pierce was almost just as much of a move of this type as well (I think IT's circumstances are particularly difficult with how and when the trade happened).  Ray Allen was a big one as well, to me.  Thing have already happened both ways, with players and teams.

[Snakehead]

I still don't understand the "loyalty" aspect of the IT trade.  The Celtics originally traded FOR him.  Also, it is not like IT gave up millions of dollars for a hometown discount and then got traded. 

Why did the Celtics owe him anymore than they already gave him, which was an opportunity to become a star in the league?

They didn't, so long as you also agree that it’s not disloyal for a player to walk away after fulfilling his contract.

That has nothing to do with IT (or others) complaining about the Celtics being disloyal to him by trading him. 

And for the record I have no problem with pros going where they want to go, playing where they want to play, for whatever reason.

I think IT is entitled to his feelings. He felt betrayed. It’s a relationship, and it was ended against his will.

My above post being said, I do agree with this.  I know if I was IT I would be p---ed off and probably feel the same way, just going off how I have felt with things I have dealt with in my life.

[tarheelsxxiii]

I haven't been in such a position, and I'm sure it's very difficult.  But always better to act with grace whenever possible, right?  If the community becomes smaller as you enter the upper echelon of any industry, burning bridges becomes all the more detrimental to future endeavors.

What are you talking about? IT was in the last year of his contract and Danny obviously had no intention of signing him to a max contract. In your example, Danny shouldn't have done what he thought was in the best interest of the franchise (and most fans agree that he did just that) because he was afraid of the ill-will that would come his way?

Just because people are using this as an example of not being loyal doesn't mean it's true as has been discussed in this thread (sent to a top team, we originally traded for him, etc).

See my post directly above.  I cannot believe how difficult this concept is to understand.  NBA stars do not expect to be blindsided, especially in a climate where they're the ones often dictating personnel moves (e.g., trade demands).  While the trade was probably a good one for the long-term health of the org, it was executed poorly and may (or may not) hurt the Celtics in future trade/FA endeavors.  And unfortunately, it probably didn't need to be that way.

You have a right to that opinion, but I am going to assume Danny had a reason for doing it the way he did it, and that he has more insight into this than you do.

I sure hope he has more insight into his job. The one contraindication of DA informing IT that I can come up with is concern that IT's camp would leak the news in an attempt to botch the trade.  But I don't think that would've been likely -- scorned lovers usually don't want "back in," and IT had a lot to lose (and gain) by the way he responded to the news from Ainge given his upcoming free agency. 

[nickagneta]

Some people knew of this trade and some didn't, for whatever reason the power brokers of the trade decided. Kyeie was allowrd to know of the trade and obviously approved as he passed on a multi-million dollar trade clause to come to Boston.

It wasn't consulted with IT, which is Danny's perogative, and the trade went down. That's business. Is it cold hearted?
 Yeah, maybe. But this is a business and players and teams need to realize this rather than playing the victim role after aonething doesn't go their way.