WEEI Article/John Thomase/Gordon Hayward

If you pull up this article, it tells why there is no way Gordon Hayward will ever be on the trading block this year. It just backs up everything I have written since the first rumor/trade options came out here and elsewhere. This not only is a basketball decision on Danny's part/it is a moral decision.

They were able to convince Hayward to leave money on table to come to Boston and play for the Celtics and Brad Stevens. When that nightmare of an accident occurred in the first game, that dream got put on hold. What a slap in the face it would be to trade him
when he hadn't even played here. Money lost, and I am sure, alot of respect. Plus, the reaction of our coach might be one we would regret for years to come. They would be putting his reputation on the line also.

So those of you who would include Gordon in a trade, Not Gonna Happen. Sit back and enjoy the show.

I agree. I also don't see us trading Horford for much the same reasons.

Danny would trade Austin and his mother for the right deal.

I think you are wrong there, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Hey, it is OK for the Cs to trade Austin Ainge and even Astin's mother (if she can shoot?), but certainly not OK to trade Hayward at this time for the reasons mentioned above. Mrs Ainge would still be Danny's wife and Austin would still be his son after they get traded. And, if Danny's mother was the subject and not his wife, it would be OK to trade her as well. We fans would quickly get over Ainge trading family members, but the league may not recover well if a premier free agent gets traded after a 6 minute career in green.

Credibility is big in every aspect of life, and this very much includes management of a professional sports franchise. Look around at the teams that do not have good credibility and you will find losing teams with their administrations in complete disarray. NY Knicks for example during the Thomas and then Jackson eras.

Ainge and Stevens are still building the credibility of the Cs, but have done a great job so far together. There is certainly no need to destroy their built up program to get K. Leonard. This guy is just too large of a gamble in many ways at this time to include his health and his future with any team after just this next season.

What about the loyalty exhibited by numerous free agents when they fled to greener pastures - or does loyalty only apply to management. Ask the Utah fans about loyalty?

swish

so lets have a hypothetical:

NO calls Danny and says hey we want Hayward really bad and are willing to send Anthony Davis back as long as you send us that Kings pick next year.

Danny says, "we'll I 'd like to , but some people may think I've done Gordon wrong, so I will pass"

ummm...I don't think so.

Will it happen, of course not and I am on record saying that Danny should keep this team together for at least one more year to see how good they can be.

swish wrote:What about the loyalty exhibited by numerous free agents when they fled to greener pastures - or does loyalty only apply to management. Ask the Utah fans about loyalty?

 swish

Fans are idiots and irrational when it comes to their opinions about players, oftentimes me included. That is not what is being discussed here.

How a player thinks he will be treated by the management group of a team (owners and coaches) is the point here.

I believe we took a hit in that respect when we traded away Isaiah Thomas.

I believe 'he who must not be named' left to join LeBron because he lost his trust in Danny Ainge. That and he was chasing rings.

gyso

gyso wrote:

swish wrote:What about the loyalty exhibited by numerous free agents when they fled to greener pastures - or does loyalty only apply to management. Ask the Utah fans about loyalty?

 swish

Fans are idiots and irrational when it comes to their opinions about players, oftentimes me included.  That is not what is being discussed here.

How a player thinks he will be treated by the management group of a team (owners and coaches) is the point here.

I believe we took a hit in that respect when we traded away Isaiah Thomas.

I believe 'he who must not be named' left to join LeBron because he lost his trust in Danny Ainge.  That and he was chasing rings.

gyso

IT's season may have mitigated that loss in credibility.

He who must not be named wanted to flee before losing the starting job to Avery. It was all about ego.

kdp59 wrote:so lets have a hypothetical:

NO calls Danny and says hey we want Hayward really bad and are willing to send Anthony Davis  back as long as you send us that Kings pick next year.

Danny says, "we'll I 'd like to , but some people may think I've done Gordon wrong, so I will pass"

ummm...I don't think so.

Will it happen, of course not and I am on record saying that Danny should keep this team together for at least one more year to see how good they can be.

I agree, there are exceptions to the rule. I believe the Thomas for Kyrie trade was one. Danny didn't win any 'feel good about Danny Ainge' points with that trade, but it was best for the team in the long run.

As you propose, Hayward for Davis would be another exception to the rule, however unlikely.

gyso

There used to be loyalty in sports. It came from both management and players. But decades of "plantation" mentality ruined what used to be a good thing for the owners. Their callous disregard for their players in favor of the almighty buck eventually led to the introduction of free agency. The 'masters' no longer had full power.

But they still have most of the power. The first few years of a players career are dictated by management. The player has no power and only recently the option of playing overseas or in the G-league.

Some people don't like this. Some want to go back to total owner control the way some people want to own other people again. Ain't gonna happen.

Like many others I moaned and groaned when LeBron made his "decision" public. But I never questioned his right to do so, just the manner in which he announced. I've always supported the players right to choose once they had that right. We called it "power to the people" back in the day. Maybe it's a generational thing.

In terms of the difference between trading IT and GH, I think it is a big one.

GH signed a fee agent contract and was injured in the first game. To trade him now would offend many.

IT made it clear he was going to try and hold Danny up for a max contract. Just the way he did it offended many. Kings and Brinks trucks don't get a lot of acceptance in Boston. He was injured after playing his heart out for the team, no question about that. It was his decision not to have surgery. It was his decision to seek other opinions and trust them. Boston may not have handled all of this the best way but IT brought it on himself with the choices he made and the statements that backed them up.

The only true loyalty in sports rests with the fans who keep on rooting no matter what. And even that isn't 100%.

the real problem, of course, is that the idea is so tempting to trade G and a pick for K.

kdp59 wrote:Danny would trade Austin and his mother for the right deal.

+1

No one is beyond being traded. Especially by a team this close to title contention and young enough to make it a long, continuing run. Scenarios change and when Hayward was acquired there was no real idea of what Tatum and Brown were about to do. For that matter Irving is not beyond being shipped out. Especially since he's currently under contract, but smart enough not to extend, and you have Rozier developing quickly in the wings.

Forget the IT situation as a reference here. Look at the long history of trade deals in the NBA. Stranger things than a guy like Hayward getting dealt have happened. Bigger stars and with more potential hurt feelings too. This isn't a camp for building self-esteem in millionaire players; it's professional sports and winning justifies a lot of surprise moves.

Will Hayward or Irving likely get traded? No. But are there many scenarios where it makes sense? Yes. In reality, Hayward, and to a lesser extent Irving, likely stick because they present too big a risk to the acquiring team in return for the value Boston would ask.

My guess is Danny keeps Austin and the Mrs, too. For now.


EDIT; Wrote and posted this before seeing Mulcogi's post. This line: "The only true loyalty in sports rests with the fans who keep on rooting no matter what. And even that isn't 100%." is very true IMO.

Free agency is just that, free. If a team does not offer a player the money he thinks he deserves, or the contract he wants, he moves on to bigger or better things. That is what belonging to a Player's Union gives him the right to do. If a team offers less than another, in this day and age, the player should take the money. Why not, that is what they worked for? lo

I believe the situation with Haywood is different, but obviously I am one of the only one's who believes this.
This , to me, sends out red flags to other free agents who will think twice about signing a contract and giving up money to come here. It will lose it's appeal.

We could beat this all day long, everyone has differing opinions, that is why we are here.

gyso wrote:

swish wrote:What about the loyalty exhibited by numerous free agents when they fled to greener pastures - or does loyalty only apply to management. Ask the Utah fans about loyalty?

 swish

Fans are idiots and irrational when it comes to their opinions about players, oftentimes me included.  That is not what is being discussed here.

How a player thinks he will be treated by the management group of a team (owners and coaches) is the point here.

I believe we took a hit in that respect when we traded away Isaiah Thomas.

I believe 'he who must not be named' left to join LeBron because he lost his trust in Danny Ainge.  That and he was chasing rings.

gyso

I would hope that players are aware of just how suddenly the promise of the future can be altered by unpredicted events - resulting in a different course of action.

swish

Just remember this isn't the NFL, so those guaranteed contracts, even if the player is cut, have to be honored or bought out.

RosalieTCeltics wrote:Free agency is just that, free.  If a team does not offer a player the money he thinks he deserves, or the contract he wants, he moves on to bigger or better things. That is what belonging to a Player's Union gives him the right to do.  If a team offers less than another, in this day and age, the player should take the money. Why not, that is what they worked for?  lo

I believe the situation with Haywood is different, but obviously I am one of the only one's who believes this.
This , to me,  sends out red flags to other free agents who will think twice about signing a contract and giving up money to come here. It will lose it's appeal.

We could beat this all day long, everyone has differing opinions, that is why we are here.

I doubt any Celtic fans think Hayward will or even should be traded ,except for some deal that is NOT likely to happen. I think we're all on the same page.

I think almost every Celtic fan would trade Hayward for (insert player here).

the only difference is how many guys and who would be on that list.

Mine would be short.

Durant
LeBron
AD


that's all I can think of now and since it is almost ZERO chance of any of those deals happening.....Hayward will be here next season.,IMO.

swish wrote:What about the loyalty exhibited by numerous free agents when they fled to greener pastures - or does loyalty only apply to management. Ask the Utah fans about loyalty?

 swish

There is no loyalty. Period! But there is honesty, integrity, credibility and ethics. Brad, for one is highly rated in those areas. If a team or player lacks any of these 4 then I consider that a major issue. Drop kicking Hayward out of here after what’s happened to him falls under the latter 4. It should not even be considered!!

Just had this thought. Gaming is going to change everything in professional sports. There will be even more money available to pay players. The NBA and Players Assoc may want to start negotiations on a new and revamped CBA. One suggestion I would make is that the max contracts not take away the opportunity for the journeyman and role player to get a decent payday. The NBA could do more to support the non star players in the league. The money will most definitely be there. Even if only 1/2 percent

mulcogiseng wrote:There used to be loyalty in sports. It came from both management and players. But decades of "plantation" mentality ruined what used to be a good thing for the owners. Their callous disregard for their players in favor of the almighty buck eventually led to the introduction of free agency. The 'masters' no longer had full power.

But they still have most of the power. The first few years of a players career are dictated by management. The player has no power and only recently the option of playing overseas or in the G-league.

Some people don't like this. Some want to go back to total owner control the way some people want to own other people again. Ain't gonna happen.

Like many others I moaned and groaned when LeBron made his "decision" public. But I never questioned his right to do so, just the manner in which he announced. I've always supported the players right to choose once they had that right. We called it "power to the people" back in the day. Maybe it's a generational thing.

In terms of the difference between trading IT and GH, I think it is a big one.

GH signed a fee agent contract and was injured in the first game. To trade him now would offend many.

IT made it clear he was going to try and hold Danny up for a max contract. Just the way he did it offended many. Kings and Brinks trucks don't get a lot of acceptance in Boston. He was injured after playing his heart out for the team, no question about that. It was his decision not to have surgery. It was his decision to seek other opinions and trust them. Boston may not have handled all of this the best way but IT brought it on himself with the choices he made and the statements that backed them up.

The only true loyalty in sports rests with the fans who keep on rooting no matter what. And even that isn't 100%.

the real problem, of course, is that the idea is so tempting to trade G and a pick for K.

I have to agree with most of what you said but the IT “brinks truck” comments was blown way out of proportion. IT was smiling/laughing when he made that statement after being asked. Sure, he wants what’s due him and what he believes he earned. But in NO way did IT ever demand anything. Damn talking heads, media madness and social media, like everything else, blew this comment way beyond where it should and was meant to be.

mulcogiseng wrote:Just had this thought. Gaming is going to change everything in professional sports. There will be even more money available to pay players. The NBA and Players Assoc may want to start negotiations on a new and revamped CBA. One suggestion I would make is that the max contracts not take away the opportunity for the journeyman and role player to get a decent payday. The NBA could do more to support the non star players in the league. The money will most definitely be there. Even if only 1/2 percent

I agree, in fact in my CBA world the MAX any one player could make would be set at 25% of the cap.

so next year the MAX salary for any player would be $25.25M.......leaving more cap space for other players.

NYCelt wrote:

kdp59 wrote:Danny would trade Austin and his mother for the right deal.

Will Hayward or Irving likely get traded? No. But are there many scenarios where it makes sense? Yes. In reality, Hayward, and to a lesser extent Irving, likely stick because they present too big a risk to the acquiring team in return for the value Boston would ask.

I agree entirely. Until Gordon shows he is still the same player, no team would give up anything of value for him. Kyrie's value will also be deflated because this is the last year of his contract, but less so than Gordon's. Danny will not trade either of them unless/until he can get a fair return.

Ktronic1 wrote:
I have to agree with most of what you said but the IT “brinks truck” comments was blown way out of proportion. IT was smiling/laughing when he made that statement after being asked. Sure, he wants what’s due him and what he believes he earned. But in NO way did  IT ever demand anything. Damn talking heads, media madness and social media, like everything else, blew this comment way beyond where it should and was meant to be.

I am glad I am not the only one who feels this way. Some of the responses to the "brinks truck" comment have been so breathless and indignant. The guy basically said he wanted max money, and given his performance over the ~1.5 years prior to that comment, it was an entirely reasonable for him to think he was worth the money. Yeah, he got hurt and had a down year last year, but at the time of the comment, IT was most certainly in the conversation for a max player. Kyrie never used the term "brinks truck", but his meaning was the same when he said it wouldn't make sense for him to extend now. Most people agreed and said he is just being smart. People wonder why athletes repeat the same generic phrases over and again - it is because their words are taken out of context.

Shamrock1000 wrote:

Ktronic1 wrote:
I have to agree with most of what you said but the IT “brinks truck” comments was blown way out of proportion. IT was smiling/laughing when he made that statement after being asked. Sure, he wants what’s due him and what he believes he earned. But in NO way did  IT ever demand anything. Damn talking heads, media madness and social media, like everything else, blew this comment way beyond where it should and was meant to be.

I am glad I am not the only one who feels this way. Some of the responses to the "brinks truck" comment have been so breathless and indignant. The guy basically said he wanted max money, and given his performance over the ~1.5 years prior to that comment, it was an entirely reasonable for him to think he was worth the money. Yeah, he got hurt and had a down year last year, but at the time of the comment, IT was most certainly in the conversation for a max player. Kyrie never used the term "brinks truck", but his meaning was the same when he said it wouldn't make sense for him to extend now. Most people agreed and said he is just being smart. People wonder why athletes repeat the same generic phrases over and again - it is because their words are taken out of context.

+1

For each of you.

kdp59 wrote:

mulcogiseng wrote:Just had this thought. Gaming is going to change everything in professional sports. There will be even more money available to pay players. The NBA and Players Assoc may want to start negotiations on a new and revamped CBA. One suggestion I would make is that the max contracts not take away the opportunity for the journeyman and role player to get a decent payday. The NBA could do more to support the non star players in the league. The money will most definitely be there. Even if only 1/2 percent

I agree, in fact in my CBA world the MAX any one player could make  would  be set at 25% of the cap.

so next year the MAX salary for any player would be $25.25M.......leaving more cap space for other players.

Cool! How about a cap on what the owners make as well??

Hi,
IMO, DA is a ruthless businessman. And what Kdp said about DA trading Austin and his mother is true. But trading GH now will be bad for business, therefore the probability of Danny doing that is very, very low.
Also, DA is building not just a contender but a long term contender. All indications are that he's achieved that goal or is very, very close. Trading GH now may push this goal away due to reasons Rosalie and others have mentioned already.
Also, I don't see any player(s) that DA can trade GH for that would guaranty 100% that Celtics will be real contender for 3-5-7 years. For instance, GH for Leonard - can anyone guaranty that the drama KL is having in San Antonio won't move to Boston.
Also, GH is a great player and there're no indications that he won't be after fully recovering from the last year's injury.

AK