WEEI Article/John Thomase/Gordon Hayward

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

kdp59 wrote:

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.

Ktronic1 wrote:

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 tIi