CelticsStrong
Celtics Basketball => Celtics Talk => Topic started by: MJohnnyboy on September 10, 2017, 12:00:46 AM
-
https://www.instagram.com/p/BY2IsBZnbRn/?hl=en&taken-by=paulpierce
I will say this. Despite all that's transpired with Ray, I would like to see the entire 07-08 roster re-unite for the season opener in Boston.
-
It really is time to bury the hatchet...Geeze, Danny tried trading Ray Allen a bunch of times---No C's fan should hate on Ray.
We waited 22 years to finally win another Championship, now it's been almost another 10--Ray Allen was crucial to Banner 17-!
-
Ray, Ray, go away ;D.
-
Its a free world PP can makeup with Ray, from what I have heard its not healthful or healthy to bare grudges anyway. Ray's #20 has already been given to Gordon, so I guess that cannot be reversed.
-
It really is time to bury the hatchet...Geeze, Danny tried trading Ray Allen a bunch of times---No C's fan should hate on Ray.
We waited 22 years to finally win another Championship, now it's been almost another 10--Ray Allen was crucial to Banner 17-!
Because he deserve it, Ainge saw his juda nature and is proved right
-
More from Ray's instagram.
https://www.instagram.com/p/BY2YEKYFyiz/?hl=en&taken-by=trayfour
-
Good for Pierce. I'm glad to see that.
KG and Rondo might be tougher sells.
-
It really is time to bury the hatchet...Geeze, Danny tried trading Ray Allen a bunch of times---No C's fan should hate on Ray.
We waited 22 years to finally win another Championship, now it's been almost another 10--Ray Allen was crucial to Banner 17-!
Because he deserve it, Ainge saw his juda nature and is proved right
Ainge is as much a "Judas" as Ray.
In other words, not at all. They're both businessmen.
-
That's what I'm talking about!!
The Big Three did something that's NEVER been done before - in 2007-08. LeBron and crew tried it a few years later and lost to DAL.
Lots of GREAT memories from them.
Time to bury the grudges.
I want to see Ray, Paul and KG in those Big Three tournaments next.
(http://www.nba.com/media/celtics/wallpaper_finals2008_brotherhood16001200.jpg)
Boston is a BROTHERHOOD, indeed.
-
Good for Pierce. I'm glad to see that.
KG and Rondo might be tougher sells.
It is all about KG. The Ray-Rondo issues were overblown and mostly on Ray's side.
-
After Danny traded IT, I honestly don't hold any grudge against Ray and KD. And I'm in peace with what Lebron has done with Miami and Cavs.
In fact I'm happy they made the right decision for themselves.
The "it's a business" thingy is just over the limit.
There is no identity anymore.
Just random guys in your team.
-
I think the players should be the ones to get past it. I don't see a reason why fans need to.
ray left to go to the rival when we were both at the top. that crap don't fly.
I loved ray for the time he was here and hate him for his time in Miami.
-
It really is time to bury the hatchet...Geeze, Danny tried trading Ray Allen a bunch of times---No C's fan should hate on Ray.
We waited 22 years to finally win another Championship, now it's been almost another 10--Ray Allen was crucial to Banner 17-!
Because he deserve it, Ainge saw his juda nature and is proved right
Ainge is as much a "Judas" as Ray.
In other words, not at all. They're both businessmen.
Totally agree. They made decisions that were the best for their points of view. No reason for the hate.
-
I think the players should be the ones to get past it. I don't see a reason why fans need to.
ray left to go to the rival when we were both at the top. that crap don't fly.
I loved ray for the time he was here and hate him for his time in Miami.
This is my position as well. Free country, each person should be free to react the way they want. PP wants to patch things up because they happen to be at the same charity and he feels uncomfortable, that is his call. Dont tell fans how they should feel about their team and a player that they know betrayed their team. The very definition of fan defies rational process.
-
Interview with Ray Allen and his take on why he left Boston
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Y_AupMDR8Q
-
It really is time to bury the hatchet...Geeze, Danny tried trading Ray Allen a bunch of times---No C's fan should hate on Ray.
We waited 22 years to finally win another Championship, now it's been almost another 10--Ray Allen was crucial to Banner 17-!
Because he deserve it, Ainge saw his juda nature and is proved right
Ainge is as much a "Judas" as Ray.
In other words, not at all. They're both businessmen.
Judas to whom? To Ray? Sure.
But you know there's apples here, and some oranges there.
-
It really is time to bury the hatchet...Geeze, Danny tried trading Ray Allen a bunch of times---No C's fan should hate on Ray.
We waited 22 years to finally win another Championship, now it's been almost another 10--Ray Allen was crucial to Banner 17-!
Because he deserve it, Ainge saw his juda nature and is proved right
Ainge is as much a "Judas" as Ray.
In other words, not at all. They're both businessmen.
Judas to whom? To Ray? Sure.
But you know there's apples here, and some oranges there.
exactly. I hate the comparison of gm to player. The players are the face of the squad, the gm is a back office guy trying to make trades.
-
It really is time to bury the hatchet...Geeze, Danny tried trading Ray Allen a bunch of times---No C's fan should hate on Ray.
We waited 22 years to finally win another Championship, now it's been almost another 10--Ray Allen was crucial to Banner 17-!
Because he deserve it, Ainge saw his juda nature and is proved right
Ainge is as much a "Judas" as Ray.
In other words, not at all. They're both businessmen.
Judas to whom? To Ray? Sure.
But you know there's apples here, and some oranges there.
exactly. I hate the comparison of gm to player. The players are the face of the squad, the gm is a back office guy trying to make trades.
So?
Neither player no GM must show "loyalty".
Danny can trade anyone on the team at any time, and he's done so. Antoine, KG, Pierce, Perk, IT. It doesn't matter how much a player has given to a franchise, he's a commodity to be evaluated and potentially traded. Danny doesn't care about emotional bonds, either to players or fans.
Similarly, Ray is allowed to make a cold business decision. He doesn't owe an ounce of loyalty beyond his contractual obligations.
Neither is a "Judas". The guys who demand trades while still under contract? They're the traitors, because they walked out on their obligations. They signed a contract and refused to honor it in good faith. But free agents? Wherever they go, it's their right.
-
The guys who demand trades while still under contract? They're the traitors, because they walked out on their obligations. They signed a contract and refused to honor it in good faith.
Have you always felt this way or have you felt this way only since the Kyrie acquisition? Sincere question.
-
I have no personal feelings for Ray but I definitely will always have KG/Pierce/Rondo's backs... If those 3 wanted to keep the feud going then I'm on their side the whole way. Once they are ready to forgive then so aren't I.
-
It really is time to bury the hatchet...Geeze, Danny tried trading Ray Allen a bunch of times---No C's fan should hate on Ray.
We waited 22 years to finally win another Championship, now it's been almost another 10--Ray Allen was crucial to Banner 17-!
Because he deserve it, Ainge saw his juda nature and is proved right
Ainge is as much a "Judas" as Ray.
In other words, not at all. They're both businessmen.
Judas to whom? To Ray? Sure.
But you know there's apples here, and some oranges there.
exactly. I hate the comparison of gm to player. The players are the face of the squad, the gm is a back office guy trying to make trades.
So?
Neither player no GM must show "loyalty".
Danny can trade anyone on the team at any time, and he's done so. Antoine, KG, Pierce, Perk, IT. It doesn't matter how much a player has given to a franchise, he's a commodity to be evaluated and potentially traded. Danny doesn't care about emotional bonds, either to players or fans.
Similarly, Ray is allowed to make a cold business decision. He doesn't owe an ounce of loyalty beyond his contractual obligations.
Neither is a "Judas". The guys who demand trades while still under contract? They're the traitors, because they walked out on their obligations. They signed a contract and refused to honor it in good faith. But free agents? Wherever they go, it's their right.
Ray is 100% a Judas.
He took a smaller contract to play for a rival, and didn't have the nuts to tell his teammates.
Judas.
This Kyrie trade has got you trippen.
-
It really is time to bury the hatchet...Geeze, Danny tried trading Ray Allen a bunch of times---No C's fan should hate on Ray.
We waited 22 years to finally win another Championship, now it's been almost another 10--Ray Allen was crucial to Banner 17-!
Because he deserve it, Ainge saw his juda nature and is proved right
Ainge is as much a "Judas" as Ray.
In other words, not at all. They're both businessmen.
Judas to whom? To Ray? Sure.
But you know there's apples here, and some oranges there.
exactly. I hate the comparison of gm to player. The players are the face of the squad, the gm is a back office guy trying to make trades.
So?
Neither player no GM must show "loyalty".
Danny can trade anyone on the team at any time, and he's done so. Antoine, KG, Pierce, Perk, IT. It doesn't matter how much a player has given to a franchise, he's a commodity to be evaluated and potentially traded. Danny doesn't care about emotional bonds, either to players or fans.
Similarly, Ray is allowed to make a cold business decision. He doesn't owe an ounce of loyalty beyond his contractual obligations.
Neither is a "Judas". The guys who demand trades while still under contract? They're the traitors, because they walked out on their obligations. They signed a contract and refused to honor it in good faith. But free agents? Wherever they go, it's their right.
Ray is 100% a Judas.
He took a smaller contract to play for a rival, and didn't have the nuts to tell his teammates.
Judas.
This Kyrie trade has got you trippen.
1. Kyrie took less money than he was entitled to to go to a rival;
2. Kyrie refused to talk with his teammates about his trade demand; and
3. Kyrie refused to fulfill his contract, sticking it to fans and teammates in the process.
-
The guys who demand trades while still under contract? They're the traitors, because they walked out on their obligations. They signed a contract and refused to honor it in good faith.
Have you always felt this way or have you felt this way only since the Kyrie acquisition? Sincere question.
I'm sure I've had a hypocritical moment or two, but I think the only guy I've actively supported after demanding a trade is Alonzo Mourning. Did Barkley demand a trade? I liked him too.
Vince Carter, Carmelo, Starbury, Steve Francis, Dwight Howard... I'm just not a fan of most guys who don't honor contracts.
-
Since it's a business, I don't see why demanding a trade doesn't fall within the bounds of business options for players. The team can just refuse the demand and not trade the player. The player then either refuses to play or he plays. Or the team accepts the demand and makes the trade. Simple.
-
It really is time to bury the hatchet...Geeze, Danny tried trading Ray Allen a bunch of times---No C's fan should hate on Ray.
We waited 22 years to finally win another Championship, now it's been almost another 10--Ray Allen was crucial to Banner 17-!
Because he deserve it, Ainge saw his juda nature and is proved right
Ainge is as much a "Judas" as Ray.
In other words, not at all. They're both businessmen.
Is it good business to take less money to go somewhere else?
-
It really is time to bury the hatchet...Geeze, Danny tried trading Ray Allen a bunch of times---No C's fan should hate on Ray.
We waited 22 years to finally win another Championship, now it's been almost another 10--Ray Allen was crucial to Banner 17-!
Because he deserve it, Ainge saw his juda nature and is proved right
Ainge is as much a "Judas" as Ray.
In other words, not at all. They're both businessmen.
Totally agree. They made decisions that were the best for their points of view. No reason for the hate.
But they don't have to be friends either
-
Since it's a business, I don't see why demanding a trade doesn't fall within the bounds of business options for players. The team can just refuse the demand and not trade the player. The player then either refuses to play or he plays. Or the team accepts the demand and makes the trade. Simple.
Part of legitimate business is honoring contracts.
-
It really is time to bury the hatchet...Geeze, Danny tried trading Ray Allen a bunch of times---No C's fan should hate on Ray.
We waited 22 years to finally win another Championship, now it's been almost another 10--Ray Allen was crucial to Banner 17-!
Because he deserve it, Ainge saw his juda nature and is proved right
Ainge is as much a "Judas" as Ray.
In other words, not at all. They're both businessmen.
Is it good business to take less money to go somewhere else?
It can be, sure.
-
Without Ray no championship
Dont care about the post Celtic Ray tho
-
Since it's a business, I don't see why demanding a trade doesn't fall within the bounds of business options for players. The team can just refuse the demand and not trade the player. The player then either refuses to play or he plays. Or the team accepts the demand and makes the trade. Simple.
Part of legitimate business is honoring contracts.
It seems like your problem is with the league itself not being a "legitimate" business, then, because players demanding trades has long been incorporated into the way business is done in the NBA. If it were such a problem then the owners could have addressed it in a number of ways during CBA negotiations.
-
It really is time to bury the hatchet...Geeze, Danny tried trading Ray Allen a bunch of times---No C's fan should hate on Ray.
We waited 22 years to finally win another Championship, now it's been almost another 10--Ray Allen was crucial to Banner 17-!
Because he deserve it, Ainge saw his juda nature and is proved right
Ainge is as much a "Judas" as Ray.
In other words, not at all. They're both businessmen.
Judas to whom? To Ray? Sure.
But you know there's apples here, and some oranges there.
exactly. I hate the comparison of gm to player. The players are the face of the squad, the gm is a back office guy trying to make trades.
So?
Neither player no GM must show "loyalty".
Danny can trade anyone on the team at any time, and he's done so. Antoine, KG, Pierce, Perk, IT. It doesn't matter how much a player has given to a franchise, he's a commodity to be evaluated and potentially traded. Danny doesn't care about emotional bonds, either to players or fans.
Similarly, Ray is allowed to make a cold business decision. He doesn't owe an ounce of loyalty beyond his contractual obligations.
Neither is a "Judas". The guys who demand trades while still under contract? They're the traitors, because they walked out on their obligations. They signed a contract and refused to honor it in good faith. But free agents? Wherever they go, it's their right.
Ray is 100% a Judas.
He took a smaller contract to play for a rival, and didn't have the nuts to tell his teammates.
Judas.
This Kyrie trade has got you trippen.
1. Kyrie took less money than he was entitled to to go to a rival;
2. Kyrie refused to talk with his teammates about his trade demand; and
3. Kyrie refused to fulfill his contract, sticking it to fans and teammates in the process.
I guess that portion of it is fair, if I were a Cavs fan, I would hate Kyrie something bad.
I was mainly referring to you comparing Danny and Kyrie, as that is just not a good comparison at all.
But I don't get what you are getting with pointing that out. I don't expect NBA fans on the whole to see him as a Judas, but Celtics fans? He did us dirty, just like Kyrie did the Cavs dirty.
Doesn't make them bad people or anything, but it is what it is.
-
The guys who demand trades while still under contract? They're the traitors, because they walked out on their obligations. They signed a contract and refused to honor it in good faith.
Have you always felt this way or have you felt this way only since the Kyrie acquisition? Sincere question.
I'm sure I've had a hypocritical moment or two, but I think the only guy I've actively supported after demanding a trade is Alonzo Mourning. Did Barkley demand a trade? I liked him too.
Vince Carter, Carmelo, Starbury, Steve Francis, Dwight Howard... I'm just not a fan of most guys who don't honor contracts.
Other such players include Shaq, Kareem, Wilt...Chris Paul, Jason Kidd...plus a host of other players (like Ray Allen) whose demands (or "requests" if charitable) are handled so quietly we never hear about it.
-
It's entirely pointless to compare Ray and Kyrie for the simple fact that Ray was a Celtic and we had invested feelings in him.
What Kyrie did he did to the Cavs and why would we care at all what his relationships are with their players or what he did to them. He is a Celtic now. I never expected the Heat fans to think Ray was a traitor.
It's perfectly fine as a fan to shun Ray and accept Kyrie even though what they did was similar. It's not like I'm mad at my wife for breaking up with her last boyfriend. She's mine now. Kyrie is ours now.
-
It's perfectly fine as a fan to shun Ray and accept Kyrie even though what they did was similar. It's not like I'm mad at my wife for breaking up with her last boyfriend. She's mine now. Kyrie is ours now.
That's a top-shelf analogy. TP.
-
It really is time to bury the hatchet...Geeze, Danny tried trading Ray Allen a bunch of times---No C's fan should hate on Ray.
We waited 22 years to finally win another Championship, now it's been almost another 10--Ray Allen was crucial to Banner 17-!
Because he deserve it, Ainge saw his juda nature and is proved right
Ainge is as much a "Judas" as Ray.
In other words, not at all. They're both businessmen.
Judas to whom? To Ray? Sure.
But you know there's apples here, and some oranges there.
exactly. I hate the comparison of gm to player. The players are the face of the squad, the gm is a back office guy trying to make trades.
So?
Neither player no GM must show "loyalty".
Danny can trade anyone on the team at any time, and he's done so. Antoine, KG, Pierce, Perk, IT. It doesn't matter how much a player has given to a franchise, he's a commodity to be evaluated and potentially traded. Danny doesn't care about emotional bonds, either to players or fans.
Similarly, Ray is allowed to make a cold business decision. He doesn't owe an ounce of loyalty beyond his contractual obligations.
Neither is a "Judas". The guys who demand trades while still under contract? They're the traitors, because they walked out on their obligations. They signed a contract and refused to honor it in good faith. But free agents? Wherever they go, it's their right.
A player's job is to do everything they can to help a team win. So by quitting on his team and leaving town (be it for money, family reasons, whatever), a player is effectively turning his back on his job and his team for his own personal reasons.
A GM's job is to put the best possible roster on the floor so as to maximise his team's ability to win. By trading away an existing player for a better / more suitable player, he is doing his job.
That's the difference.
That's not to say that a player shouldn't have the right to leave and fulfil their personal wishes just outlining why the two scenarios are seen differently by fans. In one case, the player is turning his back on the team for the franchise it's fans, it's city. In the other scenario the GM is trying to make moves to put a better team on the court for the franchise, it's fans, it's city.
One of these moves benefits the team,/fans/city while the other dos not, so of course the fans are going to see them differently.
As a fan, this is how many will see it. When you are here, and you are playing through a shooting funk, or struggling with an injury, we still support you. We are still there for you. We are still here as your fans. That's loyalty. But when your situation on the team isn't perfect, you just get up and leave and bail on the fans - that's not loyalty.
The difference is that for a player, basketball is a job. It affects their personal life to a dramatic degree. For us as fans, much as we may like to believe otherwise, the success of our franchise really has very little (more likely no) tangible impact on our personal lives - so it's all a bit irrational.
-
It's perfectly fine as a fan to shun Ray and accept Kyrie even though what they did was similar. It's not like I'm mad at my wife for breaking up with her last boyfriend. She's mine now. Kyrie is ours now.
That's a top-shelf analogy. TP.
Actually, it completely misses the most important component (disloyalty) that Roy captured above.
More accurately, "I won't assume my girlfriend is going to cheat on me just because she cheated on her last boyfriend," which is obviously a dumb choice. Maybe it'll work out for Kyrie, though, given the silver spoon in his mouth.
-
It's perfectly fine as a fan to shun Ray and accept Kyrie even though what they did was similar. It's not like I'm mad at my wife for breaking up with her last boyfriend. She's mine now. Kyrie is ours now.
That's a top-shelf analogy. TP.
Actually, it completely misses the most important component (disloyalty) that Roy captured above.
More accurately, "I won't assume my girlfriend is going to cheat on me just because she cheated on her last boyfriend," which is obviously a dumb choice. Maybe it'll work out for Kyrie, though, given the silver spoon in his mouth.
What Kyrie did wasn't cheating though.
Cheating would be more the equivalent of what Lebron did when he left for Miami. He insisted to all the Heat fans and to the Heat front office that he was 100% loyal and devoted to them, while in the background he was secretly playing around with Bosh and Wade, plotting about how he was going to dump the Cavs and get with them in Miami. He's the man who just cheated on his wife, and then dumped her later down the line for the girl he was cheating with.
By comparison, Kyrie neve cheated on the Cavs. He was loyal to them, but he was starting to feel that the relationship was losing it's spark. Then when he started to see indications that he and the Cavs may not be aligned in their relationship goals. Then finally he found out the Cavs were secretly flirting with other guys in the background, which was pretty much the final straw - so at this point he decided to speak to them in private and respectfully tell them that he felt the relationship was no longer working for him, and he wanted to move on. It was a respectful breakup though.
On the case of Ray it was more like the Kyrie situation then the Lebron one (more a breakup rather than cheating), but instead of holding a respectful discussion with his GF about breaking up...Ray pretty much just left his woman out of nowhere, let her know via an SMS message, and then proceeded to post all over Facebook telling everybody he knew what a bad lover she was.
-
It's perfectly fine as a fan to shun Ray and accept Kyrie even though what they did was similar. It's not like I'm mad at my wife for breaking up with her last boyfriend. She's mine now. Kyrie is ours now.
That's a top-shelf analogy. TP.
Actually, it completely misses the most important component (disloyalty) that Roy captured above.
More accurately, "I won't assume my girlfriend is going to cheat on me just because she cheated on her last boyfriend," which is obviously a dumb choice. Maybe it'll work out for Kyrie, though, given the silver spoon in his mouth.
What Kyrie did wasn't cheating though.
Cheating would be more the equivalent of what Lebron did when he left for Miami. He insisted to all the Heat fans and to the Heat front office that he was 100% loyal and devoted to them, while in the background he was secretly speaking with Bosh and Wade, plotting about how he was going to join forces with them in Miami. He's the man who just cheated on his wife, and then dumped her later down the line,
By comparison, Kyrie neve cheated on the Cavs. He was loyal to them, but he was starting to feel that the relationship was losing it's spark. Then when he found out the Cavs were secretly flirting with other guys in the background, he decided to speak to them in private and tell them that he decided the relationship was no longer working for him, and he wanted to move on. It was a respectful breakup though.
On the case of Ray it was more like the Kyrie situation then the Lebron one (more a breakup rather than cheating), but instead of holding a respectful discussion with his GF about breaking up...Ray pretty much just left his woman out of nowhere, let her know via an SMS message, and then proceeded to post all over Facebook telling everybody he knew what a bad lover she was.
I'm not sure what I agree with, but TP for a great analogy on a sports blog.
-
It's perfectly fine as a fan to shun Ray and accept Kyrie even though what they did was similar. It's not like I'm mad at my wife for breaking up with her last boyfriend. She's mine now. Kyrie is ours now.
That's a top-shelf analogy. TP.
Actually, it completely misses the most important component (disloyalty) that Roy captured above.
More accurately, "I won't assume my girlfriend is going to cheat on me just because she cheated on her last boyfriend," which is obviously a dumb choice. Maybe it'll work out for Kyrie, though, given the silver spoon in his mouth.
Did you expect Heat fans to think Ray was a traitor? Do you expect Celtics fans to think Kyrie is a traitor?
No, both ideas are kind of silly. Ray didnt do anything to the Heat fans, and Kyrie didnt do anything to the Celtics fans.
To compare them in a way that "If you think this about Ray then you must think this also about Kyrie" is complete nonsense.
-
It's perfectly fine as a fan to shun Ray and accept Kyrie even though what they did was similar. It's not like I'm mad at my wife for breaking up with her last boyfriend. She's mine now. Kyrie is ours now.
That's a top-shelf analogy. TP.
Actually, it completely misses the most important component (disloyalty) that Roy captured above.
More accurately, "I won't assume my girlfriend is going to cheat on me just because she cheated on her last boyfriend," which is obviously a dumb choice. Maybe it'll work out for Kyrie, though, given the silver spoon in his mouth.
Did you expect Heat fans to think Ray was a traitor? Do you expect Celtics fans to think Kyrie is a traitor?
No, both ideas are kind of silly. Ray didnt do anything to the Heat fans, and Kyrie didnt do anything to the Celtics fans.
To compare them in a way that "If you think this about Ray then you must think this also about Kyrie" is complete nonsense.
Ray left on his own accord after being dangled in trade discussions. The way he left (with respect to his teammates, not Ainge; team; salary) was crummy, but it wasn't dirty.
"Kyrie didn't do anything to Celtics fans"... I don't know what you're referencing there. He threatened to not report to camp if his team didn't trade him to greener pastures -- he screwed over CLE fans, if they exist.
You strike me as the type that appreciates a winning franchise, but doesn't get too involved in the players on the team. Is that fair to say? Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
I just prefer to root for guys that are authentic, team-oriented, tough, and not full of crap. Forgive me for having such high standards.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y17cW31ESmg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y17cW31ESmg)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz5PpDFD8RQ&t=754s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz5PpDFD8RQ&t=754s)
-
It's perfectly fine as a fan to shun Ray and accept Kyrie even though what they did was similar. It's not like I'm mad at my wife for breaking up with her last boyfriend. She's mine now. Kyrie is ours now.
That's a top-shelf analogy. TP.
Actually, it completely misses the most important component (disloyalty) that Roy captured above.
More accurately, "I won't assume my girlfriend is going to cheat on me just because she cheated on her last boyfriend," which is obviously a dumb choice. Maybe it'll work out for Kyrie, though, given the silver spoon in his mouth.
But dat pass, tho ;) :laugh:.
-
It really is time to bury the hatchet...Geeze, Danny tried trading Ray Allen a bunch of times---No C's fan should hate on Ray.
We waited 22 years to finally win another Championship, now it's been almost another 10--Ray Allen was crucial to Banner 17-!
Because he deserve it, Ainge saw his juda nature and is proved right
Ainge is as much a "Judas" as Ray.
In other words, not at all. They're both businessmen.
Judas to whom? To Ray? Sure.
But you know there's apples here, and some oranges there.
exactly. I hate the comparison of gm to player. The players are the face of the squad, the gm is a back office guy trying to make trades.
So?
Neither player no GM must show "loyalty".
Danny can trade anyone on the team at any time, and he's done so. Antoine, KG, Pierce, Perk, IT. It doesn't matter how much a player has given to a franchise, he's a commodity to be evaluated and potentially traded. Danny doesn't care about emotional bonds, either to players or fans.
Similarly, Ray is allowed to make a cold business decision. He doesn't owe an ounce of loyalty beyond his contractual obligations.
Neither is a "Judas". The guys who demand trades while still under contract? They're the traitors, because they walked out on their obligations. They signed a contract and refused to honor it in good faith. But free agents? Wherever they go, it's their right.
Nothing you said here absolves Ray Allen from being a traitor to the Celtics fanbase. Nothing.
You can talk about "their right" about "honoring contracts", etc., etc. but none of that has anything to do with CHOOSING to go to your current closest rival. Nothing. And that by its lonesome, regardless of any context you want to apply to the situation, absolves Ray Allen from being a traitor to the Celtics fanbase.
-
I think the players should be the ones to get past it. I don't see a reason why fans need to.
ray left to go to the rival when we were both at the top. that crap don't fly.
I loved ray for the time he was here and hate him for his time in Miami.
Both at the top? Boston was done. It was over.
-
Since it's a business, I don't see why demanding a trade doesn't fall within the bounds of business options for players. The team can just refuse the demand and not trade the player. The player then either refuses to play or he plays. Or the team accepts the demand and makes the trade. Simple.
Part of legitimate business is honoring contracts.
That just isn't true. Sometimes the best business decision is breaking a contract. As long as you pay for the consequences it is a perfectly legitimate business practice. Similar to bankruptcy and any number of other tactics to avoid doing something legally.
-
Since it's a business, I don't see why demanding a trade doesn't fall within the bounds of business options for players. The team can just refuse the demand and not trade the player. The player then either refuses to play or he plays. Or the team accepts the demand and makes the trade. Simple.
Part of legitimate business is honoring contracts.
That just isn't true. Sometimes the best business decision is breaking a contract. As long as you pay for the consequences it is a perfectly legitimate business practice. Similar to bankruptcy and any number of other tactics to avoid doing something legally.
"Paying for the consequences" meaning damages, attorneys fees, loss of reputation, etc. In other words, the business version of a "Judas".
-
Since it's a business, I don't see why demanding a trade doesn't fall within the bounds of business options for players. The team can just refuse the demand and not trade the player. The player then either refuses to play or he plays. Or the team accepts the demand and makes the trade. Simple.
Part of legitimate business is honoring contracts.
That just isn't true. Sometimes the best business decision is breaking a contract. As long as you pay for the consequences it is a perfectly legitimate business practice. Similar to bankruptcy and any number of other tactics to avoid doing something legally.
"Paying for the consequences" meaning damages, attorneys fees, loss of reputation, etc. In other words, the business version of a "Judas".
Nope. It isn't a "traitor" to break a contract because a contract does not equal loyalty and there are actual consequences for breaking a contract that are in fact written into the contract. Whereas if the relationship is one of loyalty there are no such consequences. Just about the only situation where both a contract and loyalty exist is a marriage. But a marriage is the exception not the rule.
-
Since it's a business, I don't see why demanding a trade doesn't fall within the bounds of business options for players. The team can just refuse the demand and not trade the player. The player then either refuses to play or he plays. Or the team accepts the demand and makes the trade. Simple.
Part of legitimate business is honoring contracts.
That just isn't true. Sometimes the best business decision is breaking a contract. As long as you pay for the consequences it is a perfectly legitimate business practice. Similar to bankruptcy and any number of other tactics to avoid doing something legally.
"Paying for the consequences" meaning damages, attorneys fees, loss of reputation, etc. In other words, the business version of a "Judas".
Nope. It isn't a "traitor" to break a contract because a contract does not equal loyalty and there are actual consequences for breaking a contract that are in fact written into the contract. Whereas if the relationship is one of loyalty there are no such consequences. Just about the only situation where both a contract and loyalty exist is a marriage. But a marriage is the exception not the rule.
Wilful breach includes punitive damages in many jurisdictions. Punitive, as in punishment? Why? Because intentional breach of contract is regarded as a bad thing, and a violation of the covenant of good faith involved in every contract.
Aren't you an attorney who handles contracts regularly? You should know this stuff, and I expect that you do.
-
Since it's a business, I don't see why demanding a trade doesn't fall within the bounds of business options for players. The team can just refuse the demand and not trade the player. The player then either refuses to play or he plays. Or the team accepts the demand and makes the trade. Simple.
Part of legitimate business is honoring contracts.
That just isn't true. Sometimes the best business decision is breaking a contract. As long as you pay for the consequences it is a perfectly legitimate business practice. Similar to bankruptcy and any number of other tactics to avoid doing something legally.
"Paying for the consequences" meaning damages, attorneys fees, loss of reputation, etc. In other words, the business version of a "Judas".
Nope. It isn't a "traitor" to break a contract because a contract does not equal loyalty and there are actual consequences for breaking a contract that are in fact written into the contract. Whereas if the relationship is one of loyalty there are no such consequences. Just about the only situation where both a contract and loyalty exist is a marriage. But a marriage is the exception not the rule.
I have to respectfully disagree with Moranis on this one. There are lots of contracts that require loyalty. Those are the contracts that create fiduciary relationships (relationships of trust). Actually in California most if not all employment contracts create what is referred to as a covenant of good faith and fair dealing between the parties. Contracts are often broken, but to imply that contracts are made to be broken is not correct. Western civilization and commerce actually depend on people and organizations honoring their contracts otherwise the entire mercantile system will collapse.
-
Since it's a business, I don't see why demanding a trade doesn't fall within the bounds of business options for players. The team can just refuse the demand and not trade the player. The player then either refuses to play or he plays. Or the team accepts the demand and makes the trade. Simple.
Part of legitimate business is honoring contracts.
That just isn't true. Sometimes the best business decision is breaking a contract. As long as you pay for the consequences it is a perfectly legitimate business practice. Similar to bankruptcy and any number of other tactics to avoid doing something legally.
"Paying for the consequences" meaning damages, attorneys fees, loss of reputation, etc. In other words, the business version of a "Judas".
Nope. It isn't a "traitor" to break a contract because a contract does not equal loyalty and there are actual consequences for breaking a contract that are in fact written into the contract. Whereas if the relationship is one of loyalty there are no such consequences. Just about the only situation where both a contract and loyalty exist is a marriage. But a marriage is the exception not the rule.
Wilful breach includes punitive damages in many jurisdictions. Punitive, as in punishment? Why? Because intentional breach of contract is regarded as a bad thing, and a violation of the covenant of good faith involved in every contract.
Aren't you an attorney who handles contracts regularly? You should know this stuff, and I expect that you do.
Unless a player receives a no trade clause, his contract may be traded. There is no breach or breaking of contracts in the context of the NBA with respect to trades and this comparison doesn't make sense because of that.
-
Since it's a business, I don't see why demanding a trade doesn't fall within the bounds of business options for players. The team can just refuse the demand and not trade the player. The player then either refuses to play or he plays. Or the team accepts the demand and makes the trade. Simple.
Part of legitimate business is honoring contracts.
That just isn't true. Sometimes the best business decision is breaking a contract. As long as you pay for the consequences it is a perfectly legitimate business practice. Similar to bankruptcy and any number of other tactics to avoid doing something legally.
"Paying for the consequences" meaning damages, attorneys fees, loss of reputation, etc. In other words, the business version of a "Judas".
Nope. It isn't a "traitor" to break a contract because a contract does not equal loyalty and there are actual consequences for breaking a contract that are in fact written into the contract. Whereas if the relationship is one of loyalty there are no such consequences. Just about the only situation where both a contract and loyalty exist is a marriage. But a marriage is the exception not the rule.
Wilful breach includes punitive damages in many jurisdictions. Punitive, as in punishment? Why? Because intentional breach of contract is regarded as a bad thing, and a violation of the covenant of good faith involved in every contract.
Aren't you an attorney who handles contracts regularly? You should know this stuff, and I expect that you do.
Yeah, which is why I know that contracts are broken all of the time, sometimes intentionally, but more times unintentionally, but that is why contracts have default and breach provisions because it is foreseeable that a contract will in fact be broken. Sometimes it is the best thing for a business to do. And I have no idea what jurisdictions you practice in, but none of the ones I've ever come across allow for punitive damages for an intentional breach of contract. Many contracts provide for attorney fees on a breach, but that is nowhere near the same thing as punitive damages.
-
Since it's a business, I don't see why demanding a trade doesn't fall within the bounds of business options for players. The team can just refuse the demand and not trade the player. The player then either refuses to play or he plays. Or the team accepts the demand and makes the trade. Simple.
Part of legitimate business is honoring contracts.
That just isn't true. Sometimes the best business decision is breaking a contract. As long as you pay for the consequences it is a perfectly legitimate business practice. Similar to bankruptcy and any number of other tactics to avoid doing something legally.
"Paying for the consequences" meaning damages, attorneys fees, loss of reputation, etc. In other words, the business version of a "Judas".
Nope. It isn't a "traitor" to break a contract because a contract does not equal loyalty and there are actual consequences for breaking a contract that are in fact written into the contract. Whereas if the relationship is one of loyalty there are no such consequences. Just about the only situation where both a contract and loyalty exist is a marriage. But a marriage is the exception not the rule.
I have to respectfully disagree with Moranis on this one. There are lots of contracts that require loyalty. Those are the contracts that create fiduciary relationships (relationships of trust). Actually in California most if not all employment contracts create what is referred to as a covenant of good faith and fair dealing between the parties. Contracts are often broken, but to imply that contracts are made to be broken is not correct. Western civilization and commerce actually depend on people and organizations honoring their contracts otherwise the entire mercantile system will collapse.
those are not the same thing as loyalty. You are loyal to king or a political party. You are loyal to your friends. You are loyal to family. A contractual relationship, even one built on trust, such as with your lawyer, accountant, doctor, etc., are not ones of loyalty. There are outside legal (generally statutory) requirements in those contractual relationships that often outside of the actual contractual document, but it isn't loyalty. Employment contracts again aren't about loyalty, but like trust relationships have extra legal built in protections i.e. you can't fire someone for race, age, sex, etc. The covenant you talk of is about good faith, not breaching a contract. You can breach a contract, even intentionally, and not be liable for acting in bad faith or breaching the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. That is why contracts have breach provisions. That is why contracts have damages already built into them. Because people or entities breach contracts all the time, many times intentionally.
-
Since it's a business, I don't see why demanding a trade doesn't fall within the bounds of business options for players. The team can just refuse the demand and not trade the player. The player then either refuses to play or he plays. Or the team accepts the demand and makes the trade. Simple.
Part of legitimate business is honoring contracts.
That just isn't true. Sometimes the best business decision is breaking a contract. As long as you pay for the consequences it is a perfectly legitimate business practice. Similar to bankruptcy and any number of other tactics to avoid doing something legally.
"Paying for the consequences" meaning damages, attorneys fees, loss of reputation, etc. In other words, the business version of a "Judas".
Nope. It isn't a "traitor" to break a contract because a contract does not equal loyalty and there are actual consequences for breaking a contract that are in fact written into the contract. Whereas if the relationship is one of loyalty there are no such consequences. Just about the only situation where both a contract and loyalty exist is a marriage. But a marriage is the exception not the rule.
Wilful breach includes punitive damages in many jurisdictions. Punitive, as in punishment? Why? Because intentional breach of contract is regarded as a bad thing, and a violation of the covenant of good faith involved in every contract.
Aren't you an attorney who handles contracts regularly? You should know this stuff, and I expect that you do.
Unless a player receives a no trade clause, his contract may be traded. There is no breach or breaking of contracts in the context of the NBA with respect to trades and this comparison doesn't make sense because of that.
I don't think anybody is arguing that a contract can't be traded.
They're still contracts, though, and are legally enforceable. Refusing to perform under a contract is breach.
-
Since it's a business, I don't see why demanding a trade doesn't fall within the bounds of business options for players. The team can just refuse the demand and not trade the player. The player then either refuses to play or he plays. Or the team accepts the demand and makes the trade. Simple.
Part of legitimate business is honoring contracts.
That just isn't true. Sometimes the best business decision is breaking a contract. As long as you pay for the consequences it is a perfectly legitimate business practice. Similar to bankruptcy and any number of other tactics to avoid doing something legally.
"Paying for the consequences" meaning damages, attorneys fees, loss of reputation, etc. In other words, the business version of a "Judas".
Nope. It isn't a "traitor" to break a contract because a contract does not equal loyalty and there are actual consequences for breaking a contract that are in fact written into the contract. Whereas if the relationship is one of loyalty there are no such consequences. Just about the only situation where both a contract and loyalty exist is a marriage. But a marriage is the exception not the rule.
Wilful breach includes punitive damages in many jurisdictions. Punitive, as in punishment? Why? Because intentional breach of contract is regarded as a bad thing, and a violation of the covenant of good faith involved in every contract.
Aren't you an attorney who handles contracts regularly? You should know this stuff, and I expect that you do.
Yeah, which is why I know that contracts are broken all of the time, sometimes intentionally, but more times unintentionally, but that is why contracts have default and breach provisions because it is foreseeable that a contract will in fact be broken. Sometimes it is the best thing for a business to do. And I have no idea what jurisdictions you practice in, but none of the ones I've ever come across allow for punitive damages for an intentional breach of contract. Many contracts provide for attorney fees on a breach, but that is nowhere near the same thing as punitive damages.
Delaware allows punitive damages for wilful breach, for instance. I'm sure you're aware of why Delaware is relevant for corporate contracts?
-
Since it's a business, I don't see why demanding a trade doesn't fall within the bounds of business options for players. The team can just refuse the demand and not trade the player. The player then either refuses to play or he plays. Or the team accepts the demand and makes the trade. Simple.
Part of legitimate business is honoring contracts.
That just isn't true. Sometimes the best business decision is breaking a contract. As long as you pay for the consequences it is a perfectly legitimate business practice. Similar to bankruptcy and any number of other tactics to avoid doing something legally.
"Paying for the consequences" meaning damages, attorneys fees, loss of reputation, etc. In other words, the business version of a "Judas".
Nope. It isn't a "traitor" to break a contract because a contract does not equal loyalty and there are actual consequences for breaking a contract that are in fact written into the contract. Whereas if the relationship is one of loyalty there are no such consequences. Just about the only situation where both a contract and loyalty exist is a marriage. But a marriage is the exception not the rule.
Wilful breach includes punitive damages in many jurisdictions. Punitive, as in punishment? Why? Because intentional breach of contract is regarded as a bad thing, and a violation of the covenant of good faith involved in every contract.
Aren't you an attorney who handles contracts regularly? You should know this stuff, and I expect that you do.
Yeah, which is why I know that contracts are broken all of the time, sometimes intentionally, but more times unintentionally, but that is why contracts have default and breach provisions because it is foreseeable that a contract will in fact be broken. Sometimes it is the best thing for a business to do. And I have no idea what jurisdictions you practice in, but none of the ones I've ever come across allow for punitive damages for an intentional breach of contract. Many contracts provide for attorney fees on a breach, but that is nowhere near the same thing as punitive damages.
Delaware allows punitive damages for wilful breach, for instance. I'm sure you're aware of why Delaware is relevant for corporate contracts?
http://courts.delaware.gov/opinions/download.aspx?ID=163480
"In general, a plaintiff cannot recover punitive damages for breach of contract unless the conduct also amounts independently to a tort. In Pressman, the Delaware Supreme Court held that breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, in an employment relationship, was not an exception to the rule against punitive damages in breach of contract cases. Here, Landry has alleged only (1) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (2) breach of contract. Landry has not alleged any conduct by his employer, such as conversion, that would amount independently to a tort. Accordingly, punitive damages would not be available for any misconduct that could be found by a jury."
In other words, only if the breach of contract is so egregious that it independently rises to the level of an intentional tort for which punitive damages could be awarded (such as conversion), will a breach of contract allow for the recovery of punitive damages. A breach of contract, even if intentional, does not afford punitive damages except in those rare circumstances that create a tort, even in the great state of Delaware.
-
Jackie MacMullan, on the Lowe post yesterday, said she's not surprised to see Pierce trying to bury the hatchet because Pierce is, by far, the most reasonable of the 4 (KG and Rondo, being the other two).
She also says she doesn't think the Allen/Rondo thing is likely to ever be fully resolved because that beef included "on the court and off the court stuff" but she didn't feel like it was her place to go into that stuff in depth. She also mentions that whatever beef there is among the 4 of them isn't just about Ray leaving for Miami.