Plus, as has already been mentioned, Ray is worth more right now, as he has the expiring contract...
This is a huge misconception, imo.
If you make a trade, you´re looking to win the trade, which simply means you get more value in return than you give up. It is correct that Ray (and his contract) has more value, but can we get more value in return?
Ray Allen has value as one of the best wingmen in the league and as an expiring contract.
Paul Pierce (only) has value as one of the best wingmen in the league.
Of course, the term "value" is relative, since it completely depends on what you want to accomplish, and we have absolutely no clue what Ainge´s masterplan looks like.
Additionally, if you trade Ray, you´re only using one half of his value. The receiving team will most likely either look for an elite wingman
or an expiring contract, not both. Ray´s expiring contract only means more possibilities for trades, not better trades in general.
I say if we trade Pierce, we could get more value in return than we give up (not counting the intangibles).
Let`s say we trade Pierce for a young player, a Draft Pick in 2010 and a big expiring contract. To Utah, for example, who have the Knicks` 2010, or the Clippers, who have the Wolves 2010 pick. We´d have a team of KG, Ray, Rondo, Perk, a high Draft Pick in an allegedly stacked Draft, and a boatload of capspace for the summer of 2010.
Tell me we´re not "the" top destination for a young superstar who wants to win a ring.
Initially, I wanted the Celtics to stay away from "the summer of 2010", and loot teams that want to shed salary, but I´m not so sure about that anymore.
Anyway, if I was Danny Ainge, I wouldn´t trade Pierce, either (because I do count the intangibles).