Herald on Danny playing hardball

[CoachBo]

"But from talking to people around the league, the feeling is that Ainge’s inner drive may have cost him. To be fair, this is obviously coming from execs who were unable to get something done with the Celtics president of basketball operations, but some think he may have overplayed his hand.

We’re told that, beyond just being prepared and having strong comebacks to different versions of trades, Ainge would move the finish line while one area was being explored. It was said he was looking for a clear kill, rather than simply a deal that would be good for both sides.

“It makes you wary of doing business with Boston, because you get the feeling they’re always trying to put one over on you,” said one source. “I’m sure that’s not always the case, but it can make things hard.”

We repeat that such comments are coming from a few veteran NBA people who are also quite competitive in their own right. Their statements should thus be viewed in that perspective.

And without knowing the specifics on how certain negotiations proceeded (you’re almost always going to get different accounts from the two parties), it’s impossible to judge who’s correct -- or closer to it.

What’s apparent is that Danny Ainge didn’t find an available trade that he liked, and he decided that the possibility of other moves this summer and next year outweighed what was on the table."

Freaking TP to you for this find, man. That's what some of us have been arguing on here for the last year or so, or at least since the trade deadline.

Wilbon was even talking about it on PTI today. You don't have to fleece the opposing team on every trade. There's a difference between losing a trade and making a good deal for both sides, and further there's a difference between making a good deal for both sides and fleecing another team. Danny ALWAYS expects to fleece another team. His expectations are way too high to pan out on every single trade.

I know Danny values flexibility and the possible other moves we might make, but possibilities and flexibility is what we've had for three years now and we're still without a game-changing star.

Can't imagine who would have been arguing that. LOL.

Ego is an ugly thing.

Especially when it's unjustified.

[kozlodoev]

We’re told that, beyond just being prepared and having strong comebacks to different versions of trades, Ainge would move the finish line while one area was being explored. It was said he was looking for a clear kill, rather than simply a deal that would be good for both sides.

I've got no idea what this means, and without more specific examples it's just seems like sour grapes by someone who couldn't get a deal done.

[Csfan1984]

Well Wyc did say negotiations really weren't close with any teams for a star player. And some dealings were just way off even in minor deals. DA also said the same. Some conversations were just one phone call.

I am thinking teams are getting tired of the DA low balling. Now they use the C's only to deal their picks to in efforts to get players or cap space instead of the other way around.

[Celtics18]

"But from talking to people around the league, the feeling is that Ainge’s inner drive may have cost him. To be fair, this is obviously coming from execs who were unable to get something done with the Celtics president of basketball operations, but some think he may have overplayed his hand.

We’re told that, beyond just being prepared and having strong comebacks to different versions of trades, Ainge would move the finish line while one area was being explored. It was said he was looking for a clear kill, rather than simply a deal that would be good for both sides.

“It makes you wary of doing business with Boston, because you get the feeling they’re always trying to put one over on you,” said one source. “I’m sure that’s not always the case, but it can make things hard.”

We repeat that such comments are coming from a few veteran NBA people who are also quite competitive in their own right. Their statements should thus be viewed in that perspective.

And without knowing the specifics on how certain negotiations proceeded (you’re almost always going to get different accounts from the two parties), it’s impossible to judge who’s correct -- or closer to it.

What’s apparent is that Danny Ainge didn’t find an available trade that he liked, and he decided that the possibility of other moves this summer and next year outweighed what was on the table."

Freaking TP to you for this find, man. That's what some of us have been arguing on here for the last year or so, or at least since the trade deadline.

Wilbon was even talking about it on PTI today. You don't have to fleece the opposing team on every trade. There's a difference between losing a trade and making a good deal for both sides, and further there's a difference between making a good deal for both sides and fleecing another team. Danny ALWAYS expects to fleece another team. His expectations are way too high to pan out on every single trade.

I know Danny values flexibility and the possible other moves we might make, but possibilities and flexibility is what we've had for three years now and we're still without a game-changing star.

Honest question; do you believe that either Nerlens Noel or Jimmy Butler would constitute that "game-changing star"?

[Fan from VT]

Yeah, this is a ridiculous concept. The theory is you "tank" a couple trades so people will be willing to deal with you? Or you dont try to win trades? Whats the point then? You trade to try to make your team better, and when you dont like a trade, dont do it.

And yes, all teams like their own assets more, so a lot of trades probably dont get done because both sides think they are getting fleeced by giving up their guys.

The KG and Pierce deal was great for the Cs, but thats with hindsight. A lot of smart people thought it was a legit Neta Win Now / Boston Rebuild deal, but the Nets collapsed and pierce/kg dropped off faster than billy king (and many others) predicted. That was pribably a hard deal to make from Ainge's persoective; giving up the chance for pierce to retire as a one team huy, giving the nets a seeming legit shot at contention, etc. Ultimately comes down to Billy King getting exactly what he wanted, just doing a bad job scouting for what he wanted.

The Rondo trade was not a fleecing at the time; he olayed pretty good last year. He was just an awful fit on dallas, so it seems like dallas lost the trade big time. But thats also on dallas; a lot of people thought hed be a bad fit there, and seems like the coach and gm werent on the same page.

I dont remember people being amazed at turning perk into jeff green. Or trading jeff green for a medium pick.


This seems like sour grapes from other gms because danny wouldnt give them what they wanted. Tough. If Danny wanted a target, he would give what he thought was worth it to get it done. I distinctly remember many people, not just c's fans, being horrified at overpaying with the #5, wally, and west for injured over the hill 1 dimensional ray allen, as well as being horrified that we had to give up Big Al AND Getald Green AND other stuff for over the hill KG, and some smart people legitimately thinking we were mortgaging a major part of our future for a 3 year max window with a bench that might be too depleted to be competitive in year 1 especially.


Ithink its more likely gms are angry because they couldnt coerce danny into a deal that was a win for them, just like danny couldnt coerce them into a deal that was a win for him. I also wonder if there is some gamesmanship going on, trying to use media and influence to "guilt" or "bully" or " peer pressure" danny into making less optimal deals or to maybe try to get him fired by publicly leaking that he is not doing his job well.


I just find it generally ridiculous when people get "angry" that someone wont do a trade. Dude, that is their assett and they dont like what you are offering! Change your offer or move on!

[LooseCannon]

No one thought the Brooklyn picks would be good.

I thought there was a reasonable chance they would be good.

[jpotter33]

There's a lot of ridiculousness here today.  A lot.

1) It's been said for awhile that we need to start consolidating assets.  And yet, the supposed offer that has many riled up is one in which we were getting four things for one thing.  If we were giving away just a single thing, and it was a fair trade, then that means our one thing was the best asset.  And that would have been the opposite of consolidation, and therefore the opposite of what the majority of this forum has been demanding for months.

2) If our pick was the best asset, then maybe Noel isn't quite the hot stuff some here think he is.  Another rumored offer was Teague for Noel.  That didn't happen either -- instead Teague went for pick #12.  The Teague-for-Noel rumor also was accompanied by sub-rumors that Atlanta needed something extra in the deal.  In that case, since Teague ended up going for #12, we can determine that Atlanta values Noel at less than the #12 pick.

3) Intransigence is a 2-way street.  This article suggests that Danny was asking for too much.  However, Philly didn't make a trade last night either.  They still have their three bigs who can't play together, and they just drafted a fourth who might not be able to play with any of them either.  In addition to the Teague rumors, and the Celtics rumors, there were also rumors that they'd been calling most of the league to make a trade.  And again, none was made.  Is Danny tough to trade with? Sure.  But based on their lack of success, it seems like Philly was also having a tough time finding common ground.

4) Would you rather have Danny Ainge, who's tough to deal with, or Billy King, who gets deals done?  GMs who are easy to trade with are easy for a reason.  Billy King was easy.  I don't want Billy King.

You know I highly respect your opinions, Saltlover, but there's a couple of flaws in your logic here.

Your argument rests on faulty semantics. You're utilizing the word consolidating as necessarily involving multiple lesser things being transferred into one better thing. But it actually is less specific than that - "make (something) physically stronger or more solid; combine (a number of things) into a single more effective or coherent whole."

So while your definition is definitely within the confines of the concept of consolidation, the concept itself is larger and more complex than that. As long as you are making your whole singular unit (team) more effective and coherent, you're still consolidating assets. For example, if two teams separately had two franchise cornerstones apiece at the same position (say PG and C), wouldn't it be an example of consolidation to swap a PG for a C with the other team and make a "more effective or coherent whole?" Yes, I don't think that's objectionable.

So you obviously see where I'm going with this - there's definitely an argument that due to Noel's A) fit, B) the fact that he would shore up a position long-term for us, and C) the fact that he's legitimately one of the best options that we have for a long-term center (DMC not available, etc.), and D) the fact that Brown doesn't really make us a "more effective or coherent whole" by still leaving us wide open at the 4 and 5 and playing a general position that we already have covered, it would still be us consolidating assets and making a "more effective or coherent whole" by trading the pick for Noel and Covington. Since it's very far from a foregone conclusion that Brown will be better than Noel or even an above average player in this league, there's definitely a reasonable argument to be made that Noel and Covington for the third pick is as much consolidation as anything.

Also, as for number four, that's a bifurcation fallacy. There are many, many ways for Danny to be in between the two given options. That's all we're asking. Nobody's asking him to be like King and make deals for the hell of it. We just don't want him to play hardball too much and continue this reputation around the league of being hard to deal with due to his "hardballing" ways.

I can understand why people would rather have the third pick than the Philly package, which is central to my point - it wasn't a fleecing and is close to a fair trade. Thus, you're naturally going to have people on both sides of the issue. If Danny thinks Brown will be better long-term, then I'm fine with it. This critique of him is more general in nature than with this Noel deal in particular. The fact of the matter is, this isn't the first report of this kind with Danny, and they've been intensified the last two trade cycles (the trade deadline and the draft).

Sure, maybe some of us are a little too hard on Danny, but the Ainge apologists out there are also giving Danny way too much lee-way in this. We're going on year three of the fireworks talk that has turned out more like sparklers. Eventually, they have to be held accountable, because even if it takes two to tango, others are out there making deals and it's Danny's fault that no one is wanting to "tango" with him anymore.

[jpotter33]

"But from talking to people around the league, the feeling is that Ainge’s inner drive may have cost him. To be fair, this is obviously coming from execs who were unable to get something done with the Celtics president of basketball operations, but some think he may have overplayed his hand.

We’re told that, beyond just being prepared and having strong comebacks to different versions of trades, Ainge would move the finish line while one area was being explored. It was said he was looking for a clear kill, rather than simply a deal that would be good for both sides.

“It makes you wary of doing business with Boston, because you get the feeling they’re always trying to put one over on you,” said one source. “I’m sure that’s not always the case, but it can make things hard.”

We repeat that such comments are coming from a few veteran NBA people who are also quite competitive in their own right. Their statements should thus be viewed in that perspective.

And without knowing the specifics on how certain negotiations proceeded (you’re almost always going to get different accounts from the two parties), it’s impossible to judge who’s correct -- or closer to it.

What’s apparent is that Danny Ainge didn’t find an available trade that he liked, and he decided that the possibility of other moves this summer and next year outweighed what was on the table."

Freaking TP to you for this find, man. That's what some of us have been arguing on here for the last year or so, or at least since the trade deadline.

Wilbon was even talking about it on PTI today. You don't have to fleece the opposing team on every trade. There's a difference between losing a trade and making a good deal for both sides, and further there's a difference between making a good deal for both sides and fleecing another team. Danny ALWAYS expects to fleece another team. His expectations are way too high to pan out on every single trade.

I know Danny values flexibility and the possible other moves we might make, but possibilities and flexibility is what we've had for three years now and we're still without a game-changing star.

Honest question; do you believe that either Nerlens Noel or Jimmy Butler would constitute that "game-changing star"?

Noel is the type of high-end role-player that you need surrounding stars to win championships. He's the same mold as the Tyson Chandler, Tristan Thompson, and Kendrick Perkins (2008-2010) type players. I do think he has a ceiling that could land him in an All-Star game, similar to someone like DJ, but he's certainly not a game-changing star.

I think Butler is a game-changing star, but he's certainly not enough on his own to make us a contender.

[jpotter33]

Yeah, this is a ridiculous concept. The theory is you "tank" a couple trades so people will be willing to deal with you? Or you dont try to win trades? Whats the point then? You trade to try to make your team better, and when you dont like a trade, dont do it.

And yes, all teams like their own assets more, so a lot of trades probably dont get done because both sides think they are getting fleeced by giving up their guys.

The KG and Pierce deal was great for the Cs, but thats with hindsight. A lot of smart people thought it was a legit Neta Win Now / Boston Rebuild deal, but the Nets collapsed and pierce/kg dropped off faster than billy king (and many others) predicted. That was pribably a hard deal to make from Ainge's persoective; giving up the chance for pierce to retire as a one team huy, giving the nets a seeming legit shot at contention, etc. Ultimately comes down to Billy King getting exactly what he wanted, just doing a bad job scouting for what he wanted.

The Rondo trade was not a fleecing at the time; he olayed pretty good last year. He was just an awful fit on dallas, so it seems like dallas lost the trade big time. But thats also on dallas; a lot of people thought hed be a bad fit there, and seems like the coach and gm werent on the same page.

I dont remember people being amazed at turning perk into jeff green. Or trading jeff green for a medium pick.


This seems like sour grapes from other gms because danny wouldnt give them what they wanted. Tough. If Danny wanted a target, he would give what he thought was worth it to get it done. I distinctly remember many people, not just c's fans, being horrified at overpaying with the #5, wally, and west for injured over the hill 1 dimensional ray allen, as well as being horrified that we had to give up Big Al AND Getald Green AND other stuff for over the hill KG, and some smart people legitimately thinking we were mortgaging a major part of our future for a 3 year max window with a bench that might be too depleted to be competitive in year 1 especially.


Ithink its more likely gms are angry because they couldnt coerce danny into a deal that was a win for them, just like danny couldnt coerce them into a deal that was a win for him. I also wonder if there is some gamesmanship going on, trying to use media and influence to "guilt" or "bully" or " peer pressure" danny into making less optimal deals or to maybe try to get him fired by publicly leaking that he is not doing his job well.


I just find it generally ridiculous when people get "angry" that someone wont do a trade. Dude, that is their assett and they dont like what you are offering! Change your offer or move on!

I stopped reading right here, because you're obviously misunderstanding the argument if you think anyone has said we should "tank" trades.

[Bobshot]

I believe the stuff about Ainge driving too hard a bargain.

I also believe he's a crafty guy, a real Celtic, who knows his stuff. After all, he made some pretty good draft picks last night, though I was disappointed he didn't keep Deyonte Davis. A young kid who he can jump--which is more than you can say for the other stiffs he has up front.

Clearly, he opted for guys with mature bodies. Not those 19 yo skinflints who can dunk. OK. I'll buy that.

But Noel? heck, if he got Noel, the media would be talking about winning the division this morning. That was not smart.

[Ogaju]

This is all revisionist history. So Danny Ainge had some trades that worked out for him. No one mentions that when those trades were made they did not look stellar for Celtics.

We sent two hall of famers to Brooklyn for a bunch of picks and Gerald Wallace. That Wallace contract was an albatross on this team for almost four years. No one talks about that. Just because Ainge lucked out a couple of times, and was shrewd in scouting Crowder and IT, does not mean he has to gift his assets to the likes of Philadelphia.

[danglertx]

Ainge can't be too tough to trade with, it seems like he makes a lot of trades.

[CelticSooner]

No one thought the Brooklyn picks would be good.

I thought there was a reasonable chance they would be good.

So did I. Still can't believe Ainge got what he did. Pierce still had some game but KG was done. That was pretty certain his last year in green.

[jpotter33]

Tom Moore
24m24 minutes ago
Tom Moore ‏@tmoore76ers
"One source heard Celts supposedly wanted Noel & Lakers pick for No. 3"

Take it for what you will, but that's certainly a pretty big haul to demand for the number three pick in a two-man draft, depending upon how bad you think the Lakers will be next year. That'd be Danny basically demanding Noel and the Lakers pick for a 22 year old rookie in Dunn. I'm pretty high on Noel and less on Dunn, but for players the same age with one having two years of NBA experience vs. 0 with the other, that's a pretty big haul to demand, even with the contract situation.

[BitterJim]

So, GMs not named Danny Ainge always tell the truth about why deals didn't get made, but everything Ainge says is just covering up for... incompetence? Over compensation?

The entire argument just seems like confirmation bias.  If you step back and look at all of the info, it just turns into "Danny is a GM that usually wins trades". He makes enough trades that GMs being afraid of him seems unlikely

Edit: Heck, McDunough knows Ainge best of all GMs, and should have the best idea of his attitude about trades, but still makes deals with him (and don't say "it's just because they're friends!" GMs don't keep their jobs by being nice to their friends)