Is Collusion the right word to describe what's going on in LA with AD ?

[trojanfan12]

I think you're trying to have it both ways here... unless you mean something by "cold blooded" that is substantially different than how I would use that phrase.

To me, cold blooded has a distinct negative connotation. It implies the party that was cold blooded did something wrong.

So you're saying in the same breath that the C's were both right and wrong... which is mush.

It's not mush though.

The Celtics were both right and wrong.

From an emotional/loyalty point of view, what they did was wrong. The guy broke himself trying to carry that team as far as he could. You said yourself that, as a fan, you had mixed feelings about it.

But, from a basketball perspective, it was absolutely the right move. The Celtics are trying to build a championship team and moving IT brought them closer to that goal.

I'm sure Ainge had mixed feelings about it too. He knows what IT did for the team and what the optics were going to look like (even among Celtics fans). But he had to do what was best for the long term, regardless of how bad it looked in the short term.

 

[trojanfan12]

AD can say or do anything he wants, but he's goit two years left on his present contract after this year and the pelicans own his ass.

He has a player option after next season, so no, the Pelicans don't own his ass for 2 years after this one. They own his ass for the rest of this season and next (assuming they don't trade him.).

 

[trojanfan12]

If LeFailure is involved there will automatically be collusion involved. Its been going on since 2010 historically with "The Decision" . This time its working against the washed up Bum however and backfiring on his HGH Mug

You realize that players can't collude, right?

 

[Rockinkuwait]

Again, C's started out 10-10. Even if we want to put a strong focus on regular season stuff... (not necessarily a good policy in the NBA)... it's not as bad as you or other media talking heads make it out to be. The Celtics have been playing pretty well since their lackluster start.

At the beginning of the season, both Hayward and Jaylen Brown were playing poorly. Since then, Jaylen Brown has been playing well... and that's made a huge difference...

... this C's team now is clearly different than the one that started 10-10.

Hayward is definitely a concern. They're giving him minutes in the regular season... hoping he'll come around. If he doesn't... his minutes will almost certainly get cut in the post-season... and the C's will be that much better when it counts.

No we are talking about why they would be involved in trade rumors. When most picked them to be taking the division with their additions, and a home friendly schedule so far, they are tied for 5th, which is why people are including them in deals.

I get it. The Celtics started with 9 of their first 13 on the road and struggled, losing a stretch of 6 of 8 on the road and some think that's changed and the other 7 of 8 on the road they lost before this home stretch at the end of December was just another blip. And yes, right now they are back on a long home stretch where they looked really good again.

That 10-10 start was rough with so many road games. And yes they are better than then. Heck based on their season home/away records they should have won 11.4 games, so a tad slower than you'd expect and should have been around 11-9 instead of 10-10. Basically that Kyrie layup vs. the Pacers away from where they should have been.

But now, 20 of their last 33 are on the road again. A tougher road stretch than the start of the year when they were .500. It will be interesting to see if they really can turn things around where they've struggled all year and win on the road and push for getting a top 2 seed or if that road stretch keep them as a 5 seed. That big western road trip will be neat to see how they do.

Either way, when talking about trade rumors, my point remains. You have to admit that isn't what most people thought we'd be looking at. I sure didn't think the story for the Celtics 2/3 of the way through the year would be if they could turn their road woes around going into the toughest part of their schedule to move up out of that tie for 5th.

 

[Gman]

It's not mush though.

The Celtics were both right and wrong.

From an emotional/loyalty point of view, what they did was wrong. The guy broke himself trying to carry that team as far as he could. You said yourself that, as a fan, you had mixed feelings about it.

But, from a basketball perspective, it was absolutely the right move. The Celtics are trying to build a championship team and moving IT brought them closer to that goal.

I'm sure Ainge had mixed feelings about it too. He knows what IT did for the team and what the optics were going to look like (even among Celtics fans). But he had to do what was best for the long term, regardless of how bad it looked in the short term.

I'd argue tht if we have a proper conception of what the NBA is, though... a business... what the C's did is not "both right and wrong"... and suggesting it is is most definitely mush.

That doesn't mean that there isn't a right way of running a business and a wrong way... and that part of that right way includes respect, fairness, communication and care/concern.

But it doesn't mean loyalty at the expense of the health of the franchise and competing for a championship.

IT wanted the "Brinks truck backed up"... that almost certainly would have been a bad move for the franchise. The C's aren't running a charity.

Everything we know about the situation tells us that the C's handled their business well... including being respectful towards and communicating with IT. Heck, IT even wanted to rejoin our organization the very next season.

 

[Gman]

No we are talking about why they would be involved in trade rumors. When most picked them to be taking the division with their additions, and a home friendly schedule so far, they are tied for 5th, which is why people are including them in deals.

I get it. The Celtics started with 9 of their first 13 on the road and struggled, losing a stretch of 6 of 8 on the road and some think that's changed and the other 7 of 8 on the road they lost before this home stretch at the end of December was just another blip. And yes, right now they are back on a long home stretch where they looked really good again.

That 10-10 start was rough with so many road games. And yes they are better than then. Heck based on their season home/away records they should have won 11.4 games, so a tad slower than you'd expect and should have been around 11-9 instead of 10-10. Basically that Kyrie layup vs. the Pacers away from where they should have been.

But now, 20 of their last 33 are on the road again. A tougher road stretch than the start of the year when they were .500. It will be interesting to see if they really can turn things around where they've struggled all year and win on the road and push for getting a top 2 seed or if that road stretch keep them as a 5 seed. That big western road trip will be neat to see how they do.

Either way, when talking about trade rumors, my point remains. You have to admit that isn't what most people thought we'd be looking at. I sure didn't think the story for the Celtics 2/3 of the way through the year would be if they could turn their road woes around going into the toughest part of their schedule to move up out of that tie for 5th.

I stand by what I said earlier with regards to a huge focus on the regular season. Not always where focus should be focused in the NBA.

If you want to talk trade rumors and why the C's are attached... you need to consider the fact that Boston has been attached to just about each and every trade rumor for 4 or 5 years now. This isn't a new phenomenon.

The answer for this isn't mysterious: the C's have had for that length of time the greatest amount of trade assets in the NBA... anyone looking to drive up the price or create a bidding war would naturally leak "Boston interest" into the mix.

 

[trojanfan12]

I'd argue tht if we have a proper conception of what the NBA is, though... a business... what the C's did is not "both right and wrong"... and suggesting it is is most definitely mush.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

But let me clarify a little.

From an emotional/loyalty point of view...what the Celtics did was wrong. Even Celtics fans were uncomfortable with it given what IT did for them.

But, the NBA is a business and you can't run it that way. So, despite how it may have looked from an emotional point of view, it was 100% the right move for the long term health of the business.

So, not mush, imo.

For comparison, look at the Lakers and Kobe after Kobe blew out his Achilles.

From an emotional/loyalty point of view, giving him that final 2 year contract was the right thing to do. The majority of Lakers fans (myself included) agreed with the decision even though we knew it was going to delay the rebuild. But considering what he did for the organization, it felt like the right thing to do.

From a basketball perspective though, it was absolutely the wrong thing to do. The fact that having him on the roster meant increased ticket sales helped ease the pain a little. But from a long term basketball/business decision, it was the wrong move.

 

[Gman]

We'll have to agree to disagree.

But let me clarify a little.

From an emotional/loyalty point of view...what the Celtics did was wrong. Even Celtics fans were uncomfortable with it given what IT did for them.

But, the NBA is a business and you can't run it that way. So, despite how it may have looked from an emotional point of view, it was 100% the right move for the long term health of the business.

So, not mush, imo.

For comparison, look at the Lakers and Kobe after Kobe blew out his Achilles.

From an emotional/loyalty point of view, giving him that final 2 year contract was the right thing to do. The majority of Lakers fans (myself included) agreed with the decision even though we knew it was going to delay the rebuild. But considering what he did for the organization, it felt like the right thing to do.

From a basketball perspective though, it was absolutely the wrong thing to do. The fact that having him on the roster meant increased ticket sales helped ease the pain a little. But from a long term basketball/business decision, it was the wrong move.

Fair enough, with regards to agree to disagree.

To me, though, there's no wiggle room on this... the C's handled their matter right (period) and the Lakers handled their matter wrong (period).

For the plain reason that the NBA is a business... the extent to with you get "emotional" is the extent to which you are wrong (period).

JMO, and keeping in mind what I said earlier about the right way to run a business including traits such as consideration and communication.

 

[trojanfan12]

Fair enough, with regards to agree to disagree.

To me, though, there's no wiggle room on this... the C's handled their matter right (period) and the Lakers handled their matter wrong (period).

For the plain reason that the NBA is a business... the extent to with you get "emotional" is the extent to which you are wrong (period).

JMO, and keeping in mind what I said earlier about the right way to run a business including traits such as consideration and communication.

I understand your point and I agree that from a pure business perspective the Lakers handled it wrong and the Celtics didn't.

But in the case of basketball players, these are actual people and the fans are people and everyone gets emotionally involved to some level. Because of that, emotions can effect the business. That's why coaches as GM's rarely works. They get too emotionally invested in their players.

So you can't just simply ignore the emotional part of it. It's like AD's Dad saying what he said about AD playing for the Celtics and AD apparently leaving them off of his list.

Those things are based on emotion from how the Celtics handled their business, but they may also effect the Celtics business if it's truly keeping players from wanting to be there.

The Celtics did the right thing for the long term health of the franchise, but it still "felt" wrong at the time and some folks still don't like it and some players will react to it that way.

 

[Gman]

I understand your point and I agree that from a pure business perspective the Lakers handled it wrong and the Celtics didn't.

But in the case of basketball players, these are actual people and the fans are people and everyone gets emotionally involved to some level. Because of that, emotions can effect the business. That's why coaches as GM's rarely works. They get too emotionally invested in their players.

So you can't just simply ignore the emotional part of it. It's like AD's Dad saying what he said about AD playing for the Celtics and AD apparently leaving them off of his list.

Those things are based on emotion from how the Celtics handled their business, but they may also effect the Celtics business if it's truly keeping players from wanting to be there.

The Celtics did the right thing for the long term health of the franchise, but it still "felt" wrong at the time and some folks still don't like it and some players will react to it that way.

I wouldn't disagree that perceptions can have consequences in the real world. Of course that's true. People believe all sorts of things for all kinds of reasons.

When running a business, though, you (of course) don't let this fact of life run your decision making. You make the right business call... 10 times out of 10.

And I wouldn't say a good business should "ignore" the emotional side of things. Rather, a good business should be professional, respectful, communicative and caring/concerned to a point. But that point should not go beyond the bigger business picture... which in the NBA is competing for championships.

Some players (and their dads) might think that's rough... but you have to weigh the fear of that perception against the alternative: making emotional decisions and not competing for championships. Something that I'm quite certain most players don't like, either.

 

[LogicMan]

Cmon yall. This is just normal stuff. Got no issue with Lakers and hats off if they can pull off this deal. It wont be cheap but they could get a 3 year window for a title while LBJ is healthy.

The Celtics could be criticized too for constantly talking about AD and calling the Pelicans. Its business.

I am more interested in getting Kyrie signed. And I sure as hell want to see a more confident Hayward.

I do think if he is not traded by the deadline its down to the Clippers and Celtics

 

[Rockinkuwait]

It's not mush though.

The Celtics were both right and wrong.

From an emotional/loyalty point of view, what they did was wrong. The guy broke himself trying to carry that team as far as he could. You said yourself that, as a fan, you had mixed feelings about it.

But, from a basketball perspective, it was absolutely the right move. The Celtics are trying to build a championship team and moving IT brought them closer to that goal.

I'm sure Ainge had mixed feelings about it too. He knows what IT did for the team and what the optics were going to look like (even among Celtics fans). But he had to do what was best for the long term, regardless of how bad it looked in the short term.

I think you put that really well. I myself don't see teams keeping a coach or GM that loses because they are nice to the players and keep ones they should have moved. Because if you aren't doing whats best for your team every minute, those GM's that are will put you out of a job.

As for the whole collusion bit, of course friends and players are going to chat with each other, and I could care less about that. I think the press though should be taught the rules of collusion, and if they ask a question which if answered would be collusion... aka "How would you like to play with X" type questions, they get a warning/suspension and if they do it again, lose their press pass.

I believe that right there would stop 90% of this. Because at the end of the day of course Lebron would rather play with Davis than Ball or Ingram. And he'd be an idiot if they were having a private conversation to not let Davis know he'd love to play with him. And that doesn't change anything. Now if a team or GM is doing that, hammer them.

 

[DefCONNOne]

You realize that players can't collude, right?

...and yet they do. Constantly.

 

[trojanfan12]

...and yet they do. Constantly.

Incorrect. They can't be disciplined for collusion, so they can't collude.

Players getting together and talking about/planning to play together, isn't considered collusion because you can't stop them from doing that and because their power to actually make it happen is limited.

They can make trade requests/ demands. They can tell the FO which players they'd like the franchise to trade for or sign in free agency. They can even threaten to sit out and/or leave at the end of their contract.

But they can't make the actual trade/free agent signing happen if the franchise doesn't want it.