Fire Ainge: Thanks Danny, but it's time to go

Post #21 » by **Bleeding Green** » Sat Nov 21, 2020 7:42 pm

So you count losing Kyrie and Horford as losses? The Celtics would have been better last year had they paid Horford and Kyrie 60 million? And they'd be paying them 60 mil this year. And then 60 mil next year. And now they owe 200 million in tax so the owners blow it all up in Tatum's prime.

celtics543 · Post #22 » by **celtics543** » Sat Nov 21, 2020 7:42 pm

Bleeding Green wrote:lmao stars. Horford just got salary dumped, Kyrie missed half of his season, and Hayward provided zero playoff production to Boston in three years. And one of those stars leaving allowed the Celtics to sign Walker.

I appreciate your positive outlook but if Danny was a great gm he would have gotten something back for at least one of those guys.

Post #23 » by **Bleeding Green** » Sat Nov 21, 2020 7:44 pm

celtics543 wrote:
Bleeding Green wrote:lmao stars. Horford just got salary dumped, Kyrie missed half of his season, and Hayward provided zero playoff production to Boston in three years. And one of those stars leaving allowed the Celtics to sign Walker.

I appreciate your positive outlook but if Danny was a great gm he would have gotten something back for at least one of those guys.

Gotten what back, though? They just sign into capspace, you can't force a trade. And Ainge got Walker by letting Horford leave, so what is your point again? And we're about 5 minutes into the offseason, no one can say what the Celtics still have to do. Maybe dipping the tax allows them to make a play on an MLE-level FA that was outside their scope just a few hours ago.

CWitch · Post #24 » by **CWitch** » Sat Nov 21, 2020 7:45 pm

GMs can't let this happen. Kyrie, Al and Gordon all gone with nothing in return.

celtics543 · Post #25 » by **celtics543** » Sat Nov 21, 2020 7:46 pm

Bleeding Green wrote:
celtics543 wrote:
Bleeding Green wrote:lmao stars. Horford just got salary dumped, Kyrie missed half of his season, and Hayward provided zero playoff production to Boston in three years. And one of those stars leaving allowed the Celtics to sign Walker.

I appreciate your positive outlook but if Danny was a great gm he would have gotten something back for at least one of those guys.

Gotten what back, though? They just sign into capspace, you can't force a trade. And Ainge got Walker by letting Horford leave, so what is your point again?

I understand that. You can't force a trade at the point where they're free agents but trading Kyrie at the deadline at least. It was obvious that he wasn't a sure thing to come back and he also wasn't leading us to a title.

It's tough to see us lose three guys who all had positive value going into free agency for nothing.

Post #26 » by **Bleeding Green** » Sat Nov 21, 2020 7:48 pm

You would have traded Kyrie at the deadline in a year that you were hoping to get to the Finals? OK. Who would you have traded him for? At the trade deadline, the Celtics were 35-19 and had just won five in a row. I'll wait for your answer. I'm sure you can source posts around here that were calling for the Celtics to trade their best player at the time.

Drax · Post #27 » by **Drax** » Sat Nov 21, 2020 7:53 pm

CWitch wrote:GMs can't let this happen. Kyrie, Al and Gordon all gone with nothing in return.

They can and should otherwise you look like Charlotte last year. They signed Terry Rozier to a contract he never was worth because they didnt want to lose Kemba for nothing ...

flintsky21 · Post #28 » by **flintsky21** » Sat Nov 21, 2020 7:55 pm

I personally believe Charlotte's 120 mil deal is a last minute offer and wasn't on the table when the Indy discussions were going on. Otherwise, there would've been leaks of that offer and Gordo would've definitely taken that offer outright because he knows with his age and injury history, a contract like that is hitting a jackpot.

Indiana offered Turnet and McBuckets, but Ainge, knowing that Hayward wanted to go Indiana and not wanting to go to a non-playoff team, felt that he had all the leverage to squeeze every bit he can get from Indiana, thus reports he wanted picks.

I believe the Hayward for Turner and McBuckets could've been done yesterday, when Charlotte's offer wasn't on the table yet.

So yeah, this is on Ainge. The defending champs added Schroder and Harrell, and Boston's biggest move might probably be adding Baynes.

greenroom31 · Post #29 » by **greenroom31** » Sat Nov 21, 2020 7:57 pm

If you want Ainge gone who do you want as a replacement? Or do you just want to promote Zarren?

Post #30 » by **Bleeding Green** » Sat Nov 21, 2020 8:02 pm

I'm sure Zarren is the one who does all the real work, Ainge is just the charismatic figurehead.

lon3lytoaster · Post #31 » by **lon3lytoaster** » Sat Nov 21, 2020 8:04 pm

Does anyone in the league even want to trade with Danny anymore? I think a big part of the problem is that he himself plays too much hardball and teams will no longer give the perception DA is fleecing them.

Also absolutely created a glut at that swing position and never cleared it up. Gordon and the Celtics needed to move on from each other last year. Sucks it didn’t work out but he’s never been a fit here after that injury.

celtics543 · Post #32 » by **celtics543** » Sat Nov 21, 2020 8:04 pm

Bleeding Green wrote:You would have traded Kyrie at the deadline in a year that you were hoping to get to the Finals? OK. Who would you have traded him for? At the trade deadline, the Celtics were 35-19 and had just won five in a row. I'll wait for your answer. I'm sure you can source posts around here that were calling for the Celtics to trade their best player at the time.

Maybe I'm remembering incorrectly but the word all year was that Kyrie wanted out and he was a cancer in the locker room. Even when we had a good record the bulk of conversation on this board and on Boston tv was that Kyrie was leaving and Danny was talking about still being engaged to Kyrie. And you can say we were hoping to make the Finals but we got beat in 5 in round 2 so how much of a shot did we really have at the finals.

It worked out well last year that we could sign Kemba but at this point I'm planning on watching him walk at the end of his deal and we get nothing in return.

I'll shoot back a question for you. How many other teams have lost 3 max players in two years without getting anything back in return when those players all signed for more money in free agency? Whether they would have been worth signing or not, they all had positive value and we lost them all for nothing.

Post #33 » by **Bleeding Green** » Sat Nov 21, 2020 8:06 pm

Didn't he just make a trade like two days ago?

Post #34 » by **Bleeding Green** » Sat Nov 21, 2020 8:07 pm

celtics543 wrote:
Bleeding Green wrote:You would have traded Kyrie at the deadline in a year that you were hoping to get to the Finals? OK. Who would you have traded him for? At the trade deadline, the Celtics were 35-19 and had just won five in a row. I'll wait for your answer. I'm sure you can source posts around here that were calling for the Celtics to trade their best player at the time.

Maybe I'm remembering incorrectly but the word all year was that Kyrie wanted out and he was a cancer in the locker room. Even when we had a good record the bulk of conversation on this board and on Boston tv was that Kyrie was leaving and Danny was talking about still being engaged to Kyrie. And you can say we were hoping to make the Finals but we got beat in 5 in round 2 so how much of a shot did we really have at the finals.

It worked out well last year that we could sign Kemba but at this point I'm planning on watching him walk at the end of his deal and we get nothing in return.

I'll shoot back a question for you. How many other teams have lost 3 max players in two years without getting anything back in return when those players all signed for more money in free agency? Whether they would have been worth signing or not, they all had positive value and we lost them all for nothing.

Yeah that was definitely the case, but who are you trading Kyrie to, and for what? Guys with 25 games of contract left aren't that valuable unless they are going to help you win a title. So you have to trade him to a contender who may knock you out of the playoffs. That's what you are proposing they should have done.

Yeah I guess in hindsight they should have just traded every player ever because they haven't won a title in 13 years. Should have traded KG, Pierce and Allen after the first title because they obviously didn't win anymore titles.

I don't know the answer to your question. I doubt there are any teams who lost three players on max deals. Even the Celtics have only lost one max player (Kyrie). The rest signed for less than the max. I find it hard to care about 'losing' Al Horford and Kyrie Irving. ANd losing Hayward, who has given zero production in meaningful games is also hard to care that he left for nothing.

Tai · Post #35 » by **Tai** » Sat Nov 21, 2020 8:13 pm

celtics543 wrote:
Bleeding Green wrote:You would have traded Kyrie at the deadline in a year that you were hoping to get to the Finals? OK. Who would you have traded him for? At the trade deadline, the Celtics were 35-19 and had just won five in a row. I'll wait for your answer. I'm sure you can source posts around here that were calling for the Celtics to trade their best player at the time.

Maybe I'm remembering incorrectly but the word all year was that Kyrie wanted out and he was a cancer in the locker room. Even when we had a good record the bulk of conversation on this board and on Boston tv was that Kyrie was leaving and Danny was talking about still being engaged to Kyrie. And you can say we were hoping to make the Finals but we got beat in 5 in round 2 so how much of a shot did we really have at the finals.

It worked out well last year that we could sign Kemba but at this point I'm planning on watching him walk at the end of his deal and we get nothing in return.

I'll shoot back a question for you. How many other teams have lost 3 max players in two years without getting anything back in return when those players all signed for more money in free agency? Whether they would have been worth signing or not, they all had positive value and we lost them all for nothing.

On the bolded: didn't Danny dangle Kemba during the draft? Now he'd be against trading Kemba for the right deal? If you want to bash Danny fine, but this comes off as bad faith arguing cloaked in extreme pessimism.

celtics543 · Post #36 » by **celtics543** » Sat Nov 21, 2020 8:15 pm

Bleeding Green wrote:
celtics543 wrote:
Bleeding Green wrote:You would have traded Kyrie at the deadline in a year that you were hoping to get to the Finals? OK. Who would you have traded him for? At the trade deadline, the Celtics were 35-19 and had just won five in a row. I'll wait for your answer. I'm sure you can source posts around here that were calling for the Celtics to trade their best player at the time.

Maybe I'm remembering incorrectly but the word all year was that Kyrie wanted out and he was a cancer in the locker room. Even when we had a good record the bulk of conversation on this board and on Boston tv was that Kyrie was leaving and Danny was talking about still being engaged to Kyrie. And you can say we were hoping to make the Finals but we got beat in 5 in round 2 so how much of a shot did we really have at the finals.

It worked out well last year that we could sign Kemba but at this point I'm planning on watching him walk at the end of his deal and we get nothing in return.

I'll shoot back a question for you. How many other teams have lost 3 max players in two years without getting anything back in return when those players all signed for more money in free agency? Whether they would have been worth signing or not, they all had positive value and we lost them all for nothing.

Yeah that was definitely the case, but who are you trading Kyrie to, and for what? Guys with 25 games of contract left aren't that valuable unless they are going to help you win a title. So you have to trade him to a contender who may knock you out of the playoffs. That's what you are proposing they should have done.

Yeah I guess in hindsight they should have just traded every player ever because they haven't won a title in 13 years. Should have traded KG, Pierce and Allen after the first title because they obviously didn't win anymore titles.

I don't know the answer to your question. I doubt there are any teams who lost three players on max deals. Even the Celtics have only lost one max player (Kyrie). The rest signed for less than the max.

Ok man, I'm not trying to argue with you. If you believe there was no market for Kyrie and he didn't have value around the league and could have been traded for at least a first round pick or a solid young prospect then I'm not sure it's worth arguing my point anymore. The Celtics lost three guys with hugely positive value at the time because Danny mismanaged them and thought they were re-signing when they weren't. Even if we ignore that he's failed at filling out the bench since 2008 and missed on almost every mid 1st round pick we've had. Current rumors have us tied to Paul Milsap, which would be great if it was 2013.

He's been the gm for 17 years and we've won 1 title. He's done a good job and had some bad luck but he's also made some big mistakes that have bitten us over the last 12 years. I think it's time for a change at the top.

Post #37 » by **Bleeding Green** » Sat Nov 21, 2020 8:18 pm

I'm sure there was a market for Kyrie, but it would be extremely limited. And to trade the starting point guard, who is your best player, for a first round pick (to a contending team, so like the 25th pick), I'm sure Ainge would have been lauded for that, right? 35-19, just won five games, looking to compete in the playoffs and he trades the starting star PG to the...wait which teams want to trade for 25 games of Kyrie Irving?

Who are the three guys with hugely positive value? Horford got 109 million and he is washed now. And they even got Kemba out of his leaving, so what is the problem? Kemba is obviously better than Horford. Hayward is gone and we don't even know yet what that will allow the Celtics to do yet. Irving leaving is unfortunate, but I seriously don't know in what universe they could have extracted value from him. They got him for a bag of balls and Collin Sexton.

Post #38 » by **canman1971** » Sat Nov 21, 2020 8:23 pm

Look at all the crappy teams and poorly run organizations around the league. I don't get WTF people really expect in the real world.

Post #39 » by **Spin Move** » Sat Nov 21, 2020 8:29 pm

This is not on Ainge, Hayward took 20 million more, all 3 parties have to agree to an S and T and Hayward, if Hayward wants to take 20 million that is not on Ainge.

celtics543 · Post #40 » by **celtics543** » Sat Nov 21, 2020 8:30 pm

Bleeding Green wrote:I'm sure there was a market for Kyrie, but it would be extremely limited. And to trade the starting point guard, who is your best player, for a first round pick (to a contending team, so like the 25th pick), I'm sure Ainge would have been lauded for that, right? 35-19, just won five games, looking to compete in the playoffs and he trades the starting star PG to the...wait which teams want to trade for 25 games of Kyrie Irving?

Who are the three guys with hugely positive value? Horford got 109 million and he is washed now. And they even got Kemba out of his leaving, so what is the problem? Kemba is obviously better than Horford. Hayward is gone and we don't even know yet what that will allow the Celtics to do yet. Irving leaving is unfortunate, but I seriously don't know in what universe they could have extracted value from him. They got him for a bag of balls and Collin Sexton.

Horford, Hayward, and Kyrie all got a ton of money to leave. I’d call that hugely positive value. Not like they were John Wall or Russ.

We got lucky with Kemba after Horford left. That wasn’t the plan until he left.

Is each situation explainable? Sure. You can make a rationale explanation for each situation. Is it hugely unfortunate for us, in a lot of ways yes. Hayward leaving for nothing takes away a lot of flexibility. Does Danny deserve some blame? Ya, maybe not all tbe blame but some.

Mix that with his inability to fix our bench in a decade and I think it’s time for a change.