Post-Moratorium Insider Rumor Thread

[kg01]

38 minutes ago, JayBirdHawk said:

It has already been determined It's not her and SHE is actually the VP of Player Development. (Not the wife of one).

Which illustrates why it's so irresponsible to speculate.  Lookin at you, @Diesel

[Diesel]

17 minutes ago, kg01 said:

Which illustrates why it's so irresponsible to speculate.  Lookin at you, @Diesel

No.. I alluded to that... i.e. they both can lose their jobs.   Somewhere I thought I read that he was also worked with Player development, but I was wrong.  He's Not so I stand corrected.  Moreover, they may not even be together. 

But...

She's the only female on his staff. 

 

 

[Diesel]

Also, 

I think the celtics are playing dirty pool.

The year long suspension means only one thing.  We like you, we want to keep you.  However, otherwise, he would have been fired.   I call it dirty pool because if somebody committed a wrong in your organization, as the owner said "volumes of misconduct"... to bring him back, you're going to have to fire her. 

 

[JayBirdHawk]

11 minutes ago, Diesel said:

She's the only female on his staff. 

You have it wrong....there are several females on the Celtics Staff. And again it has already been noted it's not her.

 

 

[kg01]

14 hours ago, Diesel said:

No.. I alluded to that... i.e. they both can lose their jobs.   Somewhere I thought I read that he was also worked with Player development, but I was wrong.  He's Not so I stand corrected.  Moreover, they may not even be together. 

But...

She's the only female on his staff. 

 

 

All the allusions and speculations, whatever you wanna call them, are irresponsible.   That's the bottom line.  Plus, how we know it's not a dude?  Jussayin.

I do think BOS is handling this weirdly tho. If what he did warrants a year suspension, that means it was a fireable offense.  You either care about the women or you don't, Loston.  As it stands, the woman or women have a year to "get over it" then he's their boss again.  Thanks?

[sturt]

16 minutes ago, kg01 said:

If what he did warrants a year suspension, that means it was a fireable offense.  You either care about the women or you don't, Loston.  As it stands, the woman or women have a year to "get over it" then he's their boss again.  Thanks?

Tend to resist making the assumption that I can better assess the whole of a situation from the outside than others can from the inside. I do get it, that when you're on the inside, the danger is that you risk allowing your sense of how you wish things were to affect your judgment of how things actually are and what you should do in response to that. But on the outside, the risk is that I don't know everything I would need to know in order to render a sound judgment... and that much is practically lock certain. There's potential for so many other considerations to hold some degree of gravity, and it becomes a bit specious for me to consider myself somehow sufficiently omniscient to say what they should have done and why and how. For instance to your "he's their boss again" scenario... I can't know if the person with whom he had a relationship is even still working for the team at all... in fact, it would seem somewhat reasonable to speculate that a substantial offer may have been put on the table to go away in exchange for an agreement to not sue the Cs and not speak about the incident publicly.

[Diesel]

The Bottom line on the Celtics Case to me is...

This makes their team weaker and that's good for the Hawks!!

 

 

[kg01]

17 minutes ago, sturt said:

Tend to resist making the assumption that I can better assess the whole of a situation from the outside than others can from the inside. I do get it, that when you're on the inside, the danger is that you risk allowing your sense of how you wish things were to affect your judgment of how things actually are and what you should do in response to that. But on the outside, the risk is that I don't know everything I would need to know in order to render a sound judgment... and that much is practically lock certain. There's potential for so many other considerations to hold some degree of gravity, and it becomes a bit specious for me to consider myself somehow sufficiently omniscient to say what they should have done and why and how. For instance to your "he's their boss again" scenario... I can't know if the person with whom he had a relationship is even still working for the team at all... in fact, it would seem somewhat reasonable to speculate that a substantial offer may have been put on the table to go away in exchange for an agreement to not sue the Cs and not speak about the incident publicly.

All fair.  Plus love the use of specious.

Still, even if the offended person is indeed gone, weird to bring him back.  He must've done some pretty terrible stuff to go from leading then to the Finals in the 1st year to being suspended for a year.  A year?  That's pretty heavy to, in 364 days, be like "He back, yall." 

[Diesel]

Just now, kg01 said:

All fair.  Plus love the use of specious.

Still, even if the offended person is indeed gone, weird to bring him back.  He must've done some pretty terrible stuff to go from leading then to the Finals in the 1st year to being suspended for a year.  A year?  That's pretty heavy to, in 364 days, be like "He back, yall." 

The owner said a monthlong deep dive revealed "Volumes of Misconduct". 

So if it's this bad, why not fire him?

At first, I thought that the Celtics wanted him to just resign.

Then I thought that the Celtics wanted to get fan perspective without being transparent. 

Now, it just seems that the Celtics don't really want to lose him, but they don't want to put themselves into trouble by doing nothing or doing little.   So a year long suspension is high.   What other coach has ever been suspended for 1 year?

 Latrell Spreewell Choked and Dragged his coach and he didn't get suspended for a year.

The Dallas Mavs whole organization was guilty of some of the most HENIOUS Harassments that has ever been seen and only one guy was fired. 

This is a deal to appease but they don't want to lose the coach. 

[sturt]

59 minutes ago, kg01 said:

All fair.  Plus love the use of specious.

Still, even if the offended person is indeed gone, weird to bring him back.  He must've done some pretty terrible stuff to go from leading then to the Finals in the 1st year to being suspended for a year.  A year?  That's pretty heavy to, in 364 days, be like "He back, yall." 

Someone check Ime's Facebook profile page, and see if, under Relationships, he's chosen "It's Complicated." And. If, under "Work," he's also chosen "It's Complicated."

I can easily imagine something like the ultimate love/hate thing is going on b/t him and his boss right now, as well as b/t him and anyone with whom he's been emotionally and physically intimate. A lot of layers and nuances. But who knows. Not me.

[bleachkit]

Wherever there is a dispute between a man and a woman of an intimate nature, the man is always assumed to be in the wrong. Unfortunately for Ime, we live in a highly misandrist culture when it comes to these matters, and there's no way he can win this. 

Edited September 24, 2022 by bleachkit

[kg01]

2 hours ago, Diesel said:

This is a deal to appease but they don't want to lose the coach. 

Agree and it's cowardly.

1 hour ago, bleachkit said:

Wherever there is a dispute between a man and a woman of an intimate nature, the man is always assumed to be in the wrong. Unfortunately for Ime, we live in a highly misandrist culture when it comes to these matters, and there's no way he can win this. 

Lies detected.

The issue here is boss v subordinate, not man v woman.

[MaceCase]

I had Inès tell me what the blogs are saying and I understand the Matt Barnes reaction vid now.  I don’t know what will be more entertaining, the 30 for 30 or BET+ telling of this story.

[bleachkit]

2 hours ago, kg01 said:

Agree and it's cowardly.

Lies detected.

The issue here is boss v subordinate, not man v woman.

On 9/22/2022 at 3:55 PM, kg01 said:

I find it funny how so many dudes out here wondering why this is "such a big deal".

Meanwhile literally every female BOS employee, and every female spouse of a BOS employee, has had their name/picture dragged onto the internet as a potential "mistress" of this guy.

Smh.  Men are the worst.

Not about gender huh? At least go to trouble to read your previous posts so you don't contradict yourself. 

[sturt]

32 minutes ago, bleachkit said:

Not about gender huh? At least go to trouble to read your previous posts so you don't contradict yourself. 

I have to say, bleach...

I generally agree with your misandrist statement.

 

Otoh, me, I don't see any contradiction in kg's comments. Two things can be true at the same time.

It is about superior vs. subordinate. As far as the business organization called the Boston Celtics is concerned, that is.

And in situations like this, kg... and Brad Stevens... are right... that it is too typical of males generally, inside and outside of the Celtics orbit... not so much females... to push boundaries of decency.

[kg01]

1 hour ago, bleachkit said:

Not about gender huh? At least go to trouble to read your previous posts so you don't contradict yourself. 

I'll own the contradiction if you own the woman-hatin'. 

[warcore]

21 minutes ago, kg01 said:

I'll own the contradiction if you own the woman-hatin'. 

This is why squawk needs the 'surprised' emoji.

[bleachkit]

1 hour ago, kg01 said:

I'll own the contradiction if you own the woman-hatin'. 

No hate, I just call it like I see it. There are ways society disadvantages woman, and the topic has been widely discussed. However, there also ways it disadvantages men. Acknowledging that shouldn't be controversial. 

[Spud2nique]

3 hours ago, warcore said:

This is why squawk needs the 'surprised' emoji.

And the pissed off one.   

[Gray Mule]

He did terrible things with one or more people.  We are suspending him for one year.  We are not naming names or what happened.  You are free to guess at what happened.  We want to give everyone in the entire orginization the opportunity for fingers to be pointed at them and rumors about their conduct to run rampant.  This way, the entire orginization gets to share in the guilt.

All you married men who have a wife in the orginization, we get to speculate all kinds of stuff about your wife.  Men, this might involve you because something homosexual might have happened and if it did, you just might be guilty of something.  We're not saying anything.  Let everyone guess.

See, this way we're all seen as guilty!

Edited September 25, 2022 by Gray Mule