Re: The Boston Celtics Mailing List Digest V11 #99

[Michael Byrnes <mbyrnes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2/23/04 10:50 AM, "The Boston Celtics Mailing List Digest"
<Celtics-Digest-Owner@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hey, Mike, read the whole thread before busting in
> mid-stream with a worthless, uninformed comment.
> True, my example regarded laid-off employees, while
> O'Brien, on the other hand, fell on his sword.
> However, Lapdoggy had maintained that employees, after
> being let go, do not/cannot stay on (and Lapdoggy, if
> I'm misconstruing what you said, feel free to correct
> me) with the employer and that it's best that they
> move on.  I disagreed and provided that controverted
> example.  So, yeah, it had something to do with it.

What if the situation were reversed?  Danny Ainge calls in O'Brien and says,
"Jim, it's clear that we don't see eye to eye and this isn't going to work
long term.  The club needs to go in a different direction.  So, we're going
to fire you after the season, but we'd like you to stick around and milk
what you can out of the team for the duration."  Do you think O'Brien would
have stayed on under those circumstances?
 
> As for O'Brien's resignation becoming common knowledge
> prior to leaving; yeah, that might have caused
> problems, but I guess I'm assuming, since those
> problems would have been so foreseeable (and if you'd
> have followed the thread, you would have reconized
> that Lapdoggy brought up the same issue) that
> management, presumably interested in winning, would
> have taken steps to conceal it until after the season
> (much like they concealed their attempts to purchase
> the team).     

I'm sure they would have taken steps to conceal it, but I also believe that
the secret would have gotten out eventually.

I also question the dedication and commitment the team would have gotten
from O'Brien if he had stayed on.  After his "resignation" his personal
investment in the team would have been a lot lower.

Michael