If one looks at this as a business, what would the prudent course of (in)action be?
I have seen the various and sundry posts proclaiming "this is a business" and "there is no place for sentimentality" when considering whether to trade Pierce, KG, Rondo or any other player asset.
From a business standpoint, do you believe it prudent for the Celtics to trade player assets by the trade deadline if doing so would almost assuredly mean Boston would not make the playoffs thereby losing playoff revenue?
We look at the proposed competitive future advantages possibly gained by "blowing it up now", but can projected possible competitiveness be balanced by the potential revenue loss? We are, of course, debating long-term and short-term effects of trading or not trading Pierce and / or KG, but from a financial bottom line as opposed to a competitive bottom line although the two are directly related.
Is it better from a financial perspective to remain competitive (relative term) for as long as possible foregoing a rebuild and the distinct possibility of accompanyng down turn in revenue or is it more fiscally responsible to "blow it up" and hope the franchise can accomplish a rebuild and associated financal rebound in short order? What in-coming player assets would be required to assure a competitive rebuild could take place in 1 yr? 3yrs? 5 yrs?
Is the financial stability of the franchise such that they are positioned to go through 1-5+ lean years while the team builds back to competitive competence? Or do they need the financial security of Pierce, KG, Rondo until they can go no more?
Colton Iverson (stashed overseas)