My guess is that if Danny Ainge was still in command of the Boston Celtics, Danilo Gallinaro would just be a memory in Beantown. He will turn 35 prior to next season and has yet to play a minute for The Celtics after signing a 2-year, $13.3 million deal with Boston prior to suffering a season-ending injury (torn ACL).
Would it be ethical to trade the Italian forward?
"The greatest good for the greatest number" is a maxim of utilitarianism.
I would stretch that maxim a bit further and add "for the longest period of time". Would Gallo be happy about being traded? Probably not. Would management, team members and Celtics fans benefit from a Gallo-plus-pieces deal that brought in a guy that would be a healthy and productive addition for the remainder of the season and playoffs? Highly likely.
You get the argument. The right transaction could very well shore up an already-first-place team, resulting in increased chances for Championships for an extended period of time. That is the goal after all!
Back up! Was Ainge's trade of Paul Pierce and Kevin Garnett an ethical move? It resulted in two high draft picks, Jayson Tatum and Jaylen Brown, coming on board which has generated a lot of good will - for a lot of people - over an extended period of time.
Danny broke Red Auerbach's practice of keeping veteran stars past their prime. Will Brad Stevens follow Ainge's route and trade an aging star who would otherwise be playing on a twice-repaired ACL for Boston. If the right deal presents itself - especially if it is agreeable to Gallo - may be the right move.
Comments
Post a Comment