[Long post] Revisiting an old question - "Is the rebuild over?" and answering a new one - "Is loyalty dead?"

Throughout the last season there were some articles, redditors, etc. suggesting that the rebuild - with the KG/PP trade as the starting point - was possibly over. Not with much certainty, but more along the lines of "hey, the Celtics are pretty fucking good now. can we still call it a rebuild at this point?"

It became kind of a crutch for us fans, and a Catch-22 for our opponents. If the Celtics win, it's because they're "supposed" to as the new top seed in the East. If they lose, say, a playoff series, then whatever, it's still a rebuild. But, the question still stood for a while - is it really a rebuild? Do we get to use that as an excuse anymore?

I think the IT/Kyrie trade gave a definitive answer. Not to imply that Ainge could predict the future, and not to say he never considered giving Thomas a max deal. But the emotional aspects of the trade blocked out a detail worth remembering: Isaiah Thomas's contract is one of many that was acquired as a value deal, an easy-to-move piece that was added in exchange for other easy-to-move pieces. True, he was the most underpaid MVP candidate of last season, but out-performing a contract by so much can have more than one outcome, to state the obvious.

1. Team re-signs them because he's a perfect fit

2. Team sells high on an easy contract to move <= Celtics did this one

So that's that. The next question: Is loyalty dead? Thomas became a symbol, a legend, a Boston icon. He recruited for the team with an unknown success rate (we don't know if anybody showed up because of IT but his effort certainly didn't hurt). He played in a playoff game with a broken face, a broken heart, and a fucked up hip and dropped 53. Should he be granted immunity to trades?

Well let me say this: I have one, just ONE, criticism of Thomas, and I think it's an important one. He was pretty open about saying "I'm a max player, so I deserve the max.", and saying it more than a year before actually having to negotiate that contract. Thomas has no obligation to take a home-team discount, especially on his first mega-huge deal, BUT, if you're going to be that blunt about your expectations, then the idea of negotiating kind of goes out the window, yeah?

So is this an egregious display of disloyalty from Ainge? His track record would tell you that no player is off limits, and that he'll pull the trigger on any deal he thinks makes his team better. Might this pattern discourage future free agents from signing? My guess: No. I would rather be the Patriots of basketball than have a GM sitting on his hands while his team runs on the treadmill. Obviously I have no insight into the locker room conversations, but I'm going to assume that players like a GM who can get shit done. If you play for the Celtics and there's a missing piece, you can bet that Ainge will go out and find it. What does that ultimately have to do with loyalty? I dunno, but you can't let it hold a basketball franchise back.

edit: Damn it, I put "long post" in the title and then ran out of things to say