Just over a year ago, Rasheed Wallace signed a contract to play basketball for three seasons with the Celtics. This summer, he decided he’s had enough of the NBA scene and is retiring. I’m fine with that, and no matter how anyone feels about the polarizing ‘Sheed, the guy should not receive a buyout, as is being reported.

How the hell does this make sense? I don’t care if there’s guaranteed money involved or that he’s only getting a portion of the guaranteed dollars. Wallace gave the Celtics his guaransheed that he’d play until 2012 (and we can use the term “play” pretty loosely when talking about Wallace). Either way, he’ll still get his pension package, he’ll still be able to shine his ring, and he’ll still get several YouTube mixes celebrating his spastic moments.

According to this CBA rule, if the Celtics wanted to be hard-asses about it, they could likely get out of every dollar they owe him. But they don’t owe him anything! He owes them at least one more year of half-assin’ it (year three of the contract is reportedly a player option). But, the Celtics are a forthright organization and they wouldn’t pull off a move like that. Dan Gilbert on the other hand …

Am I being hard-headed, stubborn, or just plain old school? Rasheed Wallace should be playing for any money given to him based on the future. And, don’t tell me needs money to feed his kids. It’s Ramadan. He’s likely saving money while fasting with his children. (I know, I didn’t know Rasheed was Muslim either.)