Should Paul Pierce stay with the Celtics? YEA: Boston is his best-case scenario

I don’t believe I’m actually saying this, but I think Paul Pierce would be a fool to leave the Boston Celtics. An absolute fool.By the time the 2010-11 season begins, Pierce will be 33 years old. And, after this past season, he’s probably beaten up beyond repair. Just having to deal with Ron Artest for seven games probably put him over the edge.I say I don’t believe I’m saying this because there were many years – during Pierce’s petulant days – when I would have paid for the bus to drive him out of town. I didn’t think he’d ever get it, and figured he’d always be just one more self-absorbed “march to my own drummer” type in the grand tradition of Antoine Walker.But come to think of it, perhaps that is, or maybe was, Pierce’s biggest problem. He seemed quick to emulate Walker, who, obviously, was the wrong person to model himself after.But that all changed when Kevin Garnett came to town. Garnett is no Antoine Walker. He is driven, and he has the type of strong personality that demands you be driven, too ? or else.Pierce fell in line. Garnett, much to his credit, didn’t try to assert himself as the official “leader,” as in “spokesman” of the Celtics in 2007 either. He gladly left that to Pierce, and gave him the feeling that it was still his team. It was a smart move on Garnett’s part, and the two of them, along with Ray Allen, thrived.Pierce won’t get a better deal anywhere else ? not at the age of 33. What he’s doing, he’s doing, most likely, for the security of a long-term deal, and not necessarily to stage a stickup of the Boston Celtics.If there’s a team out there that will probably give him anything close to what he wants, it’s the Celtics. He probably has another two or three good years left, if he can stay healthy. He may not be the go-to guy he’s been in the past, and the Celtics will certainly have to find – and develop – a few more of those. They have a good start in Rajon Rondo, but they’ll need a few more.But Pierce can be invaluable in a more defined role that might require less time on the floor ? say, as someone to come off the bench and provide instant offense for a spell. It’s just that I feel the days of him logging 30-35 minutes a game, night in and night out, are probably over.I just don’t see any other team in the NBA risking that much cap space to sign him in that role. Most teams are trying to get younger, not older. The Celtics are his best shot right now because, historically, they’ve remained loyal to those who have been loyal to them.Another reason Pierce should stay is because Doc Rivers is coming back. You can critique him, fundamentally, all you want. But you cannot argue that Rivers is smart, knows how to handle egos (and there are plenty of them on the Celtics) and will do his best to protect veterans like Pierce and Garnett (and maybe even Allen) as much as he can.I still have memories of the bad old days when Pierce could get emotional on the court and go off like a runaway freight train. He still has those moments – though not as many. But he’s established himself as one of the Celtics’ greats, and I’d like to see him end his career here.Man, that hurts to say!Steve Krause is sports editor of The Item.