Doc on WEEI: "No one said no" to Perk trade

[Roy H.]

Blaming the trade for our play of late just doesn't add up. Perk's traded and the defense stays the same. Perk plays 5% of our minutes this season and we have the best defense in the league. Our offense was sputtering before Perk was traded. Just doesn't add up for me.

Here's the thing, though:  this argument only makes sense if we have a healthy Shaq in the playoffs.  It was Shaq who was part of our fast start.  Our system relies upon having a solid, physical big man in the middle.

If Shaq is playing like he was early in the season, then maybe the trade works out.  However, if Shaq can't play effectively, then we're in serious trouble.   Even without Shaq, this team could have competed with Perk + JO; that's not the case with JO + Krstic.

So, if Pierce goes down, what then? Thank god we have Sasha?

It's not ideal to have Krstic instead of Perk, but it allowed us to be better prepared to various scenarios in which a key player goes down.

In this current case, it just so happens we have Shaq down. Even with all that, we still have Krstic and JO to fill in (and Murphy).

So if Perk suddenly goes down for the Thunder, does that suddenly mean that it was an awesome trade by Ainge?

Come on. The only thing that Ainge did was improve the talent on the bench, get healthier, and improve the contingencies of every position in the even that a key player goes down.

I'm not that Shaq's health and Pierce's health can be equated.  Shaq was injured at the time of the trade, and has played five minutes since.  Trading your best center when your other starting-caliber center is out indefinitely is a huge risk.

[BudweiserCeltic]

Blaming the trade for our play of late just doesn't add up. Perk's traded and the defense stays the same. Perk plays 5% of our minutes this season and we have the best defense in the league. Our offense was sputtering before Perk was traded. Just doesn't add up for me.

Here's the thing, though:  this argument only makes sense if we have a healthy Shaq in the playoffs.  It was Shaq who was part of our fast start.  Our system relies upon having a solid, physical big man in the middle.

If Shaq is playing like he was early in the season, then maybe the trade works out.  However, if Shaq can't play effectively, then we're in serious trouble.   Even without Shaq, this team could have competed with Perk + JO; that's not the case with JO + Krstic.

So, if Pierce goes down, what then? Thank god we have Sasha?

It's not ideal to have Krstic instead of Perk, but it allowed us to be better prepared to various scenarios in which a key player goes down.

In this current case, it just so happens we have Shaq down. Even with all that, we still have Krstic and JO to fill in (and Murphy).

So if Perk suddenly goes down for the Thunder, does that suddenly mean that it was an awesome trade by Ainge?

Come on. The only thing that Ainge did was improve the talent on the bench, get healthier, and improve the contingencies of every position in the even that a key player goes down.

I'm not that Shaq's health and Pierce's health can be equated.  Shaq was injured at the time of the trade, and has played five minutes since.  Trading your best center when your other starting-caliber center is out indefinitely is a huge risk.

But Perk was also injured, he gave us no confidence of him being healthy for the playoffs. Our current scenario could have just as easily been us being without Perk and Shaq, and maybe JO, and still have all the holes in the bench.

[BudweiserCeltic]

Blaming the trade for our play of late just doesn't add up. Perk's traded and the defense stays the same. Perk plays 5% of our minutes this season and we have the best defense in the league. Our offense was sputtering before Perk was traded. Just doesn't add up for me.

Here's the thing, though:  this argument only makes sense if we have a healthy Shaq in the playoffs.  It was Shaq who was part of our fast start.  Our system relies upon having a solid, physical big man in the middle.

If Shaq is playing like he was early in the season, then maybe the trade works out.  However, if Shaq can't play effectively, then we're in serious trouble.   Even without Shaq, this team could have competed with Perk + JO; that's not the case with JO + Krstic.

So, if Pierce goes down, what then? Thank god we have Sasha?

It's not ideal to have Krstic instead of Perk, but it allowed us to be better prepared to various scenarios in which a key player goes down.

In this current case, it just so happens we have Shaq down. Even with all that, we still have Krstic and JO to fill in (and Murphy).

So if Perk suddenly goes down for the Thunder, does that suddenly mean that it was an awesome trade by Ainge?

Come on. The only thing that Ainge did was improve the talent on the bench, get healthier, and improve the contingencies of every position in the even that a key player goes down.

I'm not that Shaq's health and Pierce's health can be equated.  Shaq was injured at the time of the trade, and has played five minutes since.  Trading your best center when your other starting-caliber center is out indefinitely is a huge risk.

No, it can't be equated. The difference is that we had more options behind Shaq still capable of stepping up, no so much with Pierce. Our wing depth was putrid, our center depth is still very good.

[Roy H.]

Blaming the trade for our play of late just doesn't add up. Perk's traded and the defense stays the same. Perk plays 5% of our minutes this season and we have the best defense in the league. Our offense was sputtering before Perk was traded. Just doesn't add up for me.

Here's the thing, though:  this argument only makes sense if we have a healthy Shaq in the playoffs.  It was Shaq who was part of our fast start.  Our system relies upon having a solid, physical big man in the middle.

If Shaq is playing like he was early in the season, then maybe the trade works out.  However, if Shaq can't play effectively, then we're in serious trouble.   Even without Shaq, this team could have competed with Perk + JO; that's not the case with JO + Krstic.

So, if Pierce goes down, what then? Thank god we have Sasha?

It's not ideal to have Krstic instead of Perk, but it allowed us to be better prepared to various scenarios in which a key player goes down.

In this current case, it just so happens we have Shaq down. Even with all that, we still have Krstic and JO to fill in (and Murphy).

So if Perk suddenly goes down for the Thunder, does that suddenly mean that it was an awesome trade by Ainge?

Come on. The only thing that Ainge did was improve the talent on the bench, get healthier, and improve the contingencies of every position in the even that a key player goes down.

I'm not that Shaq's health and Pierce's health can be equated.  Shaq was injured at the time of the trade, and has played five minutes since.  Trading your best center when your other starting-caliber center is out indefinitely is a huge risk.

But Perk was also injured, he gave us no confidence of him being healthy for the playoffs. Our current scenario could have just as easily been us being without Perk and Shaq, and maybe JO, and still have all the holes in the bench.

The likelihood of having a healthy, legit starting center would have obviously been greatest by keeping both Shaq and Perk.  I never thought Perk's second injury was all that serious, but even if there was a concern about it, I think the smart thing to do would have been to have kept both centers.  I think having a good center is more valuable than having a decent backup SF (especially when a lesser, but decent, backup SF was almost certainly available.)

[hpantazo]

Blaming the trade for our play of late just doesn't add up. Perk's traded and the defense stays the same. Perk plays 5% of our minutes this season and we have the best defense in the league. Our offense was sputtering before Perk was traded. Just doesn't add up for me.

Here's the thing, though:  this argument only makes sense if we have a healthy Shaq in the playoffs.  It was Shaq who was part of our fast start.  Our system relies upon having a solid, physical big man in the middle.

If Shaq is playing like he was early in the season, then maybe the trade works out.  However, if Shaq can't play effectively, then we're in serious trouble.   Even without Shaq, this team could have competed with Perk + JO; that's not the case with JO + Krstic.

So, if Pierce goes down, what then? Thank god we have Sasha?

It's not ideal to have Krstic instead of Perk, but it allowed us to be better prepared to various scenarios in which a key player goes down.

In this current case, it just so happens we have Shaq down. Even with all that, we still have Krstic and JO to fill in (and Murphy).

So if Perk suddenly goes down for the Thunder, does that suddenly mean that it was an awesome trade by Ainge?

Come on. The only thing that Ainge did was improve the talent on the bench, get healthier, and improve the contingencies of every position in the even that a key player goes down.

I'm not that Shaq's health and Pierce's health can be equated.  Shaq was injured at the time of the trade, and has played five minutes since.  Trading your best center when your other starting-caliber center is out indefinitely is a huge risk.

But Perk was also injured, he gave us no confidence of him being healthy for the playoffs. Our current scenario could have just as easily been us being without Perk and Shaq, and maybe JO, and still have all the holes in the bench.

The likelihood of having a healthy, legit starting center would have obviously been greatest by keeping both Shaq and Perk.  I never thought Perk's second injury was all that serious, but even if there was a concern about it, I think the smart thing to do would have been to have kept both centers.  I think having a good center is more valuable than having a decent backup SF (especially when a lesser, but decent, backup SF was almost certainly available.)

Well, that would be the obvious choice for most of us who don't have the medical reports on the players and don't see them training every day. For Danny and Doc though, they had much more info and felt strongly that JO and Shaq would be healthy enough for the playoffs and had serious questions about Perk's durability. So far, they were right about JO, and we shall see about Shaq and Perk, but no one can really say until the playoffs are over.

[Eja117]

Wow.  There are still people out there that think this was a good trade?

Then again I didn't even think anybody would be for it when it happened.

Actually, I don't think it was just a good trade.  It was a GREAT trade.

You add up all the details involved and you can't think otherwise.

-- Perkins coming off major knee surgery

-- Perkins getting injured yet again after coming back on a standard play

-- Roster depleted with Injuries including Perkins at the time

-- Your team with free agents or additions like Shaq, JO, and Semih didn't miss a beat when Perkins was down and out

-- Can't sign Perk for 4/5 M per

-- Core 4 still here

-- Your not giving him 8/9 M per next season with the core 4 here

-- Received a 24 yr old whose just getting his feet wet in the league who has far more upside than Perkins at this point in his career

-- Also got a backup Center with starter experience, with a future 1st round Clipper pick to help down the road as well

-- Value returned was far greater than letting an injured player walk in the future for virtually nothing

And it may have only cost us a championship.  Big deal. Those are easy enough to come by

Key word there being " may ".

Since you were guaranteed a championship with Perk, darn you Danny for not building around him for all those years he was here.  And darn you Danny for drafting him so late, what were the others thinking ?

Perk is KING !  His 22 mins per game would of brought us championship after championship !  Darn you Danny !

I seem to recall quite a lot of people missing him in game 7 last year, basically stating if we'd had him the Celts would have won.  But hey. Maybe Krstic and Green would have made the difference.  They're negative 4 points a game on a good night using the metric system would probably help a lot.

[Jon]

I still think people are getting bogged down in details here.  Here's the simple breakdown:

We may indeed miss Perkins in the playoffs since we're now putting all our eggs on 39 year-old, 350 lb. Shaq and JO's surgically repaired legs to carry us to #18. 

However, while that is a MAJOR concern, that doesn't mean that Perk had magical fairy teammate dust that made everyone play cohesively and hard every night.  The plain facts of the case are that a) this team did just fine without him the first half the season, and b) mailed the last 2/3 of the season in last year with him around.  So to pretend that the last two months would've been radically different if the trade hadn't gone down is just ignoring everything that's happened to this team the past two years for some sort of romanticized revisionist theory. 

Again, those mad with the trade may indeed prove to be right before all is said and done, but that doesn't mean that Perk was the panacea for all of our problems the past two months. 

[j804]

^like Doc said though we werent healthy last year and in a different situation

this year we hoped to step away from that and its no telling that after Perk was gone that played a part in our sudden nose dive

[BudweiserCeltic]

Wow.  There are still people out there that think this was a good trade?

Then again I didn't even think anybody would be for it when it happened.

Actually, I don't think it was just a good trade.  It was a GREAT trade.

You add up all the details involved and you can't think otherwise.

-- Perkins coming off major knee surgery

-- Perkins getting injured yet again after coming back on a standard play

-- Roster depleted with Injuries including Perkins at the time

-- Your team with free agents or additions like Shaq, JO, and Semih didn't miss a beat when Perkins was down and out

-- Can't sign Perk for 4/5 M per

-- Core 4 still here

-- Your not giving him 8/9 M per next season with the core 4 here

-- Received a 24 yr old whose just getting his feet wet in the league who has far more upside than Perkins at this point in his career

-- Also got a backup Center with starter experience, with a future 1st round Clipper pick to help down the road as well

-- Value returned was far greater than letting an injured player walk in the future for virtually nothing

And it may have only cost us a championship.  Big deal. Those are easy enough to come by

Key word there being " may ".

Since you were guaranteed a championship with Perk, darn you Danny for not building around him for all those years he was here.  And darn you Danny for drafting him so late, what were the others thinking ?

Perk is KING !  His 22 mins per game would of brought us championship after championship !  Darn you Danny !

I seem to recall quite a lot of people missing him in game 7 last year, basically stating if we'd had him the Celts would have won.  But hey. Maybe Krstic and Green would have made the difference.  They're negative 4 points a game on a good night using the metric system would probably help a lot.

The only reason we missed Perk was not because we didn't have the player called Perk, but because we lacked the depth at center when he went down. Sheed came in and filled in for Perk incredibly well in that last game, but we had no one else to come in and help out.

This year, as opposed to that year, we're in a much better position depth wise at the center position.

[Eja117]

Wow.  There are still people out there that think this was a good trade?

Then again I didn't even think anybody would be for it when it happened.

Actually, I don't think it was just a good trade.  It was a GREAT trade.

You add up all the details involved and you can't think otherwise.

-- Perkins coming off major knee surgery

-- Perkins getting injured yet again after coming back on a standard play

-- Roster depleted with Injuries including Perkins at the time

-- Your team with free agents or additions like Shaq, JO, and Semih didn't miss a beat when Perkins was down and out

-- Can't sign Perk for 4/5 M per

-- Core 4 still here

-- Your not giving him 8/9 M per next season with the core 4 here

-- Received a 24 yr old whose just getting his feet wet in the league who has far more upside than Perkins at this point in his career

-- Also got a backup Center with starter experience, with a future 1st round Clipper pick to help down the road as well

-- Value returned was far greater than letting an injured player walk in the future for virtually nothing

And it may have only cost us a championship.  Big deal. Those are easy enough to come by

Key word there being " may ".

Since you were guaranteed a championship with Perk, darn you Danny for not building around him for all those years he was here.  And darn you Danny for drafting him so late, what were the others thinking ?

Perk is KING !  His 22 mins per game would of brought us championship after championship !  Darn you Danny !

I seem to recall quite a lot of people missing him in game 7 last year, basically stating if we'd had him the Celts would have won.  But hey. Maybe Krstic and Green would have made the difference.  They're negative 4 points a game on a good night using the metric system would probably help a lot.

The only reason we missed Perk was not because we didn't have the player called Perk, but because we lacked the depth at center when he went down. Sheed came in and filled in for Perk incredibly well in that last game, but we had no one else to come in and help out.

This year, as opposed to that year, we're in a much better position depth wise at the center position.

A guy that can't walk, a guy that can't play, a guy that can't walk or play, and a guy that is on local milk cartons?

[BudweiserCeltic]

Wow.  There are still people out there that think this was a good trade?

Then again I didn't even think anybody would be for it when it happened.

Actually, I don't think it was just a good trade.  It was a GREAT trade.

You add up all the details involved and you can't think otherwise.

-- Perkins coming off major knee surgery

-- Perkins getting injured yet again after coming back on a standard play

-- Roster depleted with Injuries including Perkins at the time

-- Your team with free agents or additions like Shaq, JO, and Semih didn't miss a beat when Perkins was down and out

-- Can't sign Perk for 4/5 M per

-- Core 4 still here

-- Your not giving him 8/9 M per next season with the core 4 here

-- Received a 24 yr old whose just getting his feet wet in the league who has far more upside than Perkins at this point in his career

-- Also got a backup Center with starter experience, with a future 1st round Clipper pick to help down the road as well

-- Value returned was far greater than letting an injured player walk in the future for virtually nothing

And it may have only cost us a championship.  Big deal. Those are easy enough to come by

Key word there being " may ".

Since you were guaranteed a championship with Perk, darn you Danny for not building around him for all those years he was here.  And darn you Danny for drafting him so late, what were the others thinking ?

Perk is KING !  His 22 mins per game would of brought us championship after championship !  Darn you Danny !

I seem to recall quite a lot of people missing him in game 7 last year, basically stating if we'd had him the Celts would have won.  But hey. Maybe Krstic and Green would have made the difference.  They're negative 4 points a game on a good night using the metric system would probably help a lot.

The only reason we missed Perk was not because we didn't have the player called Perk, but because we lacked the depth at center when he went down. Sheed came in and filled in for Perk incredibly well in that last game, but we had no one else to come in and help out.

This year, as opposed to that year, we're in a much better position depth wise at the center position.

A guy that can't walk, a guy that can't play, a guy that can't walk or play, and a guy that is on local milk cartons?

I take it that it's useless to have a basketball discussion with you. I'll keep quiet now.

[LooseCannon]

Absolutely.  Could not agree more.  Pro-Green people always talk about the future as if the Celtics will not be rebuilding when the Big 3 retire and forget THIS is the season to make a run, not in 5 years.  That's crazy, especially when you look at the Bulls and the Heat who are about to dominate the East for the next 5 years.

Winning now, this season was and is all that matters.  With Perk the Celts have a better chance to win the Championship in 2011.  Plus Perk is not expensive, its crazy to say he was too expensive.

I believe that the window includes next season and not just this season.  I sincerely believe that "The Trade" significantly increased the probability of a championship next season.  One of the things I like about Danny Ainge is that he thinks beyond the current season.

Four years at market value is too expensive for Perk.

[bbd24]

Absolutely.  Could not agree more.  Pro-Green people always talk about the future as if the Celtics will not be rebuilding when the Big 3 retire and forget THIS is the season to make a run, not in 5 years.  That's crazy, especially when you look at the Bulls and the Heat who are about to dominate the East for the next 5 years.

Winning now, this season was and is all that matters.  With Perk the Celts have a better chance to win the Championship in 2011.  Plus Perk is not expensive, its crazy to say he was too expensive.

I believe that the window includes next season and not just this season.  I sincerely believe that "The Trade" significantly increased the probability of a championship next season.  One of the things I like about Danny Ainge is that he thinks beyond the current season.

Four years at market value is too expensive for Perk.

Especially when that market value diminishes for your roster when you already have a core 4 like RR, Ray, PP, and KG.  You already proved you can find re-treads like Shaq and JO and line them up next to the core 4 and not miss a beat, if not become stronger/better.  Why would you pay Perkins 9 M per if thats the case ?  You get value now while you can.

You pay 21 yr old guys like Ibaka that type of money, not Perkins.