I hate the term role player, but you can't give up 2 good to excellent role players (to keep or trade later) for a 34 year old with an injury history. That about sums it up.
If the Celtics did too many trades like this one, they'd be dead in the water when the big 3 retires. It's not time yet to give up on maintaining our greatness beyond the big 3.
I don't like the deal either, but I want to comment that if this "Big 3" retire as Celtics, then something will probably have gone wrong.
The ideal situation is that they're all happy with lower salaries as they get older and their production decreases, but does that happen very regularly? It seems to me as if a lot of NBA players get paid huge piles of money up to and beyond the point where they're washed up (Shaq, Ben Wallace, Juwon Howard, Chris Webber, Jermaine O'Neal, Jason Kidd, Stephon Marbury, and Theo Ratliff to name eight off the top of my head), so what are the odds that we luck out with Pierce, Allen and Garnett and they get generous? I really hope they're moved before we have to find out.
Ok, why I don't like the trade: I don't think that'll be enough for a DPOY. Sure Perk plays like a starter and knows his role, but BBD is an unknown quantity and Tony Allen is crap. That's all there is to it for me. Even aside from being bad at professional basketball...barring injury, how is Allen going to find playing time to be of any value other than a contract to say goodbye to? At guard they WILL have Allen Iverson and JR Smith, and then they also have Chucky Atkins and Anthony Carter. Can Tony Allen beat out either of them? Even if he can, is that a good thing? They also had the reputation last year of each possession being "whose turn is it to dominate the ball?" Is Tony Allen going to provide any benefit there? Can he hit a perimeter shot? I read the Hollinger article that said they played the best last season when they had some outside shooting and those are the lineups they were most successful with, but I don't see Tony Allen helping any there. Sure Chucky Atkins is going to get hurt and AI can't keep playing 40 minutes a night his entire life, but I'm not going to jump at the chance to put Tony Allen in there for them, especially if I'm dealing away my starting center.
Same thing with Davis: How does he help from behind Perk, Nene, Kenyon Martin and Eduardo Najera (unsigned but really valuable to them)? Do you make this deal expecting someone to get hurt?
So, it seems to my uneducated mind, that it comes down to Perk, and two burning piles of cash for Marcus Camby. I'm not sure we'd be happy subbing out our Defensive Player of the Year for a weaker player just to add two guys who would be, at best, third on the depth chart at their positions.
In addition, I don't think the argument that "Memphis got less for Pau Gasol" works because that deal is known league wide to be a farce. "Exception not the rule" kind of thing.
Also, how much money is saved? Just because Camby is making more money next year than Perkins, Camby is on a descending contract, he'll be making 8 million, and then ~7.6 million. Perkins, though, runs a year longer at 4, 4.2, and 4.3. Also, next season Tony Allen will be making ~1.8, and Glen Davis runs for two years at 1.1 total. So adding it up losing 15.6 in salary and gaining 15.4 in salary the money is almost as near a wash as it can be. That doesn't seem to be substantial savings.
Also, we have another interesting dynamic in this thread: Some think that Camby isn't markedly better than Perk, so others are pointing out that Camby is much better because he is the only one holding down the fort in Denver, and Perk is just good with what they're handing him. Well, how is pointing that out helping to make this an even deal. Anyone knows that Camby is better, but saying that he's THAT much better only makes the trade seem more unlikely.
To the credit of everyone supporting this deal, when I saw the title I had expected to see Tony Allen and Brian Scalabrine for Eduardo Najera or Carmelo Anthony, so thanks for that.
