What bothers me about this deal isn't the contracts. It's that I think we're undervaluing team chemistry. There is simply NO WAY that either Perk or Okafor (depending on who you're arguing would be pushed out of the starting lineup after this deal occurred) comes off the bench. I mean, I get that players are going to defer to stars like KG, but they defer to them by not going to their team, y'know? And, I mean, I'm not entirely convinced either would be wrong; both are legit starters in a league starving for legit big men in the middle. The same could be argued for Wallace/Bell (whichever is off the bench when Pierce and the other one are starting), though probably less so. There is, in fact, a balance that has to be struck between "playing for a winner" and "getting reasonable minutes", and I can't say I'd fault any of the Charlotte players mentioned in this deal if they balked at the idea of coming off the bench. And then, if they do so, we've got chemistry issues.
This, of course, is ignoring the TREMENDOUS boost of chemistry that Ray Allen brings to the Celtics; the guy has been loved by everyone he's played for and with in the league with the exception of George Karl. With the backlash from some players about KG's "antics" (their word, not mine), I might even argue that RAY, not KG or Pierce, is the "respected vet" that players are going to sign to play with. Given that, and given that it's not like his skills have eroded to the point where he's a liability, I think his value is such that, but for the absolute no-brainer players you'd want on your team (ex: LeBron, Wade, Carmelo, Kobe, Duncan, etc.), we're better off keeping Ray.
Hey, I love Okafor. I've loved his game since he was at UConn. I think he'd be a heck of a player to get on the Celtics. But we chose to trade for KG, so that door has to be shut for now. I can see why people would like to make this deal, but I don't think it's the best one to do even if both sides WERE willing to do it.