Would you rather have Shaq or Perk?

[PosImpos]

I think Shaq was vital to our tital hopes from the very beginning of last season, Perk or no Perk.

I still don't get this.  We won with a younger Perk, and a much worse Rondo.  Shaq or no Shaq that starting 5 still never lost a championship series.  No Shaq, we were still the best team in basketball.

Yeah.  The Celtics also fell short last year with a better Rondo and an older but not much better Perk, as well as a solid bench highlighted by Sheed and TA.  Oh yeah, and the time they won it, the Big 3 were a few years younger and a few years more explosive / talented etc.

The only time this year that the Celtics looked like a truly dominant squad is when they had a healthy Shaq in the lineup. 

Now, it's true we never got to see them with a healthy Perk in the lineup, but even when he was healthy Perk could not give this team the vital thing that Shaq gave them -- an inside presence on offense.  That was a gigantic hole for this team late in the season and into the playoffs.

[EDWARDO]

It's a totally silly question, isn't it?  There was no possible way we were going to have a healthy Shaq for the playoffs.  And when you say healthy Shaq, what exactly does that mean?  Shaq at his peak earlier in the season?  Well, THAT Shaq would have to start over Perkins.  With him our offense was amazingly powerful.  But that Shaq was only around briefly.  Shaq was more or less hobbled for much of the season, and by the end, of course, he was long gone.

What makes me mad is that, because of Danny's Folly, we went into the playoffs without a legitimate starting center.  I love Jermaine for the way he came back, but he should have been coming off the bench.  Even at 60% Perkins would have strengthened us tremendously, as our starting center.   Basically Danny gave up on the season, and it almost seemed like the whole reason for it was that he was mad at Perkins for not instantly signing a contract.  And all the malarky drummed up by Danny and Doc, about how Shaq was going to return and save us, was just unbelievably cynical.  They knew Shaq wasn't coming back, or if he managed to come back, would be a shell of what he had been earlier in the season.

So like I said, this question is just silly.  We badly needed Perkins.  Period.

Only as silly as thinking Perk would be healthy as well. They would have been taking a gamble by counting on either of them being healthy and had Jermaine as back up as well. If they are all 100% healthy, Perk is probably the 3rd best guy. They made the determination that gambling on Shaq and getting Green/Kristic was better than having potentially 3 centers and getting nothing. The doctors, Shaq, Doc and Danny all that Shaq would be back. They were wrong. If they were gambling on a healthy Perk, they would have been wrong there too.

*Jermaine gave us about what Perk would have given us, perhaps a bit more, versus Miami.

*Perk couldn't guard one guy on Miami.

*We lost because Rondo/Baby (injury and mysterious complete breakdown, respectively) and we couldn't score.

*Perk wasn't helping any of those situations.

*If we had lost to Orlando and Howard had gone for 40 and 20 every night, I think you'd have a good point.

*We didn't. You don't.

I think just about everyone around here realizes this other than a few holdouts.

Then again, there are also people who think we should trade for Ramon Sessions and his 4yr/20mm deal and others who think Rondo should be player coach.

There are no guarantees. Danny made the trade that he thought would give us the best chance to win. I don't always agree with him, but this trade did give us the best chance.

[tenn_smoothie]

It's a totally silly question, isn't it?  There was no possible way we were going to have a healthy Shaq for the playoffs.  And when you say healthy Shaq, what exactly does that mean?  Shaq at his peak earlier in the season?  Well, THAT Shaq would have to start over Perkins.  With him our offense was amazingly powerful.  But that Shaq was only around briefly.  Shaq was more or less hobbled for much of the season, and by the end, of course, he was long gone.

What makes me mad is that, because of Danny's Folly, we went into the playoffs without a legitimate starting center.  I love Jermaine for the way he came back, but he should have been coming off the bench.  Even at 60% Perkins would have strengthened us tremendously, as our starting center.   Basically Danny gave up on the season, and it almost seemed like the whole reason for it was that he was mad at Perkins for not instantly signing a contract.  And all the malarky drummed up by Danny and Doc, about how Shaq was going to return and save us, was just unbelievably cynical.  They knew Shaq wasn't coming back, or if he managed to come back, would be a shell of what he had been earlier in the season.

So like I said, this question is just silly.  We badly needed Perkins.  Period.

well said.

You guys do realize it was a silly question the other way too then, right? Because, I'm sure you are well aware that there was NO WAY the Celtics were gonna have a healthy Perkins either.  He was recovering from last season's knee injury and nursing his other knee injury right before he was traded.

Hence, the question read "..a healthy Shaq or a healthy Perkins...".  The writer gave us a hypothetical question to ponder.

It seems as though Perk has taken on a Paul Bunyan "larger than life" kind of persona amongst some of the fans here. 

Good Lord .....................


No, it's not that Perk has not taken on exaggerated abilities - when will you people get it ?

 this Celtics team - more than any team in the league - was greater as a sum than its individual parts and that sum was both physical and emotional - and emotion and motivation was a huge component for this group. you take away a major part - you weaken the whole - and Danny should have known that. intangibles, intangibles, intangibles !!! just look at how the NBA finals were won.


i really believe Danny's ego got in the way here - wanting to prove he was smarter than Red and over-thinking his team and believing he was pulling off this clever trade - this team, with Perk as he was, could have won #18 this season, especially the way Jermaine got healthy and would have been perfect for splitting the time with Perk.

[CelticsFanNC]

I think Shaq was vital to our tital hopes from the very beginning of last season, Perk or no Perk.

I still don't get this.  We won with a younger Perk, and a much worse Rondo.  Shaq or no Shaq that starting 5 still never lost a championship series.  No Shaq, we were still the best team in basketball.

  The Big Three have slipped quite a bit since we last won a title.  The improvement of Rondo and to a far lesser extent Perk probably wasn't enough to make up the difference. Rondo's mangled arm sealed the deal.

 Shaq gave them another starter who not only had to be guarded but also demanded a double team in the low post and knows how to exploit that double team with his passing which gives open looks to his teammates.  Perk doesn't, hasn't when he was healthy and will not ever bring that dimension.

  The Big Three are still very capable of having big games but they can no longer put up the same kind of effort in consecutive games or over the course of a long playoff run.  It's not that their talent has slipped so much but their energy and athleticism has.

   Honestly I think the Perkin's supporters/Ainge haters are the main reason we here so much negativity about Perkins.  You guys wont let it rest so those who don't agree are forced to defend their positions and it comes off as sounding like we hate Perkins which at least in my case is far from the truth.  I just see him for what he is.....and what he isn't.

  He's not a game changer or impact player by any means.  Shaq even on his worst days makes an impact when he is on the floor.

[CoachBo]

It's a totally silly question, isn't it?  There was no possible way we were going to have a healthy Shaq for the playoffs.  And when you say healthy Shaq, what exactly does that mean?  Shaq at his peak earlier in the season?  Well, THAT Shaq would have to start over Perkins.  With him our offense was amazingly powerful.  But that Shaq was only around briefly.  Shaq was more or less hobbled for much of the season, and by the end, of course, he was long gone.

What makes me mad is that, because of Danny's Folly, we went into the playoffs without a legitimate starting center.  I love Jermaine for the way he came back, but he should have been coming off the bench.  Even at 60% Perkins would have strengthened us tremendously, as our starting center.   Basically Danny gave up on the season, and it almost seemed like the whole reason for it was that he was mad at Perkins for not instantly signing a contract.  And all the malarky drummed up by Danny and Doc, about how Shaq was going to return and save us, was just unbelievably cynical.  They knew Shaq wasn't coming back, or if he managed to come back, would be a shell of what he had been earlier in the season.

So like I said, this question is just silly.  We badly needed Perkins.  Period.

well said.

You guys do realize it was a silly question the other way too then, right? Because, I'm sure you are well aware that there was NO WAY the Celtics were gonna have a healthy Perkins either.  He was recovering from last season's knee injury and nursing his other knee injury right before he was traded.

Hence, the question read "..a healthy Shaq or a healthy Perkins...".  The writer gave us a hypothetical question to ponder.

It seems as though Perk has taken on a Paul Bunyan "larger than life" kind of persona amongst some of the fans here. 

It does, doesn't it? You're not going to find very many realistic assessments of Perkins around here.

We were fine while Shaq was healthy. Probably should have known he wouldn't make it through a whole season.

As for Perkins, he was a disaster for OKC in the playoffs. I still have no interest in the guy for $9 million a year. He's grossly overpaid.

[Roy H.]

I picked Perk for a variety of reasons.  Healthy Perk has shown that he can get to the Finals and win a championship with this starting lineup.  Also, I don't think Shaq, even if healthy at the beginning of the playoffs, could have held up for 23 games.

Really, though, I think we could have won a title if either of them was fully healthy on our roster.

[kn 99]

I would take shaq, but a healthy center wouldnt get us banner 18. Rondo would have to be healthy and baby would have to atleast be partially the bbd we saw in the beginning of the season

[17wasEZ]

I picked Perk for a variety of reasons.  Healthy Perk has shown that he can get to the Finals and win a championship with this starting lineup.  Also, I don't think Shaq, even if healthy at the beginning of the playoffs, could have held up for 23 games.

Really, though, I think we could have won a title if either of them was fully healthy on our roster.

You believe they would have won the title pre Rondo injury, post Rondo injury, or either way? I agree to an extent pre Rondo injury, but his dislocated elbow spelled doom for the Celtics no matter what happened.

Besides, Perk doesn't play many minutes when the opponent goes small and Miami went small for a good portion of the series.

[CelticsFanNC]

  Since all of the Miami/Boston games went down to the wire and Perkins butt was nailed to the bench in the 4th quarter even on his best days how much of a difference could he have possibly made especially since Miami wasn't even playing a legitimate center most of the entire series.  He wouldn't have been a factor in that series IMO.

[CaptainJackLee]

Healthy Perkins - arguably a top 15 center in the league

Healthy Shaq - 20 mpg rotational big

[ImShakHeIsShaq]

Healthy Perkins - arguably a top 15 center in the league

Healthy Shaq - 20 mpg rotational big

LOL

[Bankshot]

If you're talking about the healthy Shaq we had at the beginning of the season, is there really any even a question?  Celtics were the best team in the league the way Shaq was playing at the start of the season, not so much with Perk starting.  A 39 year old healthy Shaq was better than Perk.  No knock on Perk since Shaq is a hall of famer, he'd be better than most centers.

[2short]

I must be missing something?  A healthy shaq vs a healthy perk.....I hate to knock perk who always worked so hard but there is ABSOLUTELY no comparison between the two.  An aged shaq was far far better a player than perk can ever hope to be.  Head to head
Passing shaq
Offense shaq
Rebounding shaq or even
Defense perk

Perk got buckets by ball movement, he was not guarded and god forbid he got the ball on the highi post.  Shaq had to be guarded if not doubled, he opened up the floor for his teammates.  Our offense was GREAT with him in the lineup.  If anyone saw okc in the playoffs collison was the better guy.


No comparison

[Marcus13]

Perk and it's really not even a question imo