Sorry Danny ya screwed up on this one

[wiley]

It's funny how people try to convince themselves that the trade was good by believing in the most extraordinary things when there are very good reasons why the trade was good and necessary. A little more nuanced than "he was never that good, I just understood that after the trade", "it was the injuries, I have faith Ainge must know something the OKC can't know" and "oh, we got the better player, future all-star", but still good reasons.

You know that works both ways. Considering all the hype we like to shower our players with, and the exaggerations you can read on any fan-board every day, it´s not far-fetched to say "he´s not as good as some people think he is".

Not to call you out, droponov, I actually appreciate your posts, but I´ve read many posts from you where you ask others why they like the trade, only to make fun of their reasoning afterwards. I´d like to hear why you think it´s a good trade for the Celtics. I assume you´ve done that in another thread when the trade happened, but I must have missed that post, although I´ve read quite a few of them in the last few days.

If you would be so nice and provide me with a link to your assessment of this trade, I would really appreciate it and give you a TP for your bother.

while waiting for Dropnov's I'll name a few from my perspective:

1.  a crappy backup, including Anthony Parker, wouldn't be played enough minutes behind Pierce, either now or in the playoffs.  Pierce with no gas at the end=trouble.  He rests more now and he can be strategically rested during the playoffs without the roof falling in....If Ray or Pierce goes down to injury, we don't have to forfeit.  We'd still have a shot.

2.  Perkins is injured.  If Perk's not 100 percent we're better off with Kristic.  Don't believe Perk will be 100 percent, including playing all out with trust in the knees, until sometime during next season.....

3. Because of Perkins injury, I think we come out ahead for this year, meaning even without the 2012 pick.  The 2012 pick was not a motive to do the deal, but a nice bonus.

4. While coming out ahead (imo and again, due to Perk's knee situation) this year, we protected against losing Perk for nothing, though the same thing could happen with Green depending on CBA.  But since for me a healthy Kristic plus Green outweighs Perk's value for the rest of 2011, losing Green instead of losing Perk doesn't make the deal any worse....

In summary:  my opinion is based on 2 things:  

1.  Perk being injured, which is what makes this deal a win in the present.  Green staying would be fantastic.  And the 2012 turning into something good would also be sweet.

2.  Adequat, valid and meaningful rest for Pierce while deepening the 4 position as well.  

[Casperian]

This season Perkins only came back from an injury a few weeks ago and has played only 10 games or so after being cleared out to play, half of them with a minutes limit. In any case, if Doc was convinced that Baby was a better player than Perkins, wouldn't he play Glenn Davis more minutes than Perkins? But once he was cleared to play more than 30 mpg, Perkins logged more minutes than Davis in every game. How did you miss this? Anyway, saying that they were at their best when Perkins wasn't on the floor when the sample of him being on the floor is so small is misleading; implying Doc actions confirm that when he played Perkins starter minutes doesn't make any sense. Your closing line-up (and Perkins actually closed some games) is not always your best line-up. I remember Shaq close to his prime being out of the closing line-up in some games and he was very clearly the best player in his teams.  

To add to my earlier post, I don´t think your reasoning here is 100% waterproof.
We can only assume why Perk logged more minutes than Baby, but I´d guess that a combination of getting Perk in game shape for the playoffs, seeing how he responds, giving the starting five time together under competitive circumstances and getting Baby some rest (I assume the Celtics were aware of his knee issues) has also to do with this. These are man-management reasons, so to argue as if there were only matchup reasons is not totally accurate, in my opinion.

In addition, it is true that your closing line-up is not always your best lineup, but this happens mostly in blowouts, and is also different from coach to coach. Watching Doc for many years, I think we have enough evidence of the fact that Doc is indeed a proponent of "the best 5 man unit should finish the game".

In summary:  my opinion is based on 2 things:  

1.  Perk being injured, which is what makes this deal a win in the present.  Green staying would be fantastic.  And the 2012 turning into something good would also be sweet.

2.  Adequat, valid and meaningful rest for Pierce while deepening the 4 position as well.  

Just looking at the current season, would you see things differently if Perk wasn´t injured? I mean, if Perk was healthy and we would´ve kept him, it´s likely that we would now have someone in the A. Parker category as our backup wing. Just playing devil´s advocate here, but Parker would provide rest for Pierce, as well. One could argue that the dropoff from Green to Parker could be offset by simply keeping Perk.

Anyway, TP for your input, too.

[wiley]

This season Perkins only came back from an injury a few weeks ago and has played only 10 games or so after being cleared out to play, half of them with a minutes limit. In any case, if Doc was convinced that Baby was a better player than Perkins, wouldn't he play Glenn Davis more minutes than Perkins? But once he was cleared to play more than 30 mpg, Perkins logged more minutes than Davis in every game. How did you miss this? Anyway, saying that they were at their best when Perkins wasn't on the floor when the sample of him being on the floor is so small is misleading; implying Doc actions confirm that when he played Perkins starter minutes doesn't make any sense. Your closing line-up (and Perkins actually closed some games) is not always your best line-up. I remember Shaq close to his prime being out of the closing line-up in some games and he was very clearly the best player in his teams.  

To add to my earlier post, I don´t think your reasoning here is 100% waterproof.
We can only assume why Perk logged more minutes than Baby, but I´d guess that getting Perk in game shape for the playoffs, seeing how he responds, giving the starting five time together under competitive circumstances and getting Baby some rest (I assume the Celtics were aware of his knee issues) has also to do with this. These are man-management reasons, so to argue as if there were only matchup reasons is not totally accurate, in my opinion.

In addition, it is true that your closing line-up is not always your best lineup, but this happens mostly in blowouts, and is also different from coach to coach. Watching Doc for many years, I think we have enough evidence of the fact that Doc is indeed a proponent of "the best 5 man should finish the game". The fact that we only had a 7-4 record with Perkins in the starting line-up would speak for this, too.

In summary:  my opinion is based on 2 things:  

1.  Perk being injured, which is what makes this deal a win in the present.  Green staying would be fantastic.  And the 2012 turning into something good would also be sweet.

2.  Adequat, valid and meaningful rest for Pierce while deepening the 4 position as well.  

Just looking at the current season, would you see things differently if Perk wasn´t injured? I mean, if Perk was healthy and we would´ve kept him, it´s likely that we would now have someone in the A. Parker category as our backup wing. Just playing devil´s advocate here, but Parker would provide rest for Pierce, as well. One could argue that the dropoff from Green to Parker could be offset by simply keeping Perk.

Anyway, TP for your input, too.

If Perk had been playing all season and was considered 100 percent, I wouldn't have done the trade.....I'd have grabbed Parker as you said.....

[Casperian]

If Perk had been playing all season and was considered 100 percent, I wouldn't have done the trade.....I'd have grabbed Parker as you said.....

Even if that would´ve meant to potentially lose him in the off-season for nothing?
Is it because you think we didn´t get fair value in the trade, or because you´re concerned about chemistry issues?

[wiley]

If Perk had been playing all season and was considered 100 percent, I wouldn't have done the trade.....I'd have grabbed Parker as you said.....

Even if that would´ve meant to potentially lose him in the off-season for nothing?
Is it because you think we didn´t get fair value in the trade, or because you´re concerned about chemistry issues?

If Perk was healthy and playing at top level I just wouldn't have had the guts to make the trade...Still could have been a good deal, but I would have been afraid to find out.  With Perk injured, not even playing, it seemed like a no-brainer and a coup....for me it's all about the knees....I hope they get better and we see Perk of old sometime next year.  If he plays great ball this year with no problems, all the props in the world to him.  I love his work ethic and general approach and admire the comeback he made this year...

[Casperian]

If Perk had been playing all season and was considered 100 percent, I wouldn't have done the trade.....I'd have grabbed Parker as you said.....

Even if that would´ve meant to potentially lose him in the off-season for nothing?
Is it because you think we didn´t get fair value in the trade, or because you´re concerned about chemistry issues?

If Perk was healthy and playing at top level I just wouldn't have had the guts to make the trade...Still could have been a good deal, but I would have been afraid to find out.  With Perk injured, not even playing, it seemed like a no-brainer and a coup....for me it's all about the knees....I hope they get better and we see Perk of old sometime next year.  If he plays great ball this year with no problems, all the props in the world to him.  I love his work ethic and general approach and admire the comeback he made this year...

I´ll take that as an answer. I mean, it´s just a big "what if", anyway. I agree it was a gutsy move. It just shows how hard these decisions can be.

Still hoping for droponov to drop by.

[elcotte]

You don't trade away a critical peace of your team when you have a shot to win a championship for the future.  Idc if we wouldn't have gotten anything back in return for Perk. 

If we won a championship it would have been worth it.

Chances like this at a championship don't come around very often like this.

Actually, yes you do make the trade if you think you are improving your team. It's that simple.

[droponov]

I was quite divided about this trade when it first happened.  However, what's won me over is this simple fact: the Celtics were at their best when Kendrick Perkins WAS NOT on the floor.  

In 2008, Doc routinely went with Posey to close out games.  When it wasn't Posey, it was P.J. Brown (who could hit an 18 footer).  

This year, it was the same thing.  Even against teams like Orlando (who we supposedly need Kendrick for), Doc again went with the offense of Big Baby over the defense of Perk.  

Is it because of free throw shooting?  Partly.  But if that was the sole case, Nate Robinson would've been closing games out for Rondo.  It was because ultimately Perkins's defense didn't make up for his lack of offense: the Celtics were a better team with Big Baby than with him.  

And that's what we saw with Shaq too.  When you put another offender out there, it was just absolutely impossible to guard this team.  And if Shaq's going to start games with the Big Four and BBD is going to close them, then what exactly is the enormous need for Kendrick?  

And that's why I think Jeff Green could be huge.  He's someone more offensively gifted than Posey, BBD, and (at this stage of his career) Shaq.  How unguardable can this team be if he figures out how to play with the Big Four?  We'd have four All Stars and another guy who soon could be.  

Again, I'll miss Perk.  But I think when you really examine who Doc has relied on over the years to get it done, Perk wasn't one of those guys.  

I appreciate the effort to explain the thought process in detail, but that's a terrible post.

This season Perkins only came back from an injury a few weeks ago and has played only 10 games or so after being cleared out to play, half of them with a minutes limit. In any case, if Doc was convinced that Baby was a better player than Perkins, wouldn't he play Glenn Davis more minutes than Perkins? But once he was cleared to play more than 30 mpg, Perkins logged more minutes than Davis in every game. How did you miss this? Anyway, saying that they were at their best when Perkins wasn't on the floor when the sample of him being on the floor is so small is misleading; implying Doc actions confirm that when he played Perkins starter minutes doesn't make any sense. Your closing line-up (and Perkins actually closed some games) is not always your best line-up. I remember Shaq close to his prime being out of the closing line-up in some games and he was very clearly the best player in his teams.

Then you mention the 07/08 season. For that one, we already have some large enough samples to draw conclusions. The best unit the Celtics that season with a minimum of 100 minutes played (with no minutes limit it was one with Eddie House, Tony Allen and Scott Pollard but no Garnett) included Perkins as did 3 of the top 4 units. The team's offense was 3.5 points per 100 possessions better floor and the team defense 2.5 points per 100 possessions better with Perkins on the floor, for a net gain of 6 points. On the other hand, with Posey the offense was 7.4 points per 100 poss. worse and the defense 3.8 points per 100 poss. worse with him on the floor, for a net loss of 11 points.

The Rondo/Ray/Pierce/Perkins/Garnett unit outscored their opponents by 19.47 points per 100 possessions while the same unit with Posey instead of Perkins outscored their opponents by 6.86 points per 100 possessions. Btw, that unit played less than 150 minutes in the entire season and was rarely used to finish a game. The fact that it was used as the closing unit in some playoff games, especially in the finals, leads people to remember it being used more than it actually was.

So, there doesn't seem to exist many evidence to backup your claim. In fact, all the evidence points out that the Celtics have been a better team with Perkins on the floor - even if sometimes, but far from always, Doc leaves him out of line-up that closes games.

Finally, you simply don't mention any season between 07/08 and this one, even though Perkins played 80% of his minutes as a Celtic during that period! You mention his first season as a full-time starter and the one where he played a dozen of games after coming back from a season ending surgery... and not the most important and relevant stretch of his career! I think we can agree it doesn't make any sense at all, no?

It's funny how people try to convince themselves that the trade was good by believing in the most extraordinary things when there are very good reasons why the trade was good and necessary. A little more nuanced than "he was never that good, I just understood that after the trade", "it was the injuries, I have faith Ainge must know something the OKC can't know" and "oh, we got the better player, future all-star", but still good reasons.

Glen Davis is averaging 29.4 mpg this season.  Kendrick Perkins is averaging 26.1 mpg.  Glen Davis did play more minutes per game than Perkins this year. 

Did Perk play long minutes in a handful of games?  Yes.  But that was when we had no one else to play any minutes at center.

I understand you haven't been able to follow the team this season, but Perkins, as every guy who comes back from a prolonged stoppage due to injury and surgery, had a cap on the minutes he was allowed to play for game. That's why his mpg average is lower. Once they got rid of the limit, he consistently played more than Davis. This was explained in the post you quoted, it's surprising you missed it.
 

And the central argument ultimately was this: Danny learned he was better starting games with Shaq and ending games with Baby.  The even more general lesson being that this team with more potent with an offensively able player with the 4 All Stars.  He was then given the opportunity to land an even more offensively potent player in Jeff Green and he took the chance. 

That may be the central argument, but it wasn't in your post. I challenged the facts - the fiction that you presented at facts, actually - not that sort of speculation.

Red always said that it's the best players that finish games.  Perk is a good player.  However, if he was as good as some people are making him out to be, his defense would've been so stellar that Doc would've been forced to keep him in at the end of games despite his shortcomings.  But it was not. 

That's nosense. Red isn't coaching the team and there are good reasons to not finish the game with your best players. Besides Shaq, I remember Rondo not finishing games to. Was it because House or Cassell were better players?

Still, it's a moot point. Perkins finished a lot more games than Davis. I'll assume you just started paying attention to the Celtics/NBA this season, otherwise you'd know that. One week with the player coming back from injury and playing his way into shape doesn't trump hundreds of games. That reasoning is so utterly absurd I'm not even sure what else to say.

[droponov]

It's funny how people try to convince themselves that the trade was good by believing in the most extraordinary things when there are very good reasons why the trade was good and necessary. A little more nuanced than "he was never that good, I just understood that after the trade", "it was the injuries, I have faith Ainge must know something the OKC can't know" and "oh, we got the better player, future all-star", but still good reasons.

You know that works both ways. Considering all the hype we like to shower our players with, and the exaggerations you can read on any fan-board every day, it´s not far-fetched to say "he´s not as good as some people think he is".

What both ways? It's the same think. The only reason you now read that Perkins wasn't really that good or that the team is better than Davis is because he's not a Celtic any more. 2 I understand the phenomenon.

Not to call you out, droponov, I actually appreciate your posts, but I´ve read many posts from you where you ask others why they like the trade, only to make fun of their reasoning afterwards.

I don't think that's true. I don't remember asking others why they like the trade and I certainly didn't make fun of anyone's reasoning. Can you link/quote the post when that happened? It seems to me you're just making stuff up.

[droponov]

I´d like to hear why you think it´s a good trade for the Celtics. I assume you´ve done that in another thread when the trade happened, but I must have missed that post, although I´ve read quite a few of them in the last few days.

If you would be so nice and provide me with a link to your assessment of this trade, I would really appreciate it and give you a TP for your bother.

Sure, no problem:

http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=44838.msg929248#msg929248

If Jermaine O'Neal can play at an acceptable level in the play-offs, I think Boston needed to do this trade.

I didn't like their chances against Miami with a wing rotation of Paul Pierce/Ray Allen/Von Wafer/Delonte West. Regardless of the strong interior and help defense in the last reg. season win, I think that was fools gold. I also don't think guys like Butler or Parker would change anything significantly. Not with the kind of wings Boston will face.

I also didn't like that their best small-ball line-up was Pierce at the 4.

I believe Jeff Green is a very above average defender at the 3, especially versus the big wings Boston will face in the playoffs: LeBron James, Carmelo Anthony, Luol Deng, Hedo Turkoglu, maybe Durant.


I think Jermaine O'Neal is more important than Shaq. The other day I noticed in Synergy that Jermaine was one of the best post defenders in the NBA last season and spent quite some time looking at his clips. If he can play at that level this season, I don't think the Celtics interior defense got any worse. I'm slightly worried about the rebounding and, in fact, I'm a bit worried that the offense got worst because of O'Neal trying to do too much, unlike Perkins.

http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=44858.msg929262#msg929262

Only for the Celtics?

1. The Celtics now have a respectable, competitive, championship level wing rotation.

2. The Celtics now have a respectable small-ball line-up.

3. This suggests Ainge believes the O'Neals have a positive chance of being healthy in the playoffs

http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=44877.msg929589#msg929589

Yeah, I also think Ainge did this trade because he was worried with the lack of versatility in the team this season. He's looking at this year's playoffs - I'm not really sure if this improves the team for the future beyond that (it depends on the contract negotiations with Green vs. Perkins, that pick isn't significant).

Perkins presence, assuming the O'Neals can play, offered diminishing returns. Green fills a huge gap. That's why Danny did the trade, not because of the future. He prefers to gamble on the O'Neal's health than being sure about a crippled backcourt.

Krstic is a superb 5th/6th big. Erden was a very below average one. Similar rebounding wise, Krstic is less error prone defensively and in a whole different planet offensively.

http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=44863.msg930374#msg930374

Looking at a full season of plays (last season), Krstic ranked 19th in the league amongst centers (including pfs who played the position) for post-up plays (minimum 150 plays). That's a more accurate measure of his talent than his rank this season. In this type of plays he allowed 0.87 points per play (with a 44.4FG% allowed, 9.5% shooting fouls committed and 8.6% turnovers forced). Exact same efficiency of guys like Noah, Gasol and Dalembert. For good measure, Perkins ranked 5th with 0.75 ppp allowed and Jermaine O'Neal 7th with 0.75 ppg. This season his numbers improved, but I don't think he did.

So yeah, watching him I think he's an above average but not excellent post defender. The type of defender that will contest shots by raising both his arms and staying on the ground, has enough footwork to not be thrown away of the spot in most situations and isn't easy to back down. He isn't very physical, doesn't bump people before the ball arrives, something that the Celtics do very well when defending Howard, for example. And doesn't really contest the shots, it's more like he bothers. That's generally enough to make one competent, even if excellent gets out of touch.

Anyway, it's the pick'n'roll defense and the help defense at the rim that are more shaky.

http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=45024.msg932814#msg932814

Parker and Butler don't add a lot (or anything at all) to what Delonte West and Von Wafer do. That would still be a crippled backcourt.

On the other hand, if the O'Neals (especially Jermaine) can play, Boston shouldn't lose much. Jermaine is an elite post defender, even Krstic is pretty good. The team's defense was still the best in the league without Perkins. There's always the risk of injuries, but I assume that's a very well calculated one.

http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=45006.msg932789#msg932789

I suspect the only reason why Danny didn't make a better extension offer to Perkins was because the rules prevented him from doing it, not because he didn't want it. And that the triggering factor to trade him was the absence of a wing backup, not worries about Perkins next salary - it'd always be Ainge's option to keep him or not.

Who are the centers you're thinking about? I think Perkins' value is around $34 millions/4 years.

http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=45006.msg932660#msg932660

I didn't think the Celtics offer was a reasonable reflection of Perk's value. $6 millions per season... he'll end up getting offers 40% to 70% higher. It was just the most the Celtics could offer under the rules.

I agree Perkins loyalties are first and foremost with his family though and rightly so. He may put a small premium on location and the competitiveness of the team, but he'll end up signing with whomever makes the best contract offer. It's going to be the Thunder, they didn't trade for him with the goal of getting a rental.

I wonder if they're going to agree to an extension tomorrow or not. If I were Perkins I'd try to work it out.

Those were the posts directly or indirectly related to the trade that I wrote during the day of the trade and the following days. Feel free to follow-up with questions if you have any doubt.

[Casperian]

It's funny how people try to convince themselves that the trade was good by believing in the most extraordinary things when there are very good reasons why the trade was good and necessary. A little more nuanced than "he was never that good, I just understood that after the trade", "it was the injuries, I have faith Ainge must know something the OKC can't know" and "oh, we got the better player, future all-star", but still good reasons.

You know that works both ways. Considering all the hype we like to shower our players with, and the exaggerations you can read on any fan-board every day, it´s not far-fetched to say "he´s not as good as some people think he is".

What both ways? It's the same think. The only reason you now read that Perkins wasn't really that good or that the team is better than Davis is because he's not a Celtic any more. 2 I understand the phenomenon.

I can assure you, there is no phenomenon, in my case. I always thought of Perk as a very good role-player, not as a top center, and I´d say I have a well documented history of being somewhat of a "Baby homer". If someone says "Perk wasn´t that good", then it´s  relative to another opinion (or in this case, an established narrative), that he indeed was "that" good.

The person who says this is not necessarily rationalizing, and thus, referring to his own former opinion of Perk, he could simply react to the outcry we all witnessed and the following outrage over the trade on this site and many others on the internet.

Posts that started with expressions such as "Wow" or "unbelievable" were all too common during the first few hours of the trade, which was to be expected, because the general consensus of Perk was that he´s an irreplacable piece to the puzzle, that his qualities are crucial to win #18, and that any trade involving him would destroy our chemistry and chances to win the championship. Listening to the analysts on ESPN, they seem to share this opinion in large parts, too. A quick look around (the title of this thread, for example) shows that it also still exists among parts of the Celtics faithful.

So, it´s a bit too simple to call posters who say they like this trade because they feel Perk was replacable and not "that" good rationalizing. There might be more to it, and to make definite statements that their opinion now is not because of conviction but because of insecurity is in fact a bit insulting. I´m sure that´s not your intention, I´m just trying to show you the other side of the medal.

I don't think that's true. I don't remember asking others why they like the trade and I certainly didn't make fun of anyone's reasoning. Can you link/quote the post when that happened? It seems to me you're just making stuff up.

OK, I want to apologize if I offended you. As I said, I appreciate your posts, and I mean it. It´s absolutely possible that a) I confused you with another poster, or b) that I misunderstood the tone in some of your posts.
I had the impression that you insinuate ulterior motives, or presume the emotions behind the post of another poster, as with my earlier post (see above), or as with Jon´s post in this thread, and I simply feel no need for this.
There might be a group of posters who try to rationalize the trade, but some of us can form their own opinion, even if it´s wrong.

...

Well, I was hoping for a single post, so that I could follow your stream of thoughts here, but that´ll do. Thank you, and TP.

[droponov]

It's funny how people try to convince themselves that the trade was good by believing in the most extraordinary things when there are very good reasons why the trade was good and necessary. A little more nuanced than "he was never that good, I just understood that after the trade", "it was the injuries, I have faith Ainge must know something the OKC can't know" and "oh, we got the better player, future all-star", but still good reasons.

You know that works both ways. Considering all the hype we like to shower our players with, and the exaggerations you can read on any fan-board every day, it´s not far-fetched to say "he´s not as good as some people think he is".

What both ways? It's the same think. The only reason you now read that Perkins wasn't really that good or that the team is better than Davis is because he's not a Celtic any more. 2 I understand the phenomenon.

I can assure you, there is no phenomenon, in my case. I always thought of Perk as a very good role-player, not as a top center, and I´d say I have a well documented history of being somewhat of a "Baby homer". If someone says "Perk wasn´t that good", then it´s  relative to another opinion (or in this case, an established narrative), that he indeed was "that" good.

The person who says this is not necessarily rationalizing, and thus, referring to his own former opinion of Perk, he could simply react to the outcry we all witnessed and the following outrage over the trade on this site and many others on the internet.

Posts that started with expressions such as "Wow" or "unbelievable" were all too common during the first few hours of the trade, which was to be expected, because the general consensus of Perk was that he´s an irreplacable piece to the puzzle, that his qualities are crucial to win #18, and that any trade involving him would destroy our chemistry and chances to win the championship. Listening to the analysts on ESPN, they seem to share this opinion in large parts, too. A quick look around (the title of this thread, for example) shows that it also still exists among parts of the Celtics faithful.

So, it´s a bit too simple to call posters who say they like this trade because they feel Perk was replacable and not "that" good rationalizing. There might be more to it, and to make definite statements that their opinion now is not because of conviction but because of insecurity is in fact a bit insulting. I´m sure that´s not your intention, I´m just trying to show you the other side of the medal.

If you aren't one of the people described there, then the description is not applicable to you and you don't have to worry. This is obvious.

I don't think that's true. I don't remember asking others why they like the trade and I certainly didn't make fun of anyone's reasoning. Can you link/quote the post when that happened? It seems to me you're just making stuff up.

OK, I want to apologize if I offended you. As I said, I appreciate your posts, and I mean it. It´s absolutely possible that a) I confused you with another poster, or b) that I misunderstood the tone in some of your posts.
I had the impression that you insinuate ulterior motives, or presume the emotions behind the post of another poster, as with my earlier post (see above), or as with Jon´s post in this thread, and I simply feel no need for this.
There might be a group of posters who try to rationalize the trade, but some of us can form their own opinion, even if it´s wrong.

Who's Jon? You have to link the posts, I can't remember the names of the people writing them. As I've said, "I don't remember asking others why they like the trade and I certainly didn't make fun of anyone's reasoning". I'm not sure what you're trying to say now, but I don't time to lose with this anyway.

Well, I was hoping for a single post, so that I could follow your stream of thoughts here

Cliffs notes:

Wing rotation too weak (Wafer/West as backups), especially considering the potential opponents (abundance of big wings like LeBron, Melo, Turk, Deng, Granger). Doubtful the team could win it all without an improvement there. Glaring weakness easy to be explored.

Cheap alternatives rumoured to be available (Parker, Butler) not good enough.

Perkins presence = diminishing returns. A very large part of his contributions can be replaced by a center rotation of Shaq, O'Neal and Krstic.

Green is a good defender at the 3 and should be a solid all-around player at that position. Krstic is an underrated post defender and superb as depth.

Second biggest weakness besides the wing rotation was the lack of a quick small-ball line-up - Green also solves that.

Conclusion: trade makes Boston stronger this season.