R. Allen for Pryzbilla, Blake, and Webster

[CoachBo]

Two points.

To Moranis, why exactly isn't Ray Allen a superstar anymore?  If anything, he looked better this year than he did last year.  Sure, he looked poor against Orlando, but he was burned out from being overplayed, and according to Doc, was nursing a hammy injury (or something similar).  And while he had some bad games, he also put up 50 on the Bulls. 

Ray Allen hasn't been a superstar in years.  I mean Ray Allen paired with Rashard Lewis managed a whopping 66 wins the last two years they played together (put Lewis with an actual superstar in Howard and the team wins 52 and follows that up with 59).  A superstar with a strong second fiddle (like Lewis) wins more than 33 games a year, it is quite simply reality (I realize the last year both Lewis and Allen missed time when they won just 31, but the prior year both were healthy and they won only 35).  Having a good game every fourth game doesn't make you a superstar it makes you Lamar Odom, a good player sure, but no where near a superstar who you could build a championship team around.  Ray is a piece to a championship team, but he isn't THE piece so it is entirely unrealistic to expect to get a superstar in return for a guy who is long in the tooth and best suited as a third or fourth banana (which he would be in Portland behind Roy and Aldridge, but he provides the veteran leadership that team needs). 

I hear this defense that trading Ray for other very good but not great players would most effect this team come time for the need of big shots late. If that is a large factor in the decision making, then get Robert Horry signed for the minimum and stick him in during those occasions.

I wouldn't let that one area be the deciding factor in a Ray trade. Theoretically if trading Ray fills two or more other slots on the team in a more than average way, we should be up by more points and not in need of Ray's clutchness as much. Besides, we still have Pierce who I consider to be one of the most clutch players in the league if not the most clutch player in the league.

I don't think clutch shots is a defense.

I do think that you do not move Ray Allen just to move him - which is what this trade does. We can do better than these pieces, IMHO, without moving Ray Allen. This proposal simply isn't adequate compensation.

[nickagneta]

Two points.

To Moranis, why exactly isn't Ray Allen a superstar anymore?  If anything, he looked better this year than he did last year.  Sure, he looked poor against Orlando, but he was burned out from being overplayed, and according to Doc, was nursing a hammy injury (or something similar).  And while he had some bad games, he also put up 50 on the Bulls. 

Ray Allen hasn't been a superstar in years.  I mean Ray Allen paired with Rashard Lewis managed a whopping 66 wins the last two years they played together (put Lewis with an actual superstar in Howard and the team wins 52 and follows that up with 59).  A superstar with a strong second fiddle (like Lewis) wins more than 33 games a year, it is quite simply reality (I realize the last year both Lewis and Allen missed time when they won just 31, but the prior year both were healthy and they won only 35).  Having a good game every fourth game doesn't make you a superstar it makes you Lamar Odom, a good player sure, but no where near a superstar who you could build a championship team around.  Ray is a piece to a championship team, but he isn't THE piece so it is entirely unrealistic to expect to get a superstar in return for a guy who is long in the tooth and best suited as a third or fourth banana (which he would be in Portland behind Roy and Aldridge, but he provides the veteran leadership that team needs). 

I hear this defense that trading Ray for other very good but not great players would most effect this team come time for the need of big shots late. If that is a large factor in the decision making, then get Robert Horry signed for the minimum and stick him in during those occasions.

I wouldn't let that one area be the deciding factor in a Ray trade. Theoretically if trading Ray fills two or more other slots on the team in a more than average way, we should be up by more points and not in need of Ray's clutchness as much. Besides, we still have Pierce who I consider to be one of the most clutch players in the league if not the most clutch player in the league.

I don't think clutch shots is a defense.

I do think that you do not move Ray Allen just to move him - which is what this trade does. We can do better than these pieces, IMHO, without moving Ray Allen. This proposal simply isn't adequate compensation.

Yeah, I don't like this trade either and I really believe the Celtics best chance of participating in a Ray Allen trade lies in dealing with a team that is looking to shed cash off the books long term. In that case we might be able to fill a couple or three holes in the team who's overall effect would be to make the team better, not to just shed the team of Ray.

[Moranis]

Two points.

To Moranis, why exactly isn't Ray Allen a superstar anymore?  If anything, he looked better this year than he did last year.  Sure, he looked poor against Orlando, but he was burned out from being overplayed, and according to Doc, was nursing a hammy injury (or something similar).  And while he had some bad games, he also put up 50 on the Bulls. 

Ray Allen hasn't been a superstar in years.  I mean Ray Allen paired with Rashard Lewis managed a whopping 66 wins the last two years they played together (put Lewis with an actual superstar in Howard and the team wins 52 and follows that up with 59).  A superstar with a strong second fiddle (like Lewis) wins more than 33 games a year, it is quite simply reality (I realize the last year both Lewis and Allen missed time when they won just 31, but the prior year both were healthy and they won only 35).  Having a good game every fourth game doesn't make you a superstar it makes you Lamar Odom, a good player sure, but no where near a superstar who you could build a championship team around.  Ray is a piece to a championship team, but he isn't THE piece so it is entirely unrealistic to expect to get a superstar in return for a guy who is long in the tooth and best suited as a third or fourth banana (which he would be in Portland behind Roy and Aldridge, but he provides the veteran leadership that team needs). 

I hear this defense that trading Ray for other very good but not great players would most effect this team come time for the need of big shots late. If that is a large factor in the decision making, then get Robert Horry signed for the minimum and stick him in during those occasions.

I wouldn't let that one area be the deciding factor in a Ray trade. Theoretically if trading Ray fills two or more other slots on the team in a more than average way, we should be up by more points and not in need of Ray's clutchness as much. Besides, we still have Pierce who I consider to be one of the most clutch players in the league if not the most clutch player in the league.

I don't think clutch shots is a defense.

I do think that you do not move Ray Allen just to move him - which is what this trade does. We can do better than these pieces, IMHO, without moving Ray Allen. This proposal simply isn't adequate compensation.

you can still do better and still move Ray Allen.  Just because you trade Allen for Pryzbilla, Webster, and Blake doesn't mean you still also couldn't sign Grant Hill and Rasheed Wallace (or whomever).  You make those moves and make this trade and the C's are in great shape to win the title next year, I mean I personally think a starting five of Perkins, Garnett, Hill, Pierce, and Rondo with the next five being Pryzbilla, Wallace, Webster, House, and Blake is a championship type team.  You have a nice mix of scoring and defense and enough depth to carry you through the grueling regular season so you can rest your aged veterans more so they will be fresher for the playoffs.  And frankly that bench, aside from Pryzbilla, would be an offensive juggernaut with shooters all over the place.

[Chris]

Two points.

To Moranis, why exactly isn't Ray Allen a superstar anymore?  If anything, he looked better this year than he did last year.  Sure, he looked poor against Orlando, but he was burned out from being overplayed, and according to Doc, was nursing a hammy injury (or something similar).  And while he had some bad games, he also put up 50 on the Bulls. 

Ray Allen hasn't been a superstar in years.  I mean Ray Allen paired with Rashard Lewis managed a whopping 66 wins the last two years they played together (put Lewis with an actual superstar in Howard and the team wins 52 and follows that up with 59).  A superstar with a strong second fiddle (like Lewis) wins more than 33 games a year, it is quite simply reality (I realize the last year both Lewis and Allen missed time when they won just 31, but the prior year both were healthy and they won only 35).  Having a good game every fourth game doesn't make you a superstar it makes you Lamar Odom, a good player sure, but no where near a superstar who you could build a championship team around.  Ray is a piece to a championship team, but he isn't THE piece so it is entirely unrealistic to expect to get a superstar in return for a guy who is long in the tooth and best suited as a third or fourth banana (which he would be in Portland behind Roy and Aldridge, but he provides the veteran leadership that team needs). 

I hear this defense that trading Ray for other very good but not great players would most effect this team come time for the need of big shots late. If that is a large factor in the decision making, then get Robert Horry signed for the minimum and stick him in during those occasions.

I wouldn't let that one area be the deciding factor in a Ray trade. Theoretically if trading Ray fills two or more other slots on the team in a more than average way, we should be up by more points and not in need of Ray's clutchness as much. Besides, we still have Pierce who I consider to be one of the most clutch players in the league if not the most clutch player in the league.

I don't think clutch shots is a defense.

I do think that you do not move Ray Allen just to move him - which is what this trade does. We can do better than these pieces, IMHO, without moving Ray Allen. This proposal simply isn't adequate compensation.

you can still do better and still move Ray Allen.  Just because you trade Allen for Pryzbilla, Webster, and Blake doesn't mean you still also couldn't sign Grant Hill and Rasheed Wallace (or whomever).  You make those moves and make this trade and the C's are in great shape to win the title next year, I mean I personally think a starting five of Perkins, Garnett, Hill, Pierce, and Rondo with the next five being Pryzbilla, Wallace, Webster, House, and Blake is a championship type team.  You have a nice mix of scoring and defense and enough depth to carry you through the grueling regular season so you can rest your aged veterans more so they will be fresher for the playoffs.  And frankly that bench, aside from Pryzbilla, would be an offensive juggernaut with shooters all over the place.

I think you just think higher of Webster than most of us.  I think he is a decent, but not great, shooter, who doesn't give you a whole lot more.  And in a deal like that, he would have to be the center-piece, as Pryzbilla and Blake are not going to be any more than role player rentals.

In any trade for Allen, we need to get at least 1 player who you can plug into the starting lineup going forward (or at the very least, a legit 6th man of the year candidate).  I personally don't think Webster is that guy.

[BballTim]

Two points.

To Moranis, why exactly isn't Ray Allen a superstar anymore?  If anything, he looked better this year than he did last year.  Sure, he looked poor against Orlando, but he was burned out from being overplayed, and according to Doc, was nursing a hammy injury (or something similar).  And while he had some bad games, he also put up 50 on the Bulls. 

Ray Allen hasn't been a superstar in years.  I mean Ray Allen paired with Rashard Lewis managed a whopping 66 wins the last two years they played together (put Lewis with an actual superstar in Howard and the team wins 52 and follows that up with 59).  A superstar with a strong second fiddle (like Lewis) wins more than 33 games a year, it is quite simply reality (I realize the last year both Lewis and Allen missed time when they won just 31, but the prior year both were healthy and they won only 35).  Having a good game every fourth game doesn't make you a superstar it makes you Lamar Odom, a good player sure, but no where near a superstar who you could build a championship team around.  Ray is a piece to a championship team, but he isn't THE piece so it is entirely unrealistic to expect to get a superstar in return for a guy who is long in the tooth and best suited as a third or fourth banana (which he would be in Portland behind Roy and Aldridge, but he provides the veteran leadership that team needs). 

I hear this defense that trading Ray for other very good but not great players would most effect this team come time for the need of big shots late. If that is a large factor in the decision making, then get Robert Horry signed for the minimum and stick him in during those occasions.

I wouldn't let that one area be the deciding factor in a Ray trade. Theoretically if trading Ray fills two or more other slots on the team in a more than average way, we should be up by more points and not in need of Ray's clutchness as much. Besides, we still have Pierce who I consider to be one of the most clutch players in the league if not the most clutch player in the league.

I don't think clutch shots is a defense.

I do think that you do not move Ray Allen just to move him - which is what this trade does. We can do better than these pieces, IMHO, without moving Ray Allen. This proposal simply isn't adequate compensation.

you can still do better and still move Ray Allen.  Just because you trade Allen for Pryzbilla, Webster, and Blake doesn't mean you still also couldn't sign Grant Hill and Rasheed Wallace (or whomever).  You make those moves and make this trade and the C's are in great shape to win the title next year, I mean I personally think a starting five of Perkins, Garnett, Hill, Pierce, and Rondo with the next five being Pryzbilla, Wallace, Webster, House, and Blake is a championship type team.  You have a nice mix of scoring and defense and enough depth to carry you through the grueling regular season so you can rest your aged veterans more so they will be fresher for the playoffs.  And frankly that bench, aside from Pryzbilla, would be an offensive juggernaut with shooters all over the place.

  I don't like a starting lineup with Hill instead of Allen because you lose your best shooter and have nobody to stretch the defense. I'm not sure a KG/Pierce led offense is any better than the Allen/Pierce led offense which struggled in the playoffs. I just don't see weakening the starting lineup to strengthen the bench as the way to go.

[Moranis]

I think you just think higher of Webster than most of us.  I think he is a decent, but not great, shooter, who doesn't give you a whole lot more.  And in a deal like that, he would have to be the center-piece, as Pryzbilla and Blake are not going to be any more than role player rentals.

In any trade for Allen, we need to get at least 1 player who you can plug into the starting lineup going forward (or at the very least, a legit 6th man of the year candidate).  I personally don't think Webster is that guy.

Fair enough and understandable and I do like Webster a lot (assuming he is healthy of course).  I saw a high school kid with size and athleticism (he is 6'7" or 6'8") make good progress and improve every single year he was in the league.  His career TS% is 53.5% and his eFG% is 50.1%, which for an outside shooter is very good especially when his age is factored in.  His three point shooting got better and better, and his defense got better as he got experience (he still has a ways to go defensively).  

I just think he is exactly the type of player the Celtics should be pursuing, a good kid, with a solid work ethic, that has improved every year, but that is still a long way from reaching his prime (he is still just 22).  A guy like Caron Butler (who you mentioned, but as you also mentioned won't happen) is already 28, so you will get maybe 2 years before he starts tailing off.  Sure he is better than Webster right now, but can you say that in three years nonetheless six years from now.  If part of the point is to start bridging the gap and building towards the next championship core (guys to put with Rondo and Perkins), you don't go after a Butler type player (he is too old), you go after a guy like Webster (I realize you don't like Webster, but that is the type of player the C's should be pursuing).  And it isn't like this trade really hurts the C's chances next year as Pryzbilla and Blake add a significant amount of value to the team, regardless of what Webster does.  

BTW, I would love to get Fernandez or Rodriguez from Portland as well, I just don't think they do the trade with the extra guy thrown in.

[Moranis]

Two points.

To Moranis, why exactly isn't Ray Allen a superstar anymore?  If anything, he looked better this year than he did last year.  Sure, he looked poor against Orlando, but he was burned out from being overplayed, and according to Doc, was nursing a hammy injury (or something similar).  And while he had some bad games, he also put up 50 on the Bulls. 

Ray Allen hasn't been a superstar in years.  I mean Ray Allen paired with Rashard Lewis managed a whopping 66 wins the last two years they played together (put Lewis with an actual superstar in Howard and the team wins 52 and follows that up with 59).  A superstar with a strong second fiddle (like Lewis) wins more than 33 games a year, it is quite simply reality (I realize the last year both Lewis and Allen missed time when they won just 31, but the prior year both were healthy and they won only 35).  Having a good game every fourth game doesn't make you a superstar it makes you Lamar Odom, a good player sure, but no where near a superstar who you could build a championship team around.  Ray is a piece to a championship team, but he isn't THE piece so it is entirely unrealistic to expect to get a superstar in return for a guy who is long in the tooth and best suited as a third or fourth banana (which he would be in Portland behind Roy and Aldridge, but he provides the veteran leadership that team needs). 

I hear this defense that trading Ray for other very good but not great players would most effect this team come time for the need of big shots late. If that is a large factor in the decision making, then get Robert Horry signed for the minimum and stick him in during those occasions.

I wouldn't let that one area be the deciding factor in a Ray trade. Theoretically if trading Ray fills two or more other slots on the team in a more than average way, we should be up by more points and not in need of Ray's clutchness as much. Besides, we still have Pierce who I consider to be one of the most clutch players in the league if not the most clutch player in the league.

I don't think clutch shots is a defense.

I do think that you do not move Ray Allen just to move him - which is what this trade does. We can do better than these pieces, IMHO, without moving Ray Allen. This proposal simply isn't adequate compensation.

you can still do better and still move Ray Allen.  Just because you trade Allen for Pryzbilla, Webster, and Blake doesn't mean you still also couldn't sign Grant Hill and Rasheed Wallace (or whomever).  You make those moves and make this trade and the C's are in great shape to win the title next year, I mean I personally think a starting five of Perkins, Garnett, Hill, Pierce, and Rondo with the next five being Pryzbilla, Wallace, Webster, House, and Blake is a championship type team.  You have a nice mix of scoring and defense and enough depth to carry you through the grueling regular season so you can rest your aged veterans more so they will be fresher for the playoffs.  And frankly that bench, aside from Pryzbilla, would be an offensive juggernaut with shooters all over the place.

  I don't like a starting lineup with Hill instead of Allen because you lose your best shooter and have nobody to stretch the defense. I'm not sure a KG/Pierce led offense is any better than the Allen/Pierce led offense which struggled in the playoffs. I just don't see weakening the starting lineup to strengthen the bench as the way to go.

Fair enough, but Allen is now at the age where you generally start to see a large drop off in performance. 

If Webster progresses, you could start him instead of Hill.  The C's could also go small and start House or Blake next to Rondo, both of which are excellent shooters.  There is a lot more flexibility when you actually have capable players on the bench. 

[hpantazo]

Ray is coming off one of his best years in a while, there are no signs of a drop in productivity. Our team is built to win now, and we must maximize the short window of opportunity. Trading Ray would close that window down because you will not get anyone good enough to replace him immediately. His presence on the floor opens up the game for Pierce and KG. It's bad enough that teams can drop off Rondo to double, just imagine if they could do the same to Ray's replacement. Also, his expiring contract is as valuable to us as it is to other teams, so why give it away, and give away the greatest 3 point shooter in history, for mediocre players?

[Chris]

I think you just think higher of Webster than most of us.  I think he is a decent, but not great, shooter, who doesn't give you a whole lot more.  And in a deal like that, he would have to be the center-piece, as Pryzbilla and Blake are not going to be any more than role player rentals.

In any trade for Allen, we need to get at least 1 player who you can plug into the starting lineup going forward (or at the very least, a legit 6th man of the year candidate).  I personally don't think Webster is that guy.

Fair enough and understandable and I do like Webster a lot (assuming he is healthy of course).  I saw a high school kid with size and athleticism (he is 6'7" or 6'8") make good progress and improve every single year he was in the league.  His career TS% is 53.5% and his eFG% is 50.1%, which for an outside shooter is very good especially when his age is factored in.  His three point shooting got better and better, and his defense got better as he got experience (he still has a ways to go defensively). 

I just think he is exactly the type of player the Celtics should be pursuing, a good kid, with a solid work ethic, that has improved every year, but that is still a long way from reaching his prime (he is still just 22).  A guy like Caron Butler (who you mentioned, but as you also mentioned won't happen) is already 28, so you will get maybe 2 years before he starts tailing off.  Sure he is better than Webster right now, but can you say that in three years nonetheless six years from now.  If part of the point is to start bridging the gap and building towards the next championship core (guys to put with Rondo and Perkins), you don't go after a Butler type player (he is too old), you go after a guy like Webster (I realize you don't like Webster, but that is the type of player the C's should be pursuing).  And it isn't like this trade really hurts the C's chances next year as Pryzbilla and Blake add a significant amount of value to the team, regardless of what Webster does. 

BTW, I would love to get Fernandez or Rodriguez from Portland as well, I just don't think they do the trade with the extra guy thrown in.

Fair enough.  I think we agree on the type of trade it would take the entice the C's to trade Ray though.  Its all a matter of finding the right pieces.

And I think the fact that the Blazers wouldn't include Fernandez in a trade like that is where the idea of trading Ray will fall apart.  Unless it becomes a total firesale, and we take on someone's big contract, we probably are not going to find true equal value for Ray. 

[wiley]

excellent discussion on this thread!

Agree with those who wouldn't do it without Fernandez, and even with Fernandez I'd consider it a gamble.  I'm not opposed to the deal in principle, however, as are some.  "Never trade" has applied to very few N.B.A. players over the years, especially when they're 33 years old.

[EJPLAYA]

Replace Blake with Travis Outlaw and I am all for it if we are trading Ray. I'd rather sign and trade BBD straight across for Outlaw and hold onto Ray. Throw in next years first or one of the rooks if we have to in order to get it done.

[wdleehi]

I think you just think higher of Webster than most of us.  I think he is a decent, but not great, shooter, who doesn't give you a whole lot more.  And in a deal like that, he would have to be the center-piece, as Pryzbilla and Blake are not going to be any more than role player rentals.

In any trade for Allen, we need to get at least 1 player who you can plug into the starting lineup going forward (or at the very least, a legit 6th man of the year candidate).  I personally don't think Webster is that guy.

Fair enough and understandable and I do like Webster a lot (assuming he is healthy of course).  I saw a high school kid with size and athleticism (he is 6'7" or 6'8") make good progress and improve every single year he was in the league.  His career TS% is 53.5% and his eFG% is 50.1%, which for an outside shooter is very good especially when his age is factored in.  His three point shooting got better and better, and his defense got better as he got experience (he still has a ways to go defensively).  

I just think he is exactly the type of player the Celtics should be pursuing, a good kid, with a solid work ethic, that has improved every year, but that is still a long way from reaching his prime (he is still just 22).  A guy like Caron Butler (who you mentioned, but as you also mentioned won't happen) is already 28, so you will get maybe 2 years before he starts tailing off.  Sure he is better than Webster right now, but can you say that in three years nonetheless six years from now.  If part of the point is to start bridging the gap and building towards the next championship core (guys to put with Rondo and Perkins), you don't go after a Butler type player (he is too old), you go after a guy like Webster (I realize you don't like Webster, but that is the type of player the C's should be pursuing).  And it isn't like this trade really hurts the C's chances next year as Pryzbilla and Blake add a significant amount of value to the team, regardless of what Webster does.  

BTW, I would love to get Fernandez or Rodriguez from Portland as well, I just don't think they do the trade with the extra guy thrown in.

The problem with thinking to much into the future with a guy like Webster, you start hurting the chance of winning another title now. 


That should be the goal now. 

[Moranis]

I think you just think higher of Webster than most of us.  I think he is a decent, but not great, shooter, who doesn't give you a whole lot more.  And in a deal like that, he would have to be the center-piece, as Pryzbilla and Blake are not going to be any more than role player rentals.

In any trade for Allen, we need to get at least 1 player who you can plug into the starting lineup going forward (or at the very least, a legit 6th man of the year candidate).  I personally don't think Webster is that guy.

Fair enough and understandable and I do like Webster a lot (assuming he is healthy of course).  I saw a high school kid with size and athleticism (he is 6'7" or 6'8") make good progress and improve every single year he was in the league.  His career TS% is 53.5% and his eFG% is 50.1%, which for an outside shooter is very good especially when his age is factored in.  His three point shooting got better and better, and his defense got better as he got experience (he still has a ways to go defensively).  

I just think he is exactly the type of player the Celtics should be pursuing, a good kid, with a solid work ethic, that has improved every year, but that is still a long way from reaching his prime (he is still just 22).  A guy like Caron Butler (who you mentioned, but as you also mentioned won't happen) is already 28, so you will get maybe 2 years before he starts tailing off.  Sure he is better than Webster right now, but can you say that in three years nonetheless six years from now.  If part of the point is to start bridging the gap and building towards the next championship core (guys to put with Rondo and Perkins), you don't go after a Butler type player (he is too old), you go after a guy like Webster (I realize you don't like Webster, but that is the type of player the C's should be pursuing).  And it isn't like this trade really hurts the C's chances next year as Pryzbilla and Blake add a significant amount of value to the team, regardless of what Webster does.  

BTW, I would love to get Fernandez or Rodriguez from Portland as well, I just don't think they do the trade with the extra guy thrown in.

The problem with thinking to much into the future with a guy like Webster, you start hurting the chance of winning another title now. 


That should be the goal now. 

I personally believe Webster can help the team next year, or I wouldn't have proposed the trade.  I also believe that the combination of Webster, Pryzbilla, and Blake is more likely to lead to a championship next year than Ray Allen. 

The reason this team lost to Orlando was the terrible bench.  A better bench and the C's would have beaten Orlando even without KG.

[Jon]

Two points.

To Moranis, why exactly isn't Ray Allen a superstar anymore?  If anything, he looked better this year than he did last year.  Sure, he looked poor against Orlando, but he was burned out from being overplayed, and according to Doc, was nursing a hammy injury (or something similar).  And while he had some bad games, he also put up 50 on the Bulls. 

Ray Allen hasn't been a superstar in years.  I mean Ray Allen paired with Rashard Lewis managed a whopping 66 wins the last two years they played together (put Lewis with an actual superstar in Howard and the team wins 52 and follows that up with 59).  A superstar with a strong second fiddle (like Lewis) wins more than 33 games a year, it is quite simply reality (I realize the last year both Lewis and Allen missed time when they won just 31, but the prior year both were healthy and they won only 35).  Having a good game every fourth game doesn't make you a superstar it makes you Lamar Odom, a good player sure, but no where near a superstar who you could build a championship team around.  Ray is a piece to a championship team, but he isn't THE piece so it is entirely unrealistic to expect to get a superstar in return for a guy who is long in the tooth and best suited as a third or fourth banana (which he would be in Portland behind Roy and Aldridge, but he provides the veteran leadership that team needs). 

I hear this defense that trading Ray for other very good but not great players would most effect this team come time for the need of big shots late. If that is a large factor in the decision making, then get Robert Horry signed for the minimum and stick him in during those occasions.

I wouldn't let that one area be the deciding factor in a Ray trade. Theoretically if trading Ray fills two or more other slots on the team in a more than average way, we should be up by more points and not in need of Ray's clutchness as much. Besides, we still have Pierce who I consider to be one of the most clutch players in the league if not the most clutch player in the league.

I don't think clutch shots is a defense.

I do think that you do not move Ray Allen just to move him - which is what this trade does. We can do better than these pieces, IMHO, without moving Ray Allen. This proposal simply isn't adequate compensation.

you can still do better and still move Ray Allen.  Just because you trade Allen for Pryzbilla, Webster, and Blake doesn't mean you still also couldn't sign Grant Hill and Rasheed Wallace (or whomever).  You make those moves and make this trade and the C's are in great shape to win the title next year, I mean I personally think a starting five of Perkins, Garnett, Hill, Pierce, and Rondo with the next five being Pryzbilla, Wallace, Webster, House, and Blake is a championship type team.  You have a nice mix of scoring and defense and enough depth to carry you through the grueling regular season so you can rest your aged veterans more so they will be fresher for the playoffs.  And frankly that bench, aside from Pryzbilla, would be an offensive juggernaut with shooters all over the place.

But why would you want to trade for Pryzbilla, Blake, and Webster and sign Wallace and Hill?  When games really matter in the playoffs, all the starters are going to play a minimum of 35 mpg, probably closer to 40.  What good is Rasheed and Pryzbilla going to do us?  We'll only need one of them to backup the 4/5 position.  Similarly, in a close game (and I don't just mean the last 5 seconds, I mean the last 10 minutes), it's going to be Hill or Webster who is playing next to Pierce, and neither is as good as Ray Allen. 

Even if you want to make the argument that trading Ray for pieces is a good idea, those pieces certainly aren't better.  We'd be a far better team keeping Ray Allen, adding Wallace and Hill, and keeping House and/or Marbury. 

I much prefer the playoff rotation of

Perkins/Wallace
Garnett/Wallace
Pierce/Hill
Allen/Hill
Rondo/House

over

Perkins/Pryzbilla
Garnett/Wallace
Pierce/Webster
Hill/Webster
Rondo/Blake

[Smitty77]

Jon,

Let me first say that I respect you b-ball IQ tremendously, but I strongly disagree with you when you say that "trading Ray for pieces is a good idea, those pieces certainly aren't better."

Did you realize that Blake had a 15.17 Efficiency Rating in the playoffs??  Did you know that Przybilla had a 12.83 E.R. in the playoffs?  We are not even counting the wildcard that is Webster, who should be a solid back up SF to shorten PP's minutes.

BTW, Ray Allen, that is SOOOOOO valuable and irreplaceable, was a 15.5 E.R. in the playoffs.  He had ONE great game and a LOT of subpar games.

Smitty77