TP.
Thinking this through:
Are we really more like a .500 team without KG, and, if so, should the rest of the starting 5 (except, perhaps, Pierce) be on the table if the right deal should come along? Perhaps we're overestimating the value of the rest of the guys? Are they all just very, very good role players around KG, getting a boost by playing with him? Are we like the Piston's title team: very good players playing well together?
The Cs performance without KG over the last 3 years would suggest they'd be better than .500 without him, more like low 50s in wins with a scoring margin around +3 or +4. That'd make them probably a 4-seed, a bit better than the low seeds and a bit worse than the high seeds...essentially what we saw play-out last postseason.
I think that is very good for a team without their best player, probably similar to what the Lakers would look like without Kobe, so no, I definitely don't see the point in making some sort of fire sale trade. Defensively I do think they are mainly good role players surrounding Garnett, but offensively as others have pointed out the Celtics have some fire with Pierce especially as one of the best offensive players in the league. And the pieces to this team fit together great when everyone is healthy, with great chemistry as it seems like most of our guys genuinely like each other...what would be the point of trying to break that up?
Oh, no no no...not suggesting blowing it up. I'd certainly like to make a run this year with the starting 5, and perhaps (hopefully) a tweaked bench.
However...when this summer comes, it might make a lot of sense to listen very closely when other teams ask about Rondo and Perk. Given the above discussion of how everything revolves around KG, the other pieces might be more movable than at least I thought before. Free agent championship role players have been overpaid for years (i.e. Posey in NO), so why not trade the guys under contract when their value is highest for better prospects? (Red always said to make trades when the team is winning.) This would suggest Rondo and Perk are tradable assets, rather than future cornerstones. I suppose that's the proposition...are they franchise cornerstones, or role players? They're not faring too well when it's on their shoulders, are they?
I think Danny might tweak this season, but if it doesn't go well, we might have the pieces to get a major FA in a sign-and-trade this summer, right?
It's more complicated than that, not in small part because Garnett is 33 years old with shaky knees now. His impact on the court is still huge, but you can't just ignore that he's a risk right now (as much as I wish you could). Guys like Rondo and Perk are the young blood on the team, and that is vital in itself when it comes to building for the future. I wouldn't have given Rondo a max deal, but IIRC he got something on the order of what a Tony Parker got in San Antonio. I think that's fair. Just because Duncan may be better than Parker, that doesn't mean that Parker isn't a great young player in his own right. Similar with Rondo.
And the same would be true for Perk. I wouldn't give him a max deal, and if that's what he's looking for then yeah, the team is better off moving him. But he's a good young center, and his contributions to this team are also very important.
I think we may have gotten off in a direction I wasn't aiming. There's a difference between saying that KG is the best player on the team and saying that everyone else is garbage. As I said in my last post, I think we have one of the better overall teams in the league and that's vital. I wouldn't build a team with championship aspirations around Rondo and Perk as the BEST two players, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't be two very good starters in 6 years surrounding whatever other great players come in to replace KG, Pierce and Ray once their time here has passsed.
Topic: KG's impact on defense (ESPN article) (Read 4517 times)