timberwolves will deal picks

[BudweiserCeltic]

I like Perk, but he should be dealt. His contract is up next year, and I know it's going to be a pain in the ass to resign him, and if we do it'll be for more than I'm willing to give him. And after KG is gone, we'll need that cap space for someone that is better than Perk if we are to rebuild properly.

[The Walker Wiggle]

This thread has been fascinating as a barometer of the Celticsblog atmosphere.

What I've learned:

Despite our thrilling playoff run and current Conference Finals standings, many would like to scrap the championship team and start the rebuilding effort this offseason.

And yet, thanks to Rasheed's reinvigorated play during our run, more fans than I'd expect would now insert him into the starting lineup/significantly increase his minutes.

Both O'Neals draw interest from fans as potential F.A. targets in the face of playoff loses at Perkins' hands.

I'm starting to wonder if I don't fall within that demographic that has only childhood memories of the last Big Three but a strong, clear-eyed recollection of the full twenty years of Celtics futility since. So much so, that - A) talk of dealing any of the current starting five in the midst of their great play/warpath towards the Finals makes me squirm and B) I cannot empathize with the desire for lottery picks, young legs, a Rondo Captaincy, what have you.

[Evantime34]

This thread has been fascinating as a barometer of the Celticsblog atmosphere.

What I've learned:

Despite our thrilling playoff run and current Conference Finals standings, many would like to scrap the championship team and start the rebuilding effort this offseason.

And yet, thanks to Rasheed's reinvigorated play during our run, more fans than I'd expect would now insert him into the starting lineup/significantly increase his minutes.

Both O'Neals draw interest from fans as potential F.A. targets in the face of playoff loses at Perkins' hands.

I'm starting to wonder if I don't fall within that demographic that has only childhood memories of the last Big Three but a strong, clear-eyed recollection of the full twenty years of Celtics futility since. So much so, that - A) talk of dealing any of the current starting five in the midst of their great play/warpath towards the Finals makes me squirm and B) I cannot empathize with the desire for lottery picks, young legs, a Rondo Captaincy, what have you.

I could not agree more. You stock pile assets in order to trade for a veterans to win championships.
We need to attempt to win every year. I don't want to push off the rebuilding effort as long as possible.
Enjoy the present no need to look to the future just now. Especially if the future would come at the expense of the present.

[celts55]

I like Perk, but he should be dealt. His contract is up next year, and I know it's going to be a pain in the ass to resign him, and if we do it'll be for more than I'm willing to give him. And after KG is gone, we'll need that cap space for someone that is better than Perk if we are to rebuild properly.

So who's better than Perk? I really don't understand why so many people seem to ne in such a hurry to trade him. Do I think he's great, no, but he's one of the best defensive centers in the league. He's one of the only guys that can take someone like Shaq or Howard out of their game with his strenth. He rebounds pretty well and is a better than average shot blocker. He moves well on defense and is and excellent help defended. lastly on the positive side, he bring a nasty attitude to the courtthat seems to carry over to reast of the team.  While he's not an offensive threat, he has improved his post moves and can score down low if needed. Sure he could shot better especially free throws and if someone could teach him to stop moving when he sets a pick, that would be wonderful, but I still think he one of the few true centers around the league anymore. And he's still only 25. he's got quite a few years left in the league.

So can someone tell me why everyone wants to trade this guy.

[BudweiserCeltic]

I like Perk, but he should be dealt. His contract is up next year, and I know it's going to be a pain in the ass to resign him, and if we do it'll be for more than I'm willing to give him. And after KG is gone, we'll need that cap space for someone that is better than Perk if we are to rebuild properly.

So who's better than Perk? I really don't understand why so many people seem to ne in such a hurry to trade him. Do I think he's great, no, but he's one of the best defensive centers in the league. He's one of the only guys that can take someone like Shaq or Howard out of their game with his strenth. He rebounds pretty well and is a better than average shot blocker. He moves well on defense and is and excellent help defended. lastly on the positive side, he bring a nasty attitude to the courtthat seems to carry over to reast of the team.  While he's not an offensive threat, he has improved his post moves and can score down low if needed. Sure he could shot better especially free throws and if someone could teach him to stop moving when he sets a pick, that would be wonderful, but I still think he one of the few true centers around the league anymore. And he's still only 25. he's got quite a few years left in the league.

So can someone tell me why everyone wants to trade this guy.

Ask me in a couple of years.

[Chris]

Both O'Neals draw interest from fans as potential F.A. targets in the face of playoff loses at Perkins' hands.

This statement I don't understand, and I find frankly dangerous, if it ever crosses Danny's mind.  Yes, Perk was on the winning team.  But he was downright attrocious in the Miami series, and was just OK in the Cleveland series.  He certainly did not win those series for the C's.

[ForexPirate]

i'd do perk for jefferson - otherwise i stand pat

[Brendan]

Both O'Neals draw interest from fans as potential F.A. targets in the face of playoff loses at Perkins' hands.

This statement I don't understand, and I find frankly dangerous, if it ever crosses Danny's mind.  Yes, Perk was on the winning team.  But he was downright attrocious in the Miami series, and was just OK in the Cleveland series.  He certainly did not win those series for the C's.

Agree - its a bit much to give Perk the credit for beating MIA (we crushed them at the team level) or CLE. When the guys that needed stopping were wings. The big guys were incidental.

I would probably do Perk for #4 abstractly. I have no idea who is good in the draft, I don't follow college ball. All I know is there is this Wall guy. But abstractly there are almost always a couple All Star caliber players available at #4 and Perk is replaceable. Maybe not exactly the same level, but without disrupting the elite talent.

I also doubt Minny wants to trade #4.

[PosImpos]

This thread has been fascinating as a barometer of the Celticsblog atmosphere.

What I've learned:

Despite our thrilling playoff run and current Conference Finals standings, many would like to scrap the championship team and start the rebuilding effort this offseason.

And yet, thanks to Rasheed's reinvigorated play during our run, more fans than I'd expect would now insert him into the starting lineup/significantly increase his minutes.

Both O'Neals draw interest from fans as potential F.A. targets in the face of playoff loses at Perkins' hands.

I'm starting to wonder if I don't fall within that demographic that has only childhood memories of the last Big Three but a strong, clear-eyed recollection of the full twenty years of Celtics futility since. So much so, that - A) talk of dealing any of the current starting five in the midst of their great play/warpath towards the Finals makes me squirm and B) I cannot empathize with the desire for lottery picks, young legs, a Rondo Captaincy, what have you.

I think it's because people want to keep winning.  The Celtics have certainly made the idea of them continuing to compete after this year more plausible with this playoff run, but we're still talking about a closing window.  In 2-3 years the Big 3 will all be near the end of their careers, and right now our only young pieces are Rondo, Perk, and Glen Davis.  Two of those guys are role players, albeit quite good ones.  Rondo is turning into a real superstar but even a great PG isn't enough to carry a team on his own (see: Paul, Christopher).

I wouldn't advocate a total rebuild by any means this summer, but if you can stockpile more future young talent by trading a role player like Perk or Baby, then you do it.  Teams that contend for years do so because they continue to restock themselves with young talent.  Teams that don't do that effectively end up like the Pistons.

However, I would say that ideally Danny would find solid contributors with future potential late in the first round (e.g. @ #19) instead of having to trade current assets for them.  The Spurs have been able to do a great job with that (George Hill, DeJuan Blair, Tiago Splitter).

[The Walker Wiggle]

Teams that contend for years do so because they continue to restock themselves with young talent. Teams that don't do that effectively end up like the Pistons.

I'm equally envious of San Antonio's approach. But not sure I'd agree otherwise about young talent, mostly because no ready example comes to mind? My impression is that the title winners of the modern era (outside of that 2004 Pistons team) have gotten just as far as their franchise talent has carried them and no further. What franchises am I overlooking? (It's more than likely.)

[pearljammer10]

i dont understand why we would trade the best one on one big man defender in the league at the age of ONLY 25, for a hit or miss project.

[guava_wrench]

i dont understand why we would trade the best one on one big man defender in the league at the age of ONLY 25, for a hit or miss project.

A lot of people wanted to rebuild midseason.

[guava_wrench]

Teams that contend for years do so because they continue to restock themselves with young talent. Teams that don't do that effectively end up like the Pistons.

I'm equally envious of San Antonio's approach. But not sure I'd agree otherwise about young talent, mostly because no ready example comes to mind? My impression is that the title winners of the modern era (outside of that 2004 Pistons team) have gotten just as far as their franchise talent has carried them and no further. What franchises am I overlooking? (It's more than likely.)

Yeah. In fact, the quote you are reacting to doesn't make any sense.

It was the Pistons who got a top draft pick, Darko, not the Spurs. The Spurs stuck with low picks and picked Euro's before it was fashionable. There is no way to duplicate that.

Even more importantly, the Spurs didn't really restock much. They got lucky with the Robinson injury and Duncan pick. They had him during his prime, not past his prime. They drafted Parker low in the draft and it worked out. We got the big 3 at the ends of their careers. We are in the third year of our revival and we are older than the Spurs.

It makes no sense to compare to the Spurs history.

[guava_wrench]

This thread has been fascinating as a barometer of the Celticsblog atmosphere.

What I've learned:

Despite our thrilling playoff run and current Conference Finals standings, many would like to scrap the championship team and start the rebuilding effort this offseason.

And yet, thanks to Rasheed's reinvigorated play during our run, more fans than I'd expect would now insert him into the starting lineup/significantly increase his minutes.

Both O'Neals draw interest from fans as potential F.A. targets in the face of playoff loses at Perkins' hands.

I'm starting to wonder if I don't fall within that demographic that has only childhood memories of the last Big Three but a strong, clear-eyed recollection of the full twenty years of Celtics futility since. So much so, that - A) talk of dealing any of the current starting five in the midst of their great play/warpath towards the Finals makes me squirm and B) I cannot empathize with the desire for lottery picks, young legs, a Rondo Captaincy, what have you.

I think it's because people want to keep winning.  The Celtics have certainly made the idea of them continuing to compete after this year more plausible with this playoff run, but we're still talking about a closing window.  In 2-3 years the Big 3 will all be near the end of their careers, and right now our only young pieces are Rondo, Perk, and Glen Davis.  Two of those guys are role players, albeit quite good ones.  Rondo is turning into a real superstar but even a great PG isn't enough to carry a team on his own (see: Paul, Christopher).

I wouldn't advocate a total rebuild by any means this summer, but if you can stockpile more future young talent by trading a role player like Perk or Baby, then you do it.  Teams that contend for years do so because they continue to restock themselves with young talent.  Teams that don't do that effectively end up like the Pistons.

However, I would say that ideally Danny would find solid contributors with future potential late in the first round (e.g. @ #19) instead of having to trade current assets for them.  The Spurs have been able to do a great job with that (George Hill, DeJuan Blair, Tiago Splitter).

Proven talent is quite different than possible talent.

By trading for draft picks, you are usually dealing for hope. Sometimes, that is all you get, despite giving up proven talent.

[CoachBo]

Exactly.

While I definitely advocate shopping Perkins for a younger potential bridge to the future like Boozer or Beasley, trading him for a draft pick is madness.

Trading Perkins only makes sense if you want to play Garnett more at the 5, and if you believe you can acquire a banger to play behind Garnett at the 5.

Otherwise, you can't do it. However, I do view Perkins as a potentially valuable trading chip to acquire a bridge to the future, and one we could stand to part with in a specific scenario like the one above. I really don't want to pay Rondo money for a guy with his limited offensive skills.