Trading Perk to get younger doesn't make sense to me

[Jon]

I agree that Perk is from a talent standpoint expendable, but given the fact that Dwight Howard is 24 and the fact that the road to the Finals is likely going to run through Orlando for the next 6-8 years, I like the idea of holding onto Perk.  

Does that mean I don't deal him to make a blockbuster go down?  No.  However, I wouldn't trade him for a perceived minor upgrade.  

That's a good point about the Magic and Howard.  Perk truly is the BEST center in the league at playing him one on one and the Celtics are the BEST team at coming up with good team defenses against Howard and the whole Magic team.

However, if we know that it's only going downhill from here on out for awhile, then if looking towards the future is what matters most and we can get a more offensively gifted center to go along with Rondo, then I agree, we do it.

Cause whats the point of arguing that we keep Perk to play the Magic if we can't even make it far enough in the playoffs to play the Magic anyway?

True.  And if Howard was 29, I'd be totally on board.  But the fact of the matter is that we may rebuild for 3-4 years and still have to play Howard in his prime. 

Again, I wouldn't hold onto Perk just for that, but I also wouldn't be overly anxious to give away such a defensively gifted player.  People get too enamored with offense, and all you have to do is look back at these past playoffs to see what happened to teams who overvalued offense and undervalued defense. 

Also, if we're trading Perk, I'd also seriously ask for what purpose.  I don't like the idea of trading him for a player who will take a couple of years to develop right now.  All that does is screw us next year.  The fact of the matter is that Perk (assuming he recovers), isn't going to lose value.  If anything, he'll probably gain it as he proves he has recovered. 

And I wouldn't worry about a new contract.  Any team who deals with him will be expecting to give him a contract double what he makes now.  So I don't see how the C's giving him that contract and then trading him in a year or two really hurts that.  If anything, if one of the Big Three goes down next year, he may put up inflated stats to get teams to overvalue him more. 

[Chris]

I agree that Perk is from a talent standpoint expendable, but given the fact that Dwight Howard is 24 and the fact that the road to the Finals is likely going to run through Orlando for the next 6-8 years, I like the idea of holding onto Perk.  

Does that mean I don't deal him to make a blockbuster go down?  No.  However, I wouldn't trade him for a perceived minor upgrade.  

That's a good point about the Magic and Howard.  Perk truly is the BEST center in the league at playing him one on one and the Celtics are the BEST team at coming up with good team defenses against Howard and the whole Magic team.

However, if we know that it's only going downhill from here on out for awhile, then if looking towards the future is what matters most and we can get a more offensively gifted center to go along with Rondo, then I agree, we do it.

Cause whats the point of arguing that we keep Perk to play the Magic if we can't even make it far enough in the playoffs to play the Magic anyway?

True.  And if Howard was 29, I'd be totally on board.  But the fact of the matter is that we may rebuild for 3-4 years and still have to play Howard in his prime. 

Again, I wouldn't hold onto Perk just for that, but I also wouldn't be overly anxious to give away such a defensively gifted player.  People get too enamored with offense, and all you have to do is look back at these past playoffs to see what happened to teams who overvalued offense and undervalued defense. 

Also, if we're trading Perk, I'd also seriously ask for what purpose.  I don't like the idea of trading him for a player who will take a couple of years to develop right now.  All that does is screw us next year.  The fact of the matter is that Perk (assuming he recovers), isn't going to lose value.  If anything, he'll probably gain it as he proves he has recovered. 

And I wouldn't worry about a new contract.  Any team who deals with him will be expecting to give him a contract double what he makes now.  So I don't see how the C's giving him that contract and then trading him in a year or two really hurts that.  If anything, if one of the Big Three goes down next year, he may put up inflated stats to get teams to overvalue him more. 

I hate to downplay Perk's abilities against Howard, or to give a coach too much credit, but I think its hard to overlook the fact that Davis has also been exceptionally good at slowing Howard down as well.  So I at least have to wonder whether Clifford Ray might simply know how to take Howard out of his game.

Actually, I don't even wonder, I know it for a fact.  The C's always play Howard the exact same way, whether it was Perk, Davis, or Sheed on him, and there really was not a huge drop off between them.  So I have at least some hope that they could also teach someone else how to lean on him, and anticipate his (incredibly predictable) low post "moves", forcing him into bad shots.

[PosImpos]

Well, per the most recent news release it sounds pretty clear Perk isn't getting traded, at least not right now.  Not very surprising.  Pretty tough to trade a guy about to get surgery.

I'm really troubled by the thought that Ainge would trade out of the draft entirely to "save money for a veteran free agent."

Veteran free agent?  Really?  What, like Michael Finley or Marquis Daniels?  We don't need veterans who may give us nothing.  We're no longer a contender one or two veterans away from being complete. 

We need to start stockpiling assets for the future, and that means drafting young players with potential.

[Chris]

Well, per the most recent news release it sounds pretty clear Perk isn't getting traded, at least not right now.  Not very surprising.  Pretty tough to trade a guy about to get surgery.

I'm really troubled by the thought that Ainge would trade out of the draft entirely to "save money for a veteran free agent."

Veteran free agent?  Really?  What, like Michael Finley or Marquis Daniels?  We don't need veterans who may give us nothing.  We're no longer a contender one or two veterans away from being complete. 

We need to start stockpiling assets for the future, and that means drafting young players with potential.

I missed that, where did Danny say he was going to trade out of the draft for money for a veteran free agent?

But if he did, I don't think he was necessarily talking about an old guy.  He just meant someone who is already an NBA player.  That is not such a bad thing.

But I would be shocked if he trades out, and does not get a future first rounder in return (if he doesn't get a good player).  And a future first rounder is very valuable in rebuilding.  If he does not have confidence that anyone at 19 is going to be a very good player, then a future draft pick would be more likely to build value than that player would, therefore it is better to have.

Let's face it, this team is not going to rebuild by picking 19th.  They are going to rebuild by somehow getting a high lottery pick, or by making trades.  The two things most valuable in trades are expiring contracts (or cap space) and draft picks.  Right now they are looking at having expiring contracts next season.  So if they have draft picks to package with them, they could be in great position to "rebuild".

[PosImpos]

Well, per the most recent news release it sounds pretty clear Perk isn't getting traded, at least not right now.  Not very surprising.  Pretty tough to trade a guy about to get surgery.

I'm really troubled by the thought that Ainge would trade out of the draft entirely to "save money for a veteran free agent."

Veteran free agent?  Really?  What, like Michael Finley or Marquis Daniels?  We don't need veterans who may give us nothing.  We're no longer a contender one or two veterans away from being complete.  

We need to start stockpiling assets for the future, and that means drafting young players with potential.

I missed that, where did Danny say he was going to trade out of the draft for money for a veteran free agent?

But if he did, I don't think he was necessarily talking about an old guy.  He just meant someone who is already an NBA player.  That is not such a bad thing.

But I would be shocked if he trades out, and does not get a future first rounder in return (if he doesn't get a good player).  And a future first rounder is very valuable in rebuilding.  If he does not have confidence that anyone at 19 is going to be a very good player, then a future draft pick would be more likely to build value than that player would, therefore it is better to have.

Let's face it, this team is not going to rebuild by picking 19th.  They are going to rebuild by somehow getting a high lottery pick, or by making trades.  The two things most valuable in trades are expiring contracts (or cap space) and draft picks.  Right now they are looking at having expiring contracts next season.  So if they have draft picks to package with them, they could be in great position to "rebuild".

Check the newest update on the front page (from the Herald).

I'm fine with not picking at 19.  I actually don't mind the idea of trading 19 for a couple of later picks in the first and early second round.  But a future first might not be any better than this one, and I think the Celtics need to look to get younger as soon as possible.

The trades for KG and Ray were made possible by young players - draft assets stockpiled over time.  Some of them, like Delonte and Gomes, were not high picks but turned out to have a fair amount of trade value. 

After all, one of Danny's strengths is supposed to be finding valuable players with later draft picks.  He hasn't had a ton of success with free agent acquisitions.

[Greenbean]

I agree that Perk is from a talent standpoint expendable, but given the fact that Dwight Howard is 24 and the fact that the road to the Finals is likely going to run through Orlando for the next 6-8 years, I like the idea of holding onto Perk.  

Does that mean I don't deal him to make a blockbuster go down?  No.  However, I wouldn't trade him for a perceived minor upgrade.  

That's a good point about the Magic and Howard.  Perk truly is the BEST center in the league at playing him one on one and the Celtics are the BEST team at coming up with good team defenses against Howard and the whole Magic team.

However, if we know that it's only going downhill from here on out for awhile, then if looking towards the future is what matters most and we can get a more offensively gifted center to go along with Rondo, then I agree, we do it.

Cause whats the point of arguing that we keep Perk to play the Magic if we can't even make it far enough in the playoffs to play the Magic anyway?

True.  And if Howard was 29, I'd be totally on board.  But the fact of the matter is that we may rebuild for 3-4 years and still have to play Howard in his prime. 

Again, I wouldn't hold onto Perk just for that, but I also wouldn't be overly anxious to give away such a defensively gifted player.  People get too enamored with offense, and all you have to do is look back at these past playoffs to see what happened to teams who overvalued offense and undervalued defense. 

Also, if we're trading Perk, I'd also seriously ask for what purpose.  I don't like the idea of trading him for a player who will take a couple of years to develop right now.  All that does is screw us next year.  The fact of the matter is that Perk (assuming he recovers), isn't going to lose value.  If anything, he'll probably gain it as he proves he has recovered. 

And I wouldn't worry about a new contract.  Any team who deals with him will be expecting to give him a contract double what he makes now.  So I don't see how the C's giving him that contract and then trading him in a year or two really hurts that.  If anything, if one of the Big Three goes down next year, he may put up inflated stats to get teams to overvalue him more. 

For the most part I agree with you but our defense was superb against the Lakers. Ultimately we lost because we could not score the ball.

[Beat LA]

Totally agree. The second round is a pretty much a crapshoot. It's not reasonable to attack a GM for failing to draft one of the one or two guys who actually make it.

I beg to differ.  The second round isn't a crap shoot, and isn't it the job of a GM to find the guys that make it?  I mean, Glen Davis, Leon Powe, Blair, Jerebko, Marcus Thornton, Sam Young, Chase Budinger, Mario Chalmers, CDR, Goran Dragic, L.R. Mbah a Moute, Bill Walker, Carl Landry, Marc Gasol, and Ramon Sessions were all picked in the second round over the last three drafts.

Look, I don't have the info that Danny has, so I can't say that I would have done any better; and I know that hindsight is 20/20, but you do have to admit that looking back at what might have been is hard not to do.  Personally, I'd like to believe that any of us, if given the same info that Ainge has/had, could have made a better selection than JR Giddens.  Regardless, we are where we are.

[BballTim]

I hate to downplay Perk's abilities against Howard, or to give a coach too much credit, but I think its hard to overlook the fact that Davis has also been exceptionally good at slowing Howard down as well.  So I at least have to wonder whether Clifford Ray might simply know how to take Howard out of his game.

Actually, I don't even wonder, I know it for a fact.  The C's always play Howard the exact same way, whether it was Perk, Davis, or Sheed on him, and there really was not a huge drop off between them.  So I have at least some hope that they could also teach someone else how to lean on him, and anticipate his (incredibly predictable) low post "moves", forcing him into bad shots.

  Sheed was a very good defender against DH before he came to the Celts. You're right, there's nothing complicated about how we defend Howard. Why don't any of the other teams do the same thing? Because they don't have the personnel.

  If you want to trade Perk because of his limitations, fine. But it's definitely not the case that you can just plug in another big and get similar results against Howard. Trading Perk will, more likely than not, lower our chances of beating Orlando in the postseason. It's part of the tradeoff.

[Chris]

I hate to downplay Perk's abilities against Howard, or to give a coach too much credit, but I think its hard to overlook the fact that Davis has also been exceptionally good at slowing Howard down as well.  So I at least have to wonder whether Clifford Ray might simply know how to take Howard out of his game.

Actually, I don't even wonder, I know it for a fact.  The C's always play Howard the exact same way, whether it was Perk, Davis, or Sheed on him, and there really was not a huge drop off between them.  So I have at least some hope that they could also teach someone else how to lean on him, and anticipate his (incredibly predictable) low post "moves", forcing him into bad shots.

  Sheed was a very good defender against DH before he came to the Celts. You're right, there's nothing complicated about how we defend Howard. Why don't any of the other teams do the same thing? Because they don't have the personnel.

  If you want to trade Perk because of his limitations, fine. But it's definitely not the case that you can just plug in another big and get similar results against Howard. Trading Perk will, more likely than not, lower our chances of beating Orlando in the postseason. It's part of the tradeoff.

I don't disagree with this at all.  I just think that the amount trading Perk would lower our chances of beating the Magic doesn't come close to the amount it could help us actually beating other teams...and maybe even making the playoffs in a couple years. 

I just don't think the C's are going to be in a position to choose to not take an upgrade in talent just because of the matchup with one player.  I mean, by this rationale, we should pay Tony Allen $8 million a year, to match up with Dwayne Wade for the next 5 years.

[BballTim]

Totally agree. The second round is a pretty much a crapshoot. It's not reasonable to attack a GM for failing to draft one of the one or two guys who actually make it.

I beg to differ.  The second round isn't a crap shoot, and isn't it the job of a GM to find the guys that make it?  I mean, Glen Davis, Leon Powe, Blair, Jerebko, Marcus Thornton, Sam Young, Chase Budinger, Mario Chalmers, CDR, Goran Dragic, L.R. Mbah a Moute, Bill Walker, Carl Landry, Marc Gasol, and Ramon Sessions were all picked in the second round over the last three drafts.

  That's out of 90 players drafted. How is that not a crapshoot? The odds on two 2nd rounders that you choose combining to contribute more than BBD (especially in the playoffs) are awfully slim.

[BballTim]

I hate to downplay Perk's abilities against Howard, or to give a coach too much credit, but I think its hard to overlook the fact that Davis has also been exceptionally good at slowing Howard down as well.  So I at least have to wonder whether Clifford Ray might simply know how to take Howard out of his game.

Actually, I don't even wonder, I know it for a fact.  The C's always play Howard the exact same way, whether it was Perk, Davis, or Sheed on him, and there really was not a huge drop off between them.  So I have at least some hope that they could also teach someone else how to lean on him, and anticipate his (incredibly predictable) low post "moves", forcing him into bad shots.

  Sheed was a very good defender against DH before he came to the Celts. You're right, there's nothing complicated about how we defend Howard. Why don't any of the other teams do the same thing? Because they don't have the personnel.

  If you want to trade Perk because of his limitations, fine. But it's definitely not the case that you can just plug in another big and get similar results against Howard. Trading Perk will, more likely than not, lower our chances of beating Orlando in the postseason. It's part of the tradeoff.

I don't disagree with this at all.  I just think that the amount trading Perk would lower our chances of beating the Magic doesn't come close to the amount it could help us actually beating other teams...and maybe even making the playoffs in a couple years. 

I just don't think the C's are going to be in a position to choose to not take an upgrade in talent just because of the matchup with one player.  I mean, by this rationale, we should pay Tony Allen $8 million a year, to match up with Dwayne Wade for the next 5 years.

  It's not just one player though. Trading Perk will (hopefully) make us better in the long term but (probably) worse in the short term. The question is whether you want to lessen our chances of winning a title this year in order to be better when we may or may not have any chance at all of contending.

[pearljammer10]

First: Let's be honest, we are not getting cough Durant cough in 2012. Not a chance he is already working on an extension from what Ive heard and read.

Second: I dont like the idea of trading Perkins and a pick to get a guy like Cousins who seems to me, (im no expert of this years draft so please correct me if im wrong) is a very similar player to Perkins only with a few less years. He is what? 6 11 290? Thats beastly, but we need an athletic center who can get above the rim and get out on teh break to finsh with Rondo... I mean this guy is getting the NBA comparison of Eddy Curry... I mean seriously? Trading Perk who is an established defender and is big in guarding guys like Howard for a kid who might turn out to be Eddy Curry? I just dont like it.

We need length, athleticism and an above the rim game is we are going to go ahead with trading Perk.

[Mr October]

Totally agree. The second round is a pretty much a crapshoot. It's not reasonable to attack a GM for failing to draft one of the one or two guys who actually make it.

I beg to differ.  The second round isn't a crap shoot, and isn't it the job of a GM to find the guys that make it?  I mean, Glen Davis, Leon Powe, Blair, Jerebko, Marcus Thornton, Sam Young, Chase Budinger, Mario Chalmers, CDR, Goran Dragic, L.R. Mbah a Moute, Bill Walker, Carl Landry, Marc Gasol, and Ramon Sessions were all picked in the second round over the last three drafts.

  That's out of 90 players drafted. How is that not a crapshoot? The odds on two 2nd rounders that you choose combining to contribute more than BBD (especially in the playoffs) are awfully slim.

Wow I had never heard anyone think that you should be expected to get sure fire NBA players in the second round. History tells us that everyteam is very hit or miss in the 2nd round... and mostly miss.

Heck even the lottery picks aren't a sure thing with all the "potential" and "upside" splashing around in the talent pool.

[Chris]

I hate to downplay Perk's abilities against Howard, or to give a coach too much credit, but I think its hard to overlook the fact that Davis has also been exceptionally good at slowing Howard down as well.  So I at least have to wonder whether Clifford Ray might simply know how to take Howard out of his game.

Actually, I don't even wonder, I know it for a fact.  The C's always play Howard the exact same way, whether it was Perk, Davis, or Sheed on him, and there really was not a huge drop off between them.  So I have at least some hope that they could also teach someone else how to lean on him, and anticipate his (incredibly predictable) low post "moves", forcing him into bad shots.

  Sheed was a very good defender against DH before he came to the Celts. You're right, there's nothing complicated about how we defend Howard. Why don't any of the other teams do the same thing? Because they don't have the personnel.

  If you want to trade Perk because of his limitations, fine. But it's definitely not the case that you can just plug in another big and get similar results against Howard. Trading Perk will, more likely than not, lower our chances of beating Orlando in the postseason. It's part of the tradeoff.

I don't disagree with this at all.  I just think that the amount trading Perk would lower our chances of beating the Magic doesn't come close to the amount it could help us actually beating other teams...and maybe even making the playoffs in a couple years. 

I just don't think the C's are going to be in a position to choose to not take an upgrade in talent just because of the matchup with one player.  I mean, by this rationale, we should pay Tony Allen $8 million a year, to match up with Dwayne Wade for the next 5 years.

  It's not just one player though. Trading Perk will (hopefully) make us better in the long term but (probably) worse in the short term. The question is whether you want to lessen our chances of winning a title this year in order to be better when we may or may not have any chance at all of contending.

Absolutely, and that is why Danny is paid the big bucks.  He has to make that tough decision.  He needs to decide whether he thinks this team has enough of a chance to win a championship this year to roll the dice with Perk, or whether it is time to move on, possibly (not definitely, because it is not a given that they can't make up for the loss of Perk other ways) giving up another shot at at title.  

Personally, I would do it if the deals were out there (personally, I don't think they are...but might be at the trade deadline), because I think the landscape of the NBA is about to change dramatically, and there are going to be a couple super teams to compete with in the East.  I also think the chances of the C's getting lucky enough to have everyone healthy for the playoffs like they did this year are very slim.  So, I think the prudent thing to do would be to make the move that makes the team better over the longterm, rather than passing it by for one last (small) shot at another title with this group.

But like I said, I don't think Perk has much value right now, and I don't think the deals are out there that make sense.  So its all moot anyways.

[Mr October]

First: Let's be honest, we are not getting cough Durant cough in 2012. Not a chance he is already working on an extension from what Ive heard and read.

Second: I dont like the idea of trading Perkins and a pick to get a guy like Cousins who seems to me, (im no expert of this years draft so please correct me if im wrong) is a very similar player to Perkins only with a few less years. He is what? 6 11 290? Thats beastly, but we need an athletic center who can get above the rim and get out on teh break to finsh with Rondo... I mean this guy is getting the NBA comparison of Eddy Curry... I mean seriously? Trading Perk who is an established defender and is big in guarding guys like Howard for a kid who might turn out to be Eddy Curry? I just dont like it.

We need length, athleticism and an above the rim game is we are going to go ahead with trading Perk.

Cousins is bigger and more agile than Perk. And he really knows how to use that crazy wingspan of his already.

Even though he isn't a big time leaper, that body and those arms are very intriguing.