Shaq wants to be a Celtic

[LilRip]

Firstly, Perk is a huge factor in Boston's lack of offensive efficiency.  That's because his lack of production or even potential to produce offense forces the other 4 players on the court to compensate.

  We aren't a very inefficient offensive team, and our inefficiency is due mainly to turnovers and a lack of offensive rebounding. Shaq won't help a ton with either of these situations. He'll help a little with the offense, especially late in the clock, but I don't think he'll make us much more efficient. 

actually, we are quite an average offensive team that tends to sputter at times and get red-hot at other times. the reason we're so good is that league-best defense.

and Perk is not a good offensive player and not comparable to Shaq. It's not that Shaq is still dominating. It's just that Perk is a poor offensive player. i don't think Perk has ever drawn a double team in his career while Shaq will still command a double team at times at his age. On top of that, he can pass very well out of the post. Give Shaq the kind of touches that Perk got last year and i bet he'll turn it over a lot less and convert a lot more.



- LilRip

[Birdbrain]

Another thing I've been thinking of is that if there is any position to stock up on it is Center. 

Our two big threats in the East are the Heat & Magic.  Having a lot of bigs, especially ones who can finish around the hoop, is one of the few ways we can exploit Miami's lack of size.  It is also the best way to counter the Magic, and as we all know it would have been great against the Lakers.

That's true.  Miami's biggest weakness is their interior defense, and Orlando's biggest strength is the center position.  Right now, we don't have anybody who exploits Miami's disadvantage in the post, and assuming that Perk is, at best, going to be rusty come playoff time, we don't have anybody who can necessarily defend Dwight one-on-one.

Adding Shaq helps with both of these issues.

Well we do have JO who who's better than all of Miami's big guys combined.

Bosh may be getting way way to overhyped right now, but JO is nowhere near better than him.

I don't consider him a big guy so I guess if you do then sure he's better than JO.

[Birdbrain]

Firstly, Perk is a huge factor in Boston's lack of offensive efficiency.  That's because his lack of production or even potential to produce offense forces the other 4 players on the court to compensate.

  We aren't a very inefficient offensive team, and our inefficiency is due mainly to turnovers and a lack of offensive rebounding. Shaq won't help a ton with either of these situations. He'll help a little with the offense, especially late in the clock, but I don't think he'll make us much more efficient. 

actually, we are quite an average offensive team that tends to sputter at times and get red-hot at other times. the reason we're so good is that league-best defense.

and Perk is not a good offensive player and not comparable to Shaq. It's not that Shaq is still dominating. It's just that Perk is a poor offensive player. i don't think Perk has ever drawn a double team in his career while Shaq will still command a double team at times at his age. On top of that, he can pass very well out of the post. Give Shaq the kind of touches that Perk got last year and i bet he'll turn it over a lot less and convert a lot more.



- LilRip

Actually just the opposite we were very efficient offensive team that turned the ball over too much and didn't get enough defensive rebounds.  top 5 FG%, top 2 assists.  And even the TOs are stat can be misleading. Most of Rondos TOs are plays that 99% of NBA won't even try.  Should he try less maybe but, he has the talent to make the plays.  We lost game 7 of the Finals in LA because we couldn't grab a defensive rebound (after playing the best defense all year) and Ray Allen building a brick house.

[ssspence]

question: let's say shaq was S&T'd to the Cs for a year at 4 mil -- along with Jamerio Moon -- for Sheed's deal and cash and / or a pick.

would folks be satisfied?

[kozlodoev]

I don't love the Perk bashing, but Shaq doesn't "just miss" all that often.  In 2009 he led the NBA in FG%, and last season he was at 56.6%.  That's a pretty impressive percentage for a player that creates his own offense (unlike Perk), and placed him in the top ten in the NBA.

This is simply not true, at least not at this stage of Shaq's career. 56% of his shots were assisted (compared to 60% for Perkins).

Shaq just isn't "it" anymore, and all sort of expanded metrics show that the Cavs were better with him off the court.

Yes because on the Cavs he was needed to do more than he will on the C's.  He's not going to start in Boston.  He'll be there to score a few baskets grab a few rebounds and provide depth.  The only problem is will he willing to accept that.  I have my concerns but, that is probably the sticking point between signing with Boston.  JO is going to start and if healthy he will continue to start with both Perkins and Shaq backing him up... IMHumbleO

I have no problem with Shaq coming off the pine for 10-15 minutes a game to wreak havoc against second-string centers who can neither stop him, nor exploit the fact he's a defensive liability. That's a role that's worth the pro-rated minimum. He will simply be miscast as a starting center at this stage of his career, as he can't provide neither offensive, nor defensive upgrade for our team.

However, if Shaq had no problem coming off the bench for a contender, he would have signed for the vet already.

[BballTim]

Firstly, Perk is a huge factor in Boston's lack of offensive efficiency.  That's because his lack of production or even potential to produce offense forces the other 4 players on the court to compensate.

  We aren't a very inefficient offensive team, and our inefficiency is due mainly to turnovers and a lack of offensive rebounding. Shaq won't help a ton with either of these situations. He'll help a little with the offense, especially late in the clock, but I don't think he'll make us much more efficient. 

actually, we are quite an average offensive team that tends to sputter at times and get red-hot at other times. the reason we're so good is that league-best defense.

  Obviously the reason we're so good is our defense. And I'll wager a guess that every team in the league sputters at times and gets red-hot at other times. But the reason we're quite an average offensive team isn't a general inability to score. It's turnovers and not enough offensive rebounds. Our efg% and true shooting percentage are top 5 or so each of the past 3 years. Overall, I doubt we're worse than 3rd overall over that time frame.

[Roy Hobbs]

question: let's say shaq was S&T'd to the Cs for a year at 4 mil -- along with Jamerio Moon -- for Sheed's deal and cash and / or a pick.

would folks be satisfied?

I'd rather see Anthony Parker traded here, since he's a better shooter and is more capable of playing both SG/SF.  I don't really worry that much about the money; if Wyc is willing to cut the check, perfect.

[ssspence]

question: let's say shaq was S&T'd to the Cs for a year at 4 mil -- along with Jamerio Moon -- for Sheed's deal and cash and / or a pick.

would folks be satisfied?

I'd rather see Anthony Parker traded here, since he's a better shooter and is more capable of playing both SG/SF.  I don't really worry that much about the money; if Wyc is willing to cut the check, perfect.

interesting you'd rather have parker. i think of moon as the better defender -- would you agree?

[BballTim]

question: let's say shaq was S&T'd to the Cs for a year at 4 mil -- along with Jamerio Moon -- for Sheed's deal and cash and / or a pick.

would folks be satisfied?

I'd rather see Anthony Parker traded here, since he's a better shooter and is more capable of playing both SG/SF.  I don't really worry that much about the money; if Wyc is willing to cut the check, perfect.

  Maybe, but Moon has a year more on his contract so Cleveland would be more likely to trade him.

[Roy Hobbs]

question: let's say shaq was S&T'd to the Cs for a year at 4 mil -- along with Jamerio Moon -- for Sheed's deal and cash and / or a pick.

would folks be satisfied?

I'd rather see Anthony Parker traded here, since he's a better shooter and is more capable of playing both SG/SF.  I don't really worry that much about the money; if Wyc is willing to cut the check, perfect.

  Maybe, but Moon has a year more on his contract so Cleveland would be more likely to trade him.

I've seen that posted a few times, but it's my understanding that both Moon and Parker expire this year.

http://www.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/cavaliers.jsp

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=0AodNvAy3ZYZmdGk5cXZIS2c0cHowVlhoY29mVkR3SXc&gid=7

[LooseCannon]

I wish there was some way the Celtics could acquire restricted free agent Jawad Williams from Cleveland.  He fits what I think the Celtics need: a back-up small forward who can also play some minutes at power forward (perhaps as a stretch four in a small lineup).  He's an athletic defender (but not a lockdown defender) whose offense isn't great but is good enough that he can't be left completely unguarded.  On the other hand, he's a 27-year-old who has played only 64 regular season NBA games over two seasons, who was undrafted and spent time playing overseas, and who has been previously released by the Cavs.

It's unlikely because he's a hometown boy that Cleveland likes and because he is a restricted free agent.  On the other hand, a willingness to try Williams as a starter might make Moon more expendable.

[MBunge]

I have no problem with Shaq coming off the pine for 10-15 minutes a game to wreak havoc against second-string centers who can neither stop him, nor exploit the fact he's a defensive liability. That's a role that's worth the pro-rated minimum.

No, it's not.  Shaq should absolutely come off the bench for Boston, but that doesn't mean he's only worth the vet min.  Marcin Gortat got the full MLE and averaged 3 points and 4 rebounds for Orlando last year.  You know what bigs get the vet min?  Guys like Aaron Gray who have career averages of 11 minutes, 3.8 points and 3.3 rebounds.

Are you saying Shaq isn't better than Aaron Gray?  Seriously?

Mike

[BballTim]

question: let's say shaq was S&T'd to the Cs for a year at 4 mil -- along with Jamerio Moon -- for Sheed's deal and cash and / or a pick.

would folks be satisfied?

I'd rather see Anthony Parker traded here, since he's a better shooter and is more capable of playing both SG/SF.  I don't really worry that much about the money; if Wyc is willing to cut the check, perfect.

  Maybe, but Moon has a year more on his contract so Cleveland would be more likely to trade him.

I've seen that posted a few times, but it's my understanding that both Moon and Parker expire this year.

http://www.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/cavaliers.jsp

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=0AodNvAy3ZYZmdGk5cXZIS2c0cHowVlhoY29mVkR3SXc&gid=7

  It might have been from me. I think hoopshype has him at 2 years.

  Never mind...

[Roy Hobbs]

question: let's say shaq was S&T'd to the Cs for a year at 4 mil -- along with Jamerio Moon -- for Sheed's deal and cash and / or a pick.

would folks be satisfied?

I'd rather see Anthony Parker traded here, since he's a better shooter and is more capable of playing both SG/SF.  I don't really worry that much about the money; if Wyc is willing to cut the check, perfect.

interesting you'd rather have parker. i think of moon as the better defender -- would you agree?

He's a better defender against small forwards, and is more of a leaper.  Parker is better against SGs, though, I think, and his SF defense is probably average.

[Who]

question: let's say shaq was S&T'd to the Cs for a year at 4 mil -- along with Jamerio Moon -- for Sheed's deal and cash and / or a pick.

would folks be satisfied?

I'd rather see Anthony Parker traded here, since he's a better shooter and is more capable of playing both SG/SF.  I don't really worry that much about the money; if Wyc is willing to cut the check, perfect.

interesting you'd rather have parker. i think of moon as the better defender -- would you agree?

I think Moon + Parker are fairly comparable as man-to-man defenders (mediocre) but I'd give Moon the nod for superior team defense (good vs slightly below par).