With Perk's injury would you trade Sheed and Perk for Jamison

[Moranis]

Jamison + Shaq would cost this team more defensively than they add offensively.

It is a losing proposition.

who said anything about Shaq?

[Who]

Jamison + Shaq would cost this team more defensively than they add offensively.

It is a losing proposition.

who said anything about Shaq?

Oh sorry, my mistake. I thought Shaq was involved too.

[Jon]

I'm not sure if there's any circumstance that I'd want Jamison under.  I guess if he was a free agent and would accept the minimum.  But I really have zero interest in giving up anything for him. 

[Fafnir]

Jamison + Shaq would cost this team more defensively than they add offensively.

It is a losing proposition.

We saw that in action with the Cavs. Its not a frontcourt that can with even with LeBron. It wouldn't win with Pierce....

[Jon]

Jamison + Shaq would cost this team more defensively than they add offensively.

It is a losing proposition.

We saw that in action with the Cavs. Its not a frontcourt that can with even with LeBron. It wouldn't win with Pierce....

Well, I agree that I don't want Jamison; however in defense of such a hypothetical trade, Jamison and Shaq would likely be our second unit, not our starters, and a LeBron, Jamison, Shaq frontcourt probably could've won if they had Rondo and Ray in the backcourt instead of Mo and Parker. 

[Fafnir]

Jamison + Shaq would cost this team more defensively than they add offensively.

It is a losing proposition.

We saw that in action with the Cavs. Its not a frontcourt that can with even with LeBron. It wouldn't win with Pierce....

Well, I agree that I don't want Jamison; however in defense of such a hypothetical trade, Jamison and Shaq would likely be our second unit, not our starters, and a LeBron, Jamison, Shaq frontcourt probably could've won if they had Rondo and Ray in the backcourt instead of Mo and Parker. 

But we don't have LeBron.

I'm pretty sure having a PG of Rondo's caliber would have greatly helped LeBron's chances. Heck having a coach who didn't play awful lineups that played to the C's strengths would have helped!

[Chris]

Jamison + Shaq would cost this team more defensively than they add offensively.

It is a losing proposition.

We saw that in action with the Cavs. Its not a frontcourt that can with even with LeBron. It wouldn't win with Pierce....

Well, I agree that I don't want Jamison; however in defense of such a hypothetical trade, Jamison and Shaq would likely be our second unit, not our starters, and a LeBron, Jamison, Shaq frontcourt probably could've won if they had Rondo and Ray in the backcourt instead of Mo and Parker. 

But we don't have LeBron.

I'm pretty sure having a PG of Rondo's caliber would have greatly helped LeBron's chances. Heck having a coach who didn't play awful lineups that played to the C's strengths would have helped!

It also would have helped if Lebron didn't give up...

[Moranis]

While I find it interesting, I wouldn't make this trade.  It makes the Celtics to small when facing teams like Orlando and LA. 




And the Celtics have one real path to win with this team.  That's defense.  They need to play defense like they did in 08 (much like last years defense but with stronger rebounding)  This move, while strengthening the offense, would be a serious blow to the defense. 

I don't disagree that it hurts the defense, but will Perk have the leg strength to muscle Howard or Bynum anyway.  Will he have the mobility to rebound and effectively guard the big centers anyway.  And frankly, it was the lack of offense that killed the Celtics verse the Lakers.  The C's had way too many stretches where they couldn't put it in the basket.  Given the uncertainty with Perk, why not increase the offensive output and efficiency by getting a player that will be healthy to start the season. 

We lost because we didn't rebound- way too many 2nd (& 3rd) chance points for LA, allowing them to stay in it.  Jameson doesn't help that one bit.  A gimpy Perk beats a AJ any day.

The Celtics were up 64-61 in the fourth quarter of game 7.  LA scored the next 9 points and didn't get a single offensive rebound and LA had just 2 offensive rebounds in the entire 4th quarter.  How about another example, just from game 7.  Boston scores point 23 with 35 seconds left in the first quarter.  Point 24 & 25 don't come until 7:13 left in the second with LA scoring 11 straight points (to go up 2 after trailing by 9).  Another example, from 3:26 left in the third until a basket with 9:03 left in the fourth Boston scored exactly 1 point (though LA only managed 4 points during that stretch). 

The simple truth is, the Celtics didn't beat LA because they went into long scoring droughts in just about every game in the series and most games, like game 7, there were multiple such droughts.  The defense was fantastic and the lack of rebounding was really overblown, the problem was quite simply a lack of offense.  Boston just couldn't put the ball in the hoop.  I know a lot of it was great defense by LA, but there were plenty of open looks that just didn't fall.

[Jon]

Jamison + Shaq would cost this team more defensively than they add offensively.

It is a losing proposition.

We saw that in action with the Cavs. Its not a frontcourt that can with even with LeBron. It wouldn't win with Pierce....

Well, I agree that I don't want Jamison; however in defense of such a hypothetical trade, Jamison and Shaq would likely be our second unit, not our starters, and a LeBron, Jamison, Shaq frontcourt probably could've won if they had Rondo and Ray in the backcourt instead of Mo and Parker. 

But we don't have LeBron.

I'm pretty sure having a PG of Rondo's caliber would have greatly helped LeBron's chances. Heck having a coach who didn't play awful lineups that played to the C's strengths would have helped!

True.  But as I said in my first post, Shaq and Jamison also wouldn't be our starters. 

Still, this is silly.  I have no interest in Jamison, so there's really no point in going any further in this.