Celtics/Rockets (trade idea for Battier)

[PosImpos]

No.

I am against trading big for small unless there is a huge talent difference.

I think Perk is more valuable to the Celtics in the playoffs then Battier would be.  

That depends on your personnel and your likely opposition.

Against Orlando it would be nice to have Perk to throw at Howard, but we still would have Shaq, JO, and to a lesser extent Baby. However, versus Miami I much rather have Battier.

For all the things Perk did well, let's not forget that he also hindered our offensive flow with his illegal screens, bad hands, lack of a post up game, and lack of a decent mid-range game. The reason why we would struggle in the past when teams went small (Atlanta for example) is because Perk simply wasn't able to exploit the mismatch offensively.

Until I see Miami do something against Boston, I am not about to make a trade to get smaller.

There is a reason Boston added so much size this offseason.  

And for all the struggles against smaller teams, name one that beat Boston in a 7 game series?

We beat Miami without Perk. Against them we'll be more than ok going with our current bigs. Perk won't be the difference in that series. Battier would have much more impact with his ability to defend James and hit the open shot as Miami will have to double down to help their bigs vs. Shaq, KG, or JO. If we have Perk in the game, you can easily play Bosh at the 5 without any threat that Perk will take advantage of him in the post.

The Celtics have beaten Miami twice with the swing rotation they have right now.


Orlando has beaten the Celtics when the Celtics did not have the full big man rotation in a 7 game series.  

Come on now...missing KG and missing Perk are two very different things.

Plus, I think it's safe to say we beat Miami despite our lack of wing depth, not because of it.

[wdleehi]

No.

I am against trading big for small unless there is a huge talent difference.

I think Perk is more valuable to the Celtics in the playoffs then Battier would be.  

That depends on your personnel and your likely opposition.

Against Orlando it would be nice to have Perk to throw at Howard, but we still would have Shaq, JO, and to a lesser extent Baby. However, versus Miami I much rather have Battier.

For all the things Perk did well, let's not forget that he also hindered our offensive flow with his illegal screens, bad hands, lack of a post up game, and lack of a decent mid-range game. The reason why we would struggle in the past when teams went small (Atlanta for example) is because Perk simply wasn't able to exploit the mismatch offensively.

Until I see Miami do something against Boston, I am not about to make a trade to get smaller.

There is a reason Boston added so much size this offseason.  

And for all the struggles against smaller teams, name one that beat Boston in a 7 game series?

We beat Miami without Perk. Against them we'll be more than ok going with our current bigs. Perk won't be the difference in that series. Battier would have much more impact with his ability to defend James and hit the open shot as Miami will have to double down to help their bigs vs. Shaq, KG, or JO. If we have Perk in the game, you can easily play Bosh at the 5 without any threat that Perk will take advantage of him in the post.

The Celtics have beaten Miami twice with the swing rotation they have right now.


Orlando has beaten the Celtics when the Celtics did not have the full big man rotation in a 7 game series.  

Come on now...missing KG and missing Perk are two very different things.

Plus, I think it's safe to say we beat Miami despite our lack of wing depth, not because of it.

Missing Perk made a difference when playing the Lakers. 


Celtics are built to be big.  There is no reason to trade big to get small unless there is a significant injury to Rondo, Ray or Pierce.

[Eddie20]

No.

I am against trading big for small unless there is a huge talent difference.

I think Perk is more valuable to the Celtics in the playoffs then Battier would be. 

That depends on your personnel and your likely opposition.

Against Orlando it would be nice to have Perk to throw at Howard, but we still would have Shaq, JO, and to a lesser extent Baby. However, versus Miami I much rather have Battier.

For all the things Perk did well, let's not forget that he also hindered our offensive flow with his illegal screens, bad hands, lack of a post up game, and lack of a decent mid-range game. The reason why we would struggle in the past when teams went small (Atlanta for example) is because Perk simply wasn't able to exploit the mismatch offensively.

Until I see Miami do something against Boston, I am not about to make a trade to get smaller.

There is a reason Boston added so much size this offseason.  

And for all the struggles against smaller teams, name one that beat Boston in a 7 game series?

We beat Miami without Perk. Against them we'll be more than ok going with our current bigs. Perk won't be the difference in that series. Battier would have much more impact with his ability to defend James and hit the open shot as Miami will have to double down to help their bigs vs. Shaq, KG, or JO. If we have Perk in the game, you can easily play Bosh at the 5 without any threat that Perk will take advantage of him in the post.

The Celtics have beaten Miami twice with the swing rotation they have right now.


Orlando has beaten the Celtics when the Celtics did not have the full big man rotation in a 7 game series. 

Yes, The Magic beat us when we had a big man rotation of Perk, Davis, Scalabrine, and Mikki Moore! It's hard to compare that to KG, Shaq, Baby (this yr. improved version), JO, and Semih. Not only that, but the trade frees up roster space to add Sheed or another player. Even if Sheed calls Ainge and says he wants in, it'll be awfully hard to waive Wafer at this point. We just don't have the depth at the wing.

[PosImpos]

No.

I am against trading big for small unless there is a huge talent difference.

I think Perk is more valuable to the Celtics in the playoffs then Battier would be. 

That depends on your personnel and your likely opposition.

Against Orlando it would be nice to have Perk to throw at Howard, but we still would have Shaq, JO, and to a lesser extent Baby. However, versus Miami I much rather have Battier.

For all the things Perk did well, let's not forget that he also hindered our offensive flow with his illegal screens, bad hands, lack of a post up game, and lack of a decent mid-range game. The reason why we would struggle in the past when teams went small (Atlanta for example) is because Perk simply wasn't able to exploit the mismatch offensively.

Until I see Miami do something against Boston, I am not about to make a trade to get smaller.

There is a reason Boston added so much size this offseason. 

And for all the struggles against smaller teams, name one that beat Boston in a 7 game series?

We beat Miami without Perk. Against them we'll be more than ok going with our current bigs. Perk won't be the difference in that series. Battier would have much more impact with his ability to defend James and hit the open shot as Miami will have to double down to help their bigs vs. Shaq, KG, or JO. If we have Perk in the game, you can easily play Bosh at the 5 without any threat that Perk will take advantage of him in the post.

The Celtics have beaten Miami twice with the swing rotation they have right now.


Orlando has beaten the Celtics when the Celtics did not have the full big man rotation in a 7 game series. 

Come on now...missing KG and missing Perk are two very different things.

Plus, I think it's safe to say we beat Miami despite our lack of wing depth, not because of it.

Missing Perk made a difference when playing the Lakers. 


Celtics are built to be big.  There is no reason to trade big to get small unless there is a significant injury to Rondo, Ray or Pierce.

What you're ignoring is that we're already big.  The situation now is much different than it was last year or the year before.  By trading Perk we wouldn't be getting smaller because we don't have enough minutes to give to Shaq, JO, and Perk.  One of those guys is going to be sitting on the bench not doing us much good no matter what. 

If we have to give up one of those guys to gain much needed wing depth, I think it would make sense to go for it, as long as the 2 other guys are healthy and productive.

[wdleehi]

No.

I am against trading big for small unless there is a huge talent difference.

I think Perk is more valuable to the Celtics in the playoffs then Battier would be. 

That depends on your personnel and your likely opposition.

Against Orlando it would be nice to have Perk to throw at Howard, but we still would have Shaq, JO, and to a lesser extent Baby. However, versus Miami I much rather have Battier.

For all the things Perk did well, let's not forget that he also hindered our offensive flow with his illegal screens, bad hands, lack of a post up game, and lack of a decent mid-range game. The reason why we would struggle in the past when teams went small (Atlanta for example) is because Perk simply wasn't able to exploit the mismatch offensively.

Until I see Miami do something against Boston, I am not about to make a trade to get smaller.

There is a reason Boston added so much size this offseason. 

And for all the struggles against smaller teams, name one that beat Boston in a 7 game series?

We beat Miami without Perk. Against them we'll be more than ok going with our current bigs. Perk won't be the difference in that series. Battier would have much more impact with his ability to defend James and hit the open shot as Miami will have to double down to help their bigs vs. Shaq, KG, or JO. If we have Perk in the game, you can easily play Bosh at the 5 without any threat that Perk will take advantage of him in the post.

The Celtics have beaten Miami twice with the swing rotation they have right now.


Orlando has beaten the Celtics when the Celtics did not have the full big man rotation in a 7 game series. 

Come on now...missing KG and missing Perk are two very different things.

Plus, I think it's safe to say we beat Miami despite our lack of wing depth, not because of it.

Missing Perk made a difference when playing the Lakers. 


Celtics are built to be big.  There is no reason to trade big to get small unless there is a significant injury to Rondo, Ray or Pierce.

What you're ignoring is that we're already big.  The situation now is much different than it was last year or the year before.  By trading Perk we wouldn't be getting smaller because we don't have enough minutes to give to Shaq, JO, and Perk.  One of those guys is going to be sitting on the bench not doing us much good no matter what. 

If we have to give up one of those guys to gain much needed wing depth, I think it would make sense to go for it, as long as the 2 other guys are healthy and productive.

Considering the injuries, injury history and the age of those players, why take the chance?  How many games have two of them been productive? 



This is to much for a player that will be take Daniels minutes.  I like the talent as a SF, but not at the cost of the size talent. 

[Eddie20]

No.

I am against trading big for small unless there is a huge talent difference.

I think Perk is more valuable to the Celtics in the playoffs then Battier would be. 

That depends on your personnel and your likely opposition.

Against Orlando it would be nice to have Perk to throw at Howard, but we still would have Shaq, JO, and to a lesser extent Baby. However, versus Miami I much rather have Battier.

For all the things Perk did well, let's not forget that he also hindered our offensive flow with his illegal screens, bad hands, lack of a post up game, and lack of a decent mid-range game. The reason why we would struggle in the past when teams went small (Atlanta for example) is because Perk simply wasn't able to exploit the mismatch offensively.

Until I see Miami do something against Boston, I am not about to make a trade to get smaller.

There is a reason Boston added so much size this offseason. 

And for all the struggles against smaller teams, name one that beat Boston in a 7 game series?

We beat Miami without Perk. Against them we'll be more than ok going with our current bigs. Perk won't be the difference in that series. Battier would have much more impact with his ability to defend James and hit the open shot as Miami will have to double down to help their bigs vs. Shaq, KG, or JO. If we have Perk in the game, you can easily play Bosh at the 5 without any threat that Perk will take advantage of him in the post.

The Celtics have beaten Miami twice with the swing rotation they have right now.


Orlando has beaten the Celtics when the Celtics did not have the full big man rotation in a 7 game series. 

Come on now...missing KG and missing Perk are two very different things.

Plus, I think it's safe to say we beat Miami despite our lack of wing depth, not because of it.

Missing Perk made a difference when playing the Lakers. 


Celtics are built to be big.  There is no reason to trade big to get small unless there is a significant injury to Rondo, Ray or Pierce.

What you're ignoring is that we're already big.  The situation now is much different than it was last year or the year before.  By trading Perk we wouldn't be getting smaller because we don't have enough minutes to give to Shaq, JO, and Perk.  One of those guys is going to be sitting on the bench not doing us much good no matter what. 

If we have to give up one of those guys to gain much needed wing depth, I think it would make sense to go for it, as long as the 2 other guys are healthy and productive.

Exactly!

Also, Baby looks REALLY good with the other starters in closing out games. His mid-range game is much improved and he continues to hit big shots. It will be hard to have any of the other three over him (Shaq due to his FT issues) at the end of games. This means that for the first 3 1/2 quarters you either divide the PT of those 3 or you simply bench 1.

Sure, it'll be nice to have Perk or JO as your 5th big and Semih as your 6th. However, not when your two biggest wings off the bench are Daniels and Wafer.

[wdleehi]

No.

I am against trading big for small unless there is a huge talent difference.

I think Perk is more valuable to the Celtics in the playoffs then Battier would be. 

That depends on your personnel and your likely opposition.

Against Orlando it would be nice to have Perk to throw at Howard, but we still would have Shaq, JO, and to a lesser extent Baby. However, versus Miami I much rather have Battier.

For all the things Perk did well, let's not forget that he also hindered our offensive flow with his illegal screens, bad hands, lack of a post up game, and lack of a decent mid-range game. The reason why we would struggle in the past when teams went small (Atlanta for example) is because Perk simply wasn't able to exploit the mismatch offensively.

Until I see Miami do something against Boston, I am not about to make a trade to get smaller.

There is a reason Boston added so much size this offseason. 

And for all the struggles against smaller teams, name one that beat Boston in a 7 game series?

We beat Miami without Perk. Against them we'll be more than ok going with our current bigs. Perk won't be the difference in that series. Battier would have much more impact with his ability to defend James and hit the open shot as Miami will have to double down to help their bigs vs. Shaq, KG, or JO. If we have Perk in the game, you can easily play Bosh at the 5 without any threat that Perk will take advantage of him in the post.

The Celtics have beaten Miami twice with the swing rotation they have right now.


Orlando has beaten the Celtics when the Celtics did not have the full big man rotation in a 7 game series. 

Come on now...missing KG and missing Perk are two very different things.

Plus, I think it's safe to say we beat Miami despite our lack of wing depth, not because of it.

Missing Perk made a difference when playing the Lakers. 


Celtics are built to be big.  There is no reason to trade big to get small unless there is a significant injury to Rondo, Ray or Pierce.

What you're ignoring is that we're already big.  The situation now is much different than it was last year or the year before.  By trading Perk we wouldn't be getting smaller because we don't have enough minutes to give to Shaq, JO, and Perk.  One of those guys is going to be sitting on the bench not doing us much good no matter what. 

If we have to give up one of those guys to gain much needed wing depth, I think it would make sense to go for it, as long as the 2 other guys are healthy and productive.

Exactly!

Also, Baby looks REALLY good with the other starters in closing out games. His mid-range game is much improved and he continues to hit big shots. It will be hard to have any of the other three over him (Shaq due to his FT issues) at the end of games. This means that for the first 3 1/2 quarters you either divide the PT of those 3 or you simply bench 1.

Sure, it'll be nice to have Perk or JO as your 5th big and Semih as your 6th. However, not when your two biggest wings off the bench are Daniels and Wafer.

Baby is a defensive mismatch against the likes of Orlando and LA.  The two other teams that have made it to the finals in the past three years. 


Perk on the other hand is one of the top defenders against Howard.  He does a great job on Gasol.  Why give that up?

[Megatron]

Trading Perk for Battier basically says "I want to lose to the Lakers"

Size and Depth are the reason were so good this year, trade perkins and we wont win vs the Lakers.

[PosImpos]

Trading Perk for Battier basically says "I want to lose to the Lakers"

Size and Depth are the reason were so good this year, trade perkins and we wont win vs the Lakers.

...but so far this year, we haven't had Perkins' "size" to make us "so good."  So, we'd be EXACTLY as good as we are now without Perk.

Size means absolutely nothing if it's sitting on the bench not playing.  I'm not sure why that's so difficult to understand.

[Fafnir]

Trading Perk for Battier basically says "I want to lose to the Lakers"

Size and Depth are the reason were so good this year, trade perkins and we wont win vs the Lakers.

...but so far this year, we haven't had Perkins' "size" to make us "so good."  So, we'd be EXACTLY as good as we are now without Perk.

Size means absolutely nothing if it's sitting on the bench not playing.  I'm not sure why that's so difficult to understand.

So you're assuming Perkins won't be back?

My view of it is that we're going to need two of our top 3 centers to win a title this year. Given all three are currently out with injuries, and have a history of injury trading one is a bad idea.

[PosImpos]

Trading Perk for Battier basically says "I want to lose to the Lakers"

Size and Depth are the reason were so good this year, trade perkins and we wont win vs the Lakers.

...but so far this year, we haven't had Perkins' "size" to make us "so good."  So, we'd be EXACTLY as good as we are now without Perk.

Size means absolutely nothing if it's sitting on the bench not playing.  I'm not sure why that's so difficult to understand.

So you're assuming Perkins won't be back?

My view of it is that we're going to need two of our top 3 centers to win a title this year. Given all three are currently out with injuries, and have a history of injury trading one is a bad idea.

I agree that we'll need 2 of the top 3 centers to win it this year.  What I'm saying is that if all 3 are healthy and look good to go by a time prior to the trade deadline, we could at least consider trading Perk because we can't make full use of all 3 of them.

So what I'm assuming is that if Perk gets back, one of the 3 centers we have is going to be wasting away on the bench.  It's true that it would be nice to have the depth in case one of them gets injured during the playoffs, but we can't be sure that a guy who's been riding the bench for most of the season (whether it's Perk or JO) would be able to contribute better than the type of center we might pick up through trade or waiver after trading Perk (e.g. Sheed or Brad Miller or whoever).

[Fafnir]

Why would you trade away a big for a backup SF though? Even if all three are looking healthy by the trade deadline why gamble that they won't get hurt?

I think gambling that the O'Neals both stay healthy through a playoff run is a bad one. Especially since Battier would only be playing 15-20 minutes....

[Brendan]

This trade would change the PROJECTED rotation from:

Starters: Shaq / KG / Pierce / Allen / Rondo
Rotation: BBD / JO OR Perk (not both) / Daniels or Nate (not both) / West
Reserves: Perk or JO, Daniels or West, and either Semi (for size) or Wafer (for shooting.)

That leaves Luke, AB, and Semi or Wafer in clothes. Considering what Doc has said about Semi - I wouldn't be surprised if he had surgery if all the other bigs get healed or at least is in street clothes.

With the health of Perk and JO probably dictating who plays, but eventually I think Perk would get that fourth spot. Nate or Daniels plays probably based on match ups, Nate getting run when the other team is smaller at the wing / guard and Daniels when they are bigger.

The knew rotation with this proposed trade would be:

Starters: Shaq / KG / Pierce / Allen / Rondo (unchanged)
Rotation: BBD / West / Battier / JO
Reserves: Nate / Daniels / Semi
Clothes: AB

With two roster spots open (let's assume one goes to Sheed, moving Semi to street clothes.)

I think that second rotation is stronger without weakening your big man crew, but I probably wouldn't do the deal:

1. Perk is likely to be better next year than JO and maybe Shaq too.
2. Battier is getting older and IMO slipping a bit.
3. I think the C's will be able to resign Perk to a team friendly deal.

[ImShakHeIsShaq]

All I have to say is... I like Perk's D! Question, w/ Shaq's "injury" history... how many times has he been injured and missed time in the playoffs?

[Jon]

I'd think about it later in the year.  However, right now I'd hold off.  Paul and Ray are going to play close to 40 mpg come playoff time, so Battier is really only so much of an advantage.  Furthermore, Daniels (while not putting up big stats), has been quite effective this year. 

If we start losing to the likes of Miami, LA, and San Antonio because of getting burned on the wings, I'd think about that, but I'm not ready to do it yet. 

Also, while it seems like 5 bigs is excessive, not only is injury history something to consider, but so is the luxury of having that many fouls.  Think about it: the likes of Shaq and Perk aren't ever going to have to worry about foul trouble in the playoffs, because if Shaq and Perk both get 2 fouls in the 1st Quarter, they'll still have JO to come in (not to mention KG and BBD). 

Having that luxury should allow the Boston big men to play much more aggressively, which should also translate to better overall team defense.