Sorry Danny ya screwed up on this one

[Donoghus]

   I think that in order for anyone to really call it a bad trade Shaq and JO both have to be healthy and productive in the playoffs. It's hard to criticize Danny for making a trade to give us one known healthy center when we didn't have one and we're trying to win a title this year.

I think if they're healthy it makes it a good trade.

Especially since the main thrust of this tread wasn't to get Kristic but Jeff Green.

Yeah, I agree.  If both end up being healthy and contribute down the stretch, its a helluva good trade.

[BballTim]

   I think that in order for anyone to really call it a bad trade Shaq and JO both have to be healthy and productive in the playoffs. It's hard to criticize Danny for making a trade to give us one known healthy center when we didn't have one and we're trying to win a title this year.

I think if they're healthy it makes it a good trade.

Especially since the main thrust of this tread wasn't to get Kristic but Jeff Green.

  Everyone says it was a good trade if Shaq and JO are healthy because you don't need Perk. From the other side, though, if those guys *aren't* healthy then there's no way you can go into the playoffs with Perk being your only "healthy" center. If he tweaks anything you're completely toast, and he'd never be able to play the big minutes you'd need from a center to get by some of the teams we might face.

[Fafnir]

   I think that in order for anyone to really call it a bad trade Shaq and JO both have to be healthy and productive in the playoffs. It's hard to criticize Danny for making a trade to give us one known healthy center when we didn't have one and we're trying to win a title this year.

I think if they're healthy it makes it a good trade.

Especially since the main thrust of this tread wasn't to get Kristic but Jeff Green.

  Everyone says it was a good trade if Shaq and JO are healthy because you don't need Perk. From the other side, though, if those guys *aren't* healthy then there's no way you can go into the playoffs with Perk being your only "healthy" center. If he tweaks anything you're completely toast, and he'd never be able to play the big minutes you'd need from a center to get by some of the teams we might face.

If they aren't healthy then if Kristic tweaks something we're in the same boat. If they can't contribute that indicates that Danny should have probably kept Perk and traded for more C depth.

You can't go into the playoffs with only one C. (not counting BBD/KG who can play 5 but shouldn't)

[BballTim]

   I think that in order for anyone to really call it a bad trade Shaq and JO both have to be healthy and productive in the playoffs. It's hard to criticize Danny for making a trade to give us one known healthy center when we didn't have one and we're trying to win a title this year.

I think if they're healthy it makes it a good trade.

Especially since the main thrust of this tread wasn't to get Kristic but Jeff Green.

  Everyone says it was a good trade if Shaq and JO are healthy because you don't need Perk. From the other side, though, if those guys *aren't* healthy then there's no way you can go into the playoffs with Perk being your only "healthy" center. If he tweaks anything you're completely toast, and he'd never be able to play the big minutes you'd need from a center to get by some of the teams we might face.

If they aren't healthy then if Kristic tweaks something we're in the same boat. If they can't contribute that indicates that Danny should have probably kept Perk and traded for more C depth.

You can't go into the playoffs with only one C. (not counting BBD/KG who can play 5 but shouldn't)

  Ok, I should have said aren't dependably healthy.

[ACF]

When I heard about the trade, my initial reaction was shock. It was a small shock which quickly gave way to another feeling: Maaaan, Danny just made a fine, fiiiine move. We need healthy people and DA just upgraded us.

I always liked Green. Maybe he's not a top 2 scoring option on the team (at least not at the moment) but he is a guy that can go off on any given night. Another bullet in our chamber.

Curly I always thought of as a decent (sometimes even good) backup C. I think he'll figure out how to play some D as KG gets on his behind in the last part of the RS.

We're fine now. If we could just shake the injury bug (I know, it's been said a million times this season - but it doesn't make it any less true) we'd be more than fine. If we quit the bug, we will hoist another one. I truly believe that.






Good work, Danny.

[KobeShesNotConsenting!]

'Sorry Danny ya screwed us on this one' Lol this thread musta been made by the Thunder's staff yesterday

[LB3533]

   I think that in order for anyone to really call it a bad trade Shaq and JO both have to be healthy and productive in the playoffs. It's hard to criticize Danny for making a trade to give us one known healthy center when we didn't have one and we're trying to win a title this year.

I think if they're healthy it makes it a good trade.

Especially since the main thrust of this tread wasn't to get Kristic but Jeff Green.

  Everyone says it was a good trade if Shaq and JO are healthy because you don't need Perk. From the other side, though, if those guys *aren't* healthy then there's no way you can go into the playoffs with Perk being your only "healthy" center. If he tweaks anything you're completely toast, and he'd never be able to play the big minutes you'd need from a center to get by some of the teams we might face.

If they aren't healthy then if Kristic tweaks something we're in the same boat. If they can't contribute that indicates that Danny should have probably kept Perk and traded for more C depth.

You can't go into the playoffs with only one C. (not counting BBD/KG who can play 5 but shouldn't)

  Ok, I should have said aren't dependably healthy.

Our current scenario has us with an upgrade at the wing position.

If we don't trade Perk we are still left with an unhealthy Shaq, JO & non-dependably healthy Perk sans the upgrade at the wing.

Oh I forgot we also got a 1st rounder with our current situation.

[amenhotep04]

I guess what amazes me is that the people who are for the trade cannot win. If the Cs win the championship, well, then we would have won it easier with Perk. If we don't win, then we would have won it with Perk. There have developed mystical properties around Perk since the trade. And although I believe by NBA standards that he deserves at least every penny he is getting from the Thunder, I'm stunned that everyone doesn't see what a great deal this was for the Celtics. The problem is just like the Toine people . . . well, probably not so extreme. But for years you couldn't mention that guy's name without it setting off a firestorm. I fear that whatever happens with Perk or the Celtics, that there are going to be a lot of fans who will say the Celtics are just not as good without him.

[Jon]

I was quite divided about this trade when it first happened.  However, what's won me over is this simple fact: the Celtics were at their best when Kendrick Perkins WAS NOT on the floor.  

In 2008, Doc routinely went with Posey to close out games.  When it wasn't Posey, it was P.J. Brown (who could hit an 18 footer).  

This year, it was the same thing.  Even against teams like Orlando (who we supposedly need Kendrick for), Doc again went with the offense of Big Baby over the defense of Perk.  

Is it because of free throw shooting?  Partly.  But if that was the sole case, Nate Robinson would've been closing games out for Rondo.  It was because ultimately Perkins's defense didn't make up for his lack of offense: the Celtics were a better team with Big Baby than with him.  

And that's what we saw with Shaq too.  When you put another offender out there, it was just absolutely impossible to guard this team.  And if Shaq's going to start games with the Big Four and BBD is going to close them, then what exactly is the enormous need for Kendrick?  

And that's why I think Jeff Green could be huge.  He's someone more offensively gifted than Posey, BBD, and (at this stage of his career) Shaq.  How unguardable can this team be if he figures out how to play with the Big Four?  We'd have four All Stars and another guy who soon could be.  

Again, I'll miss Perk.  But I think when you really examine who Doc has relied on over the years to get it done, Perk wasn't one of those guys.  

[droponov]

I was quite divided about this trade when it first happened.  However, what's won me over is this simple fact: the Celtics were at their best when Kendrick Perkins WAS NOT on the floor.  

In 2008, Doc routinely went with Posey to close out games.  When it wasn't Posey, it was P.J. Brown (who could hit an 18 footer).  

This year, it was the same thing.  Even against teams like Orlando (who we supposedly need Kendrick for), Doc again went with the offense of Big Baby over the defense of Perk.  

Is it because of free throw shooting?  Partly.  But if that was the sole case, Nate Robinson would've been closing games out for Rondo.  It was because ultimately Perkins's defense didn't make up for his lack of offense: the Celtics were a better team with Big Baby than with him.  

And that's what we saw with Shaq too.  When you put another offender out there, it was just absolutely impossible to guard this team.  And if Shaq's going to start games with the Big Four and BBD is going to close them, then what exactly is the enormous need for Kendrick?  

And that's why I think Jeff Green could be huge.  He's someone more offensively gifted than Posey, BBD, and (at this stage of his career) Shaq.  How unguardable can this team be if he figures out how to play with the Big Four?  We'd have four All Stars and another guy who soon could be.  

Again, I'll miss Perk.  But I think when you really examine who Doc has relied on over the years to get it done, Perk wasn't one of those guys.  

I appreciate the effort to explain the thought process in detail, but that's a terrible post.

This season Perkins only came back from an injury a few weeks ago and has played only 10 games or so after being cleared out to play, half of them with a minutes limit. In any case, if Doc was convinced that Baby was a better player than Perkins, wouldn't he play Glenn Davis more minutes than Perkins? But once he was cleared to play more than 30 mpg, Perkins logged more minutes than Davis in every game. How did you miss this? Anyway, saying that they were at their best when Perkins wasn't on the floor when the sample of him being on the floor is so small is misleading; implying Doc actions confirm that when he played Perkins starter minutes doesn't make any sense. Your closing line-up (and Perkins actually closed some games) is not always your best line-up. I remember Shaq close to his prime being out of the closing line-up in some games and he was very clearly the best player in his teams.

Then you mention the 07/08 season. For that one, we already have some large enough samples to draw conclusions. The best unit the Celtics that season with a minimum of 100 minutes played (with no minutes limit it was one with Eddie House, Tony Allen and Scott Pollard but no Garnett) included Perkins as did 3 of the top 4 units. The team's offense was 3.5 points per 100 possessions better floor and the team defense 2.5 points per 100 possessions better with Perkins on the floor, for a net gain of 6 points. On the other hand, with Posey the offense was 7.4 points per 100 poss. worse and the defense 3.8 points per 100 poss. worse with him on the floor, for a net loss of 11 points.

The Rondo/Ray/Pierce/Perkins/Garnett unit outscored their opponents by 19.47 points per 100 possessions while the same unit with Posey instead of Perkins outscored their opponents by 6.86 points per 100 possessions. Btw, that unit played less than 150 minutes in the entire season and was rarely used to finish a game. The fact that it was used as the closing unit in some playoff games, especially in the finals, leads people to remember it being used more than it actually was.

So, there doesn't seem to exist many evidence to backup your claim. In fact, all the evidence points out that the Celtics have been a better team with Perkins on the floor - even if sometimes, but far from always, Doc leaves him out of line-up that closes games.

Finally, you simply don't mention any season between 07/08 and this one, even though Perkins played 80% of his minutes as a Celtic during that period! You mention his first season as a full-time starter and the one where he played a dozen of games after coming back from a season ending surgery... and not the most important and relevant stretch of his career! I think we can agree it doesn't make any sense at all, no?

It's funny how people try to convince themselves that the trade was good by believing in the most extraordinary things when there are very good reasons why the trade was good and necessary. A little more nuanced than "he was never that good, I just understood that after the trade", "it was the injuries, I have faith Ainge must know something the OKC can't know" and "oh, we got the better player, future all-star", but still good reasons.

[Celtics4ever]

Sure he logged minutes but for the last few years often he didn't finish games.   Coaches usually finish with their best options unless way behind.  I think they were trying to play Perk into shape and looked at the 15 PPG he gave up the last game and saw he was a tradeable asset it didn't look like he was going to give  them a hometown discount.  He thereby made himself expendable.

Even Doc said the C's starters were best with Shaq.  This was inevitable once Shaq and was relatively healthy for a patch.  He even in decline when healthy is more effective than KP in several ways.   He held Dwight to 6 one game.

[Jon]

I was quite divided about this trade when it first happened.  However, what's won me over is this simple fact: the Celtics were at their best when Kendrick Perkins WAS NOT on the floor.  

In 2008, Doc routinely went with Posey to close out games.  When it wasn't Posey, it was P.J. Brown (who could hit an 18 footer).  

This year, it was the same thing.  Even against teams like Orlando (who we supposedly need Kendrick for), Doc again went with the offense of Big Baby over the defense of Perk.  

Is it because of free throw shooting?  Partly.  But if that was the sole case, Nate Robinson would've been closing games out for Rondo.  It was because ultimately Perkins's defense didn't make up for his lack of offense: the Celtics were a better team with Big Baby than with him.  

And that's what we saw with Shaq too.  When you put another offender out there, it was just absolutely impossible to guard this team.  And if Shaq's going to start games with the Big Four and BBD is going to close them, then what exactly is the enormous need for Kendrick?  

And that's why I think Jeff Green could be huge.  He's someone more offensively gifted than Posey, BBD, and (at this stage of his career) Shaq.  How unguardable can this team be if he figures out how to play with the Big Four?  We'd have four All Stars and another guy who soon could be.  

Again, I'll miss Perk.  But I think when you really examine who Doc has relied on over the years to get it done, Perk wasn't one of those guys.  

I appreciate the effort to explain the thought process in detail, but that's a terrible post.

This season Perkins only came back from an injury a few weeks ago and has played only 10 games or so after being cleared out to play, half of them with a minutes limit. In any case, if Doc was convinced that Baby was a better player than Perkins, wouldn't he play Glenn Davis more minutes than Perkins? But once he was cleared to play more than 30 mpg, Perkins logged more minutes than Davis in every game. How did you miss this? Anyway, saying that they were at their best when Perkins wasn't on the floor when the sample of him being on the floor is so small is misleading; implying Doc actions confirm that when he played Perkins starter minutes doesn't make any sense. Your closing line-up (and Perkins actually closed some games) is not always your best line-up. I remember Shaq close to his prime being out of the closing line-up in some games and he was very clearly the best player in his teams.

Then you mention the 07/08 season. For that one, we already have some large enough samples to draw conclusions. The best unit the Celtics that season with a minimum of 100 minutes played (with no minutes limit it was one with Eddie House, Tony Allen and Scott Pollard but no Garnett) included Perkins as did 3 of the top 4 units. The team's offense was 3.5 points per 100 possessions better floor and the team defense 2.5 points per 100 possessions better with Perkins on the floor, for a net gain of 6 points. On the other hand, with Posey the offense was 7.4 points per 100 poss. worse and the defense 3.8 points per 100 poss. worse with him on the floor, for a net loss of 11 points.

The Rondo/Ray/Pierce/Perkins/Garnett unit outscored their opponents by 19.47 points per 100 possessions while the same unit with Posey instead of Perkins outscored their opponents by 6.86 points per 100 possessions. Btw, that unit played less than 150 minutes in the entire season and was rarely used to finish a game. The fact that it was used as the closing unit in some playoff games, especially in the finals, leads people to remember it being used more than it actually was.

So, there doesn't seem to exist many evidence to backup your claim. In fact, all the evidence points out that the Celtics have been a better team with Perkins on the floor - even if sometimes, but far from always, Doc leaves him out of line-up that closes games.

Finally, you simply don't mention any season between 07/08 and this one, even though Perkins played 80% of his minutes as a Celtic during that period! You mention his first season as a full-time starter and the one where he played a dozen of games after coming back from a season ending surgery... and not the most important and relevant stretch of his career! I think we can agree it doesn't make any sense at all, no?

It's funny how people try to convince themselves that the trade was good by believing in the most extraordinary things when there are very good reasons why the trade was good and necessary. A little more nuanced than "he was never that good, I just understood that after the trade", "it was the injuries, I have faith Ainge must know something the OKC can't know" and "oh, we got the better player, future all-star", but still good reasons.

Glen Davis is averaging 29.4 mpg this season.  Kendrick Perkins is averaging 26.1 mpg.  Glen Davis did play more minutes per game than Perkins this year. 

Did Perk play long minutes in a handful of games?  Yes.  But that was when we had no one else to play any minutes at center. 

And the central argument ultimately was this: Danny learned he was better starting games with Shaq and ending games with Baby.  The even more general lesson being that this team with more potent with an offensively able player with the 4 All Stars.  He was then given the opportunity to land an even more offensively potent player in Jeff Green and he took the chance. 

Red always said that it's the best players that finish games.  Perk is a good player.  However, if he was as good as some people are making him out to be, his defense would've been so stellar that Doc would've been forced to keep him in at the end of games despite his shortcomings.  But it was not. 

[Casperian]

It's funny how people try to convince themselves that the trade was good by believing in the most extraordinary things when there are very good reasons why the trade was good and necessary. A little more nuanced than "he was never that good, I just understood that after the trade", "it was the injuries, I have faith Ainge must know something the OKC can't know" and "oh, we got the better player, future all-star", but still good reasons.

You know that works both ways. Considering all the hype we like to shower our players with, and the exaggerations you can read on any fan-board every day, it´s not far-fetched to say "he´s not as good as some people think he is".

Not to call you out, droponov, I actually appreciate your posts, but I´ve read many posts from you where you ask others why they like the trade, only to make fun of their reasoning afterwards. I´d like to hear why you think it´s a good trade for the Celtics. I assume you´ve done that in another thread when the trade happened, but I must have missed that post, although I´ve read quite a few of them in the last few days.

If you would be so nice and provide me with a link to your assessment of this trade, I would really appreciate it and give you a TP for your bother.

[nickagneta]

I hope people aren't still against this.

I don't think anyone has seen enough of Kristic/Green (or Perkins in OKC obviously) to have their mind truly changed.

Its going to take a few more weeks to shake out as everyone gets acclimated to the their respective teams.

I think this trade HAS to be looked at as only a short term situation mostly because, I feel that Perk wasn't coming back next year. Danny and the C's made their final and best offer and that was all they were going to offer for a very limited, defensive center, with major injuries in his past. So they trade Perk, move that awful second year on Nate's contract and get back a RFA that they own the rights to on a matching contract, a center that has no other years left and a first rounder.

Whatever, Perk may or may not have brought to the table this year, and that is quite debatable given how bad he looked defensively for most of the time he has been back and his newest injury, this trade nets a 1st rounder in the next 2 years or so and the rights to Green, a player in my book with loads more potential long term than Perk and right now, a player that is better than Perk.

I said from the beginning, I loved the trade and the more people I see go down with injury that left, the more I like it.

All these injuries do bring up a point. Does Danny take too much of a chance on fragile players? Is the Celtics training staff doing enough training with the players to prevent some of these injuries? Is the Celtics' medical staff a poor one that is not properly advising the management of possible weakness in players before attaining them? Are the rash of injuries to this team over the last few years just a coincidence?

[guava_wrench]

I hope people aren't still against this.

I don't think anyone has seen enough of Kristic/Green (or Perkins in OKC obviously) to have their mind truly changed.

Its going to take a few more weeks to shake out as everyone gets acclimated to the their respective teams.

I think this trade HAS to be looked at as only a short term situation mostly because, I feel that Perk wasn't coming back next year. Danny and the C's made their final and best offer and that was all they were going to offer for a very limited, defensive center, with major injuries in his past. So they trade Perk, move that awful second year on Nate's contract and get back a RFA that they own the rights to on a matching contract, a center that has no other years left and a first rounder.

Whatever, Perk may or may not have brought to the table this year, and that is quite debatable given how bad he looked defensively for most of the time he has been back and his newest injury, this trade nets a 1st rounder in the next 2 years or so and the rights to Green, a player in my book with loads more potential long term than Perk and right now, a player that is better than Perk.

I said from the beginning, I loved the trade and the more people I see go down with injury that left, the more I like it.

All these injuries do bring up a point. Does Danny take too much of a chance on fragile players? Is the Celtics training staff doing enough training with the players to prevent some of these injuries? Is the Celtics' medical staff a poor one that is not properly advising the management of possible weakness in players before attaining them? Are the rash of injuries to this team over the last few years just a coincidence?

I am okay with the risks that Danny has taken because the alternative might have been guaranteed mediocrity. I would prefer a chance at greatness with a chance at disaster over guaranteed mediocrity.

I don't think the training staff can prevent worn-out joints from aching. In fact, the reason we see Shaq out is likely because the training staff is working overtime on him for the sake of the playoffs.

West and Quis are guys who get hurt no matter what team they are on. That is not on the medical staff.