Trading Perk was not a "Larry Bird" trade

[Moranis]

Roy on the front page seems to imply trading Perk was somehow Danny's way of avoiding the Larry Bird syndrome of the late 80's/early 90's, but the Perk trade is nothing like what Danny believes should have occurred with the Celtics and Bird. 

First, Perkins is still very much in his prime and will be for a number of years.  He isn't some aging veteran at the tail end of his career.  He has a lot of "prime" years left in the tank.

Second, not to state the obvious but Perkins is not Larry Bird.  He is not Kevin McHale.  He is not even Robert Parrish.  He is a role player.  A very good role player, but a role player nonetheless.  He isn't a franchise player and never will be one.  The C's got good value for him because he is young and in his prime and plays a position of need for most NBA teams, not because he is an aging franchise player.

Third, the Celtics of this year are not the Celtics of 89-90.  The Celtics of this year are a legitimate championship contender and perhaps the favorites.  They were not coming off a first round playoff exit where it was clear their time had passed.  This years team is much closer to the 86-87 and 87-88 team, i.e. still very much in the title picture.  By 89-90, that window had closed.  I don't believe anyone on here thinks the Celtics window has closed.


Danny obviously believes the trade won't hurt the Celtics title chances this year and is a good trade moving forward, but to somehow couch this as Danny's way of avoiding the "Larry Bird Syndrome" is just wrong.  I would certainly buy that argument if he moved KG, Pierce, or Allen in a clearly future driven move, but moving Perkins at this point in time just doesn't pass that smell test with respect to that line of thinking. 

[Roy H.]

It's an analogy.  Concerns about Perk's injuries and/or his contract status are in a lot of ways similar to the decline of Bird and McHale later in their careers.

Red's philosophy was to stay loyal to his core, while trying to maximize his title chances.  Danny always rejected that notion, and thought that there was a time to scrap that plan, and to rebuild on the fly, even if that would hurt the team's win/loss total in the short term.

On a small scale, this is that philosophy in action.  It could work out brilliantly, but I'm not a fan of radically changing a contender, especially mid-season.  When your coach says "we'll see" when asked if the trade makes the team better and the GM talks about a guy's contract negotiations, that says all you need to know about whether this trade was made for the present versus the future.

[rondohondo]

It's an analogy.  Concerns about Perk's injuries and/or his contract status are in a lot of ways similar to the decline of Bird and McHale later in their careers.

Red's philosophy was to stay loyal to his core, while trying to maximize his title chances.  Danny always rejected that notion, and thought that there was a time to scrap that plan, and to rebuild on the fly, even if that would hurt the team's win/loss total in the short term.

On a small scale, this is that philosophy in action.  It could work out brilliantly, but I'm not a fan of radically changing a contender, especially mid-season.  When your coach says "we'll see" when asked if the trade makes the team better and the GM talks about a guy's contract negotiations, that says all you need to know about whether this trade was made for the present versus the future.

is it really radically changing the roster though? Yes we lost a great defensive Center and some toughness, but that's about it.

The C's have already beat most of the contenders this year without Perk. Shaq clearly makes the offense run a lot smoother than Perk( the C's were one of , if not the most efficient offenses of all time with Shaq in the lineup for the first 30+ games. We are actually a bigger starting lineup now.

We were still # 1 in defense without Perk. Now we have the ability to match up with just about any style of play in the league.

Do the Lakers really have a huge edge over us now in the frontcourt? Bynum, Gasol and Odom vs KG,BBD,Shaq,Green, Kristic and possibly a buyout or JO ?

I just don't think it is a huge hit to the frontcourt, BBD was finishing most of the games at the center spot anyways.

I love Perk and agree that it may take some time to get chemistry down with the new guys, but I think the most important pieces of our roster are still in tact and we were able to add a dynamic offensive player and a possible lottery pick to that.

Perk was going to walk after this year because it's clear Danny didn't see him as a building block for the future, and rightly so,Perk is a very good defensive role player, but not much more.

[Chief]

It's an analogy.  Concerns about Perk's injuries and/or his contract status are in a lot of ways similar to the decline of Bird and McHale later in their careers.

Red's philosophy was to stay loyal to his core, while trying to maximize his title chances.  Danny always rejected that notion, and thought that there was a time to scrap that plan, and to rebuild on the fly, even if that would hurt the team's win/loss total in the short term.

On a small scale, this is that philosophy in action.  It could work out brilliantly, but I'm not a fan of radically changing a contender, especially mid-season.  When your coach says "we'll see" when asked if the trade makes the team better and the GM talks about a guy's contract negotiations, that says all you need to know about whether this trade was made for the present versus the future.

is it really radically changing the roster though? Yes we lost a great defensive Center and some toughness, but that's about it.

The C's have already beat most of the contenders this year without Perk. Shaq clearly makes the offense run a lot smoother than Perk( the C's were one of , if not the most efficient offenses of all time with Shaq in the lineup for the first 30+ games. We are actually a bigger starting lineup now.

We were still # 1 in defense without Perk. Now we have the ability to match up with just about any style of play in the league.

Do the Lakers really have a huge edge over us now in the frontcourt? Bynum, Gasol and Odom vs KG,BBD,Shaq,Green, Kristic and possibly a buyout or JO ?

I just don't think it is a huge hit to the frontcourt, BBD was finishing most of the games at the center spot anyways.

I love Perk and agree that it may take some time to get chemistry down with the new guys, but I think the most important pieces of our roster are still in tact and we were able to add a dynamic offensive player and a possible lottery pick to that.

Perk was going to walk after this year because it's clear Danny didn't see him as a building block for the future, and rightly so,Perk is a very good defensive role player, but not much more.

TP

[Celtics4ever]

How about a good defensive center.  Perk and the words "great" are a stretch.  That being said the dude left it all on the floor.  But I think many here are treating it like we just lost Russell or Cowens.  We didn't.  He wasn't even all star and to compare it to the Bird loss is pretty insane.
 
Tp for Rondohondo for adding some sanity to the boards today. for Chief.

[Roy H.]

He wasn't even all star and to compare it to the Bird loss is pretty insane.

Sigh.  Nobody was saying that Perk and Bird are equivalent.  It's an analogy.  Danny always said that he'd have no problem making a cold business decision over loyalty if it improved the team in the future (even if it hurt in the short-term), and the examples he always gave were Bird and McHale.  On a smaller scale, this is an example of that philosophy at work.

[footey]

I don't agree with Roy's overall assessment of the trade-- I think it will improve us this year--but I do agree with him in this respect. I think Danny is weighing in some future factors more heavily than Red did, and is thinking of the long term health of the franchise, similar to Belichick with the Pats (e.g., Richard Seymour trade). I also think that Perk had hit a ceiling with this team, injured or not, that Perk is a very limited offensive player, and that we will be able to replace him on the defensive end pretty quickly. Perk was not a very good defensive player in this league until KG came on board. He was always in foul trouble.  We forgot how much the arrival of KG completely changed the culture of this team to a defensive oriented team.

[Who]

I don't agree with Roy's overall assessment of the trade-- I think it will improve us this year--but I do agree with him in this respect.

If Shaq and Jermaine are healthy come playoff time, I agree. I think the Celtics got better.

[greenpride32]

Perk is just a role player.  Bird is a LEGEND.  I don't see any comparisons.

[Assassin70]

I don't agree with Roy's overall assessment of the trade-- I think it will improve us this year--but I do agree with him in this respect.

If Shaq and Jermaine are healthy come playoff time, I agree. I think the Celtics got better.

Jermaine and healthy in the same sentence...please stop.

[BudweiserCeltic]

I've stayed away from this site since, whatever I don't want to recall that day it still hurts. Anyways, thought I would come back for while to see how we setup in the coming days/weeks after this trade was made.

This trade is completely awesome, that's the bottom line. Jeff Green is being completely undervalued here, while Perk's impact completely overstated.

This being a good trade is not dependent on the health of the O'neals. This is already a good trade. We still need need to add some bodies to fill the roster, but with Green we're already a much better team even if we get that much weaker defensively, which is an hysterical thought all told.

[Moranis]

It's an analogy.  Concerns about Perk's injuries and/or his contract status are in a lot of ways similar to the decline of Bird and McHale later in their careers.

I don't believe they are similar.  All players decline when they get old, not all players have constant knee injuries or salary demands that exceed their value.

Red's philosophy was to stay loyal to his core, while trying to maximize his title chances.  Danny always rejected that notion, and thought that there was a time to scrap that plan, and to rebuild on the fly, even if that would hurt the team's win/loss total in the short term.

I think you are underselling Danny a great deal here.  This team is not at the stage Red's Celtics were.  That is why this isn't similar.  Danny has never suggested Red should have traded Bird and McHale in 87, only that he should have in 90.  You don't trade stars when you are a legitimate title contender, you do it when you aren't a legitimate title contender but while the stars still have value.  Denver and Utah would have never traded Melo and Deron, if they were the favorites to win the title, but they weren't so they did it before they lost them.  That is the type of trade Danny believes should be made.  No one trades Kobe this year even if you strongly believe he is going to leave at the end of the season.  

On a small scale, this is that philosophy in action.  It could work out brilliantly, but I'm not a fan of radically changing a contender, especially mid-season.  When your coach says "we'll see" when asked if the trade makes the team better and the GM talks about a guy's contract negotiations, that says all you need to know about whether this trade was made for the present versus the future.

Not really to me.  How exactly is Doc supposed to know if they trade will make us better?  He isn't a fortune teller.  Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, no way to know unless it plays out.  I happen to believe the trade plugged more holes then it created.  Only time will tell.

And for the record, I believe Danny made this trade because he believes it will help the teams chances of winning a title this year or he wouldn't have made it.  There are a number of reasons he likely traded Perk many of which are basketball related.  He is currently injured and coming off a serious injury, he is a role player for this team, his offensive game holds this team back, he has real value around the league (and thus you can get real value in return), the team played well without him, and yes he is an up coming free agent (of course so is Green).

[Roy H.]

 Danny has never suggested Red should have traded Bird and McHale in 87, only that he should have in 90.  

The trade offer was in '88.

[droponov]

Yeah, I also think Ainge did this trade because he was worried with the lack of versatility in the team this season. He's looking at this year's playoffs - I'm not really sure if this improves the team for the future beyond that (it depends on the contract negotiations with Green vs. Perkins, that pick isn't significant).

Perkins presence, assuming the O'Neals can play, offered diminishing returns. Green fills a huge gap. That's why Danny did the trade, not because of the future. He prefers to gamble on the O'Neal's health than being sure about a crippled backcourt.

[rondohondo]

Yeah, I also think Ainge did this trade because he was worried with the lack of versatility in the team this season. He's looking at this year's playoffs - I'm not really sure if this improves the team for the future beyond that (it depends on the contract negotiations with Green vs. Perkins, that pick isn't significant).

Perkins presence, assuming the O'Neals can play, offered diminishing returns. Green fills a huge gap. That's why Danny did the trade, not because of the future. He prefers to gamble on the O'Neal's health than being sure about a crippled backcourt.

I disagree on the pick not being significant. It is the LAC 1ST ROUND PICK, THE CLIPPERS!

Yes it is top 10 protected ,but a possible pick in th 11-15 range of the lottery is not insignificant.

That pick could be packaged to bring in another young piece or Danny can work his magic in the draft. He drafted both Al Jefferson and Rondo around pick number 15, he is great at drafting in the mid 1st round.