Was trade really necessary??

[jdpapa3]

Our offense went into a ton of lulls with Perkins at the 5. Look at that situation. That's with one of the best offensive lineups from PG to PF of all time.

We have the best defense in the league this year with madness at the center position. It's pretty darn clear that KG is our defensive anchor. Perkins has 11% of our total minutes this season.

[BballTim]

  If any of those 5 assumptions don't work out then you have problems. Danny knocked that down to 2 assumptions (Murphy being bought out and coming here) and isn't really dependent on those assumptions working out.

plus, do we really have problems if we don't sign Butler and Murphy? I mean, the only way not having Kristic (ie trade didn't happen) has any impact on this team is if none of Perk, Shaq, and JO come back to play in the playoffs. and if that happens, we're in trouble any way you slice it (with or without Kristic)

  So you're claiming that if we have one single center available (probably for 20 minutes or so a game) and Paul's only backup is Von Wafer we don't really have any problems? Really? I'd disagree, and so would anyone who considered that they might be watching Wafer play 15-20 minutes a game guarding LeBron and Wade.

the place you catch up with those guys is with your interior defense which is much less secure without Perk...

I'd reccomend this article: http://sports.espn.go.com/boston/nba/columns/story?columnist=lundblad_jeremy&id=6156817

Some good, even handed analysis of how the C's suffer and benefit with and without Perk. How the C's have played very well with Shaq this year defensively. I think one thing one can take away from this is that Perk is an excellent defender but the C's system trumps his individual contributions. The D has been just as good with Shaq and others. The benefits of KG and the entirety of the system can make up for Perk more than the reverse. As positive as Perk's contribtions are defensively they strength of The Celtics team defense is that the loss of Perk doesn't hurt it as much as one may think. Hence, the positives that Green brings, and the many ways he helps the team, the needs he fills, are a bigger positive than the negatives of the loss of Perk, largely because the overall defense actually maintains its high level without Perk. This isn't to say I don't miss Perk with all my heart but that the trade does make sense and fills more needs than it creates losses.

  The only caveat to that is that even with the best case scenario for Shaq (healthy throughout the playoffs) he'll only give you a little over 20 minutes a game.

True, but Perkins has averaged from '07-'08 through this season between 24 and 29 mpg, his only plus 30 mpg average coming in the '08-'09 playoffs when KG was out. The Celtics defense has been excellent with Perk giving the team just a touch over the minutes that Shaq would be expected to play. The point being The Celtics team defense is more than Perk and it can withstand the loss of Perk without much difficulty, Perkins filled the role made for him exemplary but the role isn't as hard to fill as the role Green fills. The D is nearly as good with another player plugged into the hole that Perk filled, the defensive system and scheme as it stands being a larger entity that continues to suceed even with a lesser player in the Perkins part (as we have seen this season and in seasons past when Perk was only playing 25 minutes a game).

  Agree somewhat, but the article presented Shaq as someone who will take Perk's minutes. In reality that's not the case. If Perk were here they'd both play their typical amount of minutes. The real difference isn't between Perk and Shaq, it's between Perk and whoever plays center when Shaq's on the bench.

[2short]

Just to add in on team defense.  Krstic, likely our 3rd string center come playoffs, in one game looked better jumping out on p/roll defense than Perk ever did.

[ChainSmokingLikeDino]

  If any of those 5 assumptions don't work out then you have problems. Danny knocked that down to 2 assumptions (Murphy being bought out and coming here) and isn't really dependent on those assumptions working out.

plus, do we really have problems if we don't sign Butler and Murphy? I mean, the only way not having Kristic (ie trade didn't happen) has any impact on this team is if none of Perk, Shaq, and JO come back to play in the playoffs. and if that happens, we're in trouble any way you slice it (with or without Kristic)

  So you're claiming that if we have one single center available (probably for 20 minutes or so a game) and Paul's only backup is Von Wafer we don't really have any problems? Really? I'd disagree, and so would anyone who considered that they might be watching Wafer play 15-20 minutes a game guarding LeBron and Wade.

the place you catch up with those guys is with your interior defense which is much less secure without Perk...

I'd reccomend this article: http://sports.espn.go.com/boston/nba/columns/story?columnist=lundblad_jeremy&id=6156817

Some good, even handed analysis of how the C's suffer and benefit with and without Perk. How the C's have played very well with Shaq this year defensively. I think one thing one can take away from this is that Perk is an excellent defender but the C's system trumps his individual contributions. The D has been just as good with Shaq and others. The benefits of KG and the entirety of the system can make up for Perk more than the reverse. As positive as Perk's contribtions are defensively they strength of The Celtics team defense is that the loss of Perk doesn't hurt it as much as one may think. Hence, the positives that Green brings, and the many ways he helps the team, the needs he fills, are a bigger positive than the negatives of the loss of Perk, largely because the overall defense actually maintains its high level without Perk. This isn't to say I don't miss Perk with all my heart but that the trade does make sense and fills more needs than it creates losses.

  The only caveat to that is that even with the best case scenario for Shaq (healthy throughout the playoffs) he'll only give you a little over 20 minutes a game.

True, but Perkins has averaged from '07-'08 through this season between 24 and 29 mpg, his only plus 30 mpg average coming in the '08-'09 playoffs when KG was out. The Celtics defense has been excellent with Perk giving the team just a touch over the minutes that Shaq would be expected to play. The point being The Celtics team defense is more than Perk and it can withstand the loss of Perk without much difficulty, Perkins filled the role made for him exemplary but the role isn't as hard to fill as the role Green fills. The D is nearly as good with another player plugged into the hole that Perk filled, the defensive system and scheme as it stands being a larger entity that continues to suceed even with a lesser player in the Perkins part (as we have seen this season and in seasons past when Perk was only playing 25 minutes a game).

  Agree somewhat, but the article presented Shaq as someone who will take Perk's minutes. In reality that's not the case. If Perk were here they'd both play their typical amount of minutes. The real difference isn't between Perk and Shaq, it's between Perk and whoever plays center when Shaq's on the bench.

Yeah, I don't agree with that assumption of the article. Obviously in an ideal world one would love to have Perk AND Shaq but that ain't happening and Shaq was signed largely as a replacement, knowing Perk was going to miss half the season. So, extrapolating from the stats provided in the article one can see how Shaq is not much of a change from Perk with regards to our defense (to say nothing of his offensive benefits)(and aside our defense hasn't even suffered that much without either---the overall defense is built to withstand a lesser center so long as they play within the scheme). That is, we stand in a largely similar position today as we did a week ago. So, then one must see that the needs for the team that Jeff Green likely fills outweigh the negligible losses of Perk (not simply by providing scoring from the 3 off the bench, bolstering the second unit and helping avoid offensive droughts, but in giving rest to PP et al actually benefitting the defense of the entire team by ot having run down players throughout the games/playoffs) and arguably put The C's in a better position, the gains of the trade being greater than the losses.

TP for the good, level-headed discussion going on here (wish there was more of that these days )

[Weird Facts]

Yes,

I never bashed Perk because I liked his effort- but I also never  blogged about how great he is.

He is a mediocre center:  SORRY!

hard worker- yes
mean - yes
garbage man - yes


But really guys? he is not a great player & the only real claim anyone has put out there is that IF PERK DIDN'T GO DOWN FOR GAME 7 - WE WOULD HAVE WON LAST SEASON.

Based on what facts?!

I wish Perk a long and fantastic career.

-but guys-
1 knee surgery
sprained MCL on other knee
3 shoulder rehabs / surgeries.


Who is really that upset about this? 

ON THE OVERALL SPECTRUM


Poor           average               star

upset about trading

Scalabrine        Jason Richardson      Wilt Chamberlin

where does perk really fall on this spectrum?


between poor and average & between trading jason richardson & scalabrine.


Don't get it twisted

[Marcus13]

If by necessary, you mean season-ending and the end of the Boston Celtics championship contention for the next couple of years...then yes, completely necessary

[ChainSmokingLikeDino]

If by necessary, you mean season-ending and the end of the Boston Celtics championship contention for the next couple of years...then yes, completely necessary

Not to be too finicky but why exactly does this trade end The C's chances this season and for many in the future? The argument for this year I disagree with, as I have tried to show somewhat above, and I am flabbergasted how this ruins this team going forward? Care to explain why you think this sinks the ship for this year and many to come?

[mgent]

The answer is obvious.  We had the second best record in basketball without Perk, Delonte, and JO, and with Marquis (who is a mediocre as a SF) backing up Pierce.  All we needed was another average SF to replace Marquis and the return of Delonte and JO would've been more than enough (Perk was already back playing well).

Instead all our hopes and dreams lie on a 38 year old diesel truck being healthy.

[Bankshot]

The answer is obvious.  We had the second best record in basketball without Perk, Delonte, and JO, and with Marquis (who is a mediocre as a SF) backing up Pierce.  All we needed was another average SF to replace Marquis and the return of Delonte and JO would've been more than enough (Perk was already back playing well).

Instead all our hopes and dreams lie on a 38 year old diesel truck being healthy.

But Perk wasn't healthy either and we risked not having one healthy center for the playoffs.  Danny got rid of one that couldn't stay healthy the last few years and got a healthy Krstic and he'll probably get Murphy too.  Perk was hurt both times the Celtics went to the Finals and it's looking like he's headed that way once again. That, coupled with the fact that there was no way he was worth (and no way DA was paying him) 10 million and I say yes, it was necessary.  Rondo and Jeff Green going forward is a more talented and attractive duo (as far as luring free agents) than Perk and Rondo, imo.

[cman88]

letting the trade sink in for a few days, and looking at it from a non emotional perspective...

from dannys point of view, the Celtics have/had the best record in the east playing without perkins. Shaq as a starter actually looked great out there..hes stil an intimidating presence on defense(from his sheer size) and a better offensive option(think of all the easy looks shaq got that were points on the board) and his double teams helped open up KG alot.

at the same time, while Orlando was our main competition the last few years. They have fallen off the radar and now our biggest competition in the east are teams with elite perimeter plays(lebron, melo, deng etc.) do we want peirce as the sole 3spot defending those guys for full playoff series?

dannys obviously gambling that he didnt trust perks health over the long term, and the fact that he was probably leaving with what the team needed at the moment.

[droopdog7]

Not only was this trade necessary, it makes us considerbaly better.  Not only does this trade make is considerbaly better, we will look back at it in a couple years and look at it as and out and out steal. 

Sure, we lost of defense.  And yes, much will depend on the O'Neal brothers.  But I don't think for a minute that DA would have done this trade without some idea that one or both of those guys will be ready.

But most of all (as I posted earlier this week), this trade helps up offensively.  THAT is why we lost (and until recently) continued to have those dry spells on offense.  That is why this team had a tendency to give up leads.  When the going get's tough (i.e., the 4th quarter) there was simply too much pressure placed on our scorers (besides the fact that they get worn down from too many minutes).

Before the trade, I was not cofident that the team could win the title.  Without a backup for PP, I thought there was no chance. 

[mgent]

The answer is obvious.  We had the second best record in basketball without Perk, Delonte, and JO, and with Marquis (who is a mediocre as a SF) backing up Pierce.  All we needed was another average SF to replace Marquis and the return of Delonte and JO would've been more than enough (Perk was already back playing well).

Instead all our hopes and dreams lie on a 38 year old diesel truck being healthy.

But Perk wasn't healthy either and we risked not having one healthy center for the playoffs.  Danny got rid of one that couldn't stay healthy the last few years and got a healthy Krstic and he'll probably get Murphy too.  Perk was hurt both times the Celtics went to the Finals and it's looking like he's headed that way once again. That, coupled with the fact that there was no way he was worth (and no way DA was paying him) 10 million and I say yes, it was necessary.  Rondo and Jeff Green going forward is a more talented and attractive duo (as far as luring free agents) than Perk and Rondo, imo.

I didn't think he was severely hurt both times the Celtics went to the Finals, he just sustained an unfortunate injury in the second to last game.  I also wouldn't say he "couldn't stay healthy the last few years."  You are trying to make him sound like a highly injury-prone player so the trade looks smarter, but that's simply not true.  You have no reason to believe that Perk would've been hurt in this year's finals.  And there was no way we were signing Perk anyway and messing up our cap space so there's no reason to assume we're gonna match whatever offer Green gets.

I also wouldn't say that having the 2 best defensive players at the 2 hardest positions to fill is any less attractive than Rondo + a guy that can't really start at the 3 or 4 on a championship team (and definitely not the 3 considering we already have Pierce under contract).

[Edgar]

The oddout of equation here is Kristic

He can be as good as a rebounder as Perk is or better
he brings length and legs
Hes probably more healthy than perk and gives 60 to 70% the defense Perk gives and we got Jeff Green for NAte that is by itself a big size upgrade.
We dont trade Jeff for Perk flat deal
We trade Jeff and Kristic for Perk and Nate
and that is a good trade.

[ChainSmokingLikeDino]

The answer is obvious.  We had the second best record in basketball without Perk, Delonte, and JO, and with Marquis (who is a mediocre as a SF) backing up Pierce.  All we needed was another average SF to replace Marquis and the return of Delonte and JO would've been more than enough (Perk was already back playing well).

Instead all our hopes and dreams lie on a 38 year old diesel truck being healthy.

You are aware your first sentence above says we had the second best record _without_ Perk? So, given that this season has shown this team can play well without Perkins, without Shaq, etc, that the defensive system works with a subpar center even, that the center is not the key to the defensive scheme, how do our hopes and dreams then rely on Shaq? And Perkins injuries unfortunately have been an issue this year and a liability going forward so one can't assume the best for Perk and the worst for Shaq, ya know?

All I am trying to say is the need for a scoring, athletic 3 on the bench far outweighed the deficit at center. The ability to replace what Perk has done to a satisfactory level was outweighed by the needs Green fills.

[BballTim]

  But I don't think for a minute that DA would have done this trade without some idea that one or both of those guys will be ready.

  I hear this a lot but I don't really agree with it. If Danny can't count on the O'Neals then he can't really afford to go into the playoffs with our title hopes absolutely depending on Perk being able to stay healthy and play big minutes if necessary.