Author Topic: Was trade really necessary??  (Read 27872 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Was trade really necessary??
« on: February 28, 2011, 12:06:17 AM »

Offline winsomme

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6058
  • Tommy Points: 255
Is adding Green and Kristic and having to figure out how to assimilate them while totally disrupting our starting unit really worth it when our roster could easily have been:

Rondo
Ray
PP
KG
PErk

Nate
DWest
Butler
Murphy
Baby
Shaq
JO
Wafer

what did the trade add that isn't on this roster....and keeping our nasty edge and advantage in the post?

Re: Was trade really necessary??
« Reply #1 on: February 28, 2011, 12:08:31 AM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 63544
  • Tommy Points: -25456
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
My preference would have been to trade Semih and Luke to Cleveland for Parker, a deal the Cavs were reportedly interested in.  We still could have had two buyout slots for, say, Murphy and Powe.

That said, I think Danny thought Jeff Green was a lot more dynamic than anybody else available.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER... AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!

Re: Was trade really necessary??
« Reply #2 on: February 28, 2011, 12:08:42 AM »

Offline Fafnir

  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30863
  • Tommy Points: 1330
I don't think this trade was absolutely necessary for this year. This trade was clearly made with an eye towards the future.

It does make us stronger on the wing and give us a small ball option (with Green at 4). But it hurts our C depth a bit.

Re: Was trade really necessary??
« Reply #3 on: February 28, 2011, 12:10:12 AM »

Offline Frrrrank!!!

  • Chris Boucher
  • Posts: 10
  • Tommy Points: 2
In my opinion it would of been better to pull of something smaller. Get Parker, Battier, ect. and keep Perkins.

That way we could keep the starting 5 together, not rest our title hopes on Shaqs knees, and have a backup to Pierce(not as good as Green) but a backup.

Re: Was trade really necessary??
« Reply #4 on: February 28, 2011, 12:14:13 AM »

Offline winsomme

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6058
  • Tommy Points: 255
My preference would have been to trade Semih and Luke to Cleveland for Parker, a deal the Cavs were reportedly interested in.  We still could have had two buyout slots for, say, Murphy and Powe.

That said, I think Danny thought Jeff Green was a lot more dynamic than anybody else available.

Green being a player is the only reason the trade makes any sense...but given the amount of time left in the season and Green never playing off the bench, I simply see no reason for this trade.

a bench with Nate, Dwest, Butler, Baby, Murphy, Shaq, JO, etc...has energy, scoring, depth, defense, size, 3pt shooting...on and on...

there's nothing lacking there, PLUS you keep your starting unit together....

Re: Was trade really necessary??
« Reply #5 on: February 28, 2011, 12:16:18 AM »

Offline BudweiserCeltic

  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19020
  • Tommy Points: 1834
Why do people keep talking about center depth lost? Our center depth didn't change at all. The only change was with Erden, and he was injured an more than easily replaceable.

And what to we gain? A decent player with a lot of potential and a 1st round pick. A player we actually have a chance of resigning as oppose to Perk. He wasn't going to stay here.

Re: Was trade really necessary??
« Reply #6 on: February 28, 2011, 12:17:59 AM »

Offline barefacedmonk

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7221
  • Tommy Points: 1796
  • The Dude Abides
Marquis, Erden and Harangody would have been enough to create vacant roster spots and get a back up SF. Cash/pick if needed.
"An ounce of practice is worth more than tons of preaching." - M.K. Gandhi


Re: Was trade really necessary??
« Reply #7 on: February 28, 2011, 12:18:35 AM »

Offline BudweiserCeltic

  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19020
  • Tommy Points: 1834
And we got healthier.

Re: Was trade really necessary??
« Reply #8 on: February 28, 2011, 12:23:09 AM »

Offline greenpride32

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1310
  • Tommy Points: 83
The primary purpose of the trade was to get a backup 3 behind Paul Pierce (and we got a pretty good one at that).  Exactly who on your list would be taking these minutes if we didn't make the trade???

Re: Was trade really necessary??
« Reply #9 on: February 28, 2011, 12:25:23 AM »

Offline winsomme

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6058
  • Tommy Points: 255
Why do people keep talking about center depth lost? Our center depth didn't change at all. The only change was with Erden, and he was injured an more than easily replaceable.

And what to we gain? A decent player with a lot of potential and a 1st round pick. A player we actually have a chance of resigning as oppose to Perk. He wasn't going to stay here.

this is revisionist...there's no way to know if Perk would be back. We don't even know what the new bargaining agreement will look like...

Was 15 MPG of Green really worth losing our starting center?


Re: Was trade really necessary??
« Reply #10 on: February 28, 2011, 12:26:12 AM »

Offline winsomme

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6058
  • Tommy Points: 255
The primary purpose of the trade was to get a backup 3 behind Paul Pierce (and we got a pretty good one at that).  Exactly who on your list would be taking these minutes if we didn't make the trade???

Rasual Butler, Wafer, and DWest

Re: Was trade really necessary??
« Reply #11 on: February 28, 2011, 12:29:45 AM »

Offline greenpride32

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1310
  • Tommy Points: 83
The primary purpose of the trade was to get a backup 3 behind Paul Pierce (and we got a pretty good one at that).  Exactly who on your list would be taking these minutes if we didn't make the trade???

Rasual Butler, Wafer, and DWest

Wafer and West are not small forwards, they are guards.  They aren't big enough to defend a LBJ or Melo.
Even if they could fill at 3 (which is not ideal):
If Wafer backups Pierce, who backs up Ray?
If West backups Pierce, who backs up Rondo?

Also Green is a much better player than Butler.

Re: Was trade really necessary??
« Reply #12 on: February 28, 2011, 12:30:18 AM »

Offline winsomme

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6058
  • Tommy Points: 255
And we got healthier.

didn't that OKC blogger say Kristic has been battling injuries all season? Plus doesn't an addition of Murphy make Kristic pretty unnecessary?

Re: Was trade really necessary??
« Reply #13 on: February 28, 2011, 12:32:43 AM »

Offline winsomme

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6058
  • Tommy Points: 255
The primary purpose of the trade was to get a backup 3 behind Paul Pierce (and we got a pretty good one at that).  Exactly who on your list would be taking these minutes if we didn't make the trade???

Rasual Butler, Wafer, and DWest

Wafer and West are not small forwards, they are guards.  They aren't big enough to defend a LBJ or Melo.
Even if they could fill at 3 (which is not ideal):
If Wafer backups Pierce, who backs up Ray?
If West backups Pierce, who backs up Rondo?

Also Green is a much better player than Butler.

those three can easily take the wing minutes...

and Green may be better than Butler as a backup, but is that worth losing your STARTING center?

Re: Was trade really necessary??
« Reply #14 on: February 28, 2011, 12:34:14 AM »

Offline BudweiserCeltic

  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19020
  • Tommy Points: 1834
Yes is the simple answer. Yes two times is the long one.

But we've already had this conversation like 10 times already since Thursday, so why beat around the bush, you already heard everything that needs to be heard about the pro's and con's.