Was trade really necessary??

[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.

[winsomme]

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?

  One thing the trade added was a healthy center.

  You're making 5 assumptions here:

  Perk will be healthy

  Murphy will be bought out

  Butler will be bought out

  Murphy will sign with the Celts

  Butler will sign with the Celts

  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.

but the trade lost us our starting center and made it less clear why Murphy and Butler SHOULD sign with us in our pitch to them (ie making it harder to sign them).

Murphy would be the healthy center to add and frankly should start over Kristic if he signs with us (making the trade even more questionable).

  According to 82games opposing centers are hitting about 45% of their shots against Krstic. Last year when Murphy played center opponents hit over 57% of their shots against him. I'm guessing your claim that Murphy should start over Krstic is based solely on your aversion to this trade.

  And, again, your plan is based on having a player that wasn't even bought out on our roster. What if he picks another team? What if he hadn't agreed on a buyout?

rebounding and three point shooting...

[winsomme]

  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...

[Neurotic Guy]

The answer to the thread's question is 'probably not'. 

But, the real question, IMO, is:
'Does the trade increase, decrease, or have no impact on our ability to win championships?'

Right now, it's all about opinions and speculation, and I think we are all splitting hairs about the difference in overall impact this will make.  Nobody really knows. 

Let's at least do what we do every year to start the season before declaring our team worthy or not:  Wait 20 games.  OK, 10 games should be enough to at least give us some perspective on the impact.

[wdleehi]

No, it was not necessary.


The Celtics could have found a different backup SF.   They only needed to play solid defense and be able to be a respectable shooter. 

[BballTim]

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?

  One thing the trade added was a healthy center.

  You're making 5 assumptions here:

  Perk will be healthy

  Murphy will be bought out

  Butler will be bought out

  Murphy will sign with the Celts

  Butler will sign with the Celts

  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.

but the trade lost us our starting center and made it less clear why Murphy and Butler SHOULD sign with us in our pitch to them (ie making it harder to sign them).

Murphy would be the healthy center to add and frankly should start over Kristic if he signs with us (making the trade even more questionable).

  According to 82games opposing centers are hitting about 45% of their shots against Krstic. Last year when Murphy played center opponents hit over 57% of their shots against him. I'm guessing your claim that Murphy should start over Krstic is based solely on your aversion to this trade.

  And, again, your plan is based on having a player that wasn't even bought out on our roster. What if he picks another team? What if he hadn't agreed on a buyout?

rebounding and three point shooting...

  Again, though, Krstic is a decent outside shooter, and you're completely ignoring the fact that we would have made our moves with no guarantee that we'll have Murphy.

[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...

  We don't know what we'd have gotten from Perk even if he stayed. He's currently unavailable until at least mid-march.

[bbd24]

Yes, it was necessary. Especially if your the GM.  You were losing Perkins next year regardless, based on his worth in an overpaying free agent market. You cant pay him what he wants. Why get nothing for him when you have Shaq, JO, and now Krstic who can fill the position ? You have more to gain for the future while still being relevant today.

2012 looks mighty promising now with Rondo and Green as your young tandem..
Money is freed up for 1 big free agent to add to the tandem or even 2 quality free agent starters. A lot of options, especially if that 1st round Clipper pick is in play. That's even another addition. You leave yourself wide open with the trade.

[Celtics4ever]

I don't think it was neccessary no one ever won or lost a title because of a backup SF.  But I like the trade.   

I think we ended up with the best player in the trade.  Clippers might make the playoffs and that pick might be a good player next year with Blake.  The second unit got better.

This was a move like BBD24 that helps us down the road and now.   I still think we sign the 6-10 Murphy when he is bought out and if we do it was a genius move.  Murph is better rebounder than Perk.   I think playing next to KG will help his D too.

[fairweatherfan]

If Perk winds up injured or ineffective for the rest of the year, the trade was a steal no matter how it shakes out for us.  Unfortunately that's the track he's currently on.

Put it this way, with Perk still here this board is very, very worried about his health right now.  Now we're worried about integrating our new talent into our rotation.  Different problem but quite possibly a better one.

[jpurthe1]

Just saw this on another thread by Celtics4Ever. Excellent information.

think Jeff Green is a stud.  I think he's a stud getting overshadowed by a couple phenoms in OKC.  Green is a SF who has been forced to play PF in OKC.  I was curious how he's produced in games when Durant was out with injuries.  My hunch was that he would have produced some big numbers.  Unfortunately, Durant doesn't miss a ton of games.  In the last 3 years since Durant has been a "star", there has only been 7 games in which Jeff Green got to play without him.     

Jeff Green's stats:


08-09 season:

L 11/12/08 - 25 points, 10 rebounds, (7-18 shooting)
L 2/27/09 - 28 points, 12 rebounds, (9-20 shooting)
W 2/28/09 - 27 points, 10 rebounds, 2 assists (8-20 shooting)
W 3/10/09 - 22 points, 6 rebounds, 2 assists (6-13 shooting)
L 3/11/09 - 19 points, 7 rebounds (5-12 shooting)
 

10-11 season:
W 12/1/10 -  37 points, 5 rebounds, 4 assists (12-21 shooting)
L 12/3/10 - 17 points, 4 rebounds, 7 assists (6-14 shooting)


So in 7 games he's managed to average 25 points, 7.7 rebounds 45% shooting ... Worth noting?

I think the guy ends up being a fringe all-star in the post-"Big 3" lotto Celtics era.
quote]

http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=44866.0#msg929215

Now I don't know if he was is going to be a fringe all-star.   But I trust Danny's judgment and talent evaluation over the likes of you.  I know he won't get touches here as much but he stands to add some scoring punch to our bench at this rate.  I think we will allow us to rest PP and a lot of worst opponents are SF.  Green has the length to affect LeBron's shot and some athletic ability to boot.

Bottom line is Perk is gone, deal with it.  Don't hate Jeff Green as he didn't make this happen Ainge 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.

[LooseCannon]

Let me possibly throw some fuel on the fire and suggest that this trade was absolutely necessary if you wanted a Marquis Daniels replacement who was more than just a stop-gap but would actually have value to the team beyond this season AND you refused to give up Avery Bradley.  And I think Ainge really didn't want to trade Bradley and was more willing to part with Perk.

[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.

[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).