Who else thinks we made out like bandits in the Perkins trade? I know I do.

[bbd24]

You can't defy that logic.  Significantly upgraded.  The team and the roles.

Any argument where Perk isn't counted isn't legitimate to me.  I mean, you're literally ignoring him, as if he would have had no role on the team afterward.  I mean, you can look at the trade that way, just don't expect anyone who isn't already convinced to be persuaded.

The reason I'm ignoring him is based on Celtics18 'wildcard' if you will. Shaq. Getting Shaq's services this year were huge in the Perkins move.  His health will ultimately determine the outcome, but when Shaq has started and played with this first team, he's been darn good.  Is he a push at Perks old spot ?  I'd even go as far as saying that he's better than Perk in that starting role.

Like you state, there will only be certain minutes given to players in the playoffs.  The core 4 will get there long minutes. With this trade, you cancel out Perkins minutes with Shaq, and also get to add Green off the bench which is HUGE.  You don't get that at all if you keep the Perkins/Shaq combo.

[Celtics18]

Roy,  I think the biggest mistake your making is that after the trade, you've been comparing Krstic likes he's Perks replacement. Whether its reboudning or defense. For me, and I think the same goes with Ainge, Shaq is Perks replacement. Krstic is replacing JO, Erden, and the other center by committe members that fell behind Shaq on the bench.

I think its a heckuva replacement and great for the bench.  Now its just about getting healthy for the run when the season actually starts, and getting the new guys acquainted with the system and their roles.

I agree with wdleehi.  We replaced a center rotation of Perk + Shaq (each playing roughly equal minutes) with Shaq + Krstic (each playing roughly equal minutes). 

Perk + Shaq is better defensively and in terms of rebounding than Shaq + Krstic.  The first lineup also had the benefit of greater familiarity with the rotation players on this team, and I think it gives a bit more flexibility to the lineup (i.e., Perk + BBD can play together without getting murdered on the boards, whereas BBD + Krstic can't).

I don't really buy Chris' "role" argument.  That would make a lot more sense to me if we were talking about one guy who was going to play 35 minutes, but we have two guys who will be playing roughly the same amount of minutes.  Additionally, "roles" are pretty fluid in the playoffs.  Unlike the regular season, Doc won't be making "line changes" with his bench in the playoffs.  Rather, he'll mix a rotation of bench guys in with the starters at almost all times.  That means that both Perk and Shaq (or Shaq and Krstic) would be seeing a lot of time with the starting lineups.

People can see the situation however they want, but I agree with wdleehi's logic:  you need to look at the center rotation as a whole, rather than using an argument that ignores the fact that Perk was on the roster in the first place.

I'll agree that the trade downgraded our center position, but having seen Nenad in action, less than I had originally suspected it would.

The question then becomes: was it worth downgrading our center position to bring in something else that this team was sorely lacking; a back up small forward?

So far, no one seems convinced that Jeff Green is a great perimeter defender, but he sure has the size and athleticism to fill the role.  Specifically, what we need him to be is someone who can guard Lebron James for significant stretches and do a decent job.  

Without some help, Ray and Paul will get worn to nubs guarding Wade and James for the duration of a seven game series.  Not only might Green help us be able to get by the Heat, but he might also help make it so that Paul and Ray have something left for a subsequent series.  

Jeff Green is a significant piece for our current title hopes.  Replacing Perk with Nenad was the gamble that Danny took to get that wing help.

Of course, Shaq is the wild card in all this.  I'm getting increasingly nervous.  'Cause I don't think we'll be a legit contender with Nenad Krstic as our starting center and Troy Murphy as the back up. I do think we'll be a legit contender with Shaq as the starting center, Nenad as his back up, and Jeff Green as a back up small forward/power forward.  

All good points, but keep in mind that nobody is suggesting that we should have gone forward with Von Wafer as our backup 3.  There was a proposed deal on the table for Anthony Parker, apparently, and there's at least a rumor that we could have gotten Battier in a 3-way with Golden State and Houston. 

Personally, I prefer Perk + Parker + roster spots or, especially, Perk + Battier + roster spots to Krstic + Green + roster spots.  The Clippers pick is nice, but I don't really care about that in the short term; this year's championship is the primary goal.

Anthony Parker doesn't do it for me.  He doesn't have the size or athleticism to fit the role.  I think Battier would have been a better fit, but the clear advantage of Green is his youthfulness.  Not only does he help this year, but he gives you a player to help build the future with.

Also, please remind me what it was rumored to have cost to get Battier.

[Roy H.]

Also, please remind me what it was rumored to have cost to get Battier.

A minimum of Nate + Marquis + #1, and my guess would be Erden as well.

[Chris]

Also, please remind me what it was rumored to have cost to get Battier.

A minimum of Nate + Marquis + #1, and my guess would be Erden as well.

I don't see how that is anywhere close to the package they actually got for him.  They got a center prospect who was a lottery pick a couple years ago, and still has plenty of upside, a first round pick, and an expiring contract.  So, unless they really valued Nate or Erden (which, based on what Danny ultimately got for Semih, I highly doubt anyone else was clambering for him that strongly), I don't think it would have work.

Based on the rumors you had mentioned before about that Brandon Wright trade on the table, I think it would have been more along the lines of 2 first rounders (one going to GS for Wright, one going to Houston along with Wright for Battier), plus that salary filler. 

[Roy H.]

I don't see how that is anywhere close to the package they actually got for him.  They got a center prospect who was a lottery pick a couple years ago, and still has plenty of upside, a first round pick, and an expiring contract.  So, unless they really valued Nate or Erden (which, based on what Danny ultimately got for Semih, I highly doubt anyone else was clambering for him that strongly), I don't think it would have work.

Based on the rumors you had mentioned before about that Brandon Wright trade on the table, I think it would have been more along the lines of 2 first rounders (one going to GS for Wright, one going to Houston along with Wright for Battier), plus that salary filler.  

Well, it's impossible to know, but the rumors were that the #1 Memphis gave was the "price" of taking back Thabeet and his salary in trade.  I get the impression that Houston doesn't value him as a top prospect, and the fact that he's played 4 minutes since being acquired supports that, at least in the short term.

If we'd sent Houston expiring contracts (one paid by insurance in Marquis), Semih, and a #2, I think that could have been enough.

[Chris]

To me, this is completely irrelevant.  We all know that Krstic will be on the bench come playoff time, and if he isn't this team is in trouble (and they would have been in just as much trouble had Perk been here, since it would mean that the Oneals are still hurt).

most of us hope that, but I don't know that ANY of us know that...

plus, why would Perk still being here mean that the O'Neals were still hurt?

Maybe I worded that poorly.  What I mean is this team needs at least 1 Oneal to win the championship in My opinion.  If it were Perkins and no Oneals, or Krstic and no Oneals, I do not think this team would stand a chance against the elite teams in the league.  They are absolute keys to the depth of this team, and maintaining their strength up front.

The Oneals being hurt or healthy is completely separate from the trade.  I just think that whether the trade was made or not, we need at least one of them healthy to win.  

I also believe if either of them are healthy, they will start over Krstic.  If Shaq, its a no brainer that he starts (Doc confirmed that this morning) if he is back.  For JO, he would have to earn it, but I personally believe that if he does come back he would end up being the starter over Krstic (not over Shaq) because of his superior defense.  

So, in conclusion:

Perkins+Shaq= contender
Perkins+JO= contender
Perkins+Erden (or Murphy)= not a contender

Krstic+Shaq= contender
Krstic+JO= contender
Krstic+Murphy= not a contender

Now, we can argue all we want on how much better they are from those 4 "contender" lineups, because I think that is an eye of the beholder/difference in philosophy type thing.  But when you take both of the Oneals out of the equation, I personally think its a pointless argument, because they just would be way too thin to win it all.

[Chris]

I don't see how that is anywhere close to the package they actually got for him.  They got a center prospect who was a lottery pick a couple years ago, and still has plenty of upside, a first round pick, and an expiring contract.  So, unless they really valued Nate or Erden (which, based on what Danny ultimately got for Semih, I highly doubt anyone else was clambering for him that strongly), I don't think it would have work.

Based on the rumors you had mentioned before about that Brandon Wright trade on the table, I think it would have been more along the lines of 2 first rounders (one going to GS for Wright, one going to Houston along with Wright for Battier), plus that salary filler.  

Well, it's impossible to know, but the rumors were that the #1 Memphis gave was the "price" of taking back Thabeet and his salary in trade.  I get the impression that Houston doesn't value him as a top prospect, and the fact that he's played 4 minutes since being acquired supports that, at least in the short term.

If we'd sent Houston expiring contracts (one paid by insurance in Marquis), Semih, and a #2, I think that could have been enough.

So, we're assuming the GS rumor (which you pointed out was a done deal until the C's backed out) had nothing to do with Houston?

But you are right, its all speculation, and its impossible to know...which is why I find these discussions so frustrating. 

[Roy H.]

I don't see how that is anywhere close to the package they actually got for him.  They got a center prospect who was a lottery pick a couple years ago, and still has plenty of upside, a first round pick, and an expiring contract.  So, unless they really valued Nate or Erden (which, based on what Danny ultimately got for Semih, I highly doubt anyone else was clambering for him that strongly), I don't think it would have work.

Based on the rumors you had mentioned before about that Brandon Wright trade on the table, I think it would have been more along the lines of 2 first rounders (one going to GS for Wright, one going to Houston along with Wright for Battier), plus that salary filler.  

Well, it's impossible to know, but the rumors were that the #1 Memphis gave was the "price" of taking back Thabeet and his salary in trade.  I get the impression that Houston doesn't value him as a top prospect, and the fact that he's played 4 minutes since being acquired supports that, at least in the short term.

If we'd sent Houston expiring contracts (one paid by insurance in Marquis), Semih, and a #2, I think that could have been enough.

So, we're assuming the GS rumor (which you pointed out was a done deal until the C's backed out) had nothing to do with Houston?

But you are right, its all speculation, and its impossible to know...which is why I find these discussions so frustrating. 

No, the question was what would the Celtics have had to give up, which is what I answered.  Houston would have been getting back Brandan Wright (an expiring), plus our pieces.  I don't think we would have had to add a #1 if we sent Semih and a #2, because we wouldn't have been saddling Houston with Thabeet's hefty (if short-term) contract.

[Chris]

I don't see how that is anywhere close to the package they actually got for him.  They got a center prospect who was a lottery pick a couple years ago, and still has plenty of upside, a first round pick, and an expiring contract.  So, unless they really valued Nate or Erden (which, based on what Danny ultimately got for Semih, I highly doubt anyone else was clambering for him that strongly), I don't think it would have work.

Based on the rumors you had mentioned before about that Brandon Wright trade on the table, I think it would have been more along the lines of 2 first rounders (one going to GS for Wright, one going to Houston along with Wright for Battier), plus that salary filler.  

Well, it's impossible to know, but the rumors were that the #1 Memphis gave was the "price" of taking back Thabeet and his salary in trade.  I get the impression that Houston doesn't value him as a top prospect, and the fact that he's played 4 minutes since being acquired supports that, at least in the short term.

If we'd sent Houston expiring contracts (one paid by insurance in Marquis), Semih, and a #2, I think that could have been enough.

So, we're assuming the GS rumor (which you pointed out was a done deal until the C's backed out) had nothing to do with Houston?

But you are right, its all speculation, and its impossible to know...which is why I find these discussions so frustrating. 

No, the question was what would the Celtics have had to give up, which is what I answered.  Houston would have been getting back Brandan Wright (an expiring), plus our pieces.  I don't think we would have had to add a #1 if we sent Semih and a #2, because we wouldn't have been saddling Houston with Thabeet's hefty (if short-term) contract.

Ah, well, I disagree with your assessment. 

[chambers]

To me, this is completely irrelevant.  We all know that Krstic will be on the bench come playoff time, and if he isn't this team is in trouble (and they would have been in just as much trouble had Perk been here, since it would mean that the Oneals are still hurt).

most of us hope that, but I don't know that ANY of us know that...

plus, why would Perk still being here mean that the O'Neals were still hurt?

Maybe I worded that poorly.  What I mean is this team needs at least 1 Oneal to win the championship in My opinion.  If it were Perkins and no Oneals, or Krstic and no Oneals, I do not think this team would stand a chance against the elite teams in the league.  They are absolute keys to the depth of this team, and maintaining their strength up front.

The Oneals being hurt or healthy is completely separate from the trade.  I just think that whether the trade was made or not, we need at least one of them healthy to win.  

I also believe if either of them are healthy, they will start over Krstic.  If Shaq, its a no brainer that he starts (Doc confirmed that this morning) if he is back.  For JO, he would have to earn it, but I personally believe that if he does come back he would end up being the starter over Krstic (not over Shaq) because of his superior defense.  

So, in conclusion:

Perkins+Shaq= contender
Perkins+JO= contender
Perkins+Erden (or Murphy)= not a contender

Krstic+Shaq= contender
Krstic+JO= contender
Krstic+Murphy= not a contender

Now, we can argue all we want on how much better they are from those 4 "contender" lineups, because I think that is an eye of the beholder/difference in philosophy type thing.  But when you take both of the Oneals out of the equation, I personally think its a pointless argument, because they just would be way too thin to win it all.

I agree with this 100% but i would go further to say that without shaq we don't win the banner.
JO is a nice addition but without shaq starting for us against the big teams like chicago, the heat and then ultimately LA- we would struggle mightily.
The trade was made KNOWING that both oneals would make it back and that shaq would be close to 100%.
the gamble is will one or both of them stay healthy and be able to play to their best ability throughout 4 playoff series and potentially 20-28 games.

[Chris]

To me, this is completely irrelevant.  We all know that Krstic will be on the bench come playoff time, and if he isn't this team is in trouble (and they would have been in just as much trouble had Perk been here, since it would mean that the Oneals are still hurt).

most of us hope that, but I don't know that ANY of us know that...

plus, why would Perk still being here mean that the O'Neals were still hurt?

Maybe I worded that poorly.  What I mean is this team needs at least 1 Oneal to win the championship in My opinion.  If it were Perkins and no Oneals, or Krstic and no Oneals, I do not think this team would stand a chance against the elite teams in the league.  They are absolute keys to the depth of this team, and maintaining their strength up front.

The Oneals being hurt or healthy is completely separate from the trade.  I just think that whether the trade was made or not, we need at least one of them healthy to win.  

I also believe if either of them are healthy, they will start over Krstic.  If Shaq, its a no brainer that he starts (Doc confirmed that this morning) if he is back.  For JO, he would have to earn it, but I personally believe that if he does come back he would end up being the starter over Krstic (not over Shaq) because of his superior defense.  

So, in conclusion:

Perkins+Shaq= contender
Perkins+JO= contender
Perkins+Erden (or Murphy)= not a contender

Krstic+Shaq= contender
Krstic+JO= contender
Krstic+Murphy= not a contender

Now, we can argue all we want on how much better they are from those 4 "contender" lineups, because I think that is an eye of the beholder/difference in philosophy type thing.  But when you take both of the Oneals out of the equation, I personally think its a pointless argument, because they just would be way too thin to win it all.

I agree with this 100% but i would go further to say that without shaq we don't win the banner.
JO is a nice addition but without shaq starting for us against the big teams like chicago, the heat and then ultimately LA- we would struggle mightily.
The trade was made KNOWING that both oneals would make it back and that shaq would be close to 100%.
the gamble is will one or both of them stay healthy and be able to play to their best ability throughout 4 playoff series and potentially 20-28 games.

I personally think a healthy JO will be more valuable against LA, because of his defense and ability to stretch the floor a bit more, but agree about Miami and Chicago.  Shaq just presents such a match up problem for both of those teams.

[chambers]

totally... i think JO will be huge coming in against guys like dwight and boozer if shaq is in foul trouble early on in the east aswell.

I should split the NEEDS:
without shaq- we may scrape out of the east but with him we are clear favorites.

Without JO we scrape out of the east but have a harder time beating the lakers 4 out of 7 games than last year because we really have KG, krstic and baby trying to guard bynum, gasol and odom with a bit of help from jeff green perhaps.
JO is the biggest 'silent threat' piece of the puzzle.

[OsirusCeltics]

Yup!!!
Danny Ainge is the man! Celtics have so much more offensive options this year. Something no one could have said last year at all

[bbd24]

Also, please remind me what it was rumored to have cost to get Battier.

A minimum of Nate + Marquis + #1, and my guess would be Erden as well.

Wasn't the Houston rumor for Battier a package that included either Perkins or Davis ?

[Roy H.]

Also, please remind me what it was rumored to have cost to get Battier.

A minimum of Nate + Marquis + #1, and my guess would be Erden as well.

Wasn't the Houston rumor for Battier a package that included either Perkins or Davis ?

Not that I've heard.