The trade has killed this team

[Onslaught]

It seems as if the point that the C's were the number one defensive team before Perkins returned is being completely ignored. Were they playing harder before Perkins came back?  Was the chemistry disrupted then? Were they thinking "Yeah, let's be the number one defensive team, but the only way to maintain this is if Perkins comes back. We can't possibly do this without him."

I love that someone brought up Anthony Parker as a viable SF option for a back up. Paul would pretty much play 48 minutes a game in the playoffs.

The Big 3 (4) have been in the league long enough where they should be grown-ups about this.

  Pretty sure the defense was #2 before Perk came back, Chicago was #1.

  And it's not just the trade, it's also the FA signings and getting West back from injury. Doc's integrating a lot of new guys into the lineup and it's bound to throw off our rhythm.

how's our rhythm going to be affected by Shaq and JO coming back? Two players who haven't played in a really long time in their FIRST season with the team...

  Shaq was in the lineup for half the season. You don't see that as different from people that haven't played on the team before?

there's a difference but still another obstacle to overcome in this strange effort to get a backup SF...

considering the amount of time a backup SF needs to play and the relative importance of that role compared to your starting center, I think we are all seeing just how important Shaq and JOs successful re-integration is to our ability to play anywhere near the level we were playing at prior to the trade.

a backup SF is simply WAY less important than a starting center.

  You're completely ignoring the fact that the Celts felt that Perk was too much of an injury risk to pencil in as their main center for the playoffs.

If Perk was an injury risk then what about the ones we've got left?

[mgent]

It seems as if the point that the C's were the number one defensive team before Perkins returned is being completely ignored. Were they playing harder before Perkins came back?  Was the chemistry disrupted then? Were they thinking "Yeah, let's be the number one defensive team, but the only way to maintain this is if Perkins comes back. We can't possibly do this without him."

I love that someone brought up Anthony Parker as a viable SF option for a back up. Paul would pretty much play 48 minutes a game in the playoffs.

The Big 3 (4) have been in the league long enough where they should be grown-ups about this.

  Pretty sure the defense was #2 before Perk came back, Chicago was #1.

  And it's not just the trade, it's also the FA signings and getting West back from injury. Doc's integrating a lot of new guys into the lineup and it's bound to throw off our rhythm.

how's our rhythm going to be affected by Shaq and JO coming back? Two players who haven't played in a really long time in their FIRST season with the team...

  Shaq was in the lineup for half the season. You don't see that as different from people that haven't played on the team before?

there's a difference but still another obstacle to overcome in this strange effort to get a backup SF...

considering the amount of time a backup SF needs to play and the relative importance of that role compared to your starting center, I think we are all seeing just how important Shaq and JOs successful re-integration is to our ability to play anywhere near the level we were playing at prior to the trade.

a backup SF is simply WAY less important than a starting center.

Yeah I'm liking the trade less and less (and I hated it to begin with).

Perk+Pavlovic would've helped us more than Green.

[BballTim]

It seems as if the point that the C's were the number one defensive team before Perkins returned is being completely ignored. Were they playing harder before Perkins came back?  Was the chemistry disrupted then? Were they thinking "Yeah, let's be the number one defensive team, but the only way to maintain this is if Perkins comes back. We can't possibly do this without him."

I love that someone brought up Anthony Parker as a viable SF option for a back up. Paul would pretty much play 48 minutes a game in the playoffs.

The Big 3 (4) have been in the league long enough where they should be grown-ups about this.

  Pretty sure the defense was #2 before Perk came back, Chicago was #1.

  And it's not just the trade, it's also the FA signings and getting West back from injury. Doc's integrating a lot of new guys into the lineup and it's bound to throw off our rhythm.

how's our rhythm going to be affected by Shaq and JO coming back? Two players who haven't played in a really long time in their FIRST season with the team...

  Shaq was in the lineup for half the season. You don't see that as different from people that haven't played on the team before?

there's a difference but still another obstacle to overcome in this strange effort to get a backup SF...

considering the amount of time a backup SF needs to play and the relative importance of that role compared to your starting center, I think we are all seeing just how important Shaq and JOs successful re-integration is to our ability to play anywhere near the level we were playing at prior to the trade.

a backup SF is simply WAY less important than a starting center.

  You're completely ignoring the fact that the Celts felt that Perk was too much of an injury risk to pencil in as their main center for the playoffs.

If Perk was an injury risk then what about the ones we've got left?

  Obviously also injury risks, but were we supposed to double down on injured bigs?

[mgent]

It seems as if the point that the C's were the number one defensive team before Perkins returned is being completely ignored. Were they playing harder before Perkins came back?  Was the chemistry disrupted then? Were they thinking "Yeah, let's be the number one defensive team, but the only way to maintain this is if Perkins comes back. We can't possibly do this without him."

I love that someone brought up Anthony Parker as a viable SF option for a back up. Paul would pretty much play 48 minutes a game in the playoffs.

The Big 3 (4) have been in the league long enough where they should be grown-ups about this.

  Pretty sure the defense was #2 before Perk came back, Chicago was #1.

  And it's not just the trade, it's also the FA signings and getting West back from injury. Doc's integrating a lot of new guys into the lineup and it's bound to throw off our rhythm.

how's our rhythm going to be affected by Shaq and JO coming back? Two players who haven't played in a really long time in their FIRST season with the team...

  Shaq was in the lineup for half the season. You don't see that as different from people that haven't played on the team before?

there's a difference but still another obstacle to overcome in this strange effort to get a backup SF...

considering the amount of time a backup SF needs to play and the relative importance of that role compared to your starting center, I think we are all seeing just how important Shaq and JOs successful re-integration is to our ability to play anywhere near the level we were playing at prior to the trade.

a backup SF is simply WAY less important than a starting center.

  You're completely ignoring the fact that the Celts felt that Perk was too much of an injury risk to pencil in as their main center for the playoffs.

Are you ignoring the fact that Krstic sucks too badly to be our main center?

If Perk was too much of an injury risk I'd hate to hear what you have to say about JO and Shaq.  Perk wasn't going to be our only guy, we had all 3 of them.

[Onslaught]

It seems as if the point that the C's were the number one defensive team before Perkins returned is being completely ignored. Were they playing harder before Perkins came back?  Was the chemistry disrupted then? Were they thinking "Yeah, let's be the number one defensive team, but the only way to maintain this is if Perkins comes back. We can't possibly do this without him."

I love that someone brought up Anthony Parker as a viable SF option for a back up. Paul would pretty much play 48 minutes a game in the playoffs.

The Big 3 (4) have been in the league long enough where they should be grown-ups about this.

  Pretty sure the defense was #2 before Perk came back, Chicago was #1.

  And it's not just the trade, it's also the FA signings and getting West back from injury. Doc's integrating a lot of new guys into the lineup and it's bound to throw off our rhythm.

how's our rhythm going to be affected by Shaq and JO coming back? Two players who haven't played in a really long time in their FIRST season with the team...

  Shaq was in the lineup for half the season. You don't see that as different from people that haven't played on the team before?

there's a difference but still another obstacle to overcome in this strange effort to get a backup SF...

considering the amount of time a backup SF needs to play and the relative importance of that role compared to your starting center, I think we are all seeing just how important Shaq and JOs successful re-integration is to our ability to play anywhere near the level we were playing at prior to the trade.

a backup SF is simply WAY less important than a starting center.

  You're completely ignoring the fact that the Celts felt that Perk was too much of an injury risk to pencil in as their main center for the playoffs.

If Perk was an injury risk then what about the ones we've got left?

  Obviously also injury risks, but were we supposed to double down on injured bigs?

I'd take a chance on a young guy who's hurt over two old guys who can't even walk.

We didn't have very many good options really. I'm not sold that the best one was taken.

[BballTim]

It seems as if the point that the C's were the number one defensive team before Perkins returned is being completely ignored. Were they playing harder before Perkins came back?  Was the chemistry disrupted then? Were they thinking "Yeah, let's be the number one defensive team, but the only way to maintain this is if Perkins comes back. We can't possibly do this without him."

I love that someone brought up Anthony Parker as a viable SF option for a back up. Paul would pretty much play 48 minutes a game in the playoffs.

The Big 3 (4) have been in the league long enough where they should be grown-ups about this.

  Pretty sure the defense was #2 before Perk came back, Chicago was #1.

  And it's not just the trade, it's also the FA signings and getting West back from injury. Doc's integrating a lot of new guys into the lineup and it's bound to throw off our rhythm.

how's our rhythm going to be affected by Shaq and JO coming back? Two players who haven't played in a really long time in their FIRST season with the team...

  Shaq was in the lineup for half the season. You don't see that as different from people that haven't played on the team before?

there's a difference but still another obstacle to overcome in this strange effort to get a backup SF...

considering the amount of time a backup SF needs to play and the relative importance of that role compared to your starting center, I think we are all seeing just how important Shaq and JOs successful re-integration is to our ability to play anywhere near the level we were playing at prior to the trade.

a backup SF is simply WAY less important than a starting center.

  You're completely ignoring the fact that the Celts felt that Perk was too much of an injury risk to pencil in as their main center for the playoffs.

Are you ignoring the fact that Krstic sucks too badly to be our main center?

If Perk was too much of an injury risk I'd hate to hear what you have to say about JO and Shaq.  Perk wasn't going to be our only guy, we had all 3 of them.

  Again, they're also injury risks, but are you saying that having some injury risks means it's ok to have more injury risks? Is the complaint that it was unfair to trade Perk because he was no more of a risk than the other two?

[European NBA fan]

The trade was necessary in my opinion. Perk wanted max money.

Even putting aside the debate of present vs. future, Perk never asked for a max contract.  He signed for well below the max in OKC, and would have likely taken even less for the Celts.

Perk got max from the OKC. He would probably have taken the same or less from the Celtics, but we couldn't offer that much because of the CBA.

No, he could have signed for much more in the off-season.  There are different rules for extensions, but Perk didn't get a "max" contract by any stretch.

I didn't mean he got a max contract. He got max of what the Thunder could offer in an extension. And I think Mazingerz' point was that Perkins wanted to max out his pay check.

First, I don't think there's any indication that Perk wanted to "max out" his pay.  If he did, he would have entered free agency.

Second, both Boston and OKC could have offered Perk more in the summer.

I know that fans are trying to spin Perk as a money loving, "basketball is a business" type of player, but that's never been his style.  He took a home town discount once, and all his public comments were that he was willing to do so again.

You are arguing with the wrong guy here. That's what I said in my first post

[BballTim]

I'd take a chance on a young guy who's hurt over two old guys who can't even walk.

  You're acting like Danny had a choice between trading Perk or keeping Perk and trading Shaq or JO. That wasn't the case.

[blackberry33]

First, since Shaq is still in a boot and getting cortisone shots, I'm not convinced that he's going to be a huge difference maker. 

More importantly, though, how can you disregard what KG said about Perk's presence?

I believe that DA made the trade thinking that Krstic was a replacement for Erden and that Shaq would be the "replacement" for Perk (as he was for the first 40 games or so where we played at something like a 65 win pace).  If DA was wrong about Shaq's health, then he will deserve the critism he will get about trading Perk.

In terms of KG's comments, it is hard to really take them too much to heart when we were 34-9 without Perk.  We managed to have chemistry and a physical presence then so how could it be that now we can't "play tough" without Perk?  KG is saying what he feels but he is a player and an emotional one at that, not a coach or GM.  I am not sure "disregard" is the right word, but I am certainly not accepting KG's comments as gospel.

Thank you!

it's not possible to properly judge the trade until we see how the team plays  with Shaq ... sorry.  Cry all you want, but the trade was made for the playoffs... not a regular season game against the Bobcats.

The best post of the day. Overreaction on this blog is annoying
TP

Yes it is!

This thread is by far worse than any of the laker threads at SS&R during their slump.

So was danny supposed to sprinkle water on some magic beans and hope they grow into a SF backup? The trade had to happen, you generally(unless your LA) have to give up something to get something.
Also remember that Doc didn't practice the starters for a long time(or limited them) in favor of getting the second unit involved. It was right about that time, if memory serves, that we started this slump. Work out the kinks and we'll be fine.

Can anyone tell me with a straight face that DA would have made the trade if he didn't know(not think) Shaq and JO would be back?
If he did that would make him one of the most crazy GM's in any sport. I have a hard time believing that a guy who turned this team around in one summer is dumb enough to make such amateur mistakes.

 

+1

We're fine, folks.  Shaq will come back, relaxed and refreshed, and give the team a boost for 20 min/gm, provide interior defense, and at least one good, hard foul on the opposing team's #1 scorer per game.

I'm less hopeful, or not hopeful at all, for JO, but it looks like he's taking the rehab work seriously, will probably get a shot for pain as well, and then he'll come back determined to prove himself.  If we get so much as 10 min/gm out of him, it's found money in my book.

That leaves 18 minutes at C for BBD or Krystic.  We're fine.

That's all ive been trying to say

The proof will be in the



It's not the playoffs now, and there's still some time to get their act together.  Let's see what Shaq has in him when he's ready to give it a go, then we'll know better what we're working with here.

yes it will

[blackberry33]

We traded Perk who I loved but was hurt, Nate who has had a bad second half and is hurt, Daniels who was out for the season, Harangody a rookie, and Semih who is also hurt. And we got Green who could be the future, Nads who has decent offense and little defense, Arroyo was a great pickup, and Sasha remains to be seen. We will miss Perks defense in the playoffs, but get great offense from Green and some from Nads. I rate the trade right now at 6.5 out of 10. This trade has not killed this team though. These are grown men making millions lets move on!

[Edgar]

The proof will be in the



It's not the playoffs now, and there's still some time to get their act together.  Let's see what Shaq has in him when he's ready to give it a go, then we'll know better what we're working with here.

yes it will

how many one liners youre going to post
just to merge them on one shot and not one by one???

[mgent]

It seems as if the point that the C's were the number one defensive team before Perkins returned is being completely ignored. Were they playing harder before Perkins came back?  Was the chemistry disrupted then? Were they thinking "Yeah, let's be the number one defensive team, but the only way to maintain this is if Perkins comes back. We can't possibly do this without him."

I love that someone brought up Anthony Parker as a viable SF option for a back up. Paul would pretty much play 48 minutes a game in the playoffs.

The Big 3 (4) have been in the league long enough where they should be grown-ups about this.

  Pretty sure the defense was #2 before Perk came back, Chicago was #1.

  And it's not just the trade, it's also the FA signings and getting West back from injury. Doc's integrating a lot of new guys into the lineup and it's bound to throw off our rhythm.

how's our rhythm going to be affected by Shaq and JO coming back? Two players who haven't played in a really long time in their FIRST season with the team...

  Shaq was in the lineup for half the season. You don't see that as different from people that haven't played on the team before?

there's a difference but still another obstacle to overcome in this strange effort to get a backup SF...

considering the amount of time a backup SF needs to play and the relative importance of that role compared to your starting center, I think we are all seeing just how important Shaq and JOs successful re-integration is to our ability to play anywhere near the level we were playing at prior to the trade.

a backup SF is simply WAY less important than a starting center.

  You're completely ignoring the fact that the Celts felt that Perk was too much of an injury risk to pencil in as their main center for the playoffs.

Are you ignoring the fact that Krstic sucks too badly to be our main center?

If Perk was too much of an injury risk I'd hate to hear what you have to say about JO and Shaq.  Perk wasn't going to be our only guy, we had all 3 of them.

  Again, they're also injury risks, but are you saying that having some injury risks means it's ok to have more injury risks? Is the complaint that it was unfair to trade Perk because he was no more of a risk than the other two?

No but are you saying that we're better off with Krstic because he has a 100% chance of playing (which he doesn't because anyone can get hurt) and Perk does not?  I'd take the chances of Perk contributing more than Krstic any day, Danny definitely wouldn't have made that trade straight-up.

Even with 3 injury-prone centers the odds were in our favor because we only needed 2 of them to be healthy.  My question to you is are you saying having Krstic fixes our problem of having 2 other injury-prone centers?  Because if any 2 of the 3 guys we have now goes down we're just as screwed.

In the scenario where both O'Neals are out, Perk wins too.  I'm not comfortable at all with Krstic being our only Center no matter how less injury-prone he is.

Also to add to my point, I don't think Perk is that injury-prone to begin with.  There's a good chance he'll be completely fine come playoff time.  He's certainly no way near O'Neal level.

[blackberry33]

The proof will be in the



It's not the playoffs now, and there's still some time to get their act together.  Let's see what Shaq has in him when he's ready to give it a go, then we'll know better what we're working with here.

yes it will

how many one liners youre going to post
just to merge them on one shot and not one by one???

that would be nice to know how to do. thanks

[BballTim]

No but are you saying that we're better off with Krstic because he has a 100% chance of playing (which he doesn't because anyone can get hurt) and Perk does not?  I'd take the chances of Perk contributing more than Krstic any day, Danny definitely wouldn't have made that trade straight-up.

  No, what I was saying was that the claim that we traded away our starting center for a backup wing has to consider that they didn't consider Perk to be a lock or even close to a lock to hold up through the regular season and 20+ games of playoffs.

[Edgar]

The proof will be in the



It's not the playoffs now, and there's still some time to get their act together.  Let's see what Shaq has in him when he's ready to give it a go, then we'll know better what we're working with here.

yes it will

how many one liners youre going to post
just to merge them on one shot and not one by one???

that would be nice to know how to do. thanks

when answering with post box open, try to scroll all messages down to at least answer the most recent ones that match or the ones that youre going to use.
be4 hitting post button
that will help.