With the benefit of hindsight, do you think Danny regrets the Perk trade?

[Drucci]

I think the problem here is that people act like there wasn't any risk of injury at all with Perkins. You can blame Danny for relying on a 39 years old center, although he did see him workout well during his recovery, but if you do, then you can't say "well he should have kept Perk because there was less risks of him getting injured!". Perk got hurt just before the deadline on his other knee and there were legitimate concerns about his health long term and for this season alone.

To me it was even more risky to say "well I'm gambling on Perk and JO's health and we're going in the playoffs without a reliable backup 3 anyway" than to roll the dice with the O'Neal brothers + Krstic and Green.

My point is, there was a gamble to take at that time, and I think Danny made the right one. Perk staying obviously looked better because of familiarity and stuff like that but to me the trade made more sense (and I'm talking this season only).

But see, that's not answering the question.  That's defending why the trade made sense at the time.  Fine, you're entitled to your opinion.  At this point, however, Shaq isn't healthy, and Perk is.  To me, that's something that can be factored in in hindsight.

Nobody is calling for Danny's head because he couldn't predict the future.  He took a gamble.  The question is, to date, has that gamble paid off, or would Danny (with the benefit of hindsight) get into a time machine and reverse the deal if he could?

Well, then, to answer the question, I think we will have to wait and see what the Celtics do in the playoffs. If the C's win with Shaq Danny won't regret anything, if they lose without him maybe he will, but there is also the possibility that they still win without him (unlikely I know but my point is Danny will only judge this deal once the playoffs are over for the C's).

[screwedupmaniac]

"With the benefit of hindsight, do you think Danny regrets the Perk trade?"

I doubt it...he'd be more apt to blame inevitable injuries than his own actions. I really don't think it would make much of a difference whether he did the trades at the deadline or not. Either we would be experiencing a shortage in our bigs, or we would have no backups at the wing, and we would be talking about how Danny should have swung a deal for a young, healthy, and athletic wing player to spell Pierce.

Long story short, injuries have been absolutely brutal to us this year, and there's not a whole lot that Danny and company can do about that. 

[BballTim]

I think the problem here is that people act like there wasn't any risk of injury at all with Perkins. You can blame Danny for relying on a 39 years old center, although he did see him workout well during his recovery, but if you do, then you can't say "well he should have kept Perk because there was less risks of him getting injured!". Perk got hurt just before the deadline on his other knee and there were legitimate concerns about his health long term and for this season alone.

To me it was even more risky to say "well I'm gambling on Perk and JO's health and we're going in the playoffs without a reliable backup 3 anyway" than to roll the dice with the O'Neal brothers + Krstic and Green.

My point is, there was a gamble to take at that time, and I think Danny made the right one. Perk staying obviously looked better because of familiarity and stuff like that but to me the trade made more sense (and I'm talking this season only).

But see, that's not answering the question.  That's defending why the trade made sense at the time.  Fine, you're entitled to your opinion.  At this point, however, Shaq isn't healthy, and Perk is.  To me, that's something that can be factored in in hindsight.

Nobody is calling for Danny's head because he couldn't predict the future.  He took a gamble.  The question is, to date, has that gamble paid off, or would Danny (with the benefit of hindsight) get into a time machine and reverse the deal if he could?

  I don't know if he'd reverse it or not. Even with our center position the way it is I'd wait until after the Miami series (at least) to say.

[ballin]

If he doesn't, then he's an idiot.

[winsomme]

I think the problem here is that people act like there wasn't any risk of injury at all with Perkins. You can blame Danny for relying on a 39 years old center, although he did see him workout well during his recovery, but if you do, then you can't say "well he should have kept Perk because there was less risks of him getting injured!". Perk got hurt just before the deadline on his other knee and there were legitimate concerns about his health long term and for this season alone.

To me it was even more risky to say "well I'm gambling on Perk and JO's health and we're going in the playoffs without a reliable backup 3 anyway" than to roll the dice with the O'Neal brothers + Krstic and Green.

My point is, there was a gamble to take at that time, and I think Danny made the right one. Perk staying obviously looked better because of familiarity and stuff like that but to me the trade made more sense (and I'm talking this season only).

But see, that's not answering the question.  That's defending why the trade made sense at the time.  Fine, you're entitled to your opinion.  At this point, however, Shaq isn't healthy, and Perk is.  To me, that's something that can be factored in in hindsight.

Nobody is calling for Danny's head because he couldn't predict the future.  He took a gamble.  The question is, to date, has that gamble paid off, or would Danny (with the benefit of hindsight) get into a time machine and reverse the deal if he could?

  I don't know if he'd reverse it or not. Even with our center position the way it is I'd wait until after the Miami series (at least) to say.

While I was against the trade and think this is an interesting exercise, I do agree that the trade will ultimately be judged based on the playoffs. and I'm fine with that. I'm also totally willing to acknowledge being wrong if the Cs make a good, quality run in the playoffs (at the very least making it to the EC Finals and really the Finals Finals).

I also want to point out that I don't really look at this as a "hindsight" debate. Everything that is up for debate was laid out at the time of the trade. Many people noted: Green as being extremely gifted but not aggressive or particularly good on D, Nenad having a nice soft shot but a defensive and rebounding game to match, and Perk being much more likely to return to health than Shaq for the playoff run.

Those were the questions at the time of the trade are still are...

and count me as never wanting to be more wrong than I am about this trade. I really do want Green to be a key matchup problem for other teams because he is a starter coming off the bench and dominating inferior players and have Shaq be healthy enough for this intense run that is just ahead for us..

[BballTim]

I also want to point out that I don't really look at this as a "hindsight" debate. Everything that is up for debate was laid out at the time of the trade. Many people noted: Green as being extremely gifted but not aggressive or particularly good on D, Nenad having a nice soft shot but a defensive and rebounding game to match, and Perk being much more likely to return to health than Shaq for the playoff run.

Those were the questions at the time of the trade are still are...

  I think you're exaggerating everyone's faith in Perk being healthy when he went out of the lineup with a knee issue (other knee, I know) shortly after returning  to the lineup. If Shaq is playing again by the time the playoffs start does "much more likely" become "no more likely"?

[slamtheking]

I don't think Danny's a person that has any regrets to be honest.

[winsomme]

I also want to point out that I don't really look at this as a "hindsight" debate. Everything that is up for debate was laid out at the time of the trade. Many people noted: Green as being extremely gifted but not aggressive or particularly good on D, Nenad having a nice soft shot but a defensive and rebounding game to match, and Perk being much more likely to return to health than Shaq for the playoff run.

Those were the questions at the time of the trade are still are...

  I think you're exaggerating everyone's faith in Perk being healthy when he went out of the lineup with a knee issue (other knee, I know) shortly after returning  to the lineup. If Shaq is playing again by the time the playoffs start does "much more likely" become "no more likely"?

Well level of health certainly is also a factor, but the "likelihoods" won't change because those were assessments at the time of the trade.

There was definitely disagreement on the likelihoods, but I really don't see how one could argue Shaq being more likely to return to action than Perk.

[Roy H.]

While I was against the trade and think this is an interesting exercise, I do agree that the trade will ultimately be judged based on the playoffs.

Honestly, I think that if we look back at the trade after the playoffs, we'll see a repeat of this thread (unless we win the championship, or at least make the Finals).  If we lose in the second round or in the semis, I think people will simply fall back on the argument, "Well, we wouldn't have won with Perk anyway, and now at least we have Jeff Green and a #1".  I do think that if we win, most of the "anti-trade" people will come around, because I think most objections are based upon the worry that we made our team weaker, rather than an emotional attachment. 

However, I don't envision a scenario where the "pro-trade" people change their mind, because there would never be a way to "prove" a different outcome.  I think that many will continue to insist that the only backup 3 we could have gotten would have been Pavlovic, and will argue that that wasn't good enough.  Anyway, I hope that this particular prediction is all academic, because I think we're all hoping for a championship; I'll be more than happy to put up with any "I told you so"s that might be coming my way.

I also want to point out that I don't really look at this as a "hindsight" debate. Everything that is up for debate was laid out at the time of the trade. Many people noted: Green as being extremely gifted but not aggressive or particularly good on D, Nenad having a nice soft shot but a defensive and rebounding game to match, and Perk being much more likely to return to health than Shaq for the playoff run.

Honestly, I wasn't as worried about Shaq's health at the time as I am now.  I actually believed Danny that Shaq would be able to come back fairly soon, so in my mind, the trade looks quite a bit worse today than it did at the time.  (I guess today looks better than yesterday, though, with the news that Shaq's most recent set back may not be that bad.)

[Drucci]

However, I don't envision a scenario where the "pro-trade" people change their mind, because there would never be a way to "prove" a different outcome.  I think that many will continue to insist that the only backup 3 we could have gotten would have been Pavlovic, and will argue that that wasn't good enough.  

Well, don't you think it's fair to argue that Pavlovic wasn't good enough to backup Pierce? We would have had Pavlovic and (probably) Anthony Parker as our lone backups 3/2. Honestly, even if we assumed Perk was going to be healthy, it was too much a gamble in my opinion.
 
Of course I understand the risk in trading Perk too but to me going in the playoffs with basically no backup for Pierce was almost synonyme of suicide. As much as Perk contributed last year defensively, TA's defense and offensive contributions (on fastbreaks mostly) were huge and allowed Pierce to stay quite effective.

I agree with you on Shaq though : I felt at the time that Danny made the trade because he was sure JO and Shaq would come back strong. So far he's been proven right about JO but we still have to wait and see for Shaq (I think being thrown right into the game, without practice, was a huge mistake).

[BballTim]

I also want to point out that I don't really look at this as a "hindsight" debate. Everything that is up for debate was laid out at the time of the trade. Many people noted: Green as being extremely gifted but not aggressive or particularly good on D, Nenad having a nice soft shot but a defensive and rebounding game to match, and Perk being much more likely to return to health than Shaq for the playoff run.

Those were the questions at the time of the trade are still are...

  I think you're exaggerating everyone's faith in Perk being healthy when he went out of the lineup with a knee issue (other knee, I know) shortly after returning  to the lineup. If Shaq is playing again by the time the playoffs start does "much more likely" become "no more likely"?

Well level of health certainly is also a factor, but the "likelihoods" won't change because those were assessments at the time of the trade.

There was definitely disagreement on the likelihoods, but I really don't see how one could argue Shaq being more likely to return to action than Perk.

  You're talking about "assessments" made without any knowledge of the medical condition of the players involved.

[moiso]

I don't really agree with a few posters who say Danny doesn't like Perk's game.  I have a hunch that Danny probably vastly overrated Green and thought he was getting a steal.  I don't think Danny was anxious to replace Perk with the Oneals and Kristic.  I think Danny was willing to roll the dice and tolerate the center position because he thought Green would more than make up for it.

Unfortunately, the more you really watch Green, the more average he appears.

[BballTim]

Could some of it be a concern about the center rotation going into the playoffs?  As much as I'd like to, I just can't find many positives in Shaq's recovery from injury.

Is a center rotation with Perkins that much better than a center rotation with Kristic when we consider our likely match ups that it would be worth going into the playoffs with Pavlovic as our wing back up?

I think this is a bit of a straw man, because if we hadn't traded for Green, we would have gotten a better wing than Pavlovic.  There are reports that we could have had Anthony Parker, and I think he would have made a fine backup.

  One of the problems with these discussions is that they're based on (often incorrect) assumptions of available replacement players.

[Roy H.]

However, I don't envision a scenario where the "pro-trade" people change their mind, because there would never be a way to "prove" a different outcome.  I think that many will continue to insist that the only backup 3 we could have gotten would have been Pavlovic, and will argue that that wasn't good enough.  

Well, don't you think it's fair to argue that Pavlovic wasn't good enough to backup Pierce? We would have had Pavlovic and (probably) Anthony Parker as our lone backups 3/2. Honestly, even if we assumed Perk was going to be healthy, it was too much a gamble in my opinion.
 
Of course I understand the risk in trading Perk too but to me going in the playoffs with basically no backup for Pierce was almost synonyme of suicide. As much as Perk contributed last year defensively, TA's defense and offensive contributions (on fastbreaks mostly) were huge and allowed Pierce to stay quite effective.

That's what I'm saying.  Would you agree that, no matter what happens in the playoffs short of a championship, you'll be unlikely to change your mind in the playoffs?  I just think that's the weakness of the "we have to wait until the playoffs to evaluate things" position.  Barring that championship, the playoffs probably won't change many people's thoughts.

As for Pavlovic, I think that we would have acquired somebody better.  If we'd landed, say, Anthony Parker, I think we would have been fine (and all the rumors were that we could have had him, although it's impossible to know for sure).  Again, though, without that 100% certainty that we could have upgraded Pavlovic, many will go to the grave arguing that he's the best we could have had, and thus will never change their minds.

To answer your first question, it's absolutely fair for people to have whatever take on the situation that they want.  It's a little crazy how many "true believers" this trade has created on both sides, and how entrenched both sides have become, but I guess that's the nature of the beast.

[Roy H.]

I don't really agree with a few posters who say Danny doesn't like Perk's game.

Yeah, I don't understand that, either.  I've never heard Danny say anything poor about Perk, other than that the team played just as well with Shaq.  Danny has questioned his health, and has expressed concern about a bidding war for his services, but to my knowledge has never said "I don't want a tough-minded defensive center who is a good rebounder and who scores 6 - 10 efficient points every night, and who is loved by his coach and teammates".

I'd say that only a small minority of the "pro-trade" folks didn't appreciate what Perk brought here, and my guess is that Danny Ainge doesn't fall into that minority.  However, that's just a guess.