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

[Roy H.]

I know you never liked the trade.  But, that doesn't mean Danny regrets it.  I think having 1 of the Oneals healthy fits right into his plans (and currently JO looks good), and I think he is still very happy with the value of the trade for the future of the franchise.

I guess to each their own, but I think if you told Danny that Shaq's health would be this questionable, and that Perk would be healthy, that there's no way he'd pull the trigger.  You may be confident in a JO / Krstic combo as the center rotation for a championship team, but I just don't think most people would (and I predict that that includes Danny.)

And no, I never liked the trade, but if this team was rolling right now, with a healthy Shaq and a contributing Green as the sixth man, I'm pretty sure I could say "Yeah, this trade looks like it's going to work out".  However, I think a lot of people are probably vested in their opinions at this point, so I'm guessing very few will admit that they'd change their opinions -- or that Danny would change his -- at this point.

[homericepisode]

Why would he?

Well, just off the top of my head...

... Shaq got re-injured, and is a huge question mark;

... Krstic is injured, and has looked soft and lost on defense;

... Green has been inconsistent, and oftentimes invisible;

... the team has looked pretty terrible since the trade; and

... Perk has looked great in OKC.

I understand the argument that "on paper" the trade made sense, but looking back on it now, isn't there some room for second guessing?

I would be very surprised if Danny, Doc, the players, and the majority of fans wouldn't reverse the trade, if they didn't have to admit they were wrong in the process.

So you have to have regrets because things didn't start off the way you hoped? It's a foolish question because you don't know if things would have worked out if he didn't make the trade. All I know, Roy, is that you are a very respected figure on the board who hated the trade, and as a lawyer you will probably argue to your deathbed that it was a horrible decision whether we win a championship or not. And I do say that with all due respect--but it seems like anytime something goes wrong since the trade that reflects on it badly, you tend to start these threads that seem like veiled attempts to say, "I told you so".

[Mike-Dub]

Nope.

[Jon]

I agree with Chris.  And it's still very early.  While I miss Perk in some ways, I also remember Ray and Paul getting in foul trouble against Miami, Cleveland, and LA last year.  It's going to be even worse against Miami this year.  We could see games when Ray and/or Paul are held to fewer than 30 mpg because of foul trouble.  Jeff Green may end up paying enormous dividends before all is said and done.  

And Shaq may be just fine. 

[PseudoElite]

We won't know until the playoffs are over

[GreenFaith1819]

Why would he?

Well, just off the top of my head...

... Shaq got re-injured, and is a huge question mark;

... Krstic is injured, and has looked soft and lost on defense;

... Green has been inconsistent, and oftentimes invisible;

... the team has looked pretty terrible since the trade; and

... Perk has looked great in OKC.

I understand the argument that "on paper" the trade made sense, but looking back on it now, isn't there some room for second guessing?

I would be very surprised if Danny, Doc, the players, and the majority of fans wouldn't reverse the trade, if they didn't have to admit they were wrong in the process.

So you have to have regrets because things didn't start off the way you hoped? It's a foolish question because you don't know if things would have worked out if he didn't make the trade. All I know, Roy, is that you are a very respected figure on the board who hated the trade, and as a lawyer you will probably argue to your deathbed that it was a horrible decision whether we win a championship or not. And I do say that with all due respect--but it seems like anytime something goes wrong since the trade that reflects on it badly, you tend to start these threads that seem like veiled attempts to say, "I told you so".

I agree. I have been looking at the climate on this blog since the trade, and I have to agree with homericepisode here.

I think it is far too dangerous to try to assess this trade now.

[Cman]

Danny got good "on paper" value for Perk, but my guess is that he'd undo the trade if he could.  I think he over-estimated Shaq's ability to return at a high level, and I think he expected more from Green than he's gotten.

The trade could still look good in the future, but when you're a contender, "the future is now", as they say.  I think Danny would prefer the greater certainty of having Perk versus praying for the health of Shaq, JO, and Krstic.  I think Danny would have preferred to find a competent backup 3 via trade, while maintaining strong depth up front.

I like the idea behind this topic, but too early for 20-20 hindsight.  Let's at least see how all the chips fall this season, for both the Cs and Thunder (i.e.: without even taking into consideration how the offseason plays out, let alone future seasons).

[Roy H.]

Why would he?

Well, just off the top of my head...

... Shaq got re-injured, and is a huge question mark;

... Krstic is injured, and has looked soft and lost on defense;

... Green has been inconsistent, and oftentimes invisible;

... the team has looked pretty terrible since the trade; and

... Perk has looked great in OKC.

I understand the argument that "on paper" the trade made sense, but looking back on it now, isn't there some room for second guessing?

I would be very surprised if Danny, Doc, the players, and the majority of fans wouldn't reverse the trade, if they didn't have to admit they were wrong in the process.

So you have to have regrets because things didn't start off the way you hoped? It's a foolish question because you don't know if things would have worked out if he didn't make the trade. All I know, Roy, is that you are a very respected figure on the board who hated the trade, and as a lawyer you will probably argue to your deathbed that it was a horrible decision whether we win a championship or not. And I do say that with all due respect--but it seems like anytime something goes wrong since the trade that reflects on it badly, you tend to start these threads that seem like veiled attempts to say, "I told you so".

Well, I appreciate that you find my thread to be "foolish", and that you stereotype both me and my profession.   

However, I just don't see what's so off the wall about my thinking here.  The guy Danny all told us was going to be our starting center, and whose pending return to health Danny said was a huge part of his reasoning in making the deal, just hobbled off the court again.  Our center rotation is JO and Krstic.  Is it that crazy to think that Danny might want his championship center back?

Rather than me being the one who can't admit when he's wrong, perhaps it's the people who have already made up their mind that this was a great trade that can't accept any questioning of their world view?  Otherwise, I don't see why personal insults are necessary.

[Roy H.]

Why would he?

Well, just off the top of my head...

... Shaq got re-injured, and is a huge question mark;

... Krstic is injured, and has looked soft and lost on defense;

... Green has been inconsistent, and oftentimes invisible;

... the team has looked pretty terrible since the trade; and

... Perk has looked great in OKC.

I understand the argument that "on paper" the trade made sense, but looking back on it now, isn't there some room for second guessing?

I would be very surprised if Danny, Doc, the players, and the majority of fans wouldn't reverse the trade, if they didn't have to admit they were wrong in the process.

So you have to have regrets because things didn't start off the way you hoped? It's a foolish question because you don't know if things would have worked out if he didn't make the trade. All I know, Roy, is that you are a very respected figure on the board who hated the trade, and as a lawyer you will probably argue to your deathbed that it was a horrible decision whether we win a championship or not. And I do say that with all due respect--but it seems like anytime something goes wrong since the trade that reflects on it badly, you tend to start these threads that seem like veiled attempts to say, "I told you so".

I agree. I have been looking at the climate on this blog since the trade, and I have to agree with homericepisode here.

I think it is far too dangerous to try to assess this trade now.

What on earth is "dangerous" about it?  It's a blog, for the love of God.  We debate things on here.  

Welcome to the world of the "true fans", where any sign of dissent is shouted down by calling others "foolish" and stereotyping them.

[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).

[jambr380]

Why would he?

Well, just off the top of my head...

... Shaq got re-injured, and is a huge question mark;

... Krstic is injured, and has looked soft and lost on defense;

... Green has been inconsistent, and oftentimes invisible;

... the team has looked pretty terrible since the trade; and

... Perk has looked great in OKC.

I understand the argument that "on paper" the trade made sense, but looking back on it now, isn't there some room for second guessing?

I would be very surprised if Danny, Doc, the players, and the majority of fans wouldn't reverse the trade, if they didn't have to admit they were wrong in the process.

So you have to have regrets because things didn't start off the way you hoped? It's a foolish question because you don't know if things would have worked out if he didn't make the trade. All I know, Roy, is that you are a very respected figure on the board who hated the trade, and as a lawyer you will probably argue to your deathbed that it was a horrible decision whether we win a championship or not. And I do say that with all due respect--but it seems like anytime something goes wrong since the trade that reflects on it badly, you tend to start these threads that seem like veiled attempts to say, "I told you so".

Well, I appreciate that you find my thread to be "foolish", and that you stereotype both me and my profession.   

However, I just don't see what's so off the wall about my thinking here.  The guy Danny all told us was going to be our starting center, and whose pending return to health Danny said was a huge part of his reasoning in making the deal, just hobbled off the court again.  Our center rotation is JO and Krstic.  Is it that crazy to think that Danny might want his championship center back?

Rather than me being the one who can't admit when he's wrong, perhaps it's the people who have already made up their mind that this was a great trade that can't accept any questioning of their world view?  Otherwise, I don't see why personal insults are necessary.

Yikes, it takes some nerve to go at Roy like that  

As for the trade, everyone here talks about how the Celtics haven't had enough time to integrate the new players and how it upset the chemistry of the team. But, I look at a team like the Nuggets who lost their two best players (by far) and have had to integrate a whole new team of good (but not great) players. They have done a fabulous job. I understand that it is entirely possibly that the chemistry of this team might have been upset, but I vehemently deny that it is a worthwhile excuse.

[Mike-Dub]

We won't know until the playoffs are over

Thank you TP.

[Roy H.]

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?

[GreenFaith1819]

Roy - my point is that from reading your posts about the trade - you hated it from the start, and you haven't yielded on that position.

I think that contributes a little to the negative climate. I have seen Nenad ridiculed on here a lot - from my minds eye some of it is warranted, some not.

IMO the Celtics slide since the trade can be blamed on just about every single player on the team.

It disrupted chemistry - yes. That will take some time to get back.

Just my take - You have every reason to have an opinion on the trade, but I think that you should consider that as maybe the most recognized poster here on the blog - to take such a hard stance against The Trade can carry a lot of weight around here.

[birdwatcher]

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).

I like what you had to say in the end of your post. This move was made for this season, as there wasn't a suitable backup for Pierce with Quis going down. Danny got a chance to bring in a guy that could spell Pierce & KG, plus have the stretch 4 he wanted, and was able to clear a spot for another Big, which ended up being Murphy. Sure he put his eggs in one basket with the O'Neals, but it was worthy risk. The reason I say it was done for this season, is that the risk is short term if it doesn't work out--they have no obligation to Murphy, Green or Krstic after this season, and they would have got nothing in return if Perk had stayed and not resigned with us.

And Roy--If I'm wrong in the end I'll be glad to admit it, but do I have to say I'm wrong before an outcome has even been determined?