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

[Onslaught]

Kendrick Perkins isnt a gamechanger.

Shaq is.

I'd rather gamble on shaq than rely on perk.

A young Shaq is a game changer. A 39 year old, fat Shaq isn't.
And isn't better then Perk really.

[wdleehi]

Kendrick Perkins isnt a gamechanger.

Shaq is.

I'd rather gamble on shaq than rely on perk.

And both would have been on the team.

[birdwatcher]

Do you think heads will roll if Boston gets knocked out really soon and OKC has a really great playoff run and Perk plays hit tail off?

I'm not a fan of the trade. And even then I don't think Danny should get sacked. But do you think something could happen?

Definitely not. Perk is a great fit in OKC, and would have been elsewhere, too like in Miami. He's a guy who isn't expected to score and needs to be comfortable in his role to succeed. It's the same exact role he had with us, and he has the benefit of having a guy with the athletic ability of a young KG in Ibaka, and a guy who is also settling into a role as a back up (and excelling) in Mohammad. Danny shouldn't get fired for our team having some tough luck and having another team succeed.

[Onslaught]

Do you think heads will roll if Boston gets knocked out really soon and OKC has a really great playoff run and Perk plays hit tail off?

I'm not a fan of the trade. And even then I don't think Danny should get sacked. But do you think something could happen?

Definitely not. Perk is a great fit in OKC, and would have been elsewhere, too like in Miami. He's a guy who isn't expected to score and needs to be comfortable in his role to succeed. It's the same exact role he had with us, and he has the benefit of having a guy with the athletic ability of a young KG in Ibaka, and a guy who is also settling into a role as a back up (and excelling) in Mohammad. Danny shouldn't get fired for our team having some tough luck and having another team succeed.

I don't think he should get fired too.

But it wasn't tough luck. We haven't had a big man who can stay on the court all year. And sent the youngest one away. Thinking Shaq would be back and good was dumb in my book.

[dlpin]

Why would he regret it? Oneal reinjuring himself and Perk being healthy were scenarios that he likely thought about when he did this.

And it is a bit disingenuous to blame the Perkins trade for the current slump. It's not like the celtics were playing that great in the immediate aftermath of his return. From February 4th (1st game without Shaq) till feb 24th (first game without Perkins) the celtics were 4-3. If anything, the slump has been a combination of several factors. We can't act like it has been all Perkins when we have had Rondo, BBD, West, not to mention the Oneals injured.

For all the talk of how the celtics have struggled since the trade, I've yet to read anyone argue which games Perk would have made a difference in. Which game would Perk have won for us? Would Perk solve our 4th quarter scoring slumps? Our defense has been fine in most of the losses, and we've struggled with out offense.


This is all, of course, without mentioning the elephant in the room: without that trade, and with Nate, Semih, and even Perk himself sidelined by injuries, our bench would have been Bradley, Pavlovic and Murphy, with Murphy occasionally starting. Would that have given us a better record through the same stretch?


Unless we are playing Orlando, Perkins is not the difference between a title and nothing.

[bbd24]

Kendrick Perkins isnt a gamechanger.

Shaq is.

I'd rather gamble on shaq than rely on perk.

A young Shaq is a game changer. A 39 year old, fat Shaq isn't.
And isn't better then Perk really.

Isn't better than Perk ? From what I've seen this year when the teams been healthy, Shaq is far and away better than Perk. Especially playing with the starters. The big fella had it made with Rondo putting it on a layup/dunk platter.

You could even argue that a healthy Jermaine O'neal is better than a healthy Perkins. There isn't a lot of difference there. Except one is now getting paid a ridiculous 9M per.

No way Danny's regretting a move that allows him to win now and sets him up for the future. No brainer trade. You do that trade all day when you've added guys through free agency  like Shaq and JO who cancel out what you traded away.

[Roy H.]

Shockingly, with about one exception, those who didn't like the trade still don't like it, and those who liked it still like it.  The fun part is that we get to throw around words like "foolish" and "disingenuous".

Wahoo!  CelticsBlog turned into Capitol Hill.

[More Banners]

I don't think Danny "does" mulligans, so no.  

While some might say the trade was a bad idea in hindsight, that would be to blame the problems on the trade.  I think those upset with the trade might be more likely to respond like this.

It makes just as much (more?) sense to blame dumb luck with the injuries to the usually-healty Nenad or re-injury of Shaq.  

Or, one could blame Danny for gambling on health in the first place in signing Shaq and JO last summer (I do), as injury to either or both was probably predictable.

But the regret thing...I don't think any GM could sleep at night if they were prone to chew their cud.

[Onslaught]

Why would he regret it?

Shaq his hurt. Again.
Perk is playing well.
Green has been a bust so far. Overrated by many here.
Krstic is injured. And when he's not he's soft on the end of the floor we need him most.
All the other bodies we got haven't been playing well.
JO is as reliable as a Yugo

[birdwatcher]

Do you think heads will roll if Boston gets knocked out really soon and OKC has a really great playoff run and Perk plays hit tail off?

I'm not a fan of the trade. And even then I don't think Danny should get sacked. But do you think something could happen?

Definitely not. Perk is a great fit in OKC, and would have been elsewhere, too like in Miami. He's a guy who isn't expected to score and needs to be comfortable in his role to succeed. It's the same exact role he had with us, and he has the benefit of having a guy with the athletic ability of a young KG in Ibaka, and a guy who is also settling into a role as a back up (and excelling) in Mohammad. Danny shouldn't get fired for our team having some tough luck and having another team succeed.

I don't think he should get fired too.

But it wasn't tough luck. We haven't had a big man who can stay on the court all year. And sent the youngest one away. Thinking Shaq would be back and good was dumb in my book.

Danny didn't trade Perk to make us lean at center. At the time we had 4 Centers on the roster, and Perk was the one with the most value. He risked giving up Perk to get a back up for Pierce, also gambling that we could get a serviceable big off of waivers, which ended up being Murphy, and made sure we got another center back for insurance, which was Krstic. Don't you think if OKC would have taken JO instead of Perk he would have done it in a heartbeat? If he didn't make the trade wouldn't Danny look stupid running Pierce into the ground while we had 4 Centers and 3 power forwards on the bench, and no backup 3?

[Vermont Green]

This trade does not stand on its own.  If Danny kept Perk the C's would have more size, but would have Von Wafer and Sasha Pavolvic playing more minutes than they should.  

We are not a championship team with Wafer playing serious minutes.  Green gave them that option off the bench and gives them someone that can give Doc time on the wing and at the PF position.  He can pick up 15-20 minutes and give rest to KG, Paul and Ray.  They needed a player like that.  

At the same time the C's need size inside.  And they aren't winning w/o a healthy Shaq and a healthy JO.  The issue here is that they had Shaq and JO, but they didn't have the wing.  He made a calculated decision and while it doesn't look good it doesn't mean they still don't have a chance.  But they had NO chance if he didn't pull the trigger.  

Unless he turned down a trade for something less than Perk for something similar to Green, then I don't think Danny can regret it.  

I think this is a good way to look at it.  The idea is that once it was clear that Daniels was done we were just too thin at the wing to win.  There were scrap heap options to sign for wing help but nothing that was going to do it.

If Shaq and JO don't come back and we don't do the trade, we are just too thin.  We would have Perk and Erden but not enough wing power.  If Shaq and JO come back, it doesn't really help (other than Erden plays less).  We have too many assets at one position.  So our shot was to make a gutsy trade and hope the O'Neals come back. 

So if DA knew Shaq was iffy at best but that JO was going to come on strong, does he still do the trade?  I honestly think he did the trade thinking Shaq was going to be fine and maybe JO too.  After all, we did get Krstic back who is a ligit 7 footer (albeit flawed but so is Perk).

So I suspect DA missed the call on Shaq's health and may have oeverrated Krstic some.  In addition, he may have under estimated the integration time and not just because of the players traded but West too.

Bottom line, it is still only the 8th inning, we still have time to come back an win this one.  There are still too many moving parts to be played out.  What can be seen at this point with hindsight isn' the whole story yet.  The Celtics are still gong to be a really tough out for anyone in the playoffs.  I suspect Danny still believes.

[vinnie]

I know they are saying Shaq's injury is minor, but they also said the last one was minor. And, he missed more than 2 months. Depending on Shaq being healthy and effctive for the playoffs is fools gold to say the least. As for Danny and the trade, he will never admit to regretting anything he has done.

[Tai]

Roy, maybe if you were a little more ingenuous with this topic, IMO, you may not have had people taking shots at you in this topic.

I personally was a little annoyed that you went through the trouble of making a new topic just to repeat what you've been saying in other topics ever since the trade started, and pass it off as something other than that. And then, you try to allege Perk's health as "certain", now or back whenever. Since when? Cause he's not injured now? Not everyone as so "certain" about the trade deadline, and the fact that when someone touched on that, you claimed they didn't answer the question is another example of the dis-ingenuity in this topic; it doesn't matter that at the time of the trade deadline, Perk was injured again after just coming off the trade deadline, and that Danny had to question his durability for the rest of the season, and considering he could've used Perkins to solve another problem on top of that (you know...backup SF) in a trade? Or does that deter your argument that Danny should regret the trade now THAT MUCH, so you try to politely write it off?

I almost feel like you don't even care what Danny really thinks; like someone else said, this is just another "I told you so" topic. Passing it off as something else is definitely disingenuous at this point.

At the end of the day, JO's still healthy, Krstic will supposedly play Tuesday, we do have a legit backup SF in Green when we could've had to use Wafer/Pavlovic instead for important minutes, and the main reason people are bothered by Shaq's injury now is because he JUST came back from one. A calf strain's a godsend compared to what it could've been, ESPECIALLY considering some people on this blog claim now that the Celtics are lying, and that there was actually a tear somewhere. I thought it was realistic enough that Shaq actually picked up ANY new injury...but I guess I really only know less than I think I do.

Anyways, I get it. You never liked this trade, and you wanna go out of your way to let everyone know, and chime in whenever you feel your claim has been validated. Fine. At least don't try to guise that so much.

[dlpin]

Shaq his hurt. Again.
Perk is playing well.
Green has been a bust so far. Overrated by many here.
Krstic is injured. And when he's not he's soft on the end of the floor we need him most.
All the other bodies we got haven't been playing well.
JO is as reliable as a Yugo

Shaq is not a Perkins replacement. We need him anyways, with or without Perkins.
Which games would Perkins have won for us?

I find it funny that Green and Kristic have been a "bust" while Perk's 24 minutes a game were somehow going to take the celtics out of this slump.

Is Kristic worse than Perkins? Sure. But is the difference bigger than Green-Pavlovic? Because that is the comparison: Perkins-Pavlovic vs Kristic-Green.

And while Kristic is hurt right now, he will still have missed fewer games since the trade than Perk has.

All of this, again, only mentioning the "right now." Long term we traded a center who never played a full season, with almost 500 games on him and multiple surgeries for a guy that should be at least a good role player plus a good draft pick.

[Roy H.]

Roy, maybe if you were a little more ingenuous with this topic, IMO, you may not have had people taking shots at you in this topic.

I personally was a little annoyed that you went through the trouble of making a new topic just to repeat what you've been saying in other topics ever since the trade started, and pass it off as something other than that. . . .

Anyways, I get it. You never liked this trade, and you wanna go out of your way to let everyone know, and chime in whenever you feel your claim has been validated. Fine. At least don't try to guise that so much.

Who are you to question my motives?  Why do you think you know what's inside my head better than me?  I'm getting a tad bit sick of the insults, the insinuations, and the words being put in my mouth.  If you don't like one of the threads I publish, move on.

In case people missed it, Shaq -- the very same Shaquille O'Neal who Danny repeatedly described as being integral to his thinking when he made the trade -- went down tonight with yet another injury.  He lasted six minutes tonight.  That concerns me, and the thought of going into the playoffs with JO and Krstic as our center rotation scares me even more. 

I assumed that maybe there were some like-minded folks, who even if they liked the trade at first, felt a little uneasy about it now.  Obviously, I was wrong, because this thread has just turned into another pro-trade vs. anti-trade debate.  However, I do think that looking at the trade with the benefit of new information could have been interested if people were willing to move off of their talking points a bit.