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

[Kane3387]

If rondo, green, west, nenad, Bradley and baby are the future nucleus of this team, I don't think Danny ainge will have a job

Don't forget Wafer.  

Clearly more will be added to that nucleus in either this off season or the next. We have big expiring contracts in KG, Ray, and JO. We either trade those or we use cap room to sign guys. No reason to think Green and /or that pick can't be used in a trade.. Everyone on here knows Danny isn't afraid to make a trade.

[homericepisode]

I'm getting curious.  

Last Januaryish I suggested the Pats should shop Brady.  That turned into a whole "eja suggested we trade Brady for Sanchez" thing.

Let's say the Pats do that next year. Say they're playing very well, maybe Brady is a bit banged up and they trade Brady for a good young QB and a good young player at a position of need. Then they start losing, and looking lost, but still one of the better teams destined for the playoffs. And in the mean time Brady plays pretty well and improves the team he goes to.

Are all of you going to stay positive and not criticize the trade?  Will you say "It's too early to know"?

Will you not be able to make threads suggesting in hindsight maybe it wasn't so good?

Exact.....same....thing



Of course now I'm saying Perk is as good as Brady.   No I'm not.

probably not the best analogy.

[GreenFaith1819]

I'm more on GreenFaith's boat with this overall. I believe the only "bold" point or "shot" I've taken is calling you disingenuous, if you want to call it that, and I do stand by that.

One more time, this time with feeling:  calling members "disingenuous", or whatever other insult you can come up with, is a personal attack.  Those aren't allowed around here.

Roy - please read my post at 9:33 pm. Just wanted to make myself clear.

Not sure if you saw it or not.

[Eja117]

I'm getting curious.  

Last Januaryish I suggested the Pats should shop Brady.  That turned into a whole "eja suggested we trade Brady for Sanchez" thing.

Let's say the Pats do that next year. Say they're playing very well, maybe Brady is a bit banged up and they trade Brady for a good young QB and a good young player at a position of need. Then they start losing, and looking lost, but still one of the better teams destined for the playoffs. And in the mean time Brady plays pretty well and improves the team he goes to.

Are all of you going to stay positive and not criticize the trade?  Will you say "It's too early to know"?

Will you not be able to make threads suggesting in hindsight maybe it wasn't so good?

Exact.....same....thing



Of course now I'm saying Perk is as good as Brady.   No I'm not.

probably not the best analogy.

All I did was change the names and sports

[dlpin]

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).

backup SFs are much easier to find than starting centers. They also are a lot less important to winning.

the gamble was Perk, Shaq, JO for center and alternative backup wing to Shaq, JO, Nenad for center and Green as the backup wing.

given the importance of the center position in our system, the greater gamble was to deplete the center position for essentially a bench player (given the amount of time we can even put Green in the game).

Our depth at center was a huge advantage for us in all our key matchups (MIA, ORL, CHI, LAL, SAS) and the trade washed that away.

could still work out, but Shaq needs to get back on the floor for that to happen.

Let's stop talking pie in the sky and abstract values of wings versus centers:
Which game, in the recent slide would the celtics have won with Perkins (and Pavlovic) instead of Kristic and Green?

The negative reaction to this trade is mostly out of an emotional response, because there have been at most one game where Perkins would have made a difference so far.

I our 9 losses since the trade, the celtics allowed more than 90 points on only 3 of them. We've lost because of scoring slumps in the 4th period.

And this is not to say it was a great trade. It is just to say that, at worst, it is inconclusive.

[Roy H.]

The negative reaction to this trade is mostly out of an emotional response, because there have been at most one game where Perkins would have made a difference so far.

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.

[Eja117]

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).

backup SFs are much easier to find than starting centers. They also are a lot less important to winning.

the gamble was Perk, Shaq, JO for center and alternative backup wing to Shaq, JO, Nenad for center and Green as the backup wing.

given the importance of the center position in our system, the greater gamble was to deplete the center position for essentially a bench player (given the amount of time we can even put Green in the game).

Our depth at center was a huge advantage for us in all our key matchups (MIA, ORL, CHI, LAL, SAS) and the trade washed that away.

could still work out, but Shaq needs to get back on the floor for that to happen.

Let's stop talking pie in the sky and abstract values of wings versus centers:
Which game, in the recent slide would the celtics have won with Perkins (and Pavlovic) instead of Kristic and Green?

The negative reaction to this trade is mostly out of an emotional response, because there have been at most one game where Perkins would have made a difference so far.

I our 9 losses since the trade, the celtics allowed more than 90 points on only 3 of them. We've lost because of scoring slumps in the 4th period.

And this is not to say it was a great trade. It is just to say that, at worst, it is inconclusive.

true, but the thing is this trade was supposed to make us better, not equally good. It wasn't supposed to be a cosmetic change because of abstract values of centers and wings.  We were supposed to see clear improvement and a better chance at winning a ring.  At best I'm not seeing it, and have reached my conclusion until shown otherwise.  And if Roy and I told you all so at the time and we're still right now then I guess some people will have to deal with it and call me negative and him ingenuous or something.  I'm pretty sure I won't cry too much

[dlpin]

I'm getting curious.  

Last Januaryish I suggested the Pats should shop Brady.  That turned into a whole "eja suggested we trade Brady for Sanchez" thing.

Let's say the Pats do that next year. Say they're playing very well, maybe Brady is a bit banged up and they trade Brady for a good young QB and a good young player at a position of need. Then they start losing, and looking lost, but still one of the better teams destined for the playoffs. And in the mean time Brady plays pretty well and improves the team he goes to.

Are all of you going to stay positive and not criticize the trade?  Will you say "It's too early to know"?

Will you not be able to make threads suggesting in hindsight maybe it wasn't so good?

Exact.....same....thing



Of course now I'm saying Perk is as good as Brady.   No I'm not.

probably not the best analogy.

All I did was change the names and sports

Yes, because clearly Perkins is the equivalent of an MVP player in his prime who played all games in 8 of the past 9 seasons  .

And I am still waiting for all these games that the celtics would have won recently if only they had Perkins. Unless Perkins had magical rejuvenation powers to refresh Pierce and Allen, magic healing powers to heal Rondo, West and BBD, or suddenly developed an offensive game that could be counted on during the 4th quarter, we'd still lose most, if not all of these games.

[wdleehi]

This is a conversation about the trade, not posters emotions, hidden agendas or any other off topic excuse posters want to throw out there to discredit someone with a different opinion.  If you can't handle that, stay out of the thread.

[dlpin]

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?

true, but the thing is this trade was supposed to make us better, not equally good. It wasn't supposed to be a cosmetic change because of abstract values of centers and wings.  We were supposed to see clear improvement and a better chance at winning a ring.  At best I'm not seeing it, and have reached my conclusion until shown otherwise.  And if Roy and I told you all so at the time and we're still right now then I guess some people will have to deal with it and call me negative and him ingenuous or something.  I'm pretty sure I won't cry too much

If this trade right now is a wash, then I am pretty sure it is a great trade when we take Green's age and a draft pick into account.

[vinnie]

Wasn't anthony Parker one of many wings supposedly available? couldn't he be giving us what jeff green has given us?

[jasail]

This team without Perk is thin at center.  This team with Perk is thin on the wing.  The one difference is that with Perk we were relying on Von Wafer and without Perk we are relying on Shaq and JO.  Even with their age, injury and inability to stay healthy, I'd rather rely on those two guys for 1.5 months than Von Wafer.  

The continued hang wringing over this trade drives me up a wall.  This team was up the creek either way because of lack of depth.  And their poor play over the past 6 weeks has been in large part due to stagnant ball movement and poor shot selection, something Perk doesn't help with.

End of the day, the C's are no better off at this point with Perk or without Perk because they weren't a championship team without a wing, just like they aren't without a healthy center.  Let's just hope the two O'Neal's are healthy.  

FWIW I think if Danny didn't make a move at the deadline and bring in a reasonable option at the wing, he'd be getting killed for not making a move.  Without unique insight into what was available at the deadline, I  can't really blast him either way.  

[dlpin]

Wasn't anthony Parker one of many wings supposedly available? couldn't he be giving us what jeff green has given us?

We've no idea what the cavs asking price was or if the rumors were even real.

[Roy H.]

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.

And yes, I think the difference between Perk and Krstic is significant.  That being the case, with Shaq's injury issues I'm very worried about our ability to adequately control the paint in the playoffs.

[indeedproceed]

I don't think Danny regrets anything. Not because it is necessarily a solid move, but because you don't get to be a guy in Danny's position by doubting yourself, especially with such a big move. He either believed in it or he didn't..what has happened since probably isn't relevant in the terms Danny thinks about the trade.

At least that's how I see how Danny might see it..but of course that's all pure speculation.