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

[Roy H.]

With the benefit of hindsight, do you think that Red Auerbach regretted trading away Gerald Henderson, given that Len Bias died?

No, he still makes the trade.  Then, on draft night, he trades the #2 to Indiana for the #4 and the #26, and ends up with Chuck Person and Dennis Rodman.

[bbd24]

9.8 points a game and 2.5 rebounds per game In nearly 23 minutes is what Green has delivered. Sounds like numbers that Anthony Parker or a bunch of other guys could produce. I have never been a Jeff Green fan, but would love to get to love him. I just don't see it.

Jeff Green, statistical comparison while in Boston:

TS%: 58.6 (highest ever in career), Comparable to LeBron James (identical), Kevin Durant (59.2), Pau Gasol (58.3)

3pt%: 41.2 (career high), comperable to Hedo Turkoglu, Rudy Gay, higher than Pierce....although this one doesn't tell the whole story because he only shoots 1.2 3pt FG's a game, which is well below where he was in OKC. Its not insignificant, but it is a distinction that needs to be made.
 
Points per minute production (in PP40 format): 19.4, comparable to Rudy Gay, Wilson Chandler (both 19.1 PP40), Luol Deng (18.1), Tyler Hansbrough (20.6) and Paul Pierce (21.4), among others.

Rebounds per minute: They're terrible. No other way to put it.

Usage: 21.92 (career high), comperable to Pau Gasol or Danilo Gallinari, slightly lower than Kevin Garnett

PER: 14.20, career high, comparable to Jamal Crawford, Jared Dudley, or Landry Fields.

The notion that we could have gotten Jeff Green's production (at least from a statistical standpoint) across the board from a guy like Anthony Parker (a guy who averages 8.6 ppg in 6+minutes per contest) just is flat out not supportable.  

Yeah, Jeff Green is better than Anthony Parker.  The question is, is he enough better to make up for the loss of Perk.  Obviously, opinion is pretty divided on that, but I don't think he is.

Are we really 'losing' much at Perks position with what Shaq, JO, and now Krstic bring to that position ?

Now add Green into the mix on the bench and you've canceled out what Perk brings with your free agent signings, and added Green and Krstic to your bench.  That more than makes up for Perks loss, and also leaves you with a 1st round Clipper pick in your back pocket.

I loved Perk but man, I can't see why people don't like this trade. Especially moving forward.  We were never paying Perk 7,8,9M per, so why not get something for him now ?  And if we were going to pay that kind of money for a player of Perks caliber, what in the hells bells would Ainge be thinking ?  Its what was around Perk that made everyone better (core 4), not Perk himself.  You don't throw that kind of money his way for that type of play.

[More Banners]

With the benefit of hindsight, do you think that Red Auerbach regretted trading away Gerald Henderson, given that Len Bias died?

No, he still makes the trade.  Then, on draft night, he trades the #2 to Indiana for the #4 and the #26, and ends up with Chuck Person and Dennis Rodman.

Perhaps he takes a 2nd in 86 and 1st in 87, taking Rodman in '86 and both Reggie Miller and Reggie Lewis in '87, making Michael Jordan the best player to never win a championship as the Celtics continue their domination through the 90's!

[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.

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

Well we know Shaq is the oldest player in the NBA and is 7-2 300+ lbs and we know that he had two separate injuries on the same foot and we also know that Perk had an MCL sprain and is 26 and that OKC believed was not a big problem...

  So, again, we don't know how severe either injury was seen as, we don't know how much OKC was expecting from him this year, and we don't know what the prognosis was for any of the players involved at the time of the trade. It's worth pointing out that plenty of posters were sure that JO was done for the year, I'd say that his coming back sums up the amount of insight people had into any of the injury issues.

going back to our circular debate, pretty sure OKC said they wanted Perk for both now and later and felt that he was going to be fine.

as for Shaq, we knew how long he had already been out for (speaks to severity), we knew what was injured (achilles, a notoriously a difficult injury to heal) and we knew that he is a massive man and the oldest player in the league. People predicted Shaq would struggle to get back on the court to play at the level necessary to replace Perk and it was based on these known factors...

  People also predicted that JO was done for the year based on similar "facts". People predicted that KG was never going to get back to the level he has based on "facts". People made predictions without any idea of how severe the injuries were seen, or without having any real idea what the prognosis were at the time of the trade.

this is another of those "no accountability" arguments. JO is 32 and Shaq is 39 plus Shaq has about 100 lbs on him. And again, the achilles is a notoriously difficult strain to return from....

[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.

Well we know Shaq is the oldest player in the NBA and is 7-2 300+ lbs and we know that he had two separate injuries on the same foot and we also know that Perk had an MCL sprain and is 26 and that OKC believed was not a big problem...

  So, again, we don't know how severe either injury was seen as, we don't know how much OKC was expecting from him this year, and we don't know what the prognosis was for any of the players involved at the time of the trade. It's worth pointing out that plenty of posters were sure that JO was done for the year, I'd say that his coming back sums up the amount of insight people had into any of the injury issues.

going back to our circular debate, pretty sure OKC said they wanted Perk for both now and later and felt that he was going to be fine.

as for Shaq, we knew how long he had already been out for (speaks to severity), we knew what was injured (achilles, a notoriously a difficult injury to heal) and we knew that he is a massive man and the oldest player in the league. People predicted Shaq would struggle to get back on the court to play at the level necessary to replace Perk and it was based on these known factors...

  People also predicted that JO was done for the year based on similar "facts". People predicted that KG was never going to get back to the level he has based on "facts". People made predictions without any idea of how severe the injuries were seen, or without having any real idea what the prognosis were at the time of the trade.

this is another of those "no accountability" arguments. JO is 32 and Shaq is 39 plus Shaq has about 100 lbs on him. And again, the achilles is a notoriously difficult strain to return from....

  And yet, in spite of all of those obvious signs, many people were still completely wrong about JO. I'm not sure, but that might actually help my case.

[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.

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

Well we know Shaq is the oldest player in the NBA and is 7-2 300+ lbs and we know that he had two separate injuries on the same foot and we also know that Perk had an MCL sprain and is 26 and that OKC believed was not a big problem...

  So, again, we don't know how severe either injury was seen as, we don't know how much OKC was expecting from him this year, and we don't know what the prognosis was for any of the players involved at the time of the trade. It's worth pointing out that plenty of posters were sure that JO was done for the year, I'd say that his coming back sums up the amount of insight people had into any of the injury issues.

going back to our circular debate, pretty sure OKC said they wanted Perk for both now and later and felt that he was going to be fine.

as for Shaq, we knew how long he had already been out for (speaks to severity), we knew what was injured (achilles, a notoriously a difficult injury to heal) and we knew that he is a massive man and the oldest player in the league. People predicted Shaq would struggle to get back on the court to play at the level necessary to replace Perk and it was based on these known factors...

  People also predicted that JO was done for the year based on similar "facts". People predicted that KG was never going to get back to the level he has based on "facts". People made predictions without any idea of how severe the injuries were seen, or without having any real idea what the prognosis were at the time of the trade.

this is another of those "no accountability" arguments. JO is 32 and Shaq is 39 plus Shaq has about 100 lbs on him. And again, the achilles is a notoriously difficult strain to return from....

  And yet, in spite of all of those obvious signs, many people were still completely wrong about JO. I'm not sure, but that might actually help my case.

but there were differences in JO and Shaq, Bball....like I pointed out.

[BballTim]

but there were differences in JO and Shaq, Bball....like I pointed out.

  It would be quite out of the question to expect the cases to be identical.

[slamtheking]

With the benefit of hindsight, do you think that Red Auerbach regretted trading away Gerald Henderson, given that Len Bias died?

No, he still makes the trade.  Then, on draft night, he trades the #2 to Indiana for the #4 and the #26, and ends up with Chuck Person and Dennis Rodman.

Perhaps he takes a 2nd in 86 and 1st in 87, taking Rodman in '86 and both Reggie Miller and Reggie Lewis in '87, making Michael Jordan the best player to never win a championship as the Celtics continue their domination through the 90's!

Or he keeps the pick, takes Bias anyway and hires a babysitter to hide him away after the draft through to training camp to keep him away from the influences that did him in.

[winsomme]

but there were differences in JO and Shaq, Bball....like I pointed out.

  It would be quite out of the question to expect the cases to be identical.

and thus different.

[BballTim]

but there were differences in JO and Shaq, Bball....like I pointed out.

  It would be quite out of the question to expect the cases to be identical.

and thus different.

  Haha. That added a lot...

[winsomme]

but there were differences in JO and Shaq, Bball....like I pointed out.

  It would be quite out of the question to expect the cases to be identical.

and thus different.

  Haha. That added a lot...

brevity is the soul of wit 

[BballTim]

but there were differences in JO and Shaq, Bball....like I pointed out.

  It would be quite out of the question to expect the cases to be identical.

and thus different.

  Haha. That added a lot...

brevity is the soul of wit 

  At times our discussions *could* use a little bit more brevity...

[winsomme]

but there were differences in JO and Shaq, Bball....like I pointed out.

  It would be quite out of the question to expect the cases to be identical.

and thus different.

  Haha. That added a lot...

brevity is the soul of wit 

  At times our discussions *could* use a little bit more brevity...

exactly. TP to you sir...

[Brendan]

A bit late to the party: but I say no.

I think right now, Danny expects to have all three of his centers playing at the start of the playoffs, and while not ideal playing time leading up - I think he'd be okay with that.

Additionally the long term ramifications haven't changed.

[tenn_smoothie]

those who defend the trade keep talking about how it made sense - that the exchange of talent was in favor of the Celtics because Jeff Green supposedly has more pure talent than Perk. maybe, he does.

but that's all on paper.

what was wrong with the trade at the time and what's still wrong with the trade was that it hurt the Celtics on the court, where the game is actually played. the main damage was the loss of Perk, who was an integral part of this team and this Celtics team's sum is greater than its individual parts, which are impressive enough by themselves. Perk fit this team both in playing style and in terms of the group chemistry, which is as important as pure talent. the Celtics simply have not been the same team since he was traded - it's obvious.

what was also wrong with the trade was that Danny traded for players who do not fit the Celtics playing style or team personality. both guys are offense first and both guys are soft, finesse players. that's why they fit in OKC and why they don't fit in Boston. we already know that team chemistry + toughness beats talented finesse every time - see 1984 & 2008 NBA Finals.


Danny screwed up in a major way - maybe the worst Boston sports disaster since Buckner's error.