How/when should people judge trades?

[greenpride32]

You can't judge the trade based on our peformance in the playoffs.  If the trade wasn't made there is no guarantee we would have won the title, made the finals, progressed to the 2nd round, or even won the first series.  So using this as a benchmark flat out doesn't make any sense.

I would say sports trades in general are judged a few years down the line, with the exception being trades made strictly as playoff rentals.

[BballTim]

  There really seems to be two parts of this. One is whether the  trade is good for the team or not, the other is whether the trade was a mistake to make or not. One's based on the outcome of events and the other is based on what was known or thought to be known when the trade was made.

[wdleehi]

You can't judge the trade based on our peformance in the playoffs.  If the trade wasn't made there is no guarantee we would have won the title, made the finals, progressed to the 2nd round, or even won the first series.  So using this as a benchmark flat out doesn't make any sense.

I would say sports trades in general are judged a few years down the line, with the exception being trades made strictly as playoff rentals.

Boston, before the trade, a title was considered success.  Losing in the Finals was considered a failure.


Now, winning a title means the trade did not hurt the teams chance. 

Not winning, questions are going to be there.  (especially if Green continues to play invisible and there is the paint softness in the 4th quarter)

[Vermont Green]

It is like what happens often in baseball where Team A trades a prospect to Team B for say a closer.  The closer helps Team A make the WS but then flames out and the prospect becomes and all star in 5 years.  Who won the trade?  Do you know for sure Team A would not have made the WS without the trade?  No but that would generally be the conclusion and criteria for assessing Team A's success.  Team B doesn't even think about judging the trade for years.

So you judge the trade based on what the team got out of it relative to what they hoped for.  If the closer pitched well and saved some big games, it is hard to say it was a bad trade for them even if the prospect becomes Albert Pujols.  But then 5 years later all you hear is, "can you believe that Team A traded Albert Pujols"!

It is funny that the Celtics, a title contender, did kind of the opposite.  They gave up a proven starting center (albeit injured at the time and with uncertain health moving forward) for a lesser center, a young player at a position of need, and a future draft pick.  So do you use the short term or the long term criteria?  Say the Celtics flame out in the playoffs, the Thunder make the finals, and the future pick is another Paul Pierce.  Who wins?

Most fans are going to want titles but maybe the owners want long term return on investment.  I suspect the spirited debate is going to continue on this one for years.

[Marcus13]

You can't judge the trade based on our peformance in the playoffs.  If the trade wasn't made there is no guarantee we would have won the title, made the finals, progressed to the 2nd round, or even won the first series.  So using this as a benchmark flat out doesn't make any sense.

That makes no sense to me.  This team was in the Finals last season and had the best seed in the Conference when the trades were made.  It was pretty clear we were headed baack

[StartOrien]

I judge by the full outcome by the results, but would only deem something a 'bad trade' if the logic for the trade was unjustifiable. It's not a trade, but thats why I think David Kahn drafting Johnny Flynn was one of the worst picks in the history fo the NBA.

Eddy Curry trade.

The right to swap picks? Chicago won that trade just by getting Eddy Curry off its team.

I think we can deem these "Wait, what?" transactions for short.

[dlpin]

That makes no sense to me.  This team was in the Finals last season and had the best seed in the Conference when the trades were made.  It was pretty clear we were headed baack

Is the reason we lost the #1 seed the trade? To put it in concrete terms, would a team with a rotation of:
Injured Rondo
Allen
Pierce
KG
Perkins
Bradley
Pavlovic
Murphy

keep the #1 seed?

Because the trade is not the only thing that happened from the time we were #1 to now. We also had Rondo missing games and playing injured, we also had West, Von Wafer, BBD missing games because of injury.

[Fan from VT]

It is like what happens often in baseball where Team A trades a prospect to Team B for say a closer.  The closer helps Team A make the WS but then flames out and the prospect becomes and all star in 5 years.  Who won the trade?  Do you know for sure Team A would not have made the WS without the trade?  No but that would generally be the conclusion and criteria for assessing Team A's success.  Team B doesn't even think about judging the trade for years.

So you judge the trade based on what the team got out of it relative to what they hoped for.  If the closer pitched well and saved some big games, it is hard to say it was a bad trade for them even if the prospect becomes Albert Pujols.  But then 5 years later all you hear is, "can you believe that Team A traded Albert Pujols"!

It is funny that the Celtics, a title contender, did kind of the opposite.  They gave up a proven starting center (albeit injured at the time and with uncertain health moving forward) for a lesser center, a young player at a position of need, and a future draft pick.  So do you use the short term or the long term criteria?  Say the Celtics flame out in the playoffs, the Thunder make the finals, and the future pick is another Paul Pierce.  Who wins?

Most fans are going to want titles but maybe the owners want long term return on investment.  I suspect the spirited debate is going to continue on this one for years.

For instance, who won the trade of Hanley Ramirez for Josh Beckett?? Honestly, I'd say both.

[Marcus13]

That makes no sense to me.  This team was in the Finals last season and had the best seed in the Conference when the trades were made.  It was pretty clear we were headed baack

Is the reason we lost the #1 seed the trade? To put it in concrete terms, would a team with a rotation of:
Injured Rondo
Allen
Pierce
KG
Perkins
Bradley
Pavlovic
Murphy

keep the #1 seed?

Because the trade is not the only thing that happened from the time we were #1 to now. We also had Rondo missing games and playing injured, we also had West, Von Wafer, BBD missing games because of injury.

We probably wouldn't have kept the #1 seed and MAY have even finished with a worse record then we will now (not by much tho with how bad we've been)...but we would have been in much better condition going into the playoffs than we are currently constructed

[BballTim]

That makes no sense to me.  This team was in the Finals last season and had the best seed in the Conference when the trades were made.  It was pretty clear we were headed baack

Is the reason we lost the #1 seed the trade? To put it in concrete terms, would a team with a rotation of:
Injured Rondo
Allen
Pierce
KG
Perkins
Bradley
Pavlovic
Murphy

keep the #1 seed?

Because the trade is not the only thing that happened from the time we were #1 to now. We also had Rondo missing games and playing injured, we also had West, Von Wafer, BBD missing games because of injury.

We probably wouldn't have kept the #1 seed and MAY have even finished with a worse record then we will now (not by much tho with how bad we've been)...but we would have been in much better condition going into the playoffs than we are currently constructed

  Perk would have missed most of those games. The big four would be the walking dead by now, especially the older three.

[bbd24]

The Perkins trade can be judged now.  No need to wait.  It was only Perkins you traded away, not one of the core 4.

Easy win win situation for the Celtics in this trade.  Ainge opened up the options when Shaq and JO came into the fold via free agency.  When you add 2 vets like this to the core 4, you don't miss a role player like Perkins.  In fact, your arguably better with those two then with King Perk.  You can make easy trades like this when you've built a team that leads with RR, Ray, PP, and KG.

Add in the fact that you get to upgrade your bench with a Green and Krstic, and you've hit a home run.

The grand slam comes when Ainge hits on the 1st round Clipper pick.

Helluva trade by DA

[Marcus13]

The Perkins trade can be judged now.  No need to wait.  It was only Perkins you traded away, not one of the core 4.

Easy win win situation for the Celtics in this trade.  Ainge opened up the options when Shaq and JO came into the fold via free agency.  When you add 2 vets like this to the core 4, you don't miss a role player like Perkins.  In fact, your arguably better with those two then with King Perk.  You can make easy trades like this when you've built a team that leads with RR, Ray, PP, and KG.

Add in the fact that you get to upgrade your bench with a Green and Krstic, and you've hit a home run.

The grand slam comes when Ainge hits on the 1st round Clipper pick.

Helluva trade by DA

How is it a win-win when we went from winning to losing?

We've missed him (and Shaq) dearly

[BudweiserCeltic]

The Perkins trade can be judged now.  No need to wait.  It was only Perkins you traded away, not one of the core 4.

Easy win win situation for the Celtics in this trade.  Ainge opened up the options when Shaq and JO came into the fold via free agency.  When you add 2 vets like this to the core 4, you don't miss a role player like Perkins.  In fact, your arguably better with those two then with King Perk.  You can make easy trades like this when you've built a team that leads with RR, Ray, PP, and KG.

Add in the fact that you get to upgrade your bench with a Green and Krstic, and you've hit a home run.

The grand slam comes when Ainge hits on the 1st round Clipper pick.

Helluva trade by DA

How is it a win-win when we went from winning to losing?

We've missed him (and Shaq) dearly

Nothing I've seen has led me to believe that the trade was the culprit for our losing. In fact, I could easily argue that due to the trade we've actually won more games that we would have otherwise.

[Fafnir]

The Perkins trade can be judged now.  No need to wait.  It was only Perkins you traded away, not one of the core 4.

Easy win win situation for the Celtics in this trade.  Ainge opened up the options when Shaq and JO came into the fold via free agency.  When you add 2 vets like this to the core 4, you don't miss a role player like Perkins.  In fact, your arguably better with those two then with King Perk.  You can make easy trades like this when you've built a team that leads with RR, Ray, PP, and KG.

Add in the fact that you get to upgrade your bench with a Green and Krstic, and you've hit a home run.

The grand slam comes when Ainge hits on the 1st round Clipper pick.

Helluva trade by DA

How is it a win-win when we went from winning to losing?

We've missed him (and Shaq) dearly

Nothing I've seen has led me to believe that the trade was the culprit for our losing. In fact, I could easily argue that due to the trade we've actually won more games that we would have otherwise.

I do wonder if this trade reveals that Perkins impact on offense has been under rated.

Overall we've had the best defense in the league this year, its our offense that has completely faltered lately.

[dlpin]

I do wonder if this trade reveals that Perkins impact on offense has been under rated.

Overall we've had the best defense in the league this year, its our offense that has completely faltered lately.

But here's the thing, when you look at our decline in offense, it has come mostly in the 4th quarter. During the slump our 4th quarter offense has been almost 5 points worse.

Perk rarely played in the 4th quarter, so I don't think he is the reason for the decline.