Would "the window" have remained open longer if we'd kept Perk?

[Fafnir]

The window wouldn't be open any longer, we're going to be contenders this coming season again at best then its time to rebuild.

Perkins would give us a better shot this year, but a worse shot going forward as we'd be in a worse position to rebuild.

[Fafnir]

Well Green isn't signing for less than that.

I've been telling people since the trade that he's resigning here behind Pierce, but a ton of people still think that's gonna happen.

I was just answering the question.  Having Green as a FA doesn't extend the window or put the team in a better position to rebuild anymore than having Perk as a FA would.

Then he'll be playing for the QO, which I'd be pretty happy with.

[mgent]

   
And signing Green to 12+ mil per year to back up Pierce doesn't hurt us?

Guys, we wouldn't have kept Perk either way.  He most likely would have walked if he wanted more than 7-8 mil.

The only difference is now Ainge probably feels obligated to sign Green no matter what otherwise he really would have let Perk go for nothing, and threw in Nate and banner 18 as filler.

I disagree.  If there is anything you should have learned about Danny, it's that he is never under pressure to justify his trades or draft picks.  That's why he is a great GM, and I'm so glad he's our GM.

He would be more than willing to sign-and-trade Jeff Green if he thought the deal would make the team better, or at least not significantly hurt the team now with the hopes of making it better in the future.

Doesn't matter.  If Danny's plan was to let Green walk then I don't see how he was thinking the trade was gonna make us better for the present or future when he made it.

[Fafnir]

Even assuming for a moment that last year's team wasn't going to win a championship with or without Perk, is it fair to say that it's left us in a worse position to compete for a title over the next year or two?

I can entertain the argument that the Celtics w/ Perkins this year may have had a better shot to win than w/o him (though I think the Miami series proved that wrong.)

I cannot entertain the argument that signing him long term to 8-10 million per makes the team better in the future.  Since the argument is tenuous that w/ Perk the team would have won this year, it's tenuous again for next year.  Miami is still there waiting in the EC Finals at least.  Not to mention Chicago.   

Yeah, this article kind of went off into the "would Danny have signed him" tangent.  I was curious 1) if we'd be better if we'd kept Perk and signed a free agent SF (I say yes), and 2) if we'd still be a contender over the next year or two (I say probably).

It's that second question I'm most interested in.  If we could have brought back last year's team plus Perk, a free agent SF (Prince?  AK47? Battier?  Hill?  Dunleavy?), and some additional depth, could we have competed for a title?

Unless Danny pulls a fairly massive rabbit out of his hat, I get the feeling that the window is now closed (or very close to shut).  Would it have been, though, if we'd pursued a different strategy?

Absolutely.

I don't know if anyone else has brought this up yet but from a front office perspective, Green is gonna sell more tickets than Perk would have if the window really is closed.  As fans we never look it at that way, but I'm sure that was at least part of the reason for the trade.  It makes us a little bit more competitive if we get stuck in a rebuilding phase.

I hate this expression, because its incredibly inaccurate.

Jeff Green doesn't sell tickets, and neither does Paul Pierce. What sells tickets is winning basketball games. What a "star" player can do is sell merchandise off the court, even then the effect is so much smaller than winning games its silly to think that it even enters into a GMs mind.

[Fafnir]

Doesn't matter.  If Danny's plan was to let Green walk then I don't see how he was thinking the trade was gonna make us better for the present or future when he made it.

You're completely ignoring the fact that Danny clearly wanted a SF for last year more than a Perkins. (he was counting on the O'Neals)

He also has stated that he plans on using restricted FA to his advantage with Green, he's not going to sign him to a huge deal just to justify the trade he made. Letting Jeff Green walk for nothing would be a bad outcome, but overpaying him would be a much worse one.

[mgent]

Well Green isn't signing for less than that.

I've been telling people since the trade that he's resigning here behind Pierce, but a ton of people still think that's gonna happen.

I was just answering the question.  Having Green as a FA doesn't extend the window or put the team in a better position to rebuild anymore than having Perk as a FA would.

Then he'll be playing for the QO, which I'd be pretty happy with.

Me too, I was talking about next year.

We wouldn't have been in a worse position if we didn't make the trade and let Perk walk.  I don't think the OP was talking about if we resigned Perk (that wouldn't have even happened yet).  We'd have the same shot at rebuilding and going forward if we let Green walk this year or next as we would if we let Perk walk.

[mgent]

Even assuming for a moment that last year's team wasn't going to win a championship with or without Perk, is it fair to say that it's left us in a worse position to compete for a title over the next year or two?

I can entertain the argument that the Celtics w/ Perkins this year may have had a better shot to win than w/o him (though I think the Miami series proved that wrong.)

I cannot entertain the argument that signing him long term to 8-10 million per makes the team better in the future.  Since the argument is tenuous that w/ Perk the team would have won this year, it's tenuous again for next year.  Miami is still there waiting in the EC Finals at least.  Not to mention Chicago.   

Yeah, this article kind of went off into the "would Danny have signed him" tangent.  I was curious 1) if we'd be better if we'd kept Perk and signed a free agent SF (I say yes), and 2) if we'd still be a contender over the next year or two (I say probably).

It's that second question I'm most interested in.  If we could have brought back last year's team plus Perk, a free agent SF (Prince?  AK47? Battier?  Hill?  Dunleavy?), and some additional depth, could we have competed for a title?

Unless Danny pulls a fairly massive rabbit out of his hat, I get the feeling that the window is now closed (or very close to shut).  Would it have been, though, if we'd pursued a different strategy?

Absolutely.

I don't know if anyone else has brought this up yet but from a front office perspective, Green is gonna sell more tickets than Perk would have if the window really is closed.  As fans we never look it at that way, but I'm sure that was at least part of the reason for the trade.  It makes us a little bit more competitive if we get stuck in a rebuilding phase.

I hate this expression, because its incredibly inaccurate.

Jeff Green doesn't sell tickets, and neither does Paul Pierce. What sells tickets is winning basketball games. What a "star" player can do is sell merchandise off the court, even then the effect is so much smaller than winning games its silly to think that it even enters into a GMs mind.

You don't think we'd win more games with Rondo, Green, and a bunch of scrubs than Rondo, Perk, and a bunch of scrubs or just Rondo and the same bunch?

[Fafnir]

Well Green isn't signing for less than that.

I've been telling people since the trade that he's resigning here behind Pierce, but a ton of people still think that's gonna happen.

I was just answering the question.  Having Green as a FA doesn't extend the window or put the team in a better position to rebuild anymore than having Perk as a FA would.

Then he'll be playing for the QO, which I'd be pretty happy with.

Me too, I was talking about next year.

We wouldn't have been in a worse position if we didn't make the trade and let Perk walk.  I don't think the OP was talking about if we resigned Perk (that wouldn't have even happened yet).  We'd have the same shot at rebuilding and going forward if we let Green walk this year or next as we would if we let Perk walk.

From a rebuilding perspective we absolutely would have been if Perkins truly was going to be let go (based on what OKC was clearly willing to pay him)

You're making Jeff Green's future a binary one of "walk" or "overpaid". All of this fast forwarding to next year. Jeff Green at the moment gives the team options going forward, which is better than just having Perkins gone.

[Fafnir]

You don't think we'd win more games with Rondo, Green, and a bunch of scrubs than Rondo, Perk, and a bunch of scrubs or just Rondo and the same bunch?

I think a C of Perkins level is more valuable to a team than a SF of Green's level (if he doesn't improve markedly).

I also don't think Green adds more than low single digit wins at best to a Rondo led team, not enough to help the bottom line compared to how much a large contract like that would cost the team in salary. When you expand the perspective to include contract flexibility that's an even worse rationale to sign him.

[mgent]

Doesn't matter.  If Danny's plan was to let Green walk then I don't see how he was thinking the trade was gonna make us better for the present or future when he made it.

You're completely ignoring the fact that Danny clearly wanted a SF for last year more than a Perkins. (he was counting on the O'Neals)

He also has stated that he plans on using restricted FA to his advantage with Green, he's not going to sign him to a huge deal just to justify the trade he made. Letting Jeff Green walk for nothing would be a bad outcome, but overpaying him would be a much worse one.

Well my argument from the beginning was the trade doesn't make us better for the present (and it obviously did the opposite) and the only reasonable argument I got back was "it's not for the present, it's for the future."

As for your last statement, I 100% agree, and I didn't know Danny had stated such plans.  That puts a little more ease in my mind.

[mgent]

Well Green isn't signing for less than that.

I've been telling people since the trade that he's resigning here behind Pierce, but a ton of people still think that's gonna happen.

I was just answering the question.  Having Green as a FA doesn't extend the window or put the team in a better position to rebuild anymore than having Perk as a FA would.

Then he'll be playing for the QO, which I'd be pretty happy with.

Me too, I was talking about next year.

We wouldn't have been in a worse position if we didn't make the trade and let Perk walk.  I don't think the OP was talking about if we resigned Perk (that wouldn't have even happened yet).  We'd have the same shot at rebuilding and going forward if we let Green walk this year or next as we would if we let Perk walk.

From a rebuilding perspective we absolutely would have been if Perkins truly was going to be let go (based on what OKC was clearly willing to pay him)

You're making Jeff Green's future a binary one of "walk" or "overpaid". All of this fast forwarding to next year. Jeff Green at the moment gives the team options going forward, which is better than just having Perkins gone.

Well the only other option going forward is sign and trade no?  That'd obviously be ideal but all know how unlikely those are.

[mgent]

You don't think we'd win more games with Rondo, Green, and a bunch of scrubs than Rondo, Perk, and a bunch of scrubs or just Rondo and the same bunch?

I think a C of Perkins level is more valuable to a team than a SF of Green's level (if he doesn't improve markedly).

I also don't think Green adds more than low single digit wins at best to a Rondo led team, not enough to help the bottom line compared to how much a large contract like that would cost the team in salary. When you expand the perspective to include contract flexibility that's an even worse rationale to sign him.

A.  It's not my perspective, I was speculating on Danny/the front office's perspective.

B.  Danny obviously doesn't agree with that first statement if he made the trade.

[Fafnir]

Well Green isn't signing for less than that.

I've been telling people since the trade that he's resigning here behind Pierce, but a ton of people still think that's gonna happen.

I was just answering the question.  Having Green as a FA doesn't extend the window or put the team in a better position to rebuild anymore than having Perk as a FA would.

Then he'll be playing for the QO, which I'd be pretty happy with.

Me too, I was talking about next year.

We wouldn't have been in a worse position if we didn't make the trade and let Perk walk.  I don't think the OP was talking about if we resigned Perk (that wouldn't have even happened yet).  We'd have the same shot at rebuilding and going forward if we let Green walk this year or next as we would if we let Perk walk.

From a rebuilding perspective we absolutely would have been if Perkins truly was going to be let go (based on what OKC was clearly willing to pay him)

You're making Jeff Green's future a binary one of "walk" or "overpaid". All of this fast forwarding to next year. Jeff Green at the moment gives the team options going forward, which is better than just having Perkins gone.

Well the only other option going forward is sign and trade no?  That'd obviously be ideal but all know how unlikely those are.

Depends entirely on the new CBA how unlikely they are, and they could certainly sign him to a good value contract after the QO.

It also gives the team flexibility to bring him back, or utilize cap space in other ways when cutting ties with him. Meanwhile if he plays for the QO the C's will have his services for the upcoming season, which is a very good thing given how much we need a backup SG/SF.

[Fafnir]

You don't think we'd win more games with Rondo, Green, and a bunch of scrubs than Rondo, Perk, and a bunch of scrubs or just Rondo and the same bunch?

I think a C of Perkins level is more valuable to a team than a SF of Green's level (if he doesn't improve markedly).

I also don't think Green adds more than low single digit wins at best to a Rondo led team, not enough to help the bottom line compared to how much a large contract like that would cost the team in salary. When you expand the perspective to include contract flexibility that's an even worse rationale to sign him.

A.  It's not my perspective, I was speculating on Danny/the front office's perspective.

B.  Danny obviously doesn't agree with that first statement if he made the trade.

Huh, I don't get your point A. Unless you disagree that winning games drives ticket sales.

As for your point B, your logic is faulty because of Danny had two replacement Cs on the roster that made the drop off from Perkins rather small in his view (and my own). The fact that both subsequently got hurt meant that it was a gamble that didn't work out.

[mgent]

Huh, I don't get your point A. Unless you disagree that winning games drives ticket sales.

I already said I thought the team would be more competitive with Green in a rebuilding setting where he would get a lot of touches compared to with Perk or nobody if Perk walked, especially if you think about how pathetic a team whose best players are Rondo and Perk would be offensively.

I don't really have anything else to say about the trade (other than that I'm against it since you confused mine and Danny's opinions before you edited your post).  I hated it then and I hated it now, I don't think having a backup SF playing during a bridge year for the QO was worth giving up Perk during a contending year.