Revisiting the Perk for Green trade......

[Roy H.]

Trading Perk cost us a legitimate shot at a championship in 2011.

Interesting why it is trading a one-legged Perk that cost us the championship, and not Shaq's injury. I guess the second interpretation makes it harder to pile on the management.

Not really.  Shaq has said that he told Danny that he might not be able to make it back, even before the Perk trade.  I think there's plenty of criticism for a GM who knowingly trades his starting-caliber center when his other starting-caliber center is possibly out for the season.

[D.o.s.]

Trading Perk cost us a legitimate shot at a championship in 2011.

Until Green helps get us back to that level, I'm still not in love with the trade.  Danny could have waited until the off-season and still signed-and-traded Perk.

Who would you have had pick up the backup SF minutes?

Feel free to list a FA if you have to, but I don't see it from the roster.

[kozlodoev]

Trading Perk cost us a legitimate shot at a championship in 2011.

Interesting why it is trading a one-legged Perk that cost us the championship, and not Shaq's injury. I guess the second interpretation makes it harder to pile on the management.

Not really.  Shaq has said that he told Danny that he might not be able to make it back, even before the Perk trade.  I think there's plenty of criticism for a GM who knowingly trades his starting-caliber center when his other starting-caliber center is possibly out for the season.

Shaq told everyone a million things that may or may not be true. He certainly told the press some things that clearly weren't true. Unless Ainge confirms he's known that Shaq won't be able to go (and I haven't seen this anywhere), I'm taking all of this with a Shaq-sized grain of salt.

[LB3533]

Trading Perk cost us a legitimate shot at a championship in 2011.

Interesting why it is trading a one-legged Perk that cost us the championship, and not Shaq's injury. I guess the second interpretation makes it harder to pile on the management.

Not really.  Shaq has said that he told Danny that he might not be able to make it back, even before the Perk trade.  I think there's plenty of criticism for a GM who knowingly trades his starting-caliber center when his other starting-caliber center is possibly out for the season.

Perk only played in like 11 or 12 games for the C's before he was dealt and he may have only started like 7 or 8 of those games.

We had already played like a top 2 or 3 team for the whole season without Perk. Perk was expendable, and still a tradeable asset, someone wanted him.

It's not easy to get younger talent back, another starting Center and a draft pick in a midseason trade, yet Danny pulled it off for an injury prone big man looking to cash in on his next deal.

[Boris Badenov]

Trading Perk cost us a legitimate shot at a championship in 2011.

Interesting why it is trading a one-legged Perk that cost us the championship, and not Shaq's injury. I guess the second interpretation makes it harder to pile on the management.

Not really.  Shaq has said that he told Danny that he might not be able to make it back, even before the Perk trade.  I think there's plenty of criticism for a GM who knowingly trades his starting-caliber center when his other starting-caliber center is possibly out for the season.

I think we all tend to ascribe more certainty to things after the fact.

Trading Perkins was a gamble, in which Danny was weighing not only the probability that Shaq would return, but a number of other things. JO could've gotten healthier or played better. Krstic could've played better. Green could've played better. Perk could've come back for three games, then tweaked his knee and been out for the season.

Alternatively, with no Perk trade we would've been looking for a backup SF. Uncertainty there too.

Danny also could not have know how the trade would affect chemistry. Even if players talk about chemistry with their buddies, they often react quite well to the new guys too.

And we don't know what other trades Danny was weighing, some of which might've helped or hurt the team more.

Most important of all, I think, was that Danny probably believed we wouldn't be playing a classic 5 more than 20 minutes per game in the playoffs against our biggest threat, Miami.

In my opinion, there's no way even now to definitively assess whether the trade was good at the time it was made in terms of either our short-run chances at a ring, or our longer-run success as a team.

We all know how things worked out, but there was just so much uncertainty involved, so I don't think the outcome really tells us much about the quality of Danny's decision.

[SHAQATTACK]

this trade , has to be one most controversial  deals in Celtics recent history , It will be brought up from time to time  , or at least till Green and Perk are no longer in the NBA.

I wasn't on board with it at all the day it happened, Perk was important at that moment in time..   But, I've decided , its done and Jeff is a good player and valuable to the team now too.

Perk maybe available  for a rerun  ....

[sed522002]

I think for most people it's not comparing them as players and their contribution, but the timing of when the trade happened.

[ItStaysYang]

Do we have to revisit it again?

Green was a free agent this past year, he chose to be a Celtic.  The end.

Most sensible post I've ever seen

[TripleOT]

In the grand scheme of things, a competent backup SF was not more important to the 2011 team than a starting center.  Throw in the tremendous synergy the Perk, KG PP RA and RR group had developed, and breaking it up was a risky more that failed. I hated the trade, and feel it cost the team a championship, if not in 2011 in 2012.   

However, Green is certainly an asset, although an inconsistent, highly paid one. If Green continues his progress, he could be an all star.  As a starter this past season, in a small sample of 17 games, Green put up 20 ppg on 52/52/76% shooting, and an impressive 1.42 points per shot. He's not going to hit the threeball at 52% for an entire season, but numbers anything close to those as a full time starter is all star caliber.

Green's stats are almost at his starter numbers for these playoffs so far, with shooting percentages a hair lower at 
45/47% and it's taking him 7 extra minutes to get his 20 PPG.  1.38 points per shot is still good.  Melo, for example, is at 1.12 points per shot and is shooting 39/27%
   

[More Banners]

Green was obviously out, and Perk was injured.  Neither really contributed at 100% until, perhaps, this season (though Jeff didn't get going right away).

The trade didn't cost us a title.  Perk wasn't going to win us a championship.  Come on.

Perk, solid role player and defensive presence, for a more versatile, talented player and a 1st.  It just took 2 years to work out.

Risks that lost out were Curly leaving due to the lockout.  He would have been great to have for the last couple of years.

Everyone just loves some Perk, as do I, but if this is still fodder after this long, Ainge is going to burn if he trades Pierce.

[Evantime34]

I think it was a good trade for us, but imagine if we were able to get Harden (original version of the deal)

[KGs Knee]

Trading Perk cost us a legitimate shot at a championship in 2011.

Until Green helps get us back to that level, I'm still not in love with the trade.  Danny could have waited until the off-season and still signed-and-traded Perk.

I'm in agreement with you that Ainge should have waited until the season was over to pursue a S&T, but one aspect of this that is overlooked, is that it would not have been for Jeff Green.

Green was also a FA that off-season, and as it turns out, had a heart condition.  If we had tried to move Perk for Green at that time, the trade would have never went through.

Maybe we trade Perk elsewhere, maybe we get a better asset, maybe we get nothing.  As much as I hated the trade at the time, and still to this day don't love it; it could have been much worse.

[Interceptor]

I don't think that Harden was ever seriously available.

The loss of Perk cost us a title... in 2010. Hard to make the argument that he would have been the difference in 2011. It's not like a slow seven-footer is the key to beating the Miami Heat in a playoff series, a point made even more obvious by how Perk got carved up on OKC in 2012. Shaq probably would have been a difference-maker for us, but that's because Shaq gives us buckets; Perk is no Shaq.

Losing Rondo was a bigger factor.

[manl_lui]

I don't think that Harden was ever seriously available.

The loss of Perk cost us a title... in 2010. Hard to make the argument that he would have been the difference in 2011. It's not like a slow seven-footer is the key to beating the Miami Heat in a playoff series, a point made even more obvious by how Perk got carved up on OKC in 2012. Shaq probably would have been a difference-maker for us, but that's because Shaq gives us buckets; Perk is no Shaq.

Losing Rondo was a bigger factor.

^This

[LooseCannon]

Think about this.  If Perk doesn't get injured, all of Ainge's rationale for trading him still exist, even if the Celtics win the title.  In the summer of 2010, could Ainge have gotten more for a healthy Perkins?  I believe Ainge would have shopped Perkins around then.  I probably would have posted here suggesting that Ainge explore that option.