Post-game Reactions

Guess what?  The NBA is in the midst of a league-crippling lockout.  Oh, you’ve heard?  Well, that means that while we jump on every little insignificant bit of news coming out of Celtics’ camp, will also be revisiting some parts of last season that deserve more analysis/snark/discussion.

This feature will be aptly titled “Revisits” and the execution will take many forms.  Today Hayes, Ryan, and I will be talking about the Perkins Trade (also covered by old friend Zach Lowe at SI).  In our first installment, here’s Hayes with a viewpoint I am sure many will agree with.  Be sure to check out CelticsHub.com later today for other takes.

* * *

I think the Kendrick Perkins trade was a huge mistake with major and immediate negative effects.

I’ll choose to ignore the whole chemistry argument: while trading a core player probably didn’t improve the team’s chemistry, I have no evidence to back that up, so I forbid it from entering this discussion even though it supports my point. I think the case against the Perk trade can be made with numbers alone.

I’ll also concede that the Celtics’ defensive efficiency barely dipped after Perk was shipped out. This kind of makes sense because the defense is a system of moving parts and any single part, except Kevin Garnett, is pretty much replaceable. The D abides.

But Perkins could have really helped against the Heat. And he absolutely would have helped a lot more than Jeff Green did.

Here’s the strongest evidence, in my view, that Perkins could have contributed against Miami: In their four losses, the Celtics outscored the Heat by 4 points when Jermaine O’Neal was on the floor.

Outscored. In four games which the Celtics lost by a total of 38 points, they outscored the Heat by 4 (four) when their lone living center was in the game. Game by game, his plus minus was 2, 0, -2, and 4, in that order. That means the Heat scored 42 more points than the Celtics when Jermaine was on the bench. I triple-checked that math and I’m almost sure it’s correct.

Jermaine started every game and was usually the first guy off the floor, so please don’t suggest that it was because he played against the Heat bench. And it certainly had nothing to do with his scoring: he ended up with an average of 7 points in those four games.

No, Jermaine earned the Celtics’ lone positive plus/minus mark because he offered a second rebounder to Kevin Garnett and could serviceably defend the rim. That’s it. That’s all the Celtics needed out of their center. But because Jermaine O’Neal was playing hurt and Shaq wasn’t playing at all (a scenario entertained by literally everyone at the beginning of the season), we only got an average of about twenty minutes of true center play per game.

I wrote about the center position and rebounding concerns a whole bunch after the trade. Ultimately, the Celtics tied the Heat once on the boards and were outrebounded three times in their losses, including by seven-effing-teen in Game 4, a game that went to overtime. Here’s what some people said after that game: “Even if the Celtics had Perkins, they wouldn’t have won that game in overtime.” Cool observation! But do you think there’s a chance that they might have avoided overtime if they hadn’t been outrebounded by double digits because they traded their starting center away for nothing?

Even on a bum knee, it seems reasonable to expect that Perkins could have matched or exceeded Jermaine’s play while adding at least ten more minutes of floor time. He had an almost identical Defensive Rebound Rating to Jermaine’s in the playoffs with Oklahoma City (against better-rebounding centers), and his shooting percentage was almost ten points higher. Don’t forget that, if Perkins had stayed, Jermaine could have made his contributions OFF THE BENCH, meaning that the Celtics would not have been forced to go one hot second without a true center on the floor. Given how Jermaine performed on his own, I have a hard time believing that more than doubling his minutes with no cost to his output wouldn’t have made a difference.

I’m out of room, so I can’t get into how mediocre a basketball player Jeff Green is, or my elaborate plan to kill myself if the Celtics re-sign him to even a medium-sized contract. Suffice it to say that Danny Ainge shouldn’t have traded Kendrick Perkins at all, but if he had to, he should have gotten a LOT more in return.

The following two tabs change content below.

Hayes Davenport

Latest posts by Hayes Davenport (see all)

Share →
  • zach

    I think your agrument fails to take into account the fact that JO is a much better offensive player than Perk (especially the Perk of last year), and we could not score against the Heat. So I am not sure Perk would have helped in the minutes he played. He has putrid againt the Grizzlies

    • I_Love_Green

      JO scored 7 points a game against the heat, so I'm not sure what you're getting at…

      • jan

        I'm stretching it pretty thin here, but the better floor-spacing JO provided, along with better offensive awareness, (maybe) better ball movement and the fact that as somewhat of an offensive threat the Heat D would have to concentrate on him may have helped our offense move a bit more smoothly.

      • zach

        True, but that was 7 points in 20 minutes and importantly he hit really difficult shots and required coverage, whereas any points Perk got this post-season were when he was left completely open. As Jan mentioned the floor spacing resulting from the fact JO required a Heat defender may have contributed to the favorable +/1, and I am not sure that would have translated to Perk just because he plays the same position. I love Perk but I watched the Grizz series really closely and he was just not there physically and really hurt his team. Hope he comes back strong next year

        • paul

          No, zach, Perkins didn't hurt his team. Perkins helped his team drive nearly to the finals, losing to the eventual champion. I watched that series closely too. Perkins gave up a lot because of his physical condition, but he STILL was a rock for the Thunder defense, and a leader, and that still counted for a lot. You seem to forget that fantasy basketball is different from real basketball. In fantasy basketball, you can just add up stats. The real world is a lot more complex, thank god. You can be sure that the Thunder are very excited to see what Perkins gives them next year, considering what he gave them on such short recovery from injury.

    • paul

      No, Perkins was not putrid against the Grizzlies. If he were, his team would have lost. He gave the Thunder the defensive presence they wanted. He was an actual starting center. I love what JO did for us, but he should have been coming off the bench, backing Perkins. Do a thought experiment for yourself. Imagine Perk starting and JO backing him. Yes, that would have made a HELL OF A difference against the Heat. No, we wouldn't have been more athletic, but if our plan was to beat the Heat by being more athletic, we never had a chance on that one. But you would have had two beat up centers, playing with mountains of heart, wrecking the ******* Heat.

  • Reignlatin

    When the Perkins Trade is mentioned it's always about the loss of defense and rebounding and how Jeff Green was no help at all. Then of course the O'Neals where injured and we had 1/2 a center left.

    That is all true, but I think there is another thing that relates to the trade and rarely gets mentioned. Glen Davis! He was/is the 6th man and usually was on the floor with Perk on the bench in the 4th quarter. Yes he is not a center and not as good a defender, but he played great until the trade.

    I believe that his good performance was part of the decision to make the trade. This guy should have been the insurance if Green doesn't work out and injuries occur, and he totaly broke down!

    • paul

      Don't you think The Trade had something to do with Davis getting confused about his role and losing his focus? How would you feel if you were well established as the sixth man, only to see the team bring in a new (apparent) sixth man, whose specific claim to fame is scoring? Of course Davis began to have an identity crisis. Most people would in a situation like that.

  • kricky


    It's amazing how people forget about rebounding. This was the Achilles' heal this year and last — How many 2nd chance points did we give up in Game 7 in last year's finals (again without Perk on the floor)?

  • zach

    Perk was a very different player this year and did not rebound well in the playoffs. Perk of 2 years ago would have helped with defense and rebounding, but not the Perk who played in last year's playoffs

    • paul

      You don't understand basketball at all, do you? A lot of Perk's affect shows up in other people's statistics. For example, his presence on the Thunder made Ibaka a much better rebounder, defender, scorer and all around player. Even injured, he controls the paint, takes up space, and creates room for players with more slashing ability, like Garnett. We needed Garnett to rule against the Heat. With Perkins in there, he would have had a much better chance of doing that.

  • julienmachetmusic

    numbers and stats are hints of teams and players' efficiency, but I think chemistry is a big reason why the Celtics failed. We lost game 7 against L.A in 2010, giving up a 13 point lead….Perkins was not on the floor.
    The last game The C's played with Perkins this year was against Golden State: it was one of the most brilliant/controlled game I have seen them play in a long time. Team chemistry, smooth ball movement, and at the end a destructive victory….Ainge is a donkey, unless he really had to do this trade for business reasons, which I don't feel like he had to. He is an egotistical/narcissistic guy who gambled all his players' career history to see if the world could call him a genius by making a controversial trade…Peace.

    • CG12

      "Which I don't feel like he had to"? Based on what? From everything I've ever heard, there were a lot of reasons to think that the Cs would not have been able to re-sign Perk. And who says they would have wanted to? We knew what Perk was – a good glue guy who played D and was a significant liability on O. And somewhat injury-prone. JO scored more effectively, blocked more shots, and turned it over much less than Perk. The Perk trade was all about rolling the dice on Shaq and planning for the future. It didn't work out, but I can't and don't blame management for doing it. Particularly in light of the lockout.

      I liked Perk, too, but the relentless second-guessing is tiresome. And Jeff Green may end up sucking – last year wasn't enough to really show. It wasn't all that promising, but he showed some tools. I was impressed by his D on Leboner and liked his energy running the floor.

      Let us also not forget the 1st round pick the Cs got.

      It isn't fun to have to make tough business deals that mean losing players you have gotten attached to, but the Patriots have made a killing doing that for years. The Cs are trying to do the same thing. I hope people remember a gentleman named James Posey, who everyone was screaming about because Danny wouldn't give him four years, and who has fossilized before our very eyes over the last few years. The arm-chair GMs out there should recognize that, just maybe, Danny Ainge has some idea what he is doing.

      • paul

        Always these blatantly false arguments from Danny Defenders. How on earth do you use Perkins contract, which was a post-season issue, to justify blowing up a team that was on the verge of the playoffs as probably the leading championship contender? You don't. And you know it.

        It's not the second guessing that's tiresome. It's you folks who bow down to authority, to the point where you'll defend the indefensible. It would be almost impossible to imagine a more crazy and reckless trade, outside of trading Larry Bird for another team's mascot, yet you defend it.

        • CG12

          Simmer down, tough guy. "Bow down to authority"? Be real. And keep acting like you know everything from the safety of the anonymous internet. Unless I am deeply mistaken, you probably don't run a professional basketball team, and therefore may know slightly less than Danny Ainge. The use of the words "crazy" and "reckless" show that your comments are to push an agenda, not to objectively analyze the trade. Reasonable minds could disagree, but no reasonable mind could call it indefensible. But it is easy to say that, seeing that it didn't work out.

          Danny Ainge has to run the team for the long haul. That team was never going to win a championship with so little depth at the wing, so he made a gamble, trying to get the team some flexibility for the future while adding critical depth at the Cs weakest position.

    • paul

      I thought that that Golden State game was the turning point. You could see that the Cs had finally put it all together. It wasn't a blowout, but that's what made it so important. It was a methodical destruction of a dangerous team in a tough arena. It was a team that had made up its mind to take care of business.

      And then Ainge went crazy.

  • I_Love_Green

    In other news, Mike Longabardi is now our top assistant.

  • kricky

    I think we may be arguing different things here:

    Did the trade make the Cs a worse team last year? Yes. DEFINITELY. I think it really hurt the chemistry and Green was basically a Bust.

    Did it cost us a championship? Probably not. The bench would have still been an issue if we had kept Perk. And as Zach rightly points out, Perk's play did fall off during the course of the playoffs.

    In order to win it all we needed one of two things: Shaq's return to his form at the beginning of the season or 2) the acquisition of a good reserve wing before the deadline (i..e someone to fill the T.Allen/Posey role like Shane Battier)

    • paul

      How do you even justify to yourself talking bs like this? The bench became a huge issue because Danny traded most of the bench away along with the starting center, with the result that team cohesion was blown to hell. How can you put a solid bench together in just a month before the playoffs, working with a bunch of castoffs? You can't. The loss of Daniels hurt, but nowhere near the point of requiring a near total team makeover. And YOU KNOW THIS. Stop defending the indefensible.

      Same for your point about Shaq. To gamble on Shaq's health, when he was obviously out for the season, or we'd be very very lucky to have him back at all, was just crazy, reckless. It was managerial malpractice by Ainge. Yet you, like so many others, bow down to The Man.

    • John Doe

      Some good arguments.
      Important to remember that the C's had no playable centers at the time of the trade. Perk was injured for the second time and was not returning for a minimum of 3 weeks down the stretch of the regular season. Both O'Neals were out, and Semi Erden needed shoulder surgery. Marquis Daniels' injury meant that Pierce was then going to log heroic minutes, and with Delonte West out, Ray Allen did not have a reasonable sub-in. For this reason, I don't blame Ainge at all for picking up a wing with scoring ability and a starting center (Krstic).
      With little or no bench, and no sub for Pierce, no way would Boston have made the Finals, and I honestly do not believe they would have outlasted Miami.

  • dslack

    Yes, all good points. Also, there's this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UzOhDYMloE

    (Apologies for the levity, but I saw this video and thought it was pretty great.)

  • dasein

    what do those giffs have to do with anything?

    • strips

      a more amusing replacement for emoticons

  • Shaun

    Perkins was horrible in the playoffs for OKC. They ended up playing Collison more minuted in may games. You're thinking of Perkins 1-2 years prior when he was much better. HAving said that he's never been an overly dominant rebounder. Post defender – yes…rebounder – no. Check his stats – they're not overwhelming.
    I'd say if Glen Davis could have given them some useful minutes scoring and rebounding that would have been huge for Boston.

    • paul

      No, Perkins was not horrible. Collison played brilliantly, and having Perkins there as the starter helped with that. Can you imagine Collison as a starting center? No. Not at all. He's brilliant coming off the bench the way he did. Having a guy like Perkins makes other people better. If you don't get that, you just don't understand the game.

  • Dom

    Im not a celtic fan but i think there is a serious element you arent commenting on. Perk;s knee. For ainge thats all this is about. was he going to extend a long term deal to a guy coming off horrific knee surgery. Come on look at portland and Oden. Even look at Bynum for the Lakers. Centers take a very long to to recover from these types of knee injuries. And perk was slow as hell to start with. If im ainge i cant take the risk of having to wait at least until next year to find out if perk was going to come back to his pre injury form or not. Taking into account the ages of the big 3 i think ainge made the best business decision for the team.

    We arent discussing the perkins from before his injury. Ainge has the medical info and a lot more information than we do. he also isnt stupid dont forget he brought you a championship.

    • paul

      You don't get it at all, do you? YOU DO NOT DUMP YOUR STARTING CENTER ON THE VERGE OF THE PLAYOFFS WHEN YOU ARE THE LEADING CONTENDER. No no no no no. You don't do it.

    • roy woods

      youre point would be valid if and forgive the comparison but he kept kg when kg had a bum knee and worked his way back…. again forgive the comparison because perkins no where near the force that garnett is….. however we are talking about moving parts and part of celitcs stifling defense was the fact that you had kg and perk back to cover if you if the guards got left ….. so ainge was looking at perkins knee however he looked the other way on kgs knee

  • jan

    If Shaq was healthy though, he would have been able to fill the hole at the 5 spot better than KP. And in that situation, Jeff Green would have been more useful than Perkins.

    So it was an Ainge gamble on Shaq returning healthy. He didn't, but if he had done so, the trade would have been a net positive.

    • paul

      You do realize that you are talking crazy, right? You want Shaq, a very old player who has suffered chronically from injury problems in recent years, to come back in his peak early season form, after looking like he was probably out for the season, and you think Ainge did the right thing by gambling on that happening?

      IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A FREAKING MIRACLE!!! It was amazing enough that Jermaine came back.

      So you think Ainge did a smart thing by gambling on a miracle… rather than staying with what he had, which was a starting center that he knew the team played well with…

  • Alexis Torres

    Good points on the JO having a neutral +/- but I think there are too many assumptions here.

    It would be quite possible that Miami’s offensive and defensive strategies will have adjusted to Perk’s presence. Remember how their Center would basically play free safety when JO’s not on the court? That could have happened if Perk were there. Even less space for the Big 4 to operate.

    Again, I’m being too hypothetical. I would think though your argument is valid if we lost on the boards and thus lost the games.

    I think it’s been discussed before that it wasn’t our lack of defense but rather a lack of offense that killed us this year. YMMV.

    • paul

      Oh God!!! People are just talking total nonsense, and they have to know it. Listen, if Perkins' man played off him too much, the Cs would have found Perkins with sharp passes, such as the Thunder were not able to do.

      Your point about defense vs offense is also nonsense. First, we went from having a killer defense to having a strong defense. That's a big drop, even if it doesn't show up in stats that much. At the same time, our offense lost so much cohesion that Rondo had to throw out the playbook. Do you not comprehend that that was devastating to us? Yes, we could still play good offense, just not championship level.

  • vic hwang

    When people look at that championship celtic team- they forget the intangible guys and always talk about the big 3+ rondo. However- the real glue guys on that playoff run were- PJ Brown- he was on the floor more than perk in the playoffs, Leon Powe who was much better than glen davis and was an offensive rebounding nightmare for opposing teams, James posey who was a lockdown perimeter defender who gave kobe fits, sam cassell- veteran point guard leadership off the bench and eddie house- who nailed 3's. Danny Ainge gave to much credit to the big 3+ rondo and forgot about the glue guys.

    • kricky

      I miss Leon 🙁

      I think we would have had a shot to Repeat in '09 (even without KG) if Leon hadn't gotten hurt too.

      Too bad about his knees. I'd love to see him bounce back and he is in a good situation with the Grizz.

    • paul

      It's not that Danny gave too much credit to the Big Four. It's that he didn't appreciate chemistry. How a guy who formerly played on great teams could ignore that we will never understand.

  • Sean

    I have to disagree. The season was lost… when Marquis went down. Yes, it sounds like a stretch. But there was no reason to trade anyone if you have a suitable back up to spell Paul Pierce and/or Ray Allen. Literally, who did we have to play SF behind Pierce post-Daniels? Seriously, who? Paul's a beast, but he would have been done before the playoffs started if he was playing advanced minutes. Plus, banking on Perkins- bad knee, shoulder issues, limited athleticism and potential- over the next few years is also a riskier investment than banking on Green, who is young and has a huge upside. I hated the trade too, but it was necessary, and it was a gamble that needed to be made.

    • paul

      It's not a stretch. It's sheer idiocy. No, you DON'T trade your starting center for a backup small forward on the verge of the playoffs when you are the leading contender. No. Daniels was important to us, but NOWHERE near that important, and you know it. We could have covered for losing him, or picked up a stopgap player. We did NOT need to make a crazy trade.

  • Phoured

    Players i want for 2012:
    Dwight Howard
    Gerald Wallace
    Mickael Pietrus
    Chauncy Billups
    Matt Barnes
    All would be good role players around our core of rondo pierce and howard

  • C's Fan

    This article is right on target. It surprises me how so many people try to find a way to make any sense out of this trade and in some way justify it. Before the playoffs it was "we'll have to wait and see how they do, before we know whether or not it was a good trade". False. It was a bad trade no matter what happened. Now I hear "Perk wouldn't have helped anyway". Are you nuts? None of the people Ainge traded for, helped or will ever help for that matter. I also hear "they weren't going to keep Perk anyway". Why? He is only making $1.2mil more next season than the qualifying offer for Green and that doesn't necessarily mean the C's could Green for that, if they even want him. They would have been better off to keep Perk and just let him walk at the end of the season. What bothers me most is I always hear how the C's hold people accountable. But, no one seems to want to hold Ainge accountable for this horrific slaughter of the C's legitimate shot at a title.

    • paul

      My God! Someone is finally talking sense. FINALLY. Right on on every point. And it's not like any of this is 'rocket science'.

  • schtevie

    It was of course a huge mistake to trade Perkins for Jeff Green etc. What was "gained" was in fact what was clearly promised by the existing statistical record: a well below-average player (to phrase it charitably). And though Perk may have been a bit broken come playoff time, he had been a fixture in what was the best starting lineup in the league over the last four years. Though speculative, my sense is – given his comfort-level in his longstanding role and the ability of his linemates to adjust – that he would have been a hell of a lot more productive than Kristic, were he to have remained with the Cs as JO's backup/co-equal.

    But let's not bury Ainge solely on this misstep. The Cs 2011 title hopes (expectations?) were severely (primarily?) diminished by the the non-signing of Tony Allen. What was lost was not only a very good player – his lock-down defense way undervalued by the market – but also inexpensive insurance for Paul Pierce. And, as it turns out, it was ultimately the need for such insurance that precipitated Ainge's reflexive trading of Perk.

    And as for the argument that what TA wanted was what the Cs couldn't offer – a starter's role – my considered view is meh. This was a management problem that should have been able to be finessed with small promises and flattery. TA played all of 2.5 minutes per game more this year than what had been his career average and started less than 50% of his games. Anyway, as we all know, it is always about the money, and in instance, the difference was all of $500k.

    For the want of a discarded nail, the title was lost…


    • Batman

      we had a lot more problems than Tony Allen

      • schtevie

        Unwind, and make the argument. Stipulate TA in the fold for an extra half mil (i.e. essentially for nothing extra given the prospective upside). What other moves that actually were made wouldn't have been able to be made? The Cs had the pick of the minimum salary litter because of their core and their readiness to win. Would any actually realized problems have been more or less likely as a result? Exactly.

      • paul

        You don't win championships by not having problems. You win championships by overcoming them. The celtics were doing that, prior to The Trade.

    • paul

      Losing TA was a mistake, but we were still favorites to win a championship until The Trade.

  • Stephen Gerome

    I agree. Trading Perkins was a BIG mistake. Danny should have worried about winning THIS year's championship instead of looking toward next year and whether the Celtics could afford to sign Perkins. The extra games and the money (and positive fan attitude, etc.) for winning the championship this year would have offset the money Perkins would have demanded next year

    • paul


  • James Patrick

    The bottom line any way you cut it, we traded our starting center for a back up forward. Jeff Green was and is a bust. I'm sad he's coming back but what else do we got? In the end, we'll have got nothing for Perk, and that's the sad reality. And the Perk trade wasn't the only bad move on trade day, but ALL the moves Ainge made had a lasting effect on the team. And with this season probably lost, I think it's tough to say if our big 3 will still be there for 2012-13.

    • Celtics Freak

      Jeff Green isn't exactly a bust, he's adjusting and we all seen what he could do in OKC, and in the long run, it's kind of a good move because what if Perk re-injured the knee and turned into an Oden or someonenlike that, we never know

      • paul

        How do you make a move for the 'long run' on the verge of the playoffs? You defenders of Ainge keep shifting ground. When we point out how insane the deal was, you say "oh, it was for the long run". How do you do that when you are the leading championship contender a month away from the playoffs? you know the answer. You don't.

    • paul

      Exactly. We traded our starting center for a backup small forward, and there is just no possible way to justify that, which makes it so surreal that so many people are in fact justifying it.

  • Phil

    Perk would have definitely helped against the Heat, but do people really think that swapping Green back for Perk would've made up for the lopsided series? Even before Rondo's injury (with the injury, nothing was going to make them win,) they needed something more, which was the motivation for the trade. They needed offense, preferably while not sacrificing defense/rebounding.

    I'm not arguing that it was a good move, but I do think the narrative has been a little skewed towards the whole 'trading Perk ended the season,' camp. Trading Perk isn't what killed the Celtics, trading for Green is. Ainge made a huge evaluation mistake, picking up a player who was barely more serviceable than Sasha Pavlovic. If the Celtics could do the whole deadline over again, I think the best move would be trading Perk for someone who could actually help. They needed more, but Green wasn't it.

  • ignarus

    My main concern with this argument is that its foundation rests on the assertion that Jermaine O'Neal's marginally positive +/- in the 5 second round games against Miami is a result of having a true center in the lineup.

    First, +4 for the series is basically *nothing* when you're trying to draw conclusions from a sample size that small. Second, Miami's +/- numbers were so variable between their AWFUL starting lineup (the Bibby/Big Z one) and any of the other ones that a player who happened to be on the court against them looked disproportionately successful.

    The rebounding argument is *far* more useful. It's hard to imagine that the Heat would have outhustled the Celtics so thoroughly if the C's had been deeper at rebounding in the middle.

  • brendan

    Ainge was so stupid to make that trade and he even traded Nate. Perk is a class defensive center Green scores the ball but Green didn't show that in the season or the playoffs and Perk is way better than him and he gets along better with the team. Nate was great with the team he brought some fun to team and you get one bad center in Kristic who is reportedly going over seas so we need a center get Perk back that should be the objective for Ainge. Get Nate back is well trade west and green for Nate and perk and all the problems are solved. I would say we missed one of the greatest rivalries in PG history between Rose and Rondo in the playoffs cause of Ainge. The trade wasn't even good for Oklahoma they already have a really good center in Ibaka and if they had kept green might have even beat Dallas. What I don't understand is what was wrong with the Celtics before the trade. Celtics had an unreal record before the trade had a bad record after the trade which cost us the top of the eastern conference. Ainge needs to do some serious changes ether get Perk back or wait and find away to get Howard without trading RONDO. When he is a free agent make him a good offer. With Rondo and Howard the Celtics will win championships.

  • paul

    I find it quite disturbing that so many people are hellbent on defending The Trade. I see this as the sign of a society that is becoming more and more 'prussian'; more and more people are habituated to obeying authority, to not questioning authority. You could hardly have a more blatant example of a move that was not only bad, but heinously reckless. Listen, a team on the verge of the playoffs, as perhaps the leading contender for a championship, does NOT trade away its starting center for a backup small forward. Period. No. THAT'S CRAZY.

    The only example that remotely compares that comes to mind was the Detroit Dantley for Aquirre trade, and that was done with more of the season left, and was about as equal an exchange as you could hope for.

    So this was already one of the stupidest and most reckless trades ever. But Danny wasn't done yet. He added on so many other moves that we ended up with a near-total makeover of the bench. Do none of you understand that this amplified the most damaging aspect of The Trade, which was that it destroyed the team's cohesion? It was so bad that Rondo had to beg Rivers to throw out most of the playbook. Do you somehow not grasp how important that was? We went into the playoffs with no playbook, with no starting center, and with badly damaged team cohesion. AND YOU STILL DEFEND THIS MADNESS?

    Do you have any pride at all Celtic fans? Your front office bascially threw away this past season just to make an in-your-face point to the players about getting tough in contract negotiations, and you choose to not only accept that, but even to defend it?! Where is your famous pride, Celtic fans?

  • Badax33

    I disagree. Certainly there was a trickle down effect. Perk starts and then JO takes over and that would have been a better situation. But how would Perk help in the last game when Bron starts making falling away 3 pters. I would agree that Green didn't play very well, but I can guarantee you that Danny will resign him and I expect him to play better with a training camp and some time under the Celts system.

    Also, if Perk was so great why wasn't he on the court more in OKC games, especially the 4th qtrs. It's because Perk was Perk and may never be again. He's a great role player but certainly not worth the money he signed for and potentially he could have signed for more than that as a totally free agent. Would you sign Perk for $10M or evey the $8.2 that OKC gave him. If so, then FA is 2012 is pretty much dead -you'd have Rondo, Perk, PP making $33M plus Bradely, the rookies and cap holds which comes to around $40-41M – Voila not big name FAs.

  • pastelpaul

    When you have a title contention team with a solid record, you don't make ANY trade of a key player at that stage of the season. It was idiocy. Rondo and Perk are close friends and he was a popular teammate. The 'new ' players didn't fit at all into the complex ball movement offense the Celts deploy. It was absurd gamble to think the O' Neals would be healthy enough and effective enough to cover the center position. It was simply 'game over' for the season after that trade. Ainge needs to man up and take the blame. He gets big kudo's for the big three but deserves a clubbing for this and other dumb moves like getting rid of Harangody and Semih, both potentially useful players off the bench and down the road. Perk is less of a force after this surgery, no doubt. It would have been far better to let him finish up the year and then walk next season. Unfortunately, Rondo's injury sealed the deal for the Celts as well. Bad trade, bad luck.

  • David

    I think the bigger fail was trading Semih Erden, got nothing for him at all and he could have given us a youthful back up over the injured o'neals