Is the loss of Kendrick Perkins going to be the reason we missed out on #18?

[BradyManny]

When he pulled the trigger on the trade, he made a gamble on health (Perkins's as well as the O'Neals') among other things and lost.

This is what it came down to. I agree with the rest of your analysis, sorry I didn't read through your previous post more carefully (technically, I'm "working" right now..)

And it was, IMO, a terrible gamble.

Ultimately, what he gained in Green was nothing. Green was the frustrating player that OKC fans described on their own message boards. Frustrating in the sense that he is such a tease - his athleticism and size is unique and rare.

Yet, he - until the last few playoff games - does not have a good outside shot. He's a subpar ball handler. He cannot defend at either the 3 or 4 position and he is a terrible rebounder. He is a great offensive player on the fast break, and as a slasher and or post-up option against smaller 3's. But that is not something that is irreplaceable.

Quite frankly, Von Wafer's play before his own injury was contributing more to this team than Jeff Green did in his small time with us.

So, at the end of the day, Ainge traded Kendrick Perkins for nothing.

The sad part is, looking at the future of this team - you have a very good point guard with a couple fundamental flaws; you have 3 still very good players at the 2, 3 and 4 spots that are past their prime, but still assets. The one area where the Celtics can upgrade and stay a legitimate contender is the 5 spot. No doubt about it. Perkins, at the very least, gave them elite defense at the position, and elite screen-setting, a hugely underrated factor on this team.

With 1 through 4 on this team staying the way it is, we'll end up in the same position next year. A very good team, but struggling to defeat the elite. We need to get better at 5, and I have no idea what Danny is going to do there, especially with Perk in OKC.

 

[chicowalker]

This is what it came down to. I agree with the rest of your analysis, sorry I didn't read through your previous post more carefully (technically, I'm "working" right now..)

And it was, IMO, a terrible gamble.

Ultimately, what he gained in Green was nothing. Green was the frustrating player that OKC fans described on their own message boards. Frustrating in the sense that he is such a tease - his athleticism and size is unique and rare.

Yet, he - until the last few playoff games - does not have a good outside shot. He's a subpar ball handler. He cannot defend at either the 3 or 4 position and he is a terrible rebounder. He is a great offensive player on the fast break, and as a slasher and or post-up option against smaller 3's. But that is not something that is irreplaceable.

Quite frankly, Von Wafer's play before his own injury was contributing more to this team than Jeff Green did in his small time with us.

So, at the end of the day, Ainge traded Kendrick Perkins for nothing.

The sad part is, looking at the future of this team - you have a very good point guard with a couple fundamental flaws; you have 3 still very good players at the 2, 3 and 4 spots that are past their prime, but still assets. The one area where the Celtics can upgrade and stay a legitimate contender is the 5 spot. No doubt about it. Perkins, at the very least, gave them elite defense at the position, and elite screen-setting, a hugely underrated factor on this team.

With 1 through 4 on this team staying the way it is, we'll end up in the same position next year. A very good team, but struggling to defeat the elite. We need to get better at 5, and I have no idea what Danny is going to do there, especially with Perk in OKC.

No worries at all.

The only thing I disagree with is your conclusion. I think with the existing 4 of 5 starters, the bench can make the difference if those pieces exist. If we had what we had 3 (4?) years ago, I think this team could have won this year and could win this year, even w/o Perk -- rebounding / inside offense (Powe), 3-point threat (House), energy and a little bit of offense, defense and rebounding (Posey), interior presence (Brown).

Maybe Ainge caught lightning with the pieces he assembled that year, maybe it was an odd occurrence to have them available, but if we had that kind of bench again I see no reason we wouldn't contend again, even with another year of age and some combination of Krstic, O'Neal and Green having replaced Perkins.

btw, I think the other way the trade hurt us is that the team didn't rest as much. maybe I'm wrong, and I haven't looked at the minutes played stats, but I feel like our big 3 didn't rest as much this year.

edit: Perk's a free agent, isn't he? if he comes back maybe that's the ultimate nail in the coffin re the deal, since one reason (or rumor?) for the deal was that they thought he wouldn't re-sign and wanted to move closer to home

 

[BradyManny]

No worries at all.

The only thing I disagree with is your conclusion. I think with the existing 4 of 5 starters, the bench can make the difference if those pieces exist. If we had what we had 3 (4?) years ago, I think this team could have won this year and could win this year, even w/o Perk -- rebounding / inside offense (Powe), 3-point threat (House), energy and a little bit of offense, defense and rebounding (Posey), interior presence (Brown).

Maybe Ainge caught lightning with the pieces he assembled that year, maybe it was an odd occurrence to have them available, but if we had that kind of bench again I see no reason we wouldn't contend again, even with another year of age and some combination of Krstic, O'Neal and Green having replaced Perkins.

btw, I think the other way the trade hurt us is that the team didn't rest as much. maybe I'm wrong, and I haven't looked at the minutes played stats, but I feel like our big 3 didn't rest as much this year.

edit: Perk's a free agent, isn't he? if he comes back maybe that's the ultimate nail in the coffin re the deal, since one reason (or rumor?) for the deal was that they thought he wouldn't re-sign and wanted to move closer to home

OKC signed Perk to an extension - I forget the #s, but I know we couldn't offer him as much. I think what it came down to is our cap situation was prohibitive of signing Perk, and Danny thought he might as well try and get something in return for him. It hurt us this year though, and that's more important to me. Who knows what the NBA will look like after they settle their own labor issues.

I agree it feels like the Big 3 played more this year - the #s might be skewed b/c of Pierce's ejection and foul troubles, but other than that, I think that's a fair assumption.

If you look at this Celtics team - it still comes down to the fact that with their starting 5 healthy, they won a championship and took a 3-2 lead in the NBA finals. I just don't see why Ainge would bother risking breaking that up.