Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

Revisiting the Perkins/Green Trade


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
40 replies to this topic

#1 knucklecup


  • hi, I'm a cuckold


  • 4114 posts

Posted 14 December 2011 - 08:29 AM

I've gone on record as not being a fan of Jeff Green.

Didn't like him at Georgetown, didn't think he was worthy of a lottery pick when he was drafted, and haven't seen anything from him in the NBA to warrant changing my opinion.

Having said that, I would love to be wrong. Being wrong is perhaps the only way the Celtics remain a legit contender this season.

So, would you rather go into this season with Jeff Green or Perkins?

Seeing that Kwame Brown is still able to get $7 million on the open market, Perkins' deal really isn't that bad, unless what we saw in the playoffs is an indication of what we can expect going forward - something I don't feel is the case because of early reports from OKC training camp.

Additionally, Green type players -his skillset at this point in time- are pretty much a dime a dozen. If he turns into something, he's not replaceable, if he fails to improve acquiring a Green type player for the bench while starting Perkins would be easy.

I don't know, woke up this morning with this on my mind. How the old starting five with JO, Bass, Daniels, Delonte, Dooling, Johnson, Bradley, etc coming off the bench (using the mini MLE on West) looks better than the new starting five swapping Green off the bench for Perkins in the starting line up.

Thoughts.

#2 Brickowski

  • 3574 posts

Posted 14 December 2011 - 08:47 AM

I don't disagree with you about Green, but he has one huge advangage. He's on a one-year deal. Cap flexibility. Perkins was due to become a free agent and you would have had to sign him for the next 4-5 years. And Perkins has shortcomings too. I love his toughness and physicality, but he's limited offensively and has a history of various injuries and aimments, e.g. his shoulder and plantar fasciitis. His left knee was also injured when they traded him.

Do you really think that Rondo and Perkins would constitute the core of a contending team after the big three ride off into the sunset? I have serious doubts about that.

Edited by Brickowski, 14 December 2011 - 08:50 AM.


#3 Grin&MartyBarret

  • 3263 posts

Posted 14 December 2011 - 09:27 AM

I've gone on record as not being a fan of Jeff Green.

Didn't like him at Georgetown, didn't think he was worthy of a lottery pick when he was drafted, and haven't seen anything from him in the NBA to warrant changing my opinion.

Having said that, I would love to be wrong. Being wrong is perhaps the only way the Celtics remain a legit contender this season.

So, would you rather go into this season with Jeff Green or Perkins?

Seeing that Kwame Brown is still able to get $7 million on the open market, Perkins' deal really isn't that bad, unless what we saw in the playoffs is an indication of what we can expect going forward - something I don't feel is the case because of early reports from OKC training camp.

Additionally, Green type players -his skillset at this point in time- are pretty much a dime a dozen. If he turns into something, he's not replaceable, if he fails to improve acquiring a Green type player for the bench while starting Perkins would be easy.

I don't know, woke up this morning with this on my mind. How the old starting five with JO, Bass, Daniels, Delonte, Dooling, Johnson, Bradley, etc coming off the bench (using the mini MLE on West) looks better than the new starting five swapping Green off the bench for Perkins in the starting line up.

Thoughts.



As to whether or not he warranted a lottery pick, if you go back and look at that draft, Jeff Green absolutely warranted a lottery pick, even if he never improves on his current production. Green was taken at 5, and there's really only one obvious guy taken after him that's leaps and bounds better (Noah) and only a couple that could be argued have had better careers, or are guys the Celtics (or whoever) would prefer. There's a handful of solid players taken after him (Thaddeus Young, Rodney Stuckey, Nick Young, Wilson Chandler, Rudy Fernandez) but that draft wasn't deep enough to push Green out of the lottery, even if teams were granted a redo with the benefit of hindsight.

And despite Green's shortcomings, I prefer the combination of Green and additional cap flexibility to a nucleus of Rondo and Perkins going forward.

#4 AMS25

  • 927 posts

Posted 14 December 2011 - 09:49 AM

It really depends on the health of Perkins, which is not something the Celtics (or Thunder) can really predict. Would it have been worth it to keep Perkins around for 4-5 more years, if he were going to be perennially injured, immobile, and unproductive? No.

Allegedly, Perkins lost 30 pounds during the offseason, and "is in the best shape of his life." Like Spring Training claims, such a claim must be taken with a grain of salt. But, a healthy, more mobile Perkins > than Green for this season. To be sure, Green will provide the Celtics with more flexibility down the road, but a healthy Perk would probably be more of an asset right now.

#5 Brickowski

  • 3574 posts

Posted 14 December 2011 - 09:59 AM

Losing the weight may prolong Perkins' career, but it won't help him to jockey for position in the post.



#6 maufman


  • SoSH Member


  • 11919 posts

Posted 14 December 2011 - 10:05 AM

The Green deal was a GFIN move. Danny didn't know if there would be a 2011-12 season, and he thought Green would contribute more to last season's run than a gimpy Perk. As disappointing as Green was, Danny was probably right -- Perk was atrocious in OKC. Danny's lack of enthusiasm about Perk's long-term prospects made the decision that much easier, but I think he always knew he was making a potential long-term sacrifice for short-term gain.

In hindsight, the gap between the C's and the East's elite teams (Miami, Chicago) was wide enough that the Green/Perk trade would never have closed the gap, even if Green had played as well as Danny could reasonably have hoped. The Green trade, therefore, will never be deemed a success. Whether it is eventually deemed a failure or a wash depends on whether Perk enjoys a renaissance and justifies his new contract, or not.

#7 fairlee76

  • 1474 posts

Posted 14 December 2011 - 10:08 AM

Losing the weight may prolong Perkins' career, but it won't help him to jockey for position in the post.

Yes, and watching the video of Perk attached to the other link reveals that, weight loss or no, he is always going to be an extremely limited post player. He looked slow and mechanical with no one defending.

I was OK with the Green trade when it was made and I am OK with it now. I still believe that the only way last year's team was going to make a run was with a semi-healthy Shaq. I don't see how a hobbled Perk gets the Celts past the HEAT. Going forward, Perk is not a foundation player. A nice complementary 5 provided you need no scoring from the position, but not a guy who can't be found elsewhere. With Green, the Celtics might have a guy that can be the 3rd or 4th best player on a contender. Looking forward to watching him this year and hoping his showing last year was simply a case of not being used to a new system.

#8 Super Nomario


  • SoSH Member


  • 6994 posts

Posted 14 December 2011 - 11:10 AM

I would rather have Perk than Green but it wasn't an either-or:

With Boston over the salary cap, the team couldn't offer more than a four-year, $22 million extension this season, while Oklahoma City was able to use that small cap space to offer Perkins as much as $13 million more on a four-year deal (For a more detailed explanation, hop HERE).

http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/celtics/post/_/id/4681214/perkins-inks-extension-with-thunder

It wasn't Green or Perk. It was Green or nothing.

#9 smastroyin


  • simpering whimperer


  • 16405 posts

Posted 14 December 2011 - 11:12 AM

I am also not a fan of Green. On offense, he was Ray Allen without the shot or maybe Paul Pierce without the strength. On defense he was Tony Allen without the athleticism. I am using "was" because I hold hope that he will be much better this year.

Unfortunately the trade, even though I hate it with a passion, was a result of two injuries and probably necessary. First, with a healthy Perk, I think the GFIN move would have been to keep him and let him leave as a FA. The healthy useful Perk is a lot more important to this team than a third wing. Sadly, though, you do need a backup wing of some sort and the Marquis Daniels injury left a gap.

I will believe until my dying day (although I may not think about it too much) that a healthy Perk is a difference maker in Game 7 of the 2010 Finals. Probably that would have meant keeping the gang together for last year, but at the same time, if Danny wanted to be bold, a healthy Perk probably fetches you more than Jeff Green, or at least is a valuable chit in a bigger package.

edit: Also, to answer the question, I would rather have Perk, but as others have noted, that's kind of a nonsensical question because there was little chance the Celtics could have retained him unless he wanted to take a gigantic hometown discount.

#10 maufman


  • SoSH Member


  • 11919 posts

Posted 14 December 2011 - 11:19 AM

I would rather have Perk than Green but it wasn't an either-or:


http://espn.go.com/b...on-with-thunder

It wasn't Green or Perk. It was Green or nothing.


The C's could have extended Perk a year ago, before the rules changed. Indeed, the nature of the rule changes in this area were largely predictable, so I presume Danny would have done this if he wanted Perk in the fold long term.

The reason I disagree with Smas's assessment (i.e., that keeping Perk was the GFIN move in 2011) is that I believe Danny knew Perk was still hobbled and therefore unlikely to contribute much in 2011. And indeed, that's basically what happened.

#11 smastroyin


  • simpering whimperer


  • 16405 posts

Posted 14 December 2011 - 11:21 AM

The reason I disagree with Smas's assessment (i.e., that keeping Perk was the GFIN move in 2011) is that I believe Danny knew Perk was still hobbled and therefore unlikely to contribute much in 2011. And indeed, that's basically what happened.


My assessment pretty clearly says "a healthy Perk"

It's all about the fantasy land where the Perk and Marquis were healthy.



#12 lexrageorge

  • 2992 posts

Posted 14 December 2011 - 11:25 AM

I'm not a big fan of Jeff Green; I don't get all the love he sometimes gets in this forum. I do recall him being billed as someone who could help Paul Pierce in both scoring and "defending LeBron James", and I still claim we got neither. In fact, I only hate him little less than I hate Jermaine O'Neal.

However, having said that, this trade did make sense at the time. Due to his knee, Perkins last year wasn't going to be any better than the O'Neal twins. Green was still (and is still) a better option off the bench than noone, which was the only alternative at the time (again due to injury). And Kristic was an expiring contract and was about the only option at center. Had they not done the trade, they likely would have neither Perk nor Green right now.

In fact, by doing this trade, Danny was able to stay in the running for the CP3 and David West sweepstakes, and either trade would have improved this team. And Danny still has options at the trade deadline, again thanks to the cap flexibility going into next year. And trading Green could be part of that.

It's amazingly difficult to build a contender in the NBA; however, it's impossible to do so unless you're willing to take some risk. So, I will Ainge credit for this one.

#13 Super Nomario


  • SoSH Member


  • 6994 posts

Posted 14 December 2011 - 11:29 AM

The C's could have extended Perk a year ago, before the rules changed. Indeed, the nature of the rule changes in this area were largely predictable, so I presume Danny would have done this if he wanted Perk in the fold long term.

That's not what the link says:

Only teams under the cap can renegotiate a contract, and the salary in the then-current season can be increased only to the extent that the team has room under the cap. Raises in subsequent years are limited to 10.5 percent of the salary in the first renegotiated season. The renegotiation may not contain a signing bonus.


The C's were capped in how much they could offer Perk under the old CBA. They could have gambled and waited to see if they could re-sign him under the new CBA, but that was unlikely to work, either (and in hindsight, would not have worked).

#14 radsoxfan


  • SoSH Member


  • 7649 posts

Posted 14 December 2011 - 12:17 PM

I'd still go with Green.

More cap flexibility, more upside, plus this team needs offense more than defense. It's kind of glossed over, but this is not a very good offensive team. With the lack of great offensive centers out there that require a great post defender, Perkins loses some value too.

I'll admit I've always thought Perk was overrated. Plus I am biased by just how incredibly horrible he was last season and in the playofs for OKC. I suppose it's possible a year removed from his injury he is a bit better.

#15 AMS25

  • 927 posts

Posted 14 December 2011 - 01:28 PM

I'll admit I've always thought Perk was overrated. Plus I am biased by just how incredibly horrible he was last season and in the playofs for OKC. I suppose it's possible a year removed from his injury he is a bit better.



Perk wasn't a complete waste last year, though he didn't perform well in the playoffs. He was able to effectively team up with Ibaka on OKC to produce blocked shots and rebounds. Indeed, OKC's defense was vastly improved after the trade due to 1) the subtraction of Green (Harden played more and is a better defender) and 2) the addition of Perk. But, for the Celtics (who need offense), Perk is no help.

#16 ifmanis5


  • SoSH Member


  • 11122 posts

Posted 14 December 2011 - 02:16 PM

Between Perk's injury and his salary demands, Danny had almost no choice but to move him for something. What we didn't know was how deeply it affected the team psychologically and that Green has no real position in the East. Green's a real weapon on a Western team when he can freelance and not play much defense. In the East, he can't really do his thing and he's an awful fit on this team.

I still can't get over how the C's mentally turtled w/out Perk. It was as if all their dogs were shot at the same time. They never got over it.

#17 mahky bellhorn

  • 1520 posts

Posted 14 December 2011 - 02:31 PM

If the Clips can bungle the "trade for Chris Paul" operation, we can probably deal their pick along with ours for somebody a little better than Perk. He was pretty worthless last year for OKC and I don't think he's much of an asset with his current contract, the deal was actually pretty good imo and gets way too much hate.

#18 Brickowski

  • 3574 posts

Posted 14 December 2011 - 02:32 PM

...Green's a real weapon on a Western team when he can freelance and not play much defense. In the East, he can't really do his thing and he's an awful fit on this team.


Except that he was on a Western Conference team just like that and it wasn't working.

#19 ifmanis5


  • SoSH Member


  • 11122 posts

Posted 14 December 2011 - 02:42 PM

Except that he was on a Western Conference team just like that and it wasn't working.

Meh, his career per 36 min numbers are pretty respectable... http://www.basketbal...er_minute::none

His best fit is the Suns or Kings type of attack where he can run a lot.

#20 kazuneko

  • 1690 posts

Posted 14 December 2011 - 02:50 PM

I don't disagree with you about Green, but he has one huge advangage. He's on a one-year deal. Cap flexibility. Perkins was due to become a free agent and you would have had to sign him for the next 4-5 years.

When you look at Danny's moves this offseason its pretty clear this is one reason he preferred Green to Perk - he is trying to rebuild the franchise and having a large amount of cap space after next season is a key part of that plan. Perk was demanding - and eventually got - a big, longterm contract. Ainge wasn't going to do that, so its pretty clear that if he hadn't traded Perkins the Cs would have lost Perkins to free agency. Of course Perkins still could have generated some value for the team via a sign-and-trade, but that likely wouldn't have been much (a Brandon Bass level player at best)..
That said, I still don't think the trade looks good in retrospect. I'm a big fan of Ainge but this has to be his worst move since taking over as GM (though that doesn't mean much as he has generally been exceptional).
Green clearly represents more value for this season (as Perk wouldn't have been back) and potentially in the future - but so far that increase in longterm value hasn't been as much as might have been hoped for. Green just hasn't meshed well with this team.
Meanwhile, Shaq's injuries made the Center position a big problem last year. That and the negative emotional impact the trade made on the team makes it hard to argue that in terms of the impact on the team last season - and the fact that so far the longterm value seems limited - this wasn't a good trade for the Cs.
But, to be fair, how Green's career progresses will eventually decide the worth of this move - and that is still unknown. There is a chance this ends up looking a lot better if Green progresses substantially this season and becomes a key part of the team's eventual rebuilding (which was most likely Aige's initial hope when he pulled the trigger on this).

#21 Brickowski

  • 3574 posts

Posted 14 December 2011 - 03:04 PM

IMHO Ainge's worst move was drafting Marcus Banks. In fairness, Ainge had just been hired and the deal (which involved swapping picks 16 and 20 to Memphis for picks 13 and 27) was engineered by Leo Papile, who has known Jerry West (then GM in Memphis) for a long time. Banks was a disaster. They could have had David West with #16 and Perkins with #20. They could also have used #20 on Diaw or Barbosa (if they thought they needed a pg).

Back to Green: maybe his medical problem is low testosterone. Whatever it is I'm rooting for him to come into his own, but I'm not holding my breath.

Edited by Brickowski, 14 December 2011 - 03:24 PM.


#22 lexrageorge

  • 2992 posts

Posted 14 December 2011 - 03:40 PM

Also, to be fair to Ainge on the Perkins trade, there were a few items that Danny probably couldn't predict with any certainty:

- That Perkins would play much at all the rest of the season; he had just reinjured his knee 2 days before the trade.

- That Perkins would be healthy and effective at the start of the playoffs.

- That the O'Neal twins would be useless the rest of the way, although some did predict this.

- That the team would finish the regular season on a 10-11 stretch.

The first two items were definitely not a given by any stretch of the imagination.



#23 maufman


  • SoSH Member


  • 11919 posts

Posted 14 December 2011 - 03:41 PM

The C's were capped in how much they could offer Perk under the old CBA. They could have gambled and waited to see if they could re-sign him under the new CBA, but that was unlikely to work, either (and in hindsight, would not have worked).


I thought that under the old CBA, teams could extend their own players at any time during the final year before the contract expired without cap constraints (assuming the team had Bird rights to the player in question, as the C's did with Perk).

#24 Super Nomario


  • SoSH Member


  • 6994 posts

Posted 14 December 2011 - 04:51 PM

I thought that under the old CBA, teams could extend their own players at any time during the final year before the contract expired without cap constraints (assuming the team had Bird rights to the player in question, as the C's did with Perk).

They could have re-signed him (and gone over the cap to do so), but the amount of the raises were "capped at 10.5% of the base year salary."
http://sonsofsamhorn...c/page__st__260

EDIT:

The player must complete his contract immediately prior to becoming a free agent, which essentially means he can't have been waived. If he signs a series of contracts, then this only applies to the last contract. If a team signs a player and waives him after one game, signs and waives him after one game again the next year, and in the third year signs him and keeps him the entire season, then they will have full Bird rights following the third season.

https://webfiles.uci.edu/lcoon/cbafaq/salarycap.htm#Q26

So the C's could have waited out the whole year and tried to sign Perk to an extension at that point, but they would have been gambling that this would still be an option under the new CBA.

Edited by Super Nomario, 14 December 2011 - 04:57 PM.


#25 kazuneko

  • 1690 posts

Posted 14 December 2011 - 05:15 PM

So the C's could have waited out the whole year and tried to sign Perk to an extension at that point, but they would have been gambling that this would still be an option under the new CBA.

But I really don't think any of that was part of Danny's thinking - as I'm pretty sure he didn't want to extend him either way.It would have been big money to keep him and Ainge had no intention of letting Perkins tie up that much salary cap space for years to come.

Edited by kazuneko, 14 December 2011 - 05:16 PM.


#26 Super Nomario


  • SoSH Member


  • 6994 posts

Posted 14 December 2011 - 06:02 PM

But I really don't think any of that was part of Danny's thinking - as I'm pretty sure he didn't want to extend him either way.It would have been big money to keep him and Ainge had no intention of letting Perkins tie up that much salary cap space for years to come.

I agree with you. But even if you disagree with Danny on this front, the Celtics couldn't have matched the Thunder offer at the time, and couldn't have known for sure they would have the ability to sign him to such a deal once the new CBA was negotiated. I guess you can say the same about the deal they just signed with Green, though.

#27 kazuneko

  • 1690 posts

Posted 14 December 2011 - 06:28 PM

I agree with you. But even if you disagree with Danny on this front, the Celtics couldn't have matched the Thunder offer at the time, and couldn't have known for sure they would have the ability to sign him to such a deal once the new CBA was negotiated. I guess you can say the same about the deal they just signed with Green, though.

That said, Perk -unlike Green- looked headed for an overpay. As a big, youngish center with name recognition and a championship ring it was pretty clear that there was gonna be significant interest if he hit free agency. Ainge correctly recognized that he would be overvalued and wanted no part of it.
In the long list of horrible NBA contracts a good percentage are lavished on promising centers that never pan out to be anything special - eventually relegated to modeling Italian suits on the bench when the inevitable knee injury cuts short their careers with 3 years remaining on their bloated contracts.

Edited by kazuneko, 14 December 2011 - 06:29 PM.


#28 nighthob

  • 2821 posts

Posted 14 December 2011 - 06:42 PM

I thought that under the old CBA, teams could extend their own players at any time during the final year before the contract expired without cap constraints (assuming the team had Bird rights to the player in question, as the C's did with Perk).


Extensions are governed by the value of the existing contract. So they couldn't offer Perkins an extension equivalent to what he got from OKC, they would have needed to let him go on the open market.

#29 mcpickl

  • 2082 posts

Posted 15 December 2011 - 06:28 PM

But I really don't think any of that was part of Danny's thinking - as I'm pretty sure he didn't want to extend him either way.It would have been big money to keep him and Ainge had no intention of letting Perkins tie up that much salary cap space for years to come.


Ainge offered Perk the maximum he could, which was 4 years at 22 million as others have said here. Ainge and Perkins' agent confirmed this.

Also, it's crazy to me that the first round pick acquired in this deal also is consistently ignored.

The choice was a hobbled Perkins for half a season who would walk for nothing after the year, or half a season of Green, his restricted free agent rights for another year, plus a first round pick from the Clippers.

It's a no brainer trade for me to make.

Edited by mcpickl, 15 December 2011 - 06:29 PM.


#30 Reverend


  • through the velvety hallway


  • 22407 posts

Posted 15 December 2011 - 06:46 PM

http://www.youtube.c...wINEcLY#t=0m22s

#31 Sprowl


  • mikey lowell of the sandbox


  • 20182 posts

Posted 15 December 2011 - 09:49 PM

We're here, we're now, we're happening.

#32 mahky bellhorn

  • 1520 posts

Posted 16 December 2011 - 03:10 PM

- That Perkins would be healthy and effective at the start of the playoffs.


Perkins wasn't effective in the playoffs last year

#33 richgedman'sghost

  • 434 posts

Posted 17 December 2011 - 05:54 PM

Perkins wasn't effective in the playoffs last year

It seems obivous now with 20/20 hindsight but with today's news, the Green/Perkins trade looks even worse. The Celtics will have none of the players from that trade playing for them this year. Is there any way that Green's condition could have been detected on the pre-trade physical? Not blaming the Celtics medical staff, just an honest question? How hard or difficult is Green's condition to diagnose?

#34 nighthob

  • 2821 posts

Posted 17 December 2011 - 06:33 PM

I have no problems with the Celtics' decision. Look at the offer sheet that DeAndre Jordan got, and then try to imagine next year without any space whatsoever to make moves because Boston was saddled with Rondo/Perkins as their core players. They wouldn't have got anymore than they did in a sign & trade.

#35 dolomite133


  • everything I write, think and feel is stupid


  • 5920 posts

Posted 17 December 2011 - 06:36 PM

I have no problems with the Celtics' decision. Look at the offer sheet that DeAndre Jordan got, and then try to imagine next year without any space whatsoever to make moves because Boston was saddled with Rondo/Perkins as their core players. They wouldn't have got anymore than they did in a sign & trade.


I have to agree that Rondo and Perkins were complementary players with the Big Three. Rondo might be one of the best complementary players in history. But I'm not sure either will ever become the primary players on their respective teams. (Rondo might by default next year, but I don't think his skill set is suited for being a top dog).

Edited by dolomite133, 17 December 2011 - 06:37 PM.


#36 radsoxfan


  • SoSH Member


  • 7649 posts

Posted 17 December 2011 - 07:47 PM

It seems obivous now with 20/20 hindsight but with today's news, the Green/Perkins trade looks even worse. The Celtics will have none of the players from that trade playing for them this year. Is there any way that Green's condition could have been detected on the pre-trade physical? Not blaming the Celtics medical staff, just an honest question? How hard or difficult is Green's condition to diagnose?


Not hard to diagnose if you're looking for it. Perhaps it was always known about, but its been enlarging. Or perhaps now he is symptomatic which might change how aggressive his doc are about treating it. Unlikely he developed it relatively quickly, but in theory thats possible too depending on his medical history. No good way to have any answers without being closer to the situation. Of course its also possible it was just missed on prior tests for whatever reason....

As far as the trade itself, I had no interest in paying Perk long term. And I also didn't think losing him last year (he was an abomination for OKC in the playoffs) had anything to do with the Celtics losing. So I have no problem with the trade, even in retrospect.

Edited by radsoxfan, 17 December 2011 - 07:48 PM.


#37 Brickowski

  • 3574 posts

Posted 17 December 2011 - 08:02 PM

I agree with Radsoxfan. They traded Perkins for capspace and a first round pick, which is likely to be in the 15-20 range with CP3 traded to the Clips.
As I've said before, I do not believe that Rondo + Perkins = the core of a contending team going forward Nor do I think all is lost this year without Green. Let the Celtics start to develop a Patriot mentality: other guys will just have to step up. Excuses are for losers.

This latest turn of events was terribly unfortunate for Green. The Celitcs wil survive.

Edited by Brickowski, 17 December 2011 - 08:05 PM.


#38 radsoxfan


  • SoSH Member


  • 7649 posts

Posted 17 December 2011 - 08:10 PM

If anyone wants to read about this stuff in all its glory....

http://content.onlin.../55/14/1509.pdf

They discuss treatment of asymptomatic individuals starting on page 1528 (it starts on page 1511, so its not that long....). Of course, these are just general guidelines, not always applicable to every specific case.

#39 HomeRunBaker


  • sloppy seconds


  • 9793 posts

Posted 18 December 2011 - 12:46 AM

IMHO Ainge's worst move was drafting Marcus Banks. In fairness, Ainge had just been hired and the deal (which involved swapping picks 16 and 20 to Memphis for picks 13 and 27) was engineered by Leo Papile, who has known Jerry West (then GM in Memphis) for a long time. Banks was a disaster. They could have had David West with #16 and Perkins with #20. They could also have used #20 on Diaw or Barbosa (if they thought they needed a pg).


This is in fairness? The only PG on the Celtics roster at the time of the draft was Mike James and there was a group of 4 PG's who figured to go in the middle of that first round with 3 of those 4 all ahead of West on everyones draft board. Those 4 were Banks, Luke Ridnour, Reece Gaines, and Troy Bell and there wasn't a chance in hell that Ainge was going to pass on higher graded players at a position of need with that pick. Gaines and Bell both bombed so Ainge correctly passed on them......if you want to criticize Danny for selecting Banks over Luke Ridnour be my guest but i can't say the pick was a disaster when 2 of the 4 PG's that Ainge passed on couldn't play in the league and he picked one of the remaining 2.

Selecting West or Diaw would have been a head scratcher of major proportions at the time as would have Barbosa who wasn't graded anywhere near Banks, Ridnour or Bell.

#40 Brickowski

  • 3574 posts

Posted 18 December 2011 - 08:19 AM

When I saw Banks play in summer league at UMass Boston immediately following that draft my first thought was, "Why the hell did they draft this guy?" He sucked. Played like a chicken without a head and turned the ball over way too much. On defense he gambled and was burned time after time-- by summer league players. The Celtics just didn't do their homework on the guy.

There were plenty of decent veteran pgs who could have been signed to give Mike James some help. As it was, Banks was so bad that they were forced to trade for Chucky Atkins a few months into the season..

Edited by Brickowski, 18 December 2011 - 08:20 AM.


#41 mahky bellhorn

  • 1520 posts

Posted 19 December 2011 - 07:21 PM

I don't believe anybody should be drafting for need in the top 20 or so, but it's not valid to argue that they should have taken random player X who was available later. There are always mid-late 1st rounders who pan out way better than expected, it's silly to criticize a GM for not picking the 1 guy out of the next 20 or so picks who became an all-star.

We also shoulda taken Landry Fields over Avery Bradley, but Fields was supposed to go undrafted and everybody laughed at the Knicks for drafting him and Bradley was supposed to be a lottery pick. Some GM's are better talent evaluators than others, but it's not like anybody has a damn crystal ball.

Also by that logic Ainge shoulda taken Marc Gasol over Gabe Pruitt. Biggest mistake ever!!!!!!!!!

Edited by mahky bellhorn, 19 December 2011 - 07:23 PM.