Does The Truth Need an Answer?

Let me just go on record as a little bit unsure why the Celtics seem so eager to trade for Allen Iverson. It's not like you look at this team and say "if only they had a top-notch perimeter scorer they'd be pretty good" it's more like "if only they had something in addition to their top-notch perimeter scorer they'd be pretty good." That said, if they can get Iverson for Theo Ratliff's contract plus some "promising" youngsters, the team would pretty clearly improve. But if Philadelphia wants Wally Szczerbiak, rather than Ratliff, in addition to picks/youngsters I'm not sure how much better the Celtics really get. Szczerbiak produces less than Iverson, obviously, but he does what he does considerably more efficiently. If you imagine Iverson taking roughly the same volume of shots he does for the Sixers and those shots replacing both Szczerbiak's and those of the Celtics' backcourt laggards you'll see an overall improvement, but it would be a small one all things considered and for a team at Boston's level to I'm not sure why you'd want to mortgage the future for a marginal improvement.

UPDATE: IC also writes in to remark on the seeming irrationality of Philadelphia not wanting to offer the Answer to an in-conference or (worse) in-division rival. As he points out, this is not the best thing to worry about if your team sucks and is all-but-guaranteed to get worse as a result of the trade you're about to make. The post-Iverson Sixers need to be thinking about the long term, not who wins the sorry 2006-2006 Atlantic Division.

Comments

does "and" need to be spelled differently?

Posted by kid bitzer | December 11, 2006 1:47 PM

maybe it's a tribute to red, who was a fan of AI's?

no, i can't really figure it out either....

Posted by howard | December 11, 2006 1:54 PM

for a team at Boston's level to I'm not sure why you'd want to mortgage the future for a marginal improvement.

Given the state of the East, and especially their division, maybe they think that even a small marginal imrpovement would be enought to win the division, get to the playoffs, and maybe with a bit of luck get to the Finals. Frankly, I would make sure to keep Al Jefferson and Gerald Green.

Posted by Al | December 11, 2006 2:05 PM

Why make the trade? It would turn me a Celtics and NBA fan in one fell swoop. I followed the NBA when I lived in Philly for the Iverson finals, and he's more fun to root for than any player I've ever watched. Up in Boston now, I can't really bring myself to care - but if they got The Answer, it would all change.

Also, should not the two best nicknames in pro sports be on the same team?

Posted by DivGuy | December 11, 2006 2:11 PM

Szczerbiak produces less than Iverson, obviously, but he does what he does considerably more efficiently.

Isn't that sort of a nice way of saying that Wally can't create shots for himself?

Posted by Pooh | December 11, 2006 2:22 PM

well, al, i agree that they may well be convincing themselves that Iverson would get them over some hump, but the notion that somehow iverson + whatever else they'd still have on the team are going to be able to knock off, say, detroit and cleveland (not to mention miami with shaq back, orlando, indiana, or chicago) seems too delusional even for current celtic management.

but you never know, i suppose....

Posted by howard | December 11, 2006 2:26 PM

Let me just say as a Celtics fan that Ainge should scrubbed out of all previous team photographs if this trade happens.

Posted by Jeff Pollner | December 11, 2006 2:35 PM

Isn't that sort of a nice way of saying that Wally can't create shots for himself?

Maybe it is, but the point is that the Celtics already have in Pierce a shot-creator and that Wally, playing alongside Pierce, is a very efficient.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | December 11, 2006 2:41 PM

Isn't that sort of a nice way of saying that Wally can't create shots for himself?

Not necessarily. It could be saying that Wally can create shots for himself but chooses not to take it when the shot is low percentage. I'm not sure why you think that "less efficient" means "able to get shots for himself".

Posted by Al | December 11, 2006 2:49 PM

The Sixers best bet is to make a concerted run at winning the Ogden sweepstakes.

So dump AI (and as many other talented guys as you can) for as many expiring contracts as you can get. get the #1 pick and a bunch of cap room to add Free agents and you could be set up to dominate the East for a decade.

Posted by Eric | December 11, 2006 2:56 PM

The Celtics have youth to burn. They can't get enough playing time for All Their Children. And in Wally and Ratliffe, they have two overblown contracts. The Celts ought not throw away their young talent, but they really ought to make a trade soon-- their upside and value can't but diminish as they don't play. As a C's fan, trading for Iverson would at least be an imporvement. It's been a long time since we've had one of those.

Also, it'd be ideal if we could tie this trade to some kind of minimum requirement for Ainge to keep his job. Enough revolving-door-to-the-future Pitinoism.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | December 11, 2006 2:56 PM

I'm not sure why you think that "less efficient" means "able to get shots for himself".

It's not necessarily generalizable. In the particular case of Wally, having watched the first 5+ years of his career close up, his efficiency really does reflect his need to be set up for shots. From many a Minneapolis TV room could be heard the plaintive cry of "Wally, stop dribbling."

Posted by Pooh | December 11, 2006 3:02 PM

I don't know much about basketball, but I'd think a team with
Pierce and Iverson would be a lot of fun to watch, even if they
didn't actually win. However, it looks a bad idea in the long
run because a guy like Iverson who's small and relies on speed
and talent more than hard work and practice is going to go
downhill really fast. On balance, I'd rather watch the C's give
their youngsters a chance to develop. To get to the top tier
you have to be lucky, but Jefferson/West/Green seem good enough
to move them from terrible to pretty good, if all goes well.

Posted by Richard Cownie | December 11, 2006 3:04 PM

" I'm not sure why you think that "less efficient" means "able to get shots for himself"."

Because the topic at hand is comparing the specifics of Szczerbiak to Iverson, not an abstract case.

Posted by Petey | December 11, 2006 3:21 PM

Of course, the Sixers obviously aren't going to want Szczerbiak, so this is all moot. The only way Boston could induce Philly to take Szczerbiak rather than Ratliff would be to include a much better package of prospects than they'd have to give up alongside of Ratliff.

But seriously, when your metrics indicate to you that Nenad Kristic is as valuable as Eddy Curry, or that Iverson is only slightly more valuable than Szczerbiak, isn't this is a moment to figure out that your metrics don't mean anything like what you think they mean?

Posted by Petey | December 11, 2006 3:40 PM

To put real numbers into the discussion, Wally has a TS% of 59.4,, while Iverson's TS% (which incorporates free throws) is 52.9. That's not a huge difference (although it is significant) and Iverson dishes much more assists, too. The problem is that he also uses much more possesions than Wally (34.1 usage rate versus 23.8), so if they are traded, someone in Boston will have to shoot much less than he's used to. It's not impossible to accomodate two high usage guys on the same team (Miami did it last year), but it's not easy either (especially two perimeter guys).

Posted by Carlos | December 11, 2006 3:47 PM

Looking west, although the Lakers front office denies interest Phil Jackson dropped some interest in Iverson to the LA Times today. The Lakers could offer Mihm, Radmanovic, Cook, Parker and Shammond Williams while keeping their core rotation and young prospects intact. For the Sixers, assuming Mihm's ankle recovers, the five they receive could arguably rival their current starting lineup sans Iverson.

Jackson is probably just stirring the pot and this isn't likely to happen, however the Lakers have a very deep bench and probably need one additional All-Star level piece to truly compete with the elite Western teams. At some point they are going to package some of the depth for a top talent.

Posted by Steve | December 11, 2006 3:48 PM

"It's not impossible to accomodate two high usage guys on the same team ... but it's not easy either (especially two perimeter guys)."

You might want to review the roster around Pierce when he had success in winning. I recall a certain high usage perimeter guy (who was spectacularly inefficient) being his running mate.

Posted by Petey | December 11, 2006 4:11 PM

"To put real numbers into the discussion, Wally has a TS% of 59.4,, while Iverson's TS% (which incorporates free throws) is 52.9."

I'm not sure which numbers you are using, but based on last season, Iverson had a TS% of 54.4%.

Posted by Petey | December 11, 2006 4:19 PM

And, of course, the real value of Iverson is that in order to hold him to a TS% in the low 50's, you need to double him or play some type of zone. That opens up offense for other folks on the team, and creates amazing opportunities for offensive rebounding. And all of that comes before considering direct assists.

Players who can force the opposition out of playing straight-up defense have incredible value.

And don't neglect the effect Iverson's volume of free throws has on putting your team regularly into early penalty free throws.

Posted by Petey | December 11, 2006 4:29 PM

Well, Antoine looks like Bruce Bowen next to Iverson, Petey. His last year in Boston he had a 25.6 usage rate (and yes, he was much less efficient than A.I.). The thing is that that Celtics team had a really awful offense (24 worst in the league) and a pretty good defense (7 best). In that context, Walker ballhogging wasn't so much of an issue (and it may even have been helpful) By contrast, the Celtics are now an exactly average offensive team (15 best) and a really bad defensive one (24 worst). Another scorer shouldn't even be in their list of high priorities now.

Posted by Carlos | December 11, 2006 4:32 PM

Petey, I'm using current season numbers (from Knickerblogger's site). And I recognize Iverson's value. A guy who can use that many possesions at that efficiency is very, very valuable. The thing is that to maximize his value, a team has to complement him with the right players. You need guys who can profit from those collapsing defenses by making outside shots or getting offensive rebounds, for example (even better if they can defend well). A poor defensive team with another star who is used to having the ball a lot, it's not the perfect complement to me.

Posted by Carlos | December 11, 2006 4:44 PM

"By contrast, the Celtics are now an exactly average offensive team (15 best) and a really bad defensive one (24 worst). Another scorer shouldn't even be in their list of high priorities now."

This is a valid objection, IMHO.

And owing to the specifics of his game, if you want to create a title winner around Iverson, you're best off going with a good defensive team and good rebounding team. (I thought Chicago was the obvious destination for Iverson this past summer before they got stupid over Ben Wallace.)

But that said, the East is weak. Miami, Orlando, Cleveland, Detroit, and Chicago all have serious problems. Iverson and Pierce together would be undefendable. The supporting cast is lousy, but what do the Celtics have to lose? You can't simultaneously develop 10 third year players, so you give a few up, and see how deep into the playoffs Iverson and Pierce can get you.

Posted by Petey | December 11, 2006 4:49 PM

"You need guys who can profit from those collapsing defenses by making outside shots or getting offensive rebounds, for example (even better if they can defend well)."

You beat me to the punch...

Posted by Petey | December 11, 2006 4:50 PM

The thing is that to maximize his value, a team has to complement him with the right players. You need guys who can profit from those collapsing defenses by making outside shots.

Like, um, Paul Pierce?

Posted by Al | December 11, 2006 4:55 PM

what i love about this discussion/site: for all that people knock male obsession with sports, this discussion of the iverson trade has been far more rigorous, concrete, analytical, fact based than just about any political discussion i've seen (probably because the site will stomach someone (e.g.) trying to stand up for isiah but not someone (e.g.) trying to stand up for bush, though many would assert the two are equally ridiculous).

that said, gotta also say that i agree with whoever said not trading within your division or conference is just dumb. philly's bad enough they need to maximize value, who cares if they (e.g.) help chicago over the hump (though why chicago would trade away gordon is somewhat beyond me). indeed, i would think having AI in the division would be great, because you're assured sellouts when he comes to town.

i'd prefer to see AI on a contender, so that he can potentially reenter the discussion of best players in the league (i mean very best, not just perennial allstars).

(can you bet at tradesports or somewhere (vegas?) on where AI will end up? we need a market to sort this out.)

Posted by dj superflat | December 11, 2006 5:00 PM

Pierce certainly is a good outside shooter, but I doubt that's his best asset. His real strength is that he's really good at creating his own shot, not at making outside jumpers a la Steve Kerr. And by the way, I'm not saying a Iverson-Pierce combo can't work, just that who the other guys are, who does what, etc. matters a lot.

Posted by Carlos | December 11, 2006 5:10 PM

what i love about this discussion/site: for all that people knock male obsession with sports, this discussion of the iverson trade has been far more rigorous, concrete, analytical, fact based than just about any political discussion i've seen

W-L records have a way of doing that...(ironic, BTW, that this is the first post after the one complaining of the negatives of meritocracy...)

Yes, yes, "elections", but does anyone really think that elections are a particularly good metric for judging the success of policy performance? The sports equivalent of electoral success would be along the lines of awarding championships based on the best gameplan, where "best" was constrained to within a fairly narrow range (running on 40-45% of downs, e.g.)

Posted by Pooh | December 11, 2006 5:12 PM

The bottom line seems to be that the Celtics and the Sixers are two really crappy teams, and they probably would not even be that good if they pooled their best players onto one team (at least if Doc Rivers were the coach). There is obviously talent there at both locations, but apparently it is only good for a combined dozen wins a quarter way through the season. Whatever those knuckleheads Ainge and King concoct, it's not going to be good. David Stern should recognize that AI is one of the all-time greats, and use his dictator powers to force a trade to Minnesota. If Ainge complains then Stern should have him lashed. Use those powers for something good rather than forcing NBA players to play with elementary-school dodge balls.

Posted by Jeremiah J. | December 11, 2006 5:15 PM

Trading for Iverson makes no basketball sense for the Celtics. AI has a history of not playing nice with other peremeter players (see: Stackhouse, Hughes). Invariably, he needs the ball in his hands too much. Well...let me tell you something: As a Celtics fan, I've watched Paul Pierce play in 400 or 500 games. And the man likes the ball in his hands. A lot. There is not enough ball to go around for him and AI.

The Celtics would need to give up Al Jefferson to make this trade happen. Jefferson's short career has been plagued with injuries, but he has once-in-a-generation hands for a big man. These things are softer than butter. It's like he was born to shoot the jump hook. And he's only 21 years old. And he's 6'11". And he's a genuinely nice kid who seems like a late bloomer. And he had 29 points and 14 rebounds against New Jersey in his last game. There is not a Celtics fan alive who would be shocked if he's average 20/10 in three years. (Of course, none of us would be suprised if he was averaging 8/3 either.)

You'd give up him and Gerald Green for...AI. Who is 31 years old and already breaking down this season. How much would you get out of him - two, maybe three years?

All that said, you get the feeling that the Celtics owners HATE being the third banana in town, behind the Sox and Pats. They HATE that nobody pays attention to the team. And trading for Iverson would crank interest in the team through the stratosphere. And in the weakened East, even an imperfect AI/Pierce combo could win some games...

Posted by owenz | December 11, 2006 5:21 PM

"And by the way, I'm not saying a Iverson-Pierce combo can't work, just that who the other guys are, who does what, etc. matters a lot."

No doubt.

My only real philosophical disagreement with you is that I don't see having two productive guys with high usage rates as being a problematic situation.

Posted by Petey | December 11, 2006 5:29 PM

"Yes, yes, "elections", but does anyone really think that elections are a particularly good metric for judging the success of policy performance?"

Policy is easy. Politics and elections are hard.

Posted by Petey | December 11, 2006 5:34 PM

(I thought Chicago was the obvious destination for Iverson this past summer before they got stupid over Ben Wallace.)

For all the talk of Minnesota, LA, Boston, Dallas, Sacramento (!), and Indiana (!!), I still think Chicago is the obvious destination here. Iverson for Ben Gordon, Mike Sweetney, and PJ Brown's expiring contract (a) turns Chicago into the East favorite, and (b) is about as good a package as Philly is likely to land. Chicago could even afford to throw a #1 pick into the mix. No other team seems to make any sense at all.

Posted by right | December 11, 2006 6:02 PM

Policy is easy. Politics and elections are hard.

Horseshit.

Posted by Pooh | December 11, 2006 6:06 PM

The problem with Pierce and AI coexisting is they are both at their best with the ball in their hands.

Garnett would be an ideal compliment to either of them, but hard to see Minnesota having anything to offer Philly.

The move that needs to be made is Garnett to Boston.

Posted by Eric | December 11, 2006 6:21 PM

i almost wrote that policy is made more difficult by elections, but didn't want to come off as a stalinist or somesuch.

re chicago, i know that gordon is inconsistent, but do AI's short-term advantages over gordon -- not tremendous, depending on whether gordon's on that nite -- offset his age/gordon's youth?

Posted by dj superflat | December 11, 2006 6:22 PM

you guys are really, really overrating Ben Gordon. He's about an average shooting guard, maybe below average. He doesn't do anything well, other than score, and he's not that great a scorer.

Posted by too many steves | December 11, 2006 6:29 PM

"do AI's short-term advantages over gordon -- not tremendous, depending on whether gordon's on that nite -- offset his age/gordon's youth?"

Gordon isn't very good right now, and his eventual ceiling is pretty damn low.

So, yes Iverson would be an immense improvement over Gordon. But Gordon doesn't have much value as a trade chip.

The assets that teams want to get from the Bulls are Luol, Tyrus, and next year's Curry deal first rounder - not little Ben.

Posted by Petey | December 11, 2006 6:32 PM

"you guys are really, really overrating Ben Gordon."

Beaten to the punch again...

Posted by Petey | December 11, 2006 6:34 PM

The assets that teams want to get from the Bulls are Luol, Tyrus, and next year's Curry deal first rounder - not little Ben.

Fine then, give them 2 out of those 3 and the Bulls are still likely to win the East (especially if they hang on to Deng).

Posted by right | December 11, 2006 6:45 PM

And if Billy King has proven anything in his career, it is a complete inability to recognize a limited player's low ceiling. Usually this takes the form of silly contracts to free agents, but there's no reason it couldn't apply to trade negotiations. Gordon, Tyrus, and the Bulls' own #1 could very well sucker him in.

Posted by right | December 11, 2006 6:47 PM

Iverson for Ben Gordon, Tyrus Thomas and PJ Brown works under the cap rules. Somehow I doubt Philly is going to get anything better than that.

Posted by Al | December 11, 2006 6:55 PM

Agree with Pooh that Minnesota would be a fantastic destination for AI. The only hole in KG's game is his trouble being be a go-to scoring guy in the clutch. AI would fill that void perfectly and I think their on-court intensity would blend together pretty nicely.

I just wonder if McHale is thinking of moving KG at this point. If so, a "win now" trade for Iverson makes less sense.

Posted by owenz | December 11, 2006 7:06 PM

I just wonder if McHale is thinking of moving KG at this point. If so, a "win now" trade for Iverson makes less sense

If McHale moves KG, don't you think that's the end of McHale's tenure as GM? I mean, what is the liklihood McHale survives blowing up the team like that? He's got to know it's very low, unless he has pictures of Glen Taylor in a compromising situation or something. And that being said, what does he have to lose by going for AI? It seems crazy to me that McHale wouldn't be all over this.

Posted by Al | December 11, 2006 7:32 PM

"Fine then, give them 2 out of those 3 and the Bulls are still likely to win the East "

I think the Bulls would have some very real problems at this point in bringing in either Iverson or Garnett. They really shot themselves in the head with the Ben Wallace signing.

With Iverson or Garnett and Wallace sucking up so much cap space, the Bulls wouldn't be able to re-sign all the kids they've currently got on bargain rookie contracts.

$36m for your top two players. Guesstimate your two most important kids' contracts at $9m for Deng, $7m for Heinrich, and suddenly you're already starting to approach the tax threshold. The devil's in the details, of course, but it's a consideration.

Posted by Petey | December 11, 2006 7:40 PM

"Iverson for Ben Gordon, Tyrus Thomas and PJ Brown works under the cap rules. "

It'd be a smart deal for Philly. They've got a prospect at every position but '1' and '4'. So Tyrus would fit in well.

Posted by Petey | December 11, 2006 7:47 PM

"It seems crazy to me that McHale wouldn't be all over this."

I just don't think he has the pieces to make it happen.

Philly would have to take several contracts it doesn't want along with Foye. There would have to be a serious lack of other offers to make that one the most desirable.

And there was a quote from his owner the other day expressing financial concern about Iverson...

Posted by Petey | December 11, 2006 7:55 PM

Don't you think Webber could potentially be a good mentor on Tyrus Thomas? Webber was also at one point mainly just an athletic specimen, but really developed into a very good all around player (until the knee). I'm really surprised at how poorly the Chicago GM has been over the past 6 months. The Wallace signing was asinine, seeing as how they had a cheaper, much younger version of the same in Chandler. Then they gave away Chandler AND the main young piece they got for him (Smith). And now they seem reluctant to try to pull the trigger on a bigger piece to take a run at the Finals (Iverson or Garnett). Strange.

Posted by Al | December 11, 2006 8:02 PM

"Webber was also at one point mainly just an athletic specimen, but really developed into a very good all around player (until the knee)."

Is this correct? I always thought Webber was a very skilled player, even in his early NBA days (can't remember back to college). He's always been a great passer, even going back to Golden State. And he's always shot from outside. I think he even averaged a three a game early in his career when he was with Washington.

Posted by ben | December 11, 2006 8:22 PM

It depends on how you define "freakish athlete." Webber was always a very skilled player, all the way back to his Fab Five days. He was big and strong, but not really much of leaper - so not really "athletic" in my book. What Al might getting at here is that Webber had amazing skills and talent for guy his age as a youngster...but took some mental seasoning before he became an effective NBA player. The knock on Chris was always that he was bit soft, mentally.

Posted by owenz | December 11, 2006 9:09 PM

A Bulls trade for Iverson is a terrible idea. The Bulls are built around a team concept. That may seem quaint, but it's true. They don't have any first team NBA players (although Deng is starting to look like he may become one) yet they managed to give the Heat more trouble than any other team in the East.

This is one of those situations where chemistry is a very real consideration and Iverson would likely be a net negative for the Bulls.

Posted by a | December 11, 2006 9:56 PM

In looking back at his stats, I guess he started his career better than I thought he did. Ben's right - he was always a great passing big man, for example. I thought he really improved during his career, but his stats were always excellent - and pretty steady through his career. The one thing I was thinking of specifically was his FT%, which he really did improve on - that is part of his improvement mentally, I suppose. (Strange that he was always such a great big man and yet GS and Washington both traded him.) So never mind on my comment...

Posted by Al | December 11, 2006 10:27 PM

Al,

It's not that strange. At least, as a Warriors fan, I didn't find it strange. Webber was soft his entire career -- remember how scared he was to touch the ball late in games, during the conference finals with the Kings? He's basically a big ... er, pansy. Always has been. He whined his way out of Golden State, so I assume he did the same in Washington. To give him credit, he seemed to grow up with Sacramento.

Posted by too many steves | December 11, 2006 11:39 PM

"Don't you think Webber could potentially be a good mentor on Tyrus Thomas?"

Yuperoo.

Webber is an incredibly smart player. His court intelligence has been on good display since his knee injury, as it's all he has going for him anymore. I'd guess it'd be a real asset for a young '4' to play behind him for a year or so.

And the intelligence isn't just on the offensive end. (The Sixers will win 15 more games this year, but Webber will have triple-doubles in 5 of them.) As a defender on the blocks, he's still really good due to his smarts. He gives more athletic guys like Garnett, Stoudamire, and Dwight Howard real fits when they have the ball. Of course, he's useless as a help defender since he can't move laterally, but that's a body problem, not a mind problem.

He's a real pleasure to watch as long as he's not on a team you're rooting for.

Posted by Petey | December 12, 2006 12:44 AM

A reasonably encyclopedic encapsulation of all there is to basketball in a single blogpost, courtesy of freedarko.

Now can we please free allen iverson so I can get back to enjoying my League Pass?

Posted by Petey | December 12, 2006 2:11 AM