KG Trade?

I just want to make clear that if, as Marc Stein is reporting, the main sticking point preventing a Timberwolves-Celtics trade for Boston to acquire Kevin Garnett is the big ticket's "well-chronicled unwillingness to play in Boston," that though this blog likes to engage in some Boston-bashing now and again it's hardly that bad a town.

The NBA desperately needs Kevin Garnett to be playing on a contending team and, frankly, he and his sad Minnesota crew just might contend in the East. Garnett plus Paul Pierce plus Ray Allen is, on this coast at least, a powerhouse. It does seem, though, that the real stumbling block here should be less a question of where Garnett wants to play than the simple fact that beyond Pierce and Allen, the only asset Boston has is Al Jefferson. Jefferson's a good prospect, sure, but you'd want more than that if you're Minnesota. Can they ask for every first round draft pick until the end of time?

Comments

"Can they ask for every first round draft pick until the end of time?"

A team can only part with its first rounders in alternative years. So they can ask for every other first rounder until the end of time.

That said, I'd assume they'll get no first rounders. This deal would be for Jefferson and cap space. Garnett has very limited trade value. He's old and has a nightmare contract.

Posted by Petey | July 30, 2007 9:33 AM

I imagine the objection to Boston is its lingering reputation as a racist town.

Posted by ogged | July 30, 2007 9:35 AM

"I imagine the objection to Boston is its lingering reputation as a racist town."

Yup.

Posted by Petey | July 30, 2007 9:37 AM

My favorite NBA story at the moment is the crew that's doing home invasions on NBA stars in Chicago. Showtime should do a half-hour sitcom ala Entourage based on this.

Posted by Petey | July 30, 2007 9:40 AM

I imagine the objection to Boston is its lingering reputation as a racist town.

Perhaps a deserved reputation? If not, can't Pierce just get on the phone and tell him how awesome Boston is? (my official view: not that awesome, but definitely better than losing in Minneapolis).

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | July 30, 2007 9:41 AM

Why is it unsurprising to me that McHale would trade Garnett to Boston for nothing but not to the Lakers for something. I guess I still harbor resentment for that closeline tackle by McHale on Rambis in the Finals for which McHale was not ejected. As our host is a Knicks fan at heart, it is his duty -- The League be damned -- to keep the Celtics beaten down.

Posted by Cal | July 30, 2007 9:48 AM

Has anyone informed KG that (a) South Boston is a different town, and (b) it's been about 30 years since the late 70's? Why don't Chicago and Philadelphia have similar - and probably more deserved - reputations?

Posted by Angry Sam | July 30, 2007 9:49 AM

beyond Pierce and Allen, the only asset Boston has is Al Jefferson
What about Rajon Rondo? He's no Chris Paul or Deron Williams, but he's a solid PG who shows a lot of potential. And given the weak state of back courts in the NBA, a decent PG is all you need to be competitive.

Posted by anon | July 30, 2007 9:53 AM

Cripes. If the most MN gets for KG is Jefferson, McHale ought to commit seppuku out of shame.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 30, 2007 9:57 AM

Jefferson a prospect? He went for 16 and 11 last year, just to let you know. Of course he's only 22 so he's only going to get better - but with those numbers I think he's a little more than a prospect like Bynum.
I hate this deal from a C's perspective. Theo, Gomes, a #1 pick, and Gerald Green should be enough - how many years can KG really have left?

Posted by berger | July 30, 2007 10:05 AM

Maybe there's a simpler explanation: the management
of the Celtics has been thoroughly incompetent for
a long long time, and on top of that also unlucky
(the death of Reggie Lewis, never getting lucky in
the lottery). If you're looking for a place to
win, competent management is a big consideration.

Posted by Richard Cownie | July 30, 2007 10:09 AM

"I hate this deal from a C's perspective."

You're crazy. You should be able to win the East with these three.

I do think Boston is going to regret not finding a way to hold onto Delonte in the Ray Allen deal, though. A point guard is going to be important.

Posted by Petey | July 30, 2007 10:11 AM

win the East

Not the goal.

Posted by Quarterican | July 30, 2007 10:17 AM

Theo, Gomes, a #1 pick, and Gerald Green should be enough - how many years can KG really have left?

Right, but aren't the C's saving Gerald Green to trade for LeBron straight up?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 30, 2007 10:19 AM

Win the East? It's hard for me to get excited about that. At best I'll be watching the Spurs systematically disassemble my Celtics in the finals.
Regardless, I _completely_ agree with you about Delonte. Not a pure 1 to be sure but would have helped a lot right now. Rumor was that Seattle wanted Rondo but Aingle balked... why hold on to Rondo when you want to win now? Delonte would be great on this KG team.

Posted by berger | July 30, 2007 10:22 AM

"Not the goal."

Meh. Merely becoming a contender is always a success story. Just because 97% of the teams in the association won't win a title in any given year is no reason not to try.

Besides, the West team's plane could always crash during the Finals.

Posted by Petey | July 30, 2007 10:23 AM

"Delonte would be great on this KG team."

Precisely.

Posted by Petey | July 30, 2007 10:24 AM

I think Jefferson, if he can stay healthy, is going to be a monster, so I have mixed emotions about the deal.

Winning the East, however, is a damn great goal. If the only decent goal is to win the NBA title, and thus the only motivation to ever make a deal is to be somehow virtually certain to do so, well, you would basically never make any deals.

Posted by Andruw | July 30, 2007 10:32 AM

Hilarious to me that fans of a team that hasn't been relevant in twenty years reject the prospect of winning the East as not good enough for them. Y'know, 'cause if you hang on to Jefferson you will so totally roll to an NBA title before the wheels fall off of Allen and Pierce...

Posted by Jake H. | July 30, 2007 10:34 AM

Not the goal.

Hate to agree with Petey, but it's a perfectly fine goal.

Posted by Al | July 30, 2007 10:37 AM

Of course you can't assemble a team that's actually guaranteed to win a championship, and that's not my point; what I want is to assemble a team that has a shot of winning a championship. Pierce / Allen / Garnett plus the hodgepodge of rookies and journeymen has a shot at winning the east, but little/no shot at winning the title, and if it involves trading Jefferson plus more pieces away, it seriously compromises the team's future (more than the Allen trade already did). I'm willing to gamble everything on winning now if the gamble is to win a championship, but not if the gamble is to win a conference and get taken apart by Phoenix / one of the Texas teams.

Other (most?) fans may be wired differently, but I'd rather see the Celtics win a title every fifteen years and never make the playoffs between championship runs (an unlikely scenario, granted) than see them make the playoffs every year until the end of time but never win it all.

Posted by Quarterican | July 30, 2007 10:55 AM

A team can only part with its first rounders in alternative years. So they can ask for every other first rounder until the end of time.

Actually thats false. A team can only trade 1st rounders 5 years out. So, a team could not at the moment trade away a pick in 2014, for example.

Posted by matthew c | July 30, 2007 10:58 AM

. Pierce / Allen / Garnett plus the hodgepodge of rookies and journeymen has a shot at winning the east, but little/no shot at winning the title, and if it involves trading Jefferson plus more pieces away, it seriously compromises the team's future (more than the Allen trade already did).

This strikes me as crazy. Why do people believe--and it seems to be the consensus opinion--that a Pierce/Allen/KG team couldn't win the title? The West is the stronger conference, but its teams aren't imbued with magic powers.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 30, 2007 11:06 AM

Actually, the trade is not just Jefferson for KG. It Is Jefferson, Gerald Green, Theo Ratliff, Sebastian Telfair (mostly contrast trash), the Celtics 2008 #1 draft pick, and, possibly most important, the return by Boston to Minny of Minny's own 2008 draft pick, which will probably be a lottery pick.

That is probably the best possible trade for Minny. I think Jefferson is good, and will be a servicable near All Star big man in the West. He wont be an All Star. Gerald Green will also be a nice solid 2 guard, but not a super star.

It also makes sense for Boston because they suddenly have a team that might win the whole thing. THey can at least be competitive with the Western teams, and if everything goes well, they can win the ring. They are WAY over the lux tax, and will have to sign bodies to fill out their now pathetic bench. But, Boston is now relevant again, which is hard to underestimate to the fans of Boston.

And, more importantly, Boston is now relevant in the NBA, which is no small thing, considering the current NBA ref scandal, and the total lack of ratings for the NBA Finals. THe only way NBA ratings improve in the finals is if The Lakers, the Knicks, the Celts, the Bulls, and possibly the Suns are in the Finals. Thats it. Period.

Posted by ValisJason | July 30, 2007 11:11 AM

Why do people believe--and it seems to be the consensus opinion--that a Pierce/Allen/KG team couldn't win the title? The West is the stronger conference, but its teams aren't imbued with magic powers.

It's not that it's impossible, its that its unlikely because with KG the Celtics still wouldn't be all that good because:

1. Pierce and Allen are both really good, but neither are great.

2. All three are passed their prime and their skills could begin rapidly declining at essentially any minute.

3. the Celtics bench is thin to begin with, in order to land KG it would have to be completely emptied.

4. who plays center and point?

Posted by matthew c | July 30, 2007 11:16 AM

Why do people believe--and it seems to be the consensus opinion--that a Pierce/Allen/KG team couldn't win the title?

Reason 1: I'm a Celtics fan, and while I was technically alive for two of the championships, for all intents and purposes relevant to me, the only Celtics luck I've known in my life has been bad luck.

Reason 2: At the end of the day, I think KG is pretty overrated. Not vastly overrated, but reasonably. As in: KG's a lock for the Hall of Fame, in the first year he's eligible, but I think he should be a borderline candidate. Lots of people are gonna think I'm crazy on that one, and I'm not gonna spend time arguing for my position, but there it is.

Reason 3: I don't believe in teams that have severe dropoffs between their star contingent and the rest of their guys. They win, sometimes (1994 Rockets, anyone?), but they make me antsy.

Posted by Quarterican | July 30, 2007 11:18 AM

"Actually, the trade is not just Jefferson for KG. It Is Jefferson, Gerald Green, Theo Ratliff, Sebastian Telfair (mostly contrast trash), the Celtics 2008 #1 draft pick, and, possibly most important, the return by Boston to Minny of Minny's own 2008 draft pick, which will probably be a lottery pick."

If they give up two first rounders - especially the Minny pick - they're giving up too much.

Ainge ought to play hardball here. Minny would still be getting a great deal even if he refuses to include the Minny pick, and he ought to wait for the Wolves to figure that out.

"THe only way NBA ratings improve in the finals is if The Lakers, the Knicks, the Celts, the Bulls, and possibly the Suns are in the Finals."

Given that having four or five teams simultaneously in Finals would probably be a sign of the apocalypse, I'd say good ratings wouldn't be all that useful in such circumstances.

Posted by Petey | July 30, 2007 11:18 AM

"who plays center and point?"

Magic Johnson.

Posted by Petey | July 30, 2007 11:20 AM

Hey, So we stoned buses taking black children to school. No big deal. That was thirty years ago.
How many minority sports stars stay in Boston after they retire?

Posted by King Quaker | July 30, 2007 11:21 AM

"I don't believe in teams that have severe dropoffs between their star contingent and the rest of their guys. They win, sometimes (1994 Rockets, anyone?), but they make me antsy."

You should be significantly more antsy about the possibility of the trade not happening, in which case you have a team with both a limited present and a limited future.

Posted by Petey | July 30, 2007 11:23 AM

1. Pierce and Allen are both really good, but neither are great.

As opposed to whom in the West? Ginobli? Josh Howard?

All three are passed their prime and their skills could begin rapidly declining at essentially any minute.

"Could" is..."could." None of them have fallen off a cliff yet.

the Celtics bench is thin to begin with, in order to land KG it would have to be completely emptied.

Teams play, what, eight at most in the playoffs. And two-thirds of the games would be against the East. They can afford to be thin.

who plays center and point?

Reanimated Steve Kerr and Bill Cartwright. Not everyone has to be good; you can win with "not actively hurting the team."

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 30, 2007 11:23 AM

I think you know what I was saying about the NBA Finals, but its a pet peeve of mine. Every year bloviators whine about declining NBA ratings, etc etc. The simple answer is that more than football and baseball, people watch the Finals if their team is in them. More people who watch basketball live in LA, NY, Boston, Chicago. So, if one and possibly two of those teams (being a Laker fans, you know what I want) then the ratings will be good, and everyone will be happy. If you get transcendent starts, like Jordan, then maybe people will tune in despite what market he is playing in. But, maybe not. The Lebron appearance this year certainly argues against, but then, I dont think Lebron is yet a transcendent star.

Posted by ValisJason | July 30, 2007 11:23 AM

who plays center and point?

I knew they signed Brian Scalabrine for a reason.

Posted by Al | July 30, 2007 11:25 AM

I am somewhat amused by the prissy Celtic fans here. First of all, if you have a shot at winning your conference, you have a shot at the title. But secondly, do you really think you're going to ever have a title contending team in the vein you are looking for with the current administration? I mean, really? From a certain perspective, I think this is great for the Celtics. They ditch all their good young prospects (as opposed to the ones that will never be any good) and they get a team that can compete for 1-3 years. After that they will suck horribly again, everybody can finally be fired, and they can start over (management-wise, which is what really counts here).

The real problem with the competition in the NBA these days is that the combination of the salary cap and max player contracts is that if you have Tim Duncan or similar under a non-grandfathered max contract (unlike Shaq or KG), you are basically always going to be a contender. There will always be 20-30 players in the league deserving of that contract. Having one of the top 3 is just a huge advantage. And if you don't have one of those guys, your GM just has to be a genius in order to compete. I can't believe more people are talking about this. The only other way to go that I can think of is just to build a really good young core, get into a position where you can pay those guys what they're worth, blow pass the cap, and add assets in later years through the veterans exceptions. But the owners who seem to be willing to do this have not had a whole lot of luck (though the Blazers were really good for a while).

Posted by mpowell | July 30, 2007 11:25 AM

I am somewhat amused by the prissy Celtic fans here. First of all, if you have a shot at winning your conference, you have a shot at the title. But secondly, do you really think you're going to ever have a title contending team in the vein you are looking for with the current administration?

I admit, part of it *is* the kind of macho prideful reaction "We have sixteen championship banners hanging in our stadium. Making a big deal out of conference and, good lord, divisional banners is beneath us, and an insult to the team's legacy." Silly, perhaps, but there it is; maybe I'd feel different if I were, say, Grizzlies fan, or even a Sixers fan. But there's also the truth that I can only cognizantly operate on so many levels of fan-desire at a time. Adding the level of "the current ownership needs to be driven out before things get better, so root for them to make moves which appear superficially helpful but aren't" into the calculus is too much for my feeble brain.

Posted by Quarterican | July 30, 2007 11:43 AM

Re Delonte, I remember being at St. Joe's during the miracle year, and being in the small minority in thinking that Delonte was even better than Jameer (partly bc of playing with Jameer, but still). In evaluating Delonte as a 1, you have to remember that he never got a chance to play it in college.

Posted by noaboyd | July 30, 2007 11:44 AM

"I admit, part of it *is* the kind of macho prideful reaction "We have sixteen championship banners hanging in our stadium. Making a big deal out of conference and, good lord, divisional banners is beneath us, and an insult to the team's legacy." Silly, perhaps, but there it is; maybe I'd feel different if I were, say, Grizzlies fan, or even a Sixers fan."

Perhaps you are correct. I think you should try to space out your future titles on the same schedule the Red Sox have going to avoid diminishing your past glories. When you win your next championship around 2070, it'll be a great moment for recalling the triumphs of past eras.

Posted by Petey | July 30, 2007 11:50 AM

I would like to begin this comment by asserting that the Spurs are, in fact, magic.

On another note, the Celts with KG will not win the East. Pierce seems to be getting fat. Allen can be shut down and become a glorified jumpshooter. KG's face is Webber-esque at all the worst times.

Posted by MP | July 30, 2007 12:00 PM

"1. Pierce and Allen are both really good, but neither are great."
As opposed to whom in the West? Ginobli? Josh Howard? ...."Could" is..."could." None of them have fallen off a cliff yet .... Teams play, what, eight at most in the playoffs. And two-thirds of the games would be against the East. They can afford to be thin ... Not everyone has to be good; you can win with "not actively hurting the team."

What I mean by pointing out that neither are great, is that neither is good enough to cover for the huge deficiencies of the Celtics. Howard and Ginobli don't have to do that, because they're both on teams that have lots of really good players.

Teams mostly go with a 8 or 9 man rotation in the playoffs, but the Celtics would essentially be going with a 3-man rotation. They would have to play all three guys huge minutes. There is no way a team of Pierce/Allen/KG can carry a team with no point guard, no center, and absolutely nothing on the bench through an 82 game season and four playoff rounds. They would be running on fumes if they finally reached the Finals and would get blown out of the water by a team like the Suns or Spurs, who have All-Stars, quality players at every position, AND a bench.

Honestly, I think this team's best chance is not this year, but next. They'll have the ability to add some free agents with the MLE and bi-annual exception (no one is left this year). But as the team would be right after a KG trade, they don't have enough. I doubt they'd even make into the Eastern Conference Finals.

Posted by matthew c | July 30, 2007 12:01 PM

Anyone who thinks that NOT trading for a player among the Top 5 in the NBA - regardless of the cost - needs to get a clue.

In fact, in what sport is that never advised? Talent is so thin in the NBA, franchise guys are few and far between. Elite players are even more rare. And one may be on Boston's doorstep and soem fans are saying 'meh.' Are you guys crazy??

The C's have been a mess since Bias' and Lewis' death. One crappy year after another. Time to get this franchise back on the map and not only be relevant again, but actually one with the ability to make some noise and WIN meaningful games.

You pull the trigger to get someone of Garnett's skills, work ethic and star power 10 times out of 10 and take your chances with him, Pierce and Allen as a big Three not seen in these parts in a couple of decades.

Fans in Boston really have gotten soft, almost embarrassing to the point of being fickle. Makes me sick sometimes to hear folks bellyache ALL THE TIME.

Get the guns and go for it.

Posted by Fonz | July 30, 2007 12:25 PM

You pull the trigger to get someone of Garnett's skills, work ethic and star power 10 times out of 10 and take your chances with him, Pierce and Allen as a big Three not seen in these parts in a couple of decades.

Absolutely. If the guy you're getting is better than anyone you're giving up, and better than anyone you still have on the team, and he's probably better than any draft pick you could possibly make unless it's the #1 overall, you just do it. The only reason I could understand not wanting to make the trade is if you're hoping the team sucks enough for everyone from Ainge on down to get fired.

Posted by Antid Oto | July 30, 2007 12:42 PM

ok, it's a little off-topic, because i really don't have much to say here (i'd make the trade), but i regard it as my duty to basketball analysis every time i see someone referencing chris webber's facial expressions, i tend to discount their opinion.

but since i'm typing, i'll note that i was there the night reggie lewis collapsed in the playoff game against charlotte. it happened off the ball, so i didn't see it, but i certainly heard it: the sound of lewis hitting the floor was so loud that i took it for granted that he had run into someone blindly and hit the floor hard. it wasn't until i got home and saw the footage that i realized the severity....

Posted by howard | July 30, 2007 1:14 PM

"every time i see someone referencing chris webber's facial expressions, i tend to discount their opinion."

MP's comment managed to pack more ignorance in fewer words than one would imagine possible.

Posted by Petey | July 30, 2007 1:20 PM

After the break last year, 20/11.5 for Al, 22/13 for KG.

I am a Celts fan of the same mind as Quarterican, but I think mpowell might have the best analysis. Do this deal, be pretty good for a couple years, then resume suckage, at which point Ainge finally gets canned.

What's really the deciding factor to me, though, is that Petey likes this trade for the Celts; therefore, it must be terrible.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | July 30, 2007 1:33 PM

"There is no way a team of Pierce/Allen/KG can carry a team with no point guard, no center, and absolutely nothing on the bench through an 82 game season and four playoff rounds."

Uh, Rajon Rondo and Kendrick Perkins would be the Celts' starting PG and center. Rondo is probably better than any PG on the Cavs team that just went to the Finals and Perkins can probably be at least as good as Erick Dampier who went to the Finals the year before. Off the bench the C's would have Brian Scalabrine, Glen "Big Baby" Davis, Leon Powe, Tony Allen and the team would most likely add an MLE vet this year and next year. Get that team someone who can coach (not you, Doc Rivers!) and a Finals berth is a good bet. Beating whoever comes out of the West will be a tall order, but that's true for everyone in the East.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | July 30, 2007 2:53 PM

So according to the Boston Globe, and cited by TrueHoop a few minutes ago, here's the last offer: Gerald Green, Ryan Gomes, Sebastian Telfair, Theo Ratliff, and two first-round picks to the Timberwolves for Garnett. No Jefferson.

That's amazing. A starting lineup of Rondo, Allen, Pierce, KG and Jefferson would be the best in the NBA. There's no true center, and there's no bench, but still. Holy crap.

So the question is: who's dumber, Danny Ainge or Kevin McHale? I imagine them bidding against themselves -- Ainge offers a package with Jefferson, McHale counters by asking for a package without Jefferson.

Posted by too many steves | July 30, 2007 2:54 PM

"So the question is: who's dumber, Danny Ainge or Kevin McHale? I imagine them bidding against themselves -- Ainge offers a package with Jefferson, McHale counters by asking for a package without Jefferson."

Yup. There's certainly a trade here which greatly benefits both teams, so shouldn't we assume Ainge and McHale, being who they are, wouldn't be able to find that trade?

Posted by Petey | July 30, 2007 3:32 PM

Rondo and Perkins are interesting young prospects, but they are not at this point in their careers very good. I suppose one or both could have a breakout year, but otherwise they make for incredibly weak starters. The Celtics would lose the position battles at the 1 and 5 to most teams in the league right off the bat. Good teams (like the ones in the playoffs) will have the Celtics beat at 3 or 4 positions, AND the bench (not to mention the coach).

And while Rondo may be better than Gibson, Hughes and Snow troika (though I personally don't think so) LeBron James handled point guard duties frequently. Anyway, it was a fluke that such a flawed team made it even in the East.

Who is left this year to even spend the MLE on?

As for bench you named, yikes. You sure have a lot of faith in a whole lot of guys that are either rookies or whose points per game are in the low single digits.

Posted by matthew c | July 30, 2007 3:49 PM

no Jefferson no dice.

a. Garnett has 5 years left. (he's younger than you think cause of no college ball)

b. some of you blokes clearly need to see him play.
c. ultimately no deal happens. why? cause this year's #5 pick is gone. Jefferson and that #5 pick (plus Ratliff's expiring contract and a few throwins) is what MN would have taken if Garnett agreed.

quite frankly, Boston doesn't have enough to offer.

when/if a KG deal happens...it's going to be a three team deal. MN doesn't have to trade Garnett. they can hold out for value.
if he stays in MN (still the odds-on bet)...they've got some good young talent to play around him in Smith, a healthy McCants, Foye and Brewer. not enough for the west...but it might be enough for a .500 record this year and some real potential in the next couple years.

Posted by Nathan | July 30, 2007 3:52 PM

Good teams (like the ones in the playoffs) will have the Celtics beat at 3 or 4 positions,

Name 'em.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 30, 2007 3:52 PM

I think the thing I would counsel Celtics fans who don't like this deal is that, sometimes, (and I say this speaking as a Bulls fan), young talent gets you to good but not great. I'm not giving up on my teams nucleus, after our years in the wild I'm very happy, and I like the philosophy for building a team that Pax has. But I also have had to confront the fact that my team might not take the next step; its hard to tell if young talent can get you to the elite or just to awfully good. You're a moribund franchise; take your swing.

Posted by Freddie | July 30, 2007 4:13 PM

Name 'em.

Perhaps you think much more highly of Pierce and Allen than I do, but New Jersey, Miami, Cleveland, Milwaukee, the Lakers, San Antonio, Houston, Denver off the top of my head.

There's also bound to be several young players I can't account for right now who go from good to great (like, say, Al Jefferson or Brandon Roy) and eclipse the aging veterans (to be fair by the same token, Perkins or Rondo could actually become good as well).

Anyway, basketball is obviously more complex than lining up positional battles. I don't actually think the Bucks are better than the new Celtics, for example, while the Mavericks only win at two positions but are a superior team.

The point is, though, the Celtics go into nearly every single game with worse starting point guard, a worse starting center, a worse bench, and a worse coach. When any of those teams also have a better shooting guard (ex: Jersey) or small forward (Cleveland) or power forward (San Antonio), the other team's advantage becomes overwhelming. Rondo and Perkins are guys you start when you're rebuilding, not if you're trying to win now.

Perhaps Ainge isn't done, but I don't see any free agents (especially ones who would take the MLE to go to Boston) available to shore up the 1, 5, and bench, and they won't have many trade assets. I still think 2008-09 is the year they make a big run. They're too thin, too flawed this year.

Posted by matthew c | July 30, 2007 4:52 PM

erhaps you think much more highly of Pierce and Allen than I do, but New Jersey, Miami, Cleveland, Milwaukee, the Lakers, San Antonio, Houston, Denver off the top of my head.

Cleveland?

Posted by Freddie | July 30, 2007 5:10 PM

Cleveland?

LeBron James > Paul Pierce
Ilgauskus > Perkins
Hughes or Gibson > Rondo

And they did win 50 games and the East.

Posted by matthew c | July 30, 2007 5:41 PM

matthew c,

Aren't we talking about the Cs with a KG-Pierce-Allen core? Only LeBron is better than all 3 of those guys.

Posted by too many steves | July 30, 2007 5:47 PM

OK, disregard that last comment. I see what you're getting at now -- teams that would beat the Celtics at 3 positions, not teams that would have a better top 3.

Posted by too many steves | July 30, 2007 6:04 PM

I'm talking just about positional match-ups:

Gibson > Rondo
Pavlobrick James > Pierce
Gooden Ilgauskas > Perkins

3-2 Cavs.

Obviously not the only (or best) way to compare teams.

Posted by matthew c | July 30, 2007 6:06 PM

TMS kind of gets at the point. A team composed of Kobe + the worst four guys at the gym is worse at four positions than a team composed of the next five worst guys, but I would pick the first team to win.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 30, 2007 6:07 PM

"Rondo and Perkins are interesting young prospects, but they are not at this point in their careers very good. I suppose one or both could have a breakout year, but otherwise they make for incredibly weak starters."

Not when you consider what they'll be asked to do. Rondo will basically just be asked to keep opposing PG out of the lane on defense and Perkins will basically just be asked to push opposing centers like Shaq or Ilgauskas away from the basket. Rondo's not going to be called on to be a great playmaker and Perkins will just have to grab whatever rebounds KG doesn't snare.

And didn't didn't most teams have an advantage over Miami at 3 starting positions when the Heat won the title? I think you can also argue that the Cavs were out-talented at 3 or 4 positions most games when they made it to the Finals, especially when you consider how much they played Varejo at center.

Last Season stats

KG - 22.4 ppg, 12.8 rpg, 4.1 apg, 1.7 bpg
PP - 25 ppg, 5.9 rpg, 4.1 apg, 1.5 spg
RA - 26.4 ppg, 4.5 rpg, 4.1 apg, 1.5 spg

That becomes, probably, the best threesome in the league next season. Other things, like health, have to fall in place...but I don't see how you can be down on a team like that. The rest of the Celtic team certainly isn't any worse than the Nets have had after their Big 3 and Garnett gives Boston a completely different dimension than what Jersey gets from Kidd, VC or Jefferson.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | July 30, 2007 6:25 PM

So now that the deal seems like a foregone conclusion, Ian Thomsen has a piece up at SI.com that ends with this: first he says the 'Wolves could have had Stoudemire from Phoenix, then he says:

"It speaks to McHale's integrity that he is doing what he clearly believes is in the best interests of his franchise even though he will surely be criticized for choosing Jefferson over Stoudemire in a trade involving Garnett."

That's a very sympathetic reading.

Thomsen also points out that Garnett is finally going to be in a good role for him. He'll be the #3 scorer, free to rebound, defend, pass, and score when he needs to.

Anyway, I like the deal, a lot. If Boston doesn't make the finals this year, let 'em play together for another year and they'll be there in 08-09.

And, Quarterican, getting the Finals is a necessary step in winning the Finals. Even if you're a huge underdog, you've still got maybe a 1-in-5 chance to win it.

Posted by too many steves | July 30, 2007 7:28 PM

With Gomes now apparently included, as a Celts fan I still love the deal, but they couldn't even hold a practice right now. I sure hope Big Baby is enjoying steamed brocoli for dinner tonight.

Posted by Andruw | July 30, 2007 7:38 PM

i referenced c-webb's (and shaq's) facial stylings in the past, you all were horrified i would presume to guess what was going on internally. check all the recent scientific studies on facial expressions, how easy they are to read (that's the point), and how they actually drive emotion, not the other way around. if you want the shortcut, read blink.

on the topic of the thread, of course you pull the trigger. winning the east is a worthwhile goal. yes, the team's pretty lame, there's not much d being played, so they might lose earlier than you'd think in the playoffs. but the celtics look like their on the grizzly path. maybe get decent enough to be an 8 seed for a year or two, then further collapse.

Posted by dj superflat | July 30, 2007 7:55 PM

"I'm talking just about positional match-ups:

Gibson > Rondo
Pavlobrick James > Pierce
Gooden Ilgauskas > Perkins

3-2 Cavs."

First of all, Gibson

Second, look-- Lebron James is better than anyone on the Celtics. After that, Garnett, Pierce and Allen are way better than anyone else on the Cavs. If you eliminate Pierce by merely asking who's better between him and Lebron, then I suppose you can make an argument for the Cavs, although I don't trust Boobie in the least. But if you simply ask who has a 3-2 advantage in terms of top five players for both teams, it's clearly the Celtics.

Also, the won the East by beating the Wizards, the worst playoff team of the last 25 years, the Nets, a bad team, and an aging Detroit team they match up with very well. I'm not impressed.

Posted by Freddie | July 30, 2007 8:15 PM

For Matt (not the host of this blog):
Brevin Knight (or Earl Boykins) - 2 years, $5 million
PJ Brown - 2 years, $5 million

Suddenly you add another good rebounding/defensive rotation center (who played 20 mpg on a 49 win team last year) and a serviceable point to split time with Rondo. Celtics = 8 man deep team:
Rondo/Knight
Ray Allen/Tony Allen
Paul Pierce (one of Pierce/RAllen is always in the game to keep the offense humming)
KG
Perkins/PJ Brown

Guys like Brian Scalabrine are good enough to be 9th and 10th men off the bench, even for championship contenders. Maybe find one more Euro swing man a la Walter Hermann, Anthony Parker or Garbage man in TDot and you have the best team in the East, period.

Also: do not underestimate Ainge's ability to find guys late in the draft (Al Jefferson) or in the 2nd round (Ryan Gomes) that are solid glue guys. Leon Powe, for example, was an excellent player at Cal. There were questions about his knees, but he is healthy now and height was also a bogus knock on the kid (9'3" standing reach).

Posted by dan k | July 30, 2007 8:54 PM

A lot of people seem to be either misunderstanding or skimming what I actually said. To be clear:

1. I think few if any teams have 3 better players than the Celtics, in the East or West.

2. As I said repeatedly, I know a basketball game is decided by more than a tally of position match-ups. I even stated that even though I believe the Bucks win 3 of 5 positional matchups with Mo, Redd, and Bogut, the Celtics are better, and that even though the Celtics with 3 of 5 from the Mavericks, Dallas better than Boston.

3. My point is against virtually every team in the league (and any in the playoffs) the Celtics will by default lose the matchups at point, center, bench, and coaching. When they play teams that also have a better 2, 3, and 4, that's just too many mismatches to overcome.

4. I think this is a GOOD DEAL for the Celtics (and for the Wolves). They were constantly straddling the rebuilding/win-now fence, and they've gone all in. But I think they're going to make their big push in 2008-09 when the Grant Hill-type veterans who want to win will choose Boston and a paycut instead of Phoenix.

Also dan, I believe PJ Brown is retiring. I'm not sure Brevin Knight or Boykins would even beat out Rajon Rondo, though I agree either would be a good signing for the Celtics.

Posted by matthew c | July 30, 2007 10:06 PM

sorry, there was a lot of typos in that, but the one I do need to fix is changing "2, 3, and 4" to "2, 3, or 4".

Posted by matthew c | July 30, 2007 10:35 PM