In the NBA's first summer blockbuster, the Celtics will send future Hall of Famers Paul Pierce and Kevin Garnett to the Nets, according to sources. What does the trade mean for each side? Our panel examines the deal.

1. Good move or bad move for the Nets?

Kevin Arnovitz, ESPN.com: A wash. As TrueHoop Network alumnus Bret LaGree tweeted earlier Thursday, "Every conversation in the Nets front office [begins] with, 'You know who used to be really good?'" Are the Nets now better than Miami? Indiana? Chicago with a healthy Derrick Rose? That would put them in a dogfight for the fourth seed, which is precisely where they ended up in April.

Jeremy Gordon, Brooklyn's Finest: I'll cop out and call it an interesting move. There are too many questions to prejudge it as a success or failure, but if Garnett and Pierce return at their level from last season, have their minutes managed wisely and immediately jell with the team, it has to be a success. Those two plus Joe Johnson, Deron Williams and Brook Lopez take the Nets from middle-of-the-road to Eastern Conference contender. They also should make the Nets a lot more fun to follow, and isn't that the point?

Brian Robb, Celtics Hub: Good move. Kevin Garnett, Jason Terry and Paul Pierce are old, but all three are still valuable players in the league. Given Brooklyn's limited flexibility in bringing in useful contributors under the new CBA rules, it's hard to argue against making the ultimate push to win now.

Marc Stein, ESPN.com: If you've got an owner willing to absorb all the financial implications of this trade, it's a great move. The Nets weren't going to be able to trade Johnson. They didn't have an otherwise clear path to improving such a high-priced roster. And it's not as though they've thrown away the chance to get under the cap any time soon. So if the boss is willing to let his luxury-tax bill skyrocket, why would you ever protest?

Brian Windhorst, ESPN.com: It's a good short-term move. The talent changing directions at the moment obviously favors Brooklyn. There's no way to know what those draft picks will mean over the long haul. For the past few years the Nets have been spending like maniacs for short-term returns. This move will give them a lot of experience and the ability to play very big, but I'm not sure if it helps them beat a team like the Heat, who are much more athletic, or a team like the Pacers, who can match up and are also more athletic. The Nets are better, but I'm not sure how much better. Said the same thing about their team last year.

2. Good move or bad move for the Celtics?

Arnovitz: Good-ish. With this trade, the Big Dig officially begins in Boston. The Celtics have gutted their roster, but as consolation they now hold six first-round picks over the next three drafts. The Gerald Wallace contract is an albatross, but in their quest to get better by getting worse, they aren't exactly in the market to acquire high-dollar talent.

Gordon: Good move, because the Celtics weren't going to contend with this core, and they have positioned themselves to reload extensively through the draft over the next few years while getting back some of their cap space. If they can immediately deal Wallace's contract, even better. Better to rip off the Band-Aid than slowly and painfully pull it off.

Robb: Best deal available. Too early to say good or bad. It was certainly the biggest haul Boston was going to get for Pierce and Garnett this summer. However, I'm still not crazy about the deal. No valuable breathing assets in return at this point in time, and a trio of what likely will be late first-round picks from Brooklyn? It's better than nothing, but still quite the crapshoot.

Stein: Sad move for the Celtics. I'm a sappy old hoops romantic. I wanted to see Pierce retire in green. The reality is that they made the right move to go for multiple picks in a deal with the only team in the NBA universe that was willing and able (thanks to Garnett's no-trade clause) to take back both Pierce and KG. Hard to argue that Danny Ainge was going to have a better option. But this whole end-of-an-era stuff in Boston has been rather abrupt for us romantics to take.

Windhorst: It's not a good trade for them. They were handcuffed because they had such limited options thanks to the Garnett no-trade clause. They also made sending Pierce to a contender a priority, which is honorable but doesn't really serve the needs of the franchise. It probably would have served them better if they just were heartless and sent Pierce to the highest bidder. They cleared some long-term salary, but they're still going to be paying Kris Humphries and Wallace more than $22 million next season. That's not good. I suppose they'll sell all these draft picks but, in case you didn't watch the draft, those picks are crapshoots.

3. Where do the Nets now rank in the East?