Should Perk fans "let it go", or is there still stuff to talk about?

[Lucky17]

http://sports.espn.go.com/boston/nba/columns/story?columnist=may_peter&id=6227550

Perkins, of course, never made it back to the Pepsi Center for the game that night. After the shootaround, his agent, Bob Myers, called and told him of the possibility of a deal. Perkins had no clue.

"I was pretty surprised,'' Perkins told ESPNBoston via telephone. "I had no idea. I talked to Doc [Rivers] and he said he wasn't pushing it, that he was trying to stop it."

Rivers said he did stop it. That was Perkins Deal No. 1, according to the coach.

"At the time I talked to him, it was a different deal and I did put a stop to that one. But I also told him that something might still happen,'' Rivers said.

Soon, Perkins Deal No. 2 came along and Rivers then had to say goodbye to a player he had, he said, come to regard as a son.

"It was the most difficult thing I have had to since I've been in the league,'' Rivers said. "It was like sending one of your kids along the way. It can be very hard to separate the basketball from the personal and this one was definitely that for me. Perk had great spirit. He had the intangibles you look for. We all decided to make the trade, but, for me, it hurt. It hurt a lot."

The first deal was presumably with Golden State, involving Brandan Wright, yes?

I think Golden State might have been part of it, but I don't think they would have been the ones landing Perk.  

Interesting link.  It makes it sound like Danny was a lot more anxious to trade Perk than Doc (the guy who actually deals with the players on a daily basis) was.

But that was a rumor out there, right? With Boston then flipping Wright and a 1st to Houston for Battier? Or am I misremembering things?

No, the rumor (confirmed by Golden State's owner) was that we would have sent Nate and a #1 for Brandan Wright as part of a 3-team deal.  Perk (at least to date) hasn't been mentioned as being part of those discussions.

Ah. Interesting to read this, then.

[mgent]

http://sports.espn.go.com/boston/nba/columns/story?columnist=may_peter&id=6227550

Perkins, of course, never made it back to the Pepsi Center for the game that night. After the shootaround, his agent, Bob Myers, called and told him of the possibility of a deal. Perkins had no clue.

"I was pretty surprised,'' Perkins told ESPNBoston via telephone. "I had no idea. I talked to Doc [Rivers] and he said he wasn't pushing it, that he was trying to stop it."

Rivers said he did stop it. That was Perkins Deal No. 1, according to the coach.

"At the time I talked to him, it was a different deal and I did put a stop to that one. But I also told him that something might still happen,'' Rivers said.

Soon, Perkins Deal No. 2 came along and Rivers then had to say goodbye to a player he had, he said, come to regard as a son.

"It was the most difficult thing I have had to since I've been in the league,'' Rivers said. "It was like sending one of your kids along the way. It can be very hard to separate the basketball from the personal and this one was definitely that for me. Perk had great spirit. He had the intangibles you look for. We all decided to make the trade, but, for me, it hurt. It hurt a lot."

The first deal was presumably with Golden State, involving Brandan Wright, yes?

I think Golden State might have been part of it, but I don't think they would have been the ones landing Perk.  

Interesting link.  It makes it sound like Danny was a lot more anxious to trade Perk than Doc (the guy who actually deals with the players on a daily basis) was.

But that was a rumor out there, right? With Boston then flipping Wright and a 1st to Houston for Battier? Or am I misremembering things?

I think that deal was pretty close.  Semih thought he was going to Houston at least, unless that was part of a different deal.

[Chris]

http://sports.espn.go.com/boston/nba/columns/story?columnist=may_peter&id=6227550

Perkins, of course, never made it back to the Pepsi Center for the game that night. After the shootaround, his agent, Bob Myers, called and told him of the possibility of a deal. Perkins had no clue.

"I was pretty surprised,'' Perkins told ESPNBoston via telephone. "I had no idea. I talked to Doc [Rivers] and he said he wasn't pushing it, that he was trying to stop it."

Rivers said he did stop it. That was Perkins Deal No. 1, according to the coach.

"At the time I talked to him, it was a different deal and I did put a stop to that one. But I also told him that something might still happen,'' Rivers said.

Soon, Perkins Deal No. 2 came along and Rivers then had to say goodbye to a player he had, he said, come to regard as a son.

"It was the most difficult thing I have had to since I've been in the league,'' Rivers said. "It was like sending one of your kids along the way. It can be very hard to separate the basketball from the personal and this one was definitely that for me. Perk had great spirit. He had the intangibles you look for. We all decided to make the trade, but, for me, it hurt. It hurt a lot."

The first deal was presumably with Golden State, involving Brandan Wright, yes?

I think Golden State might have been part of it, but I don't think they would have been the ones landing Perk.  

Interesting link.  It makes it sound like Danny was a lot more anxious to trade Perk than Doc (the guy who actually deals with the players on a daily basis) was.

But that was a rumor out there, right? With Boston then flipping Wright and a 1st to Houston for Battier? Or am I misremembering things?

I think that deal was pretty close.  Semih thought he was going to Houston at least, unless that was part of a different deal.

That was a fake tweet. 

[More Banners]

Unfortunately, this inability to accept and move on is affecting the quality of the dialogue on the blog.  I hope this response helps bring things around.

In other words, the blog would be a better place if everyone agreed with your point of view. 

I know you didn't quite put it that way, but in substance that seems to be the gist of it.  For me personally, I don't have a lot of interest in a completely one-sided dialogue; I like reading different points of view, so long as they're presented respectfully.

A lot of folks aren't in love with the trade, and have valid viewpoints about the wisdom of it.  By the same token, a lot of members are in love with the trade, and they've got legit views, as well. 

I agree that I'd like to see more focus on the team now and less on Perk, but it's not just the trade detractors who are repeatedly citing the trade.  I mean, if JO plays well, the argument is "he couldn't have played so well if Perk was here", rather than celebrating him potentially having a breakout game. 

So, I guess my thought is, if people want to move on from the trade...  stop posting about it.  Bring something new to the table.  If people don't want to move on, then accept the right of others to express their viewpoint.  However, if the desired outcome is "I want everyone to agree that my view is the valid one", that's probably not going to happen.

Thanks for responding Roy, though your patronizing is beneath you. 

At least I would have thought so before all of this nonsense.  This garbage of pulling out the big mod gun to warn someone about baiting and trolling by commenting "queen perk," which is quite soft in terms of commentary about men's sports (and didn't even happen in that thread), along with the endless circular arguing that you yourself have promoted, and your refusal to accept more gentle nudges from posters such as myself have brought me to this.  I've posted "let it go, buddy.  let it go."  That was perhaps over a week ago?  Yet you've jumped on every thread about this and have so kept it going, drowning out other, more pertinent dialogue by ensuring this topic stays on the "latest forum topics" list.  Those who want to stop posting about it will apparently have to go somewhere else to discuss Celtic basketball.

Many of your opinions, though I don't always agree, have been fruitful reading in the past, but those are coming fewer and farther between.  CB is losing something valuable with this continuing distraction, and two months on, it's a distraction.

And this patronizing, insulting response from you, the exalted "Forums Manager"...that I only want to be agreed with, which is an insult to character...when I'm complimenting another poster and making a plea, after two months of circular and, at times, bitter argument (as opposed to dialogue), to move onward only brings CB to yet a new low.

 

[Roy H.]

Unfortunately, this inability to accept and move on is affecting the quality of the dialogue on the blog.  I hope this response helps bring things around.

In other words, the blog would be a better place if everyone agreed with your point of view. 

I know you didn't quite put it that way, but in substance that seems to be the gist of it.  For me personally, I don't have a lot of interest in a completely one-sided dialogue; I like reading different points of view, so long as they're presented respectfully.

A lot of folks aren't in love with the trade, and have valid viewpoints about the wisdom of it.  By the same token, a lot of members are in love with the trade, and they've got legit views, as well. 

I agree that I'd like to see more focus on the team now and less on Perk, but it's not just the trade detractors who are repeatedly citing the trade.  I mean, if JO plays well, the argument is "he couldn't have played so well if Perk was here", rather than celebrating him potentially having a breakout game. 

So, I guess my thought is, if people want to move on from the trade...  stop posting about it.  Bring something new to the table.  If people don't want to move on, then accept the right of others to express their viewpoint.  However, if the desired outcome is "I want everyone to agree that my view is the valid one", that's probably not going to happen.

Thanks for responding Roy, though your patronizing is beneath you. 

At least I would have thought so before all of this nonsense.  This garbage of pulling out the big mod gun to warn someone about baiting and trolling by commenting "queen perk," which is quite soft in terms of commentary about men's sports (and didn't even happen in that thread), along with the endless circular arguing that you yourself have promoted, and your refusal to accept more gentle nudges from posters such as myself have brought me to this.  I've posted "let it go, buddy.  let it go."  That was perhaps over a week ago?  Yet you've jumped on every thread about this and have so kept it going, drowning out other, more pertinent dialogue by ensuring this topic stays on the "latest forum topics" list.  Those who want to stop posting about it will apparently have to go somewhere else to discuss Celtic basketball.

Many of your opinions, though I don't always agree, have been fruitful reading in the past, but those are coming fewer and farther between.  CB is losing something valuable with this continuing distraction, and two months on, it's a distraction.

And this patronizing, insulting response from you, the exalted "Forums Manager"...that I only want to be agreed with, which is an insult to character...when I'm complimenting another poster and making a plea, after two months of circular and, at times, bitter argument (as opposed to dialogue), to move onward only brings CB to yet a new low.

A few things here:

1.  My tone wasn't meant as patronizing.  I summarized what your argument seemed to be in a tongue-in-cheek manner (thus, the smiley), but I went on to explain my position with four paragraphs.  I didn't mean to talk down to you, but since you're generally pretty logical, I did hope to get you to be self-critical of the argument you were making.  Looks like that flopped.  (At the same time, why are your admonitions "gentle tweaks", while my post above was a patronizing, insulting, "new low" for CelticsBlog?)

2.  I don't think I was unfair to your argument.  You responded to a post that essentially said "Danny did the right thing", by saying, in essence, "There are many observers who can't accept that Danny did the right thing.  Until they do, the quality on this blog will be poorer."  My response was that I think the blog can be a rich experience even for those who don't accept what they don't believe to be true.  The world becomes a pretty boring place when everyone agrees.

3.  I can't understand any viewpoint that calls out others for failure to "move on", when the poster expressing that viewpoint is actively involved in promoting their own viewpoint on the trade.  As I've said multiple times now, if the goal is really to move on, start some new, non-trade topics for people to talk about, and ignore the Perk stuff.  However, if people are still going to post their feelings on the trade, while telling others to move on, it comes across as a pretty shallow effort to silence those who disagree with you.  Next time, if your goal is to plea with others to stop the endless bickering, then I personally think it would carry more weight if that plea wasn't attached to a statement that Danny was right.

4.  Ironically enough, the majority of new / bumped threads related to Perk recently have been of the anti-Perk variety.  Perhaps these are the folks who need to "move on"?  I noticed several threads criticizing Perk, but I didn't see a lot of mention of Jeff Green's and Nenad Kristic's contribution to an exciting playoff victory.

5.  I respect your disagreement with the way the staff moderates the blog, but I'm a bit confused by your objection to us putting an end to the term "Queen Perk".  It's baiting and it's sexist.  In another thread, you called the phrase "welfare queens" a pejorative; I'm not sure how this is any different.  We've had pretty long-standing rules regarding baiting, and some of the insults and disparaging nicknames being thrown around lately are a textbook example.

6.  Bottom line:  We allow people to express whatever viewpoint they want on here, so long as it is respectful and otherwise complies with our rules.  If the blog is becoming less pleasant for you because you see a lot of discussion over subjects you find distasteful, you have two options:  you can try to re-direct people by helping start new interesting conversations, or you can move on.

[paulcowens]

Whenever something really heinous is done, those who side with the perpetrators always loudly declare that we should all 'let the past be the past' - often before it barely even is past.   The Trade will be talked about for a long time, and it should be.  Danny basically gave up on a season in which his team was arguably leading the chase for a championship, making a trade that he himself later acknowledged had primarily to do avoiding a contract dispute, and thus not with improving the team (and it's not like he had to admit this;  it was obvious).  He then made a bunch of other trades, apparently as a kind of smokescreen, which only made things worse (disrupting the team further).  I wonder if any GM has ever done something like this in the heat of a championship battle.  I can't remember an instance.  It was like starting the season over, just as your team entered the homestretch, in the lead.  It's truly amazing that fans generally aren't more ticked off at Ainge.  Me?  I was just glad to see that we got through the draft without Danny doing anything crazy.

[tyrone biggums]

I've let it go, the trade wasn't that bad. However you'll have two groups of people on this trade.

1) Perk was a member of the core on this team, Boston should have broken the bank to keep him.

2) Trade was okay, but Danny should have waited until the end of the season.

I'm in the 2nd group, Perk at 9 million is expendable however the timing was terrible. Green will have a full year in our system and will probably play very well. The 1st group essentially wanted #43 retired when the trade first broke. He was a role player, a good one but it was bad timing. You cannot make a final decision though until we get that pick from LAC

[CelticsFanNC]

  What is the point in getting your blood pressure up over something you have no control over??  Let it go.

  This isn't like we just traded Larry Bird for some schmuck.  It was trading a nice but limited and injury prone roll player(Perkins)for a potentially good draft pick in a great draft and a guy who might be better then a roll player(Green) so I honestly don't get all of the uproar.

  It was far from a lopsided trade and with that ridiculous contract Perkins signed in OKC, for a guy who is a complete liability on one end of the floor and is highly injury prone they will probably end up being the ones who regret that trade in the long run.

[Spoon]

Whenever something really heinous is done, those who side with the perpetrators always loudly declare that we should all 'let the past be the past' - often before it barely even is past.   The Trade will be talked about for a long time, and it should be.  Danny basically gave up on a season in which his team was arguably leading the chase for a championship, making a trade that he himself later acknowledged had primarily to do avoiding a contract dispute, and thus not with improving the team (and it's not like he had to admit this;  it was obvious).  He then made a bunch of other trades, apparently as a kind of smokescreen, which only made things worse (disrupting the team further).  I wonder if any GM has ever done something like this in the heat of a championship battle.  I can't remember an instance.  It was like starting the season over, just as your team entered the homestretch, in the lead.  It's truly amazing that fans generally aren't more ticked off at Ainge.  Me?  I was just glad to see that we got through the draft without Danny doing anything crazy.

Yeah that crazy Danny Ainge. Trading an overrated player we couldn't resign to try and improve the team long term. Man, Perkins really was the missing piece in OKC. Right?

Perkins actually has less value now than he did during the season. You wouldn't have gotten the same value if we traded him at end of the year. We flipped him at his peak value. It's going to be downhill for now for Perk as a player.

[hardlyyardley]

As done as Perk's knees......Green will prove to be a better investment and don't forget that #1