It's obvious that getting rid of Perk was the right decision in retrospect. He's not worth the money he's paid and all the intangibles in the world won't make up for that.
But hypothetically, let's say if he stayed we know we would have won 1 more title. Would it still have been worth it to get rid of him?
We do not know that we would have won the title last year with Perkins on the team. Miami and Dallas were not Orlando or LA from 2009 or 2010.
Right but we don't know that we wouldn't have. That's why I posed the hypothetical.
If we knew Jeff Green was going to have heart issues and Harden was going to be this good we probably would have tried to trade Perk for Harden straight up. It's easy to make the right know you've made the right decision after the fact.
So I'm saying if we had won a title with Perk, and then he fell off and we had to go into rebuild mode would people still be glad?
Who doesn't choose a guaranteed title?? We are about to go into rebuild mode anyway. I know it is just a hypothetical, but no way we win a title last year with Rondo's dislocated elbow - I get that circumstances would probably have been different with a different group of players out there, but that was the final nail in the coffin.
Perk this year is really not much more valuable than Hollins and about as valuable as Steimsma.