What is Perk really worth?

[Michael Anthony]

To be nice, I would say that Perk is worth his weight in gold...but that would just be a ridiculous amount of gold.  So, that would be an extreme overstatement.

Perk is listed around 285 pounds, and there are 16 ounces to a pound. Gold is worth about $1,000 per ounce.

285 x 16 x 1000 = $4,560,000

If the Celtics end up paying Perkins in gold we are going to do very well.

[Thruthelookingglass]

If the Celtics end up paying Perkins in gold we are going to do very well.

This thread is starting to worry me.  What if Perk reads this and decides to expand to Thomas Hamilton proportions?  Like, well, 360lbs or so?

[Michael Anthony]

If the Celtics end up paying Perkins in gold we are going to do very well.

This thread is starting to worry me.  What if Perk reads this and decides to expand to Thomas Hamilton proportions?  Like, well, 360lbs or so?

Still a bargain. Baby's agent should have pushed for a gold payment.

[yoursweatersux]

The NBA is a star-based league. You only win championships with the best players, not the players with the best value.

If paying Perk in any way, shape, or form prevents us from getting the 2-3 star players we'll need to compete in the post-big 3 era, then screw it.

A team with 2 amazing players and then a bunch of scrubs has a much better chance of winning it all than a full team of pretty good players. (see, Jordan-Pippen for 1a, and the Detroit Pistons as the lone exception to 1b. note the disparity in total championship rings for each.)

Frankly, after the Big 3 leave, I'm in favor of scrapping everybody but Rondo since he's a legit star and using everybody else as chips for 1 great player, and maybe tanking a season to get another great player in the draft. That's how you set up another championship run.

p.s.
As sort of an aside, I think Portland is going to need to cash in with a lot of their youth and talent and acquire one more really great player if they wish to contend. That, or PRAY Oden becomes the player they thought he'd be when they drafted him.

[Chris]

The NBA is a star-based league. You only win championships with the best players, not the players with the best value.

If paying Perk in any way, shape, or form prevents us from getting the 2-3 star players we'll need to compete in the post-big 3 era, then screw it.

A team with 2 amazing players and then a bunch of scrubs has a much better chance of winning it all than a full team of pretty good players. (see, Jordan-Pippen for 1a, and the Detroit Pistons as the lone exception to 1b. note the disparity in total championship rings for each.)

Frankly, after the Big 3 leave, I'm in favor of scrapping everybody but Rondo since he's a legit star and using everybody else as chips for 1 great player, and maybe tanking a season to get another great player in the draft. That's how you set up another championship run.

p.s.
As sort of an aside, I think Portland is going to need to cash in with a lot of their youth and talent and acquire one more really great player if they wish to contend. That, or PRAY Oden becomes the player they thought he'd be when they drafted him.

Agree with most of this.  Although, I am not 100% sold on Rondo as a star (I want to see him do what he did in the first few games against Chicago for an entire season...or at least something close to it). 

Also, I don't think you can underestimate bargain players.  While championships are won by stars, you also need to surround them with some talent. 

The C's never would have won a couple years ago if they did not have guys like Perk, Rondo and Posey playing above their pay-level.  That is why Perk's contract is great right now.  He is probably a 7-8 million player production-wise, but makes half of that. 

Basically, I think the best way to build a contender is to have 2-3 stars making big money (that they earn), and then having some role players who are all making less money than they actually deserve.  Strangely, if you pay market-value for role players, you may end up disapointed.

[JBcat]

Here is the way I look at it.   As the big 3 grow older and fade off into the horizon 2 to 3 years down the road we will need at least 1 star possibly 2 to pair with Rondo and Perk as they continue to evolve and get better.   If that happens and you get a max star player and you pay Rondo and Perk roughly 10 mil or so each then you might have only roughly 30 mil to fill out the remaining 12 roster spots with role players.  

The big question is say if you have that max contract player and Rondo and Perks being your 3 best players when they are entering their prime around 26 eating up possibly 2/3rds of your salary cap will that be good enough to be a championship contender?  I'm not sure now.    

As yoursweatersux said it is a star based league when winning championships and if we don't reload on the fly a couple years from now getting a true max guy player while having Rondo and Perk on the team I wouldn't be surprised if either Rondo or Perk or even both are traded at the end of the big 3 run to start anew with cheaper players, high draft picks, and much more cap space.  

[TradeProposalDude]

Difficult quesiton. Id say his value is greater than most role playing big men on contending teams.... because hes still very young (only 24! wow!) and comes cheap. $4-5 MIL a year is a bargain in its entirety, considering you have Dan Gadzuric who can't even get off the bench on the worst team in the NBA (or so they project) and he makes more annually. In the state of this current market, Perk would command more than Fabricio Oberto or Nazr Mohammed did when they were winning titles as starting centers for the Spurs.

I'd say Perk is worth what Kurt Thomas was worth about 3-4 years ago. Very solid defensive big who also adds a dimension offensively. Rarely will you have consistency issues with either player, despite the recurrent presence of injury. Perk's shoulder doesnt really seem to bring his value down though, because of late he has been suiting up for just about every game.

[KungPoweChicken]

The NBA is a star-based league. You only win championships with the best players, not the players with the best value.

If paying Perk in any way, shape, or form prevents us from getting the 2-3 star players we'll need to compete in the post-big 3 era, then screw it.

A team with 2 amazing players and then a bunch of scrubs has a much better chance of winning it all than a full team of pretty good players. (see, Jordan-Pippen for 1a, and the Detroit Pistons as the lone exception to 1b. note the disparity in total championship rings for each.)

Frankly, after the Big 3 leave, I'm in favor of scrapping everybody but Rondo since he's a legit star and using everybody else as chips for 1 great player, and maybe tanking a season to get another great player in the draft. That's how you set up another championship run.

p.s.
As sort of an aside, I think Portland is going to need to cash in with a lot of their youth and talent and acquire one more really great player if they wish to contend. That, or PRAY Oden becomes the player they thought he'd be when they drafted him.

Agree with most of this.  Although, I am not 100% sold on Rondo as a star (I want to see him do what he did in the first few games against Chicago for an entire season...or at least something close to it). 

Also, I don't think you can underestimate bargain players.  While championships are won by stars, you also need to surround them with some talent. 

The C's never would have won a couple years ago if they did not have guys like Perk, Rondo and Posey playing above their pay-level.  That is why Perk's contract is great right now.  He is probably a 7-8 million player production-wise, but makes half of that. 

Basically, I think the best way to build a contender is to have 2-3 stars making big money (that they earn), and then having some role players who are all making less money than they actually deserve.  Strangely, if you pay market-value for role players, you may end up disapointed.





You want to see Rondo average a triple double for the entire season before you'll consider him a star? Tough crowd. I basically already consider him a star. But, if you want to pick at his game, he could get better at overall consistency and hitting the open jumper; however, you can pick at every player's game. For instance, Paul Pierce dogs it on a lot of plays, more so than Rondo, and probably more so than any of the starting five. Yet it's unanimous on this board that Pierce is a star. Well, you know what, Rondo is a star too. You have to give credit where credit is due.

[yoursweatersux]

The NBA is a star-based league. You only win championships with the best players, not the players with the best value.

If paying Perk in any way, shape, or form prevents us from getting the 2-3 star players we'll need to compete in the post-big 3 era, then screw it.

A team with 2 amazing players and then a bunch of scrubs has a much better chance of winning it all than a full team of pretty good players. (see, Jordan-Pippen for 1a, and the Detroit Pistons as the lone exception to 1b. note the disparity in total championship rings for each.)

Frankly, after the Big 3 leave, I'm in favor of scrapping everybody but Rondo since he's a legit star and using everybody else as chips for 1 great player, and maybe tanking a season to get another great player in the draft. That's how you set up another championship run.

p.s.
As sort of an aside, I think Portland is going to need to cash in with a lot of their youth and talent and acquire one more really great player if they wish to contend. That, or PRAY Oden becomes the player they thought he'd be when they drafted him.

Agree with most of this.  Although, I am not 100% sold on Rondo as a star (I want to see him do what he did in the first few games against Chicago for an entire season...or at least something close to it). 

Also, I don't think you can underestimate bargain players.  While championships are won by stars, you also need to surround them with some talent. 

The C's never would have won a couple years ago if they did not have guys like Perk, Rondo and Posey playing above their pay-level.  That is why Perk's contract is great right now.  He is probably a 7-8 million player production-wise, but makes half of that. 

Basically, I think the best way to build a contender is to have 2-3 stars making big money (that they earn), and then having some role players who are all making less money than they actually deserve.  Strangely, if you pay market-value for role players, you may end up disapointed.





You want to see Rondo average a triple double for the entire season before you'll consider him a star? Tough crowd. I basically already consider him a star. But, if you want to pick at his game, he could get better at overall consistency and hitting the open jumper; however, you can pick at every player's game. For instance, Paul Pierce dogs it on a lot of plays, more so than Rondo, and probably more so than any of the starting five. Yet it's unanimous on this board that Pierce is a star. Well, you know what, Rondo is a star too. You have to give credit where credit is due.

First of all, good points Chris.

Secondly, KungPoweChicken, that argument you just made is not at all convincing.

How does:
"Paul Pierce has flaws, and so does Rondo, so therefore Rondo is a star like Paul Pierce"
make any sense?

I mean I agree in a sense that I think Rondo will be a star, and I think he's almost in that upper echelon right now. But if you're trying to convince other people you're gonna have to give some real reasons...

[LooseCannon]

There's too much focus on annual salary and not enough on salary length.  As a big man with an injury history, I'm not sure if Perkins is worth any contract five years or longer unless he takes a discount (taking, for example, $45m/5yrs rather than $40/4yrs if he is worth $10m/year) or the end of the contract is a team option.  He's just too much of a risk to be viewed as a long-term foundational player who you plan the rest of the roster to complement.

Ultimately, Perkins isn't a superstar, so Ainge is probably going to view him as a guy he's willing to flip in a trade to bring in a big star while not being willing to overpay by too much to keep around.

[hwangjini_1]

To be nice, I would say that Perk is worth his weight in gold...but that would just be a ridiculous amount of gold.  So, that would be an extreme overstatement.

Perk is listed around 285 pounds, and there are 16 ounces to a pound. Gold is worth about $1,000 per ounce.

285 x 16 x 1000 = $4,560,000

If the Celtics end up paying Perkins in gold we are going to do very well.

sorry, but i beat you to it. check out a page or so earlier.

[Chris]

The NBA is a star-based league. You only win championships with the best players, not the players with the best value.

If paying Perk in any way, shape, or form prevents us from getting the 2-3 star players we'll need to compete in the post-big 3 era, then screw it.

A team with 2 amazing players and then a bunch of scrubs has a much better chance of winning it all than a full team of pretty good players. (see, Jordan-Pippen for 1a, and the Detroit Pistons as the lone exception to 1b. note the disparity in total championship rings for each.)

Frankly, after the Big 3 leave, I'm in favor of scrapping everybody but Rondo since he's a legit star and using everybody else as chips for 1 great player, and maybe tanking a season to get another great player in the draft. That's how you set up another championship run.

p.s.
As sort of an aside, I think Portland is going to need to cash in with a lot of their youth and talent and acquire one more really great player if they wish to contend. That, or PRAY Oden becomes the player they thought he'd be when they drafted him.

Agree with most of this.  Although, I am not 100% sold on Rondo as a star (I want to see him do what he did in the first few games against Chicago for an entire season...or at least something close to it). 

Also, I don't think you can underestimate bargain players.  While championships are won by stars, you also need to surround them with some talent. 

The C's never would have won a couple years ago if they did not have guys like Perk, Rondo and Posey playing above their pay-level.  That is why Perk's contract is great right now.  He is probably a 7-8 million player production-wise, but makes half of that. 

Basically, I think the best way to build a contender is to have 2-3 stars making big money (that they earn), and then having some role players who are all making less money than they actually deserve.  Strangely, if you pay market-value for role players, you may end up disapointed.

You want to see Rondo average a triple double for the entire season before you'll consider him a star? Tough crowd. I basically already consider him a star. But, if you want to pick at his game, he could get better at overall consistency and hitting the open jumper; however, you can pick at every player's game. For instance, Paul Pierce dogs it on a lot of plays, more so than Rondo, and probably more so than any of the starting five. Yet it's unanimous on this board that Pierce is a star. Well, you know what, Rondo is a star too. You have to give credit where credit is due.

You are too caught up on numbers.  I want to see him play consistent, aggressive basketball for a season.  I don't want to see him constantly letting off the gas, or falling asleep on defense. 

I could care less if he has triple doubles (in fact, there is an argument...and Doc has made it...that his rebounding actually hurts the team at times), but he really needs to prove he can be a star all the time instead of just giving us flashes of brilliance. 

And comparing Pierce and Rondo simply doesn't work.  While I agree that Pierce dogs it at times (or I would call it putting it in cruise control), he is able to get away with it without hurting the team.  Rondo does not have that ability yet, because he has such large holes in his game, if he is not playing near the top of his game otherwise, his lack of an outside shot, and his up and down defense can really hurt the team much more than Pierce would when he cruises a bit.

[xmuscularghandix]

The NBA is a star-based league. You only win championships with the best players, not the players with the best value.

If paying Perk in any way, shape, or form prevents us from getting the 2-3 star players we'll need to compete in the post-big 3 era, then screw it.

A team with 2 amazing players and then a bunch of scrubs has a much better chance of winning it all than a full team of pretty good players. (see, Jordan-Pippen for 1a, and the Detroit Pistons as the lone exception to 1b. note the disparity in total championship rings for each.)

Frankly, after the Big 3 leave, I'm in favor of scrapping everybody but Rondo since he's a legit star and using everybody else as chips for 1 great player, and maybe tanking a season to get another great player in the draft. That's how you set up another championship run.

p.s.
As sort of an aside, I think Portland is going to need to cash in with a lot of their youth and talent and acquire one more really great player if they wish to contend. That, or PRAY Oden becomes the player they thought he'd be when they drafted him.

I agree with scrapping guys for chips to get another star, but i'm not up for getting rid of Perk unless our next star was a Center to replace him. Good, smart, defensive centers are tough to come by in this league... it took us 10 years to find one and i'm not to eager to get rid of him, even if he is a star.

[mgent]

I think he's worth about 8-10 million.  I think we're probably only gonna offer him about 6-7mil.  And since he's probably gonna want to play here, he's probably not gonna go looking like Davis did.  Davis was looking for a place he could start, but Perk already has a starting position.  Plus Rasheed is signed for almost that much and they're both looking at similar minutes.

I'm sure he'll re-sign for more than that later on when there's less talent on the team.  I just hope we don't overpay guys and then have to spend time rebuilding.  Hopefully Rondo will sign something similar.  He might be a little more motivated to start on a lesser team for 10-12 million, because he has more potential than Perk.  But I hope we can land him for about 8mil.  I see nothing wrong with signing them both to very long contracts with increases each year, so hopefully that's a little more motivation.

[nickagneta]

I think he's worth about 8-10 million.  I think we're probably only gonna offer him about 6-7mil.  And since he's probably gonna want to play here, he's probably not gonna go looking like Davis did.  Davis was looking for a place he could start, but Perk already has a starting position.  Plus Rasheed is signed for almost that much and they're both looking at similar minutes.

I'm sure he'll re-sign for more than that later one when there's less talent on the team.  I just hope we don't overpay guys and then have to spend time rebuilding.  Hopefully Rondo will sign something similar.  He might be a little more motivated to start on a lesser team for 10-12 million, because he has more potential than Perk.  But I hope we can land him for about 8mil.  I see nothing wrong with signing them both to very long contracts with increases each year, so hopefully that's a little more motivation.

The big difference between the two, which I am sure you and just about everyone else knows so I'm just stating the obvious, is the Perk will be an unrestricted free agent(UFA) after this contract and Rondo will be a restricted free agent(RFA). Boston might be able to get away with low balling Rondo a bit either during the upcoming extension negotiations or and get a discount because they can just match any offer Rondo gets if it comes to him hitting the marketplace as an RFA.

The same is not true with Perk. As an UFA if Perk hits the open market, it's going to be what anyone wants to pay him and there is no discount or matching and keeping him. So I think the team is going to have to think long and hard this year and decide exactly what they want to do with him now. They will need to get him extended at money the team can live with now because if he gets to the open market, they may not like knowing what he is worth on the open market and knowing that once he hits it he could be gone without anyone of value coming in to replace him.