Why the Perkins trade works

[Fan from VT]

Again, I think that you want to avoid making any judgments about Jeff Green's value based on a defense-less system in OCK tailored exclusively for Durant and Westbrook.

Critics of this deal, flatly, are wrong basing their criticism on Green's performance in OKC. That's irrelevant. It's what he will do in a radically different system in Boston. Great feet, good quickness, long, fundamentally sound shooter who will be taking shots in Boston that the offense brings to him, rather than competing for looks in OKC.

Let's see what he does in Doc's structured system first. By all accounts, he's a very smart kid and we're not going to ask him to start.

And as for starter money, I'd feel MUCH better about paying it to Green than Perkins with those deteriorating wheels and limited skillset.

In a bubble, I like Green as a bench player. But why ignore 4 years of available evidence? I don't think any "system" would deliberately make a guy have a 53% TS% for 3 years in a row, have a steadily decreasing rebound rate, a pedestrian FG% and unimpressive (and declining) 3 pt%. Obviously I hope Ainge sees something, but it's not like the coaches in Oklahoma made Green get worse at rebounding and worse at shooting open three pointers, things you would think should increase if you're a role player off the ball, benefiting from open looks.

[CoachBo]

You would be wrong. Both Westbrook and Durant are ball-stoppers. Green is an afterthought in an offense that doesn't afford or create for him any looks that he doesn't take.

Been saying this all night, and I'll say it again: If you think you can thoroughly evaluate Green's performance and potential in a system that is constructed for two teammates, go ahead.

I thoroughly disagree, and clearly, so does Ainge and Rivers.

[Fan from VT]

You would be wrong. Both Westbrook and Durant are ball-stoppers. Green is an afterthought in an offense that doesn't afford or create for him any looks that he doesn't take.

Been saying this all night, and I'll say it again: If you think you can thoroughly evaluate Green's performance and potential in a system that is constructed for two teammates, go ahead.

I thoroughly disagree, and clearly, so does Ainge and Rivers.

So, what in OKC would make him a bad rebounder? Why would he be bad at shooting 3's? I understand why a westbrook/Durant heavy offense would lower his raw scoring numbers or assist numbers, but why would his "hustle" things like rebounds be quite bad, and why would his efficiency numbers like FG% or TS% be bad?

I'm intrigued by him, but we have quite a bit of evidence that he's and underwhelming bench player who was drafted too high and wants to get payed like it this offseason.

[snively]

Again, I think that you want to avoid making any judgments about Jeff Green's value based on a defense-less system in OCK tailored exclusively for Durant and Westbrook.

Critics of this deal, flatly, are wrong basing their criticism on Green's performance in OKC. That's irrelevant. It's what he will do in a radically different system in Boston. Great feet, good quickness, long, fundamentally sound shooter who will be taking shots in Boston that the offense brings to him, rather than competing for looks in OKC.

Let's see what he does in Doc's structured system first. By all accounts, he's a very smart kid and we're not going to ask him to start.

And as for starter money, I'd feel MUCH better about paying it to Green than Perkins with those deteriorating wheels and limited skillset.

In a bubble, I like Green as a bench player. But why ignore 4 years of available evidence? I don't think any "system" would deliberately make a guy have a 53% TS% for 3 years in a row, have a steadily decreasing rebound rate, a pedestrian FG% and unimpressive (and declining) 3 pt%. Obviously I hope Ainge sees something, but it's not like the coaches in Oklahoma made Green get worse at rebounding and worse at shooting open three pointers, things you would think should increase if you're a role player off the ball, benefiting from open looks.

In Green's defense, he's a ball movement oriented player and OKC relies heavily on iso ball.  He's certainly not all that impressive as a spot-up shooter though.  Much better than Daniels at least.

[CoachBo]

You would be wrong. Both Westbrook and Durant are ball-stoppers. Green is an afterthought in an offense that doesn't afford or create for him any looks that he doesn't take.

Been saying this all night, and I'll say it again: If you think you can thoroughly evaluate Green's performance and potential in a system that is constructed for two teammates, go ahead.

I thoroughly disagree, and clearly, so does Ainge and Rivers.

So, what in OKC would make him a bad rebounder? Why would he be bad at shooting 3's? I understand why a westbrook/Durant heavy offense would lower his raw scoring numbers or assist numbers, but why would his "hustle" things like rebounds be quite bad, and why would his efficiency numbers like FG% or TS% be bad?

I'm intrigued by him, but we have quite a bit of evidence that he's and underwhelming bench player who was drafted too high and wants to get payed like it this offseason.

Six rebounds makes Perkins good and Green bad? Got it. Same number, both players. Shooting percentage is what it is in an offense created to iso your two superstars, and it's invalid as any ckind of an evaluation in the Boston system. I've said it all night and I'll say it again - Green will get and take good shots with the Celtics ball movement.

The rebounding argument makes me chuckle. We're a bad rebounding team with Perkins, and somehow we're going to get worse when we don't know what the roster's going to look like? Please. It's a mild concern, but at this point I'm going to give Ainge a chance to address it. Perkins wasn't going to get 20 boards a night on those bad wheels, so fail to see where Green should face those expectations.

And again, we're not going to talk sabremetrics. They aren't an accurate measure of a player's intangible worth and they are of zero value to me.

[sdceltsfan]

from what I watched of Green in OKC, he is used more as a perimeter player.....yeah he has a decent shot, but that's obviously not going to be his role here (except with the full second unit on the floor, and then he will be asked to create shots for himself....and even then, at least one of Ray/PP/KG is always on the floor).
     I see him as a big-time slasher, inside scorer, and transition beast with a pass-first PG in Rondo, as opposed to Westbrook who is looking to beat his man off the ball and then looks to shoot first, or kick it back to Durant (and who can blame them, its been working for OKC). I agree that Green was not used anywhere near his athletic potential, and our offense will increase having Kristic, who can knock down shots as well. The starting five for now (Rondo/Ray/PP/KG/Kristic) is far more threatening on offense then with Perk; and I feel that KG of all people will be able to help Kristic down-low with the tougher Center assignments on D.
    I like the move with just the players involved, with a future 1st rounder to boot plus the guys we will be getting off waivers. If we can get Troy Murphy and a halfway decent backup PG, this is a definite improvement to our team IMO.

[Fan from VT]

You would be wrong. Both Westbrook and Durant are ball-stoppers. Green is an afterthought in an offense that doesn't afford or create for him any looks that he doesn't take.

Been saying this all night, and I'll say it again: If you think you can thoroughly evaluate Green's performance and potential in a system that is constructed for two teammates, go ahead.

I thoroughly disagree, and clearly, so does Ainge and Rivers.

So, what in OKC would make him a bad rebounder? Why would he be bad at shooting 3's? I understand why a westbrook/Durant heavy offense would lower his raw scoring numbers or assist numbers, but why would his "hustle" things like rebounds be quite bad, and why would his efficiency numbers like FG% or TS% be bad?

I'm intrigued by him, but we have quite a bit of evidence that he's and underwhelming bench player who was drafted too high and wants to get payed like it this offseason.

Six rebounds makes Perkins good and Green bad? Got it. Same number, both players. Shooting percentage is what it is in an offense created to iso your two superstars, and it's invalid as any ckind of an evaluation in the Boston system. I've said it all night and I'll say it again - Green will get and take good shots with the Celtics ball movement.

The rebounding argument makes me chuckle. We're a bad rebounding team with Perkins, and somehow we're going to get worse when we don't know what the roster's going to look like? Please. It's a mild concern, but at this point I'm going to give Ainge a chance to address it. Perkins wasn't going to get 20 boards a night on those bad wheels, so fail to see where Green should face those expectations.

And again, we're not going to talk sabremetrics. They aren't an accurate measure of a player's intangible worth and they are of zero value to me.

I love that because YOU don't like something, they are meaningless to a discussion.

But yeah, let's delve into the radical world of "Per Minute" for a second, and not just look at career per game averages. And if you don't buy or understand why "per minute" might have value, I'm sorry. If a bench player can get 5 rebounds in 15 minutes, he's a heck of a lot better rebounder than a bench player who could grab 5 rebounds in 35 minutes. Not sure how that's "meaningless," it's basic logic and math.

But, I see you are saying "six rebounds is six rebounds."
1. You are using career totals, which seems silly considering Green entered the league as a polished college player and Perk came in as a raw high schooler. The last two seasons, perk has averaged 8.0 and 7.6 RPG. I think that's a little closer to his real rebounding value currently.
2. Minutes DO matter. Green gets his 5.6 rebounds this year in 37 minutes per game. That is just not good for a guy who starts at PF. It's not. Can't spin it. Not good. Maybe he just wasn't trying to get rebounds because he hated being 3rd banana behind Durant and Westbrook. If that's the case, this is going to improve when he is decidedly 6th banana? Meanwhile, Perk was getting his 8 rebounds in 26 or so minutes. So, 10 less minutes but solidly 2 more RPG. Yeah, I feel confident is saying Perk is a significantly better rebounder.
3. If you are a good outside shooter, and you are not the focus of offense, you make your shots. If you are not the focus, your attempts go down and your percentages go up. Or they should. They have for Ray and Pierce. Sorry i'm using something as new fangled as "shooting percentage" to gauge whether someone being touted as a floor stretcher is a good shooter. Will he be? hopefully. I really hope so. Is he? Not yet. Not sure how it changes. 3 pt. arc is the same no matter who's jersey you have on.

[jdpapa3]

Against certain teams, I am salivating with a Rondo/Ray/Pierce/Green/KG lineup. With Rondo's vision, Ray creating havoc off screens, Pierce, and KG constantly needing attention, the missing piece is a backside cutter and someone who knows what to do with open lanes. Green will flourish in those situations.

And I agree with Bo. Doc obviously doesn't trust Von, and Pierce and Ray have been getting too many minutes for their age. I'm of the opinion that Ray and Pierce were legless at the end of the Finals and our OFFENSE let us down. Green will give you quality minutes at 2 positions if need be and should be a plus rebounder, defender, and scorer vs. backups.

Should also be said that no other sf options seemed to be reasonably attainable and our rivals boast some strong SF's.

[CoachBo]

You can argue your points all you want, I still disagree. You clearly don't want to understand the OKC system - or for that matter, the idea that the Celtic systems and points of emphasis might be radically different, which they are - and that's fine.

And for the last time, I don't do sabremetrics. Not going to waste my time with any attempt to totally quantify a game that cannot be accurately quantified. I'm old fashioned. I watched tape, scouted the opponents, etc. The game is not, nor has it ever been, boilerplate in every NBA gym, college gym, high school gym, Biddy gym, AAU, MAYB ... and so on, and so on.

[LilRip]

i disagree with the notion that OKC doesn't care about defense. OKC is a good team because of their defense and their offense catches up because of their otherworldly scorer in Kevin Durant. I sure do hope that Green improves, because what else can we fans do but hope right? but i'm just not sold on this deal. Perk helped us match up with the bigs of LA. i hope Krstic can help us do the same. and i hope Green flourishes in our system because i know he can be a good passer with good court vision.

[Fan from VT]

You can argue your points all you want, I still disagree. You clearly don't want to understand the OKC system - or for that matter, the idea that the Celtic systems and points of emphasis might be radically different, which they are - and that's fine.

And for the last time, I don't do sabremetrics. Not going to waste my time with any attempt to totally quantify a game that cannot be accurately quantified. I'm old fashioned. I watched tape, scouted the opponents, etc. The game is not, nor has it ever been, boilerplate in every NBA gym, college gym, high school gym, Biddy gym, AAU, MAYB ... and so on, and so on.

No, I'm asking YOU to explain how a "system" can MAKE Green shoot a bad PERCENTAGE. So how a system can make someone bad at the opportunities they do get. Explain it to me. I understand why OKC's system might not yield a lot of opportunities to Green, but how would such a system make him actually bad at converting his chances? Also, explain to me how if it takes you 37 minutes to get 5.6 of something that is based on technique, position, and hustle, how you are just as good as someone who can get 8 of those same things in 26 minutes. Not "Sabremetrics." Just basic stuff.

Look, I want Green to succeed here. I think he's a very nice piece to backup two spots. But some people seem to think he's worth 10+ million per year, including, it seems, Jeff Green, and I fail to see that. Takes him a lot of shots to get his points, and he really doesn't do a lot else.

[Onslaught]

You can argue your points all you want, I still disagree. You clearly don't want to understand the OKC system - or for that matter, the idea that the Celtic systems and points of emphasis might be radically different, which they are - and that's fine.

And for the last time, I don't do sabremetrics. Not going to waste my time with any attempt to totally quantify a game that cannot be accurately quantified. I'm old fashioned. I watched tape, scouted the opponents, etc. The game is not, nor has it ever been, boilerplate in every NBA gym, college gym, high school gym, Biddy gym, AAU, MAYB ... and so on, and so on.

I agree.

No, I'm asking YOU to explain how a "system" can MAKE Green shoot a bad PERCENTAGE. So how a system can make someone bad at the opportunities they do get. Explain it to me. I understand why OKC's system might not yield a lot of opportunities to Green, but how would such a system make him actually bad at converting his chances? Also, explain to me how if it takes you 37 minutes to get 5.6 of something that is based on technique, position, and hustle, how you are just as good as someone who can get 8 of those same things in 26 minutes. Not "Sabremetrics." Just basic stuff.

Look, I want Green to succeed here. I think he's a very nice piece to backup two spots. But some people seem to think he's worth 10+ million per year, including, it seems, Jeff Green, and I fail to see that. Takes him a lot of shots to get his points, and he really doesn't do a lot else.

[slamtheking]

And I agree with Bo. Doc obviously doesn't trust Von, and Pierce and Ray have been getting too many minutes for their age. I'm of the opinion that Ray and Pierce were legless at the end of the Finals and our OFFENSE let us down. Green will give you quality minutes at 2 positions if need be and should be a plus rebounder, defender, and scorer vs. backups.

I disagree completely with your Doc statement.  Green doesn't supplant Wafer since Wafer is truly a SG and can now be used for that purpose with Green on board.  Wafer actually becomes the true backup SG.  Bench becomes West/Wafer/Green/BBD/Krstic (when Shaq is ready).  That's pretty solid.

[slamtheking]

Apologies for the topic, but trying to add a comment on the other topics tonight is like working with a stone tablet and a chisel.

Poor Ainge can't win. This site blew up the night he traded Jeff Green for Ray Allen, and it blew up today when he reacquired him.

I'm 100 percent behind this deal, and here's why:

What I've seen from Perkins post-return: A significant lack of lift, and a decrease in lateral mobility. Will that improve? You'd hope, or Perk's career is in jeopardy. The newest knee injury is a significant concern, because favoring an injured knee often is a recipe for another one. See Powe, Leon, for further information.

What Perkins gave the C's: Defense, defense, defense. His absence will be most obvious against Dwight Howard. But here's my point: Otis Smith did more for us to control Howard than Perkins could with those awful trades. And let's be honest. Perkins was an average rebounder on a bad rebounding team, and he was little or no threat offensively on the block. Anyone really worried about anyone matching up on the block with Noah? Dampier? The Knicks? Of course not.

Personally, I thought the C's extension offer to Perkins was overpaying with that package; if he wanted more, no way.

Now, on to Jeff Green: Where people fail, miserably, in trying to craft opposition to this deal is basing their anguish on what Green's done. The determining factor is what he'll be asked to do in Boston, and all the idiot sabremetrics you can trot out on his OKC games are meaningless. God, I loathe sabremetrics and the people who rely on them to evaluate a team game.

We're going to ask Green to play significant minutes at the 3 and 4 in relief of Pierce and Garnett. Anyone got a silly sabremetric to quantify the benefit of that in the playoffs? Of course not.

Further, it's worth noting that OKC doesn't worry about defense. All I need to know about Green's ability to defend I can see with my own eyes in his feet, and I have. He will flourish defensively in the Celtics' defensive system.

Anyone seriously worried about any Kevin Garnett teammate's effort? I thought not. Green will rebound better because of where he is and what his expectations are - a bunch higher than they'll be in a system crafted for two one-on-one specialists.

Bottom line: We're not going to get any worse on the glass. Depending on who Danny fills the roster out with, we might get better. And there's a chance - a good chance, IMHO - that Green matures under Doc into the bridge star we're looking to pair with Rondo.

I respect, if not entirely understand, the attachment some Celtics fans feel to their favorite players. Personally, I don't have favorite players; I look for players who fit what my favorite team's recipe to win is.

Perkins, his legs in doubt and his financial expectations unrealistic, no longer fit that recipe. I like the move now, and I'll panic later if we get no rebounding to go with our current group.

Most of you with some time here know I am anything but an Ainge apologist; I skewer him here with regularity. But the chances are good, here, that Danny pantsed Sam Presti with this deal. I like it, and I'll go on the record tonight saying I would have made it with pride.

I usually don't agree with your posts.  (and that's putting it mildly)  Since my initial reaction is to hate this trade, I figured if you posted an opposing view, maybe you could put some logic to this situation and at least get me thinking less negatively about it.  I'll give you credit where it's due because you've certainly given me pause to consider this as a positive move (not completely sold on it but I'm not ready to lynch Danny if I see him in Boston now).

I think it's fair to say that the Perk deal really hinges on Danny's ability to fill out the roster with other HEALTHY contributors.  If he doesn't, I really think these moves jeopardize a title run this year to the point of putting it out of reach.

I can only assume and hope that Danny has at least a big man, a wing and a PG lined up as FA's.  I'll believe it when I see it but that Erden/Luke trade can only mean Danny has some sort of behind-the-scenes deals worked out already.  Moving those two bodies for a measly second round pick is just a pure headscratcher otherwise.  I'd have thought Battier could have been had for a Nate, Semih, Luke package and possibly pulled off the Perk deal with Daniels to get the others.  I'd feel much better if Danny pulled that off.

[CoachBo]

There's nothing to explain. He ran in a two-man iso system where he wasn't a significant option. The Celtics run a ball-movement game. The differences are obvious.

I would remind you, as an example, that Ray Allen had a reputation as a poor defender when the Celtics acquired him. How's that working out now?

Personally, I never expect a 3 to rebound like a 5. Ever. Never had one in 20 years coaching HS and small college. Don't know anyone who has. And so you can get ready, Green's not going to get 37 minutes a game in Boston.

Different systems, different points of emphasis, different results. The key in evaluating a player isn't some idiotic number; it's footwork. Are his feet quick enough to get the results you'll have to have defending on-ball? Attitude? Will the player work as hard as you're going to want him to on the glass? Ball judgment. How does he react in transition? Intelligence? Can he grasp a fairly complicated defensive scheme in Boston?

Given Ainge's track record - with a few notable exceptions - I'm assuming he's already answered these questions. I know what my answers are to those questions, having seen OKC in person seven times this season, and another 25 times or so since I can't get them off my TV.

Getting Jeff Green for damaged goods is too good to be true, in my view.