I don't know. I'm sure that they hoped he'd help, but I'd say they made the trade to get him on the roster long term and they'd still have likely made the trade if they weren't sure that he'd play any meaningful minutes in the playoffs this year.
honestly, that's absurd. They are a major player in the WC and they traded two starters to get him.
are you even watching OKC play? This trade made them an instant contender.
Are you watching them play? They've won 7 of 8 with Perk, but they'd won 6 of 7 before he started playing. And "absurd" doesn't mean "doesn't fit my argument". Did Presti say that they were more interested in having Perk this year than in the future? Did he say that he wouldn't have made the trade if he wasn't sure that Perk would be a big contributor this year?
you're talking in circles, Bball. It's clearly both, not either/or...
The idea that a top WC team would trade two starters mid-season and not expect the player they get in return to play in that season is absurd.
I never said Presti didn't want Perk for the future, but he also was trading for him to play in this season....and in that respect he looked at Perk's health and believed he would be fine.
It's not that I'm talking in circles, it's the conversation that's going in circles. OKC's a good team but they weren't on anyone's list of true title contenders before the trade. It's not like they were giving up a shot at the title when they went for the title. Is it absurd that they would have traded for a player they expect to be an important part of their future for years to come if they had health concerns about him this year but not long term? Of course not.
They were a contender and it would make no sense to give up two starters for a player that is so injured that he is expected to be out for the season.
Anyway, like I've said, Presti wanted Perk for both the short term and long term...and so far that has proved to be the correct assessment.
Topic: The trade has killed this team (Read 61988 times)