The trade has killed this team

[winsomme]

we are overreacting. When the Cs lost to the bobcats i also felt mad.

This has nothing to do with the Bobcats. We're 4-6 in our last 10 games.

But were you able see that they went on a nice winning streak prior to this? It takes time to make a cohesive unit from new personnel.

The trade was necessary in my opinion. Perk wanted max money. Money which the celtics could not afford given the situation. It all boils down to managing how we could be a better team with him or without him.

I loved perk, hell I really loved how he handled himself during our title run, but come on he wanted more since the hype surrounding his defensive prowess grew bigger and bigger.

It a rollercoaster ride my friends. We are fortunate that we do have more ups than downs. Imagine being a Wolves or Cavs fan - we would have died of stress by now.

we're supposed to feel good because we're not the Cavs when we had a top team in the league and now we're playing mediocre ball? No. That is patently absurd.

Perk did not get max money. His contract is actually pretty reasonable. But that is really beside the point.

We lost clear essential skills in the trade and had a VERY dicey plan to replace those skills. That's what happened and we just need to be straight about it.

[Redz]

The proof will be in the



It's not the playoffs now, and there's still some time to get their act together.  Let's see what Shaq has in him when he's ready to give it a go, then we'll know better what we're working with here.

[BballTim]

It seems as if the point that the C's were the number one defensive team before Perkins returned is being completely ignored. Were they playing harder before Perkins came back?  Was the chemistry disrupted then? Were they thinking "Yeah, let's be the number one defensive team, but the only way to maintain this is if Perkins comes back. We can't possibly do this without him."

I love that someone brought up Anthony Parker as a viable SF option for a back up. Paul would pretty much play 48 minutes a game in the playoffs.

The Big 3 (4) have been in the league long enough where they should be grown-ups about this.

  Pretty sure the defense was #2 before Perk came back, Chicago was #1.

  And it's not just the trade, it's also the FA signings and getting West back from injury. Doc's integrating a lot of new guys into the lineup and it's bound to throw off our rhythm.

how's our rhythm going to be affected by Shaq and JO coming back? Two players who haven't played in a really long time in their FIRST season with the team...

  Shaq was in the lineup for half the season. You don't see that as different from people that haven't played on the team before?

[More Banners]

We're fine, folks.  Shaq will come back, relaxed and refreshed, and give the team a boost for 20 min/gm, provide interior defense, and at least one good, hard foul on the opposing team's #1 scorer per game.

I'm less hopeful, or not hopeful at all, for JO, but it looks like he's taking the rehab work seriously, will probably get a shot for pain as well, and then he'll come back determined to prove himself.  If we get so much as 10 min/gm out of him, it's found money in my book.

That leaves 18 minutes at C for BBD or Krystic.  We're fine.

[BballTim]

We lost clear essential skills in the trade and had a VERY dicey plan to replace those skills. That's what happened and we just need to be straight about it.

  The Celts felt that not having a decent backup to Paul and relying on Perk's health to hold up was also dicey.

[Roy H.]

The trade was necessary in my opinion. Perk wanted max money.

Even putting aside the debate of present vs. future, Perk never asked for a max contract.  He signed for well below the max in OKC, and would have likely taken even less for the Celts.

[Prof. Clutch]

So much has been said already in this thread and I'm too lazy to go all the way back so I'll just say simply that I disagree with the premise of this thread.

This team is not dead.

[More Banners]

The trade was necessary in my opinion. Perk wanted max money.

Even putting aside the debate of present vs. future, Perk never asked for a max contract.  He signed for well below the max in OKC, and would have likely taken even less for the Celts.

I think the implication was "the max money he could get," which makes sense for a player who 1) already has a title, 2) is a role player, and 3) for a person who just got married this year.

I don't think anyone is putting Perk in the max-contract category, though on this blog, I wouldn't doubt it either...

[nba is the worst]

And let's not kid ourselves, Perkins hasn't exactly been a shining star in OKC.  He is playing 24 minutes and averaging less then 6 points and just over 7 boards a game since the trade and is one knee bump away from missing the rest of the season.

Here's OKC's starting lineup with Perk:

108.9 points scored/100 possessions, 98.94 points allowed/100 possessions

... and OKC's starting lineup with Krstic:

108.5 points scored/100 possessions, 109.5 points allowed/100 possessions

I don't know, you tell me:  has Perk helped OKC?  They've gone from being a very poor defensive unit to one that plays at a league-leading pace.  (That 98.9 DefRtg would be higher than Chicago's current #1 defense.)

Players contribute more than their stats.  I'm just surprised that so many fans seem to be arguing the opposite.  If we want stats, why don't we trade KG for Zach Randolph, for instance?  

I'm sure that difference has nothing to do with the fact that OKC has played Washington, Miami, Charlotte, Toronto, Utah, and Minnesota, it was all Perkins not the fact that OKC has played pretty much garbage teams (Miami being the exception).

Well let's see - the Bobcats are garbage, but beat the C's last night, the jazz are garbage, despite their better record than all but 6 east teams...

That doesn't explain the head-to-head change:

Vs the Twolves in 3 pre-trade games, Twolves avg 112.3 ppg, post trade 103.

Raptors, pre 111, post 95
Miami pre 103, post 85
Washington pre 117, post 89
Jazz pre 111, post 94
Bcats pre 81, post 82
 

Comparing one game played before to one game played recently isn't a large enough sample size to determine anything, but even if it was...OKCs recent games were cake even compared to their matchups vs. the same teams earlier

Raptors...Toronto was @home+ OKC didn't have Durant
Washington...Had Rashard lewis 1st game. no Lewis recently
Jazz..Dwill went off 1st game...No dwill(or harris) recently
Bcats...Same
Miami...Ibaka plays 9 mins, Miami scores 103. He plays 30 they get 85.

If you want to see 1 player whose role on the team has changed, and led to OKCs defensive shift, I'd look at Ibaka...not Perkins.

I previously mentioned the sample size, but it's all there is. (Intangibles matter too)...

We are talking 3 games pre-trade with the Jazz, not 1, those numbers were the average.

OKC was swept by the Raptors, still a big difference in points allowed.

And Perk was 6/9/2/+18 in 20 mins vs the Wizards, Krstic 8/3/1/-5.

[European NBA fan]

The trade was necessary in my opinion. Perk wanted max money.

Even putting aside the debate of present vs. future, Perk never asked for a max contract.  He signed for well below the max in OKC, and would have likely taken even less for the Celts.

Perk got max from the OKC. He would probably have taken the same or less from the Celtics, but we couldn't offer that much because of the CBA.

On topic:
It's all about 18, and that hasn't changed. But Ubuntu is brotherhood, and you can't force that down people's throats. It is built over time, and maybe it is not so bad to face some tough times and work through them together. I would have been quite fearful if the new team had just eased into the preseason with the no. 1 seed without facing any real obstacles. It would have been fool's gold.

[Roy H.]

The trade was necessary in my opinion. Perk wanted max money.

Even putting aside the debate of present vs. future, Perk never asked for a max contract.  He signed for well below the max in OKC, and would have likely taken even less for the Celts.

Perk got max from the OKC. He would probably have taken the same or less from the Celtics, but we couldn't offer that much because of the CBA.

No, he could have signed for much more in the off-season.  There are different rules for extensions, but Perk didn't get a "max" contract by any stretch.

[bbd24]

From what I've watched over the past games after the trade, it's the core 4 plus BBD's play that has hurt us in the losses. If they play like that, it doesn't matter who you traded away. Plus, Perk barely played for this 50 win team, and Nate, Luke, and Semih weren't keys to anything. So the trade is mute. It's about the Play of the core four plus BBD. Especially the play of Rondo. Rondo's looked like Jimmer Fredette on defense, and is shooting like the Rondo at Kentucky. Not to mention his assists have been down.

[CoachBo]

TP. It is indeed the starters and Davis. Rondo is playing the worst basketball of his professional career, and the other starters aren't far behind.

[Eja117]

The trade was necessary in my opinion. Perk wanted max money.

Even putting aside the debate of present vs. future, Perk never asked for a max contract.  He signed for well below the max in OKC, and would have likely taken even less for the Celts.

This is just me, but I find the whole argument about the Celts couldn't afford to pay him and the Thunder could kind of like saying the Red Sox couldn't afford him, but the Kansas City Royals could.

Granted no salary cap in that sport, but still

[cdif911]

just waiting for the switch to flip