A) Who knows whether that will last. Perk is still a guy coming off a major knee surgery and a minor injury to the other knee. Plus, he has past shoulder issues. He is and always was a serious injury risk.
B) He may be doing a good job on defense and grabbing boards, but he's still been a poor offensive player for the Thunder. I think it's important to note that recently our woes have been in large part due to a stagnant, uncreative, and inefficient offense overly reliant on long jumpshots and lacking any kind of inside game. Perk would not help us in that area. He would also turn the ball over more than any of the centers we're currently using.
Perk's lack of offensive prowess may be the biggest folly of the trade.
a key part of the Cs success was the level of intimidation that we played with. That was driven by our defense and also affected our offense. When you think about them separately like that you end up with the jumbled mess we have now.
the fact is what we need out of the center position is not points. we need someone who can complete the defensive unit that gives us our swagger.
The team showed early that Shaq could do that and how he plays will really be the factor that tells us ultimately what to make of this trade.
I hope, however, we are all seeing that the injury question on Perk should not have been a reason to make the trade. A) because he is moving freely and B) Shaq was way more of an injury concern than Perk.
The Cs offense functions better when we play Celtic defense
