However, I don't envision a scenario where the "pro-trade" people change their mind, because there would never be a way to "prove" a different outcome. I think that many will continue to insist that the only backup 3 we could have gotten would have been Pavlovic, and will argue that that wasn't good enough.
Well, don't you think it's fair to argue that Pavlovic wasn't good enough to backup Pierce? We would have had Pavlovic and (probably) Anthony Parker as our lone backups 3/2. Honestly, even if we assumed Perk was going to be healthy, it was too much a gamble in my opinion.
Of course I understand the risk in trading Perk too but to me going in the playoffs with basically no backup for Pierce was almost synonyme of suicide. As much as Perk contributed last year defensively, TA's defense and offensive contributions (on fastbreaks mostly) were huge and allowed Pierce to stay quite effective.
That's what I'm saying. Would you agree that, no matter what happens in the playoffs short of a championship, you'll be unlikely to change your mind in the playoffs? I just think that's the weakness of the "we have to wait until the playoffs to evaluate things" position. Barring that championship, the playoffs probably won't change many people's thoughts.
Well, being entitled to an opinion usually means you will probably stay put with it. However, I do think that I could certainly change my mind in the playoffs.
To me, it doesn't only come down to what happens but more to "how did it happen?". Let's say that our loss in the playoffs is due to poor interior D and disappointing contributions from Jeff Green : then I will blame the trade and admit it was probably a bad idea because our loss was the direct result of missing Perk's strength (interior D).
Now let's say that we lose because we can't score enough, or the Big 4 doesn't produce enough but the interior defense stays very good : I won't blame the trade because Perk's presence wouldn't have solved this offensive problem and the defense did fine without him.
Now on the other hand if the interior D stays very good and Jeff Green has a few big games along the way, I will stick to my gun and say the trade was worth it.
You see my point? Of course a lot of people will stick to their opinion whatever happens in the playoffs, but to me, a fair assessment of the trade will have to be based on the causes of our success or lack of succes in the playoffs, and not solely on the result.
As for Pavlovic, I think that we would have acquired somebody better. If we'd landed, say, Anthony Parker, I think we would have been fine (and all the rumors were that we could have had him, although it's impossible to know for sure). Again, though, without that 100% certainty that we could have upgraded Pavlovic, many will go to the grave arguing that he's the best we could have had, and thus will never change their minds.
I mentioned Parker because he was the guy who we were rumored to be close to acquiring. On that point, though, it just comes down to our opinion on Parker : you think he would have been enough, I think he would have been a terrible pickup (on Pavlovic level except we didn't lose any player to acquire Pavlovic while we would have lost Semih for Parker).
Now, if, at the time, we could have landed Battier for a package of Nate + Semih + fillers, and kept Perk, I would have done it.
The thing is, I didn't like the trade at all at first. I was really worried about our defense dropping badly. Then I understood the logic and saw the defense remained good and I thought it was a better gamble to trade Perk than keep him, although it means we have to rely on the O'Neals. But since the problems have been mostly on offense since the trade (inability to score) I think we will do fine on defense, especially with both the O'Neals playing (yes, I'm still thinking Shaq will be fine).
Now (but I'm getting off topic here), I'm not sure why Danny felt he hade to trade Perk in February or he wouldn't have the opportunity again. I thought a sign and trade in the summer was a logical scenario but apparently it was not.
To answer your first question, it's absolutely fair for people to have whatever take on the situation that they want. It's a little crazy how many "true believers" this trade has created on both sides, and how entrenched both sides have become, but I guess that's the nature of the beast.
Yeah, well, I'm not sure we should be so surprised after last year's clear divide on CB between the "they are too old, it's over, let's blow it up!" and "they're waiting for the playoffs to turn the switch on, relax" camps. At least it allows to have a lot of debates, although they are sometimes frustrating!
Topic: With the benefit of hindsight, do you think Danny regrets the Perk trade? (Read 48510 times)