Would "the window" have remained open longer if we'd kept Perk?

[greenpride32]

I think a lot of fans draw way too many conclusions from Perk's rejection of the 4 year, $22 million contract that Perk turned down.  That was a lowball offer mandated by the rules of the CBA; the team could have offered more this summer. 

I think it's fair to say the team would not have made a significant long term investment in Perkins before the new CBA (doing so could potentially cripple them going forward under the new rules, and thats assuming they even wanted the committment). 

Also it's a given that cap space and salaries are coming down with the new CBA; this ties the C's hands (and any team over the cap for that matter) even more and they would not be able to compete on the open market for Perkins; again assuming they wanted him.

So the reality is the C's had no chance of resigning Perk; and both parties knew it.  Not sure if you caught the comments from his agent; he had already discussed with Perk his preferred destinations before the trade went down and one of them was OKC.  I still wonder to this day whether DA was aware of that and did him a favor to send him to OKC; or if it was just merely coincidence. 

[CelticsFanNC]

  To me there is way too much inside information we are NOT privy to for anyone to say Danny Ainge and the Celtics made a mistake in dealing Kendrick Perkins.

  We don't know what the medical staff told the Celtics brass about Perkins ongoing injuries and their potential effects on his career going forward.

  We don't know what his contract demands truly were but we do know what he got which is IMO too much for his talent level.  We don't know what the Celtics brass valued him at either.  We don't know if the numbers/years were just too far apart to believe the two sides could ever reach an agreement. 

  We don't even know if OKC and Perk's agent had agreed to overpay him before the deal went down via back channels.  Since he signed almost as soon as he got off of the plane it seems to be a possibility.


  We obviously don't know what the new CBA will bring.  Either does Ainge but he certainly has a better idea then any of us do.

  It's easy to sit back after the fact and criticize something when we are pretty much clueless about the facts that led up to the trade but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

  It's time to move on already.  The guy will be overpaid for the next several seasons.  The Celtics obviously have a plan that doesn't include adding any more salary that effect their cap flexibility in the 2012 off season.

[Anomandaris]

no

1/ He wouldn't have helped us win it all this year.
2/ He would not have signed an extension, he wanted more dollars, so he would have become a FA.
3/ As a FA, we would not have signed him as he's to expensive.  You can overpay someone like him if he's the last piece of the puzzle, the only missing link. 

But when RR, PP & KG retire or are simply becoming to old, a new championship team needs to be constructed.  You don't do that starting by overpaying a limited Center,completely handicapping your salary flexibility do sign another big name to go along with Rondo ( or whoever is he main guy if Rondo is traded).

[EDWARDO]

As much as some people don't want to hear it - trading Perk gave us the best chance to win this past year AND the best chance to compete going forward.

He doesn't help us in that Miami series.

Then he leaves and there is NO doubt about that. Its 100% clear he was going to be gone. You don't pass up 34mm for 22mm.

You can't guarantee championships. Especially with an older team like we have. You just try to rig the odds in your favor as best you can. That's what Danny did this past year. Unfortunately Baby and Shaq are fat lazy ****s and Rondo dislocated his elbow.

I think the worst management issues this past year were not better handling Baby and Shaq in terms of managing their weight and physical conditions.

If we play that Miami series 10x, i think we win 5 or more of them. Pierce thrown out in game 1, throwing away games 4 and 5. Needless to say, Rondo's Elbow. Miami hitting a bunch of shots we wanted them to take.

Jeff Green was disappointing, but he's still a very good player. Younger and better than any guy on your list. And we got him for nothing.

Perk wouldn't have helped last month.
Then he was going to leave.
Yet the hand wringing continues.

How does bringing back the same team that made it to the Finals (and was one game of Perk away from winning them) not put the odds in your favor?  Especially since size has a much bigger history of winning titles than 2nd string SFs who are only capable of scoring but have the aggression level of a squirrel.

It puts the odds in your favor when one of the starters is hobbling around like Fred Sanford and can't guard a single guy on your biggest rivals. It puts the odds in your favor when you trade him for a guy who can actually help, and though I wanted more out of Green offensively, he was much more useful against Miami then Perk ever would have been.

[mctyson]

Danny chickened out half way through (a year later).

Ha. If there is one thing that Danny did not do, it was chicken out.  It would have been much easier for him to keep Perkins, let the season play out, then either resign him to a horrible contract at the end of the year or let him walk and say to the fans "too rich for my blood."

[mctyson]

Even assuming for a moment that last year's team wasn't going to win a championship with or without Perk, is it fair to say that it's left us in a worse position to compete for a title over the next year or two?

I can entertain the argument that the Celtics w/ Perkins this year may have had a better shot to win than w/o him (though I think the Miami series proved that wrong.)

I cannot entertain the argument that signing him long term to 8-10 million per makes the team better in the future.  Since the argument is tenuous that w/ Perk the team would have won this year, it's tenuous again for next year.  Miami is still there waiting in the EC Finals at least.  Not to mention Chicago.   

[mgent]

Danny chickened out half way through (a year later).

Ha. If there is one thing that Danny did not do, it was chicken out.  It would have been much easier for him to keep Perkins, let the season play out, then either resign him to a horrible contract at the end of the year or let him walk and say to the fans "too rich for my blood."

Call it easy if you like, but sticking it out would have been the right move.

[Roy H.]

Even assuming for a moment that last year's team wasn't going to win a championship with or without Perk, is it fair to say that it's left us in a worse position to compete for a title over the next year or two?

I can entertain the argument that the Celtics w/ Perkins this year may have had a better shot to win than w/o him (though I think the Miami series proved that wrong.)

I cannot entertain the argument that signing him long term to 8-10 million per makes the team better in the future.  Since the argument is tenuous that w/ Perk the team would have won this year, it's tenuous again for next year.  Miami is still there waiting in the EC Finals at least.  Not to mention Chicago.   

Yeah, this article kind of went off into the "would Danny have signed him" tangent.  I was curious 1) if we'd be better if we'd kept Perk and signed a free agent SF (I say yes), and 2) if we'd still be a contender over the next year or two (I say probably).

It's that second question I'm most interested in.  If we could have brought back last year's team plus Perk, a free agent SF (Prince?  AK47? Battier?  Hill?  Dunleavy?), and some additional depth, could we have competed for a title?

Unless Danny pulls a fairly massive rabbit out of his hat, I get the feeling that the window is now closed (or very close to shut).  Would it have been, though, if we'd pursued a different strategy?

[mgent]

Even assuming for a moment that last year's team wasn't going to win a championship with or without Perk, is it fair to say that it's left us in a worse position to compete for a title over the next year or two?

I can entertain the argument that the Celtics w/ Perkins this year may have had a better shot to win than w/o him (though I think the Miami series proved that wrong.)

I cannot entertain the argument that signing him long term to 8-10 million per makes the team better in the future.  Since the argument is tenuous that w/ Perk the team would have won this year, it's tenuous again for next year.  Miami is still there waiting in the EC Finals at least.  Not to mention Chicago.   

And signing Green to 12+ mil per year to back up Pierce doesn't hurt us?

Guys, we wouldn't have kept Perk either way.  He most likely would have walked if he wanted more than 7-8 mil.

The only difference is now Ainge probably feels obligated to sign Green no matter what otherwise he really would have let Perk go for nothing, and threw in Nate and banner 18 as filler.

[mgent]

Even assuming for a moment that last year's team wasn't going to win a championship with or without Perk, is it fair to say that it's left us in a worse position to compete for a title over the next year or two?

I can entertain the argument that the Celtics w/ Perkins this year may have had a better shot to win than w/o him (though I think the Miami series proved that wrong.)

I cannot entertain the argument that signing him long term to 8-10 million per makes the team better in the future.  Since the argument is tenuous that w/ Perk the team would have won this year, it's tenuous again for next year.  Miami is still there waiting in the EC Finals at least.  Not to mention Chicago.   

Yeah, this article kind of went off into the "would Danny have signed him" tangent.  I was curious 1) if we'd be better if we'd kept Perk and signed a free agent SF (I say yes), and 2) if we'd still be a contender over the next year or two (I say probably).

It's that second question I'm most interested in.  If we could have brought back last year's team plus Perk, a free agent SF (Prince?  AK47? Battier?  Hill?  Dunleavy?), and some additional depth, could we have competed for a title?

Unless Danny pulls a fairly massive rabbit out of his hat, I get the feeling that the window is now closed (or very close to shut).  Would it have been, though, if we'd pursued a different strategy?

Absolutely.

I don't know if anyone else has brought this up yet but from a front office perspective, Green is gonna sell more tickets than Perk would have if the window really is closed.  As fans we never look it at that way, but I'm sure that was at least part of the reason for the trade.  It makes us a little bit more competitive if we get stuck in a rebuilding phase.

[mctyson]

Just to be clear, we could have signed Perk to an OKC-level contract in the off-season (or higher), and Perk talked about taking a hometown discount.

An OKC level contract for Perkins is a disaster though.  He's got a surgically repaired ACL on a body that wasn't explosive to begin with.  He's NOT young by NBA standards having been in the league for 7 years.  He is so bad offensively and such a poor FT shooter that he is a completely liability in the 4th quarter; he regularly is sitting on the bench during the game's biggest minutes.

This doesn't even touch on the fact that the Easter Conference (and WC) has changed.  Orlando is not a threat anymore; Dwight Howard might not even be in this conference for much longer.  The two best teams outside of the Celtics are Miami and Chicago whose best players are either perimeter guys or power forwards (except Noah.)  New York is getting better with the same makeup.  

It made a little sense for OKC to overpay Perkins because they still potentially had to get through LA, plus they could move Ibaka to the 4 where he is much better.

So again let's say Perkins was resigned and we got AK47.  How great would we all feel when, in the last 5 minutes of every playoff game, our 9 million dollar center was on the bench, and our 4-5 was AK and KG?

[Donoghus]

Even assuming for a moment that last year's team wasn't going to win a championship with or without Perk, is it fair to say that it's left us in a worse position to compete for a title over the next year or two?

I can entertain the argument that the Celtics w/ Perkins this year may have had a better shot to win than w/o him (though I think the Miami series proved that wrong.)

I cannot entertain the argument that signing him long term to 8-10 million per makes the team better in the future.  Since the argument is tenuous that w/ Perk the team would have won this year, it's tenuous again for next year.  Miami is still there waiting in the EC Finals at least.  Not to mention Chicago.   

And signing Green to 12+ mil per year to back up Pierce doesn't hurt us?

Guys, we wouldn't have kept Perk either way.  He most likely would have walked if he wanted more than 7-8 mil.

The only difference is now Ainge probably feels obligated to sign Green no matter what otherwise he really would have let Perk go for nothing, and threw in Nate and banner 18 as filler.

I'm pretty sure its safe to say that Danny has no intention to sign Green to that kind of money.  I'm not even sure Green is here for the long-term.  Wouldn't be shocked at all if Danny used him in some sort of package but there is no way that Danny feel obligated to sign Green no matter what.  

[Lucky17]

And signing Green to 12+ mil per year to back up Pierce doesn't hurt us?

Ainge is not going to sign Green to that kind of deal.

If someone offers Green that kind of money on the FA market, I have no doubt Ainge will sign and trade him for a 2nd rounder and a TE.

[mctyson]

   
And signing Green to 12+ mil per year to back up Pierce doesn't hurt us?

Guys, we wouldn't have kept Perk either way.  He most likely would have walked if he wanted more than 7-8 mil.

The only difference is now Ainge probably feels obligated to sign Green no matter what otherwise he really would have let Perk go for nothing, and threw in Nate and banner 18 as filler.

I disagree.  If there is anything you should have learned about Danny, it's that he is never under pressure to justify his trades or draft picks.  That's why he is a great GM, and I'm so glad he's our GM.

He would be more than willing to sign-and-trade Jeff Green if he thought the deal would make the team better, or at least not significantly hurt the team now with the hopes of making it better in the future.

[mgent]

Well Green isn't signing for less than that.

I've been telling people since the trade that he's resigning here behind Pierce, but a ton of people still think that's gonna happen.

I was just answering the question.  Having Green as a FA doesn't extend the window or put the team in a better position to rebuild anymore than having Perk as a FA would.