Is anyone still upset about the Perk trade?

[soap07]

Not to pile on Perkins being Mozgov'd last night...but I'm curious, is there anyone out there that is still upset about the Perkins trade?

Last year, after the trade, Perkins missed significant time due to his knee. After he returned, OKC did make a marked improvement in its defense but overall, Perkins played terrible throughout the rest of the season and into the playoffs. He was a liability - but that's fine, because many people felt that he needed time to recover from his knee surgery. So how are we doing so far?

He's averaging 4.7 ppg, the lowest of his career since he was 22 years old. He's averaging 5.7 rebounds a game - the lowest of his career since he was 22 years old. He's shooting under 45% from the field - for a guy who's shooting 56% for his career.

His rebounding rate is 12.2 - which is awful - AWFUL - for a center and certainly the worst of his career. His PER is 7.1 - which is embarrassing for anyone's standards.

He's still blocking shots at a decent clip (1.2 bpg) - but that's still below his career average of 1.4.

As far as his defense goes, OKC is 14th in the league in defensive efficiency. His opponent's PER is 15.0 - which is not very good for Perk.

Defensively, it is clear that he has some effect - while he's on the court, OKC gives up 98.4 points per 48. When he's off, 106.1 - a net 7.7 point difference. Offensively? When he's on the court, OKC scores 105.5 but 113.5 per 48 when he's off - a net 8.0 difference. Of course, on/off court stats have a lot of noise and aren't exactly reliable.

The point is Perkins has played terribly this year and thankfully the Celtics aren't stuck with him for another 3-4 years. Green didn't exactly work out - neither did Krstic. But at the very least, the Celtics got something (the LAC clip) for someone that they should be glad isn't on the books for 8-10 mill a year for the next 3 years.

[chambers]

Not to pile on Perkins being Mozgov'd last night...but I'm curious, is there anyone out there that is still upset about the Perkins trade?

Last year, after the trade, Perkins missed significant time due to his knee. After he returned, OKC did make a marked improvement in its defense but overall, Perkins played terrible throughout the rest of the season and into the playoffs. He was a liability - but that's fine, because many people felt that he needed time to recover from his knee surgery. So how are we doing so far?

He's averaging 4.7 ppg, the lowest of his career since he was 22 years old. He's averaging 5.7 rebounds a game - the lowest of his career since he was 22 years old. He's shooting under 45% from the field - for a guy who's shooting 56% for his career.

His rebounding rate is 12.2 - which is awful - AWFUL - for a center and certainly the worst of his career. His PER is 7.1 - which is embarrassing for anyone's standards.

He's still blocking shots at a decent clip (1.2 bpg) - but that's still below his career average of 1.4.

As far as his defense goes, OKC is 14th in the league in defensive efficiency. His opponent's PER is 15.0 - which is not very good for Perk.

Defensively, it is clear that he has some effect - while he's on the court, OKC gives up 98.4 points per 48. When he's off, 106.1 - a net 7.7 point difference. Offensively? When he's on the court, OKC scores 105.5 but 113.5 per 48 when he's off - a net 8.0 difference. Of course, on/off court stats have a lot of noise and aren't exactly reliable.

The point is Perkins has played terribly this year and thankfully the Celtics aren't stuck with him for another 3-4 years. Green didn't exactly work out - neither did Krstic. But at the very least, the Celtics got something (the LAC clip) for someone that they should be glad isn't on the books for 8-10 mill a year for the next 3 years.

ditto
TP

[Bankshot]

Never was upset.  I got upset when Shaq got hurt and couldn't play, because he was better than Perk and I think we could have won another 'ship had Shaq been healthy.  All we needed was a decent and healthy center, because that's all Perk was (not knocking Perk, just stating what he is).

[fairweatherfan]

Perk benefited a lot from having KG next to him (and vice-versa to a lesser degree).  He can be an elite defensive player with the right personnel, but OKC doesn't have that yet. 

I'm also wondering if his decreased bulk hasn't hurt his strength some (though it's probably good for his knees). 

Do miss the guy though...lot of good memories.

[Roy H.]

I still would have let Perk play out the year (we were a legit championship contender, but lacked a center) and then would have seen what we could get for him in a sign-and-trade.

For instance, let's say we got an $8 million trade exception for Perk.  We could have then signed-and-traded for David West or some other free agent without it being a problem.  I think that trade exception would be at least as big of a trading chip as the Clippers pick, and we would have had a better shot at a championship last year.

[Cman]

I was fine with the Perk trade when it happened, but am less so now. Since the trade happened, there were a bunch of things that went wrong from the Celtics side. There was always the possibility of these things happening, but the probability of each was low, and the joint probability really really low. Given 20-20 hindsight, I wish the trade hadn't happened, but, again, could see all the reasons for doing it at the time.

In any case, the trade is in the past now, just like the potential trades at the start of the season for CP3 or David West, and I'm focused on the future.

[indeedproceed]

Upset? No. Time heals all wounds.

I'd take it back though if I could.

[soap07]

I still would have let Perk play out the year (we were a legit championship contender, but lacked a center) and then would have seen what we could get for him in a sign-and-trade.

I think an argument could be made that if Perk played out the year, considering the way he played last year, the Celtics still would've lacked a center. I would bet that the package the C's got in the meantime in a sign and trade would've been similar to what they did receive from OKC.

[soap07]

Upset? No. Time heals all wounds.

I'd take it back though if I could.

Still though? Even with the way he's played?

[dtrader]

I started thinking about this too after watching the griffin dunk.  IMO Perk hasnt been worth his contract so far this year, and he didnt play well in OKC last year either. Last year everyone on here was saying "give him a full year", "watch what he does next year", etc...It didnt happen.  He dropped a ton of weight, and still seems dedicated, but talent wise he looks more like the player he was before the big 3 came.  Being outside of the celtics system is bringing his individual weaknesses more into the light in OKC, and I dont see that changing.  If anything, I see him getting traded or moving further down their roster in terms of mpg. 

Even if we never see Green suit up again, I wont be mad at Danny for the Perk trade.  Combine Perks injury history, contract expectations, and his current level of production, and I feel like we sold him pretty high.

I would NOT be happy, if the Celts were playing Perk 9mil the next 3 or 4 years, and only getting 4 points, 6 boards, and 44% fgs from him.  IMO that would be our worst contract by far. 

[Roy H.]

I would NOT be happy, if the Celts were playing Perk 9mil the next 3 or 4 years, and only getting 4 points, 6 boards, and 44% fgs from him.  IMO that would be our worst contract by far. 

Do you think that Perk would be putting up those numbers in Boston?  I get the sense that he'd be a lot closer to the old Perk, probably around 8/8 with a block and somewhere around 55% shooting.  I just think Perk was pretty much the perfect defensive and low-usage cog on our team.

That said, I don't think there's any way that Danny would have paid him $8+ million, and we would have signed-and-traded him.

[soap07]

Do you think that Perk would be putting up those numbers in Boston?  I get the sense that he'd be a lot closer to the old Perk, probably around 8/8 with a block and somewhere around 55% shooting.  I just think Perk was pretty much the perfect defensive and low-usage cog on our team.

I think that's wishful thinking. The guy has lost lot of weight. He has a debilitating knee injury. Two things that have nothing to do with the system. All we have to go on is how he looks now - which is frankly not very good. There's no evidence to suggest that his poor play on OKC, which places him among the least productive in the league for the minutes he plays, is strictly because of the system that he is in.

[wdleehi]

With the issues at the C spot, yes.


With no Green, yes.


With the draft pick not being as good, yes.

[Moranis]

I would NOT be happy, if the Celts were playing Perk 9mil the next 3 or 4 years, and only getting 4 points, 6 boards, and 44% fgs from him.  IMO that would be our worst contract by far. 

Do you think that Perk would be putting up those numbers in Boston?  I get the sense that he'd be a lot closer to the old Perk, probably around 8/8 with a block and somewhere around 55% shooting.  I just think Perk was pretty much the perfect defensive and low-usage cog on our team.

That said, I don't think there's any way that Danny would have paid him $8+ million, and we would have signed-and-traded him.

Possibly, but if he played like he did for OKC down the stretch last year, I don't think he would have gotten the big contract he got before he came back.  And maybe he is on the Celtics right now on a one year deal or more like a MLE type deal.  Someone may have overpaid for him, but I think that possibility was much worse based on how he played.  Thus, I don't think the Celtics would have gotten anywhere near the package they ended up getting from OKC and he might have just gone and signed somewhere without doing a sign and trade (like say Miami at the full MLE).  

Betting on a sign and trade when there was a strong chance the entire structure was going to change (it didn't change all that much as it turned out at least for the last off season) was a huge gamble and one I would not have taken if I was Boston.  I also don't see Boston getting by Miami last year even with a healthy Perkins as he just wouldn't have done much in that series (Shaq might have made a difference - Perkins not so much).  

I was happy with the trade at the time and am even more happy with it now.  Perkins is done as a truly effective player and I still have hope that Green will be a solid sixth man type player for the Celtics going forward not to mention the 1st from LAC (which unfortunately is much worse than it could have been).

[Marcus13]

Im not terribly upset that we traded Perkins...Im still upset that Danny Ainge took so little for him, I dont buy for half a second that's the best deal he could have got