Is anyone still upset about the Perk trade?

[indeedproceed]

I'm upset that Perk got hurt last season and he didn't want to re-up with us.

But the trade was the right move, it just didn't work out.

That in a way is how I feel. I guess its better to say 'not resigning Perk was the right move, the trade to get value back for him was the wrong one, and didn't work out.'

Either letting him expire or trying to get a different package for him would have unquestionably been the better move. Not even a debate.

[Celtics4ever]

Celtics traded a healthy player

That sir is debatable.  I am of the opinion that Perk was not the Perk of 2008.

[CeltsAcumen]

I love these Perkins threads, and will enjoy posting in them until the day that I die. They are endless wells of convenient memory loss and hilarious cherry-picking.

Does anyone here even remember how many players could get to the court without crutches or a wheelchair when Danny pulled the trigger on the deal last February? Spoiler alert, it was a straight-up nightmare. Marquis was out for the season (goodbye to Pierce's only backup), Shaq was out with the Achilles inflammation (and never really came back), JO was gone because of his left knee, Semih was constantly out and barely hanging on with shoulder/groin injuries, DWest was still recovering from his broken wrist, Perkins was injured AGAIN (sprained MCL), and even NATE was out with a bruised knee. BBD was basically playing injured, and Avery Bradley was recalled from the D-league out of desperate necessity.

PG: Rondo, lolAvery
SG: Ray, Wafer
SF: Pierce
PF: KG, Harangody
C: BBD

Watch out folks, here comes the late February '11 Boston Celtics, with an 8-man rotation that includes two players who didn't even belong in the NBA.

I was NEVER upset about the Perk trade, and never will be. Ainge did the best that he could do with what he had at the time. He traded injured players for fresh ones, and got a first-rounder out of it to boot. I don't care if Perkins turns into Dwight Howard, Jeff Green declines to sign with us in the 2012 offseason, and our first-rounder from the 2012 Championship-winning Clippers at the 30th pick turns out to be a scrub who breaks his leg in the first game with us, retiring from the NBA forever and becoming a monk. No regrets. The wisdom of trades can't be judged with hindsight, it was a good move at the time.

I get angry when people claim that we traded away Banner 18. I don't even consider that position to be the least bit defensible. But here's to a hundred years of lamenting over the loss of Bill Russell Jr.

Just a few things you stated i dont agree with,

1)  What did the Celtics get in return for Perkins?  As of now, a 1/2 rental on a player who could never play another professional game in his career.  That is not a great return for a starting center of any talent level.

2)  Obviously the Celtics needed to make a move last season, moving your starting center for a guy who's skill and talent are questionable at best and with a heart condition does not seem like the best option.  There were plenty of players to be attained that could of been added to the roster without moving one of the the Celtics starters.

3)  The Celtics were the BEST team, with the Best record in the NBA.  They had just beat the Lakers on a win streak when Perkins was traded.  Perkins gave the Celtics the edge bc of his size, toughness and defense against both Miami and Chicago.  NBA analysis do not dispute these facts.  How you can simply ignore these simple facts hurts your argument.  Not only were the Celtics on another run to get back to the playoffs, the trade destroyed any team chemistry or team unity to get back and win again.

Your argument simply avoids or ignores what went on so that you can argue that Perkins is not a good enough player to justify keeping him and paying him, but fails to consider what the Celtics received in return or the effect losing an important part of a Championship team has on the chemistry whether on the floor or in the locker room.

I believe both issues, Jeff Green as compensation and the overall effects still felt in the Celtic's locker room, ruins any credible argument for the trade.

[CeltsAcumen]

Celtics traded a healthy player

That sir is debatable.  I am of the opinion that Perk was not the Perk of 2008.

Does he have a heart condition?  Is Perkins playing on a club right now and contributing?

[StartOrien]

Celtics traded a healthy player

That sir is debatable.  I am of the opinion that Perk was not the Perk of 2008.

Does he have a heart condition?  Is Perkins playing on a club right now and contributing?

I think you're ignoring that the poster clearly understands Green's injury and is just stating his opinion on Perk's health.

You're also ignoring a draft pick we got in return.

[Vermont Green]

I am more upset that Rondo couldn't act professionally even though his friend was traded.  I continue to defend the trade.

We ended up with Krstic who played better than Perk plus Green plus a high pick.  Also don't forget that OKC is paying $4.5M this year to have Nate play on another team.  (Anyone want Nate back too?)

Sure you can argue that we could have done better with a sign and trade but after the way that Perk limped through the end of the season, who knows.  And wasn't he unrestricted?

[heitingas]

Perkins has cement feet and stone hands, he has regressed badly, Boston won the trade.

Clippers pick and cap space + Green on discount in the offseason, chance to get Dwight Howard...I like it better than overpaying Perkins.

Oh an in b4 we would've won if he stayed...don't think so had he stayed we wouldn't have been winning anything.

[BballTim]

Original Poster fails to consider what the Celtics got in return.  Damaged Goods.  Jeff Green played 1/2 a seasons and did not live up to the DA hype.  Now he is not even on the club.

So answer is yes, I am upset that the Celtics traded a healthy player for a guy who's career could be over.

I am one of the people that believe Danny Ainge's incompetence cost the Celtics a final shot at a title and his negligence for not uncovering Jeff Green's health issues prior to the trade cost them the 2012 season.

Anyway you look at it, whether you like Perkins or not, Danny Ainge should of NEVER traded for Jeff Green and that's why the trade was a mistake.

  Green passed multiple physicals before the trade and a physical after the trade as well. If the possibility that a player may have a health issue that's never been detected makes a trade a mistake, then all trades are mistakes. The same thing could have happened with the KG or Ray trades, the same thing could have happened with PP after we drafted him. Calling this incompetence or negligence on the part of the GM is ridiculous.

[Interceptor]

1)  What did the Celtics get in return for Perkins?

A healthy center, a healthy wing backup for Pierce, and a 1st-round pick from a crummy team. Expecting Ainge to be Nostradamus is ludicrous. Losing Krstic overseas to the lockout, Green to a heart condition that wasn't obvious during the trade physical, and the Clippers going on a tear after a blockbuster trade for CP3... could not have been predicted.

2)  Obviously the Celtics needed to make a move last season, moving your starting center for a guy who's skill and talent are questionable at best and with a heart condition does not seem like the best option.  There were plenty of players to be attained that could of been added to the roster without moving one of the the Celtics starters.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. The heart condition is untouchable for reasons mentioned prior, and there's no guarantee of the availability or quality of other players.

3)  The Celtics were the BEST team, with the Best record in the NBA.  They had just beat the Lakers on a win streak when Perkins was traded.  Perkins gave the Celtics the edge bc of his size, toughness and defense against both Miami and Chicago.  NBA analysis do not dispute these facts.  How you can simply ignore these simple facts hurts your argument.  Not only were the Celtics on another run to get back to the playoffs, the trade destroyed any team chemistry or team unity to get back and win again.

At the time of the trade, the Celtics had seven people who couldn't even play basketball.

We swept the Knicks in the playoffs, and unless you think that Perkins is going to stop back-to-back miracle 3-pointers from LBJ the 30% career deep shooter, or prevent Rondo's freak injury against Wade, or Krstic's poorly-timed bone bruise injury at the end of the regular season, or keep BBD from chucking long 2's... what is Perkins doing in the 2nd round? We lost largely because of our offense, and if someone is going to suggest that Perk could have done anything about that, I might just die laughing.

Even though the C's lost the series 4-1, two losses came with a broken Rondo, one in OT and one after the Heat go on a 12-0 run that put them up by 10. And let's not forget Game 1, where James Jones gets as hot as the noonday sun and buries us in three-pointers and FT's for 25 points.

Your argument simply avoids or ignores what went on so that you can argue that Perkins is not a good enough player to justify keeping him and paying him, but fails to consider what the Celtics received in return or the effect losing an important part of a Championship team has on the chemistry whether on the floor or in the locker room.

I don't care how good Perkins is. If he goes D-Howard on the entire NBA, it was still the right trade, because trades are about the moment and not about time machines and perfect future knowledge.

I believe both issues, Jeff Green as compensation and the overall effects still felt in the Celtic's locker room, ruins any credible argument for the trade.

Rondo's funk is long over. He blasted out of the gate at the speed of sound this season, sidelined only because of his injury.

[indeedproceed]

I think its important to note that these are two very different statements:

1) It seemed like a good move at the time.

2) It was the right move.

The second one is clearly not true. We now know how the move played out. It played out worse than an Ashlee Simpson live performance when the juke box is on the fritz.

The first one is much more ambiguous. All things being equal, we should've gotten a 1-yr rental at the backup 5 (whether Krstic was bolting is irrelevant. We knew we weren't resigning him. He was a band-aid), a replacement at the backup 3 for Daniels, and a possible Pierce replacement long-term, and a draft pick in the next couple of years that was lottery protected. On top of that, the Celtics got a guy in Green, who, as long as he accepted the QO (which he did), wasn't going to tie them up long-term if they didn't want him to, but they could still evaluate him this season.

For a guy like Perkins who wasn't healthy last year and wasn't going to get truly healthy even if the Celtics made the Finals that they were going to lose at the end of the year anyways, it wasn't a terrible deal. I trusted Danny that it was the best one out there.

Turns out, it would've been a lot better to let Perkins expire and keep the band together.

[Moranis]

I'm upset that Perk got hurt last season and he didn't want to re-up with us.

But the trade was the right move, it just didn't work out.

That in a way is how I feel. I guess its better to say 'not resigning Perk was the right move, the trade to get value back for him was the wrong one, and didn't work out.'

Either letting him expire or trying to get a different package for him would have unquestionably been the better move. Not even a debate.

I debate that statement.  I thought the trade was a great move when it was made and am perfectly happy with it. 

[Fafnir]

I'm upset that Perk got hurt last season and he didn't want to re-up with us.

But the trade was the right move, it just didn't work out.

That in a way is how I feel. I guess its better to say 'not resigning Perk was the right move, the trade to get value back for him was the wrong one, and didn't work out.'

Either letting him expire or trying to get a different package for him would have unquestionably been the better move. Not even a debate.

I debate that statement.  I thought the trade was a great move when it was made and am perfectly happy with it. 

I think he's saying with hindsight the clippers pick, green, krstic all decayed in value pretty rapidly due to CP3 trade/lockout/health which make the return less than what other assets would have been for perkins.

[Interceptor]

The second one is clearly not true.

nope.jpg

Your second statement is in no way, shape, or form a settled point. Anyone who argues that our championship run was derailed by the loss of Perkins/Nate, instead of, you know, injuries, has a steep hill to climb. Because I'm goign to see your "Perkins", and raise you a "no Shaq" and a "one-armed Rondo", and I like my chances.

And if we're not talking about a championship, there's precious little else to judge to move by, because Ainge is not paying Perk what OKC did, and there's no telling that he'd be able to get an equivalent to better offer in a S&T.

Turns out, it would've been a lot better to let Perkins expire and keep the band together.

I'll take the 1st round pick in a stacked 2012 draft, and a fair chance that we get Green back regardless of his problems, over some warm fuzzies.

[LB3533]

I actually think it was the right move at the time and only now we can say it wasn't a "good" move.

It was right trade because it kept our roster afloat and supplied bodies and backups we sorely needed.

It wasn't a good move because with 20/20 looking back, we saw it changed the complexion and chemistry of our whole squad.

[csfansince60s]

I love these Perkins threads, and will enjoy posting in them until the day that I die. They are endless wells of convenient memory loss and hilarious cherry-picking.

Does anyone here even remember how many players could get to the court without crutches or a wheelchair when Danny pulled the trigger on the deal last February? Spoiler alert, it was a straight-up nightmare. Marquis was out for the season (goodbye to Pierce's only backup), Shaq was out with the Achilles inflammation (and never really came back), JO was gone because of his left knee, Semih was constantly out and barely hanging on with shoulder/groin injuries, DWest was still recovering from his broken wrist, Perkins was injured AGAIN (sprained MCL), and even NATE was out with a bruised knee. BBD was basically playing injured, and Avery Bradley was recalled from the D-league out of desperate necessity.

PG: Rondo, lolAvery
SG: Ray, Wafer
SF: Pierce
PF: KG, Harangody
C: BBD

Watch out folks, here comes the late February '11 Boston Celtics, with an 8-man rotation that includes two players who didn't even belong in the NBA.

I was NEVER upset about the Perk trade, and never will be. Ainge did the best that he could do with what he had at the time. He traded injured players for fresh ones, and got a first-rounder out of it to boot. I don't care if Perkins turns into Dwight Howard, Jeff Green declines to sign with us in the 2012 offseason, and our first-rounder from the 2012 Championship-winning Clippers at the 30th pick turns out to be a scrub who breaks his leg in the first game with us, retiring from the NBA forever and becoming a monk. No regrets. The wisdom of trades can't be judged with hindsight, it was a good move at the time.

I get angry when people claim that we traded away Banner 18. I don't even consider that position to be the least bit defensible. But here's to a hundred years of lamenting over the loss of Bill Russell Jr.

 TP for an excellent, comprehensive well thought out post.

I was for the trade then and still am. GMs who make decisions about players and draft choices can only go on information available at the time.

In addition, since we didn't win 18, I will agree that we couldn't have done worse with Perk, if winning the championship is the only measuring stick. However, there is no way that a hobbled Perk would have guaranteed us anything last year.