Green and Perkins trade revisited

[Kuberski33]

Two things.
1. Everyone forgets that the Celtics that year had the absolute worst bench of any point during the KG era.  They consistently gave away leads that the starters built up.  That team was going nowhere.

2.  Perk is nowhere near worth the money he wanted and ultimately got from OKC. Everyone forgets or totally underestimates the impact KG had on his game.  KG made up for ALL of Perk's limitations...i.e. horrible hands, no offensive game at all.

That all being said, I'd take Perk back in 2 years if you could get him at a reasonable price.  This current team badly needs what he does bring to the table - a defensive presence, rim protection and toughness.

[BballTim]

I didn't like the trade then and I don't like it now. I'd rather have lost Perk in free-agency then to have paid Green. I don't care that Perk sucks now, at that point in time it was a bad trade and Green hasn't made it worth while. Perk's leadership, championship experience and locker room presence did wonders for OKC. The Celtics have been soft in the middle since he left while OKC gained a little bit of grit.

Just for perspective Green is about the 3rd or 4th best player on this very weak team. Crawford, Bradley, and Sullinger have all shown more consistency agression and game changing ability this year.

  This is silly. One of the most consistently aggressive players on the team is Wallace, that hardly makes him a good player. True, Crawford has game changing ability, our opponents tend to benefit from that more than we do. He's not that good and he's far from consistent.

[Bingbangbarros]

I think you have to keep some things in perspective. At the time, the Celts were at an "all in" period, or should have been. With that in mind, Perk was a better fit for the Celtics at the time of the trade than Green. The Celtics were a defensive minded team that didn't need/care about Perk's offense. Their whole team was built around a defensive "attitude" that Green simply doesn't have. If the goal was to win championships with that group, then Perk was the better option to make that happen with that particular group.

Jeff Green is clearly a better player now and probably was then, but was not a better fit for the Celtics at the time.

There are many ways to analyze this. If we're talking overall big picture, I think it was definitely better for the C's. For that year you may be right, I'm not sure. I liked Perk and I'm not so high on Green but I'm glad Ainge was looking at the future. He was banking on Shaq and J. O'Neal playing. If Shaq was healthy I think we win easily. You're right, it was a defensive team. But we really struggled on offense. Green could have added more but he never really integrated himself. I think Doc's party to blame along with Green.

I know that Perk starts every year. He probably shouldn't. The numbers show they are better without him on the floor and he gets worse every year.

[Tr1boy]

I didn't like the trade then and I don't like it now. I'd rather have lost Perk in free-agency then to have paid Green. I don't care that Perk sucks now, at that point in time it was a bad trade and Green hasn't made it worth while. Perk's leadership, championship experience and locker room presence did wonders for OKC. The Celtics have been soft in the middle since he left while OKC gained a little bit of grit.

Just for perspective Green is about the 3rd or 4th best player on this very weak team. Crawford, Bradley, and Sullinger have all shown more consistency agression and game changing ability this year.

+1

Danny traded Perk bc

1) Injury scare and long term health (though i think he forgot how young perk still was)

2) Giving Perk 10 million a year. Near the same amount Green is getting now

3) We had KG then, but he had to do alot more of the physical and dirty work, accelarating his wear and tear

I can understand Danny about points 1 and 2. But he didn't consider point 3 properly and also the fact how hard it was/is to have a legit Center in this league. There are only 20 decent ones, and the teams that do have them are usually in the playoffs.  Perks PER and all this might not be great, but instead he does alot of other crap that does not show on the statsheet. Especially his inside presence, hard fouls, toughness , prevent guys from having an easy time driving in, neutralizing opposing elite bigs, grabbing defensive rebounds etc.

I mean how many Centers have come and gone since Perk has left? Green i've given up on. If he had half of Perks guts he would be a great player in the league. 

[SparzWizard]

I didn't like the trade then and I don't like it now. I'd rather have lost Perk in free-agency then to have paid Green. I don't care that Perk sucks now, at that point in time it was a bad trade and Green hasn't made it worth while. Perk's leadership, championship experience and locker room presence did wonders for OKC. The Celtics have been soft in the middle since he left while OKC gained a little bit of grit.

Just for perspective Green is about the 3rd or 4th best player on this very weak team. Crawford, Bradley, and Sullinger have all shown more consistency agression and game changing ability this year.

+1

Danny traded Perk bc

1) Injury scare and long term health (though i think he forgot how young perk still was)

2) Giving Perk 10 million a year. Near the same amount Green is getting now

3) We had KG then, but he had to do alot more of the physical and dirty work, accelarating his wear and tear

I can understand Danny about points 1 and 2. But he didn't consider point 3 properly and also the fact how hard it was/is to have a legit Center in this league. There are only 20 decent ones, and the teams that do have them are usually in the playoffs.  Perks PER and all this might not be great, but instead he does alot of other crap that does not show on the statsheet. Especially his inside presence, hard fouls, toughness , prevent guys from having an easy time driving in, neutralizing opposing elite bigs, grabbing defensive rebounds etc.

I mean how many Centers have come and gone since Perk has left? Green i've given up on. If he had half of Perks guts he would be a great player in the league.

I think the last real Center we had...was Nenad Krstic.

[thirstyboots18]

Perkins is terrible. He's easily the worst big man in the Thunder's rotation this year and is being outplayed by a rookie (Steven Adams). Green is a solid NBA player. Perkins is not.

People around here tend to overrate Perkins because he started his career here but honestly he was never anything more than a guy who eats up space in the paint. He's never been a good scorer (he's too slow, he brings the ball down on rebounds, he can't shoot, he has bricks for hands, his career FT% is only 60%), he's not a very good rebounder (career average of 6.1 rebounds a game which is pretty pathetic for a starting NBA center) and his defense is overrated (he was only a good 1v1 defender and wasn't known for his help side defense). Frankly, I think the only reason he was on the Celtics' roster was because he could guard Dwight Howard.

He might be the worst in the Thunder's rotation (according to you) but he might be the best in the Celtics rotation.  (I do like Humphries, but think his tenure might be short.)

[PhoSita]

Perkins is terrible. He's easily the worst big man in the Thunder's rotation this year and is being outplayed by a rookie (Steven Adams). Green is a solid NBA player. Perkins is not.

People around here tend to overrate Perkins because he started his career here but honestly he was never anything more than a guy who eats up space in the paint. He's never been a good scorer (he's too slow, he brings the ball down on rebounds, he can't shoot, he has bricks for hands, his career FT% is only 60%), he's not a very good rebounder (career average of 6.1 rebounds a game which is pretty pathetic for a starting NBA center) and his defense is overrated (he was only a good 1v1 defender and wasn't known for his help side defense). Frankly, I think the only reason he was on the Celtics' roster was because he could guard Dwight Howard.

He might be the worst in the Thunder's rotation (according to you) but he might be the best in the Celtics rotation.  (I do like Humphries, but think his tenure might be short.)

Wait . . . are you suggesting Perk would be better than Sullinger?

[thirstyboots18]

Perkins is terrible. He's easily the worst big man in the Thunder's rotation this year and is being outplayed by a rookie (Steven Adams). Green is a solid NBA player. Perkins is not.

People around here tend to overrate Perkins because he started his career here but honestly he was never anything more than a guy who eats up space in the paint. He's never been a good scorer (he's too slow, he brings the ball down on rebounds, he can't shoot, he has bricks for hands, his career FT% is only 60%), he's not a very good rebounder (career average of 6.1 rebounds a game which is pretty pathetic for a starting NBA center) and his defense is overrated (he was only a good 1v1 defender and wasn't known for his help side defense). Frankly, I think the only reason he was on the Celtics' roster was because he could guard Dwight Howard.

He might be the worst in the Thunder's rotation (according to you) but he might be the best in the Celtics rotation.  (I do like Humphries, but think his tenure might be short.)

Wait . . . are you suggesting Perk would be better than Sullinger?

Are you sure Sully is a center?  I think he is more of a Power Forward.

[PhoSita]

Some people are really never going to get over this trade, regardless of how things work out in the long run, apparently.

For me, the main reason is, Perk is a better/consistent player and plays a difficult position to occupy.  Danny since the trade has had zero luck finding a legit Center

Green on the other hand has had us fans reaching for the tylonel on a consistent basis

  The whole "Green is inconsistent" is pretty overblown. Not that Green's the most consistent player in the world or anything, just the assumption that other players on other teams *are* consistent isn't realistic.

Green is relatively inconsistent for a player who ostensibly is one of primary offensive options for the team.

But if you compare him to other wing players with similar offensive skillsets who occupy merely complementary roles -- e.g. Trevor Ariza, Nic Batum, Shawn Marion -- then the variations in his production is more typical.


Of course, we've also been spoiled by watching Pierce for years.  Even on an off night he was almost always assertive enough to end up in double figures.

[PhoSita]

Perkins is terrible. He's easily the worst big man in the Thunder's rotation this year and is being outplayed by a rookie (Steven Adams). Green is a solid NBA player. Perkins is not.

People around here tend to overrate Perkins because he started his career here but honestly he was never anything more than a guy who eats up space in the paint. He's never been a good scorer (he's too slow, he brings the ball down on rebounds, he can't shoot, he has bricks for hands, his career FT% is only 60%), he's not a very good rebounder (career average of 6.1 rebounds a game which is pretty pathetic for a starting NBA center) and his defense is overrated (he was only a good 1v1 defender and wasn't known for his help side defense). Frankly, I think the only reason he was on the Celtics' roster was because he could guard Dwight Howard.

He might be the worst in the Thunder's rotation (according to you) but he might be the best in the Celtics rotation.  (I do like Humphries, but think his tenure might be short.)

Wait . . . are you suggesting Perk would be better than Sullinger?

Are you sure Sully is a center?  I think he is more of a Power Forward.

Sullinger has played a lot of minutes at center this season, despite being an undersized one.  He's just as much a center as Kris Humphries.

If we're comparing "pure" centers, it's a closer thing between Vitor and Perk.  Perk is undoubtedly a much better defender, but I don't think there's much question Vitor is a more skilled and effective offensive player (not that he's Hakeem Olajuwon or anything).

[thirstyboots18]

Perkins is terrible. He's easily the worst big man in the Thunder's rotation this year and is being outplayed by a rookie (Steven Adams). Green is a solid NBA player. Perkins is not.

People around here tend to overrate Perkins because he started his career here but honestly he was never anything more than a guy who eats up space in the paint. He's never been a good scorer (he's too slow, he brings the ball down on rebounds, he can't shoot, he has bricks for hands, his career FT% is only 60%), he's not a very good rebounder (career average of 6.1 rebounds a game which is pretty pathetic for a starting NBA center) and his defense is overrated (he was only a good 1v1 defender and wasn't known for his help side defense). Frankly, I think the only reason he was on the Celtics' roster was because he could guard Dwight Howard.

He might be the worst in the Thunder's rotation (according to you) but he might be the best in the Celtics rotation.  (I do like Humphries, but think his tenure might be short.)

Wait . . . are you suggesting Perk would be better than Sullinger?

Are you sure Sully is a center?  I think he is more of a Power Forward.

Sullinger has played a lot of minutes at center this season, despite being an undersized one.  He's just as much a center as Kris Humphries.

If we're comparing "pure" centers, it's a closer thing between Vitor and Perk.  Perk is undoubtedly a much better defender, but I don't think there's much question Vitor is a more skilled and effective offensive player (not that he's Hakeem Olajuwon or anything).

Point taken.  However, Avery Bradley has been played extensively at point guard this year and last year...that does not make him a point guard.  The only problem I have with playing both Sully and Perk together would be the lack of height.  They are very different players.  We should not need a scoring Center, but a rim protector would be welcome, and Sully is capable of putting up points at big forward, as well as stretching the floor and collecting rebounds.  Just my opinion.

[LooseCannon]

I think you have to keep some things in perspective. At the time, the Celts were at an "all in" period, or should have been. With that in mind, Perk was a better fit for the Celtics at the time of the trade than Green. The Celtics were a defensive minded team that didn't need/care about Perk's offense. Their whole team was built around a defensive "attitude" that Green simply doesn't have. If the goal was to win championships with that group, then Perk was the better option to make that happen with that particular group.

Jeff Green is clearly a better player now and probably was then, but was not a better fit for the Celtics at the time.

The crunch time line-up was Rondo, Allen, Pierce, Garnett, and Davis.  I think the trade was made partly with the idea of three quarters of Perkins being replaceable and Green being an upgrade on Big Baby at the end of games.

[PhoSita]

Point taken.  However, Avery Bradley has been played extensively at point guard this year and last year...that does not make him a point guard. 

I'm not so concerned about specific "position" definitions.

What matters to me is that Sullinger is an effective, productive player when he plays at the 5 spot.  Bradley, on the other hand, is a major net negative for the team when he plays at point guard.

Perk may be a "pure" center, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't prefer to play Sullinger at that spot.

[thirstyboots18]

Point taken.  However, Avery Bradley has been played extensively at point guard this year and last year...that does not make him a point guard. 

I'm not so concerned about specific "position" definitions.

What matters to me is that Sullinger is an effective, productive player when he plays at the 5 spot.  Bradley, on the other hand, is a major net negative for the team when he plays at point guard.

Perk may be a "pure" center, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't prefer to play Sullinger at that spot.

For what it is (or isn't) worth, I hated KG at center, too, although I thought he did an admirable job playing it.  I happen to be an old school, back to the basket rim protecting center fan.

[Donoghus]

Liked the trade then. Still like it now.

I wish Green developed a bit more but, for the most part, it was the right trade.  Beats having a Perkins albatross contract on the books right now (although we have one in Wallace anyways).

That team was so banged it that it was highly unlikely they were going anywhere if they hadn't made the trade.  C's acquired an asset better than the one they gave up in Green over Perk.

It's professional basketball so I always thought the whole "chemistry" angle of the trade was overblown.  These are grown men.  If they can't handle a personal change, they're not mentally tough to win anyways.