Green and Perkins trade revisited

[thirstyboots18]

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.

I understood the reasoning behind the trade.  I won't go so far as to say I liked it.  Like everyone else, I hoped...and still hope...it works out.

[Tr1boy]

Another thing to consider. Jeff Green right now is talked about being traded. Especially since the 2014 draft is stacked with talented SF's

IF we had Perkins, likely he wouldn't be in the talks of being traded, unless we got another legit C back or somehow knew would draft Embiid.

[CelticG1]

Another thing to consider. Jeff Green right now is talked about being traded. Especially since the 2014 draft is stacked with talented SF's

IF we had Perkins, likely he wouldn't be in the talks of being traded, unless we got another legit C back or somehow knew would draft Embiid.

I'm not sure if I am reading this correctly but you are saying this is a benefit of having Green because he has possible value around the league unlike Perkins?

[Fafnir]

Perkins has negative trade value, Green has positive value. Makes me sad how far Perk's game has declined.

[Donoghus]

Another thing to consider. Jeff Green right now is talked about being traded. Especially since the 2014 draft is stacked with talented SF's

IF we had Perkins, likely he wouldn't be in the talks of being traded, unless we got another legit C back or somehow knew would draft Embiid.

I'm not sure if I am reading this correctly but you are saying this is a benefit of having Green because he has possible value around the league unlike Perkins?

I guess here's how I look at it as one tangent of that trade.

If the Celtics had stayed pat and then resigned Perkins to what would be an albatross contract, would there be much trade value for him on the open market at the moment?

I think with Green's skill set and relatively palatable contract, he has more value on the open market.

I always envisioned DA making that trade in the first place with the possible intention of using Green as a trade chip down the road rather than having him as a cornerstone to the rebuilding effort.

[ssspence]

Green's of course the better player, but if the lense for success in the NBA is championships, calling the trade as net positive is not as simple as it should be.

We'll never know whether Perk staying on that 2011 team might have led to a banner. We do know that having Green around sure hasn't -- at least not so far, and I can't imagine he'll be here when they next win one.

I don't wish we had Perk now. But considering the short window we had with Garnett and Allen, it would have nice to see that group of 5 have one more shot at the title.

[thirstyboots18]

I agree with this.

[Celtics4ever]

We'll never know whether Perk staying on that 2011 team might have led to a banner. We do know that having Green around sure hasn't -- at least not so far, and I can't imagine he'll be here when they next win one.

I think we know look at how many games he played that year.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/perkike01.html

12+17 is 29 in case you need some help.

[Kuberski33]

Perkins has negative trade value, Green has positive value. Makes me sad how far Perk's game has declined.

Declined or did KG just cover up for his weaknesses?  Prior to KG getting here there was a lot of question about whether Perk would ever be a decent NBA center.

[Fafnir]

Perkins has negative trade value, Green has positive value. Makes me sad how far Perk's game has declined.

Declined or did KG just cover up for his weaknesses?  Prior to KG getting here there was a lot of question about whether Perk would ever be a decent NBA center.

No he's declined.

KG didn't help him shoot 70% around the rim and now his lack of encouragment has him under 50% last I checked.

 He also used to be a high value rim protector in Boston, he was a high value rim protector when KG was off the court and this was proven when KG was out with his major injury.

He also rebounded just fine his first partial season in OKC, but that too has declined as his lift, agility, and knees have gone.

KG covered for Perkins offensively more than anything, and I think KD/Westbrook have been doing the same but the problem has only gotten worse. Now sadly KG also needs covering for offensively  .

[kraidstar]

hard to believe this is still being debated, that trade was a fleecing.
so, would we rather have one of the worst players in the league on an untradeable contract, or would we rather have a borderline star in green, krstic, + a 1st-round pick? hmmm.... every GM in the league would take the latter.
as for perkins' toughness etc, why haven't the thunder won the title then? if he's the difference, then why hasn't it happened?
it's unfortunate about what happened in 2010, but we badly needed a backup SF to help guard james/wade/etc in the playoffs, and EVERYTHING went wrong that year. having one of the worst players in the league on our roster wouldn't have reversed a 4-1 deficit to the ref-favored heat.
does anyone remember the officiating in that series? all the technical fouls in game 2? stern made sure we lost.

[CelticG1]

Green's of course the better player, but if the lense for success in the NBA is championships, calling the trade as net positive is not as simple as it should be.

We'll never know whether Perk staying on that 2011 team might have led to a banner. We do know that having Green around sure hasn't -- at least not so far, and I can't imagine he'll be here when they next win one.

I don't wish we had Perk now. But considering the short window we had with Garnett and Allen, it would have nice to see that group of 5 have one more shot at the title.

I think it's a little ridiculous that people still (or ever) tthought that we would have had a chance at a championship that year with Perk. Rondo might as well have not played that playoffs.  Maybe Rondo ddoesn't get hurt if Perk is there?  Maybe he breaks his leg if Perk is there.

I think it would have been a lot more likely if kg had been healthy in 09 or AB or Green were healthy in 2011.

If you didn't like the trade there are better reasons,  than saying we would have had a decent chance at a championship which iI tjink was and is extremely far fetched

[CoachBo]

This subject and the greatness of Rondo are two that will be debated on this board forever, kind of the board's version of the JFK Assassination and 9/11.

Thought it was a fleecing then; certain it's a fleecing now.

[ssspence]

We'll never know whether Perk staying on that 2011 team might have led to a banner. We do know that having Green around sure hasn't -- at least not so far, and I can't imagine he'll be here when they next win one.

I think we know look at how many games he played that year.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/perkike01.html

12+17 is 29 in case you need some help.

No help needed. You have no idea what would have happened if he's stayed. Neither do I. Neither does anyone. There's simply no way to predict what happens -- play, injuries, anything -- if what happened, didn't happen.

But as Doc liked to say, the Cs never lost a series where all 5 guys started each game. And Perk played every playoff game for OKC that year.

[fairweatherfan]

My only regret is that Danny didn't manage to wheedle OKC out of Harden instead of Green like he was trying to do.