Report: The Vets aren't happy with trading Perk

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from RUWorthy. Show RUWorthy's posts

    Re: Report: The Vets aren't happy with trading Perk

    In Response to Re: Report: The Vets aren't happy with trading Perk:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Report: The Vets aren't happy with trading Perk : I take it you think the C's got the best of the trade?
    Posted by OneOnOne[/QUOTE]

    It's a gamble by Ainge but yes. I'm a fan of Green, he's a decent player. Robinson would be covered by West when he returns?

    Perkins was offered a contract by Ainge but rejected it? I feel that if Perkins had signed the contract he'd probably still be a Celtic. Perhaps Ainge didn't think that Perkins would re-sign with the team. And that it'd be best to trade him and get some value in return.

    Would be hard emotionally for the players. But I see more of an upside for your team than a negative.


     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from RUWorthy. Show RUWorthy's posts

    Re: Report: The Vets aren't happy with trading Perk

    In Response to Re: Report: The Vets aren't happy with trading Perk:
    [QUOTE]Worthy, fun scenario for you, taking it back to the Lakers rivalry in the 80's... Say the Celts team in '86 lost Wedman ('Quis) and had NOBODY behind Ainge/Bird (Ray/Pierce). So they trade Parish (Perk) for a talented young wing just 3-4 years into the league, lets say Jeff Malone or Dale Ellis (Green) and hope that McHale (KG) can play more 5 and Walton (Shaq) can stay healthy and play 24 mins instead of 14. So... do you trade Parish in '86 for a younger scoring wing who you feel can average 20ppg for the next 5 years nad keep Bird/McHale rested? What if the Chief had also just turned down a fair contract extension offer and was coming back from major knee surgery? What if you planned on summer of 1987 making a huge run at free agent Hakeem or Ewing (Howard) and needed both the cap space and another young star to entice the FA C to sign?
    Posted by rameakap[/QUOTE]

    As for Green I'm just a fan of his. So perhaps I'm seeing his talent though rose colored glasses. Was really shocked to see him traded from the Thunder. Not sure what this will do to the Thunders chemistry. Same can be said for Boston. But Boston have guys like KG, Allen and Pierce so they should provide the stability.

    If that was the case with Parish, I'd have made the trade. McHale could have played centre pretty well IMO.

    Perkins is no Parish though. On the surface it's a hard call. Trade Parish, or make the younger guys work harder without Wedman? Maybe ironically trading Ainge could have been a scenario in that situation as well. Trade him for a younger 2/3 and maybe throw in a draft pick or two.



     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from RUWorthy. Show RUWorthy's posts

    Re: Report: The Vets aren't happy with trading Perk

    In Response to Re: Report: The Vets aren't happy with trading Perk:
    [QUOTE]Our bigs are Kristic and injured Shaq and JO ... great trade! ... for OKC that is... steal of the century! All OKC was missing was a center to combat the size of LA they received 2 big men... good for them hope they take the Lakers out
    Posted by KGLove[/QUOTE]

    I think Perkins looked so good as a player because he played with team mates like KG, Allen and Pierce.

    I guess we'll all see what he learned for the last couple of seasons.

    He's a good defensive player. I guess OKC may well use him in the same role. But the Thunder playing roster are not the Celtics.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

    Re: Report: The Vets aren't happy with trading Perk

    In Response to Re: Report: The Vets aren't happy with trading Perk:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Report: The Vets aren't happy with trading Perk : As for Green I'm just a fan of his. So perhaps I'm seeing his talent though rose colored glasses. Was really shocked to see him traded from the Thunder. Not sure what this will do to the Thunders chemistry. Same can be said for Boston. But Boston have guys like KG, Allen and Pierce so they should provide the stability. If that was the case with Parish, I'd have made the trade. McHale could have played centre pretty well IMO. Perkins is no Parish though. On the surface it's a hard call. Trade Parish, or make the younger guys work harder without Wedman? Maybe ironically trading Ainge could have been a scenario in that situation as well. Trade him for a younger 2/3 and maybe throw in a draft pick or two.
    Posted by RUWorthy[/QUOTE]

    Glad to hear you like Green's game.. if Worthy is your fav Laker I can see why, Green is slightly worse Worthy... whose career would have been diff if he played with Dominique or some 30ppg SF than w/ Magic.

    As a UConn guy I think I saw Green more at G'Town than w/ OKC... never stuck out as a superstar but made you think he was highly skilled and could do many thing well, play many postions. If he is your SF (and 3rd or 4th best player) then you have a good thing going.

    As for the 80's fun, Danny was only 25 at the '86 deadline... 1-2 years older than Ellis/Malone... although Perk is really only 2 years older than Green, just has a whopping 4 more years pro.

    I'd have trusted Kite and Walton w/ more mins in '86 over Thirdkill and Carlile:-) Imagine starting Jeff Malone (a 16-22ppg guy 89-94) @ SG. Ainge his backup. Bird and Reggie Lewis @ SF. McHale w/ no foot injury at PF and Ewing or Olajawon @ Center.... thru the mid 90's?

    That is the type of transformation this current Celts trade might do... just gotta roll out the red carpet for that Howard pipe dream.


     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from RajonRondowski. Show RajonRondowski's posts

    Re: Report: The Vets aren't happy with trading Perk

    In Response to Re: Report: The Vets aren't happy with trading Perk:

    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Report: The Vets aren't happy with trading Perk : It's a gamble by Ainge but yes. I'm a fan of Green, he's a decent player. Robinson would be covered by West when he returns? Perkins was offered a contract by Ainge but rejected it? I feel that if Perkins had signed the contract he'd probably still be a Celtic. Perhaps Ainge didn't think that Perkins would re-sign with the team. And that it'd be best to trade him and get some value in return. Would be hard emotionally for the players. But I see more of an upside for your team than a negative.

    Posted by RUWorthy[/QUOTE]

    -

    Big Perk fan me.  Big.

    Big Danny fan too.

    As much as I love Perk, I expected him to be better coming off the injury, especially being under the tuteledge of Shaq, because just watching Shaq is inspiring and should be a learning experinence for a guy like Perk.  But after 7 years he never learned to go right back up with a rebound, like McHale taught all big men, instead of bringing it down to your knees and winding up to . . . get it blocked.  And as much as I love Perk, his hands seemed to get worse this season instead of better, and I really expected Perk to be able to finish better this season, but instead, in the minutes he played, he seemed to be worse this season at finishing. 

    I think Danny saw this also, and not being an emotional fan like I, he took the prudent fiscal move and the prudent B-ball move and moved Perk to team where Perk will thrive, and we will get a much needed, versitile player who can not only back up Paul, but can play at three positions.

    DA is a better B-ball business man than I, for I could have never traded Perk, strictly for emotional reasons.

    I don't think it has anything to do with contracts, but with what Perk brought to the team and what he took away from the team. He brought great interior defense, but he took away about 10 points a game with his leaden hands, and all except Rondo recently grew reluctent to pass the ball in to a wide open Perk.

    I think now, in retrospect, that Perk played himself out of Boston: his value diminished in relation to the teams we have to beat to get to the title.  I think that if the Magic and the Lakers were the teams we considered we had to conquer to get the title, Perk would still be here, maybe, but with his lack of improvement factored in, Perk became somewhat expendable, and Danny's trading partners played right into Danny's hands.

    A simple equation in Danny's head:  Perk:  + defense, - offense:  we win games by limiting other teams scoring but we lose games for lack of offense.  It's a game where the team with the most points wins at the end, and as important as defense is, if you can't outscore your oppenent, you lose. 

    Perk became an offensive liability that negated his defensive positives.

    Now Perk is in a much better situation for himself, and the Celtics are also in a better position to win title 18.

    Hat's off to Danny.  That's why he's the Gm and I am not.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from seattlepat70. Show seattlepat70's posts

    Re: Report: The Vets aren't happy with trading Perk

    In Response to Re: Report: The Vets aren't happy with trading Perk:
    [QUOTE]The Celtics had the 2nd best record in the NBA with Perk out.  Many on here believe we lost game 7 of the NBA Finals because Perk was injured.  NO, NO, NO. We had the 2nd best record while Perk was out because we have a deep, talented team and that does not change with trading Perk to OKC. We lost in the Finals because the only bigs we had were KG and Sheed (and Baby).  Perk would have helped but so would Shaq and/or JON and/or Kristic.  We were a solid team without Perk and will remain being a solid team. We cannot put a value on having an athletic 6'9" young SF who can score and defend.  We will continue to get the job done by committee at the C position.  I think we've gotten better around the C position today. And on realgm.com, there is speculation that Sheed is contemplating returning.  Honestly, looking at it now, this was all probably planned to play out this way.  Celtics will get banner #18.
    Posted by Petey62[/QUOTE]


    let's see...
    so you don't think perk' injury had nothing to do with game 7 loss? hmmm, i guess celtics pulling 13 fewer rebounds on that game should not have mattered.

    "I think we've gotten better around the C position today."
    boston is 29th in rebounds pulled (perk just came back). that was before giving up a 280 lb guy who pulls 8.1 rebounds on an avg of 26 mins per game for a 240 lb guy who 4.4 rebs on an avg of 22 mins per game? and you say it's okay because they ahve shaq? he pulls 5 rebs on 20 mins...and that is for half the season that he's healthy.

    but you think it's still okay because they get green...
    when does green play? is he starting with the big 4? if so, who's playing c? garnet - who does not like slamming bodies inside? all of a sudden gasol, bosh, howard are happy. or maybe he platoons with pp. yeah right.

    btw you said we bos lost game 7 because they only had garnet and sheed, and you're happy that sheed might be coming back









     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from KGLove. Show KGLove's posts

    Re: Report: The Vets aren't happy with trading Perk

    Pierce on Perk trade

    KG on Perk trade

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from COMMUNIST-CONTRARIAN. Show COMMUNIST-CONTRARIAN's posts

    Re: Report: The Vets aren't happy with trading Perk

    vets aren't happy? SO WHAT! fans arent happy? SO WHAT! love the fact that ainge is channeling his inner belichick! if we win which we will and do so in a more athletic, fun fashion,all these doomers will be riding the jock of danny! the first time nenad clothesline someone a la mchale, all the fans wil be on their knees washing his balls! vets are emotional like fans which has its place, but danny must be objective and go away from his emotions! great moves on his part. would have been great to get anthony parker from that cleveland trade though! idnt this his last year? 
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from susan250. Show susan250's posts

    Re: Report: The Vets aren't happy with trading Perk

    In Response to Re: Report: The Vets aren't happy with trading Perk:
    [QUOTE]It was reported on CSN that the vets aren't happy but I'm sure they will get over it fairly quickly. I'm stunned how all the guys on NBATV think the big winner of the day is OKC!!! LOL! Wow, did we trade any of the Big 4? NO! We traded the guy who gets the most techs, sets the most illegal screens and has no hands.
    Posted by BiasLewis[/QUOTE]

    I would imagine that all of the Celtics players were very unhappy with this trade.  Perk was very upset and was crying for the entire day on Thursday. 
     

Share