Perk Revisited

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

    Perk Revisited

    I was not one of the people who was outraged when Perk was traded. Although I do acknowledge that our chances 2 years ago would have been better had he stuck around the entire year. 

    But he wanted too much money, and he would have walked away into free agency without the Celtics's receiving any compensation.

    I think the time has come that we now can almost pass judgement on the Perkins trade.  Although it would have been nice if we could have held on to Kristic, we end up with Sullinger and Green.  Thus, right now, i would have to say that the Perk trade is looking extremely good.

    Wouldn't you agree?

     

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Perk Revisited

    I agree 100%....!!!!

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

    Re: Perk Revisited

    No - because I happen to think that trade cost us a ring, and advancement in the playoffs in general.

    Even Ainge would not have done it had he known Shaq wouldn't be healthy. He has implied as much in interviews. He traded Perk because he thought Shaq could give him 20 minutes a game. He never would have traded Perk otherwise. 

    He could easily have been signed in free agency also, the Celts would have just had to pony up the cash. 

    I think we could have beaten Miami last year with Perk, do you recall the Lebron James layup line in the playoffs?  

    That said, I think it's still too early to fully evaluate this trade. Let's see another couple years of Sully and Green, right? And let's also see another year or two of Perk with OKC, let's see how Perk does this year when healthy against Dwight Howard in the playoffs, etc. 

    I'll give you this: if Green and Sully turn out to be real good, the trade can be upgraded from bad to at least one we can debate. It's still too early to fully judge this one...

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from gman101019. Show gman101019's posts

    Re: Perk Revisited

    In response to BostonTrollSpanker's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    No - because I happen to think that trade cost us a ring, and advancement in the playoffs in general.

    Even Ainge would not have done it had he known Shaq wouldn't be healthy. He has implied as much in interviews. He traded Perk because he thought Shaq could give him 20 minutes a game. He never would have traded Perk otherwise. 

    He could easily have been signed in free agency also, the Celts would have just had to pony up the cash. 

    I think we could have beaten Miami last year with Perk, do you recall the Lebron James layup line in the playoffs?  

    That said, I think it's still too early to fully evaluate this trade. Let's see another couple years of Sully and Green, right? And let's also see another year or two of Perk with OKC, let's see how Perk does this year when healthy against Dwight Howard in the playoffs, etc. 

    I'll give you this: if Green and Sully turn out to be real good, the trade can be upgraded from bad to at least one we can debate. It's still too early to fully judge this one...

    [/QUOTE]


     

    100% agree. Great post. 

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

    Re: Perk Revisited

    We would probably still have Krstic if not for the lockout - he left early to go back to Russia.  He would have helped us last year as well!

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ortiz123. Show Ortiz123's posts

    Re: Perk Revisited

    Im sure if he knew that Green had a heart conditon, you don't make the deal either..but he did'nt have his crystal ball.. we are much more athletic today....I love Green's potential...if he keeps developing his game, this may turn out to be a steal as well...I love Perk, but something tells me that his body is not built for long term in this game..

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

    Re: Perk Revisited

    I still think moving Perk out was the right move.

    Cant look back and say we needed him when Shaq went down. Nobody can control injuries.

    Perk was walking anyway cause he wanted more than the C's felt he was worth. The C's were right imo. Perk is a very limited player and frankly, I felt his game was regressing with the Celtics. He filled a role that hid alot of his shortcomings... and Shaq gave us much more.

    If Danny didnt let him go we get nothing in return. Im confidant OKC isnt happy with the deal they made for Perk. He's really not the player they thought

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from GAShamrock60. Show GAShamrock60's posts

    Re: Perk Revisited

    I agree Karlost, Perk is not worth nearly the money they paid him. Hopefully he can help OKC eleiminate the Lakers if they meet in the playoffs.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from sinus007. Show sinus007's posts

    Re: Perk Revisited

    Hi,

    I agree, it's too early to judge. OTOH, if you extrapolate performance of JG and Sully based on the 2 games (I know it's way too "rough") onto the upcoming season, I say Danny did a great job.

    Also, I think JG and Sully fit much better into the current Celtics' construct which geared to beat the Heat.

     

    AK

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share