Notice: All Boston.com forums will be retired as of May 31st, 2016 and will not be archived. Thank you for your participation in this community, and we hope you continue to enjoy other content at Boston.com.

The alternative: not trading Perk.

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

    The alternative: not trading Perk.

    well lets see he just came back recently to the thunder so that makes.....

    a months worth of games where the Big 4 and Davis would be the only dependable players on the team. And beleive me, a 70% Perk wouldnt fix this team. 

    Fans should be praising DA for having the long term view of the season. He traded damaged players for energized and healthy players in mid season. Its up to Doc to make Green a major player on the team.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from susan250. Show susan250's posts

    Re: The alternative: not trading Perk.

    I agree that we needed to healthy backup small forward, but still don't believe we needed to trade Perk to get someone.  Not sure what other trades were discussed, but why couldn't some of the same players that were traded been involved in a trade for a backup small forward.  I am not even suggesting who the Celtics may have signed, but still would have rather not have had Perk involved in the trade.  
    I tried to post similar comments before, but really haven't received many responses.  Maybe Danny really didn't have any success trading anyone else for a backup small forward.    
     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts