Author Topic: Can we finally give credit to Ainge for the Perkins trade?  (Read 13908 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Can we finally give credit to Ainge for the Perkins trade?
« Reply #135 on: February 24, 2013, 06:12:39 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23614
  • Tommy Points: -29299
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Anyone who thinks Perkins for Green is not a steal has very little understanding of basketball.

Anyone who thinks this is a persuasive argument has very little understanding of how to present their ideas logically.

do tell how does one present one's ideas (or perhaps argument) Logically and while you doing that it would be good if you explained how the logical presentation of an idea is diminished by my presentation. You may disagree and that's cool but logical presentation?? that makes no sense at all.

A logical argument involves rationally explaining one's point of view and showing why it makes sense, rather than saying (essentially) "My opinion is obviously right, and anybody who doesn't agree is an idiot".

Literally hundreds of posters on this blog have disagreed with your assessment of the trade.  To suggest that they don't understand basketball not only is against our rules, but it shows how close-minded your own view of basketball is.


D. Cousins / I. Mahinmi / P. Antic
D. West / R. Anderson / C. Copeland
L. Deng / K. Singler / D. Rudez
A. Iguodala / V. Carter / B. Gordon / C.J. Wilcox
K. Irving / S. Livingston / S. Blake

Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012

Re: Can we finally give credit to Ainge for the Perkins trade?
« Reply #136 on: February 24, 2013, 06:19:57 PM »

Offline CelticConcourse

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6175
  • Tommy Points: 382
  • Jeff Green
Anyone who thinks Perkins for Green is not a steal has very little understanding of basketball.

Anyone who thinks this is a persuasive argument has very little understanding of how to present their ideas logically.

do tell how does one present one's ideas (or perhaps argument) Logically and while you doing that it would be good if you explained how the logical presentation of an idea is diminished by my presentation. You may disagree and that's cool but logical presentation?? that makes no sense at all.

A logical argument involves rationally explaining one's point of view and showing why it makes sense, rather than saying (essentially) "My opinion is obviously right, and anybody who doesn't agree is an idiot".

Literally hundreds of posters on this blog have disagreed with your assessment of the trade.  To suggest that they don't understand basketball not only is against our rules, but it shows how close-minded your own view of basketball is.

And no matter what, state your rationale so we know where your declaration is coming from!
Jeff Green - Top 5 SF

[Kevin Garnett]
"I've always said J. Green is going to be one of the best players to ever play this game"

Re: Can we finally give credit to Ainge for the Perkins trade?
« Reply #137 on: February 24, 2013, 06:24:51 PM »

Offline jdz101

  • Ray Allen
  • **
  • Posts: 2422
  • Tommy Points: 309
Perk is garbage.

Garbage that ranks 26th in the entire league in opponents' points allowed per possession.

26th isn't that great for a center that is meant to be a defensive specialist.

How about the net points for versus points against for his position?


how much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck was chris bosh?

Re: Can we finally give credit to Ainge for the Perkins trade?
« Reply #138 on: February 24, 2013, 06:44:17 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Sam Jones
  • **********************
  • Posts: 22632
  • Tommy Points: 1041
Perk is garbage.

Garbage that ranks 26th in the entire league in opponents' points allowed per possession.

26th isn't that great for a center that is meant to be a defensive specialist.

How about the net points for versus points against for his position?

  That's 26th out of all players (starters and reserves) in the league, it's better than you think. It's the same as KG and better than most of the centers of the top defenses in the league, also better than Tyson Chandler.

Re: Can we finally give credit to Ainge for the Perkins trade?
« Reply #139 on: February 24, 2013, 06:48:54 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23614
  • Tommy Points: -29299
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Perk is garbage.

Garbage that ranks 26th in the entire league in opponents' points allowed per possession.

26th isn't that great for a center that is meant to be a defensive specialist.

How about the net points for versus points against for his position?

As BBTim said, 26th in the NBA is very good.  It's especially good for a big man, as players who play close to the basket are by their nature going to give up shots that are usually higher percentage looks.  Perk has held opponents to something like 36% shooting.  How can you look at that as a bad thing?

Perk is in the top 6% of all defensive players in the league.  That's pretty dang good.  In practice, Perk's stalwart defense has allowed Ibaka to roam, maximizing OKC's defensive potential.  There's a ton of value in that.


D. Cousins / I. Mahinmi / P. Antic
D. West / R. Anderson / C. Copeland
L. Deng / K. Singler / D. Rudez
A. Iguodala / V. Carter / B. Gordon / C.J. Wilcox
K. Irving / S. Livingston / S. Blake

Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012

Re: Can we finally give credit to Ainge for the Perkins trade?
« Reply #140 on: February 24, 2013, 06:54:57 PM »

Offline Boris Badenov

  • Ray Allen
  • **
  • Posts: 2625
  • Tommy Points: 407
Perk is garbage.

Garbage that ranks 26th in the entire league in opponents' points allowed per possession.

26th isn't that great for a center that is meant to be a defensive specialist.

How about the net points for versus points against for his position?

Good points. Collins was even better (97th percentile), which I think is 15th or so in a league of 450 players. And Stiemsma was 29th in the league last year as of April. If most other players in the top 50 are defensive bigs, Perk might not be special. (Darko ranked out exceptionally on this metric too if you recall). There are some other issues too - I think last year Barnagni was top 20 and Tony Allen was something like 150th in the NBA overall.

In terms of team defense, OkC is about one point better on D with Perk on the floor - and they are also about one point worse on O. At least according to 82games.com (which I don't always trust).

The other interesting thing from 82games is that Perk's opponent PER is quite high at 17.1.

I'm not quite sure how to fit all of these metrics together, because they all have their limitations. I guess I'd view them as indicating that Perk is pretty good, at least, but I don't think they prove that he's a top defender at his position.

Re: Can we finally give credit to Ainge for the Perkins trade?
« Reply #141 on: February 24, 2013, 07:06:35 PM »

Offline Boris Badenov

  • Ray Allen
  • **
  • Posts: 2625
  • Tommy Points: 407
A couple of other thoughts after reading the thread:

I think it's critical to evaluate this as a trade that involves not only the players traded but the potential replacements one would get after the trade. Even if the two players involved are of equal talent, losing depth at C is so much more costly because league wide talent is so much thinner there than at the wing positions.

I mean, we are seeing this right now. We just picked up two perfectly serviceable NBA- level guards with little trouble, and we've been trying unsuccessfully to add big man depth for the last three years.

If we hadn't gotten Green, someone like Matt Barnes would be a fine replacement...so the trade was really about having "Green plus scrap heap big man X" or "Perk plus castoff SF X." It's the pair of players that matters, not just Green vs. Perk, and I think our ability to get a decent backup SF would have been much better than it has been getting a backup C.

Re: Can we finally give credit to Ainge for the Perkins trade?
« Reply #142 on: February 24, 2013, 07:09:06 PM »

Online BudweiserCeltic

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12181
  • Tommy Points: 1172
A couple of other thoughts after reading the thread:

I think it's critical to evaluate this as a trade that involves not only the players traded but the potential replacements one would get after the trade. Even if the two players involved are of equal talent, losing depth at C is so much more costly because league wide talent is so much thinner there than at the wing positions.

I mean, we are seeing this right now. We just picked up two perfectly serviceable NBA- level guards with little trouble, and we've been trying unsuccessfully to add big man depth for the last three years.

If we hadn't gotten Green, someone like Matt Barnes would be a fine replacement...so the trade was really about having "Green plus scrap heap big man X" or "Perk plus castoff SF X." It's the pair of players that matters, not just Green vs. Perk, and I think our ability to get a decent backup SF would have been much better than it has been getting a backup C.

First, we didn't lose depth at center...

Secondly, well let's just leave it at that.

Well, let me just say that Ainge had no interest in resigning Perk at his cost.

Re: Can we finally give credit to Ainge for the Perkins trade?
« Reply #143 on: February 24, 2013, 07:14:22 PM »

Offline soap07

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1525
  • Tommy Points: 141
Perk is garbage.

Garbage that ranks 26th in the entire league in opponents' points allowed per possession.

26th isn't that great for a center that is meant to be a defensive specialist.

How about the net points for versus points against for his position?

As BBTim said, 26th in the NBA is very good.  It's especially good for a big man, as players who play close to the basket are by their nature going to give up shots that are usually higher percentage looks.  Perk has held opponents to something like 36% shooting.  How can you look at that as a bad thing?

Perk is in the top 6% of all defensive players in the league.  That's pretty dang good.  In practice, Perk's stalwart defense has allowed Ibaka to roam, maximizing OKC's defensive potential.  There's a ton of value in that.

As has been beaten to death on this board, the Thunder are a net negative with him on the court. And a center's job is not just to play defense. Perkins is a terrible rebounder. He's a net negative on multiple fronts.

I don't deny he plays good defense but his impact is overstated. He plays half the game and the Thunder are just fine on defense when he's out of the game - and in many ways, better off. The cherry on top is Perkins' absurd contract.

Re: Can we finally give credit to Ainge for the Perkins trade?
« Reply #144 on: February 24, 2013, 07:36:52 PM »

Offline Boris Badenov

  • Ray Allen
  • **
  • Posts: 2625
  • Tommy Points: 407
A couple of other thoughts after reading the thread:

I think it's critical to evaluate this as a trade that involves not only the players traded but the potential replacements one would get after the trade. Even if the two players involved are of equal talent, losing depth at C is so much more costly because league wide talent is so much thinner there than at the wing positions.

I mean, we are seeing this right now. We just picked up two perfectly serviceable NBA- level guards with little trouble, and we've been trying unsuccessfully to add big man depth for the last three years.

If we hadn't gotten Green, someone like Matt Barnes would be a fine replacement...so the trade was really about having "Green plus scrap heap big man X" or "Perk plus castoff SF X." It's the pair of players that matters, not just Green vs. Perk, and I think our ability to get a decent backup SF would have been much better than it has been getting a backup C.

First, we didn't lose depth at center...

Secondly, well let's just leave it at that.

Well, let me just say that Ainge had no interest in resigning Perk at his cost.

We would have had Perk for the rest of the year, and also might have been able to sign and trade him for another big man, or a high pick to use on drafting one. And if you're referring to Krstic...he's played a total of 24 games in the NBA since the trade, and even when we had him he was a benchwarmers by the end of the season. I call that losing depth.

I actually didn't hate the trade, for what that's worth, but mostly because of the Clippers pick. If the Paul trade doesn't happen we are probably looking at Meyers Leonard, John Henson and Tyler Zeller, who are all pretty decent big man prospects.

My point was really just that arguing that it was a good/bad trade because Green is better than Perk, or vice versa, doesn't tell the whole story.

Re: Can we finally give credit to Ainge for the Perkins trade?
« Reply #145 on: February 24, 2013, 07:43:16 PM »

Online BudweiserCeltic

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12181
  • Tommy Points: 1172
A couple of other thoughts after reading the thread:

I think it's critical to evaluate this as a trade that involves not only the players traded but the potential replacements one would get after the trade. Even if the two players involved are of equal talent, losing depth at C is so much more costly because league wide talent is so much thinner there than at the wing positions.

I mean, we are seeing this right now. We just picked up two perfectly serviceable NBA- level guards with little trouble, and we've been trying unsuccessfully to add big man depth for the last three years.

If we hadn't gotten Green, someone like Matt Barnes would be a fine replacement...so the trade was really about having "Green plus scrap heap big man X" or "Perk plus castoff SF X." It's the pair of players that matters, not just Green vs. Perk, and I think our ability to get a decent backup SF would have been much better than it has been getting a backup C.

First, we didn't lose depth at center...

Secondly, well let's just leave it at that.

Well, let me just say that Ainge had no interest in resigning Perk at his cost.

We would have had Perk for the rest of the year, and also might have been able to sign and trade him for another big man, or a high pick to use on drafting one. And if you're referring to Krstic...he's played a total of 24 games in the NBA since the trade, and even when we had him he was a benchwarmers by the end of the season. I call that losing depth.

I actually didn't hate the trade, for what that's worth, but mostly because of the Clippers pick. If the Paul trade doesn't happen we are probably looking at Meyers Leonard, John Henson and Tyler Zeller, who are all pretty decent big man prospects.

My point was really just that arguing that it was a good/bad trade because Green is better than Perk, or vice versa, doesn't tell the whole story.
I agree with your idea of how to evaluate a trade, but I don't think it fits into this particular discussion. Not only did we gain a good young player to play back-up SF, we also got a capable healthy center in return. And as you say, that draft pick.

Krstic not getting on the floor more was Doc's issue though, not a roster or Danny Ainge issue. Consequently, he got hurt a bit as we were entering the playoffs, but a bit irrelevant all told. Should've had a bigger role in the playoffs than he was granted.

Re: Can we finally give credit to Ainge for the Perkins trade?
« Reply #146 on: February 24, 2013, 07:59:51 PM »

Offline TheTruthFot18

  • Rajon Rondo
  • Posts: 962
  • Tommy Points: 125
  • Truth Juice
I thought we weren't supposed to talk about the trade for you know who to get you know who. Be careful, the man is watching  :(
2013 CB Draft PHX Suns

Jeff Teague | OJ Mayo | MKG | David West | Tim Duncan | Matt Barnes | Ramon Sessions | Birdman | Jarred Sullinger | Andray Blatche | Mike Miller | Keyon Dooling | Ryan Hollins

Re: Can we finally give credit to Ainge for the Perkins trade?
« Reply #147 on: February 24, 2013, 08:30:09 PM »

Online Celtics18

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8508
  • Tommy Points: 1103
A couple of other thoughts after reading the thread:

I think it's critical to evaluate this as a trade that involves not only the players traded but the potential replacements one would get after the trade. Even if the two players involved are of equal talent, losing depth at C is so much more costly because league wide talent is so much thinner there than at the wing positions.

I mean, we are seeing this right now. We just picked up two perfectly serviceable NBA- level guards with little trouble, and we've been trying unsuccessfully to add big man depth for the last three years.

If we hadn't gotten Green, someone like Matt Barnes would be a fine replacement...so the trade was really about having "Green plus scrap heap big man X" or "Perk plus castoff SF X." It's the pair of players that matters, not just Green vs. Perk, and I think our ability to get a decent backup SF would have been much better than it has been getting a backup C.

First, we didn't lose depth at center...

Secondly, well let's just leave it at that.

Well, let me just say that Ainge had no interest in resigning Perk at his cost.

We would have had Perk for the rest of the year, and also might have been able to sign and trade him for another big man, or a high pick to use on drafting one. And if you're referring to Krstic...he's played a total of 24 games in the NBA since the trade, and even when we had him he was a benchwarmers by the end of the season. I call that losing depth.

I actually didn't hate the trade, for what that's worth, but mostly because of the Clippers pick. If the Paul trade doesn't happen we are probably looking at Meyers Leonard, John Henson and Tyler Zeller, who are all pretty decent big man prospects.

My point was really just that arguing that it was a good/bad trade because Green is better than Perk, or vice versa, doesn't tell the whole story.

The Paul trade may have ended up being a blessing in disguise.  If Sully's back can recover, he may end up being better than any of those guys that went before him. 
Philadelphia Seventy-Sixers  DKC General Manager

Ray McCallum/Dennis Schroeder/Marquis Teague
Tyreke Evans/Jeremy Lamb/Chris Johnson
Giannis Antetonkounpo/Darrell Arthur/Victor Claver
Kelly Olynyk/Brandan Wright/Erik Murphy
Nerlens Noel/Timofey Mozgov/Andrew Nicholson

Re: Can we finally give credit to Ainge for the Perkins trade?
« Reply #148 on: February 24, 2013, 08:32:54 PM »

Online BudweiserCeltic

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12181
  • Tommy Points: 1172
A couple of other thoughts after reading the thread:

I think it's critical to evaluate this as a trade that involves not only the players traded but the potential replacements one would get after the trade. Even if the two players involved are of equal talent, losing depth at C is so much more costly because league wide talent is so much thinner there than at the wing positions.

I mean, we are seeing this right now. We just picked up two perfectly serviceable NBA- level guards with little trouble, and we've been trying unsuccessfully to add big man depth for the last three years.

If we hadn't gotten Green, someone like Matt Barnes would be a fine replacement...so the trade was really about having "Green plus scrap heap big man X" or "Perk plus castoff SF X." It's the pair of players that matters, not just Green vs. Perk, and I think our ability to get a decent backup SF would have been much better than it has been getting a backup C.

First, we didn't lose depth at center...

Secondly, well let's just leave it at that.

Well, let me just say that Ainge had no interest in resigning Perk at his cost.

We would have had Perk for the rest of the year, and also might have been able to sign and trade him for another big man, or a high pick to use on drafting one. And if you're referring to Krstic...he's played a total of 24 games in the NBA since the trade, and even when we had him he was a benchwarmers by the end of the season. I call that losing depth.

I actually didn't hate the trade, for what that's worth, but mostly because of the Clippers pick. If the Paul trade doesn't happen we are probably looking at Meyers Leonard, John Henson and Tyler Zeller, who are all pretty decent big man prospects.

My point was really just that arguing that it was a good/bad trade because Green is better than Perk, or vice versa, doesn't tell the whole story.

The Paul trade may have ended up being a blessing in disguise.  If Sully's back can recover, he may end up being better than any of those guys that went before him.

No. The pick was used on Melo. Sully would've still been on the board for our pick.

Re: Can we finally give credit to Ainge for the Perkins trade?
« Reply #149 on: February 24, 2013, 08:38:35 PM »

Offline foulweatherfan

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12668
  • Tommy Points: 1541
Anyone who thinks Perkins for Green is not a steal has very little understanding of basketball.

Anyone who thinks this is a persuasive argument has very little understanding of how to present their ideas logically.

do tell how does one present one's ideas (or perhaps argument) Logically and while you doing that it would be good if you explained how the logical presentation of an idea is diminished by my presentation. You may disagree and that's cool but logical presentation?? that makes no sense at all.

A logical argument involves rationally explaining one's point of view and showing why it makes sense, rather than saying (essentially) "My opinion is obviously right, and anybody who doesn't agree is an idiot".

Literally hundreds of posters on this blog have disagreed with your assessment of the trade.  To suggest that they don't understand basketball not only is against our rules, but it shows how close-minded your own view of basketball is.

And no matter what, state your rationale so we know where your declaration is coming from!

He did give a rationale, it was left out of the original quote.  Basically Perk is a role player and Green is the sort of guy you put role players around.  I mostly agree with it, though disagreeing doesn't mean you don't know anything about basketball (hey triple negative!)

 

Hello! Guest

Welcome to the CelticsBlog Forums.

Welcome to CelticsBlog