PDA

View Full Version : Theory on the Perkins trade to OKC



nickdymez
03-08-2011, 12:19 PM
I jumped into a conversation at work about the reason behind sending Perkins to OKC. A guy in my office suggested that Ainge did it because he felt that OKC was only a big man away from beating the Lakers last year and this would surely put them over the top to do so. It kinda makes sense on some level but i think its a long shot. This means that Ainge thinks the Celtics could beat the Heat, Magic, and Bulls minus one big. Its also means that Ainge thinks the Celtics have no chance of beating the Lakers. I dont agree with that either. I always thought that the Lakers and Celtics matchup in the finals was a toss-up as long as health didn't play a significant role. But does this make sense to anyone else?

torontosports10
03-08-2011, 12:27 PM
No. Boston knew they couldn't afford him, traded him to a team that desperately needed a big, and got a good wing player/prospect back for him.

No more, no less.

MFFL==FML
03-08-2011, 12:27 PM
Then why not give the Mavericks Paul Pierce? No... no chance of that whatsoever. Let me guess, you guys work at Chuck E Cheeze?

dynasty7961
03-08-2011, 12:28 PM
Kinda i guess.

But I think it was because of the obvious that they weren't going to resign him at the end of this season. And he wanted to start rebuilding the team before the Big 3 leaves and the C's were bad again.

Sixerlover
03-08-2011, 12:30 PM
No. They wouldn't be able to re-sign him, and he has bad knees. That's why they dealt him

gattaca
03-08-2011, 12:30 PM
Then why not give the Mavericks Paul Pierce? No... no chance of that whatsoever. Let me guess, you guys work at Chuck E Cheeze?

lol

Perkins would cost them too much this offseason. I guess they want someting for him now and risk missing him in the playoffs rather than lose him to FA in the offseason

Swashcuff
03-08-2011, 12:32 PM
Think of it this way. If he really wanted to help them. He would have traded Perkins and Erden straight up for Nick Collison and Nenad Kristic. Instead he got some insurance going forward since he did not run the risk of losing Perkins for nothing.

HT9Canada
03-08-2011, 12:33 PM
I think that idea is farfetched. Ainge made the trade for the future. He made it to improve his squad when the big 3 retire. Perkins wanted a huge contract and the Celtics didn't think he deserved it. He played defense and when he had the big 3 around him thats all he had to do. He also looked great playing beside Garnett.

Ofcourse, they still wanted to win the championship this year and next, and they were fine in the middle with the Oneals. They did a fine job and Krystic (sp?) would also do fine.

Looking at the trade now, the only thing the Celtics should worry about is if they can handle Howard and Bynum. And i think the frontcourt rotation they have is sufficient to do so.

The future in Boston is alot brighter with Rondo and Green whereas with Perkins, you have no one to score.

hugepatsfan
03-08-2011, 12:36 PM
Ainge loved Green when he was in the draft. He probably would have taken him if he didn't trade for Ray Allen. Because of the trade, BOS can now sign him long term using bird rights. If not for the trade, all he could offered was the MLE, which wouldn't be enough. He traded a player he wasn't interested in signing long term (Perk) for one he is (Green).

He also got back Kristic to help this year. Obviously he isn't half the defender Perk is, but he is a much better offensive player. He helps spread the floor for Rondo and has a nice touch around the basket. And I wouldn't be surprised to see Kristic resigned long term either. He shouldn't be too expensive and he really fits well at the C spot w/ Rondo, at least offensively.

nickdymez
03-08-2011, 12:52 PM
Then why not give the Mavericks Paul Pierce? No... no chance of that whatsoever. Let me guess, you guys work at Chuck E Cheeze?

You'd **** bricks if you knew where i worked.

But anyway, i didn't really think that was the case. I thought about it because i figured they could have traded him to any team, why OKC? But i guess it makes me sort of hypocritical being a Laker fan and all after the whole Gasol trade... lol

Raph12
03-08-2011, 12:57 PM
No. Boston knew they couldn't afford him, traded him to a team that desperately needed a big, and got a good wing player/prospect back for him.

No more, no less.

This

/thread

Hellcrooner
03-08-2011, 01:03 PM
They didnt want to handcuff their future cap space with Rondo and Perkins signed to big buck contracts.

I guess they are planing to go after a big time FA when KG, Allen expire, maybe even howard.

whitemamba33
03-08-2011, 01:19 PM
This is stupid. There are already more obvious and far more plausible suggestions/reasons as to why the Celtics made the trade. I don't think that giving up a valuable defender to try and force the early elimination of a team that the Celtics already beat once in a series and took to 7 games last year is a realistic view on the situation.

That, and the added "If you knew where I worked you would ..... bricks" comment has made me completly regret coming here and I will avoid all topics from this poster in the future.

Thanks.

tr3ymill3r
03-08-2011, 01:19 PM
It was all about money. Had they not spent money on the O'neals, they would have had more money to throw at Perkins in the off season.

nickdymez
03-08-2011, 01:23 PM
This is stupid. There are already more obvious and far more plausible suggestions/reasons as to why the Celtics made the trade. I don't think that giving up a valuable defender to try and force the early elimination of a team that the Celtics already beat once in a series and took to 7 games last year is a realistic view on the situation.

That, and the added "If you knew where I worked you would ..... bricks" comment has made me completly regret coming here and I will avoid all topics from this poster in the future.

Thanks.

The comment wasnt meant to be a threat of any kind. Some people on this board know me but dont know where i work. The whole **** bricks reference was meant to be kind of an ironic thing for the people that know me.. But by all means avoid my topics.. Who are you again? You came in here on some godlike tangent like your better than me. I merely wanted to start another topic that wasn't Heat motivated.

Your welcome

pentel1980
03-08-2011, 01:27 PM
You'd **** bricks if you knew where i worked.


I'll risk defecating masonry to ask: where do you work?

nickdymez
03-08-2011, 01:31 PM
lol, its no Chuck -e- cheez

tbone2171
03-08-2011, 01:38 PM
I'll risk defecating masonry to ask: where do you work?

Well, judging from his posts in other NBA forums, I'd guess Wal-mart...

nickdymez
03-08-2011, 01:42 PM
Well, judging from his posts in other NBA forums, I'd guess Wal-mart...

You guessed right...

For the most part PSD has good posters. Then you get guys like this who seem very effeminate and weak.

Sactown
03-08-2011, 01:57 PM
How about this theory?
They know Bynum is going to get injured and rush back to the playboy palace so they figured they didn't need another big for the finals

whitemamba33
03-08-2011, 01:57 PM
The comment wasnt meant to be a threat of any kind. Some people on this board know me but dont know where i work. The whole **** bricks reference was meant to be kind of an ironic thing for the people that know me.. But by all means avoid my topics.. Who are you again? You came in here on some godlike tangent like your better than me. I merely wanted to start another topic that wasn't Heat motivated.

Your welcome

I'll let everyone else do the talking for me. It seems they all share the same view as I do.

Have a good day.

THE MTL
03-08-2011, 02:04 PM
I jumped into a conversation at work about the reason behind sending Perkins to OKC. A guy in my office suggested that Ainge did it because he felt that OKC was only a big man away from beating the Lakers last year and this would surely put them over the top to do so. It kinda makes sense on some level but i think its a long shot. This means that Ainge thinks the Celtics could beat the Heat, Magic, and Bulls minus one big. Its also means that Ainge thinks the Celtics have no chance of beating the Lakers. I dont agree with that either. I always thought that the Lakers and Celtics matchup in the finals was a toss-up as long as health didn't play a significant role. But does this make sense to anyone else?

LMFAO! I like the conspiracy theory. However, the real reason is that the Celtics couldnt afford him. Perkins got a lot of money from OKC (9 million per year on average). Celtics couldn't afford him with Ray, Paul, KG, and Rondo's contracts. KG makes almost 20 mil per, Paul makes 15 mil per, Ray makes 12 mil per, and Rondo makes 11 mil per.

nickdymez
03-08-2011, 02:08 PM
LMFAO! I like the conspiracy theory. However, the real reason is that the Celtics couldnt afford him. Perkins got a lot of money from OKC (9 million per year on average). Celtics couldn't afford him with Ray, Paul, KG, and Rondo's contracts. KG makes almost 20 mil per, Paul makes 15 mil per, Ray makes 12 mil per, and Rondo makes 11 mil per.

Yea thats what I was thinking too. The thing that got me was "why trade him to OKC?". But its out of conference, so it does nothing to the celtics chances of making the Finals... But i love conspiracy theories..

AddiX
03-08-2011, 02:10 PM
Obviously it was a money move, I also wouldn't be surprised if they know that knee ain't going to hold up.

magichatnumber9
03-08-2011, 02:29 PM
I'm actually really surprised at how misused Nenad was when he played for OKC. I guess Westbrook, Green, and Durant really didn't have as big a scoring burden as I originally thought. They had a center they could put in the post. Once they get him in that defensive state of mind which he seems to be picking up quickly. Danny is not looking to bad on this deal.

Hustlenomics
03-08-2011, 05:58 PM
Well, judging from his posts in other NBA forums, I'd guess Wal-mart...

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: lmfaoo

pentel1980
03-09-2011, 10:42 AM
nickdymez: maybe it was in one of your posts that got deleted, but I was honestly curious as to where you worked. Do you not wish to answer this direct question posed w/no intended malice?