James Harden TRADED to Rockets

[Bogg]

Originally Posted by E.H. Munro

It's not that Green created cap space, it's that Perkins would have tied it all up in one spot. Garnett just can't play the PF anymore and Perkins sure as heck can't. Then you need to find replacements for Green, Allen, and Terry when you have the ability to, at most, bring in two guys before having to turn around and sign vet minimum guys to round out the roster.

Green tied all the cap space up in one spot as well, while oscillating back and forth from inadequate to unavailable. Finding a replacement for Green wouldn't be a problem, he's played to the level of the journeymen available for the bi-annual or minimum. The C's subbed in Pietrus on the fly last year and got basically the same production. Terry came on for the exception, which wouldn't have been affected by Perkins anymore than it was affected by Green, and Boston replaced Allen with Courtney Lee in a sign-and-trade that wouldn't have been affected by Perkins in any way.

This is all what I was talking about, though. It isn't enough for the C's to ultimately not have been able to win the championship in 2011 or 2012 with Perkins or Green, with Green being a higher-upside gamble that didn't pan out. It has to be that retaining Perkins would have meant the death of the franchise as we know it, with Pierce being forced to retire and Garnett signing with another team so that Boston could break the bank for some third-tier player. None of that makes any sense. You know what would have been different about last years' squad if they kept Perkins instead of trading him for Green? Perk would have filled the role that Stiemsma and Hollins did. That's it.

[Jamel Irief]

Originally Posted by E.H. Munro

It's not that Green created cap space, it's that Perkins would have tied it all up in one spot. Garnett just can't play the PF anymore and Perkins sure as heck can't. Then you need to find replacements for Green, Allen, and Terry when you have the ability to, at most, bring in two guys before having to turn around and sign vet minimum guys to round out the roster.

It was a tough spot, this is why they ended up paying that 25% premium on Green & Bass last summer. Both guys had Boston over a barrel and their agents knew it and exploited it (bound to happen in Green's case with Falk as agent). Had Green not had the heart condition it wouldn't have been an issue as they'd've dealt him last year as an expiring deal (that was the reason that they initially inked him to that 1/$9 million deal, to buy out his objections to being traded as a fifth year player). Unfortunately the new CBA prevented them from using Green in a sign & trade this past summer (because you can only sign & trade guys that were on your roster the previous year per the new CBA), so their options were literally Green/Bass or scrap heap vet min players.

This was part of my Murphy's Law observation above about the trade, because every possible thing that could go wrong with the trade did. Green had a heart problem, Dell Demps attempted to jump start the Lakers' rebuilding program, which led to the NBA forcing Paul into the Clippers instead (when Boston's offer for CP3 turned out to have been, far and away the best one), destroying the value of the Clipper's draft pick which they'd intended as a trade asset to help them reload (and so rather than packaging a $9 million expiring deal and a low lottery pick for a roster upgrade they got Fab Melo). Then the new CBA prevented them from trading Green. But all told it's still a better spot to be in than the alternative.

Holy crap.

You were wrong. The Perkins trade didn't help Boston in anyway and didn't have to be made.

That should be it.

Oh and please don't bring up that Okafor thing.

[R-Star]

Originally Posted by Jamel Irief

Holy crap.

You were wrong. The Perkins trade didn't help Boston in anyway and didn't have to be made.

That should be it.

Oh and please don't bring up that Okafor thing.

The guy won't even respond to posts in this thread that cite the fact Martin has been filling Hardens role quite well.


It's EH Munro, he's never wrong. You're wrong. And now he's going to get mad at both of us for bringing it up. Or he just won't post in here for a while, but make no mistake hes mad at you now.



I'm a drunk Canadian and you're a stupid head.

[E.H. Munro]

Originally Posted by Jamel Irief

You were wrong. The Perkins trade didn't help Boston in anyway and didn't have to be made.

All of Boston's centers were injured at the time they did it. They actually did need a center at the time. On top of a forward to backup Garnet & Pierce or a swingman to backup Pierce & Allen. The 2011 team didn't have a lot of bodies available come February.

Semih Erden was playing with an injured shoulder, and Nate Robinson on one knee. Delonte West, the O'Neals, Kendrick Perkins, Marquis Daniels were all out period. They had eight healthy players, two of whom were Luke Harangoody & Von Wafer. They needed to do something.

Originally Posted by Jamel Irief

Oh and please don't bring up that Okafor thing.

Huh? That was R-Star's thing. He decided that my saying that no one was paying $27 million for a late lottery pick meant that a player couldn't be dealt for a crappy deal with one more/less year to run (otherwise known as the going rate for shitty contracts). And when I pointed out the thread he ran back to the ten year old girl shrieking act.

[E.H. Munro]

Originally Posted by Bogg

Green tied all the cap space up in one spot as well, while oscillating back and forth from inadequate to unavailable. Finding a replacement for Green wouldn't be a problem, he's played to the level of the journeymen available for the bi-annual or minimum. The C's subbed in Pietrus on the fly last year and got basically the same production. Terry came on for the exception, which wouldn't have been affected by Perkins anymore than it was affected by Green, and Boston replaced Allen with Courtney Lee in a sign-and-trade that wouldn't have been affected by Perkins in any way.

This is all what I was talking about, though. It isn't enough for the C's to ultimately not have been able to win the championship in 2011 or 2012 with Perkins or Green, with Green being a higher-upside gamble that didn't pan out. It has to be that retaining Perkins would have meant the death of the franchise as we know it, with Pierce being forced to retire and Garnett signing with another team so that Boston could break the bank for some third-tier player. None of that makes any sense. You know what would have been different about last years' squad if they kept Perkins instead of trading him for Green? Perk would have filled the role that Stiemsma and Hollins did. That's it.

Retaining Perkins wasn't ever happening, though. Because Boston was never tying up that kind of money in the center position and then leaving everything else to dryrot. (And, no, there's no way that Boston could have convinced Terry that they were a contender with $57 million tied up in Pierce/Rondo/Garnett/Perkins/Bass so their upgrade would have been Lee for the MLE and Barbosa.)

I think that everyone, especially Ainge, hates the Green deal, and praying that he plays well enough to move it. But the owners are getting ready to sell and they don't want to be selling a rebuilding squad (which is daily looking like what they should have done last summer). So they were kind of stuck as Bass & Green were the only vet PFs on the market they had access to given that they were using their MLE and penny ante deals to upgrade the backcourt.

[R-Star]

Originally Posted by E.H. Munro

All of Boston's centers were injured at the time they did it. They actually did need a center at the time. On top of a forward to backup Garnet & Pierce or a swingman to backup Pierce & Allen. The 2011 team didn't have a lot of bodies available come February.

Semih Erden was playing with an injured shoulder, and Nate Robinson on one knee. Delonte West, the O'Neals, Kendrick Perkins, Marquis Daniels were all out period. They had eight healthy players, two of whom were Luke Harangoody & Von Wafer. They needed to do something.



Huh? That was R-Star's thing. He decided that my saying that no one was paying $27 million for a late lottery pick meant that a player couldn't be dealt for a crappy deal with one more/less year to run (otherwise known as the going rate for shitty contracts). And when I pointed out the thread he ran back to the ten year old girl shrieking act.

Pardon?

No ones falling for your bullshit, you pathetic old man.

[Bogg]

Originally Posted by E.H. Munro

Retaining Perkins wasn't ever happening, though. Because Boston was never tying up that kind of money in the center position and then leaving everything else to dryrot. (And, no, there's no way that Boston could have convinced Terry that they were a contender with $57 million tied up in Pierce/Rondo/Garnett/Perkins/Bass so their upgrade would have been Lee for the MLE and Barbosa.)

I think that everyone, especially Ainge, hates the Green deal, and praying that he plays well enough to move it. But the owners are getting ready to sell and they don't want to be selling a rebuilding squad (which is daily looking like what they should have done last summer). So they were kind of stuck as Bass & Green were the only vet PFs on the market they had access to given that they were using their MLE and penny ante deals to upgrade the backcourt.

1) Jason Terry didn't sign in Boston because Jeff Green was coming back, he signed in Boston because Pierce, KG, Rondo, and Doc were there. Jeff Green never figured into the equation.

2) Even if the Celtics let Perkins walk for nothing, they would have had the same team last year because they were sans-Green as well, only they would have prepared better for having a player who would otherwise be an important piece of the frontcourt not around that year.

3) The cry of "But then we wouldn't have Jeff Green!!!!" is only meaningful if Green is contributing in a positive way. Ryan Gomes could walk in off the street tomorrow and give Boston 8 and 3 on poor percentages with shaky defense if they played him 25 minutes a night.


It's fine to argue that the reasoning for the trade was defensible at the time, or even that you think it made perfect sense. However, to continue acting as though the trade looks good in hindsight is either pure stubbornness or complete madness. The Celtics would have been no worse off with Perkins on the roster. I hope as much as anyone that Green turns it around, starts giving the C's efficient double-digit scoring combined with tough D on big 3's and small 4's, and forces me to say "That Jeff Green sure turned it around and made me look foolish, I should have given it more time before opening my mouth". To this point though, acquiring Green has been worse than either letting Perkins walk or re-signing him in the summer.

[e-monk]

jesus christ ehm is spiralling out of control

just everybody step back

[R-Star]

So you're just done talking now eh EH?

Its weird, because just a month ago you proclaimed from the roof tops that when it comes to admitting you're wrong, you're the guy.


Take this time to sit back, think, and actually become a better poster. You go around the forum picking fights, and then just quitting threads when you're wrong (if you can't derail them).


Get better at posting. I'll say again, you're a sad old man. If I don't make this post you're sitting back and waiting for a few bad Martin games, or better yet crossing your fingers he gets injured and then popping back up.



You're a bad poster. One of the worst on the site. I want you to know that.


Oh, by the way, another solid third option role from Martin again tonight. 20 points on 60% shooting. Where is this ball hog, black hole, pass the ball into the stands Martin you spoke of? Or better question, do you ever have any idea of what you're talking about?

[e-monk]

nice contribution

[MemphisX]

Guess we are not jumping in this thread tonight...

[E.H. Munro]

Just wait until we reach January and Martin goes down for his annual injury.

[E.H. Munro]

Originally Posted by R-Star

So you're just done talking now eh EH?

Let's see, Kevin Martin is a worse defender than Harden, check. Kevin Martin can really only do one thing, check. Martin can't provide the Thunder with the sort of playmaking ability that they need late in close games, check. And Kevin Martin has an injury history larger than R-Star's inferiority complex. Check (approximately 75% of his teams' games played from his second year forward).

Nope, I think that with Martin I have it pegged. Of course, as a Rockets fan I've had to put up with him for a while, and I'm glad he's gone. But, as I said way back when, as long as OKC is moving him to improve their club, the trade will work out for them. It was a hairy chested thunderer that came clomping into the thread after to declare Martin one of the best players in the NBA and a veritable iron man. While tacitly admitting that Martin's as fragile as his own erections by declaring Martin's ability to stay healthy for ten games a triumph.

[E.H. Munro]

Originally Posted by Bogg

It's fine to argue that the reasoning for the trade was defensible at the time, or even that you think it made perfect sense. However, to continue acting as though the trade looks good in hindsight is either pure stubbornness or complete madness.

"Better than the alternative" and "good" are not synonyms, no matter what people tell you.

[RollWithEm]

Originally Posted by E.H. Munro

Martin's as fragile as his own erections