The Perkins Trade: One of the Worst in NBA History
 

Now that the Celtics have been sent on their way, I think it is fair to say that the trade deadline swap of Perkins and Robinson for Krstic, Green and 2012 clipper first rounder is arguably one of the worst trades in NBA history.

Now before anyone starts throwing tomatoes, I don't mean from a material standpoint. Certainly the Clippers first rounder next year will be no worse than mid tier and possibly even a lottery pick. Green was not too long ago a top five pick and averaged 14 a game for a playoff team. That is not a terrible haul for a soon to be free agent who wanted a contract the celts were unwilling to pay.

The reason it is one of the worst trades in NBA history is because it took a team that was in the drivers seat for home court advantage throughout the playoffs and turned them into a road team for the conference semifinals. It took a team with the toughest interior defense in the league and made them rely on the knees of Jermaine O'neal. Worst of all, it took away the chemistry and that "edge" the celtics had by being the bullies of the east.

Wade and Lebron lived in the lane. Would that have been the case if Perkins was there to clean up, clotheslines and forearms in tow?

Its hard to say if the Celtics would have won the championship with Perkins, but I think one would have to be naive not to notice the differences in the way teams attacked Boston after the trade. I have never seen a trade turn a contender into such a mediocrity overnight.

splat!!!!










Kidding....so true.

You may be right, but I'm still not convinced Miami wins that series without the decapitation of Rondo's left arm. Even with a crippled point guard, Boston was not too far at all from winning both game's 4 and 5.

I agree. But then against Chicago? Chicago would have abused them in the paint like they did the last time they played.

Bingo.

The bigger problem was that Ainge and Doc gambled on Shaq's health and lost. A 100% or thereabouts Shaq changes things in the lane against Miami, even without Perk. The timing of the trade also wasn't great, as it came at a time when the Celts were cruising and didn't give them much time to incorporate all the new pieces. Green is a good player, but you could tell he wasn't confident within the Celtic offense in the playoffs.

Bottom line is while the trade may have hindered their chances at a title this season, calling it 'one of the worst in NBA history' is hysterical IMO. Perk is a big, strong post defender who doesn't move well and couldn't play in the 4th quarter because he was (and is) a complete liability on offense. Perkins was very valuable to the C's when they played Orlando because of his ability to keep Howard out of the paint, but that's about it.

The Celtics likely wouldn't have beaten the Bulls with or without Perkins. Their defense is too good and their frontcourt is deeper and more athletic than any in the NBA.

Would appear that Boston's players have a tendency to get hurt. They play in a style that results in this. If it ain't Rondo, it would possibly be Perkins getting re-injured. You can't say that, because he's playing for OKC, then, he'd been fine to play for Boston. The Celtics have a different style.

2009: Garnett

2010: Perkins

2011: Rondo

Meh. KG has had knee problems going back to his days in Minnesota and both Perkins and Rondo got hurt in freakish ways. They did have a lot of injuries this season in particular, but that's more due to their collective age.

The fact that the celtics were in serious contention for home court advantage and the trade hindered their ability to win a title is precisely why it's one of the worst trades in history.

Can you recall another deadline move where a conference leader trades one of it's starters, loses two seeds and goes 16-12 the rest of the way?

When I think of a terrible trade, I think of something like the Herschel Walker/Steve Young/Dominique Wilkins deals. This was an ill-timed trade, but I'm pretty sure if Shaq stayed healthy and Rondo doesn't lose his arm, it doesn't look nearly as bad as it does now.

It's an easy scapegoat for a team that suffered through a bunch of injuries and frankly, gave away two games in the series against Miami (with the help of some typically Sternian officiating in Game 5).

They are a very physical team. You think it's been just bad luck? Perkins n' Rondo's injuries weren't age related. Perkins is just 26 (hard to believe.)

I ask this seriously, did you watch either of the plays they got hurt on? Bynum went over the back on Perk (as he'd been doing all series) and Perk came down wrong on his knee with Bynum's weight added. Rondo was WWF leg sweeped by Wade and landed wrong on his elbow. It doesn't have anything to do with what team they're on, anybody who takes awkward falls like that is going to seriously injure themselves.

PG1985 had a large bet on Boston winning the whole thing. nuff said.

As I said in the first post, materially, the trade was actually pretty decent. They weren't going to pay Perkins anyway and getting a potential lottery pick as well as Green and Krstic for him was a good haul.

The timing in this deal is everything. Who makes that trade when a title is in the balance?

The Sixers traded an injured Theo Ratliff while atop the Eastern Conference in 2001. Deke came in and helped us get to the Finals !! :D

Good pull but that's a different trade altogether. Mutombo and Ratliff played the same position and Deke was the best interior defender in the league at the time. Ratliff was expected to miss another 20 games at the time the trade was made and possibly more.

Trading a healthy Ratliff for Deke would have been an upgrade. Trading a seriously injured Ratliff for Deke was a no brainer. I realize that Perkins was injured when Boston traded him but it was minor. Ratliff had a pretty serious wrist injury.

I dont see Perkins in his current state making a difference for Boston. He wasn't going to make much of a difference against Miami. His biggest value was against Orlando and LA both who are also gone.

The idea that Perkins in the middle would have made a difference was pretty much shredded by what Memphis did. I mean would he have shutdown Joel Anthony anymore than Anthony is shutdown by his own self check? Boston's chemistry would have been much better if Paul Pierce didnt look like he aged 20 years the last 6 months, Rondo's left arm was still attached, Garnett didn't bounce after every good game and Big Baby didnt completely tank the series.

Watch Perkins tonight, he isn't moving very well even for him.

I didn't understand the trade for Boston at the time and still don't think it is going to look good in hindsight but I don't think Perkins at 80% (being kind) would have made any difference in this series.

Joey, the Celtics are chippy. They just so happen to be getting as good as they giving. Both situations are in response to chippy play during the game. They're arrogant (so they think they can always get an advantage in a physical atmosphere.) It's simply not the case. Maybe it does help them short term, but it's an injury risk (to play that style all the time.)

http://hypevideos.com/2011/02/10/old...ht-each-other/

Memphis is a completely different team on both ends of the floor than Miami and Boston is a completely different team defensively than OKC. How you can say that what Memphis did against OKC is proof of anything that Boston would have done against Miami just doesn't make sense.

Boston's problem against Miami, aside from the obvious injury to Rondo, was that Wade and Lebron could sail through the lane unmolested and without fear. Was Krsti or 95 year old twins jermaine O and KG going to lay a body on those guys? I don't care if Perkins was 80%, on the defensive end, that is a vast improvement over what Boston had individually not to mention what it did for the team as a collective unit. Rondo was more free to take chances on the perimeter and Allen could actually put a hand up in Wade's face instead of having to give him two feet or worse, boston having to double.

I think its fair to say that its questionable that Boston would have beaten Chicago with or without Perkins. But at the same time, Boston probably would have had homecourt advantage over Miami and things might have played out a little differently. I think Boston's record AFTER the trade not to mention Rivers comments (AFTER he got the money!) give a little credence to my argument.

You might have a point that Perkins would not have made a difference but everything I saw especially the blowout in Miami at the end of the regular season tell me differently. I think if you are in contention to win a title, which anyone would agree that they were, you don't trade your starting center away (one of the top five defensive centers in the league) for a tweener, a draft pick and a soft euro.

Would his presence have kept Rondo from getting hurt? Cuz they ain't doing shyt without Rondo. I think the trade hurt the team more in chemistry. Nate R was like a lil cheerleader on Anjo Dust. Bitch is all quiet in OKC.

I agree that the trade was very strange for a supposedly legit title contender especially so considering the age of their key players. But he simply hasnt been that healthy this year and I cant see how he would have prevented James or Wade from doing anything very often. This is 2011. If he had taken a shot or hard foul on either of them he would have been tossed. And if you watched the Memphis series you didnt see Memphis have much of a problem sending guys far inferior to James/Wade to the basket. Perkins is an excellent low post defender but he isnt Dwight Howard back there.

And Bostons record after the trade is fairly immaterial as they rested players far more than teams usually do down the stretch. I turned on a game against the Wizards late in the season and you would have thought it was preseason with the team Boston fielded for most of the 2nd half of a tight game.

Memphis perimeter players weren't getting to the basket except for game 7 when Mayo had a few nice drives. Even so, those were on the break and not in the half court set for the most part. Randolph played out of his mind and Gasol did okay for most of the series. Again, the heat doesn't have players like Gasol and Randolph. From the halfcourt, the heat clear out. If the middle isn't open, the Heat become very stagnate on offense. Check what Boston did against them before and after the trade. Very telling.

You are going to say that the reason Boston finished 16-12 after the trade is because they rested players? Really?? The game against the Wizards they rested players...because it was the second to last game of the freaking season and they had already locked in the third seed not to mention they had just gotten blown out the day before against miami. If you are talking about the one the week before, they beat washington by 16 at home although they did blow them out in the fourth quarter after it being tight for the first three. Boston was 3-0 against Miami pre-trade. Then, in the biggest game of the regular season with the number 2 spot on the line, The Celtics get blown out on national tv and get outrebounded 42-26 while prior to that they had outrebounded miami cumulatively and in 2 out of the 3.

Either way its speculation as what they would have done. To me though, their record and stats don't lie. There was a big difference after the trade.

There was a psychological aspect to it I'm sure. I think each and every Celtic player believed the Perkins injury is what cost them the title last year and they very nearly won it anyway, but they may have been correct about that. So I guess now having him playing again and ditching him hurt them. Long term I can't see how this is a bad trade for the Celtics. Perkins is what he is. Not a really good player but a player who knows his role. And he does it well. But Green is an athletic scorer as the Celtics move forward is what they'll need with Rondo and eventually not the big 3 who continue to age.

I guess we saw a different OK/Mem series.

Perkins wasn't playing when he was traded and didn't play for a few weeks afterwards so their record isn't that pertinent. Plus I was only using the one game as an example. They lost quite few games down the stretch to bad teams because they were watching minutes of the old guys. I suppose the chemistry thing is impossible to quantify but IMO injuries and age are slowing Boston down more than chemistry issues.

Jeff Green is like a soft version of Bobby Dandridge

Perkins will be a valuable piece for Oklahoma when Howard signs with LA after next year.

worst trade I know of in basketball history was Spencer Haywood for Adrian Dantley. Haywood scored around 10 more points and I think was either cut or retired (he was over the hill by then but was a great player), Dantley scored about 25,000 points from there on.

Perhaps we did see a different series. Maybe we saw a different Celtics team as well. I saw the one that got completely dominated in Chicago and Miami at the end of the season after beating those teams earlier in the season. Maybe it was just coincidence that age began to catch up AFTER the trade. I mean to go 16-12 and play basically .500 ball after having one of the best records in the league prior to the trade...it had to be age.

NBA games are 48 minutes long. Perkins played 313 minutes total for the Celtics this year (12 games- started 7). Unless you are suggesting that his street clothes rooting talents were somehow leading Boston to success it is very hard to make the case you are trying to make. He played in 1 game against Miami for Boston, a 85-82 win which could hardly be called a dominant win.

And are you suggesting that older players aren't more likely to wear down as the season progresses? The fact is because of injuries the older players (Pierce/Garnett/Allen) were forced to play more minutes throughout the season than they had projected them to. Garnett in particular had his minutes cut the last 15 or so games. Think it is a coincidence that Ainge is suggesting that Pierce might come off the bench next year?

He backed off those comments right away. Jeff Green is a free agent (restricted) in the offseason. Think its coincidence that their own coach regrets the trade publicly?

Older players do wear down but its generally a gradual thing. A team like Boston doesn't just get old after the trade deadline.

Also, in the one game against Miami with Perkins, Miami had two baskets in the paint the entire second half. Hmmmmmmmm. Maybe Boston was old before halftime, found Ponce de leon's great great great great great grandson in st pete, and came back in the second half 10 years younger.

Those comments were meant for Pierce, not Green.

You are basing your entire flimsy (at best) argument on how Miami (team with virtually no low post threats) in one particular game had few inside points?

Again since most of Boston's 1st half wins came without Perkins, why are you blaming the 2nd half losses on him? Especially considering that there were 2 or 3 games that Boston pretty obviously lost because they were resting players and playing Troy Murphy and Sasha Pavolic in the 4th quarter of tight games . So if they went 19-9 or 20-8 by simply trying to beat the Wizards or Nets or Rockets what would you be saying?

Teams can skate through the early parts of the year without their best lineup. Its the end of the season, against the best teams, where it really shows. Boston simply didn't have non-performances in key games like they did down the stretch this season. If those games were close, I might have a different take. They were blowouts and the teams were beating them in the lane.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Doc's wrong as well.

They had non-performances because they were resting aging players and because guys like Davis were horrid and injuries not because they were all heartbroken about Perkins.

Believe me there was a lot going on that isn't going public

I believe that there was a lot going on. At the same time, they weren't resting players against Miami or Chicago. If their starters played less, its because hey were getting hopelessly blown out.