# Celtics, Perkins talk



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

> PRO BASKETBALL NOTES
> Perkins in position for a bank shot
> 
> By Peter May, Globe Staff | July 23, 2006
> ...


...



> What is Perkins worth? Myers could probably make a case that Perkins, who still is only 21 (he turns 22 in November) merits at least midlevel-exception money, like the deal the Pistons gave Nazr Mohammed (an estimated $30 million for five years) or even the one the Celtics gave Mark Blount ($38 million for six years) . Myers might also try to make a case that Perkins is entitled to even more. Joel Przybilla re-upped with Portland for an estimated $32 million over five years.
> 
> On the other side, the Spurs just clinched a two-year deal with Francisco Elson for $3 million a year. He averaged 4.9 points and 4.7 rebounds in 21.9 minutes a game last season. Perkins averaged 5.2 points and 5.9 rebounds in 19.6 minutes a game. The Celtics probably are more inclined to be near Elson's numbers, especially since it's a reach to think that any team is going to hoard cap money to pay Perkins a whole lot more than that.


----------



## whiterhino (Jun 15, 2003)

If we are smart we will lock him up before the season starts because I KNOW Perk is going to come into his own this season and then we will not be able to afford him.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

whiterhino said:


> If we are smart we will lock him up before the season starts because I KNOW Perk is going to come into his own this season and then we will not be able to afford him.



I'm pretty sure he won't be taking anything until like the Pre-Season or later in the season. He'd be stupid to take a deal now and then get screwed in a few months.


----------



## Delontes Herpes (May 11, 2005)

I would like to see him extended ASAP.

Right now he's still a bit under the radar, but project his season from last year out to the 30 mpg that he should see this year and you get 8.0 ppg 9.1 rpg 1.5 apg 2.3 bpg

He's fixin to get nene/dalembert/chandler money, it would be in the C's best interest to try to sign him now for 2/3 the price.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

Delontes Herpes said:


> I would like to see him extended ASAP.
> 
> Right now he's still a bit under the radar, but project his season from last year out to the 30 mpg that he should see this year and you get 8.0 ppg 9.1 rpg 1.5 apg 2.3 bpg
> 
> He's fixin to get nene/dalembert/chandler money, it would be in the C's best interest to try to sign him now for 2/3 the price.



I agree from the Celtics point of view.

But I'm sure Perk has other things in mind. If he signs now and improves just a little from last year he could get a much better contract than he would have gotten today.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

Delontes Herpes said:


> Right now he's still a bit under the radar, but project his season from last year out to the 30 mpg that he should see this year and you get 8.0 ppg 9.1 rpg 1.5 apg 2.3 bpg



hasnt anyone learned from last year and al jefferson that you cant predict someones numbers by their numbers from one year doubled or whatever...jefferson based on his rookie year was supposed to average something like what 18-10 when he got his 35 mpg...how did that turn out??


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

#1AntoineWalkerFan said:


> hasnt anyone learned from last year and al jefferson that you cant predict someones numbers by their numbers from one year doubled or whatever...jefferson based on his rookie year was supposed to average something like what 18-10 when he got his 35 mpg...how did that turn out??



I dunno, something around 8-5 in 18 mpgs while shooting 50% from the floor? Something along those lines?

(I do agree that you can't predict a players average if you do a "per xx amount of minutes.")


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

aquaitious said:


> I dunno, something around 8-5 in 18 mpgs while shooting 50% from the floor? Something along those lines?
> 
> (I do agree that you can't predict a players average if you do a "per xx amount of minutes.")




yes its great that he can put up those numebrs in 18mpg...but he wont put up the same the next 20 minutes due to fatigue and foul trouble etc etc...i know u agree but im just trying to clarify my point


----------



## Delontes Herpes (May 11, 2005)

#1AntoineWalkerFan said:


> hasnt anyone learned from last year and al jefferson that you cant predict someones numbers by their numbers from one year doubled or whatever...jefferson based on his rookie year was supposed to average something like what 18-10 when he got his 35 mpg...how did that turn out??


Um, he got hurt and never got his 35 mpg, doofus. No name calling guys Thanx Whiterhino


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

Delontes Herpes said:


> Um, he got hurt and never got his 35 mpg, doofus.




yea well when u dont tape ur ankles, and you average 4.5 fouls every 10 minutes...your not going to get your 35 mpg...and if he ever does get 35 mpg his numbers r still not going to be 18-10


nice addition with the "doofus"...very mature


----------



## Delontes Herpes (May 11, 2005)

You can easily avoid being called a doofus if you make non-doofus comments.

Your argument against prorating stats over minutes played is that Al Jefferson didn't average 18-10 when he played 35 mpg last year. However, when you consider that he only played 18 minutes per game, your argument loses a bit of validity, now doesn't it? If you're going to use examples to prove a point, try to at least base them on facts.

Of course it's not a lock that Perk plays 30 minutes, averages 8 and 9, or whatever. But given what the Celtics have at center, what Perk has done in the past, and the fact that he's still improving, it's a likely scenario. And it's also very possible that he'll be signing a contract worth $50-60 million this offseason. Considering all of this, it might be a good idea to try to extend him now for $6-8 million a year.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

ill throw up if perk gets 8 million a year...sure i liek the kid but hes never averaged more than 6 points or 6 rebounds a game in his career...people think that marcus got a high contract with phoenix based on what hes shown???...it would be ridiculously worse if perk signs a 40 or 50 million dollar contract...i love him but all i see fit for him to get is a 4 year 23ish million dollar contract...and i know the fact that blount got so and so and pryzbilla got so and so will come up to say how much perk should get...but elson only got 3 million a year...so it works both ways


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

Right now, Kendrick Perkins is not worth the mid-level exception. Investing $30 million based on what he's shown so far would be a mistake.

As for Al Jefferson, can't we just trade him for a bag of cat food or something? It would show more heart and work ethic than #7 ever could.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

P-Dub34 said:


> Right now, Kendrick Perkins is not worth the mid-level exception. Investing $30 million based on what he's shown so far would be a mistake.


He's a young center who has shown that he is one of the best rebounders in the league, with a developing post game, and decent interior defense. He's worth forty million. Don't tell his agent.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

Premier said:


> He's a young center who has shown that he is one of the best rebounders in the league, with a developing post game, and decent interior defense. He's worth forty million. Don't tell his agent.




the max is what 80 million??? thats what players like chris bosh make now correct??? so you think perk is worth half the max??? do u think he is half the player that bosh is??? not even close!! HE AVERAGED 5 POINTS AND 6 REBOUNDS A GAME LAST YEAR...thats not worth 40 million


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

You can't be one of the best rebounders in the league when you can only keep yourself on the floor for twenty minutes. His post game is developing, granted, but anything is a development over his prior post skills, which were nonexistent. Decent interior defense, yes. So he's got decent interior defense and rebounding. He's a poor man's Tyson Chandler, and just because Chandler got that much money certainly doesn't mean he deserved it.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

P-Dub34 said:


> You can't be one of the best rebounders in the league when you can only keep yourself on the floor for twenty minutes. His post game is developing, granted, but anything is a development over his prior post skills, which were nonexistent. Decent interior defense, yes. So he's got decent interior defense and rebounding. He's a poor man's Tyson Chandler, and just because Chandler got that much money certainly doesn't mean he deserved it.


Two words: Market Value

It's very high for Centers and I think we could consider ourselves lucky if we do resign him somewhere around the 30 million range.


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

I agree the market value for a guy like Perk is astronomical, I just don't think it's worth it to pay him that.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

P-Dub34 said:


> I agree the market value for a guy like Perk is astronomical, I just don't think it's worth it to pay him that.


Why not? I don't consider him a project anymore and he'll only get better, barring injuries.


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

Because he'll never be a player who is worth that kind of cash. He's never going to be an offensive threat, he's going to be Tyson Chandler. Somebody will probably give him that dough, I just hope it's not us. We got Pittsnogle to play center, anyways.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

P-Dub34 said:


> Because he'll never be a player who is worth that kind of cash. He's never going to be an offensive threat, he's going to be Tyson Chandler. Somebody will probably give him that dough, I just hope it's not us. We got Pittsnogle to play center, anyways.


Oh geez, I'd hate to have a defensive minded center who rebounds with the best of them and doesn't back down from anyone. 

But you're right, after all he is 21 years old he can't improve much more.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

aquaitious said:


> Oh geez, I'd hate to have a defensive minded center who rebounds with the best of them and doesn't back down from anyone.
> 
> But you're right, after all he is 21 years old he can't improve much more.




you cant assume that just because he is young he will improve...chandler never improved...kwame never improved...and they dont look like they are going to....im not saying perk isnt going to get better, i think he will...just nothing worth 50 million dollars


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/kendrick_perkins/index.html

As one can clearly see, his stats have improved each and every single year that he's been here.

If you've actually watched the game you could, without a doubt, see a different player from the previous year. Heck, you could see a different player by the end of each season.

1st year he completely changed his body.

2nd year he added a ton of bulk...by the end he left us wanting more.

3rd year he was by far our best center, who at times did not play because of Glenn Rivers being an idiot, _not_ foul trouble.

If you've watched him play in any of the 3 seasons you would have to be drunk to say you've seen no improvement.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

who said they have seen no improvement??? it wasnt me...


http://www.nba.com/playerfile/tyson_chandler/index.html


chandler improved the 3 years where he actually played a full season going from 6-5 to 9-7 to 8-10...then his 4th year he averaged 5-9...whos to say perk wont average 5-9 this year??? sure perk has improved but its not worth the risk of 50 million dollars to say that he will keep improving exponentially...and i sure wont pay 50 million for 5-9


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

#1AntoineWalkerFan said:


> who said they have seen no improvement??? it wasnt me...
> 
> 
> http://www.nba.com/playerfile/tyson_chandler/index.html
> ...



Are we going to base Perk's career on Chandlers?

If a Celtic could average nine rebounds any year I'd be more than happy.

As I've stated, here's what we know:

Perk will get you rebounds, defense and toughness. Any offense is a bonus on top.

5-9 from a guy who's always in the paint is worth 50 million dollars.


----------



## agoo (Jun 1, 2003)

Fifty for a presence who can actually do at least a little something isn't so bad. Consider the money given to Przybilla and Foyle.

Market value for big men is ridiculous.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

aquaitious said:


> Are we going to base Perk's career on Chandlers?
> 
> If a Celtic could average nine rebounds any year I'd be more than happy.
> 
> ...




yes i am going to use chandler as somthing to compare to cuz they have similar numbers and games...chandler does all of the above...and has 5 yrs 54 mill left on his contract i believe or something like that...why does everyone talk about his contract like its so horrendous??? BECAUSE IT IS...and the same will be said about perk if we give him a contract liek that



> 5-9 from a guy who's always in the paint is worth 50 million dollars.


wow...i really hope you are the only one who believes that


----------



## agoo (Jun 1, 2003)

Chandler who gets by on athleticism has the same game as Perkins, who uses strength and long arms to compensate for a lack of athleticism have similar games?


----------



## banner17 (Jun 28, 2003)

I hope Danny learned his lesson with the Blount signing. I'm not comparing the two players, but overpaying to fill a need is not good business. Just like drafting to fill a need usually doesn't work out. You take the best player available for the money/draft spot regardless of your needs. I'd offer him 40 over 5 years max right now and that's a stretch. If you take a risk and overpay someone, the contract becomes unmoveable without giving up something of value. Moving Blount was great, but having to include Marcus and Ricky in the deal didn't make much sense to me. 

I was happy to lose his contract, but at the end of the day, I still say this team would've finished the year better with Ricky on the squad than Wally. As much as I hated Blount, Wally's contract for all intents in purposes is WORSE and he's not as good of a player as Ricky. Sure he might be better in the locker room, but not on the floor. 

I'm getting off track here, but I guess what I'm saying is, that I don't want to see us sign Perk to a contract that will require us including another important player just to move it.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

banner17 said:


> I hope Danny learned his lesson with the Blount signing. I'm not comparing the two players, but overpaying to fill a need is not good business. Just like drafting to fill a need usually doesn't work out. You take the best player available for the money/draft spot regardless of your needs. I'd offer him 40 over 5 years max right now and that's a stretch. If you take a risk and overpay someone, the contract becomes unmoveable without giving up something of value. Moving Blount was great, but having to include Marcus and Ricky in the deal didn't make much sense to me.
> 
> I was happy to lose his contract, but at the end of the day, I still say this team would've finished the year better with Ricky on the squad than Wally. As much as I hated Blount, Wally's contract for all intents in purposes is WORSE and he's not as good of a player as Ricky. Sure he might be better in the locker room, but not on the floor.
> 
> I'm getting off track here, but I guess what I'm saying is, that I don't want to see us sign Perk to a contract that will require us including another important player just to move it.



Moral of the story: Don't sign a 1-year-contract-wonder to a 40 million extension. Problem solved.



#1AntoineWalkerFan said:


> wow...i really hope you are the only one who believes that


We won't win anything with out a good big man, even if he can only dominate at rebounding and playing defense. 

I also enjoy see fast breaks being created after every Perk rebound.

I really hope that Danny's watching.

But hey, I think it's better we listen to a AW and trade young guys for A.I so we can make the playoffs for three years.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

aquaitious said:


> But hey, I think it's better we listen to a AW and trade young guys for A.I so we can make the playoffs for three years.




its better than not making the playoffs for 3 years and watching everyone go to different teams because half the salary cap is tied up in perk and paul and then being back to square 1


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

#1AntoineWalkerFan said:


> its better than not making the playoffs for 3 years and watching everyone go to different teams because half the salary cap is tied up in perk and paul and then being back to square 1


My impression was that Danny came here to make the Celtics winners again, not a 1 and done playoff team again, they were that without him.

Obviously the only way for this team to win a championship it'll have to start by getting rid of Pierce, losing a season while developing young talent and landing an impact player by free agency. You don't rebuild with non-big man.

And yes, obviously Perk's 7 million is going to hinter the Celtics for the 25 years.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

aquaitious said:


> My impression was that Danny came here to make the Celtics winners again, not a 1 and done playoff team again, they were that without him.
> 
> Obviously the only way for this team to win a championship it'll have to start by getting rid of Pierce, losing a season while developing young talent and landing an impact player by free agency. You don't rebuild with non-big man.
> 
> And yes, obviously Perk's 7 million is going to hinter the Celtics for the 25 years.




sooooooooo basically youre willing to wait another 8 years to be contenders???...we just signed paul to an extension...if there was any thought of "getting rid of him" then he wouldnt have gotten that extension a week ago...so if we wait for pierce to leave and lose a season to get a good impact player then develop everyone ill be collecting my social security before we even make the playoffs again...niceeeeeeee


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

#1AntoineWalkerFan said:


> sooooooooo basically youre willing to wait another 8 years to be contenders???...we just signed paul to an extension...if there was any thought of "getting rid of him" then he wouldnt have gotten that extension a week ago...so if we wait for pierce to leave and lose a season to get a good impact player then develop everyone ill be collecting my social security before we even make the playoffs again...niceeeeeeee


8 years? If it takes 8 years to trade Pierce pigs will fly. If you needed a Pierce to contend, would you rather have him locked up for 5 years or for 1 year and he may walk while giving up 1st rounders and players with potential?

If you know how to draft, it shouldn't take you more than 3 years to rebuild. See: Suns on more info on that.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

aquaitious said:


> My impression was that Danny came here to make the Celtics winners again, not a 1 and done playoff team again, they were that without him.


You have that backwards, they didn't become a one and done team until he took over. They were actually winning playoff series before that.



aquaitious said:


> Obviously the only way for this team to win a championship it'll have to start by getting rid of Pierce, losing a season while developing young talent and landing an impact player by free agency. You don't rebuild with non-big man.


They can build around Pierce, but they need another player like him. Going forward is as valid an approach as tanking. If the Celtics are going to build around kids, they need better kids because the ones they have aren't very good (shooting guards that can't shoot, soft power forwards, hard working but not terribly athletic guys, and guys undersized for their natural position without the athleticism to compensate). If they could turn some of that motley crew into a veteran all star, good. If they can't, then yes, they need to offload Pierce & Szczerbiak and stink the joint up for the next three seasons in hopes of landing a couple of franchise players via the draft. However the current ownership is absolutely committed to Bruins-style competitive mediocrity, so don't hold your breath.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

aquaitious said:


> 8 years? If it takes 8 years to trade Pierce pigs will fly. If you needed a Pierce to contend, would you rather have him locked up for 5 years or for 1 year and he may walk while giving up 1st rounders and players with potential?
> 
> If you know how to draft, it shouldn't take you more than 3 years to rebuild. See: Suns on more info on that.



no...you dont understand me...8 years as in we wait for pierce to leave or trade him in the last yr of his contract so thats what 3 or 4 yrs...then we "lose a season" like you said to get an impact player...thats 5 yrs....then AT LEAST another 3 years before that "impact player" will be able to lead us anywhere...thats 8 years....you dont just land an impact player in the draft and then become title contenders the same year


----------



## BostonBasketball (Jan 10, 2005)

#1AntoineWalkerFan said:


> no...you dont understand me...8 years as in we wait for pierce to leave or trade him in the last yr of his contract so thats what 3 or 4 yrs...then we "lose a season" like you said to get an impact player...thats 5 yrs....then AT LEAST another 3 years before that "impact player" will be able to lead us anywhere...thats 8 years....you dont just land an impact player in the draft and then become title contenders the same year


you might....see Tim Duncan and San Antonio Spurs


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

BostonBasketball said:


> you might....see Tim Duncan and San Antonio Spurs




once in 100 years...and it wasnt all time duncan...it was alot of david robinsons return as well...go from being the worst team and getting the number one pick to adding 2 superstar 7 footers...you'll win that way....figure out a way for the celts to do that and ill eat my walker jerseys


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

> Oh geez, I'd hate to have a defensive minded center who rebounds with the best of them and doesn't back down from anyone.


You don't get it. I'm not saying I don't want Perkins. I just don't want to pay him that kind of money, because he isn't worth it.



> But you're right, after all he is 21 years old he can't improve much more.


Please show me where I said he wouldn't improve anymore. Hey, if you want a Tyson Chandler type player (which is what he'll be), and pay him his "market value" and have an 8/8, solid defensive player who handcuffs the team even more than it already is with Pierce/Szczerbiak, then great.



> Moral of the story: Don't sign a 1-year-contract-wonder to a 40 million extension. Problem solved.


Another moral is to not sign a kid with absolutely no indication that he'll ever be an effective offensive player, but is a tough, hard working, defensive minded, rebounder (I'm leaving out his ineptness to keep himself on the floor because he is young and he will learn) for $30-$40 million.



> 5-9 from a guy who's always in the paint is worth 50 million dollars.


From a market standpoint, yes. From a common sense standpoint, the answer is unequivocally no.

Aqua, you seem very sensitive, aggresive. What's the deal?


----------



## agoo (Jun 1, 2003)

P-Dub34 said:


> Another moral is to not sign a kid with absolutely no indication that he'll ever be an effective offensive player, but is a tough, hard working, defensive minded, rebounder (I'm leaving out his ineptness to keep himself on the floor because he is young and he will learn) for $30-$40 million.












Good call.

Not to say that Perk will ever become the defender that Wallace is, but I just wanted to point that out.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

glad you brought ben wallace up...




> En route to his fourth Defensive Player of the Year award, the 6-9, 240-pound center averaged 11.3 rebounds and 2.21 blocks last season, when he made $7.5 million in the final year of a six-year, $30 million contract.


http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=freeagency&prov=st&type=lgns

during the 4 years where he won the defensive player of the year award ben wallace was in the midst of a 6 YEAR 30 MILLION DOLLAR CONTRACT...THEN AFTER HE PROVED HOW MUCH OF A FORCE HE WAS HE GOT THE MASSIVE CONTRACT FROM CHICAGO...how bout we dont jump the gun with perk and give him a 6 year 30 million dollar contract...if he wins 4 defensive player of the year awards in the next 6 years ill be willing to throw 60 million dollars at him...but im not willing to throw that kind of money at him off a 5 point 6 rebound year...youve got to be insane to think he deserves that (in general not "you")


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

ehmunro said:


> You have that backwards, they didn't become a one and done team until he took over. They were actually winning playoff series before that.


Since Danny took over, I don't consider us once making the playoffs. The only reason the Celtics got playoff experiance is because the other teams sucked even more than we did down the stretch.

The roster really couldn't have been improved much more aside from Paul and Toine, not to mention Vin B's 14 million contract at that time.




ehmunro said:


> They can build around Pierce, but they need another player like him. Going forward is as valid an approach as tanking. If the Celtics are going to build around kids, they need better kids because the ones they have aren't very good (shooting guards that can't shoot, soft power forwards, hard working but not terribly athletic guys, and guys undersized for their natural position without the athleticism to compensate). If they could turn some of that motley crew into a veteran all star, good. If they can't, then yes, they need to offload Pierce & Szczerbiak and stink the joint up for the next three seasons in hopes of landing a couple of franchise players via the draft. However the current ownership is absolutely committed to Bruins-style competitive mediocrity, so don't hold your breath.


The only way to build around Pierce is to find a taker for players who have their knees shot. We won't be getting much in return for our young guys (even if Celtic fans think they'll land Wade, LeBron and Bosh by trading Wally because RealGM told them it's possible).

The potential of our young guys is to stay in the league and be impactable role players. Nothing more.



#1AntoineWalkerFan said:


> no...you dont understand me...8 years as in we wait for pierce to leave or trade him in the last yr of his contract so thats what 3 or 4 yrs...then we "lose a season" like you said to get an impact player...thats 5 yrs....then AT LEAST another 3 years before that "impact player" will be able to lead us anywhere...thats 8 years....you dont just land an impact player in the draft and then become title contenders the same year


Am I missing something? Did Pierce get a 3/4 year "No Trade" clause? You trade him now, and lost a season right away, _sign_ an impact player and (with the 07 draft approaching) draft a future franchise player, too.

BTW a "impact player" makes an impact, not waits "another 3 years" before making an impact.




P-Dub34 said:


> You don't get it. I'm not saying I don't want Perkins. I just don't want to pay him that kind of money, because he isn't worth it.


He's not worth it now, but he's shown identications that he will be. It would be stupid for the Celtics not to sign him right away for 30 million, but if they wait and he has an explosive season, there will most likely be teams that will offer him 50 million. Right now, I wouldn't sign him to a 50 million contract, but after the season that will be his market value.



P-Dub34 said:


> Please show me where I said he wouldn't improve anymore. Hey, if you want a Tyson Chandler type player (which is what he'll be), and pay him his "market value" and have an 8/8, solid defensive player who handcuffs the team even more than it already is with Pierce/Szczerbiak, then great.


So we let him go and let the rotation of Al and Scals play? There hasn't been a guy on the Celtics in the last 10 years who could move people in the paint. And we'll just let him go because Szczerbiak's contract sucks. Based on last year, the only players with a future in the NBA are West, Perkins and Gomes, but since they'll all require a large contract that will "handcuff" the Celtics, we better not sign them.



P-Dub34 said:


> From a market standpoint, yes. From a common sense standpoint, the answer is unequivocally no.
> 
> Aqua, you seem very sensitive, aggresive. What's the deal?


If he's going to be our starting Center for years to come (unless there's a sudden sprout of skilled big man) he may as well be paid starting center money. What do you guys expect? To lock up the guy to anther rookie contract?



#1AntoineWalkerFan said:


> during the 4 years where he won the defensive player of the year award ben wallace was in the midst of a 6 YEAR 30 MILLION DOLLAR CONTRACT...THEN AFTER HE PROVED HOW MUCH OF A FORCE HE WAS HE GOT THE MASSIVE CONTRACT FROM CHICAGO...how bout we dont jump the gun with perk and give him a 6 year 30 million dollar contract...if he wins 4 defensive player of the year awards in the next 6 years ill be willing to throw 60 million dollars at him...but im not willing to throw that kind of money at him off a 5 point 6 rebound year...youve got to be insane to think he deserves that (in general not "you")


I'm glad you've brought up the market value from 2000. Let's also not kid ourselves. Kendrick Perkins' offensive game is like Shaq's when compared to Ben Wallce.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

aquaitious said:


> Am I missing something? Did Pierce get a 3/4 year "No Trade" clause? You trade him now, and lost a season right away, _sign_ an impact player and (with the 07 draft approaching) draft a future franchise player, too.


He has a >15% trade kicker.


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

> Good call.
> 
> Not to say that Perk will ever become the defender that Wallace is, but I just wanted to point that out.


To be fair, Ben Wallace wouldn't be kissing that trophy without Billups, Hamilton, Prince, or Rasheed (improvements at every position on us except the 3). And yes, Wallace was a good signing, but you can't point him out as a positive and ignore the negative signings that have happened in the past, too.

#1AWF pointed it out, too, as well, if Perk has what, 4 DPoY seasons, I'll eat my words. Until then, you just proved that a guy like Perkins doesn't deserve to hold a jockstrap to a guy who was signed to a $30 million contract.


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

> He's not worth it now, but he's shown identications that he will be.


True, he's shown indications that he will be. So did Dajaun Wagner. In fact, Wagner has shown _more_ indications in his professional career.



> It would be stupid for the Celtics not to sign him right away for 30 million, but if they wait and he has an explosive season, there will most likely be teams that will offer him 50 million.


An explosive season for the current Kendrick Perkins would consist of 8/8 with good defense. If somebody wants to sign that to $50 million, let 'em.



> So we let him go and let the rotation of Al and Scals play?


No, we need to keep him, we just can't pay him $30+ million. 



> There hasn't been a guy on the Celtics in the last 10 years who could move people in the paint.


The problem with Perk is, he moves people so much in the paint that he can only stay on the floor for fifteen minutes. As I said before, however, I expect that problem to clear up, and yes, he was our best center, and yes, we need to sign him. If I've said otherwise, I didn't mean so - I just mean $30+ mill is a mistake.



> And we'll just let him go because Szczerbiak's contract sucks.


It doesn't sound fair, but welcome to real life. Danny saddled himself with Wally's contract, and now he has to deal with it. We already know the owners won't go near the luxury tax, so tying up all that dough in Pierce and Szczerbiak already really limits how far DA can and should go to sign Perk.



> Based on last year, the only players with a future in the NBA are West, Perkins and Gomes, but since they'll all require a large contract that will "handcuff" the Celtics, we better not sign them.


No, aqua, you are wrong. West and Gomes won't require large contracts because they aren't big men. Perkins, however, will. Pardon me if I don't advocate spending large chunks of change on a guy who was 5/6 last year.

I see where you're coming from, and if Nazr Mohammed got the MLE (did he?) then Perkins is certainly worth it at market value. The Celtics may very well have to sign him for big bucks; that doesn't mean I have to like that my team was forced to completely overpay a guy just because he's seven feet tall.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

may i add that jamaal magloire just got traded for steve blake and a large fry...so this "market value" thing for 7 footers who can rebound and always stay in the paint really doesnt exist...magloire is an all star center who has shown 100x more than perk has so far and look what it took to get him


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

True but it should also be noted that he is due $8,300,000 this year.


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

Causeway said:


> True but it should also be noted that he is due $8,300,000 this year.



and its because he is due so much money and noone wants to pay it that his trade value was absolute crap...sooooooooo i think its smarter to make sure perk isnt due $8,300,000...ummm...ever


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

I am sort of surprised by that trade. Not only is he a solid big man but he's in the last year of his contract.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Causeway said:


> I am sort of surprised by that trade. Not only is he a solid big man but he's in the last year of his contract.


He forced his way out of Milwaukee [conflict with Stotts over P/T], where they had no chance of re-signing him after his contract ran out. Also, Milwaukee already has Andrew Bogut and Dan Gadzuric. 

This is a very poor example. Elson is a much better argument.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

Premier said:


> He forced his way out of Milwaukee [conflict with Stotts over P/T], where they had no chance of re-signing him after his contract ran out. Also, Milwaukee already has Andrew Bogut and Dan Gadzuric.


That makes sense. I did not read too much about the situation. Prem with the scoop! You are our version of "In".


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Premier said:


> He forced his way out of Milwaukee [conflict with Stotts over P/T], where they had no chance of re-signing him after his contract ran out. Also, Milwaukee already has Andrew Bogut and Dan Gadzuric.


It wasn't so much that he forced his way out as that Milwaukee had a surfeit of bodies at the 4/5 (you forgot Charlie Eyebrows, though maybe you were just referring to 5s) and needed another point guard for depth. So they essentially dealt JM for depth at the 1 & 5.


----------



## whiterhino (Jun 15, 2003)

Perk deserves at least the mid level, he's a solid Center already in the league. Magliore was a fluke trade...and Portland got the deal on that one.


----------

