Kendrick Perkins - Canton's Enforcer

[Lazor]

This keeps getting asked, and it's not really a question that can be answered with certainty. Only Griffin knows who was "available."

We can go off of the guys that we know are available, like Blatche or Thomas Robinson.

Personally, I'd have preferred Robinson to Perkins.

Why? Because I think Robinson has upside. He could be a total bust, but even then he's still going to give us those 6 fouls that Perkins' dead body would.

Is he going to give us the same leadership, camaraderie, or toughness as Perkins? Not likely, but the toughness part is debatable.

But I do think Robinson has more in the tank than what he's demonstrated so far in the NBA. And I'd be willing to gamble on Robinson before I'd settle for Perkins.

So personally, as I said previously, it's not a great pickup in my estimation; but it's also not a make or break moment for the Cavaliers.

And I don't want to beat a dead horse, nor do I want to bring people's hopes down. I certainly don't think the moves hurts the Cavs; I just don't think it's what I would have done if I were in Griffin's shoes, and for various reasons.

Concisely, I'm not thrilled with how Griffin manages assets. But that's an ongoing grievance that was bound to resurface at the trade deadline with the Cavaliers finding themselves with no assets.

I'm just happy you could give a solid argument. Thomas Robinson definitely offers more upside and offense but defensively he has struggled and he's also an undersized PF and we already have two of those. You can call Perkins a dead body that's fine but analytics still show him to be above average defensively and the leadership he provides can't be matched. I think what separates the two is you know what you are getting out of Perkins for your championship push this year and you aren't sure what you will get out of Robinson because he isn't proven. I don't think I would have been mad about Robinson but he is undersized and can be a libility defensively. Either one of them would be a significant upgrade over Haywood and that would be what was most important here.

 

[Bob_The_Cat]

This keeps getting asked, and it's not really a question that can be answered with certainty. Only Griffin knows who was "available."

We can go off of the guys that we know are available, like Blatche or Thomas Robinson.

Personally, I'd have preferred Robinson to Perkins.

Why? Because I think Robinson has upside. He could be a total bust, but even then he's still going to give us those 6 fouls that Perkins' dead body would.

Is he going to give us the same leadership, camaraderie, or toughness as Perkins? Not likely, but the toughness part is debatable.

But I do think Robinson has more in the tank than what he's demonstrated so far in the NBA. And I'd be willing to gamble on Robinson before I'd settle for Perkins.

So personally, as I said previously, it's not a great pickup in my estimation; but it's also not a make or break moment for the Cavaliers.

And I don't want to beat a dead horse, nor do I want to bring people's hopes down. I certainly don't think the moves hurts the Cavs; I just don't think it's what I would have done if I were in Griffin's shoes, and for various reasons.

Concisely, I'm not thrilled with how Griffin manages assets. But that's an ongoing grievance that was bound to resurface at the trade deadline with the Cavaliers finding themselves with no assets.

In case you haven't figured this out yet, there is little to no room for players that only have upside on a team with championship aspirations.

Hell, we traded away the #1 pick this year, a guy who has tremendous upside, for a guy who is ready to contribute now.

There's no room for a guy like Robinson to develop, and really, do we think he ever will? He's bounced around to a number of teams already in his short time.

Perkins may not be his former self, but he offers three things we desperately need: size, toughness, and (to a lesser extent) leadership.

There is never such thing as having too many guys with positive voices. All of Perkins former teammates have only raved about playing with him. If he can he instill some of his toughness into Love, Thompson, and Mozgov, that in and of itself is worth it.

 

[macbdog]

This keeps getting asked, and it's not really a question that can be answered with certainty. Only Griffin knows who was "available."...

...Personally, I'd have preferred Robinson to Perkins.

While I agree with the first part, it appears that Robinson's buy out is about finding playing time:

After playing sparingly in the last season-and-a-half with the Blazers, Robinson, the fifth pick of the 2012 NBA draft by the Sacramento Kings, was seeking an expanded role, according to Goodman, which "wasn't going to happen in Denver."

I don't think Robinson even considers here if the goal is to find minutes. I really don't see how being the 4th big here affords more playing time here than it does in Denver.

 

[gourimoko]

In case you haven't figured this out yet, there is little to no room for players that only have upside on a team with championship aspirations.

Bob, c'mon with the condescending bullshit post.

Delly is an upside player. We're developing his game and hoping to see improvements.
Tristan Thompson is an upside player, in a contract year.
Mozgov is an upside player we traded for who happens to be panning out extremely well.
Iman Shumpert is an upside player, in a contract year. We really don't know what we have in Shumpert yet.

The coveted Spurs model is all about finding "upside players" and developing their talents.

I don't mind having a civilized debate, but don't make ridiculous comments like "in case you haven't figured this out yet."

 

[gourimoko]

I'm just happy you could give a solid argument. Thomas Robinson definitely offers more upside and offense but defensively he has struggled and he's also an undersized PF and we already have two of those. You can call Perkins a dead body that's fine but analytics still show him to be above average defensively and the leadership he provides can't be matched. Also you mention assets and I'm pretty sure we would have had to give up some type of asset to trade for Robinson who is making around 4 million this year where we gave up nothing for Perkins who will be making around 450k.

Robinson was bought out and has/will clear waivers. We wouldn't needed to have traded for him.

Also, analytically, Kendrick Perkins was a net negative for OKC. I'm kinda weirded out by guys ignoring this and making an "analytical" argument where none exists:

---quote SB---
If you want to find the most obvious reason that the Oklahoma City Thunder were unable to advance past the second round of the playoffs, your search will end with the words "Russell Westbrook." But Westbrook's absence wasn't the only thing holding the Thunder back. They also had a much bigger problem—literally if not figuratively—in Kendrick Perkins. Big, terrible Kendrick Perkins.

Perkins played in all 11 of the Thunder's playoff games, averaging 19 minutes per game. In those 11 games, Perkins actually finished with a negative player efficiency rating. His -0.7 mark is the worst PER to have ever been posted in the playoffs by a player who saw 200 minutes or more of floor time. That level uselessness is astoundingly hard to achieve. Jason Collins, whose primary skill was his ability to foul people, has the second-worst PER on that list with 1.8. Nobody has ever gone into negative territory before Perk.

And it's not as if Perkins's -0.7 is misleading in any way. He was brought to Oklahoma City to be a rebounder, a defensive stopper, and a shot-blocker. He did none of those things. Perkins blocked just five shots, committed 24 turnovers while scoring just 24 points, and finished with two more rebounds (41) than he had personal fouls (39).

Perkins wasn't rendered completely useless by circumstance, either. Houston's fast-paced attack wasn't something he is suited to deal with, but post-operating giants like the Grizzlies' Marc Gasol and Zach Randolph are precisely the kinds of players that Perkins is meant to neutralize with his defense. Gasol, Perkins's counterpart at center, averaged 19 points and eight rebounds per game in the Grizzlies-Thunder series.
--end quote--

Honestly, Lazor, I'm not seeing Perkins as having as much of a positive contribution as a potential diamond in the rough scenario with say Robinson.

I think what separates the two is you know what you are getting out of Perkins for your championship push this year and you aren't sure what you will get out of Robinson because he isn't proven. I don't think I would have been mad about Robinson but he is undersized and can be a libility defensively. Either one of them would be a significant upgrade over Haywood and that would be what was most important here.

I agree, Robinson wouldn't fill the role of defensive stopper at the 4/5; but I also don't know if Perkins is either.

Perhaps surrounded by 4 other offensive threats in their own right, him being left completely unguarded won't be such a bad thing.

 

[gourimoko]

While I agree with the first part, it appears that Robinson's buy out is about finding playing time:


I don't think Robinson even considers here if the goal is to find minutes. I really don't see how being the 4th big here affords more playing time here than it does in Denver.

This makes sense.

 

[gourimoko]

ugh... and now come the downvotes...

Fuck having a dissenting opinion around here. Jesus Christ. Forget I said anything.

 

[MirORich]

I think the biggest argument for Perkins against Robinson and Blatche is to just witness what having a true center who has above average defense has done for this team. Untill we added Mozgov we had zero true centers of worth. Even healthy Andy is a hybrid. Now in Perkins, we don't just add six more hard fouls, we add a second player who can anchor a defense at the rim against the leagues biggest post players. In the playoffs Bron, Love, and Kyrie will all play36+ minutes per game, so our need for offense is minimal. More offensive players almost clogs things up for us. Finishing off the roster was all about defense in a specific position and Perkins simply offers that in a way that Robinson and Blatche do not.

 

[Man Called X]

ugh... and now come the downvotes...

Fuck having a dissenting opinion around here. Jesus Christ. Forget I said anything.

I have no issues with what you've said. You're more than entitled to your opinion.

I just think your opinion is wrong. Mutual agreement on both sides I'm sure.

 

[gourimoko]

I think the biggest argument for Perkins against Robinson and Blatche is to just witness what having a true center who has above average defense has done for this team. Untill we added Mozgov we had zero true centers of worth. Even healthy Andy is a hybrid. Now in Perkins, we don't just add six more hard fouls, we add a second player who can anchor a defense at the rim against the leagues biggest post players. In the playoffs Bron, Love, and Kyrie will all play36+ minutes per game, so our need for offense is minimal. More offensive players almost clogs things up for us. Finishing off the roster was all about defense in a specific position and Perkins simply offers that in a way that Robinson and Blatche do not.

I think the point of my previous post is that Perkins does not anchor the defense.

 

[macbdog]

ugh... and now come the downvotes...

Fuck having a dissenting opinion around here. Jesus Christ. Forget I said anything.

The thing with Robinson is its all between the ears. Folks trot out the cliches about being undersized and all that but Robinson could be 7 foot and he would still struggle. He has the physical talent to be an effective NBA forward. He has been as mystery to me too, I thought he was going to come in and as the least be the Utah version of Milsap. He has to go though where he can get time. Knicks or even Sixers make some sense even if they are terrible places to develop.

 

[gourimoko]

I have no issues with what you've said. You're more than entitled to your opinion.

I just think your opinion is wrong. Mutual agreement on both sides I'm sure.

Of course, that's not directed at you obviously; more just frustration with the groupthink of the moment.

Come playoffs people will be trashing Kendrick Perkins and saying "ahh, Jesus this guy sucks! Take him out already.. Where is Mozgov!?" and all of this will be forgotten.

 

[Lazor]

Robinson was bought out and has/will clear waivers. We wouldn't needed to have traded for him.

Also, analytically, Kendrick Perkins was a net negative for OKC. I'm kinda weirded out by guys ignoring this and making an "analytical" argument where none exists:

---quote SB---
If you want to find the most obvious reason that the Oklahoma City Thunder were unable to advance past the second round of the playoffs, your search will end with the words "Russell Westbrook." But Westbrook's absence wasn't the only thing holding the Thunder back. They also had a much bigger problem—literally if not figuratively—in Kendrick Perkins. Big, terrible Kendrick Perkins.

Perkins played in all 11 of the Thunder's playoff games, averaging 19 minutes per game. In those 11 games, Perkins actually finished with a negative player efficiency rating. His -0.7 mark is the worst PER to have ever been posted in the playoffs by a player who saw 200 minutes or more of floor time. That level uselessness is astoundingly hard to achieve. Jason Collins, whose primary skill was his ability to foul people, has the second-worst PER on that list with 1.8. Nobody has ever gone into negative territory before Perk.

And it's not as if Perkins's -0.7 is misleading in any way. He was brought to Oklahoma City to be a rebounder, a defensive stopper, and a shot-blocker. He did none of those things. Perkins blocked just five shots, committed 24 turnovers while scoring just 24 points, and finished with two more rebounds (41) than he had personal fouls (39).

Perkins wasn't rendered completely useless by circumstance, either. Houston's fast-paced attack wasn't something he is suited to deal with, but post-operating giants like the Grizzlies' Marc Gasol and Zach Randolph are precisely the kinds of players that Perkins is meant to neutralize with his defense. Gasol, Perkins's counterpart at center, averaged 19 points and eight rebounds per game in the Grizzlies-Thunder series.
--end quote--

Honestly, Lazor, I'm not seeing Perkins as having as much of a positive contribution as a potential diamond in the rough scenario with say Robinson.



I agree, Robinson wouldn't fill the role of defensive stopper at the 4/5; but I also don't know if Perkins is either.

Perhaps surrounded by 4 other offensive threats in their own right, him being left completely unguarded won't be such a bad thing.

He's not the player he used to be. You're definitely right and he offers virtually nothing offensively but with his minutes cut in half and him being brought in in small spurts I don't see why you don't think he would be capable of playing solid defense most likely against second stringers. Only time will tell but I have no reason to believe he wont be solid defensively for the most part. Perkins as a starter would be awful or even as the first big off the bench but he's neither of those.

 

[Bob_The_Cat]

Bob, c'mon with the condescending bullshit post.

Delly is an upside player. We're developing his game and hoping to see improvements.
Tristan Thompson is an upside player, in a contract year.
Mozgov is an upside player we traded for who happens to be panning out extremely well.
Iman Shumpert is an upside player, in a contract year. We really don't know what we have in Shumpert yet.

The coveted Spurs model is all about finding "upside players" and developing their talents.

I don't mind having a civilized debate, but don't make ridiculous comments like "in case you haven't figured this out yet."

Sorry gourimoko. I didn't intend for that to be condescending.

The difference is that Shumpert, Mozgov, Thompson, and Delly have all showed in the past the ability to contribute. Robinson will be on his 4th team in as many seasons. How many guys who take that path ever actually stick?

I just haven't seen anything out of him that would make me want him over Perk. Certainly there's questions to how much Perkins will actually play or contribute, but we at least know what we'll get from him. To me, Robinson is just a complete unknown at this point. Not the type of guy you bring in in the middle of the season.

 

[RedBlackAttack]

Why are people discussing Perkins vs. Robinson as if they play the same position? We desperately needed an insurance policy at center. Robinson is an undersized PF. He shouldn't have even been in the conversation, tbh.

If Mozgov gets in foul trouble or, god forbid, is injured in a big moment, we can always go small. We don't need to add Robinson to the current roster to accomplish that. What we couldn't do prior to landing Perkins was to play with a conventional center if we need to and something happens to Mozgov. That was the whole point of the move.