2010-2011 NBA Season

See if that holds true in 30 days when one is dropping 27 a game and one is sulking.

 

Yup.

And this was a great trade for all teams involved. Utah got a hell of a deal.

 

Monta Ellis can drop 27 a game and there's no way I'd put him in Williams' class.

BTW, Brooklyn Nets will sound infinitely better than NJ Nets, so he's got that going for him, which is nice.

 

Celtics trade Perkins and Robinson for Green and Kristic.

Rockets trade Brooks to Suns for Dragic and Battier to Grizz for the useless Haseem Thabeet.

 

I guess that the Cs aren't that worried about the Magic, because Perkins was top notch defending Howard. You don't need a very good/great center against anyone else in the East.

 

Rockets did horrible, trading away two starters for a backup PG, a bust and picks that may net a nice role player, nothing more.

They watched and twiddled their thumbs while OKC, Phoenix, Memphis and Portland all made moves and improved.

 

Oklahoma City just found someone to defend Gasol and Tim Duncan, without having to give him the ball on the offensive end and steal shots from Durant and Westbrook. They now have a scoring guard off the bench, and they are now favorites in the West for sure

 

They have a better shot at beating the Lakers now, but let's not go crazy.

 

Im not saying they definitely are favorites, maybe that may have been too strong. But Perk is the best low post defender in the league, and now Ibaka is now free to go back to his natural power forward spot where he will be lethal in a rebounding and activity sense next to a true big man.

In one move, the Thunder became bigger, longer, more athletic and a much better defensive team. Complete gift from the Celtics

 

I agree with you Newbie about Perk's impact on defense (provided he's healthy of course). But I don't think the trade did anything to address their big weakness against the Lakers, and Spurs. Their lack of offensive depth. It's Durant and Westbrook and...Green was the third-leading scorer and then Harden who's not consistent and isn't a good enough third threat for a championship-level team. Westbrook and Durant can carry the Thunder to a few games in a series but I can't see them doing it over seven against the Spurs or Lakers.

The TNT crew and others are now talking about the problem of parity in the league, that all these guys picking their teams is bad for business because there will be a few super teams and a lot of bad ones.

When has the league ever had parity? In the '80s when the Lakers were winning the Pacific by 20 games and winning by an average of 25 in playoff series in the West? In the '90s, when three franchises won titles? This past decade?

 

Another thing on the Perk trade, if the Lakers beat the Celtics again, it does give Doc Rivers the chance to again say, "The Lakers still haven't beaten us when we have our starting 5."

 

Small, the Lakers were only a half step better than the Spurs and Suns in the 1980s.

Sure they were better every year, by that same margin, but Walter Davis' Suns and Gervins' Spurs were not horseshit.

And the Celtics kept fending off the Sixers and the Bucks.