|
|
Post by DERRENMATTS on Oct 18, 2005 19:29:56 GMT -5
I say hold onto him. Unless, a great deal comes along, it's basically better off that we keep him. 7 footers that can do the things he can do (good things) do not grow on trees.
But that's exactly where we the trouble lies. He's playing pretty well right now because he's happy. As soon as he's not happy, whether it be because we are losing, or because he's not getting a lot of playing time, he could revert back to the Blount who has plagued Boston fans for the last couple of years. And when that happens, we are going to be calling for his head again. It may be wisest to trade him when his value is up. Right now, its starting to rise. We need to strike while we can because we just don't know when his stock will start going down again.
|
|
|
|
Post by esco33 on Oct 18, 2005 19:40:55 GMT -5
I understand the thinking behind the "now his stock is high, trade him" theory but we still would not get fair value in return. If Danny wants to do a straight salary dump, then o.k. Last year I thought his deal was too much, but recently I have heard it is like 6 more years and 30 something mill. If that is true, 5 mil a year is not that bad, even for a sour Blount.
I kinda see Blount's situation just as Pierce's, even though Pierce is obviously WAY more valuable to the team than Blount. But we would never get fair return for either player. There is a reason why Danny gave Blount that contract, and it is because he is a 7 footer with skills. Players like him on draft night go lottery, or definitely first round (Frye, Borchardt, Swift). I think Danny gives him one more shot to see what he does this year. If he plays well, then by the trade deadline he'll probably see what's out there, and if he gets a trade offer that is worth it, he may bite, and if not he keeps Blount...just like he did with Pierce this offseason.
|
|
|
|
Post by DERRENMATTS on Oct 18, 2005 20:14:41 GMT -5
I don't think we'll ever get a fair return for Blount. Its like this; right now we may get 0.70 cents on the dollar for Blount because he is playing well. But it could drop to 0.40 cents if he starts reverting again. Its better to get 0.70 than it is to get 0.40 because it may never get to $1.
Plus too, getting full value for Mark Blount is probaby the equivalent of us getting Brian Cardinal, a 3rd tier player in this league. We won't ever get a top, or 2nd tier player for him anyways. So its either trade him while his value is up for a 3rd tier player, or moving him while his value is down, which will net us a 2nd round pick a few years down the line.
|
|
|
|
Post by esco33 on Oct 18, 2005 20:56:47 GMT -5
So its either trade him while his value is up for a 3rd tier player, or moving him while his value is down, which will net us a 2nd round pick a few years down the line. Or keep him, hope his head is on straight, and get a serviceable backup center who hustles, makes plays, and serves as a role model to the youngen's, and that can even start games and possibly put up decent numbers if need be. I would still take the Blount (second half 04) over any second or third tier player. I think he can still get to that level. That is why I would not trade him. Why trade in your dollar for 70 cents, when you can just keep the dollar? (Dollar here would indicate rejuvenated Blount) lol |
|
|
|
Post by DERRENMATTS on Oct 18, 2005 21:05:28 GMT -5
I would still take the Blount (second half 04) over any second or third tier player. I think he can still get to that level. That is why I would not trade him.
But you have to remember that he can be a lockerroom cancer when he's moody. He received special treatment because he wasn't happy last year. That's not the type of atmosphere we want surrounding our young and impressionable players. Perkins recently said he looks up to Blount and watches him to learn from him. If Blount sulks and gets special treatment from the coaches, I wouldn't want Perkins taking notes of that.
The main reason why I'm in favor of trading Blount right now, despite him playing well, is for the fear that he'll backslide and be the same player who showed no life on the court. IMO, the scale tips in favor of him reverting to that player than it does the possibility of Blount playing this well the whole summer.
|
|
|
|
Post by freshnthehouse on Oct 18, 2005 21:14:44 GMT -5
the frightening thing is, blount is prolly averaging 5rbs a game, and this is when he is 'playing good.'
|
|
|
|
Post by esco33 on Oct 18, 2005 21:20:09 GMT -5
Your right about Blount having a history of sulking and being a distraction to the team, but hopefully Perkins would only copy the good things about Blount and not the bad things. Your also right that there is more of a chance he will regress than improve, but I still want the Celts to give him a chance before they trade him, and I think they will. The way Pierce has come into camp as a leader and role model for the young wing players, Blount has evidently been doing that for the young bigs. If he dedicates himself to that, why trade him? I'm just hopeful that he can turn it around and actually mean something and have a good impact on the team's play as well as off the court - work ethic, chemistry, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roadrunner on Oct 18, 2005 21:51:23 GMT -5
Well, I am never one to live in the past. Blount is here to stay. Accept his faults, and hope Danny packages him in a deal as a "throw-in."
|
|
|
|
Post by Celtic17 on Oct 19, 2005 12:51:48 GMT -5
Well, I am never one to live in the past. Blount is here to stay. Accept his faults, and hope Danny packages him in a deal as a "throw-in." That's the way I see it too. Thanks Runner. |
|
|
|
Post by DERRENMATTS on Oct 19, 2005 16:31:38 GMT -5
the frightening thing is, Blount is prolly averaging 5rbs a game, and this is when he is 'playing good.' Ain't that the truth. He's better with his offense than he is with rebounding, so why not move him to the bench, where we need a scoring boost? Let Perkins, who's averaging close to 9 boards a game off the bench, be the starter and see if we get off to better starts. |
|
|
|
Post by Roadrunner on Oct 19, 2005 22:51:41 GMT -5
My only concern w/Perks is that when he did get extended minutes, his rebounds were equal or less than when he played minimal minutes (and got alot of rebounds). However, the kid needs PT.
|
|
|
|
Post by Celtic17 on Oct 19, 2005 23:02:15 GMT -5
Not to bash management...
Perk needs to play within they system and rotation too. Not just the enforcer role. He can do more and may. I want the enforcer role taken off all our players, the NBA wants to get off the "thug crap", they'll call anything rough.
Just play ball guys. We have the 'scrap players' we need. Let's not push the envelope, with young players.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Eye of the Q is upon you! on Oct 20, 2005 12:50:40 GMT -5
Yipes , what a touchy subject. I would like to see him help us get off to a .500 start and then get him outta here by December.
The Celtics do not look impressive so far.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roadrunner on Oct 20, 2005 23:01:03 GMT -5
Perks I see in our long range plans.  |
|
|
|
Post by BCHISTORIAN on Oct 21, 2005 1:14:33 GMT -5
perk is not our biggest worry right now. he'll be fine when he gets pt. The biggest worry is our pg play. or lack of that to be precise.
|
|
