Perk vs. Steamer

Steamer did have a better college career than Perk


Greg Stiemsma Stat Summary: At Wisconson

Season GP MPG PPG FG% 3FG% FT% APG RPG BPG SPG
2007-08 35 11.5 3.5 54.8 0.0 82.6 0.7 3.1 1.1 0.4
2006-07 34 9.9 2.2 50.0 0.0 80.8 1.1 1.6 0.9 0.1
2005-06 16 11.7 2.8 55.3 0.0 42.9 0.9 2.8 1.5 0.4
2004-05 10 2.7 1.1 83.3 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.1
Career 95 10.0 2.7 54.4 0.0 75.8 0.8 2.3 1.0 0.2

So we are basing this on a potential from not much in college, not much overseas, nothing in the NBA prior and a little time in the D league

And Perk is put out to pasture for this??

beat

Outside

Good post fair and accurate for the most part, but what do you base Steamers better offensive abilities? I've never seen him create his own shot at all, all he has is hitting a wide open 15 ft jumper, at least given a few opputunities Perk has shown a post up game that could have a few moments. Steamer is a better foul shooter.....Perk is doing the same for Durant and crew that he did for us, he replaced a much better offensive player on his new team, Jeff Green and by doing his thing, the dirty grunt work and imposing his will his team is improved and in a better position to succeed further with a better record. I don't see how having a superior defensive force in Perk would not still improve this current Celtics team going forward, especially with Steamers limited offense, thats not enough to convince me that Steamer is the better fit for us at this point right now. Perk also has some very good shot blocking ability, its not like Steamer is that far ahead as a leaper or athlete. If you were going at Wilt, Kareem, Shaq, who would you want to go to war with? Perks continued team success has shown he can be that defensive anchor/physical presence on contending/championship teams.

cow

beat

Sad these guys want to throw Perk under the bus, naming all his shortcomings.....we know hes not Hakeem Olajuwon, he was to KG what Paul Maul Silas was for Dave Cowens, with those two tag teaming the paint, the 70's was such a memorable era. Steamer is a better FT shooter with a better 15 ft jumper, thats IT and your gonna throw all grit all heart Perk under the bus for one very good month? has the world gone mad? Its no debate in my book, one guy is a proven commadity, played crucial role on two contending teams, been a driving force on a championship team.....this other guy has helped, never even been a starter yet. The world has gone mad, gone nuts......

cow

I think right now I'd take Brandon Bass over Steamer as a starter going forward.....oh forgot he already is the starter, my bad.

cowens/oldschool wrote:Outside

Good post fair and accurate for the most part, but what do you base Steamers better offensive abilities? I've never seen him create his own shot at all, all he has is hitting a wide open 15 ft jumper, at least given a few opputunities Perk has shown a post up game that could have a few moments. Steamer is a better foul shooter.....Perk is doing the same for Durant and crew that he did for us, he replaced a much better offensive player on his new team, Jeff Green and by doing his thing, the dirty grunt work and imposing his will his team is improved and in a better position to succeed further with a better record. I don't see how having a superior defensive force in Perk would not still improve this current Celtics team going forward, especially with Steamers limited offense, thats not enough to convince me that Steamer is the better fit for us at this point right now. Perk also has some very good shot blocking ability, its not like Steamer is that far ahead as a leaper or athlete. If you were going at Wilt, Kareem, Shaq, who would you want to go to war with? Perks continued team success has shown he can be that defensive anchor/physical presence on contending/championship teams.

cow

Cow,

To answer your questions, I base Stiemsma being better offensively mostly on the "eye" test. While Stiemsma has a slightly better scoring average per 36 minutes (7.6 vs 6.8, basically a push), my assessment is more that Stiemsma looks like a basketball player when he shoots while Perk can be awkward and uncomfortable with the ball and has a much more limited range. Perk has developed a respectable game within five feet, but anything more than that can be cringe-worthy. Just last week, I saw him take a 10-footer that was dreadful. Stiemsma, on the other hand, has an actual jump shot. I also factor in turnovers (1.6 vs 2.6 per 36 minutes in Stiemsma's favor) and free throws (.707 vs. .605 in Stiemsma's favor) in overall offensive effectiveness. But perhaps most telling to me was earlier in the season when Doc had him say out loud, "My name is Greg Stiemsma and I'm a shooter." For all that Perk brings to the table, I cannot conceive of Doc doing that with Perk.

As for Stiemsma just hitting jumpers when he's open and not being able to create his own shot, you could say that about Ray Allen and Brandon Bass, too. He's not an elite scorer that can create his own shot, but hitting open jumpers means you not only score points, you also force your man to guard you. One of the issues with Perk when he was in Boston was that Doc avoided playing him and Rondo together at the end of games because the defense would sag off both of them to double Ray, KG, and Pierce. If everyone can hit an open jumper, the defense can't double-team without paying for it. A big part of the Celtics' success since the all-star break has been due to guys like Bass, Bradley, and Stiemsma making the defense pay when they sag off them.

Your point about Perk helping the Thunder is correct (although he replaced Krstic, not Green), and Perk is obviously the better overall defensive center now. But, again, the question is based on the future, and I see the potential for Stiemsma to improve a lot in that area.

As for blocking shots, Stiemsma is already better -- 3.9 per 36 minutes vs. 1.6 for Perk. He's even better on per-game average -- 1.5 vs. 1.2 -- despite the fact that Perk plays 26 minutes a game and Stiemsma plays only 13.

Even assuming Stiemsma improves, he likely won't become better than Perk in all areas. In particular, I don't expect him to become better at individual post defense, which is probably Perk's greatest asset. Perk uses his strength effectively and can play the best centers without double-team help, and that was a tremendous asset that allowed the Celtics to neutralize Orlando in particular. I recognize and appreciate what Perk can do.

But 2-3 years down the road, the Celtics will need offensive production out of everyone, and Stiemsma's advantages in that area tip the scales in his favor, in my view. This year, the answer is Perk, and next year, too -- I agree with you on that. But anything longer than that, especially considering the diminishing impact of the big 3 and the changed direction that I assume the team will take, and I think Stiemsma is the better bet.

Outside

Outside

Back to square one. My first post was based on the idea we don't know going ahead what we will have period.
But to say we will need scoring from the center position when we have NO idea of whom will be around him is questionable at best.

Perk is a known item. Knowing we have him makes a difference in whom we get TO go around him. Steamer has NOTHING but 1 interesting and limited month when the team itself perhaps over achieved.

It's not like Perk can't score either, when exactly has a team he's been on needed him to score?

I recall when KG went down or missed games Perk did put up more points, and really what center in the league is the true focal point of any teams offense? And just how many can anchor a defense like Perk?

So we hope and anticipate that an unproven center can be the keystone of this team for the next 2-3 years?

Just whatever your selling I'm not buying.

It's Perk for me.

beat

Beat,

Fair enough. I didn't expect to change your mind, or Cow's. I just felt there was a good argument to make for Stiemsma and wanted to put it out there.

Outside wrote:

cowens/oldschool wrote:Outside

Good post fair and accurate for the most part, but what do you base Steamers better offensive abilities? I've never seen him create his own shot at all, all he has is hitting a wide open 15 ft jumper, at least given a few opputunities Perk has shown a post up game that could have a few moments. Steamer is a better foul shooter.....Perk is doing the same for Durant and crew that he did for us, he replaced a much better offensive player on his new team, Jeff Green and by doing his thing, the dirty grunt work and imposing his will his team is improved and in a better position to succeed further with a better record. I don't see how having a superior defensive force in Perk would not still improve this current Celtics team going forward, especially with Steamers limited offense, thats not enough to convince me that Steamer is the better fit for us at this point right now. Perk also has some very good shot blocking ability, its not like Steamer is that far ahead as a leaper or athlete. If you were going at Wilt, Kareem, Shaq, who would you want to go to war with? Perks continued team success has shown he can be that defensive anchor/physical presence on contending/championship teams.

cow

Cow,

To answer your questions, I base Stiemsma being better offensively mostly on the "eye" test. While Stiemsma has a slightly better scoring average per 36 minutes (7.6 vs 6.8, basically a push), my assessment is more that Stiemsma looks like a basketball player when he shoots while Perk can be awkward and uncomfortable with the ball and has a much more limited range. Perk has developed a respectable game within five feet, but anything more than that can be cringe-worthy. Just last week, I saw him take a 10-footer that was dreadful. Stiemsma, on the other hand, has an actual jump shot. I also factor in turnovers (1.6 vs 2.6 per 36 minutes in Stiemsma's favor) and free throws (.707 vs. .605 in Stiemsma's favor) in overall offensive effectiveness. But perhaps most telling to me was earlier in the season when Doc had him say out loud, "My name is Greg Stiemsma and I'm a shooter." For all that Perk brings to the table, I cannot conceive of Doc doing that with Perk.

As for Stiemsma just hitting jumpers when he's open and not being able to create his own shot, you could say that about Ray Allen and Brandon Bass, too. He's not an elite scorer that can create his own shot, but hitting open jumpers means you not only score points, you also force your man to guard you. One of the issues with Perk when he was in Boston was that Doc avoided playing him and Rondo together at the end of games because the defense would sag off both of them to double Ray, KG, and Pierce. If everyone can hit an open jumper, the defense can't double-team without paying for it. A big part of the Celtics' success since the all-star break has been due to guys like Bass, Bradley, and Stiemsma making the defense pay when they sag off them.

Your point about Perk helping the Thunder is correct (although he replaced Krstic, not Green), and Perk is obviously the better overall defensive center now. But, again, the question is based on the future, and I see the potential for Stiemsma to improve a lot in that area.

As for blocking shots, Stiemsma is already better -- 3.9 per 36 minutes vs. 1.6 for Perk. He's even better on per-game average -- 1.5 vs. 1.2 -- despite the fact that Perk plays 26 minutes a game and Stiemsma plays only 13.

Even assuming Stiemsma improves, he likely won't become better than Perk in all areas. In particular, I don't expect him to become better at individual post defense, which is probably Perk's greatest asset. Perk uses his strength effectively and can play the best centers without double-team help, and that was a tremendous asset that allowed the Celtics to neutralize Orlando in particular. I recognize and appreciate what Perk can do.

But 2-3 years down the road, the Celtics will need offensive production out of everyone, and Stiemsma's advantages in that area tip the scales in his favor, in my view. This year, the answer is Perk, and next year, too -- I agree with you on that. But anything longer than that, especially considering the diminishing impact of the big 3 and the changed direction that I assume the team will take, and I think Stiemsma is the better bet.

Outside

Outside this post shows me your pathetically reaching or are blind, to compare Bass and Ray Allens offense to Steamers is an insult as both are veterans, one being a future HoFer. They both can hit the open shot and is a big part of their game but both can face up, post, etc no comparison to Steamers limited offense that is all an open 15 footer and thats it. See Bass drive one on one and dunk on #1 pick Derick Williams face a few weeks ago? Ray Allen is a 12 time all star and its not cause of his defense so no need to go there as he can score in a variety of ways.....I don't want to hate on Steamer so I'll stop here, we need a productive Steamer and hes been playing his role well, but don't tell me he has more offense than Perk when we haven't seen nothing from him yet.

If you replaced Perk with Steamer on Thunder where would they be? Alot softer at worst, if you replacred Steamer with Perk on this Celtics team, where would we be? Alot better wouldn't be near worst rebounding team in league, defense and offense would both be improved, we wouldn't be considered a small team anymore that for sure.

cowens/oldschool wrote:If you replaced Perk with Steamer on Thunder where would they be? Alot softer at worst, if you replacred Steamer with Perk on this Celtics team, where would we be? Alot better wouldn't be near worst rebounding team in league, defense and offense would both be improved, we wouldn't be considered a small team anymore that for sure.

Cow you might want to switch names in your second sentence!!

I'm with you on this. The argument is lame putting Steamer over Perk for next year and beyond.

And as you note I hope Steamer does well for he is in green and he's on OUR team but that doesn't change the debate for you or me!

beat

Thanks beat switched it

So I'm "pathetically reaching," "blind," and "lame" just because I have a differing point of view. I respect your side of the argument; I'd appreciate if you made more of an effort to respect mine.

Sorry we were battling and love Steamer, but the point I made about him not able to create his own offense you brought in other names of players, come on!!!! that point was weak, I'm sorry if I offended you..... from now on I'll just use thats weak.

cow,

You talk about other's points being "weak" or "going overboard" or much worse. How about you bringing up the need to defend Yao, Wilt, Kareem or Shaq? Please come up with a list of players who played this season (this decade?) that have anywhere near that skill set with size. Please pick someone who is not retired, or dead!! The players you list are freaks of nature that only come along once in a blue moon.

There just are not that many players out there of that ilk. Chris Bosh IS the example of that makes up a all-star big in today's NBA. I have read many long discussions about what the loss of Perk did to the Celtics and the final answer is, "The league has moved on."

One of the arguments in those discussions was that if we had Perk, KG could move back to his natural position at the 4. I don't believe there is any merit to that point. KG's days of covering the modern 4 are over (IMO). He just doesn't have it anymore. However, against the current crop of 5's, KG excels so much that many now believe that his carreer could easily go a couple years longer.

Seriously, nobody is throwing Perk under the bus. They just realize that this is not your Father's NBA. Tommy made that very point the other night, speed and quickness rule nowadays, not so much bulk and size. Ainge would be foolish to pay Perk $37 million (or whatever insane amount he got) just to cover the less than a handfull of cruiser-weight centers. There just are not that many out there on teams that we will see in the playoffs. If you take Steamboat at his current (and future) salary, that means we can get another player, like Bass, to add to the team.

And that is what it is really about, how the team can go on winning now and into the future.

cowens/oldschool wrote:beat

Sad these guys want to throw Perk under the bus, naming all his shortcomings.....we know hes not Hakeem Olajuwon, he was to KG what Paul Maul Silas was for Dave Cowens, with those two tag teaming the paint, the 70's was such a memorable era. Steamer is a better FT shooter with a better 15 ft jumper, thats IT and your gonna throw all grit all heart Perk under the bus for one very good month? has the world gone mad? Its no debate in my book, one guy is a proven commadity, played crucial role on two contending teams, been a driving force on a championship team.....this other guy has helped, never even been a starter yet. The world has gone mad, gone nuts......

cow

cow,

We're comparing Perk to Steamer. OF COURSE we're going to name all of their shortcomings, from Perk's stone hands to Steamer's weaker low post defense to Perk's inability to shoot free throws to Steamer's weaker rebounding. If we only selectively remember, and mention, their strengths OF COURSE our choice is going to look better.

Nobody is throwing Perk under the bus. We are pointing out the obvious, such as: he can't shoot free throws, he commits moving picks frequently, he has hard hands, he doesn't run, just to name a few. If Perk is a known quantity, then these are known qualities of Perk. Claiming we're "throwing Perk under the bus" for reminding people of things we all knew and talked about when he was here is an emotional response to a critique of a fan favorite.

Would OKC be a lot softer without Perk? Sure, but that's a soft team. Replace Bynum on LA with Perk and do they get tougher? No. Do they get better? No. Do they win more? No. Same with Orlando. Same, I truly believe, with Noah in Chicago. He fits their team well and Noah is NOT a top flight center. Perk replaced Krstic, who is a finesse player, on a team of finesse players. Getting tougher wasn't hard. Perk was a tough guy before KG got here. Did we win before 2008? No. Toughness is only one desirable quality, there are many others such as: hitting shots in clutch time, getting clutch rebounds and blocks, hitting clutch free throws. Those were not Perk's fortes.

bob

.

Coincidentally, I think, RedsArmy.com addresses this issue today. Here's that post. Just one more person's opinion, not even a member here, but a Celtic fan nontheless:

I know this seems like I'm dredging up an old story line. And I guess I sort of am. But I swear, I'm doing it for a good reason. Because like everything else in life, proper perspective is needed before rushing to judgement.

It's been more than a year since "it" happened. Last year, Danny Ainge clearly made a mis-calculation about the availability of Shaquille O'Neal and effectiveness of Jermaine O'Neal. I think we all know that and there's no need to dredge that up.

But now the Celtics are five games away from entering the playoffs as the fourth seed. Their lineup is now radically different, and better, because of various factors, including the Kendrick Perkins trade.

With Perkins, there's no KG at center, where his career has been resurrected. Even if we assume the Baby/Bass trade happens, Bass is coming off the bench. And where does Greg Stiemsma fit?

And it's Stiemsma's emergence that sparked this whole idea. Because Greg Stiemsma is a better player than Kendrick Perkins this season.

On defense, he's allowing .72 points per possession (ppp) according to Synergy Sports, good for 29th in the league. Perkins is allowing .80 ppp, ranking him 114. Stiemsma is averaging 1.56 blocks per game to Perk's 1.14. Since the All Star game, Stiemsma has blocked 57 shots while Perkins has blocked 27. Perkins is the better 1-on-1 defender (.49 ppp to .92 ppp) but Stiemsma is the better pick-and-roll defender (.38 to .7 ppp).

On offense, Stiemsma scores .95 ppp to Perk's .76. Neither scores much at all, but Stiemsma does have the one thing that Perk never had offensively: a 16-20 foot jumper that he can hit when he's open.

And one final stat just for the hell of it: Perkins has a league-leading 12 technical fouls (tied with DeMarcus Cousins). Stiemsa has 2. That stat is just for fun.

And I'm not trashing Perkins, so I really hope this doesn't come off as such. My point about all of this is simple: Greg Stiemsma, statistically speaking, has been a slightly better player than Kendrick Perkins this year. They're in different situations, of course, so the head to head comparison does have its flaws. But the worst you can say is they're equal.

I know the guys loved Perk. We all did. I'm always going to have a soft spot in my heart for him. But this Celtics team is better this season without him than it could have been with him.


bob
My Note: His point about how much better KG is at 5 than he is at 4, at this point in his career, and how he's playing 5 because Perk isn't here is a point that has not been brought up yet. In fact, if Perk was here our center depth would be Perk, JON, KG, Wilcox (I believe Danny still would have gone for the veteran bench player). So, we might not even have Steamboat at all on this team. Also, Perk's salary would put us much closer to the salary cap, which would inhibit our pursuit of free agents next year and perhaps the year after next when the free agent market is going to be even better.

.

Regardless of stats whose to say where and what we would be if the trigger had never been pulled.

I'm sticking with Perk. Playing hoops is playing hoops a 5 isn't far from a 4. And as been noted Perks minutes were not huge anyway.
To suddenly think being a 5 has made all the defference I think is shorting KG enormous ego. He just hates loosing. Perhaps it may be a bit easier for him against slightly slower 5's perhaps.

Steamer is interesting and has had a nice month. Getting more minutes can be a boon to some and he does appear to be taking advantage of this opportunity.

Talk to me when he has played a playoff series or 2.

Just not enough sample for me to take him over Perk. Salary issue aside.

beat

beat

beat wrote:Talk to me when he has played a playoff series or 2.

This is, of course, key to the whole evaluation. This thread is specifically set up to track the question through the playoffs, when we'll get a chance to see Stiemsma play when it really counts, and adjust opinions accordingly. All we've had so far is opening arguments. I too want to see how the kid does in the playoffs.

I feel like Stiemsma will not implode in the playoffs, he does not seem like that kind of player.

He might not elevate his game that much but I would be surprised if he implodes.

gyso wrote:cow,

You talk about other's points being "weak" or "going overboard" or much worse. How about you bringing up the need to defend Yao, Wilt, Kareem or Shaq? Please come up with a list of players who played this season (this decade?) that have anywhere near that skill set with size. Please pick someone who is not retired, or dead!! The players you list are freaks of nature that only come along once in a blue moon.

There just are not that many players out there of that ilk. Chris Bosh IS the example of that makes up a all-star big in today's NBA. I have read many long discussions about what the loss of Perk did to the Celtics and the final answer is, "The league has moved on."

One of the arguments in those discussions was that if we had Perk, KG could move back to his natural position at the 4. I don't believe there is any merit to that point. KG's days of covering the modern 4 are over (IMO). He just doesn't have it anymore. However, against the current crop of 5's, KG excels so much that many now believe that his carreer could easily go a couple years longer.

Seriously, nobody is throwing Perk under the bus. They just realize that this is not your Father's NBA. Tommy made that very point the other night, speed and quickness rule nowadays, not so much bulk and size. Ainge would be foolish to pay Perk $37 million (or whatever insane amount he got) just to cover the less than a handfull of cruiser-weight centers. There just are not that many out there on teams that we will see in the playoffs. If you take Steamboat at his current (and future) salary, that means we can get another player, like Bass, to add to the team.

And that is what it is really about, how the team can go on winning now and into the future.

gyso whats wrong with mentioning other players or other legendary once in a generation players? we've been comparing the old Celtic teams at various times, I'm sure you heard of Bill Russell, hes gotten compared to other great players a few times in different threads that come up. If I want to compare Perk to Nate Thurmond who gives a flying fock? Didn't know Tommy said those things about speed and quickness, good points and glad we are ahead of the curve with the fastest backcourt in the league with Rondo and AB. This thread was about Perk and Steamer and your/our choice going forward, but nothing wrong with covering whatever else comes up in a topic. A big advantage the Mavs had last year was Tyson Chandler in the middle helping protect the rim against the slashing of Lebron and Wade. To beat the Heat you must stop enough of that aspect of Heats game, you need to clog the middle/lane with enough size to make them shoot jumpers, so even if you have enough wings you still need that size in the middle.....thats why Perk would have in fact helped bigtime against Heat last year as I've never seen a wing by himself be able to control Lebron, its a team defense that can stop them enough to win and as you probably know I feel Perk and KG together in the paint is as good as it gets.

I actually think this year the playoff race is wide open, the Lakers with Bynum and Gasol are a load, lately Artest who I hate has picked his game up, if Kobe is the Kobe we have seen in the immediate past they can play with anyone in the West. San Antonio is just too old, I don't know how Popavich does it? The other contending teams seem to have alot of size too, Thunder with good ole Perk and Ibaka, Grizz with Gasol and Randolph and Clippers with DeAndre Jordan and Blake Griffen......seems theres plenty of size out West as Nuggets also have good size.

There seems to be alot of size in the East too, on another thread I wrote Heat are too small and have no inside presence, I still believe that, Bulls frontline goes 5 deep Noah, Asik, Boozer, Gibson and Deng are why D Rose could miss 20 plus games and they have best record in East. Pacers have alot of size as did Magic until Howard went down, I think Bulls, Pacers and us/C's could all beat Miami, as the key is to beat them up inside, make them shoot jumpers.....Tommy could be right, he could be wrong? we'll see. Last year the bigger team won the Finals, in 10 the year before it was us and Lakers, two heavyweight frontlines bangin away, we'll see where the game goes, seems to me size still does in fact matter.

gyso forgot to mention another point, you wrote you don't think KG can play the 4 anymore, oh really what monster 4/PF is out there? He just recently outplayed Big Al, Bosh and ate up Kevin Love in a 3 game stretch 2 weeks ago. I'm ecstatic that its worked out with KG at the 5, but he could handle the 4's just as easily.....what 4's out there couldn't he handle? Blake Griffen, I don't think so, I'd take KG's defense and overall game anyday right now over a couple highlight dunks in a game from Blake. Put a tall hulking 5 next to KG he'll eat up and spit out those 4's easier than the 5's IMHO.

I will take Perk because he brings a physicallity to the game that Greg does not have.

Greg has played great and is a pure shot blocker...better than Perk in that area...

Offensively Greg is still limited in what he can do. He is a better spot up shooter than Perk. Perk does a lot of dirty work in the trenches, sets thug like picks and is really strong.

As Greg acquires more experience he may change my mind...on balance taking all the
variables into consideration.

Dboss

cow,

When you compare one player to a legendary, or once in a lifetime player, I agree, what's wrong with that? Like when Outside said,

As for Stiemsma just hitting jumpers when he's open and not being able to create his own shot, you could say that about Ray Allen and Brandon Bass, too. He's not an elite scorer that can create his own shot, but hitting open jumpers means you not only score points, you also force your man to guard you.

If I understand him right, he was comparing one player's strength with two other player's strengths, catch-and-shoot off picks. I believe that you took great exception to that comparison, but it's the truth. Ray and Bass can take it to the hoop on occasion (Bass did it just a couple of weeks ago, as you said) but is is not a strength in any definition of the word. Bass has way more failures trying to drive to the hoop than successes, it is just that the successes are rather dramatic, to say the least. Likewise, the defense leaves Ray with a path to the hoop and he is savy enough to take advantage of it, but he isn't taking anybody off the dribble on a regular basis.

Anyway, comparisons to a legendary, or once in a lifetime player is not what my comment was about. You said that we needed Perk to defend Yao, Wilt, Kareem or Shaq. You also included Howard and Bynum, so there were two current players. But none of that would be considered "comparisons".

My point was, "There just are not that many players out there of that ilk." Since it really is all about the money, I see no need to lock up that much salary on a mostly marginal player that has some great skills, but whose greatest skill (guarding cruiser-weights one-on-one) is no longer needed on a game-to-game basis.

If the salaries were equal and Steamboat cost the same as Perk, I naturally would pick Perk in this thread. The salaries are NOT equal, so my nod goes to Stiemsma.

Stiemsma: $762,195 this year with a QO of $1,029,389 next season. That means that he is a restricted free agent and, for the most part, under our control.

Perk: $7.1M, 7.8M, 8.4M and 9.1M. (Ouch!!) IMO, you cannot build a team that can compete for banners by over-spending on marginal players.

Lastly, KG's recent successes all have come at the 5, so the great examples in your last post actually support my point that playing the 5 has perhaps extended KG's career at a higher level, thanks. The biggest difference in his play, IMO, is on the offensive end. He still takes too many long jumpers, but he sets up in the paint more often, low post, and that has improved his overall game.

gyso

gyso

On the Bass and Ray comparison, I still feel that was weak because all Steamer has for offense is a spot up 15 footer, Ray and Bass can score in a variety of ways besides open looks and my point was he can't create his own shot, we've never seen him do it......do you see how comparing his offense to Bass and Ray does not validate his shot creating?

I never said we needed Perk to defend Wilt and etc, I said IF your going at those legendary guys I would want the Beast to go at them to play his game to try to contain them, thats all I meant. Good point on the salary of affording Steamer and Bass for the price of Perk, but the real test will come if Danny is able to keep them after this season and beyond. JON stole 6 mil a year from us, whos to say some GM doesn't offer either one 5 or 6 a year going forward, especially Steamer as hes way underpaid and this is basically an audition for other teams too.

KG has pride and is a once in a generation player IMHO, you can tell that in the way he plays and his recent success has come at the 5, how would that take away what he could do if he went at 4's? We know what he can do to Bosh, he shutdown Kevin Love last matchup in Minn as even at 35 he has a huge length and mobility advantage over him, Blake Griffen doesn't scare me in a match up with KG, what other mobile or monster PF's are out there that he couldn't handle? name me some names?

cow

bob h

You made a point of did we win before 08, I'm done with the Steamer vs Perk crap, in 07 I feel we played to lose, Pierce missed 30 games or so with a bad foot, Doc was playing to showcase Big Al....what frustrated me was he hardly played Perk and Big Al together and whenever he did I loved what I was seeing. If he really really tried to win that year, pairing up the two of them would have been a great starting point. I realize we may have been going for best draft position on a team with many odd pieces, but I don't think we were really ideally commited that year, thats all.

cow