Celtics and Rockets Trades

Kingdwp · Post #1 » by **Kingdwp** » Tue Feb 22, 2011 9:07 am

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachi ... Id=4oa533j

HOU RECEIVES

Avery Bradley
Kendrick Perkins
Nate Robinson

BOS RECEIVES

Shane Battier
Brad Miller
Ish Smith

This trade gives the rockets a center, a new point, and a prospect shooting guard.
This trade gives the celtics two veterans, and a prospect point.

rocketsballin · Post #2 » by **rocketsballin** » Tue Feb 22, 2011 9:12 am

this could be the last season boston are contenders so i dont see them trading perkins.

Post #3 » by **TMU** » Tue Feb 22, 2011 9:32 am

Perkins isn't a Rick Adelman guy, and he'll be a free agent after this season. With the possibility of a large demand for Centers in the offseason, I'm not sure if Morey will be able to resign him. So basically we're getting Robinson (who's not any better than Brooks or Lowry) and Bradley for Battier and Miller's ugly contract. But the thing is, the Rockets don't need Robinson or Bradley. So I think the Rockets could get a better offer than what you've proposed.

Post #4 » by **Optimism Prime** » Tue Feb 22, 2011 3:14 pm

TMU, there's a difference between "not any better than" and "far worse than"--I think the latter applies to Robinson v. Brooks/Lowry.

Post #5 » by **TMU** » Tue Feb 22, 2011 3:43 pm

Optimism Prime wrote:TMU, there's a difference between "not any better than" and "far worse than"--I think the latter applies to Robinson v. Brooks/Lowry.

Ah, you're right. I stand corrected. :lol:

Post #6 » by **Optimism Prime** » Tue Feb 22, 2011 3:59 pm

Unless we're talking dunks--but even then, I'd guess it wouldn't take 17 tries for Brookslowry to complete one.

captaincrunk · Post #7 » by **captaincrunk** » Tue Feb 22, 2011 8:28 pm

Optimism Prime wrote:TMU, there's a difference between "not any better than" and "far worse than"--I think the latter applies to Robinson v. Brooks/Lowry.

I don't think so. Lowry, yeah. But not Brooks. I'd rather have Nate than Brooks.

Post #8 » by **TMACFORMVP** » Tue Feb 22, 2011 11:18 pm

captaincrunk wrote:I don't think so. Lowry, yeah. But not Brooks. I'd rather have Nate than Brooks.

It's sad how much Brooks value has fallen in less than a year.

moofs · Post #9 » by **moofs** » Wed Feb 23, 2011 4:45 am

TMACFORMVP wrote:It's sad how much Brooks value has fallen in less than a year.

He got addicted to shooting up [the ball]. Done out of necessity, but it messed with his attitude.