Originally Posted by dalakhani (Post 777172)

Memphis is a completely different team on both ends of the floor than Miami and Boston is a completely different team defensively than OKC. How you can say that what Memphis did against OKC is proof of anything that Boston would have done against Miami just doesn't make sense.

Boston's problem against Miami, aside from the obvious injury to Rondo, was that Wade and Lebron could sail through the lane unmolested and without fear. Was Krsti or 95 year old twins jermaine O and KG going to lay a body on those guys? I don't care if Perkins was 80%, on the defensive end, that is a vast improvement over what Boston had individually not to mention what it did for the team as a collective unit. Rondo was more free to take chances on the perimeter and Allen could actually put a hand up in Wade's face instead of having to give him two feet or worse, boston having to double.

I think its fair to say that its questionable that Boston would have beaten Chicago with or without Perkins. But at the same time, Boston probably would have had homecourt advantage over Miami and things might have played out a little differently. I think Boston's record AFTER the trade not to mention Rivers comments (AFTER he got the money!) give a little credence to my argument.

You might have a point that Perkins would not have made a difference but everything I saw especially the blowout in Miami at the end of the regular season tell me differently. I think if you are in contention to win a title, which anyone would agree that they were, you don't trade your starting center away (one of the top five defensive centers in the league) for a tweener, a draft pick and a soft euro.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 777335)

I agree that the trade was very strange for a supposedly legit title contender especially so considering the age of their key players. But he simply hasnt been that healthy this year and I cant see how he would have prevented James or Wade from doing anything very often. This is 2011. If he had taken a shot or hard foul on either of them he would have been tossed. And if you watched the Memphis series you didnt see Memphis have much of a problem sending guys far inferior to James/Wade to the basket. Perkins is an excellent low post defender but he isnt Dwight Howard back there.

And Bostons record after the trade is fairly immaterial as they rested players far more than teams usually do down the stretch. I turned on a game against the Wizards late in the season and you would have thought it was preseason with the team Boston fielded for most of the 2nd half of a tight game.

Originally Posted by dalakhani (Post 777356)

Memphis perimeter players weren't getting to the basket except for game 7 when Mayo had a few nice drives. Even so, those were on the break and not in the half court set for the most part. Randolph played out of his mind and Gasol did okay for most of the series. Again, the heat doesn't have players like Gasol and Randolph. From the halfcourt, the heat clear out. If the middle isn't open, the Heat become very stagnate on offense. Check what Boston did against them before and after the trade. Very telling.

You are going to say that the reason Boston finished 16-12 after the trade is because they rested players? Really?? The game against the Wizards they rested players...because it was the second to last game of the freaking season and they had already locked in the third seed not to mention they had just gotten blown out the day before against miami. If you are talking about the one the week before, they beat washington by 16 at home although they did blow them out in the fourth quarter after it being tight for the first three. Boston was 3-0 against Miami pre-trade. Then, in the biggest game of the regular season with the number 2 spot on the line, The Celtics get blown out on national tv and get outrebounded 42-26 while prior to that they had outrebounded miami cumulatively and in 2 out of the 3.

Either way its speculation as what they would have done. To me though, their record and stats don't lie. There was a big difference after the trade.

Originally Posted by horseofcourse (Post 777377)

There was a psychological aspect to it I'm sure. I think each and every Celtic player believed the Perkins injury is what cost them the title last year and they very nearly won it anyway, but they may have been correct about that. So I guess now having him playing again and ditching him hurt them. Long term I can't see how this is a bad trade for the Celtics. Perkins is what he is. Not a really good player but a player who knows his role. And he does it well. But Green is an athletic scorer as the Celtics move forward is what they'll need with Rondo and eventually not the big 3 who continue to age.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 777445)

I guess we saw a different OK/Mem series.

Perkins wasn't playing when he was traded and didn't play for a few weeks afterwards so their record isn't that pertinent. Plus I was only using the one game as an example. They lost quite few games down the stretch to bad teams because they were watching minutes of the old guys. I suppose the chemistry thing is impossible to quantify but IMO injuries and age are slowing Boston down more than chemistry issues.

Originally Posted by dalakhani (Post 777546)

Perhaps we did see a different series. Maybe we saw a different Celtics team as well. I saw the one that got completely dominated in Chicago and Miami at the end of the season after beating those teams earlier in the season. Maybe it was just coincidence that age began to catch up AFTER the trade. I mean to go 16-12 and play basically .500 ball after having one of the best records in the league prior to the trade...it had to be age.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 777594)

NBA games are 48 minutes long. Perkins played 313 minutes total for the Celtics this year (12 games- started 7). Unless you are suggesting that his street clothes rooting talents were somehow leading Boston to success it is very hard to make the case you are trying to make. He played in 1 game against Miami for Boston, a 85-82 win which could hardly be called a dominant win.

And are you suggesting that older players aren't more likely to wear down as the season progresses? The fact is because of injuries the older players (Pierce/Garnett/Allen) were forced to play more minutes throughout the season than they had projected them to. Garnett in particular had his minutes cut the last 15 or so games. Think it is a coincidence that Ainge is suggesting that Pierce might come off the bench next year?

Originally Posted by dalakhani (Post 777617)

He backed off those comments right away. Jeff Green is a free agent (restricted) in the offseason. Think its coincidence that their own coach regrets the trade publicly?

Older players do wear down but its generally a gradual thing. A team like Boston doesn't just get old after the trade deadline.

Also, in the one game against Miami with Perkins, Miami had two baskets in the paint the entire second half. Hmmmmmmmm. Maybe Boston was old before halftime, found Ponce de leon's great great great great great grandson in st pete, and came back in the second half 10 years younger.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 777623)

Those comments were meant for Pierce, not Green.

You are basing your entire flimsy (at best) argument on how Miami (team with virtually no low post threats) in one particular game had few inside points?

Again since most of Boston's 1st half wins came without Perkins, why are you blaming the 2nd half losses on him? Especially considering that there were 2 or 3 games that Boston pretty obviously lost because they were resting players and playing Troy Murphy and Sasha Pavolic in the 4th quarter of tight games . So if they went 19-9 or 20-8 by simply trying to beat the Wizards or Nets or Rockets what would you be saying?

Originally Posted by dalakhani (Post 777896)

Teams can skate through the early parts of the year without their best lineup. Its the end of the season, against the best teams, where it really shows. Boston simply didn't have non-performances in key games like they did down the stretch this season. If those games were close, I might have a different take. They were blowouts and the teams were beating them in the lane.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Doc's wrong as well.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 777942)

They had non-performances because they were resting aging players and because guys like Davis were horrid and injuries not because they were all heartbroken about Perkins.

Believe me there was a lot going on that isn't going public