Did Losing Perk Hurt Our Offense? Danny And Doc Disagree...
by Roy_Hobbs on May 16, 2011 7:09 PM EDT
in Boston Celtics Articles
Email
PrintFor the most part, Doc Rivers and Danny Ainge usually speak with one voice. Whether that's the "company line", or whether the two are just in tune with one another, you rarely hear them contradict each other. In the last few days, however, they've done just that.
Here was Danny on last Thursday's The Big Show, on WEEI:
Kendrick wasn’t someone who really helped our offense. He has never been that type of player. He’s been a player that’s helped our defense. Our defense was not the problem. . . . I don’t buy into Perkins’ screening ability or Rondo’s struggles, but could he have helped our defense and help us get some more stops? There’s a legitimate argument there to be made, but it’s our offense that let us down pretty consistently and that was frustrating.
Today, Doc reflected on the trade, and noted the impact of the trade on the team's offense:
"Well it was more not that the trust went away, the know-how went away, the continuity went away," said Rivers. "That's what the trade affected more than anything. Obviously [Kendrick Perkins] was great to our team and all of that, but it was more that you had new guys playing different positions and you had a floor guy, who could literally reach back into a playbook and throw out something that was three or four years old and they all knew it, when Perk was there. When you lose Perk, you take that one guy out of that starting lineup. Now there's the fifth guy who doesn't know your offense three years ago. He only knows what he knows since he's been there, and that limited our group. With Rondo, because the way teams guard him, you need a massive playbook and that took more away from it than we thought."
So, which is it? Did the trade hurt the team's offense, and if so, why?
First, it's pretty clear that the team's offense suffered late in the year. The Celtics' averaged 98.9 points per game and 50.3% shooting in January. In February -- the month of the trade -- the Celtics averaged 93.9 points and 44.9% shooting, followed by a season low 92.5 points per game and 46.9% shooting in February, and 93.9 points and 48.6% shooting in April. In chart form:
In other words, all three of the Celtics worst months in terms of points per game and FG% were after the trade. While per-month offensive efficiency isn't easily searchable, we can find some information about the efficiency of certain lineups, which yields similar results:
Shaq-KG-Pierce-Ray-Rondo: 117.83 points scored per 100 possessions
Perk-KG-Pierce-Ray-Rondo: 114.47 points scored per 100 possessions
Krstic-KG-Pierce-Ray-Rondo:108.4 points scored per 100 possessions
JO-KG-Pierce-Ray-Rondo: 105.1 points scored per 100 possessions
Arguably, Perkins is the worst offensive center featured in the lineups above. However, with him on the court, the team performed at its second best level. (Should anybody think this was a one year aberration based upon small sample size, the team's offensive rating was 113.74 with Perk in the lineup last year, as well).
Based upon the above, it appears pretty conclusive that our team's offensive declined starting in about February, which coincides with the trade. Our team not only didn't reach its earlier offensive heights from November through January, but it didn't come close to approaching last year's offensive efficiency, either.
I think Doc's reasoning is probably correct. Our "Big Four + Perk" lineup was a well-oiled machine. Everyone knew their roles and spots on offense, and as Doc indicated, the team had access to the full playbook. When Perk was replaced with more talented but less experienced players, the on-court cohesion suffered, and the quality of play on the court suffered. Krstic may have been able to put up offensive numbers that Perk rarely did, but the product on the floor suffered because of the new guys' unfamiliarity with our sets.
The other thing to consider is that Perk probably wasn't as bad on the offensive end as some suggest. Perk was a highly efficient player who knew how to get garbage buckets in our offense, and who knew how to set screens for our shooters to get them open looks. I don't think that it's a coincidence that Ray's worst two shooting months were February and March.
So, who's right? Is it Danny, who suggests that Perk didn't help our offense? Or Doc, who says that Perk brought an added benefit due to familiarity and comfort in our system? Based on everything I've seen, I'm leaning toward Doc. On-court chemistry matters.
103 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
It didn´t hurt us when Shaq was playing for the first half of the season
Doc just does what a good coach does: back up his players.
Doc said to depend on Shaq
Was a mistake since the injury took longer to heal. He also said that having Perk was easier for play calling. Listen to the irefutable evidence that this trade was a mistake by Doc’s own words: Was a mistake since the injury took longer to heal. He also said that having Perk was easier for play calling. Listen to the irefutable evidence that this trade was a mistake by Doc’s own words: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMrvO09I_N4&sns=em
by DrUbuntu on May 17, 2011 7:35 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Doc's right
What clearly killed the trade was Shaq’s inability to return. Shaq was a bigger offensive threat than, say, Jermaine O’Neal, whose defense was solid but offense not so much. I didn’t see enough of Shaq to say whether he set screens with consistency, but it’s pretty obvious we suffered from having neither Shaq and then Perk. For a long stretch, JO wasn’t even ready, and again, when he was, his offense still wasn’t much.
But, like the previous comment, I’m still not 100 percent the trade cost us the series.
I support Danny’s decision to pull the trigger on this trade — maybe, at this point, just to remain consistent, LOL — because he decided to roll the bones and I admire that.
+1
With your comment , What clearly killed the trade was Shaq’s inability to return and the loss of his offense ( especially in the paint ).
he only played 12 games so i dont think its a fair comparision.
"Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."
im gonna be all up on you like a spider monkey!
by remembering9ergods on May 16, 2011 7:40 PM EDT reply actions
Two things:
1) Doc made the comparison, and I think he knew what he was talking about; and
2) As noted, the play of the Big Four + Perk this year was in line with what it was last year, and in each case significantly better than the lineup with JO or Krstic.
Coincidence or not, our offense was worse after the Perk trade than before it.
All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino
Danny is worrying me
I don’t think he realizes he made a mistake. That is a major problem. The trade is done, need to move on. But you also have to learn from past mistakes. Ainge traded a starting center that was a major part of a group that believed it could not be defeated if they were together. He did that to acquire a guy to play 15-20 minutes per night. It did not work out.
And Danny, what helps Rondo get to the hoop in a half court set? Screens. How does Ray get himself open? He runs off of screens. I never recall seeing Green set one meaningful screen. I think Perk would have made a difference.
While on the topic, can someone point out to me one player Ainge has brought in, drafted, or traded for that has really helped this team since the end of the 2008 season? Nate Robinson had a few moments, but that is really it. Not good Danny, not good.
So when will Danny get fired?
by KingCeltics on May 17, 2011 1:37 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Agree with you Roy_Hobbs
Doc is right. I think Danny should see how the Bulls beat the Heat in Game 1 and how Tim Thibbodeau did it.
Add to the fact that we are so weak in rebounding. The Bulls controlled the boards.
Those ref calls that we are complaining about on fouls are nothing. It’s our players’ fault, not the refs.
So you want to trade KG?
It doesn’t matter who you stick at center, with KG as PF, we aren’t going to be a strong rebounding team. We weren’t when we had Perk either. Better? Yea. Good? Not really.
KG was 6th among all PFs in rebounding...
A team with KG is perfectly capable of being strong at rebounding.
All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino
I assume you are using rebounds per game?
You realize why that doesn’t work, right? The biggest reason is the Celts are the best defensive team, therefore there are more defensive rebounds for us to grab. That affects any “average”. Next, KG played alongside a pretty rag-tag group of centers this year, for the most part, also giving KG more chances.
KG is an average rebounder. Nothing more.
We also play at a slower pace, so things even out...
KG’s TRB% (total rebounding percentage) puts him in the top-ten of all forwards who played 1250 minutes. Again, he’s well above average in that regard.
All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino
i still think this all comes down to...
1. Marquis getting hurt (no solid backup wing)
2. Shaq was made for this offense (and the C’s thought he would be back)
who know if they make that trade if Quisy doesn’t get hurt. maybe not.
i also tend to believe that their offensive numbers went down post all star break because of 1) no Shaq, and 2) tired legs/injuries to key players…in addition to the change in personnel.
i think Jeff Green will be a very good player, and Krstic a good backup center…they both were not used very well to exploit there strengths, maybe that couldn’t be done very well mid season.
i’m interested in the changes made for next season (assuming we have one).
- JoeB
by joeb on May 16, 2011 8:50 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Agree 100%
Shaq was made for the C’s offense.
His offense especially his low post scoring abilities earlier in the season made the C’s a very tough team to beat and complemented the C’s perimeter scoring game .
But later in the year once the C’s lost Shaq and his offense (especially in the paint) I think the C’s became a solely perimeter orientated team and the lack of low post scoring and high % shots made the offense not as effective as compared to when Shaq did play early in the year.
Again, though, the offense was fine with Perk...
It was almost as good as it was with Shaq, both last year and this year. It was only after Krstic and JO started playing with the starters that things declined.
It sounds odd, that the offense would break down when replacing Perk with Krstic, but that’s apparently what happened. Danny still seems confused by that fact, but Doc attributes it squarely to the fact that guys couldn’t be integrated fast enough and didn’t have Perk’s institutional knowledge.
All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino
it may have been fine with Perk...
…and similar to what it was with Shaq. usually that means you’re getting high quality shots (dunks, layups, open easy jumpers for good shooters, etc.). i see it similar to fodescort…they were not getting easy shots anymore, and i think for a variety of reasons…poor defensive rebounding and defensive rotations/shot blocking leading to less transition baskets, injuries (it’s now pretty obvious Rondo was playing a good part of the 2d half of the year with some very limiting injuries), new guys to integrate into the sets, tired legs/mental fatigue from a long season, etc.
Quisy going down was the key IMO. say they don’t make the trade and Perk is still here, are they still playing? i don’t think so. i think their offense still breaks down because they don’t get out in transition since they would still be taking the ball out of the net, either from LeBron or Wade FGs or FTs.the Celtics perimeter defense allowed both those guys to get inside. Perk would’ve represented another body to call a foul on. and i agree with Ainge that offensive breakdowns have plagued this team for a few years now, not just this year. with this offensive talent that should not happen, but it does because they tend to become perimeter oriented, quick shots, slow it down, and/or attempt to go 1-on-1. that’s not how this team can function, they need to rely upon team ball. MIA is different…they can afford to give it to Wade/LeBron and get the hell out of the way…at least for spurts. C’s can’t do that.
i hated to see Perk go because i thought he embodied all the characteristics of a Celtic, but this wasn’t the first time i’ve felt that way about a Celtic getting traded or not brought back (i.e. Jame Posey). Jeff Green and Nenad Krstic will be good players for the Celtics next year, maybe even very good. either way, the C’s need to address a couple of shortcomings…rebounding and inside presence (offensively and defensively), and getting more athletic (especially on the wings).
- JoeB
You're twisting words.
The loss of Kendrick Perkins himself didn’t hurt the offense, if Shaq was healthy the offense could have been awesome.
It was the fact that he was replaced by someone unfamiliar with the playbook that hurt the offense.
Technically you can say that the loss of Perk hurt the offense, but it was really the fact that he was replaced by a player not previously on the team that hurt the offense.
If you replaced Perk with Rasheed Wallace, who had already played an entire season in the system, it would have worked out fine.
by xmuscular ghandix on May 16, 2011 9:06 PM EDT reply actions
Um, okay...
The trade didn’t hurt the offense. Rather, losing Perk and replacing him with Green and Krstic hurt the offense.
Feel better? It seems like semantics to me.
All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino
the team would of lost to miami anyway,
by jadedeed2327 on May 16, 2011 9:18 PM EDT up reply actions
with or without perk
a center with decent defensive abilities and a weak offensive game wouldnt of mattered
by jadedeed2327 on May 16, 2011 9:18 PM EDT up reply actions
And with the trade.....
Green and Nenad were brought in specifically to have more offense. And it still didn’t work. So where’s the merit of the trade? We lowered our defense down a notch but we’re still inept on offense.
Which points to their having had issues with offense pre-trade--and in fact going back to last year.
Every team struggles from time to time with offense...
The difference is, with both Shaq and Perk the team performed well on offense. Look at the offensive efficiency numbers above. For whatever reason, the team didn’t perform as well with Krstic and JO.
Doc attributes that to guys not knowing the plays, and I think he’s probably right.
All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino
Aside from that
I think I speak for all of us that we feel a bit sick when we see Krstic opting to take a jumper when he has a wide open dunk. When four of your guys are taking jumpers, and the only one who goes to the rim is the smallest player on the floor, your percentage on offense is def. going to take a hit.
This article isn't really to rehash the merits of the trade...
Rather, it’s just looking specifically at whether the trade hurt the offense. According to Doc and statistics, it did.
At the same time, I’m not sure I agree that we would have lost regardless. Under the “butterfly effect”, I think if Perk doesn’t get traded, Rondo probably doesn’t get injured. With Perk and Rondo, we have a good shot of getting by Miami.
All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino
Not to mention...
Not to mention the loss of chemistry and catch up time probably cost us home court advantage against the Heat.
I’m not saying that’s all we needed, just agreeing with Roy that the trade did more than swap players.
You don't know that for sure.
It’s mere speculation. But with the trade, we know one thng is for sure….we were booted out early.
going into the trade...
we had two legit centers…JO and Shaq. Danny saw a chance, in addition to this, to get younger in some need areas, and he did. either way, we woulda been run over eventually by a more athletic team. We may have made the finals with a healthy center, but it was gonna catch up to us. And that’s a reality we must face and attack if we are gonna be any good for the future.
Doc is right.
It seems Danny didn’t watch how the Bulls beat the Heat. They took advantage of their length and interior defense to frustrate Miami. It is really how to beat the Heat.
Instead Danny’s plan was to play a more perimeter game going small ball and loading up on shooters. In other words, play the Heat’s style of game and run with them. In effect we adjusted fo the Heat instead of Miami trying to figure out how to negate our length! Result…..early exit!
Danny is still in denial!!!!
when you hurt the defense
you hurt the offense-less offensive opportunities, less chances for easy buckets, less chances for players to release early ect
plus
our defense sucked-Wade drove to the basket whenever he wanted
Which did it hurt most? well....it just hurt....and it still hurts...
Glad to see you post the quote from Doc…thx Roy
Danny changed horses in mid to late stream…what he didn’t count on was that an old sway back broken down horse called Shaq could no longer be ridden, and a weak injured horse with the hair issue (mange) named Kristic couldn’t be counted on, and a horse that always seemed to come up lame couldn’t carry the full load called JO
it just hurts…..good luck to Perk in the WCF…..
Is it Soup Yet?
No problem, Po...
Has that horse been giving rides to Shaq and BBD?
All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino
Anyone else concerned?
I, too, agree with Doc, but I’m somewhat concerned with his comment that because of the way teams guard Rondo we need a massive playbook. That can’t be good, can it? Does that partly explain why the players always seem to be thinking too much.
Is it not time to just, move on?
The topic of the Kendrick Perkins trade has been a recurring theme during the second half of the season. I understand Danny Ainge gave away a defensive-minded center in return for a player who under-performed when needed the most; but, the season is over! Isn’t time to close the book on those lingering questions and just got ready for the upcoming season? There are way too many intangible and unexpected factors that could not have been predicted, such as injuries; but we forget that the reason we lost the Miami series is because we had no bench! In my opinion, even without the Perkins trade, the bench back then would have had similar results. In order to survive the playoffs, the Celtics would have needed scorers – Wade and James easily combined for 50 plus points – to come in and give us the spark when the starters needed a breather. We did not loose because Perkins was not there! We lost because our offense (bench mostly) was extremely limited and unproductive. So please, Danny Ainge, Doc Rivers; Celtics players and fans; close the books on the what would have happened if Perkins was still here and let’s get ready for next season and 2012! We cannot let the fact that this team has been successful for the most part during the past four years spoil us! We need to just get better and ready!!
by Danyck on May 16, 2011 9:41 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
just don't read it if you are tired of it...I do that on many subjects...but don't try to dictate the discussion - thanks
Is it Soup Yet?
See the story below this one...
It’s going to be a long off-season, so I’m all for rehashing stories.
In all seriousness, though, any time Doc and Danny disagree about a personnel move, I think it’s interesting. I especially thought Doc’s initial quote when asked to evaluate the trade as interesting: “I would wait until after the year was over. I’ll put it that way”. To me, that says Doc wouldn’t have made the trade, especially if given a do-over. His GM disagrees. To me, that’s interesting.
All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino
It is very interesting because we do not often hear Doc and DA disagree in public.
Since the Celtics have long preached that defense generates offense, I agree that the Perk trade hurt the offense. As for the trade itself, no mystery of what think based on prior posts. I will simply add that this is not a guessing game anymore. First, we heard from the players themselves on the trade (see The Association, Episode 4). Then we heard from opposing players stating that Perk was a big presence in the middle and on defense, and now we have heard from the coach about how the trade should not have been done mid-season. And then of course we have the second round exit from the playoffs, which can be attributed to many factors but the trade is certainly one of them. I am happy for Perk that he is in the WCF and hope he plays well.
You know what they say......
Those who won’t admit to making a mistake or fail to realize they made a mistake are bound to repeat it.
Danyck, all people should learn from mistakes
I do not agree that we lose because of Wade and James. We beat them 3 out of 4 when we had Shaq. It means we could have beaten them again if we found a good substitute for Shaq.
I guess what's tough...
is that the major players at Celticsblog seem to agree that the trade was a major mistake and we’ve been hearing about it ever since. Now that they lost, it sounds like a big fat, “I told you so”. Danyck, you make some good points, but it won’t change anybody’s minds.
I agree that Danny and Doc disagreeing is definitely news. It would just have been a more interesting story had it been more balanced.
Note: This isn’t directed at anyone in particular and I have enjoyed this site for years and will continue to. I just want to stop hearing about what a mistake it was to trade Perk and I wish Doc had just kept his opinion to himself.
by jambr380 on May 16, 2011 10:09 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I think this is only the third article since the playoffs started about "The Trade"...
The first one was a generalized “what do you think of the trade?” article by Jeff, as I recall. The second one was a “Perk vs. Tony” debate, which didn’t really get into the merits of the trade much. This one looks specifically at the decline of our offense, in light of the two conflicting quotes between Doc and Danny.
I respect your comments, but I don’t think it’s been overkill. I think you’re right that most of the front page staff doesn’t like the trade; strong “pro-trade” voices in the front page articles have been sparse. What I’d suggest is articulating your thoughts on why the trade didn’t hurt the offense. Write a Fanpost, and I’m sure you’ll get a lot of comments.
We’re not trying to beat people over the head about the trade; if we were, there are a lot more opportunities to do so. At the same time, a lot of us have opinions, and a lot of times we write articles in support of those opinions. Maybe it would be better for team harmony if Doc kept his opinions to himself, but on a personal level, I find moments of candor to be interesting.
All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino
Sorry to rehash ...
Did Ainge or didn’t Ainge have the money to re-sign Perk? He signed for what, four years and about $39 million with the Thunder?
I know that’s totally rehashing, but to me Ainge’s most compelling argument was they simply couldn’t afford to resign Perkins. I honestly believe he made a calculated decision, using not one big reason but about three small but compelling reasons — but the resigning issue seemed crucial.
But could we have afforded what the Thunder offered? Anyone wanna tackle that salary-cap nightmare?
So then let Perk walk at the end of the season. At least we preserve the chance at the title this season.
As for getting nothing for him in return at the end of the year, I do not buy it. We have money freed up when he leaves, and if we produce Title 18, we have no problem attracting a quality player to replace him. I know, I know, we needed a wing to spell Pierce. But as many have written, all we needed was an Anthony Parker type to come in and give us 15 minutes a night. So I do not buy that argument either.
The money we'll free up from Perk leaving won't help that much
as we’re way over the cap. (and who knows how high we’ll be over it once the new CBA rolls around)
At best, we’re going to have to take a flyer on a center free agent who’s willing to take the vet. minimum or something.
During the season, we couldn't have offered what the Thunder did...
Under the current CBA, he could have offered that, and more, this summer. However, we don’t know what the financial landscape is going to be if there’s a lockout.
All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino
Tired legs hurt our Offense
No post game killed our offense.
Injured Rondo killed our offense.
Doc never focusing on offense killed our offense.
Jump shots killed our offense.
Not driving to the rim killed our offense.
Perk doesn’t even play offense…. what are we talking about?
Celtic Chat Handle: Bird
by David Henderson on May 16, 2011 10:35 PM EDT reply actions
So, Doc doesn't know what he's talking about?
First, historically Perk’s points per game have been right around what Krstic brought, although Perk’s offense dipped a bit this year. Second, there’s more to offense than just taking / making shots. Getting into the proper position, setting screens, grabbing rebounds to start transition, outlet passes, etc., are all parts of offense.
All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino
THIS
Blaming this on the Perk trade is ludicrous. We had offensive problems before the trade, and our guys just ran out of gas due to having no bench this year (injuries). That was another reason for the trade, to try and get a couple of serviceable bodies on the bench to be able to rest the starters. As warn out as PP was at the end of the year, how bad would he have looked if Green wasn’t brought over to play some of his minutes?
I blame the average offense on tired legs, the lack of a post game, and teams not willing to let Rondo play his game. As good as Rondo can be, he can also kill his own team by being such a liability on offense. Guard him on the break, then you can turn him loose. That might have worked when the Big 3 were younger, when opposing defenses didn’t sag so much, and when we were getting more from our bench. Without that, Rondo was a liability. I like Rondo, but if we could move him for someone like Paul, I’d do it in a heartbeat.
ifs.....
what if doc did not start rondo on game 5? they should have used DWest… the game could probably have a different outcome.. hmmm
I think
the Perkins loss clearly hurt the C’s defensively, considering he is a defensive player and especially since Shaq and J.O. broke down.
Since Perk was not a offensive player I do not think losing him hurt the C’s offense game at all, expect maybe for the fact Ray may have been negatively effected a bit ( I say a bit since he still did have a solid year offensively ) since he lost Perks great pick setting ability which allowed Ray to get off many easy and uncontested shots.
Logically, that makes sense until you listen to Doc's reasoning, and look at the stats...
It’s unquestionable that our offense was better with Perk (both this year and last year) than it was with Krstic and JO. There’s just no debating it; the offense was between 6 and 9 points better per 100 possessions with Perk. Yes, it was slightly better with Shaq, but we functioned fine with Perk in there.
It was only after we had to scrap the playbook to integrate the new players that things broke down.
All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino
I sided with Doc. Danny is wrong
Doc is right: losing Perk in the trade hurt our offense in an indirect way. Sure Perk is not a scorer and he has never been the focus of our offense, but he did enough other small things in the offensive end.
Doc said a lot of Celtics’ offense started from good defensive plays. Losing Perk hurts our defense. This is another indirect way trading Perk away hurt our offense.
Bird once said Ainge is a competitive guy who wants to winning every competition and argument. This is one argument DA isn’t going to win but he will never admit his fault. and he care less.
Doc knows our team
Is there any chance that DA did not consult Doc on the trade? Which DA should have done. And by the way Doc talks now, it clearly shows he was not consulted at all.
Don't blame Ainge.
They offered Perkins as much as they could and he refused because he knew he would get more as a free agent.
With the C’s over the salary cap, the team couldn’t offer more than $22 million over four years, while OKC was able to sign Perk fo 36 million for 4 seasons. Good luck to Perk but 36 mil for a player with a history of injuries,foul trouble(aso techs)who doesn’t avg a lot of minutes on the floor is not worth 36 mil to the celtics. At least the Celtics picked up a couple of players and a 2012 1st round draft pick. They got little out of Shaq and they signed him for little 2 years at less than 3 mil total (he was paid 20 mil in the 2009-2010 season alone).
by Celtics9Lakers2 on May 17, 2011 6:34 AM EDT reply actions
Doc said he wished that the trade
Happened at the end of the year. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMrvO09I_N4&sns=em
If you listen to the weei audio clip you would concede that DA was impatient.
by DrUbuntu on May 17, 2011 7:31 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Don't blame Ainge?????
So who else am I suppsoed to blame for Perk being traded? I surely didn’t do it.
Why Danny thought is was a good idea, speaks to me of being overconcerned about the future at the expense of the present. You don’t gamble with championship chances.
Our best chance was with a healthy Shaq. Our next best chance, plan B, was good enough to get to the finals just the past year. Sure, Miami was better than Cleveland, but Perk and JO would have been substantially better than just JO.
I’ll never understand why getting a player, who himself is a (restricted) Free Agent, to backup a 35min per player was worth throwing away our size advantage. Size Matters! Green even at best, was overkill for the role he was being asked to fill, backup SF/PF. Instead, he couldn’t even manage a reduced role. Plenty of other cheaper players could have provided at least, if not more, than Green. In the end, its irrelevant. Whatever Green gave us was never going to be worth losing the size and depth at the center position.
" Hell yeah I'm trying to gain an advantage out here. If you can't handle it, get off the court."- Kevin Garnett
"Stats are for losers."- Rahim Morris (Tampa Bay Buccaneers)
Stop defending Danny people!
Here is Doc’s complete comments on the trade. He also mentioned with having Perk you can call out a play from 4 years ago and everyone would know the play, since teams play RR differently you need a sophisticated playbook. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMrvO09I_N4&sns=em
by DrUbuntu on May 17, 2011 7:28 AM EDT via mobile reply actions
I love Doc
But his reasoning is a bit flawed here. At the time of the trade, he is the one who pointed out that the big 4 plus Baby was the lineup that the C’s finished games with even when Perk was playing and BBD knows all the sets.
People seem to conveniently forget this about Perk. Even when healthy, he only played 25-28 minutes and because of he and Rondo"s limited offense and free throw shooting never finished games. The C’s were already using a lineup at the end of games that knew the whole playbook.
Their problem the last 2 yrs and in the Miami series was the atrocious offense down the stretch. The Celts led last year against the Lakers in Game 7 in the 4th quarter and in several of the Miami games, all without Perk, and in those 4th quarter collapses he would not have been on the floor.
by KJ33 on May 17, 2011 8:24 AM EDT via mobile reply actions
We're also talking about our starting center through game 6 of the Finals
last year. So it’s proven we can win with him at the middle. Doc was spot on talking about continuity and having to integrate new guys into the mix. Not too many players have coped well coming into any system like that midstream.
Watching Chicago disembowel the Heat on Sunday, I came to the realization that even if
we got by Miami, we weren’t going to beat Chicago. To me, and this is just my opinion, since we were going to lose anyway, we got something of value by unloading Perkins. If we would have kept him, several other factors have to be taken into account:
First, with Marquis going down, there was no backup for Pierce. He looked tired at the end, but still had better offensive produciton than the rest of the team. If Jeff Green isn’t there to at least spell him somewhat, then does Pierce have the legs to play the way he did in the first round? If not, we may have lost to NY, or had to play an extended series. The way we ran out of gas after a week off, if we would have gone 5-6 games with the Knicks, the Heat would probably have blown us out of every game. Unlike the Lakers, we went out competitively and with our dignity.
Secondly, if we weren’t going to win, we got value for Perkins. If we keep him, lose in the 2nd round, and he bolts and we get no value, where are we now? Where are we next year? Or the next 5? Granted, Danny gambled and lost on this year. But did we actually lose Banner 18? I think if anybody looks at this honestly and objectively, which is hard at times, the answer is: We weren’t winning it all anyway.
I still thought we were positioned OK until Shaq came up lame in his comeback. I think, psychologically, the players knew it was done and it dampened everything. But, just my opinion.
If we weren't going to win, why play the games anyway?
But seriously, I believe, when DA pulled the trigger, he still thought we could win with Perkin gone. He simply miscalculated big time and with his personality, it is hard to get him to admit to his own mistake.
by getthat18now on May 17, 2011 4:36 PM EDT up reply actions
Love Perkins....
He was one of my favorite Celtics of the past decade. I love his toughness, his lunch pale work ethic and his low post defense.
With that said I don’t get the hysteria from some fans over trading away a guy who is a complete liability on one end of the floor, a guy who was extremely injury prone, a guy who’s butt was nailed to the bench in the 4th quarter of close games and a guy who wasn’t going to be back after this off season because he wanted(and got) more money then he is worth.
It’s okay for fans to only think about today and not worry about tomorrow but as a GM that is a completely irresponsible stance to take.
Those claiming AInge threw away a championship are living in a fantasy world. They just weren’t good enough this season with or without Perkins. They’re too old and not nearly athletic enough and way to injury riddled to beat either Miami or Chicago in a 7 game series.
It’s just time to stop whining about something you cannot control especially when the decision made by AInge made perfect sense because you got something for a guy who was walking with no return to the Celtics this off season because he wanted and got way more money then he is worth especially considering his on going injury issues.
Weeks before the Perk trade, Tommy Heinsohn said approximately that,
major trades deep into the season disrupt the chemistry too much to justify them.
Good article. And it’s good to see statistics supporting the clear difference in Celtics play I,
like so many others, know they observed.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
NBA Playoffs Content Module
Related FanPosts on CelticsBlog
Related FanShots on CelticsBlog
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Behind the Box Score, where the Boston Celtics are moving on to the conference finals
- NBA Playoffs Fan Fiction: San Antonio Spurs vs. Oklahoma City Thunder
- The Indiana Pacers? Gone till November
- Shaquille O’Neal is in a Chinese beer commercial, too (VIDEO)
- ‘Deep Thoughts’ and Cheap Thoughts: San Antonio Spurs vs. Oklahoma City Thunder
