I think people are mixing up the effect Perk would've had on the past couple of months vs. the effect Perk would've had over the next couple of months.
I think without a doubt Tommy is right. It's complete bologna that the C's decline over the past two months is directly related to Perk. They clearly proved that they could win without him earlier this year. Furthermore, if Perk was some sort of magical elixir against sleepwalking through the end of the season, the Celtics wouldn't have gone 27-27 with him as their starting center to conclude the season last year.
Now that's not to say that those who dislike the trade won't have their day at some point in the playoffs if this team is dominated inside in a playoff series loss. However, that's yet to be determined and will largely hinge on how well JO and Shaq play.
Nice balanced post.
I listened to the Tommy H interview and I happen to like what he said. The ESPN guy (Chris Boussard?) was trying to start in with the idea that we are playing bad becasue everyone's feelings are hurt over the trade of Perk. Tommy said that was Bologna. Tommy went on to say that what really was an issue was integrating 5 new players, mostly into the second unit, with no practice (many of which would have needed to be integrated whether we made the trade or not because of injuries to Daniels, Nate, and Erden, I might add).
Whether Tommy is 46 or 76, Homer or Hall of Famer, those two points that he made are dead on and I love that he didn't buy into the ESPN hyperbole. The hurt feelings, lost identity lines make much more interesting stories but Tommy doesn't care about stories. He is just a basketball guy.