In terms of KG's comments, it is hard to really take them too much to heart when we were 34-9 without Perk. We managed to have chemistry and a physical presence then so how could it be that now we can't "play tough" without Perk? KG is saying what he feels but he is a player and an emotional one at that, not a coach or GM. I am not sure "disregard" is the right word, but I am certainly not accepting KG's comments as gospel.
First, does it matter if the fans believe KG's words, if KG believes them? He's the one on the court, and if he feels the team is less physical, and that Perk's presence is missed, shouldn't his actual feelings mean more than the theoretical arguments of fans (or even the arguments of Danny)?
Second, it's important to remember that Perk might not have been playing games, but he was still on the team. He was working hard, he was leading by example, he was cheering on the guys at practice. The team was keeping his spot warm for him; he might have not been playing on the court, but he was there psychologically. Trading him was unquestionably an emotional hit, and sometimes those emotions translate negatively on the court.
re First: I think it is important for players to be emotional and have heart but just the opposite for coaches and GM's. If KG believes this and it is affecting his game, then it is the coach's job work that out. That really has nothing to do with the accuracy. So the team is not playing tough because it believes it can't play tough without Perk even though it did play tough without Perk in the line up for several months? That sounds like something a good coach should be able to fix but doesn't mean that the team can't play the way it needs to (at least when/if Shaq is back).
re Second: Yeah, I get the whole motivational warrior thing but I don't buy that Perk would have that affect on a veteran team much less this particular team. If that is the problem, again the coach should fix it. This team should be able to play to their full potential whether Perk is on the bench or not. I think the gap right now is Shaq. We have a back-up quality center playing as a starter. Earlier in the year, Erden started some games so this is actually an upgrade from that but not an upgrade from Shaq or Perk.
As I said above, if Shaq doesn't come back, this trade looks bad for Danny and I will join you in criticizing him. If Shaq does come back, the only difference between the 34-9 team and now will be Perk's motivational impact vs. upgrades at back up center (Krstic vs. Erden) and back up SF (Green vs. Daniels).
If at that point, if KG or anyone else comes out and says we are not playing to our full potential because Perk isn't here to motivate us, I will call an offensive foul.