Thunder lose to Clippers; if only they had Jeff Green

[j804]

. . . I don't understand this notion that Perk's loss is effecting chemistry right now.  If Perk was so instrumental to chemistry, how did we have the best record in the East without him?  How did we win games with Semih Erden starting at center for us and sporting lineups of Big Baby, Pierce, Daniels, Wafer, and Nate Robinson at times?  

The players have talked about the loss of chemistry, toughness, and physicality.  It's as psychological as anything else.  However, this notion that Perk wasn't playing, so he had no effect on the team makes no sense to me.  He was there with the team, rehabbing and supporting them.  They saw him busting his butt to get back, and a lot of the players really bought into Doc's "this starting lineup has never lost a playoff series" mantra.  When Perk was sent away, I think it reminded the players that they're all assets, rather than integral parts of "ubuntu". 

Again, maybe the players should have been able to "get over it", but a lot of them weren't able to right away.

Has a contending team ever went on to win a championship with one of their starters shipped just a months or so before the playoffs? I'm guessing no

[JBcat]

What worries me if we hadn't made the trade is we could possibly be in much worse shape than 11-9.   Perk, Nate, Daniels, Semi, Luke, Davis, West, Wafer, Rondo, JO, and Shaq have all missed at least 1 game to all games missed since then.   Even if you didn't do the Perk trade and just did the other 2 trades I still question if we would be any better than 11-9.

Perk missed 9 games after the trade.   Right after the trade we went something like 5 and 1 with Krstic and Green.   Without those 2 guys and without Perk and Nate because they weren't playing for those 9 games we could have had a huge losing streak with really only Davis and KG as our bigs (and I think Davis was playing a little hurt and ended up missing 4 games).  Murphy I wasn't expecting much from right away because he hasn't played in a few months.  We could be barely hanging on now if we didn't make that trade.    

[Jon]

. . . I don't understand this notion that Perk's loss is effecting chemistry right now.  If Perk was so instrumental to chemistry, how did we have the best record in the East without him?  How did we win games with Semih Erden starting at center for us and sporting lineups of Big Baby, Pierce, Daniels, Wafer, and Nate Robinson at times?  

The players have talked about the loss of chemistry, toughness, and physicality.  It's as psychological as anything else.  However, this notion that Perk wasn't playing, so he had no effect on the team makes no sense to me.  He was there with the team, rehabbing and supporting them.  They saw him busting his butt to get back, and a lot of the players really bought into Doc's "this starting lineup has never lost a playoff series" mantra.  When Perk was sent away, I think it reminded the players that they're all assets, rather than integral parts of "ubuntu". 

Again, maybe the players should have been able to "get over it", but a lot of them weren't able to right away.

Has a contending team ever went on to win a championship with one of their starters shipped just a months or so before the playoffs? I'm guessing no

Well, there likely are examples.  However, let's also keep this in mind: the C's had the best record in the East without Perkins.  So I'm not sure this would really even fall into that category.  Shaq was the starter for most of their success this year and Baby closes out nearly every game. 

[cdif911]

. . . I don't understand this notion that Perk's loss is effecting chemistry right now.  If Perk was so instrumental to chemistry, how did we have the best record in the East without him?  How did we win games with Semih Erden starting at center for us and sporting lineups of Big Baby, Pierce, Daniels, Wafer, and Nate Robinson at times?  

The players have talked about the loss of chemistry, toughness, and physicality.  It's as psychological as anything else.  However, this notion that Perk wasn't playing, so he had no effect on the team makes no sense to me.  He was there with the team, rehabbing and supporting them.  They saw him busting his butt to get back, and a lot of the players really bought into Doc's "this starting lineup has never lost a playoff series" mantra.  When Perk was sent away, I think it reminded the players that they're all assets, rather than integral parts of "ubuntu". 

Again, maybe the players should have been able to "get over it", but a lot of them weren't able to right away.

Has a contending team ever went on to win a championship with one of their starters shipped just a months or so before the playoffs? I'm guessing no

Rockets traded Otis Thorpe mid 94-95 for Clyde Drexler and won it all

[Roy H.]

Has a contending team ever went on to win a championship with one of their starters shipped just a months or so before the playoffs? I'm guessing no

Only once that I've been able to find.  The defending champion 1995 Houston Rockets moved Otis Thorpe for Clyde Drexler.  Post trade, that team went 17-18 down the stretch, before pulling it together for their Finals run.

It's interesting, looking at that trade.  You took a veteran, established roster, and clearly injected more talent into the team, while modifying its identity somewhat.  Yet, they struggled for 35 games and into the beginning of the playoffs.  If a team struggles to assimilate a HOF starter like Clyde Drexler, I think it's no surprise that the Celtics are struggling to incorporate some bench guys

[More Banners]

. . . I don't understand this notion that Perk's loss is effecting chemistry right now.  If Perk was so instrumental to chemistry, how did we have the best record in the East without him?  How did we win games with Semih Erden starting at center for us and sporting lineups of Big Baby, Pierce, Daniels, Wafer, and Nate Robinson at times?  

The players have talked about the loss of chemistry, toughness, and physicality.  It's as psychological as anything else.  However, this notion that Perk wasn't playing, so he had no effect on the team makes no sense to me.  He was there with the team, rehabbing and supporting them.  They saw him busting his butt to get back, and a lot of the players really bought into Doc's "this starting lineup has never lost a playoff series" mantra.  When Perk was sent away, I think it reminded the players that they're all assets, rather than integral parts of "ubuntu". 

Again, maybe the players should have been able to "get over it", but a lot of them weren't able to right away.

And yet, the loss of Scal and TA at the beginning of the season didn't seem to slow us down much...

The guys liked Perk, and pretty much most of us on CB do as well, but jeez...I never would have guessed that the mere presence of his aura could be the difference-factor on a team with four all stars.

The problem is simple:  either 1) All stars aren't playing like all stars, or (my opinion) 2) all stars are playing like all star prima donnas rather than doing the dirty work of tough defending, rebounding, and going for loose balls.

[BballTim]

. . . I don't understand this notion that Perk's loss is effecting chemistry right now.  If Perk was so instrumental to chemistry, how did we have the best record in the East without him?  How did we win games with Semih Erden starting at center for us and sporting lineups of Big Baby, Pierce, Daniels, Wafer, and Nate Robinson at times?  

The players have talked about the loss of chemistry, toughness, and physicality.  It's as psychological as anything else.  However, this notion that Perk wasn't playing, so he had no effect on the team makes no sense to me.  He was there with the team, rehabbing and supporting them.  They saw him busting his butt to get back, and a lot of the players really bought into Doc's "this starting lineup has never lost a playoff series" mantra.  When Perk was sent away, I think it reminded the players that they're all assets, rather than integral parts of "ubuntu". 

Again, maybe the players should have been able to "get over it", but a lot of them weren't able to right away.

Has a contending team ever went on to win a championship with one of their starters shipped just a months or so before the playoffs? I'm guessing no

  Is that really different than a team trading for a new starter and winning a title? I expected Perk to start in the playoffs but he didn't start any more games this year than Semih or JO.

[Jon]

While Roy's psychological theory about the loss of Perk may or may not be true, I think the more likely psychological problem is that we're now playing our second straight season under this strange paradox:

If you so much as break a toenail, you must sit out a minimum of two weeks.  However, if you're playing, despite your age, we'll run you into the ground (see Ray Allen playing 41 minutes against the Spurs). 

First, I think this philosophy has worn down the likes of Ray Allen and Paul Pierce.  Second, I think when the players get worn down, they start to ask themselves just how much they should push themselves if the organization doesn't really put that much stock int he regular season.  And I'm not overexaggerating here.  How many times this year has Doc or Danny told us a player is out, but if it were the playoffs, he would play? 

Just look at Jermaine O'Neal.  Look how pleasantly surprised all of us were about his physical abilities.  Why?  Because he likely could've played weeks ago; however, we decided that what was really important was that he was 100% come playoff time and that any help he could've given us winning the past 10+ games really wasn't as important as that. 

And when that's the prevailing philosophy of the ball club, can we really fault our Big Three for settling for jump shots and conserving energy for the playoffs? 

[cdif911]

Has a contending team ever went on to win a championship with one of their starters shipped just a months or so before the playoffs? I'm guessing no

Only once that I've been able to find.  The defending champion 1995 Houston Rockets moved Otis Thorpe for Clyde Drexler.  Post trade, that team went 17-18 down the stretch, before pulling it together for their Finals run.

It's interesting, looking at that trade.  You took a veteran, established roster, and clearly injected more talent into the team, while modifying its identity somewhat.  Yet, they struggled for 35 games and into the beginning of the playoffs.  If a team struggles to assimilate a HOF starter like Clyde Drexler, I think it's no surprise that the Celtics are struggling to incorporate some bench guys

beat you by 7 minutes =)

[Vermont Green]

Again, maybe the players should have been able to "get over it", but a lot of them weren't able to right away.

They certainly should be over it by now.

To accept that KG, PP, or RA are off their game still because of the trade makes no sense to me.  Rondo, a young guy whose best friend got traded, sure, you cut him some slack but for how long?

I don't think it is the subtraction of Perk, Nate, Gody, Erden that is affecting this team as much as the subtraction of SO, JO, Wafer, Daniels, and now Krstic.

[j804]

Has a contending team ever went on to win a championship with one of their starters shipped just a months or so before the playoffs? I'm guessing no

Only once that I've been able to find.  The defending champion 1995 Houston Rockets moved Otis Thorpe for Clyde Drexler.  Post trade, that team went 17-18 down the stretch, before pulling it together for their Finals run.

It's interesting, looking at that trade.  You took a veteran, established roster, and clearly injected more talent into the team, while modifying its identity somewhat.  Yet, they struggled for 35 games and into the beginning of the playoffs.  If a team struggles to assimilate a HOF starter like Clyde Drexler, I think it's no surprise that the Celtics are struggling to incorporate some bench guys

beat you by 7 minutes =)

It's happened but once that we can recall odds definitely aren't on our side 

[dasani]

I'm sorry but the poor play of their perimeter players (Durant and Westbrook) cost them the game...so can we stop overrating them now. As bad as a coach Del Negro may seem like...his rotations were effective with those two (and Perk to an extent). They exposed the obvious deficiencies of the Thunder crew. Not surprised by the loss.

[Chief]

Has a contending team ever went on to win a championship with one of their starters shipped just a months or so before the playoffs? I'm guessing no

Only once that I've been able to find.  The defending champion 1995 Houston Rockets moved Otis Thorpe for Clyde Drexler.  Post trade, that team went 17-18 down the stretch, before pulling it together for their Finals run.

It's interesting, looking at that trade.  You took a veteran, established roster, and clearly injected more talent into the team, while modifying its identity somewhat.  Yet, they struggled for 35 games and into the beginning of the playoffs.  If a team struggles to assimilate a HOF starter like Clyde Drexler, I think it's no surprise that the Celtics are struggling to incorporate some bench guys

I'd compare it to the 2004 Pistons too. Rasheed had to join a starting lineup and the team had to develop chemistry. It worked fairly easy with them but everyone remained fairly healthy through their championship run.

[LakersFan_33]

I wonder if Thunder message boards/blogs are blowing up after a loss to the lowly clippers?  People pining for Jeff Green to come back, blaming Perk for not helping enough.  For some reason I'm doubting it

I'm surprised you would call them such a "lowly" team. They did beat the Celtics. Anyway, Thunder definitely look good, but if Westbrook and/or Durant are slightly off, they can be beaten.

[FLCeltsFan]

Perk's contributions will never be totally seen in the box score.  He boxes out so teammates get rebounds.  The OKC announcers see that because the night Perk got 13 rebounds they were talking about if they counted box outs or tips of rebounds he would have had 20.  He clears out the area and that allows teammates to come in and get the rebounds.  He also sets screens for his teammates to get open for shots.  Their announcers were also mentioning how if you couldn't get a shot off with a Perk screen there was no hope for you. 

Maybe that's why the Celtics' offense has been suffering.  We don't have anyone aggressively setting screens (aside from that big green wall in the Spurs game.  Krstic seems to be a little late on the screens, KG does set screens but doesn't have the bulk to really stop players and Big Baby has been too busy trying to get his shot to set good screens. 

And to answer the original question, I've been visiting the OKC boards and they aren't pining for Green or Krstic back.  They loved Green but realized that both players were soft and see the toughness that Perk brought to the team.   They have been the top defensive team since Perk started playing.  They are allowing over 10 fewer points per game than they were before the trade. 

The OKC fans love Perk and what he brings to the team as well they should.