Doc Rivers: If we kept Perk we would have been a No. 1 seed

[JoT]

The only fact is that it was a stupid decision to mess with the team in the middle of the season. You just don't do that when things were going the way they were...

We started slacking before the trade, IMHO. The midseason blues, if you will. Also, I have never heard of any team in any sports compettion that has had more injuries in a season than the 2010/2011 Boston Celtics. Seriously. I have followed sports for around 30 years now: soccer, basketball, hockey, football, handball, tennis, skiing, and so on and so forth. I have never seen a team with as many injuries as our C's this season. Just crazy. To use a cliché: Not an excuse - merely an explanation.

We still would've lost with Perk. We peaked too soon. We'll get 'em next time.

The bolded to me was why this team did not win. Not to say that it should be their main excuse along with the trade, but everyone besides Jeff, Ray, Sasha, and Carlos were injured this year. This team had a horrible case of bad luck with injuries and everytime this team would go one step forward in the healthy department, they would go 5 steps back. When they went to play Miami this second round by game 3 when Rondo got injured I knew they had no chance. They had no healthy serviceable big men to help besides KG and probably Nenad, they had a one armed point guard and the back up with shoulder injury, and Paul had an Achilles injury. This team had no one healthy to actually play well but KG, Ray, and Jeff and as you can see from the playoffs this year not one of them were consistent enough and two are in their mid to almost late 30's which makes them grandpas in the NBA.
They had no shot this year Perk or not. This team was just too injured against a faster and healthier Miami.

[Finkelskyhook]

It's irresponsible and detrimental to the team moving forward...Particularly to Green and Krstic...For Rivers to repeatedly come to the press with "what if" theories concerning Perk.  It's tasteless for a coach under contract to show buyer's remourse like this. Particularly when the key player we got in the trade will probably be a critical part of the team moving forward.    Jeff Green is no Blount, Gerald Green, or Banks.  He doesn't deserve to be trashed...directly or indirectly in the press...like they were.

Mr Rivers, you're getting very well paid to just coach the [dang]ed team you're handed.

I'm guessing that as shorthanded as we would have been had the trade not taken place, we'd have been a 4 seed...And probably, as an exhausted team going into the playoffs...Had it handed to us in a similar way Orlando did by a hot Atlanta team.

[Roy H.]

It's irresponsible and detrimental to the team moving forward...Particularly to Green and Krstic...For Rivers to repeatedly come to the press with "what if" theories concerning Perk.  It's tasteless for a coach under contract to show buyer's remourse like this. Particularly when the key player we got in the trade will probably be a critical part of the team moving forward.    Jeff Green is no Blount, Gerald Green, or Banks.  He doesn't deserve to be trashed...directly or indirectly in the press...like they were.

I understand your viewpoint; it can come across as "blaming" the news guys.  At the same time, Doc has said that he would have made the trade again (he just would have changed the timing) and has said that we wouldn't have won even with Perk. 

[BballTim]

It's irresponsible and detrimental to the team moving forward...Particularly to Green and Krstic...For Rivers to repeatedly come to the press with "what if" theories concerning Perk.  It's tasteless for a coach under contract to show buyer's remourse like this. Particularly when the key player we got in the trade will probably be a critical part of the team moving forward.    Jeff Green is no Blount, Gerald Green, or Banks.  He doesn't deserve to be trashed...directly or indirectly in the press...like they were.

  I'm not sure it's seen that way. He's not saying (unless I missed something) that Green and Krstic were the problem, more that they couldn't be expected to perform much better than they did because of the circumstances they were put in. In other words, he's somewhat letting them off the hook for any criticism about their play this season.

[Jon]

I find this statement quite ludicrous.  

At the time of the trade, Perk was hurt. If we had held onto him, we would've been facing several weeks of Semih Erden, BBD, and an unintegrated Troy Murphy trying to play center.  There's no guarantee that would've gone well at all and in all likelihood it wouldn't have.  

Second, Perk played 26 mpg.  Again, even if we had made no trades and signed the players that we did as FAs, we would've had to integrate the likes of Pavlovic and Murphy, as well as reintegrate that likes of Jermaine O'Neal and Delonte West.  

So for Doc to pretend like things would gone super smoothly with Perk here is just plain silly.  He's acting like we had a fully healthy, fully integrated 9 man rotation and that we traded away half of it.  In reality, we had several holes to fill and we traded away a guy who played roughly half the game at his position.  

[JohnBagleyValueMeal]

I'm going to take Doc's word for it over some of the armchair analysts here, particularly when they confirm some of the things that we saw with our own eyes, and that people like Roy have been saying since day 1--even if trading Perkins was a necessity, which it may have been, it was not a necessity to make those particular trades at that particular time.

You heard players and coaches say over and over and over again during the season that the new guys didn't know where to be on the floor, that they were still learning the sets, etc etc etc.

Doc was at those practices and has no reason to lie--I think we all acknowledge that Miami was just better this year, so Doc doesn't need an "excuse" (despite the fact he doesn't actually make one). It takes a lot of rhetorical somersaults to make this statement at all controversial

[TitleMaster]

Useless hindsight here on Doc's part.

So fine, we get HCA w/ Perks. Miami steals one (or two) in Boston; we drop two in Miami. Then Miami loses one in Boston and finishes the series at home.

In other words, it's either 4-1 or a 4-2 loss. Big deal, if Pierce's shot had gone in during Q4 game 4, it would have also been a 4-2 loss.

Here's a better idea ... have Doc integrate the role players/bench players better. Get PP, KG, and RA off the court for 50% of each quarter, heading into the playoffs. The results ... a chance to beat Miami since our Q4s won't look so atrocious w/ a bunch of tired old men.

Posey, Brown, and Cassell were grizzled veterans. I don't believe Doc had anything to do with their successes back in '08.

[Jon]

I'm going to take Doc's word for it over some of the armchair analysts here, particularly when they confirm some of the things that we saw with our own eyes, and that people like Roy have been saying since day 1--even if trading Perkins was a necessity, which it may have been, it was not a necessity to make those particular trades at that particular time.

You heard players and coaches say over and over and over again during the season that the new guys didn't know where to be on the floor, that they were still learning the sets, etc etc etc.

Doc was at those practices and has no reason to lie--I think we all acknowledge that Miami was just better this year, so Doc doesn't need an "excuse" (despite the fact he doesn't actually make one). It takes a lot of rhetorical somersaults to make this statement at all controversial

This whole notion that "the new guys" not knowing the plays hurt us may be partially true, but has little to do with Kendrick Perkins.  

First, we would've had to play the likes of Murphy and Pavlovic a lot more than we did in the several weeks that Perk was out following the trade.  Given that they're a step down from Krstic and Green, we likely would've lost a lot of the games that we won during that time.  

Second, we would've had to incorporate new guys who didn't know the plays even with Perk here.  Did Jeff Green struggle?  Sure.  But who's to say Sasha Pavlovic wouldn't have been worse?

People are acting like Perk played 96 mpg and two positions.  He played 26 mpg at one positions, roughly half the minutes available at center.  His absence had nothing to do with trying to get Delonte back into the flow of things or trying to fill the hole left by Marquis.  

[wdleehi]

Anyone want to guess what type of player Doc wants for offseason?



So in review:

Talking heads disliked the trade.

The coach disliked the trade.

The players disliked the trade.

The other teams loved the trade.

The Celtics are out of the playoffs.  

[Finkelskyhook]

Doc was at those practices and has no reason to lie--I think we all acknowledge that Miami was just better this year, so Doc doesn't need an "excuse" (despite the fact he doesn't actually make one). It takes a lot of rhetorical somersaults to make this statement at all controversial

I partially agree with this.  With the exception of the excuse part.  The entire statement is a series of excuses.

The notion that it takes rhetorical somersaults to make the statement controversial doesn't excuse the classless, unnecessary, and possibly hurtful repeated retrospectives.  I love Perk and what he brought as much as anybody in this blog.  I didn't like the backhanded retrospective Rivers had on Ricky Davis, post-trade, either.  They are part of our past.  Leave it there.

Rivers had no reason to lie...I wholeheartedly agree.  He had less reason to share this publicly.  I don't give Danny a pass on this either.  BballTim's point is well taken.  The perspective from a player's standpoint could go either way.  That's why my opinion is just shut up and leave it alone.  This as well as their frustration with Davis, etc.  It undermines his team long-term.  It's not like Krstic or Green were dogging it.  If anything, Green was pressing.  Rivers should have their back.  It doesn't take a rhetorical somersault to figure that out.

[BballTim]

Useless hindsight here on Doc's part.

So fine, we get HCA w/ Perks. Miami steals one (or two) in Boston; we drop two in Miami. Then Miami loses one in Boston and finishes the series at home.

In other words, it's either 4-1 or a 4-2 loss. Big deal, if Pierce's shot had gone in during Q4 game 4, it would have also been a 4-2 loss.

Here's a better idea ... have Doc integrate the role players/bench players better. Get PP, KG, and RA off the court for 50% of each quarter, heading into the playoffs. The results ... a chance to beat Miami since our Q4s won't look so atrocious w/ a bunch of tired old men.

Posey, Brown, and Cassell were grizzled veterans. I don't believe Doc had anything to do with their successes back in '08.

  For all the talk of the bench, though, Green or Krstic or Perk or Marquis or anyone else that we put on the floor was unlikely to overcome Rondo's injury. Even if we'd gotten past the Heat we'd have had major issues with Rose and the Bulls. With Rondo healthy we could have won in spite of the bench, without him we couldn't win in any case.

[Roy H.]

 For all the talk of the bench, though, Green or Krstic or Perk or Marquis or anyone else that we put on the floor was unlikely to overcome Rondo's injury. Even if we'd gotten past the Heat we'd have had major issues with Rose and the Bulls. With Rondo healthy we could have won in spite of the bench, without him we couldn't win in any case.

Of course, if we never traded Perk, Rondo probably never would have gotten hurt, as the exact same series of event that led to his injury probably wouldn't have happened.  That's all theoretical, of course, and isn't a strong argument either way, but I don't think we can say "Perk wouldn't have helped, because Rondo got injured".

[BballTim]

 For all the talk of the bench, though, Green or Krstic or Perk or Marquis or anyone else that we put on the floor was unlikely to overcome Rondo's injury. Even if we'd gotten past the Heat we'd have had major issues with Rose and the Bulls. With Rondo healthy we could have won in spite of the bench, without him we couldn't win in any case.

Of course, if we never traded Perk, Rondo probably never would have gotten hurt, as the exact same series of event that led to his injury probably wouldn't have happened.  That's all theoretical, of course, and isn't a strong argument either way, but I don't think we can say "Perk wouldn't have helped, because Rondo got injured".

  Interesting. Would not trading Perk have meant that we weren't playing the Heat? Because Rondo's injury happened as the result of a deliberate act.

[Roy H.]

 For all the talk of the bench, though, Green or Krstic or Perk or Marquis or anyone else that we put on the floor was unlikely to overcome Rondo's injury. Even if we'd gotten past the Heat we'd have had major issues with Rose and the Bulls. With Rondo healthy we could have won in spite of the bench, without him we couldn't win in any case.

Of course, if we never traded Perk, Rondo probably never would have gotten hurt, as the exact same series of event that led to his injury probably wouldn't have happened.  That's all theoretical, of course, and isn't a strong argument either way, but I don't think we can say "Perk wouldn't have helped, because Rondo got injured".

  Interesting. Would not trading Perk have meant that we weren't playing the Heat? Because Rondo's injury happened as the result of a deliberate act.

Well, it's one of those "butterfly effect" types of deals.  If Perk was on the team, the entire series would have played out differently.  It's unlikely that there would have been a loose ball, or that Rondo and Wade got tangled up, or that Wade brought Rondo down.

Also, of course, we might not have been playing the Heat in the first place, or we may have had home court over them.  I don't believe, however, that the Rondo injury was inevitable, and if circumstances were changed even a little, it wouldn't have happened.

[BballTim]

 For all the talk of the bench, though, Green or Krstic or Perk or Marquis or anyone else that we put on the floor was unlikely to overcome Rondo's injury. Even if we'd gotten past the Heat we'd have had major issues with Rose and the Bulls. With Rondo healthy we could have won in spite of the bench, without him we couldn't win in any case.

Of course, if we never traded Perk, Rondo probably never would have gotten hurt, as the exact same series of event that led to his injury probably wouldn't have happened.  That's all theoretical, of course, and isn't a strong argument either way, but I don't think we can say "Perk wouldn't have helped, because Rondo got injured".

  Interesting. Would not trading Perk have meant that we weren't playing the Heat? Because Rondo's injury happened as the result of a deliberate act.

Well, it's one of those "butterfly effect" types of deals.  If Perk was on the team, the entire series would have played out differently.  It's unlikely that there would have been a loose ball, or that Rondo and Wade got tangled up, or that Wade brought Rondo down.

Also, of course, we might not have been playing the Heat in the first place, or we may have had home court over them.  I don't believe, however, that the Rondo injury was inevitable, and if circumstances were changed even a little, it wouldn't have happened.

  Considering that the "loose ball" was 20+ feet away and out of bounds when Wade brought Rondo down, I'm not too high on the odds that it wouldn't have happened eventually.