The folks over at ESPN.com invited the entire CelticsHub team to take part in a Q and A on this team’s and its future, before facing three straight elimination games. It’s bit soon to speculate on a lot of these things prior to tonight, but it’s worth floating the questions out there for now. Here’s a sample of the our responses. You can check out the full piece here.
1. With one title in two Finals trips in this era, Celtics fans should feel …
E. [Your description here]
Brian Robb, Celtics Hub: E. Satisfied but left wondering. You can’t help but lament how many other titles were left on the table for this Celtics team after 2008. All four years in this era, this team has been a top contender before injuries sidetracked things. It hurts to say, but I think we’ll be looking back in 10 years and wondering “What if?” with this crew.
Brendan Jackson, Celtics Hub: E. Cheated and unsatisfied. If this season is indeed the last go-round for the Celtics’ Big Three, the “what ifs” will be inescapable. What if Garnett were healthy in 2009? What if Kendrick Perkins were healthy in 2010? And, dare I say, what if Rajon Rondo were healthy in 2011?
Chris Forsberg, ESPN Boston: B. Satisfied. Considering what this team went through in 2006-07, winning a mere 24 games and enduring a franchise-record 18-game losing streak, the Big Three era made this team relevant again. Like the players, Celtics fans will be left to wonder what could have been had this group stayed healthy, particularly during the 2010 NBA Finals.
Ryan DeGama, Celtics Hub: B. Satisfied. It’s hard to argue with a championship when you consider the other long-suffering fans around the league. But C’s fans will never forget the Garnett injury that sabotaged an elite 2009 team and the Perkins ACL tear that probably cost them a title in 2010.
Hayes Davenport, Celtics Hub: E. Deliriously happy. Only eight teams have won NBA titles in the past 30 years, so any time your team manages to get into the mix, you’re happy. Throw in that the season preceding the Garnett era was the on-court nadir of Celtics history, and you have a fan base that can’t complain, no matter how much it really loves to.
2. The Kendrick Perkins trade has been much-maligned. The criticism is …
A. Right on point
B. Missing the point
E. [Your description here]
Brian Robb, Celtics Hub: A. Right on point. Trading Perk was the right idea in theory but simply not executed well. Championship teams don’t trade their incumbent starting center halfway through the season unless they are getting back a sure thing. From Jeff Green and Nenad Krstic, the Celtics needed offense, but all they got was inconsistency while creating a major void in the interior.
Brendan Jackson, Celtics Hub: B and C. Overstated and missing the point. Perkins contributed most to the team’s toughness and chemistry, meaning he couldn’t have prevented the Celtics from being too tired to put the ball in the hole late in games. Moreover, this trade would not have happened if Tony Allen were still a Celtic and Marquis Daniels hadn’t had a horrific injury.
Chris Forsberg, ESPN Boston: C. Overstated. The Perkins trade is an easy scapegoat for this team’s struggles. Alas, Perkins wouldn’t have been on the floor when the Celtics’ execution crumbled on the final play of regulation in Game 4. Boston’s difficulties extend well beyond the loss of a core member, but that one move will unfairly define much of this season.
You can check out the full piece here.