Where Does This Leave the C's?

In the blink of an eye, the Celtics had their season ended by the last team you would have ever wanted to end it. Ousted by LeBron James and the Miami Heat in a mere 5 games, Boston boarded their flight home staring a myriad of questions about their future straight in the eye.

What do I think? That's a question that isn't easily answered. I've had my doubts about the NBA for quite some time, but I won't jump ship and attribute this loss to any type of fixed outcome. In fact, these playoffs haven't gone in accordance with the whole conspiracy theory. Lakers swept in four games? Celtics torched in five? That isn't exactly drawing the biggest revenue from two huge basketball markets. As Memphis and Oklahoma City hang around and Dallas the remaining favorite in the West, who said anything about large markets being fixed into the finals? But I digress. This is about the Boston Celtics, not David Stern and the NBA or any type of conspiracy theory.

First off, let me express my thoughts about the season as a whole. I've encountered plenty of people who simply pull the trigger on Danny Ainge, saying the Kendrick Perkins trade failed miserably and brought the downfall of this squad. I understand those accusations, and I simultaneously disagree with them entirely. I will still contend that the Kendrick Perkins trade was not the reason this team lost. The post was not the issue in this series. Boston's lack of energy at the end of games and their lack of depth on the bench is what put the nail in the coffin. Did the Perkins trade fail in regards to the goal it was trying to accomplish? Possibly. Jeff Green may not have been the bench scorer they thought they were getting. Still, Green scored more points in this series than every player on the Miami Heat excluding their "Big Three." Was production the issue? Debatable. What about the fact that Chris Bosh, Dwyane Wade, and LeBron James dropped a combined 355 points in these 5 games, completely obliterating the 252 scored by Boston's three studs (Pierce, Garnett, and Allen). 103 points was the advantage. Is it the bench's fault for not making up a 103 point difference (over 20 points per game)? If you believe so, I guess. Would Kendrick Perkins have diminished that number at all? Unlikely. I don't understand why we suddenly flip the switch because of the Perkins trade. Throughout the big three era, have we not been victorious when our big three dominates? Have we not always lost when our big three gets outplayed by the oppositions big stars? It has always been the same formula, and the bottom line is that this team doesn't have the backup unit needed to make up for the big three's growing inadequacy to give forty-minute performances of A+ basketball. The burden was too heavy for this reason, and they weren't able to shoulder the load. The younger and more athletic team pulled out every single game in the fourth quarter.

So yes, maybe the Perkins trade failed to give us the bench unit we truly needed. But I contest that had the trade never happened, our situation would have been no better. Subtract Jeff Green from the mix and add Kendrick Perkins. Does that solve the equation? Just look at the facts. Miami rained on us from the perimeter. Joel Anthony's 5 points per game -- was that the difference? Because Perkins would have been guarding anthony. Was Jermaine O'Neal really that bad in the post, averaging 6 points, 4 boards, and over a block per game in 21 minutes per contest? He was enough of a presence down low. Perk wouldn't have won us this series. You can't convince me otherwise. Management may have failed to give us the depth and athleticism we needed to win, but it sure as hell wasn't that particular trade that blew up our chances of winning.

Plain and simply, the Miami Heat were a better team than the Boston Celtics this year. It took them a while to gel, but they finally have. As much as I hate to see it happening, they're making a title run. They're going to be tough to beat. Their big guns are in the primes of their careers, and they are capable of playing just as effectively in the fourth quarter as they are in the first. The reality is that Boston cannot say the same about their own big guns, and their secondary guns aren't polished enough to pick up the rest of the load. Doc Rivers, though, feels that there is still gas in the tank. He will likely return to the Celtics next season, judging by his post-game comments.

"I'm leaning heavily towards coming back," Rivers told reporters after the loss to Miami. "I haven't made that decision. But I can tell you that I probably will. I've kind of come to that over the last couple of weeks. I'm a Celtic and I love our guys."

If there is a bright spot to take out of last night, it has to be these comments. As I've expressed time and time again, this team is an effective second unit away from being a title contender again. If they were able to rest their starters more throughout the game, you wouldn't see them dropping the ball in the fourth quarter. It happened in just about all of the losses in this series. If Ainge can assemble a second unit capable of shouldering that load throughout the game, this team may have another run left in them. Nobody said it would be easy, but at the same time, it is far from an impossibility. And if you trust Doc Rivers' judgement, there may a least be something to look forward to.

"I don't believe this team is done," Rivers concluded.