At some point, the Celtics evolved (or devolved, if you will) into an upside-down version of their former selves,. They are now a team that treats the regular season like a regular season, rather than a team that treats the regular season like a set of 82 death matches, like the 2007-08 Celtics did.

There was a joy to watching that Celtics team compete, partially because we weren’t watching Gerald Green and Sebastian Telfair anymore, but also due to the knowledge that teamwork and passion were a given on every night and those Celtics would rarely, if ever, get outworked. A few half-assed regular seasons (and one gutsy regular season during which the Celtics finished 62-20 despite Kevin Garnett falling to injury at midseason) later, we no longer enter game days knowing the type of effort the Celtics will provide.

Once unequivocally the league’s toughest team, the Celtics now have their grit questioned by the leader of their own locker room. (WEEI)

“The difference in the game was Indiana was tougher,” Celtics coach Doc Rivers said. “They made tougher plays, they were more physical. The game was there to be won by either team, it was who was going to grab it.”

“We can get along but I want to win too,” Rivers said. “The chemistry is phenomenal. I couldn’t ask for a better group of guys, but I may be asking for a tougher group of guys. I’m not sure yet.” …

“We watched a long film today and it showed them everything,” Rivers said. “It’s guards getting beat off the dribble, bigs helping, opposite weakside guard not cracking back on box outs. We had five times [against Indiana] where we had the inside position on a rebound, and it was our bigs and they still got the rebound. To me, that’s physicality. It’s not boxing out, it’s relying on your athleticism. Five times they came and scored on every single possession. That’s the game the other night.”

It’s too early to determine whether this will be another long regular season in Boston filled with many uninspired nights, but the Celtics do need to address a number of issues that have contributed to an underwhelming 4-4 start.

The Celtics have yet to defeat a winning team and they are defending and rebounding at an unacceptable rate. According to John Hollinger’s statistics, they are 21st in defensive efficiency and 21st in rebounding rate. The Celtics have always been a poor offensive rebounding team, but now their woes on the glass have also extended to the defensive end, where the Celtics are now ranked 19th, as opposed to ninth last season. These are troublesome signs for an older, smaller team that lost a lot of brute size and strength in the middle of last season — namely Perk and Shaq. Shaq was technically still around for the entire season, but hardly contributed anything down the stretch.

Yet it was never strength that set the Celtics apart in the toughness department. It used to be their mentality that established the tone; the mindset to contest every shot, box out on every release and rotate to every open opponent. Sure, every once in a while Perk would throw a well-aimed elbow or P.J. Brown would level an airborn opponent, aspects that contributed to Boston’s reputation as a team that never backed down from physicality. But the Celtics thrived defensively in the past because they were committed to a game plan and dedicated to winning every night. They played with a sense of purpose that was unmatched.

That sense of urgency no longer exists, nor does the ability within certain Celtics to summon their five-star legs every night. But even the eldest, most injury-ravaged Celtics should be able to reach within themselves each day and retrieve 48 minutes of complete effort. There are some mistakes that are forgivable, turnovers and missed shots among them, but there is no excuse for a team that doesn’t play hard during every game.

It has been a long time since the Celtics approached every contest like it was a heavyweight title bout, and I understand those days are probably gone forever, a beautiful deer that pranced into my life and then migrated into the dark shadows of the forest. But toughness once paved the road and illuminated the highway for these Celtics. It would be nice to see that defining characteristic return.

I was present when Eddy Curry’s career began to fall apart.

In the summer of 2008, the Knicks held training camp at my school, Skidmore College. As a player on Skidmore’s basketball team, I was one of a handful of people allowed to watch the training camp. Mike D’Antoni had just been hired in New York, Allan Houston was attempting an ill-fated comeback, Stephon Marbury’s head bore the mark of his sneaker company, Nate Robinson half-assed a number of drills, David Lee saw the Skidmore volleyball team and remarked that spandex were what he missed most about college, Jerome James asked my buddy to fetch him a sandwich during the middle of practice, Zach Randolph grabbed rebounds like a vacuum and consistently exhibited the excitement of a pre-schooler meeting his favorite television character, Quentin Richardson told me the Knicks would be lucky to make the playoffs, and Eddy Curry never practiced once.

There were rumors that Curry was going to practice every day. He was sick, I heard once. He just needed to lose a few pounds, I heard another time. My buddy saw him working out in the Skidmore weight room. “But he just kind of chilled. And he looked even fatter than before,” my buddy said. Now, those reports would elicit a duh. But then, Curry was coming off a 13-point, five-rebound 2007-’08 season. He had slowed severely since the ’06-’07 year and clearly gained a bra size or two, but he was still a productive player.

He was productive, that is, until D’Antoni’s first training camp arrived and Curry became a ghost, a rumor, a no-show and ultimately, one of the worst insults a player can be labeled, an expiring contract. There would be similar rumors for the remainder of Curry’s remaining three years with the Knicks — he’s almost ready, he’s working out hard, he’ll play soon — but he would play only ten games during the next three seasons, earning $31 million for all his hard work. His fully guaranteed six year, $60 million contract finally ran out at the end of last season. But it could still be one of the reasons the NBA lockout continues.

Guaranteed contracts have reportedly become a sticking point in the NBA’s labor negotiations. Before Game 4 of this year’s NBA Finals, according to the Washington Post’s Mike Wise, a number of owners met with approximately a dozen players and the topic of guaranteed contracts was broached.

As usual, Mark Cuban offered his two cents.

“When we had Tariq Abdul-Wahad, he didn’t seem to want to train, didn’t really want to practice — he really was interested in a lot of things besides basketball,” Cuban said. Cuban then complained about Abdul-Wahad’s guaranteed six year, $40 million contract. “And I’m stuck with that,” Cuban said. Even if Abdul Wahad spent all of his time eating cannolis and drinking mimosas.

A lawyer for the players union then mentioned that J.J. Barea made only $1 million per season. “How about that?” he said. “You’re getting a bargain in a guy like J.J. Barea.”

That was when David Stern spoke.

“All right, you want to go tit for tat, I’ll go tit for tat,” Stern said. “I’ll see you J.J. Barea and raise you Eddy Curry.”

The owners, Wise writes, “are sick of paying premiums for damaged goods.”

And the players union, of course, does not want guaranteed contracts to die. Sure, Eddy Curry didn’t deserve $60 million to buy all the Krispy Kremes he desired. But the Knicks signed him to that contract in the first place, and the players contend they should honor the contract.  For players who have a ten-year career span — if they’re both good and lucky — guaranteed money would be a major concession in the negotiations.

Players Association Vice President Maurice Evans briefly mentioned guaranteed contracts in an interview with Sports Illustrated’s Sam Amick.

“The deal we’ve been offered would so drastically alter the game as we know it today,” Evans said. “The offers have been so pathetic that it’s hard to even talk about it when we’re informing the guys. We’re $7.6 billion apart [over the life of the proposed deal].

“Again, when you realize all the components that they’re trying to take away, and trying to take out of the [collective bargaining agreement] that’s already in effect — the guaranteed contracts, grandfathering in [contracts], the [salary-cap] exceptions, Larry Bird [rights]. You and I have already talked about this many times, but [players] are really starting to get it and they’re willing to sit out for as long as necessary to get us a fair deal.”

Evans is not thrilled, to say the least, about the owners’ last proposal.

“It’s not my job to critique [David Stern's] salary,” said Evans. “I want him to make money. That’s the whole point is we want everyone to make money.

“But he’s the one who wants everyone to suffer losses. … The guy tells us it’s the recession and all these different things, yet they want to experience all the growth over the next 10 years while we experience none. When you look at it that way, it’s extremely disappointing.”

The players are ready to negotiate, Evans said. They will make more concessions. But they are willing to miss this whole year or more if the owner’s do not meet them halfway.

Meanwhile, for the first time since before he arrived at Skidmore College, Eddy Curry has become more than a rumor, more than an expiring contract, more than a gigantic waste of soft hands and nimble feet and impressive touch. He’s now ammunition for the owners. Ammunition for Stern. A $60 million warning that guaranteed contracts can go frighteningly wrong.

Alas, the Celtics could not compete with Dallas’ offer of playing time and more money. For those of you who might mourn after missing out on Brewer, I remind you: behind Paul Pierce and Jeff Green, Brewer would have struggled to find the court at all. Brewer would have provided another defensive option and more depth, but he has a larger dose of Tony Allen in him than I enjoy.

The Mavericks were the right choice for Corey Brewer, and, so long as the Celtics’ wings remain reasonably healthy, Boston should not be very hurt by his decision.

(Photo by Brian Babineau/Getty Images)

• Two games against Dallas. Two times the Mavericks have out-executed Boston down the stretch. Even though that late-game alley oop from Rondo to Garnett would have been oh so purdy.
• Perk’s playing great. There’s no way in hell I thought he’d be this healthy, this fast. It’s before the All-Star break, and he’s already distanced himself (in my eyes, at least) as the clear-cut starter. I thought his injury would leave him slow and winded for a long time. Hell, I thought we might not see the real Perk at all this whole season. But he’s back and looks like the same old dude, except he can’t really jump like he used to. Then again, even Perk’s diminished vertical leap doesn’t really matter much — it’s not like Perk ever excelled because of his rise. If you can call it rise.
• Marquis Daniels yet again proved the “Marquis Daniels loves mismatches” theorem. I swear, if Jason Terry defended Daniels every night, Daniels would be an MVP candidate. Okay, that’s hyperbole. But still. When Daniels has an advantageous matchup (read: Kyle Korver or anyone at least two inches smaller than Daniels), he looks like a ten-time All-Star. And when he doesn’t, well, it’s often tough to determine whether he’s even on the court.
• Kevin Garnett is getting to the point where I’m not surprised by any on-court antics he partakes in. Hit an opposing player in the nuts? Smack an official’s hand off his arm, repeatedly? Eat a child in the first row? I’m honestly not surprised by anything he does. I was talking about this at dinner tonight: KG’s even more off the wall than ever. He should probably get suspended by the league for smacking a ref’s arm tonight. Not that KG’s smacks were at all vicious. But he was hitting a ref. A ref!
• I keep thinking back to Ray Allen’s three-pointer. The Celtics were ahead 97-96, with 51 seconds left in the game and 20 seconds left on the shot clock. Ray caught the ball on the wing, and instantly fired. Normally, I love that shot. He’s wide open, in rhythm, and, well, he’s Ray Allen. If that shot went in, it’s just another notch on Allen’s big-shot belt and the game would have been almost over. But with less than a minute remaining, don’t you try to take some time and get a better look? On the other hand, he’s Ray Allen open for three. Are there really better looks than that? As you can tell, I’m still confused about my thoughts on that play. All I know is it missed, and I think back to that shot as the one that I want back.
• The Dallas Mavericks are good. Damn good. Dirk Nowitzki’s just about the toughest player to guard in the entire NBA. Terry makes shots from anywhere. Jason Kidd, for whatever reason, still does his thing. Tyson Chandler’s been a monster. And they defend like hell. Few people talk about the Mavericks as a legitimate contender, partly because history tells us not to and partly because they start DeShawn Stevenson or Brian Cardinal at small forward. But it’s time. Dallas Mavericks, you’re contenders. It’s official, because I said so.
• Still, the Celtics let one get away tonight. They forgot their defensive structure and allowed a lot of easy looks. They stopped executing down the stretch and paid for it.
• And, oh yeah, Jermaine O’Neal underwent surgery on the left knee he wasn’t going to have surgery on. O’Neal’s knee, according to Danny Ainge, “didn’t respond like we had hoped.” Which is almost funny, because that means the Celtics actually thought O’Neal’s body would respond the right way. “This surgery was not something to fix him long-term,” said Ainge. Ahh. Terrific. In other news, the Celtics signed O’Neal to a two-year, $12 million contract this past summer.

Sebastian Pruiti from NBA Playbook wondered whether the Mavericks unearthed how the rest of the league should defend Rajon Rondo. Read his post (NOW!), it’s great. Then return here for my own analysis to each of his points.

How did the Mavericks do it, according to Pruiti? And can every team do it? Read more »

So, umm, some people are still defending Rajon Rondo’s three-pointer the other night? I just don’t get it.

The latest that I’ve seen was John Schumann from NBA.com. He noted that “Rondo had no choice but to take the shot he never wants to take, and that both teams were willing to live with the consequences.”

Before I continue, Schuhmann is one of the best and most informed NBA writers in the world. I respect his opinion and value it.

But to think Rondo had no choice but to take the shot? No choice??? That’s simply false.

There were seven seconds left in the game when Rondo started his motion to shoot. Rondo was wide open (really, wide open doesn’t properly do it justice), and some people offer that as an excuse for Rondo to take the shot. Some people even opined that Rondo HAD to take the shot. (A notion to which my buddy emailed me, “Yeah, and my grandmother would have been left wide open too. That doesn’t mean I would have wanted her to pull the trigger.”)

The fact of the matter is, Rondo had plenty of time to find another shot. He could have dribbled around Pierce to the hoop, or he simply could have passed the ball to Pierce in front of him. Pierce was being defended by Jason Kidd, a mismatch, at the elbow, Pierce’s sweet spot.

But…

“We were begging him to shoot it,” Pierce told the Boston Globe. Wait, what? They were begging a 24.9% career three-point shooter to take a three-point shot, with the team down two and only seven seconds remaining? What is this I’m living in, Bizarro World? What is it, opposite day?

Gary Washburn wrote that Rondo’s decision to take the shot should instill confidence.

But this early season is as much about establishing roles and confidence as it is about winning. The next time, Rondo won’t hesitate to launch that 3-pointer and perhaps it will go down. But the Celtics have been begging Rondo to be more assertive with his shot, and he has reluctantly accepted the pleas.

How is a brick going to establish confidence? Won’t it cause him to continue hesitating, just as he did before he shot the three the other night?

And another thing: I don’t even want Rondo to be confident in his jumper. Not if it means he’s going to be launching three-pointers in crunch-time. Even if he’s wide open, I’d much rather see Rondo do something else — anything else — rather than shoot a three-pointer to decide a game.

When I was in college, one of my team’s brick-laying big men launched at least two or three 17-foot jumpers every single game. He almost always missed. Finally, my coach got fed up with the shot, yanking him out of the game and berating him on the bench. The confused big man muttered five words in response: “But I was wide open.”

To which my coach replied, “Yeah. And there’s a fucking reason for that.”