...Leadership on the C's...

Leadership is clearly an issue right now for the Celtics.
Doc Rivers had a really interesting point of view on things back in 2003 - this was something that has been seared into my memory - and I found the article.
In '03, Doc decided not to re-sign his "captain" and team leader, Darrell Armstrong, in favor of giving Tracy McGrady a bigger leadership role in Orlando. This is from a Peter Vescey's article in '04.

NEW YORK -- Four defeats A.D. (After Doc), hints and allegations continue to dribble-drive-and-dish throughout the league; the misinformed majority would like you to believe Magic GM John Gabriel undermined his undeviatingly adored coach by refusing to re-sign force field Darrell Armstrong. Not.

But, what the heck, don't take my "authorized" word for it.

"I didn't want Darrell back," Doc Rivers openly admitted shortly after being dumped at the curb. "He's my all-time favorite player, but the only way to take a step forward was to have Tracy McGrady leading the team. "Darrell was a strong leader -- and a good leader -- for nine seasons. But the only way to advance to the next level was to have your best player as captain.

"Historically, that has always been true. Look at all the great teams? Celtics, Lakers, Bulls, Pistons -- their leaders were their best players -- Russell, Bird, Magic, Michael, Isiah.

"What team has won a title with its best player not being the leader?"

(Hmm, let me think: The 1983 76ers; Dr. J was team leader, Moses Malone was the man. The 1999 Spurs; David Robinson/Tim Duncan. The 1970 Bucks; Oscar/Kareem)

"Obviously, we would have been better with Darrell. I could see we needed his direction and energy," Rivers allowed.

"But all summer he said he felt he should start and would not come back as a backup. You can go someplace else (New Orleans) and accept less money than you would from your parent team, as well as a diminished role, like Patrick (Ewing) did when he went to Seattle. That couldn't happen in New York, because Patrick made his name with the Knicks; he was their best player and their voice."

Until Rivers created a "C" and ordered it engraved on McGrady's uniform, he had never appointed anyone captain.

So, for four straight seasons during Baby Doc's regime, Armstrong sashayed over to the referees and relayed any relevant conversation to the Magic. And, for the last three, McGrady unreservedly deferred to his leadership while dominating the stats sheet.

According to Rivers, when notified a change in the chain of command was necessary, McGrady agreed.

"It almost had to end that way," Rivers lamented. "By far, Darrell is the hardest working player with the biggest heart I've ever seen. But this was the right thing to do and the right time to do it. It was very difficult for me and very taxing on him.

"Darrell and me had a falling out because we didn't re-sign him, no question. But also there's no doubt, at least in my mind, we'll become good friends again some day."

That article really stuck with me. I didn't understand it's logic - and while I give Doc the ability to change his mind, and certainly change his outlook given it is 7 years later and he is dealing with a team of Veterans, rather than a team of rookies with a superstud on it...

But by his logic, is it time for Garnett to go? 2 seasons ago, Garnett won Defensive Player of the Year, and while he may not have been the team's best scorer, he was without question the leader on the Defensive end as well as the overall leader. This year, however, it can be argued he is hurting the team, at times, defensively.  I know he isn't labelled captain, but the veterans certainly rally around him. He is the first to speak at press conferences, he is the mouthpiece for the squad, the centerpiece of its identity.

But is he the best player? no.

Rajon Rondo is the team's best player at this point. He is being tasked to do it all, and he is doing it all. Every offensive possession goes through him not only as the team's Point Guard, but also as the team's unofficial leader on the floor. He was brave enough to point out, to the press, that perhaps its chemistry that is the issue, not skill, talent, or injury.

Doc has to think long and hard about this.  In the above article he even reference "history" himself, and now he has to look back into his memory bank and does owe this at least a little bit of thought.

I am not entirely sure what the course of action needs to be, but to me it is obvious that something is wrong with this team, and it isn't unfixable, and maybe its time to give the young kid the keys to the car - maybe its time to start thinking about the Perkins/Rondo nucleus as more than a peripheral concept, but as a point of actuality that you build your team around.

What form will this take? I'm not sure, but its really interesting.