Why isn't Marquis Daniels playing? (uniformed question)

[kozlodoev]

Hated the Nate deal when it happened, and I like it so little now that I'd rate it Ainge's biggest screwup since the idiotic move for Sebustian Tellfailure.

The fact that you hated something doesn't make it bad. The deal was, at worst, a wash.

[Roy Hobbs]

Hated the Nate deal when it happened, and I like it so little now that I'd rate it Ainge's biggest screwup since the idiotic move for Sebustian Tellfailure.

The fact that you hated something doesn't make it bad. The deal was, at worst, a wash.

I understood Danny's motivation, but how can the trade be "at worst" a wash?  

To be less than a wash, Eddie would have had to be a net negative contributor.  To be a wash, Eddie would have to be out of the rotation completely.

You don't think it's plausible that Eddie could have had *any* positive contribution?  Especially after the playoff series he had against Orlando last season?

[BudweiserCeltic]

Hated the Nate deal when it happened, and I like it so little now that I'd rate it Ainge's biggest screwup since the idiotic move for Sebustian Tellfailure.

The fact that you hated something doesn't make it bad. The deal was, at worst, a wash.

I understood Danny's motivation, but how can the trade be "at worst" a wash? 

To be less than a wash, Eddie would have had to be a net negative contributor.  To be a wash, Eddie would have to be out of the rotation completely.

You don't think it's plausible that Eddie could have had *any* positive contribution?  Especially after the playoff series he had against Orlando last season?

Maybe if Nate was given the opportunity he would be productive. Maybe House having the same problems Nate had during the season would still get the opportunity in the playoffs, thus limiting TA who right now is looking like he shouldn't be.

Do you guys honestly believe that Doc would place TA over House in the rotation? I think Doc gives House the benefit of the doubt, and trusts him until the point that he can't no more.

I don't think Nate was afforded that chance, and I think he can still play with this team given the opportunity.

Fact is that he's undersized, more so than House, and it can be costly and risky to have him there if he's not, and I think more than anything that the part Doc has trouble with.

In all, I'm happy with TA's current role, and happy that there's no one there, particularly an undersized SG, in here to diminish it.

I like how our team when it goes to the bench we stay big 1-3. And for that alone I would've shipped House out of here, which is a bit hard to say since I really liked the guy.

[DinTN]

As for the Nate trade, if nothing else it kept him going to the Lakers.

When he asked to be traded Nate only wanted to go to Boston or LA (maybe one other contender).

[snively]

Hated the Nate deal when it happened, and I like it so little now that I'd rate it Ainge's biggest screwup since the idiotic move for Sebustian Tellfailure.

The fact that you hated something doesn't make it bad. The deal was, at worst, a wash.

I understood Danny's motivation, but how can the trade be "at worst" a wash?  

To be less than a wash, Eddie would have had to be a net negative contributor.  To be a wash, Eddie would have to be out of the rotation completely.

You don't think it's plausible that Eddie could have had *any* positive contribution?  Especially after the playoff series he had against Orlando last season?

Eddie was killing us early in the year.  Couldn't defend anyone, wasn't hitting 3s, couldn't pass, couldn't rebound. And he continued to stink in NY.

Nate was a risk that didn't pay off, but losing Eddie hasn't cost the team anything.

[Roy Hobbs]

Hated the Nate deal when it happened, and I like it so little now that I'd rate it Ainge's biggest screwup since the idiotic move for Sebustian Tellfailure.

The fact that you hated something doesn't make it bad. The deal was, at worst, a wash.

I understood Danny's motivation, but how can the trade be "at worst" a wash?  

To be less than a wash, Eddie would have had to be a net negative contributor.  To be a wash, Eddie would have to be out of the rotation completely.

You don't think it's plausible that Eddie could have had *any* positive contribution?  Especially after the playoff series he had against Orlando last season?

Eddie was killing us early in the year.  Couldn't defend anyone, wasn't hitting 3s, couldn't pass, couldn't rebound. And he continued to stink in NY.

Nate was a risk that didn't pay off, but losing Eddie hasn't cost the team anything.

I disagree that Eddie was that much of a negative.  Eddie led all bench players in +/-, for instance.  Among all bench players, Eddie and Marquis were the only ones who outscored their opponents on the season.  If Eddie was killing us, then Tony, BBD, Rasheed, etc. must have all be massacring us.

It doesn't look like the team needs Eddie much right now, but I think it's crazy to say that the trade was "at worst" a wash.  Nate has added nothing.  I find it unlikely that Eddie could have done worse than that.

[Toine43]

Hated the Nate deal when it happened, and I like it so little now that I'd rate it Ainge's biggest screwup since the idiotic move for Sebustian Tellfailure.

The fact that you hated something doesn't make it bad. The deal was, at worst, a wash.

I understood Danny's motivation, but how can the trade be "at worst" a wash?  

To be less than a wash, Eddie would have had to be a net negative contributor.  To be a wash, Eddie would have to be out of the rotation completely.

You don't think it's plausible that Eddie could have had *any* positive contribution?  Especially after the playoff series he had against Orlando last season?

Eddie was killing us early in the year.  Couldn't defend anyone, wasn't hitting 3s, couldn't pass, couldn't rebound. And he continued to stink in NY.

Nate was a risk that didn't pay off, but losing Eddie hasn't cost the team anything.

I disagree that Eddie was that much of a negative.  Eddie led all bench players in +/-, for instance.  Among all bench players, Eddie and Marquis were the only ones who outscored their opponents on the season.  If Eddie was killing us, then Tony, BBD, Rasheed, etc. must have all be massacring us.

It doesn't look like the team needs Eddie much right now, but I think it's crazy to say that the trade was "at worst" a wash.  Nate has added nothing.  I find it unlikely that Eddie could have done worse than that.

No question it was a poor trade, but I wouldn't characterize it as one of Danny's worst moves. Right now it just seems like a bad trade that will wind up being inconsequential. That's because we're still getting energy off the bench, just in the form of defense and athleticism from TA rather than from Eddie's sharpshooting.

Eddie was OK early in the year, not really shooting it great but not killing us either. Despite his poor numbers after he was traded, I think he was starting to heat up for us and would've had a solid 2nd half of the year and playoffs had we kept him. Looking back at the game log, Eddie shot 13-26 from downtown in the 9 games prior to the trade.

Does Danny wish he never made that trade? You'd have to think so. As much as I love Eddie though, I don't think Danny's really kicking himself that much over it, considering how well both the team and the bench are playing right now. Also something to remember is that Eddie becomes most useful when the team has gone cold shooting, or when Ray in particular is having an off night. Right now Ray's shooting it as well as he has since he was traded to Boston. The team as whole is shooting a higher percentage from the field and from beyond the arc than it has either of the last two postseasons.

[xmuscularghandix]

Cause he's not better than Tony Allen. And he can't be plugged in as a shooter because he can't shoot... so...

Tony Allen / Michael Finley / Marquis Daniels

[Marcus13]

Tony simply out-played him for his role.  We thought he was going to get some burn against the Cavs on LeBron, but once again Tony stepped up to the plate and Daniels was un-needed (I still like him though)

[CelticsWhat35]

Hated the Nate deal when it happened, and I like it so little now that I'd rate it Ainge's biggest screwup since the idiotic move for Sebustian Tellfailure.

The fact that you hated something doesn't make it bad. The deal was, at worst, a wash.

Let's not forget that while Eddie hit some big shots in the Laker series, he was pretty much a non-factor during the first three rounds in 2008.  If Eddie were still on the team, he'd be getting limited minutes (and some DNP's) for the same reason Nate is...DEFENSE.  Doc would rather have Tony in there and sacrifice the outside shooting.  It's not as if Doc thinks Nate can't score the ball.  If the Celtics win the title this year, it will be for the same reason they won it in 2008...DEFENSE.

And that "Telfaillure" deal netted us Theo Ratliff's contract...which netted us KG.

[twentythree9]

1.  Marquis isn't playing because he never got back into rythym after returning from his inury and TA outplayed him.

2.  As for people calling the House/Robinson trade the "worst move of Danny's career," I couldn't disagree more.  Robinson gives us a sparkplug off the bench that has handle and can beat his man off the dribble.  House, as much as I liked him, needed to be set up.

I think the reason both aren't playing is actually related to the Celtics philosophy this year in how they treated the regular season.  (And led to all the bandwagoners jumping off after "only" winning 50 games.)  We rested our starters throughout the year and Doc is now going with an 8 man rotation. 

We have to give DOC a TON of credit!  This tight rotation is just killing it right now, and everyone knows their role.  Just ask Mike Brown about playing too many players!

Lastly, I would not be surprised one bit if Nate has a big contribution in at least one game this series.  It's clear to me that we are going to need to find some more offense against Orlando.

[FanInTheSouth]

Thanks for all the input guys.  It really is hard not getting to watch games all that often and still understanding the way the team functions.  TPs for all who replied.

[GranTur]

Because he can't shoot jump shots. Tony also can't shoot jump shots but he is a better defender.

[BudweiserCeltic]

I still don't understand why he keeps playing Finley over Daniels. I would just put Daniels in there and post Redick for a bit.

But, you put Finley in there, and you put him on Pietrus? It's just a mistake, you don't want Pietrus to get hot, and he can blow by Finley with his eyes closed.

Also, I don't like Pierce on Pietrus, but we have to live with it I guess.

I like Finley, but I hate how he's being used and with the units he's playing and against the units the Magic are fielding.

[divo0oneh]

Yea hes gonna have to give Daniels some minutes and prepare him for Artest a bit.