Daniels vs. Barnes

[coenhead11]

Was there a way we could have signed Barnes for the amount we signed Daniels? Daniels making half a million more seems crazy to me.

[wdleehi]

No.  Celtics had rights to Daniels and could sign him for more the the vet min.



Plus, I rather Daniels. 

[Roy Hobbs]

Nope.  In a nutshell, because we had Marquis under contract, we could give him up to a 20% raise this year.  That allowed us to give him significantly more than we could have given Barnes (barring some sort of sign-and-trade with Orlando, which wasn't about to happen.)

[coenhead11]

you'd rather marq? I think Barnes is a poor man's James Posey. He can hit 3's, lockdown opponents, and he hates Kobe... at least he did before he signed to play with him. I still hate Barnes. Wish S&T with cavs could've been worked out for SHaq and Barnes for Sheed's contract and a pick; then we'd still get the mid level.

[Roy Hobbs]

you'd rather marq? I think Barnes is a poor man's James Posey. He can hit 3's, lockdown opponents, and he hates Kobe... at least he did before he signed to play with him. I still hate Barnes. Wish S&T with cavs could've been worked out for SHaq and Barnes for Sheed's contract and a pick; then we'd still get the mid level.

I think Barnes defense may be slightly above-average (when he puts in an effort), but he's definitely not a lockdown defender.

Also, Barnes was with Orlando, so he couldn't have been part of a sign-and-trade with Cleveland (you can't sign-and-trade another team's free agent.)

[the_Bird]

I'll take Daniels all day.  I've seen Daniels actually play some pretty [dang] solid defense; far as I can tell, Barnes' D is all reputation.  

Barnes can hit a jumper, but that's about it.  Quis can handle the ball, give him a little space and he can get to the rim, and he's pretty good at cutting to the basket without the ball.  

Barnes would basically only be able to back up Pierce; too small to really play PF, too slow to play SG.  Quis can back up Pierce or Ray, and can be that emergency third point guard behind Rondo and Nate.

That flexibility could be nice; depending on what the rest of the roster looks like, maybe that lets us keep a development-guy around (Erdin, perhaps).  If you've got Barnes instead of Daniels, maybe you have to waste a roster spot on a veteran PG that you have no intention of ever playing.

[Jon]

As others have said, Marquis is the better player.  Barnes didn't do crap on Pierce last year, and while I love our captain, it is possible to make him have some bad games now.  Barnes didn't do that. 

Plus, the one really good statistical year that Barnes had he played with Nash, which inflates his stats.  Otherwise, not only is he a mediocre player, he's had some bad 3-pt shooting years as well (below 30%).  While Marquis likely couldn't do better, at least he doesn't jack them. 

I'm also eager to see what Marquis can do with Nate.  Marquis can be a little passive offensively sometimes; however, the steady poise he has could really compliment Nate's assertiveness. 

Also, while I hope it doesn't come to this, Marquis could conceivably be our #3 wing.  I hope we can do better, but if not, it's possible he can fill that role.  He's been a starter in this league and scored nearly 14 ppg in a season. 

[Who]

I would rather have Barnes.

Better offensive player in large part due to his shooting ability + a vastly superior rebounder. Daniels is the better defender but an unexceptional one at that.

[coenhead11]

I understand Daniels was injured last season, but I don't want for him to have to handle the ball, I think the versatility is useless. Marquis can play SG and SF, but I think Barnes is the better player. Marquis isn't the young player filled with potential that he once was, and neither is Barnes. But I think Barnes would've been a better sign just because of the unknown factor about him. I think we all know by now the best, and obviously worst Marquis can play. I wish we signed TA for 3 years at 10 if we are spending 2.5 on Daniels. Hopefully we can get Butler at the minimum, although I doubt that.