Is DAnny making a qualifying offer to Tony tonight or not??

[EJPLAYA]

EJ, I think you are being overly negative in your assessment of Tony's skills. Let us not forget that he was in a recovery year following serious surgery on his knee. The medical consensus is that it is not until the second year that a player can realistically expect to have a full recovery. Tony's previous knee surgery, not nearly as serious, took a long time for him to get back to full strength, but when he did, wow.  He was a very effective scorer for us when Paul went down the season before. And part of his repertoire was the ability to consistently hit the outside shot, and do pretty well from the foul line. Don't recall the actual stats. Just know this: Right before his injury, he was as valuable to the team as Al Jefferson. It was Al and Tony and then everyone else (since Pierce was out). Now how does a guy who was developing into a really sound starting two guard, who could slash with the best of them (quicker than Pierce), consistently hit the open J (including 3 point range) and was a top defender, turn into a worthless player only a year later?  Don't you think the knee injury had something to do with it?  I owuld not be surprised to see a GM who knows Tony's abilities (Chris Wallace? Mitch Kupchak? Larry Bird?) pay this guy, understanding that he can start, and can play. I understand Danny's decision making here--need to focus on Posey-- but I for one think Tony Allen has yet to play his best basketball.

I understand your point, however here is the big problem. You are saying that before the injury he was a SOUND basketball player. That is no where close to the truth. He is a very limited 2 dimensional player at his peak. He can defend when healthy, and he can slash. Here's the problem though that you're not addressing. His "slashing" ability is not even that great due to his problems with charges. He has his head down and once he decides what he is going to do it makes no difference what the defense does. Because of his injuries he is no where near as fast as he once was which makes this even worse.

He also can't dribble, shoot from the outside, and makes a lot of mistakes with the ball. You can't look at that stretch where he was the offensive focus and learn a whole lot from that for a few reasons. He probably will never 100% recover to his former athletic self. He will never be the focus of the offense and has proven with his play that if he isn't touching the ball that often he isn't as effective. When you are handed the ball on a bad team and given the green light to shoot at will it isn't hard to put up some offensive numbers. Trust me. I have been there. The numbers were good, but the result was the same. Losing. TA is no better than he was 4 years ago. That is a fact. He has too many deficiencies for a person that will be way down the bench. He didn't add anything really to this team this year. A player with upside is a much better thought.

[EJPLAYA]

And I'll bring it up again, I think our small ball lineup can use Tony in there or at the least an athletic 2 or a great shooter that can defend together with Giddens. You pair those two with Posey, Rondo, and Garnett, and in theory we should have a highly energetic and athletic team, that can defend and rebound. That's a great unit to have.
[/quote]

You're not calling Tony a "great shooter" here are you?! I hope you mean someone else we would bring in...

[BudweiserCeltic]

And I'll bring it up again, I think our small ball lineup can use Tony in there or at the least an athletic 2 or a great shooter that can defend together with Giddens. You pair those two with Posey, Rondo, and Garnett, and in theory we should have a highly energetic and athletic team, that can defend and rebound. That's a great unit to have.

You're not calling Tony a "great shooter" here are you?! I hope you mean someone else we would bring in...

Yes, I'm not calling Tony a great shooter. I mean his replacement has to be either athletic (able to finish strongly) or a good shooter that runs the floor well, someone with a good body... not small like House or "old" like Ray. Someone young that can run.

Let's see who we can find with our limited resources that is better than Tony... I'm not keeping my hopes up.

I mean, does anyone seriously think that the unit cannot cause some damage for some minutes in a game? I know the spacing might be bad, but you replace that with good penetrating players. It should be a good defensive unit, so we should be capable of outscoring people. KG can spread the floor. Posey can spread the floor, and let Rondo and the others slash and penetrate.

I know you don't think Tony is a good shooter, me neither, but he should be much better this season. He was a mess last year, his lift wasn't there for his jump shots. I wonder how much practice he got in for it during the off season too. I think this summer will work wonders for his game... not that I'm expecting him to be a superstar, but he should be much better than last year.

I mean, a great shooter like Ray was affected by his lack of jump because of injuries through the season and in recovery of his surgery. Can't we extend a bit of understanding to a player recovering from an ACL injury, not confident on his knee through the year, not having his shooting form right? Even so, he shot about 38% from corner 3's... he should be capable of hitting that with more consistency and help space the floor in my suggested unit.

[paintitgreen]

I'm with EJ. It's a given that Tony was a very good defender and great athlete, and he has flashed an ability to get the ball in the basket. However, he's been extremely inconsistent and injury-prone, and his basketball IQ, ballhandling ability, shooting and passing were all always subpar and nothing indicated that would ever change. The amount of times he slashed to the basket and finished is roughly equal to the amount of times he slashed to the basket and turned the ball over, through a charge, bad pass, strip or just flat out losing the handle (or dribbling off his foot).

Tony was fun, but he probably will never be more than an 8th or 9th man on a good team. I wouldn't mind keeping him around and I'd rather get something for him than have him walk away, but there's no way I'd give him $2.75 mil a year to stay and find out if he'll get his athleticism back because like I said, even if he does, there's still plenty of problems. As much as he could be a much better player, he's not, and maybe we have to look to younger, cheaper alternatives (Giddens, Walker) to fill his role. If Tony would take a one year, $1.5 mil deal, I'd give it to him, but not a $2.75 mil deal.

[EJPLAYA]

And I'll bring it up again, I think our small ball lineup can use Tony in there or at the least an athletic 2 or a great shooter that can defend together with Giddens. You pair those two with Posey, Rondo, and Garnett, and in theory we should have a highly energetic and athletic team, that can defend and rebound. That's a great unit to have.

You're not calling Tony a "great shooter" here are you?! I hope you mean someone else we would bring in...

Yes, I'm not calling Tony a great shooter. I mean his replacement has to be either athletic (able to finish strongly) or a good shooter that runs the floor well, someone with a good body... not small like House or "old" like Ray. Someone young that can run.

Let's see who we can find with our limited resources that is better than Tony... I'm not keeping my hopes up.

I didn't think that was the case, but I agree with that thought. I guess I don't really see why that can't be Pruitt, Giddens, or Walker... Yes they are untested, but we're talking someone with a few minutes a game PT. I would like to see Posey and House which virtually makes these minutes almost non-existent. If we don't sign Posey then this is a huge priority. If we don't sign House then a small one. If we get Posey I think a big is a more pressing need. Look what happened when Perk went down...

[BudweiserCeltic]

And I'll bring it up again, I think our small ball lineup can use Tony in there or at the least an athletic 2 or a great shooter that can defend together with Giddens. You pair those two with Posey, Rondo, and Garnett, and in theory we should have a highly energetic and athletic team, that can defend and rebound. That's a great unit to have.

You're not calling Tony a "great shooter" here are you?! I hope you mean someone else we would bring in...

Yes, I'm not calling Tony a great shooter. I mean his replacement has to be either athletic (able to finish strongly) or a good shooter that runs the floor well, someone with a good body... not small like House or "old" like Ray. Someone young that can run.

Let's see who we can find with our limited resources that is better than Tony... I'm not keeping my hopes up.

I didn't think that was the case, but I agree with that thought. I guess I don't really see why that can't be Pruitt, Giddens, or Walker... Yes they are untested, but we're talking someone with a few minutes a game PT. I would like to see Posey and House which virtually makes these minutes almost non-existent. If we don't sign Posey then this is a huge priority. If we don't sign House then a small one. If we get Posey I think a big is a more pressing need. Look what happened when Perk went down...

I've said before, but Pruitt is an X factor to me. We don't know what we have in him. Hey, if he's the real the deal, then screw it you know. But if we're waiting to find out during the season what we have in him, I think it's a mistake... even relying on Giddens alone is a mistake. Walker, I don't think he'll sniff the NBA court with us this season wether Tony is here or not.

How much are you willing to risk that these two can get the job done, is the real question I guess? I'm not willing to risk much.

[Who]

I've no qualms about relying on Giddens

Tony Allen doesn't have some huge important role on the team. The Celtics ran a three men on their wings in the playoffs with Pierce/Ray/Posey. As long as that trio is solid as a rock they can rely on a rookie for backup.

If Posey (1) leaves and (2) is not replaced. Then relying on Giddens is mistake.

[wdleehi]

I've no qualms about relying on Giddens

Tony Allen doesn't have some huge important role on the team. The Celtics ran a three men on their wings in the playoffs with Pierce/Ray/Posey. As long as that trio is solid as a rock they can rely on a rookie for backup.

If Posey (1) leaves and (2) is not replaced. Then relying on Giddens is mistake.

look at Detroit.  They went with two rookies much of the season.



Boston used a rookie last year in spot duty at the 4/5.   Why not use a rookie for spot duty at the 2/3?

[BudweiserCeltic]

I've no qualms about relying on Giddens

Tony Allen doesn't have some huge important role on the team. The Celtics ran a three men on their wings in the playoffs with Pierce/Ray/Posey. As long as that trio is solid as a rock they can rely on a rookie for backup.

If Posey (1) leaves and (2) is not replaced. Then relying on Giddens is mistake.

You're one injury away from relying on a rookie though. We were very fortune last year as I said. We can't take it for granted.

I mean, what happened to all the talk about depth? What's wrong with it? It's overrated till you need it you know.

I've no qualms about relying on Giddens

Tony Allen doesn't have some huge important role on the team. The Celtics ran a three men on their wings in the playoffs with Pierce/Ray/Posey. As long as that trio is solid as a rock they can rely on a rookie for backup.

If Posey (1) leaves and (2) is not replaced. Then relying on Giddens is mistake.

look at Detroit.  They went with two rookies much of the season.



Boston used a rookie last year in spot duty at the 4/5.   Why not use a rookie for spot duty at the 2/3?

Other than Stuckey... how did the other rookies pan out during the playoffs?

[wdleehi]

I've no qualms about relying on Giddens

Tony Allen doesn't have some huge important role on the team. The Celtics ran a three men on their wings in the playoffs with Pierce/Ray/Posey. As long as that trio is solid as a rock they can rely on a rookie for backup.

If Posey (1) leaves and (2) is not replaced. Then relying on Giddens is mistake.

You're one injury away from relying on a rookie though. We were very fortune last year as I said. We can't take it for granted.

I mean, what happened to all the talk about depth? What's wrong with it? It's overrated till you need it you know.

I've no qualms about relying on Giddens

Tony Allen doesn't have some huge important role on the team. The Celtics ran a three men on their wings in the playoffs with Pierce/Ray/Posey. As long as that trio is solid as a rock they can rely on a rookie for backup.

If Posey (1) leaves and (2) is not replaced. Then relying on Giddens is mistake.

look at Detroit.  They went with two rookies much of the season.



Boston used a rookie last year in spot duty at the 4/5.   Why not use a rookie for spot duty at the 2/3?

Other than Stuckey... how did the other rookies pan out during the playoffs?

How many got actual minutes on the top teams?  (thus ignoring Hortford)

[nickagneta]

Danny purposely not getting a true PG during the season is crap and you know it. We didn't have the resources to get someone we liked, and everyone since November knew what the plan was, wait for a Cassell buy-out.

Just wanted to let you know that Danny mentioned on a WEEI segment on the Big Show back in February that he did indeed purposely not get a true PG so that Doc would be forced to develop Rondo.

I tried chaecking the Audio Vault at WEEI but I'm get error messages when trying to listen to the piece I think it is in.

http://audio.weei.com/m/18827930/danny_ainge.htm?col=en-aud-pod_weei-ep&q=danny+ainge&seek=1122.319

That's the link. If that's not the one then it's one of his interviews near that time.

Just a little FYI.

[BudweiserCeltic]

I've no qualms about relying on Giddens

Tony Allen doesn't have some huge important role on the team. The Celtics ran a three men on their wings in the playoffs with Pierce/Ray/Posey. As long as that trio is solid as a rock they can rely on a rookie for backup.

If Posey (1) leaves and (2) is not replaced. Then relying on Giddens is mistake.

You're one injury away from relying on a rookie though. We were very fortune last year as I said. We can't take it for granted.

I mean, what happened to all the talk about depth? What's wrong with it? It's overrated till you need it you know.

I've no qualms about relying on Giddens

Tony Allen doesn't have some huge important role on the team. The Celtics ran a three men on their wings in the playoffs with Pierce/Ray/Posey. As long as that trio is solid as a rock they can rely on a rookie for backup.

If Posey (1) leaves and (2) is not replaced. Then relying on Giddens is mistake.

look at Detroit.  They went with two rookies much of the season.



Boston used a rookie last year in spot duty at the 4/5.   Why not use a rookie for spot duty at the 2/3?

Other than Stuckey... how did the other rookies pan out during the playoffs?

How many got actual minutes on the top teams?  (thus ignoring Hortford)

Ah, so now we're back to the whole "if he doesn't get the minutes he can't produce" argument. Big Baby was quite bad during the playoffs, wether he got minutes or not.

Horford is a stud... so now we have a Horford in Giddens? Wow, not bad for a 30th pick that many here didn't want get drafted (wanted someone else). I know I'm putting words in your mouth, but you know... it's a bad idea to expect a rookie to produce and to rely on him.

[BudweiserCeltic]

Danny purposely not getting a true PG during the season is crap and you know it. We didn't have the resources to get someone we liked, and everyone since November knew what the plan was, wait for a Cassell buy-out.

Just wanted to let you know that Danny mentioned on a WEEI segment on the Big Show back in February that he did indeed purposely not get a true PG so that Doc would be forced to develop Rondo.

I tried chaecking the Audio Vault at WEEI but I'm get error messages when trying to listen to the piece I think it is in.

http://audio.weei.com/m/18827930/danny_ainge.htm?col=en-aud-pod_weei-ep&q=danny+ainge&seek=1122.319

That's the link. If that's not the one then it's one of his interviews near that time.

Just a little FYI.

Wow, if that's true then I don't know what to say. I think it's BS from him though, I mean Rondo played 30 minutes still giving minutes to House and Tony. I don't buy it.

You replace House with a legit PG, he gets both House's AND Tony's minutes... it wouldn't have cut much into Rondo's. I don't buy it at all. It seemed more like he was BS'ing about his master plan more than anything.

I can't think of anyone of substance that we would've liked that we could've had anyways. But if Danny really passed on players for this plan, it was plain dumb. What did it got us? Sam Cassell without real time to get used to the team.

[nickagneta]

Danny purposely not getting a true PG during the season is crap and you know it. We didn't have the resources to get someone we liked, and everyone since November knew what the plan was, wait for a Cassell buy-out.

Just wanted to let you know that Danny mentioned on a WEEI segment on the Big Show back in February that he did indeed purposely not get a true PG so that Doc would be forced to develop Rondo.

I tried chaecking the Audio Vault at WEEI but I'm get error messages when trying to listen to the piece I think it is in.

http://audio.weei.com/m/18827930/danny_ainge.htm?col=en-aud-pod_weei-ep&q=danny+ainge&seek=1122.319

That's the link. If that's not the one then it's one of his interviews near that time.

Just a little FYI.

Wow, if that's true then I don't know what to say. I think it's BS from him though, I mean Rondo played 30 minutes still giving minutes to House and Tony. I don't buy it.

You replace House with a legit PG, he gets both House's AND Tony's minutes... it wouldn't have cut much into Rondo's. I don't buy it at all. It seemed more like he was BS'ing about his master plan more than anything.

I can't think of anyone of substance that we would've liked that we could've had anyways. But if Danny really passed on players for this plan, it was plain dumb. What did it got us? Sam Cassell without real time to get used to the team.

What it got us is a 22 year old PG with championship playoff experience. If Danny had started the year with a real vet, true PG behind Rondo, once Rondo started to falter, Doc would have sat Rondo and been playing the vet PG big minutes and Rondo would not have developed. Instead Doc suffered through the season living with Rondo's mistake and allowing him to develop with the starters.

Doc knew Eddie and Tony couldn't ever start and play big point minutes. He was stuck with the only PG he had on the roster and the gamble on Danny's part paid off. Rondo could be an Eastern Conference All-Star caliber PG next year. He took that big of a leap in development.

Stupid idea? Maybe. Big gamble? Definitely. But the reward was everything and it worked out.

Could it have been revisionist history on Danny's part. Sure. But I don't think he's such an egomaniac that he has to concoct a story like that to make him appear brilliant the same year he traded for Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett. I tend to believe what he said.

[BudweiserCeltic]

Danny purposely not getting a true PG during the season is crap and you know it. We didn't have the resources to get someone we liked, and everyone since November knew what the plan was, wait for a Cassell buy-out.

Just wanted to let you know that Danny mentioned on a WEEI segment on the Big Show back in February that he did indeed purposely not get a true PG so that Doc would be forced to develop Rondo.

I tried chaecking the Audio Vault at WEEI but I'm get error messages when trying to listen to the piece I think it is in.

http://audio.weei.com/m/18827930/danny_ainge.htm?col=en-aud-pod_weei-ep&q=danny+ainge&seek=1122.319

That's the link. If that's not the one then it's one of his interviews near that time.

Just a little FYI.

Wow, if that's true then I don't know what to say. I think it's BS from him though, I mean Rondo played 30 minutes still giving minutes to House and Tony. I don't buy it.

You replace House with a legit PG, he gets both House's AND Tony's minutes... it wouldn't have cut much into Rondo's. I don't buy it at all. It seemed more like he was BS'ing about his master plan more than anything.

I can't think of anyone of substance that we would've liked that we could've had anyways. But if Danny really passed on players for this plan, it was plain dumb. What did it got us? Sam Cassell without real time to get used to the team.

What it got us is a 22 year old PG with championship playoff experience. If Danny had started the year with a real vet, true PG behind Rondo, once Rondo started to falter, Doc would have sat Rondo and been playing the vet PG big minutes and Rondo would not have developed. Instead Doc suffered through the season living with Rondo's mistake and allowing him to develop with the starters.

Doc knew Eddie and Tony couldn't ever start and play big point minutes. He was stuck with the only PG he had on the roster and the gamble on Danny's part paid off. Rondo could be an Eastern Conference All-Star caliber PG next year. He took that big of a leap in development.

Stupid idea? Maybe. Big gamble? Definitely. But the reward was everything and it worked out.

Could it have been revisionist history on Danny's part. Sure. But I don't think he's such an egomaniac that he has to concoct a story like that to make him appear brilliant the same year he traded for Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett. I tend to believe what he said.

Well whatever, it isn't even important in our agument.

The point is that in no way would Tony would play PG for us for whatever reason, and I said that I agreed, but that he's capable of playing it makes him valuable. I expect Pruitt and some back-up PG to play the position over him...

But once again, there's that X factor in Pruitt. Let's wait and see. I think it's  mistake to either not get a big guard that can play the 2 (relying on House and Pruitt is not something I want to tell you the truth) or simply keep Tony and fill your PG situation accordingly. If worse comes to worse, you play Tony a bit of PG while playing him more in his natural position. If Giddens is ready to peform, then you sit Tony. No big deal with that. That's what depth is there for.

And please don't bring up the Pierce-Allen-Posey rotation of the playoffs. It's irrelevant to me. It's one thing to believe, and still believe that that rotation gets it done, and it's another to discuss what improves our team and what not, regardless of what their use may be come playoffs time. But as I said, no Tony it means you're one injury away of relying on a rookie to probably play big important minutes.