Plan B

[Who]

   Kelenna Azubuike says his right knee has been bohtering him lately, making him questionable from night to night.
He's been suffering from tendinitis in the knee for several weeks, and while it feels better than it did initially, the condition has worsened as of late. He isn't worth playing in most leagues at this point, as his minutes in the rotation are too inconsistent.

I can't say that I ever noticed him laboring on the court but it's entirely possible the injury did harm his season. There seems to be quite a few mentions of this injury on his roto world page.

[Green Mountain]

Herrmann and Dooling would be my choices at this point. Danny has already stated he's not signing another big. I'm sure he'll leave roster spots open like he did last year.

[ForexPirate]

Can Scal defend the three position?

[BudweiserCeltic]

Matt Barnes - Grossly overrated on this board. Barely an upgrade, ever so slightly and upgrade, on Scal. I too worry about his contributions away from Nellie.

Grossly overrated? How about grossly underrated? He's not that good of a player, but a slight upgrade over Scal? Come on. I know there are some people that overrate players on this board, but seriously... no need to go to the other extreme to balance it out. He's quite an upgrade over Scal, easily... no doubt about it.

Scal can do what Barnes does defensively and he can shoot better from the perimeter. Scal is just as good of a passer and just as smart. Barnes brings more physical play and more of a swagger.

Barnes value will drop dramatically when he isn't playing out of position as a power forward. I don't think you'll get anywhere near as much of a contribution from him outside of Nellie's offense. Barnes value also dropped the minute Jason Richardson was traded. I don't see Barnes adding more than the other free agents and I don't think his contributions would that much larger than what Scal offers.

Yet, Barnes is a better rebounder, brings more energy, is more athletic, is a better scorer, runs the fast break better, better finisher, etc., etc.

Yeah I was thinking about calling Barnes a better rebounder but I'm not sold on that. Barnes grabs more rebounds but he doesn't box out well. Scal on the other hand does so team rebounding, much of a difference? I'm not so sure.

Agree on the better energy, disagree on the scoring because I think he'll falter outside of GSW, agree on the fast break related parts.

Yep, Scal does box out better, even so I feel Barnes is a better rebounder and goes after balls better... fairly good on offensive rebounds (second chance points). It's something that can certainly be worked on.

No need to disagree in the scoring, even if his production is reduced, he'd still be a better scorer. Better mid-range game, goes to the hoop better (goes to the line better)... that alone makes him a better scorer regardless if his production suffers outside of GSW.

And I don't know, in an offense as efficient as the Celtics' offense is... were there is a much better shot selection in place than in GSW, I wouldn't be so sure that his production would falter. I think his outside shot would improve just because of the type of looks he'd get... in more control, instead of running and gunning.

Hard to say till we see it, but I like the skillset he has.

   Kelenna Azubuike says his right knee has been bohtering him lately, making him questionable from night to night.
He's been suffering from tendinitis in the knee for several weeks, and while it feels better than it did initially, the condition has worsened as of late. He isn't worth playing in most leagues at this point, as his minutes in the rotation are too inconsistent.

I can't say that I ever noticed him laboring on the court but it's entirely possible the injury did harm his season. There seems to be quite a few mentions of this injury on his roto world page.

Yeah, I wasn't sure of what the injury was, but I had heard some mention of it consistently through the season, and on how it didn't heal in a timely manner and kept lingering.

Nothing that a physical wouldn't be able to take care of.

[kozlodoev]

Can Scal defend the three position?

SF, PF and C, with about the same success as Barnes will have at his three.

[Who]

Can Scal defend the three position?

Not well enough for my liking but he did play solid defense there two years ago for a short spell. Was it McGrady that he defended decently? I think so. But I'd say the same about Barnes defending small forwards. I don't want either one of them there.

[Fan from VT]

Good list

I don't want Childress. He doesn't provide what I want from the backup on the wings. Poor defender, Poor shooter, no go-to offense. I'm not wild about garbage men on the wings. I also do not think he's worth the MLE, although it wouldn't be too bad because it would be a trade-able contract

I still just don't get this. The guy is a .360 shooter from 3 for his career, .522 from the field. He's an UGLY shooter, but he's a GOOD one. He's also known as a decent defender and can defend several positions.

His eFG% on jump shots last season was 39.7%. That's poor.

Maybe, but it shows how good his shot selection is. Look at last year: shooting .367 from threes is good. therefore i'm assuming that his eFG% on jump shots is low because he is poor at shooting long 2 pointers. However, because his overall shooting percentage was .571 last year, we can assume that he knows better than to shoot those long 2 pointers very often. There's a reason he is able to hit .367 from threes and ridiculous 64.7 shooting percentage last year: he knows which shots to take. that is a good thing.

[Who]

No need to disagree in the scoring, even if his production is reduced, he'd still be a better scorer. Better mid-range game, goes to the hoop better (goes to the line better)... that alone makes him a better scorer regardless if his production suffers outside of GSW.

And I don't know, in an offense as efficient as the Celtics' offense is... were there is a much better shot selection in place than in GSW, I wouldn't be so sure that his production would falter. I think his outside shot would improve just because of the type of looks he'd get... in more control, instead of running and gunning.

Well that's where we disagree. If Barnes could give the same production here in Boston as a small forward I'd be far more optimistic about his impact but I just can't see it. I can fully understand someone thinking a comparison to Scal is awful if he expects that performance level to remain at a similar level .... but I expect a big drop off from him outside of GSW.

Barnes is a guy a lot like Jeffries in New York. He has some perimeter type skills which are below par at small forward but when they play as a power forward those skills all become large strengths. They have a deceiving value. Jeffries is another guy who I wouldn't here as a small forward that several others do appreciate. Both guys need a coach who'll use them at their best positions to get good value out of them.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Barnes sitting on a bench outside the rotation or as a final rotation player next season. I think that's his most likely outcome if he leaves GSW.

[Who]

Good list

I don't want Childress. He doesn't provide what I want from the backup on the wings. Poor defender, Poor shooter, no go-to offense. I'm not wild about garbage men on the wings. I also do not think he's worth the MLE, although it wouldn't be too bad because it would be a trade-able contract

I still just don't get this. The guy is a .360 shooter from 3 for his career, .522 from the field. He's an UGLY shooter, but he's a GOOD one. He's also known as a decent defender and can defend several positions.

His eFG% on jump shots last season was 39.7%. That's poor.

Maybe, but it shows how good his shot selection is. Look at last year: shooting .367 from threes is good. therefore i'm assuming that his eFG% on jump shots is low because he is poor at shooting long 2 pointers. However, because his overall shooting percentage was .571 last year, we can assume that he knows better than to shoot those long 2 pointers very often. There's a reason he is able to hit .367 from threes and ridiculous 64.7 shooting percentage last year: he knows which shots to take. that is a good thing.

I fully agree that Childress has a great shot selection. He's knows he's a poor shooter and he limits his jump shots very well. I was looking at his shot chart a few days ago and saw he only took three shots outside of the paint in 7 games against the C's while playing 30mpg. Looking at his regular season shot chart he's a similarly poor shooter in that 14-19 feet range as that 20-25 feet range .... On hotspots here he shot 13-52 (25%) on shots in between the 6/8 feet and 20 feet range. So he's a poor shooter anywhere outside the paint. In contrast he shot 63.3% on 461 shots inside of the paint. If a perimeter player shoots 39.7% on jump shots he's a poor shooter.

I don't value what Childress brings to the table very highly - the first three things I want are (1) Defense (2) Shooting ability to spread the floor (3) go-to scoring (if like Bonzi Wells he couldn't shot but create his own shot that would hold extra value to me). Childress provides none of those at a high enough level. I'd have a lot more time for him if he were a good defender. There's definitely a lot of other virtues to his game, they're just not what I'm interested in.

[sk7326]

Good list

I don't want Childress. He doesn't provide what I want from the backup on the wings. Poor defender, Poor shooter, no go-to offense. I'm not wild about garbage men on the wings. I also do not think he's worth the MLE, although it wouldn't be too bad because it would be a trade-able contract

I still just don't get this. The guy is a .360 shooter from 3 for his career, .522 from the field. He's an UGLY shooter, but he's a GOOD one. He's also known as a decent defender and can defend several positions.

His eFG% on jump shots last season was 39.7%. That's poor.

Maybe, but it shows how good his shot selection is. Look at last year: shooting .367 from threes is good. therefore i'm assuming that his eFG% on jump shots is low because he is poor at shooting long 2 pointers. However, because his overall shooting percentage was .571 last year, we can assume that he knows better than to shoot those long 2 pointers very often. There's a reason he is able to hit .367 from threes and ridiculous 64.7 shooting percentage last year: he knows which shots to take. that is a good thing.

I fully agree that Childress has a great shot selection. He's knows he's a poor shooter and he limits his jump shots very well. I was looking at his shot chart a few days ago and saw he only took three shots outside of the paint in 7 games against the C's while playing 30mpg. Looking at his regular season shot chart he's a similarly poor shooter in that 14-19 feet range as that 20-25 feet range .... On hotspots here he shot 13-52 (25%) on shots in between the 6/8 feet and 20 feet range. So he's a poor shooter anywhere outside the paint. In contrast he shot 63.3% on 461 shots inside of the paint. If a perimeter player shoots 39.7% on jump shots he's a poor shooter.

I don't value what Childress brings to the table very highly - the first three things I want are (1) Defense (2) Shooting ability to spread the floor (3) go-to scoring (if like Bonzi Wells he couldn't shot but create his own shot that would hold extra value to me). Childress provides none of those at a high enough level. I'd have a lot more time for him if he were a good defender. There's definitely a lot of other virtues to his game, they're just not what I'm interested in.

The truest evidence of shooting effectiveness is that he is an 80% foul shooter.  His god awful release goes in a lot.  His offense is like Shawn Marion.  Not a form you would teach, but something that works quite well.  In the ATL series he stayed around the rim because like the rest of the Hawks, he was exploting an athleticism gap.  Also the Celtics defense is kind of good, so perhaps he was run off of the preferred looks.   

[Andy Jick]

i've read probably hundreds of posts here since the departure of james posey...

all of us better warm up to the idea that there is NO ONE out there exactly like him...everyone seems to want a posey "replica" and if danny can't find one then the sky will come crashing down.

we're going to be fine...posey took charges, gave hugs, hit key three pointers and played good team defense.  he's a unique player and i'm glad he helped bring us a title.  but danny will bring in players - and though they may not do things exactly the way posey does, they'll be able to provide depth and fit into what doc is doing.

but all of these suggestions people are throwing out and then comparing them to posey - it just won't work.

[soap07]

Bud, I've missed some of this thread so I apologize for rehashing if you've answered. What would you be willing to may for Barnes? Vet min? Part of the MLE? All of it?

[Jon]

I'm kind of overwhelmed with all of the possibilities out there.  Without getting too specific, I do think there are some rules Danny should follow when pursuing free agents.

1) If possible, go for quality over quantity.  Right now the C's have a starting lineup and probably a backup 4 (Davis or Powe).  In order for a free agent to be worth acquiring, they're going to have to beat out the likes of Giddens and O'Bryant.  Otherwise, all we have is a nice 10th or 11th man who will ultimately be pretty unimportant.  So if Danny sees someone on the market capable of unquestionably beating out everyone else out there to back up one of those spots, he needs to pay him. 

2) Go high risk, but only at the minimum and with a backup plan in mind.  I don't mind guys like Marbury and Miles coming on board, but it should stay at the minimum so that if they start causing trouble, they can be cut without hesitation.  These guys wouldn't be terrible if they brought Allen and House back to compete with them. 

3) Keep the deals short. I know the C's have the MLE next year as well; however, at some point Wyc is probably going to draw the line on the luxury tax.  Next year they'll be a new crop of free agents to hit up.  For this reason, I wouldn't mind them targeting older guys who are probably only looking for one year like Michael Finley or even bringing back our old friend Sam Cassell. 

[winsomme]

Good list

I don't want Childress. He doesn't provide what I want from the backup on the wings. Poor defender, Poor shooter, no go-to offense. I'm not wild about garbage men on the wings. I also do not think he's worth the MLE, although it wouldn't be too bad because it would be a trade-able contract

I still just don't get this. The guy is a .360 shooter from 3 for his career, .522 from the field. He's an UGLY shooter, but he's a GOOD one. He's also known as a decent defender and can defend several positions.

His eFG% on jump shots last season was 39.7%. That's poor.

Maybe, but it shows how good his shot selection is. Look at last year: shooting .367 from threes is good. therefore i'm assuming that his eFG% on jump shots is low because he is poor at shooting long 2 pointers. However, because his overall shooting percentage was .571 last year, we can assume that he knows better than to shoot those long 2 pointers very often. There's a reason he is able to hit .367 from threes and ridiculous 64.7 shooting percentage last year: he knows which shots to take. that is a good thing.

I fully agree that Childress has a great shot selection. He's knows he's a poor shooter and he limits his jump shots very well. I was looking at his shot chart a few days ago and saw he only took three shots outside of the paint in 7 games against the C's while playing 30mpg. Looking at his regular season shot chart he's a similarly poor shooter in that 14-19 feet range as that 20-25 feet range .... On hotspots here he shot 13-52 (25%) on shots in between the 6/8 feet and 20 feet range. So he's a poor shooter anywhere outside the paint. In contrast he shot 63.3% on 461 shots inside of the paint. If a perimeter player shoots 39.7% on jump shots he's a poor shooter.

I don't value what Childress brings to the table very highly - the first three things I want are (1) Defense (2) Shooting ability to spread the floor (3) go-to scoring (if like Bonzi Wells he couldn't shot but create his own shot that would hold extra value to me). Childress provides none of those at a high enough level. I'd have a lot more time for him if he were a good defender. There's definitely a lot of other virtues to his game, they're just not what I'm interested in.

The truest evidence of shooting effectiveness is that he is an 80% foul shooter.  His god awful release goes in a lot.  His offense is like Shawn Marion.  Not a form you would teach, but something that works quite well.  In the ATL series he stayed around the rim because like the rest of the Hawks, he was exploting an athleticism gap.  Also the Celtics defense is kind of good, so perhaps he was run off of the preferred looks.   

i was bothered by the fact that he only shot FTs at a 50% clip in the playoffs....made me wonder if that weird release becomes more problematic under the higher pressure of the playoffs.

[wiley]

stay away from ricky davis, ron artest and Marbury.

I have a feeling danny's trying for something large, meaning some kind of trade.

but if something big's not in the works then:

1.  sign eddie house
2.  sign tony allen......never play him at point (despite the temptation) and discipline him into turning the ball
      over less....make him give the ball up and move without the ball....he'll score plenty in a movement offense
      with high volume passing, and we know his defense. 
3.  give giddens some minutes from the get go.  He may be ready to help substantially by the playoffs.