fitting a square peg into a round hole?

[wiley]

Baby did a good job keeping D. Howard out of the paint last night.  I get that he's a 4 who can also play some at the 5.

But imagine we signed Gortat as Perk's backup and McDyess as Garnett's backup
(fantasyland?), the major rotation being Perkins, Garnett and McDyess but with plenty of Gortat.  Now imagine Baby has made a good start on the years-long process of honing his body (not getting lighter...doubt that's in the cards for Baby), just sculpting and conditioning, etc..

In that scenario could Baby play backup 3 next year to Paul Pierce?  His feet are quick and he's a good passer.  Would he get destroyed on the defensive end by other backup 3's like Ariza and Pietrus?  Would Baby a little out of position be worth it if it allowed us to sign not 1 but 2 excellent bigs? 

I'm all in favor of keep Billy Walker or Giddens for the 3 spot, but I'm also in favor of depth at that position and reducing minutes for each of the big 3 during the regular season?

So if Travis Outlaw or J. Posey don't come walking throgh that door, how about Baby?  Would Matt Barnes at the 3 be so much superior to Big Baby?

(This post is not for tweener-haters who'd rather see Baby let go altogether)

[Cman]

First off, since we are talking about BBD, shouldn't it be "fitting a round peg in a square hole"? 

Second, I like BBD at the 4/5 and think it is asking too much of him to come in at the 3 as well.  Also, while I like McDyess, I really think he is not necessary given what the Cs can get out of BBD.  I think if the Cs resign BBD in the offseason,  along with a capable true center who isn't too expensive (Gortat may be too expensive; perhaps Rasho?), and sign Powe to a small contract, that the Cs are set at the 4/5 and can address other areas of weakness (backup PG and SF).

[Fafnir]

Big Baby would foul out of every game playing any minutes at the 3. Not to mention he'd be a disaster for offensive spacing.

Baby gets into foul trouble trying to play Rashard. See the second to last possession of the game. He'd get into even more trouble trying to guard backup SFs. Especially SFs that would pull him outside near the 3 point line. He'd get beat on drives all night.

He also would be forced outside the paint. His 20 foot shot has gotten better but can he provide weakside spacing from the 3 point line? Doubtful. BBD cannot play the small forward position.

[wiley]

First off, since we are talking about BBD, shouldn't it be "fitting a round peg in a square hole"? 

Second, I like BBD at the 4/5 and think it is asking too much of him to come in at the 3 as well.  Also, while I like McDyess, I really think he is not necessary given what the Cs can get out of BBD.  I think if the Cs resign BBD in the offseason,  along with a capable true center who isn't too expensive (Gortat may be too expensive; perhaps Rasho?), and sign Powe to a small contract, that the Cs are set at the 4/5 and can address other areas of weakness (backup PG and SF).

Yes, surely you and others will be right that Baby belongs at 4 at 5.  But I don't think signing Davis, Powe and Rasho will be enough for next year.  Powe might or might not contribute next year.  And Kevin needs every bit of knee to play his kind of ball (we might have to rest him more the first half of next year). 

I'm so big-starved right now that I might prefer McDyess to someone like Outlaw or J. Posey coming back....And I wouldn't have a problem with Baby as the primary backup 5 playing alongside McDyess.  Too bad people think Antonio Mc. is too expensive...

[wiley]

Big Baby would foul out of every game playing any minutes at the 3. Not to mention he'd be a disaster for offensive spacing.

Baby gets into foul trouble trying to play Rashard. See the second to last possession of the game. He'd get into even more trouble trying to guard backup SFs. Especially SFs that would pull him outside near the 3 point line. He'd get beat on drives all night.

He also would be forced outside the paint. His 20 foot shot has gotten better but can he provide weakside spacing from the 3 point line? Doubtful. BBD cannot play the small forward position.

Accepted.  Would you feel the same if we were talking about that Rockets team that started the twin towers?  Would Baby have been able to start for that Rocket team at the 3?  He wouldn't have had to foul the guy blowing by him since no one would want to go near the paint anyway.  Of course now I'm talking about him getting away with playing the 3 and not focusing on any positives he might bring there.  Would there be any positives if the paint were manned by the kind of beasts who allow PGs to gamble, etc...?

[clover]

Would be funny if Baby's success would be combined with Belichick's strategy of signing wrestlers to play football--and there were a sudden rush on Japan's sumo wrestlers to join NBA teams.

[Fafnir]

Big Baby would foul out of every game playing any minutes at the 3. Not to mention he'd be a disaster for offensive spacing.

Baby gets into foul trouble trying to play Rashard. See the second to last possession of the game. He'd get into even more trouble trying to guard backup SFs. Especially SFs that would pull him outside near the 3 point line. He'd get beat on drives all night.

He also would be forced outside the paint. His 20 foot shot has gotten better but can he provide weakside spacing from the 3 point line? Doubtful. BBD cannot play the small forward position.

Accepted.  Would you feel the same if we were talking about that Rockets team that started the twin towers?  Would Baby have been able to start for that Rocket team at the 3?  He wouldn't have had to foul the guy blowing by him since no one would want to go near the paint anyway.  Of course now I'm talking about him getting away with playing the 3 and not focusing on any positives he might bring there.  Would there be any positives if the paint were manned by the kind of beasts who allow PGs to gamble, etc...?

He might survive defensively for some stretches in that sort of situation. But what is the point of playing a quality backup 4/5 with your two starting bigs? Surely there is a better option to backup Pierce at SF.

I think the biggest problem would be on offense. How do you play with three big men on the floor efficiently? Davis is a big body and would take up a lot of space. Unless he added a three-point shot he'd be forced to stay where it'd be easy for people to double off him into the lane and still recover.

Furthermore Davis is an okay jumpshooter for a bigman. For a SF he'd be a poor shooter. If you take away his paint touches his offense would suffer. Too many problems on both ends. Plus couldn't the other team go small and force him to the bench anyways?

[wiley]

Big Baby would foul out of every game playing any minutes at the 3. Not to mention he'd be a disaster for offensive spacing.

Baby gets into foul trouble trying to play Rashard. See the second to last possession of the game. He'd get into even more trouble trying to guard backup SFs. Especially SFs that would pull him outside near the 3 point line. He'd get beat on drives all night.

He also would be forced outside the paint. His 20 foot shot has gotten better but can he provide weakside spacing from the 3 point line? Doubtful. BBD cannot play the small forward position.

Accepted.  Would you feel the same if we were talking about that Rockets team that started the twin towers?  Would Baby have been able to start for that Rocket team at the 3?  He wouldn't have had to foul the guy blowing by him since no one would want to go near the paint anyway.  Of course now I'm talking about him getting away with playing the 3 and not focusing on any positives he might bring there.  Would there be any positives if the paint were manned by the kind of beasts who allow PGs to gamble, etc...?

He might survive defensively for some stretches in that sort of situation. But what is the point of playing a quality backup 4/5 with your two starting bigs? Surely there is a better option to backup Pierce at SF.

I think the biggest problem would be on offense. How do you play with three big men on the floor efficiently? Davis is a big body and would take up a lot of space. Unless he added a three-point shot he'd be forced to stay where it'd be easy for people to double off him into the lane and still recover.

Furthermore Davis is an okay jumpshooter for a bigman. For a SF he'd be a poor shooter. If you take away his paint touches his offense would suffer. Too many problems on both ends. Plus couldn't the other team go small and force him to the bench anyways?

I see.  My money-saving fantasy won't work.

[Fafnir]

Big Baby would foul out of every game playing any minutes at the 3. Not to mention he'd be a disaster for offensive spacing.

Baby gets into foul trouble trying to play Rashard. See the second to last possession of the game. He'd get into even more trouble trying to guard backup SFs. Especially SFs that would pull him outside near the 3 point line. He'd get beat on drives all night.

He also would be forced outside the paint. His 20 foot shot has gotten better but can he provide weakside spacing from the 3 point line? Doubtful. BBD cannot play the small forward position.

Accepted.  Would you feel the same if we were talking about that Rockets team that started the twin towers?  Would Baby have been able to start for that Rocket team at the 3?  He wouldn't have had to foul the guy blowing by him since no one would want to go near the paint anyway.  Of course now I'm talking about him getting away with playing the 3 and not focusing on any positives he might bring there.  Would there be any positives if the paint were manned by the kind of beasts who allow PGs to gamble, etc...?

He might survive defensively for some stretches in that sort of situation. But what is the point of playing a quality backup 4/5 with your two starting bigs? Surely there is a better option to backup Pierce at SF.

I think the biggest problem would be on offense. How do you play with three big men on the floor efficiently? Davis is a big body and would take up a lot of space. Unless he added a three-point shot he'd be forced to stay where it'd be easy for people to double off him into the lane and still recover.

Furthermore Davis is an okay jumpshooter for a bigman. For a SF he'd be a poor shooter. If you take away his paint touches his offense would suffer. Too many problems on both ends. Plus couldn't the other team go small and force him to the bench anyways?

I see.  My money-saving fantasy won't work.

Nope. But BBD can be signed without effecting the MLE. We will have the financial flexibility to use it still to add to the team. It remains to be seen what Danny will do with it this year.

The good news is that we will have a couple expiring deals to trade away if we're willing to take back salary.

[nickagneta]

Big Baby would foul out of every game playing any minutes at the 3. Not to mention he'd be a disaster for offensive spacing.

Baby gets into foul trouble trying to play Rashard. See the second to last possession of the game. He'd get into even more trouble trying to guard backup SFs. Especially SFs that would pull him outside near the 3 point line. He'd get beat on drives all night.

He also would be forced outside the paint. His 20 foot shot has gotten better but can he provide weakside spacing from the 3 point line? Doubtful. BBD cannot play the small forward position.

Accepted.  Would you feel the same if we were talking about that Rockets team that started the twin towers?  Would Baby have been able to start for that Rocket team at the 3?  He wouldn't have had to foul the guy blowing by him since no one would want to go near the paint anyway.  Of course now I'm talking about him getting away with playing the 3 and not focusing on any positives he might bring there.  Would there be any positives if the paint were manned by the kind of beasts who allow PGs to gamble, etc...?

He might survive defensively for some stretches in that sort of situation. But what is the point of playing a quality backup 4/5 with your two starting bigs? Surely there is a better option to backup Pierce at SF.

I think the biggest problem would be on offense. How do you play with three big men on the floor efficiently? Davis is a big body and would take up a lot of space. Unless he added a three-point shot he'd be forced to stay where it'd be easy for people to double off him into the lane and still recover.

Furthermore Davis is an okay jumpshooter for a bigman. For a SF he'd be a poor shooter. If you take away his paint touches his offense would suffer. Too many problems on both ends. Plus couldn't the other team go small and force him to the bench anyways?

I see.  My money-saving fantasy won't work.

Nope. But BBD can be signed without effecting the MLE. We will have the financial flexibility to use it still to add to the team. It remains to be seen what Danny will do with it this year.

The good news is that we will have a couple expiring deals to trade away if we're willing to take back salary.

I love the optimism but in reality, what could the C's really get back in return for Allen, Scal, and maybe Pruitt? That's 6.5 million in expiring contracts, or there abouts. My guess is there is very little any team is going to give us in return for our scrub-like flotsam and jetsam.

[JSD]

Do you guys think Davis is a starter in this league at the PF? Do we add him to the list of "Celtics future" that currently consists of Rondo and Perk?

I found this video on the ESPN boards:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsWoNy08Ayo

[Fafnir]

Big Baby would foul out of every game playing any minutes at the 3. Not to mention he'd be a disaster for offensive spacing.

Baby gets into foul trouble trying to play Rashard. See the second to last possession of the game. He'd get into even more trouble trying to guard backup SFs. Especially SFs that would pull him outside near the 3 point line. He'd get beat on drives all night.

He also would be forced outside the paint. His 20 foot shot has gotten better but can he provide weakside spacing from the 3 point line? Doubtful. BBD cannot play the small forward position.

Accepted.  Would you feel the same if we were talking about that Rockets team that started the twin towers?  Would Baby have been able to start for that Rocket team at the 3?  He wouldn't have had to foul the guy blowing by him since no one would want to go near the paint anyway.  Of course now I'm talking about him getting away with playing the 3 and not focusing on any positives he might bring there.  Would there be any positives if the paint were manned by the kind of beasts who allow PGs to gamble, etc...?

He might survive defensively for some stretches in that sort of situation. But what is the point of playing a quality backup 4/5 with your two starting bigs? Surely there is a better option to backup Pierce at SF.

I think the biggest problem would be on offense. How do you play with three big men on the floor efficiently? Davis is a big body and would take up a lot of space. Unless he added a three-point shot he'd be forced to stay where it'd be easy for people to double off him into the lane and still recover.

Furthermore Davis is an okay jumpshooter for a bigman. For a SF he'd be a poor shooter. If you take away his paint touches his offense would suffer. Too many problems on both ends. Plus couldn't the other team go small and force him to the bench anyways?

I see.  My money-saving fantasy won't work.

Nope. But BBD can be signed without effecting the MLE. We will have the financial flexibility to use it still to add to the team. It remains to be seen what Danny will do with it this year.

The good news is that we will have a couple expiring deals to trade away if we're willing to take back salary.

I love the optimism but in reality, what could the C's really get back in return for Allen, Scal, and maybe Pruitt? That's 6.5 million in expiring contracts, or there abouts. My guess is there is very little any team is going to give us in return for our scrub-like flotsam and jetsam.

What could we get? I don't know, probably not much. But remember that Charlotte got Vlad Radmonovich for similar flotsam. There could easily be an okay backup to be had who has another year or two that a team wants to dump.

[Brendan]

The C's need to get as much talent into the top 4 big men on the roster as they can. I'm hoping they fine a quality backup center on the market and keep BBD - or can convince themselves that Powe is coming back full strength and get a guy like Rasheed. The only way I see them keeping both is if there is no one else on the market (unlikely) or Scal gets moved, otherwise they are dramatically over served at PF.

[paintitgreen]

I like the idea of keeping Davis and Powe, and agree, there's no way to switch Davis to the 3 position, that's just silly. Maybe Scal could try to slim down to play more 3/4, but not Davis. He's good where he is. Pick up the quickness on defense a bit, but he'd be less effective if he lost the amount of weight he'd have to lose to play the 3.

My ideal is to develop either Walker or Giddens into a legit rotation player at the 3 for next season, see if we can bring Marbury back as a backup point for short money, and hold onto Powe (Bird rights) and Davis (most of MLE money). We need to pick up a legit backup center (not Mikki Moore, and not wait around for another midseason pickup). In my mind, it's time to move on from Tony Allen. With his money, and Pruitt (if we take the option), we have about $3.25 mil in expiring money. Package them, and, if we have to and depending on the quality of player we can get back, Scal's expiring $3.4 mil for an actual quality center (i.e., Brendan Haywood $6 mil (1 year), Jeff Foster $6 mil (2 years), Ronny Turiaf ($4 mil - 3 years)) to back up Perk from a team that wants to shed some cash. We might overpay, but if we're giving up some salary in exchange, it might not be so bad and will fill a need. And then we'd be able to pick up a cheap extra wing player for the LLE who can give us defense and shooting at the 3 off the bench if Walker/Giddens won't make the cut.