My problem with signing Daniels

[mgent]

I agree he is a good player and he makes our bench much better, but I'm not sure he's our best option.  People here have been talking for weeks about how we need a back-up SF for Paul and a back-up PG.  We decide to sign a swingman who can score and handle the ball.
This solves some of our problems, but not all.  No one thought Pruitt could handle backing up Rondo at the beginning of the post-season, and i don't think many people's thoughts have changed.
Daniels might be able to score, but not as good as House, and he can't shoot the 3.  This also creates a spacing issue when he's paired with Rondo.  Daniels will be best when paired with House to allow Eddie to play off the ball, and guard the 2 on D.  Finally, I do not see him being largely effective on defense against larger SF's.  So in conclusion I can not see him being a sufficient back-up for Pierce either.
In my opinion i think we should've gone after a true SF who is more defensively able, or one that is able to shoot a decent 3.  Don't worry about Paul's back-up having to handle to ball.  A player similar to Posey is what we need.

[Chris]

Well, it sounds like the problem is not with Daniels, it is that the C's still need to bring in another rotation-quality wing.  I agree with this.  I think if the C's signed a SF like Moon or Barnes, they would have had to then get a decent PG.  With Daniels, the PG is less important, but they now need to find a SF who can pick up minutes as the 8th-9th man. 

The fact is, the C's needed a player with Daniels talent-level to be the first wing off the bench.  Whether it was more of a SG or SF was somewhat irrevalent, they just needed a 7th man.  Now they just need to fill out the rest of the roster.

[BudweiserCeltic]

We're quite fine, thank you.

Giddens will have to do, and I truely believe he'll get it done.

The only thing we really need out of our wing situation, is one more guy for depth purposes.

[mgent]

Well, it sounds like the problem is not with Daniels, it is that the C's still need to bring in another rotation-quality wing.  I agree with this.  I think if the C's signed a SF like Moon or Barnes, they would have had to then get a decent PG.  With Daniels, the PG is less important, but they now need to find a SF who can pick up minutes as the 8th-9th man. 

The fact is, the C's needed a player with Daniels talent-level to be the first wing off the bench.  Whether it was more of a SG or SF was somewhat irrevalent, they just needed a 7th man.  Now they just need to fill out the rest of the roster.

I do think it's relevant though.  If we signed a guy who more fulfilled our needs i don't think we'd need another rotation-quality wing.

[Jon]

Well, it sounds like the problem is not with Daniels, it is that the C's still need to bring in another rotation-quality wing.  I agree with this.  I think if the C's signed a SF like Moon or Barnes, they would have had to then get a decent PG.  With Daniels, the PG is less important, but they now need to find a SF who can pick up minutes as the 8th-9th man. 

The fact is, the C's needed a player with Daniels talent-level to be the first wing off the bench.  Whether it was more of a SG or SF was somewhat irrevalent, they just needed a 7th man.  Now they just need to fill out the rest of the roster.

But Chris, where is this "SF who can pick up minutes as the 8th or 9th man" really going to find minutes?  There's no way Pierce or Allen are going to average less than 34-36 mpg.  And that average will likely include blow outs, where they'll play less; so in close games when who we had on the bench would actually matter, they'll likely play more.  Daniels played 31 mpg last year.  There's only 96 mpg at the 2 and 3 spots.  

So while I'd agree a 2/3 with range would be nice, I don't see where he's going to get minutes.  Furthermore, if we gave this imaginary 2/3 with range minutes, given who is left on the FA market, I feel it'd probably be more of a downgrade in talent over anything he could offer.

As for how Daniels fits in, I don't think we need to worry about it a ton.  First, I think House is fine playing backup 1, and this is from someone who has railed against him for the past 2 years.  Unlike two years ago, we know Rondo is an elite PG who can play 35-40 mpg.  While I don't love House handling the ball, given how good this team is and how much Eddie brings to the floor with his range, I think we can get by with him, or PP, or Ray, or Daniels bringing the ball up the court for 8-13 mpg.  Since that's the case, I don't think Daniels' lack of range is that big of deal.  Likely, he'll often be on the court with a unit of House, Ray/PP, KG, and Wallace, so the other 4 will be more than capable of knocking down long range shots.  On top of that, I think the sheer fact that he's good will be an upgrade over anything we had last year.  Sure, he isn't a threat from 25 feet out, but the fact that he's a threat from anywhere makes him an upgrade over any 3 we had last year.  

[mgent]

We're quite fine, thank you.

Giddens will have to do, and I truely believe he'll get it done.

The only thing we really need out of our wing situation, is one more guy for depth purposes.

Giddens isn't a defensive guy either and won't provide proper relief for Paul.

[mgent]

Well, it sounds like the problem is not with Daniels, it is that the C's still need to bring in another rotation-quality wing.  I agree with this.  I think if the C's signed a SF like Moon or Barnes, they would have had to then get a decent PG.  With Daniels, the PG is less important, but they now need to find a SF who can pick up minutes as the 8th-9th man. 

The fact is, the C's needed a player with Daniels talent-level to be the first wing off the bench.  Whether it was more of a SG or SF was somewhat irrevalent, they just needed a 7th man.  Now they just need to fill out the rest of the roster.

But Chris, where is this "SF who can pick up minutes as the 8th or 9th man" really going to find minutes?  There's no way Pierce or Allen are going to average less than 34-36 mpg.  And that average will likely include blow outs, where they'll play less; so in close games when who we had on the bench would actually matter, they'll likely play more.  Daniels played 31 mpg last year.  There's only 96 mpg at the 2 and 3 spots.  

So while I'd agree a 2/3 with range would be nice, I don't see where he's going to get minutes.  Furthermore, if we gave this imaginary 2/3 with range minutes, given who is left on the FA market, I feel it'd probably be more of a downgrade in talent over anything he could offer.

As for how Daniels fits in, I don't think we need to worry about it a ton.  First, I think House is fine playing backup 1, and this is from someone who has railed against him for the past 2 years.  Unlike two years ago, we know Rondo is an elite PG who can play 35-40 mpg.  While I don't love House handling the ball, given how good this team is and how much Eddie brings to the floor with his range, I think we can get by with him, or PP, or Ray, or Daniels bringing the ball up the court for 8-13 mpg.  Since that's the case, I don't think Daniels' lack of range is that big of deal.  Likely, he'll often be on the court with a unit of House, Ray/PP, KG, and Wallace, so the other 4 will be more than capable of knocking down long range shots.  On top of that, I think the sheer fact that he's good will be an upgrade over anything we had last year.  Sure, he isn't a threat from 25 feet out, but the fact that he's a threat from anywhere makes him an upgrade over any 3 we had last year.  

He is definitely an improvement from what we had last year (no one).

[BASS_THUMPER]

points per game decent .grabs rebounds...6'6...

ive only seen a lil of his game...seems like a legit back up

[BballTim]

I agree he is a good player and he makes our bench much better, but I'm not sure he's our best option.  People here have been talking for weeks about how we need a back-up SF for Paul and a back-up PG.  We decide to sign a swingman who can score and handle the ball.
This solves some of our problems, but not all.  No one thought Pruitt could handle backing up Rondo at the beginning of the post-season, and i don't think many people's thoughts have changed.
Daniels might be able to score, but not as good as House, and he can't shoot the 3.  This also creates a spacing issue when he's paired with Rondo.  Daniels will be best when paired with House to allow Eddie to play off the ball, and guard the 2 on D.  Finally, I do not see him being largely effective on defense against larger SF's.  So in conclusion I can not see him being a sufficient back-up for Pierce either.
In my opinion i think we should've gone after a true SF who is more defensively able, or one that is able to shoot a decent 3.  Don't worry about Paul's back-up having to handle to ball.  A player similar to Posey is what we need.

  If you have House, Wallace and Davis on the court with Daniels will you really have spacing issues?

[footey]

We don't need more 3 point shooting in our second group, given the acumen of Rasheed and Eddie. What we lack is a rebounding presence. Remember that Doc's biggest criticism of BBD this season was his dearth of rebouding, and told him he had to be mroe committed to the boards this year.  Even if we sign BBD, who is going to get the rebounds in the second unit?  Sheed won't, he is going to spot up mostly on the high post, where he is most effective. I don't know who is left that can provide this. Daniels does not strke me as a very good rebounder.

THe only UFA who seems to fit that bill is Gooden, and he is too much of a head case for us.

Any other suggestions??

[Atzar]

We're quite fine, thank you.

Giddens will have to do, and I truely believe he'll get it done.

The only thing we really need out of our wing situation, is one more guy for depth purposes.

Giddens isn't a defensive guy either and won't provide proper relief for Paul.

Giddens was drafted because of his defense and rebounding...

[mgent]

We're quite fine, thank you.

Giddens will have to do, and I truely believe he'll get it done.

The only thing we really need out of our wing situation, is one more guy for depth purposes.

Giddens isn't a defensive guy either and won't provide proper relief for Paul.

Giddens was drafted because of his defense and rebounding...

So?  Have we seen either?

[mgent]

I agree he is a good player and he makes our bench much better, but I'm not sure he's our best option.  People here have been talking for weeks about how we need a back-up SF for Paul and a back-up PG.  We decide to sign a swingman who can score and handle the ball.
This solves some of our problems, but not all.  No one thought Pruitt could handle backing up Rondo at the beginning of the post-season, and i don't think many people's thoughts have changed.
Daniels might be able to score, but not as good as House, and he can't shoot the 3.  This also creates a spacing issue when he's paired with Rondo.  Daniels will be best when paired with House to allow Eddie to play off the ball, and guard the 2 on D.  Finally, I do not see him being largely effective on defense against larger SF's.  So in conclusion I can not see him being a sufficient back-up for Pierce either.
In my opinion i think we should've gone after a true SF who is more defensively able, or one that is able to shoot a decent 3.  Don't worry about Paul's back-up having to handle to ball.  A player similar to Posey is what we need.

  If you have House, Wallace and Davis on the court with Daniels will you really have spacing issues?

If Rondo's in there then yes, in the backcourt.  You can't have Davis and Wallace behind the arc, someone has to play the post.

[BASS_THUMPER]

  You can't have Davis and Wallace behind the arc, someone has to play the post.

Scalabrine

[BudweiserCeltic]

We're quite fine, thank you.

Giddens will have to do, and I truely believe he'll get it done.

The only thing we really need out of our wing situation, is one more guy for depth purposes.

Giddens isn't a defensive guy either and won't provide proper relief for Paul.

Giddens was drafted because of his defense and rebounding...

So?  Have we seen either?

Yes.