My problem with signing Daniels

[Jon]

When it comes to the starting five you get a chance to really impact the talent level of the team. When it comes to the bench your into a balancing act. A pure SF who could shoot, but didn't have the handle Daniels has - would have forced the C's to pickup a backup PG. Daniels allows House to play more minutes. I'm not sure the C's will be able to add a PG that provides more talent than House. Having Posey as the backup wing, would be a better fit with a guard more like Marbury's skill set off the bench, rather than House. That made more sense two years ago when Rondo still had question marks.

C's have the following guys to play both guard spots and SF (in order of expected MPG) - Rondo, Pierce, Allen, Daniels, House. Everyone, but House has good handle for their position and 3/5 are good 3pt shooters. Four big men are likely to get minutes Perk, KG, Sheed, and Scal. Both guys off the bench are good 3pt shooters, and KG has a good outside game. All are above average ball handlers. I think offensively the team has a good enough blend of skills to make things work. I do wonder if Daniels will see a jump in defensive ability like Ray Allen and Eddie House in the C's system and under Thibs. If he's able to play the other teams better wing while in off the bench this is a great signing. If Pierce (or Allen) retain that responsibility it's probably just a good one.

In terms of filling out the backup PG spot - if Pruitt goes, they need a guy who is capable enough starting for a few games in case of a Rondo minor injury, but not going to complain riding the pine. They don't need someone who plays ten minutes a night. If Rondo goes down with something serious (a la Jameer Nelson) Danny will have to find a replacement on the fly.

I'm not too worried about backup PG.  As Brendan said, House will be fine, particularly with Daniels and either Pierce or Allen on the court with him.  And this isn't 2007 when Rondo was playing 25 mpg and having tons of mental lapses.  He'll likely play 35-40 mpg, so whoever is running the backup PG will probably be just fine in very sparse minutes.  Furthermore, House usually struggles in the playoffs when he sees the same team over and over again and they start to press and trap him.  I'm sure he'll be fine in the regular season where he won't see that.  And as Doc proved in the playoffs last year, he has no problem playing Rondo (and Rondo has no problem playing) 45 mpg, so to me, the backup PG spot really is pretty irrelevant.  

And if Rondo goes down?  We're pretty much screwed whether we have a bad or mediocre backup PG.  So I don't know how much that matters.

[Chris]

Didn't Daniels spend over half his playing time last year at the 3 spot?

I'm pretty sure he did.

Yeah, I believe he did as well.  He is 6'6" with a big wingspan.  I don't know where this stuff about him not being able to cover SF's comes from.

[wdleehi]

I love the move (considering what the options are)


I would really love if the Celtics also added

Davis, Udoku and Carter (or trade for a larger PG)

[Brendan]

And if Rondo goes down?  We're pretty much screwed whether we have a bad or mediocre backup PG.  So I don't know how much that matters.

I think we've seen we can pickup someone around the deadline if need be - Cassel and Marbury could both have done fine starting if Rondo had been injured (not as good, but good enough that the other guys might be able to get us a win.)

One other thing - Scal has the ability to play SF in some situations. This gives an additional component to roster flexibility and rotations that I overlooked. I really like Scal as the 9th man for now. At this point I wouldn't be surprised if BBD is back at the QO or not at all.

I think Daniels is big enough to cover all but the biggest SF (a guy like Dirk for example) - but I just don't know how good his D is.

[Brendan]

I love the move (considering what the options are)


I would really love if the Celtics also added

Davis, Udoku and Carter (or trade for a larger PG)

I was thinking they should look at Bowen. He'd be a nice guy in that he has tactical value coming in for a few minutes a game if there is foul issues AND strategic value as insurance for any of the top wings going down for a few weeks in the regular season. That would be predicated on Daniels being an actual S&T and not an LLE pick up.

[paintitgreen]

I like the move too. My one problem has been that they added another 2 guard, which is what we already have in House and to a lesser extent Tony Allen (and for those who mentioned him, Giddens too). But unlike those other 2, he can actually play some time at the 1 and the 3 which is a huge bonus. Now, I'd definitely like to get TA out of here (so a sign and trade would be great) and bring in either a 1 or a 3 at the LLE. They wouldn't have to be as good as Daniels (I think Daniels is a high quality player to get for this money), just a pure point or a bigger 3 (6'7" or taller with some bulk).

But that's my only issue and because of Daniels' versatility and ability to play some minutes at the other two positions, I'm extremely happy to bring him in, regardless of whether it's a signing or a trade.

[winsomme]

ball-handling really is not a problem on the Cs. Rondo, Ray, Paul and KG all can handle the ball if need-be.

personally in bench players, I want shooters and defenders. guys like Marquis who need the ball in their hands to be effective are not ideal bench players IMO. not for the Cs.

that said, Daniels is definitely talented. so hopefully talent wins out and overcomes any concerns I might have.

still hoping this is a S&T because I really would like to have a spot for Leon. I think he will be back playing this year and would like that to be with the Cs.

[Jon]

I love the move (considering what the options are)


I would really love if the Celtics also added

Davis, Udoku and Carter (or trade for a larger PG)

I was thinking they should look at Bowen. He'd be a nice guy in that he has tactical value coming in for a few minutes a game if there is foul issues AND strategic value as insurance for any of the top wings going down for a few weeks in the regular season. That would be predicated on Daniels being an actual S&T and not an LLE pick up.

Bowen would be interesting.  At his age, you wouldn't want him to play more than 5-10 mpg anyway, so he'd be perfect in spot minutes as the 4th wing. 

I'd also be curious about Ben Wallace.  I know he's a shell of what he used to be, but again, there aren't going to be a ton of leftover minutes at the 4/5 position even if Davis doesn't come back.  I wouldn't hate Wallace coming in for similar spot 4/5 minutes to play some D and block some shots. 

[crownsy]

ball-handling really is not a problem on the Cs. Rondo, Ray, Paul and KG all can handle the ball if need-be.

personally in bench players, I want shooters and defenders. guys like Marquis who need the ball in their hands to be effective are not ideal bench players IMO. not for the Cs.

two things here. all four of those guys you listed (and i dont really count KG) are starters. wasn't one of our main problems last year that ball movement became stagnant when we sent the bench in and everyone just kinda stood around waiting to shoot?

Marbury, for all he didnt do shooting, actually helped to get guys open looks, because he could slash and pass. two things that were supposed to be TA's job on the bench unit, but he couldn't do. Daniels is a very good passer, he should help that second unit immensely.


secondly, and this touches on the first point, daniels is a good passer. he had a very nice assist to turnover ratio, always has. yes, he slashes, but unlike TA, he also finds guys for open looks off that penetration.

my prediction is that this back court lineup people are worried about, which has rondo and dainels in it, will rarley, if ever happen. People are discounting the fact that marquis is 6'6, and a good SF backup. as chris and vagrant said, i don't really know where this thought that he's going to be a backup two since he can't guard 3's is coming from.

I would think that having Daniels contribute will be simple, due to that flexibility, as long as you use it.

lineup with rondo sitting-

1. house/ backup PG we sign who can shoot
2. Daniels
3. pierce

lineup with ray sitting

1.rondo
2. pierce
3. dainels

lineup with paul sitting

1. rondo
2. ray
3. dainels

[WeMadeIt17]

I really think Giddens can play a lot this year. He is a solid guy who is a freak athlete and has a lot of tools to be a great defender on this team and in this system. Remember just about anyone looks good in this Defense because the way we play team D, The problem arrives when we dont play team defense. That is the reason why Mikki Moore did not play because he would play to much one on one D and not Team D. So I really believe that Giddens could get it done this year and hopefully he gets a chance, I like J.R. and his energy that he could bring

[mgent]

There are very few perfect bench players, and none that we can afford.  I'm very happy with the Daniels signing.

I'd love to see the team add more depth at PG, wing, and big man (depending on whether a sign-and-trade is worked out), but if the off-season turns out to be Rasheed, Daniels, BBD, and a backup PG, I'll be fine with it.

I tend to agree with this.  Yeah, we'd all like a backup SG/SF who can knock down the 3, penetrate, handle the ball, create for others, rebound, and defend, but if they could do all those things, they'd probably be Paul Pierce.  

Overall, Daniels isn't perfect, but he's a world better than anyone we had at the backup 2/3 last year.  Moreover, we don't need miracles at the backup 2/3.  In crunch time, it's always going to be Pierce and Allen out there anyway.  All we need is someone to come in, defend, play with in the offense, and strike some sort of fear in opposing defenders.  I think Daniels can do that.  So I'm pretty happy.  

I could care less if they could do all that, that's why i don't mind having role players.  A guy who could defend his position nicely and at least spread the floor would be good enough.  We don't need a guy that can score because we have House, and we don't need a guy that can handle the ball because i was hoping we would use the LLE on a PG.
I agree with all you guys, he's a good player and i'm happy with him.  It just seems we could've done better.

You have to recognize a few things however;

1. With the emergence of Eddie as an offensive option, Tony was actually asked to be an inside scorer and creator. He didn't finish at the rim too well, and didn't create (caused a lot of turnovers.

Though Daniels may not be an amazing passer when setting up the offense, in Dallas, he was amazing going to the whole and distributing to others. Look at his numbers in his first 2 seasons in Dallas. Great FG%, and a very good assist / turnover ratio as well as assist percentage.

2. With Rasheed, we don't need Daniels to space the floor.

People are talking about 3point floor spacers, but Rasheed does that with the bench.

3. No-one is providing better alternatives

We had the LLE to spend, and Marquis Daniels is accepting that; something I think is great value since this was a guy getting paid 7 mill last year. Jamario Moon took a 3 mill offer, something similar to what Anthony Parker got. 3 mill also went to Grant Hill. The only decent alternative I see out there is Matt Barnes, and I don't see how Matt Barnes is better than Daniels.

I like the move.

Two problems:  1.  We don't need 4 3pt shooters on the court at a time like the magic, but you need at least 3 guys who can hit a shot to provide any sort of threat.  Even with Rasheed, if you got Daniels and Rondo on the court with House, that's only 2 shooters, and Daniels or House might be left in a mix-match.
2.  Guys have got to realize Rasheed is a PF, not a SF.  He's not gonna be spending all his time behind the arc.  We can set him up, or he can run out there when we need him to which is great, but leave the perimeter to the wing players.  Also, unless we sign a reasonable Center, he might have to spend some time backing-up Perk as well.

[BballTim]

There are very few perfect bench players, and none that we can afford.  I'm very happy with the Daniels signing.

I'd love to see the team add more depth at PG, wing, and big man (depending on whether a sign-and-trade is worked out), but if the off-season turns out to be Rasheed, Daniels, BBD, and a backup PG, I'll be fine with it.

I tend to agree with this.  Yeah, we'd all like a backup SG/SF who can knock down the 3, penetrate, handle the ball, create for others, rebound, and defend, but if they could do all those things, they'd probably be Paul Pierce.  

Overall, Daniels isn't perfect, but he's a world better than anyone we had at the backup 2/3 last year.  Moreover, we don't need miracles at the backup 2/3.  In crunch time, it's always going to be Pierce and Allen out there anyway.  All we need is someone to come in, defend, play with in the offense, and strike some sort of fear in opposing defenders.  I think Daniels can do that.  So I'm pretty happy.  

I could care less if they could do all that, that's why i don't mind having role players.  A guy who could defend his position nicely and at least spread the floor would be good enough.  We don't need a guy that can score because we have House, and we don't need a guy that can handle the ball because i was hoping we would use the LLE on a PG.
I agree with all you guys, he's a good player and i'm happy with him.  It just seems we could've done better.

You have to recognize a few things however;

1. With the emergence of Eddie as an offensive option, Tony was actually asked to be an inside scorer and creator. He didn't finish at the rim too well, and didn't create (caused a lot of turnovers.

Though Daniels may not be an amazing passer when setting up the offense, in Dallas, he was amazing going to the whole and distributing to others. Look at his numbers in his first 2 seasons in Dallas. Great FG%, and a very good assist / turnover ratio as well as assist percentage.

2. With Rasheed, we don't need Daniels to space the floor.

People are talking about 3point floor spacers, but Rasheed does that with the bench.

3. No-one is providing better alternatives

We had the LLE to spend, and Marquis Daniels is accepting that; something I think is great value since this was a guy getting paid 7 mill last year. Jamario Moon took a 3 mill offer, something similar to what Anthony Parker got. 3 mill also went to Grant Hill. The only decent alternative I see out there is Matt Barnes, and I don't see how Matt Barnes is better than Daniels.

I like the move.

Two problems:  1.  We don't need 4 3pt shooters on the court at a time like the magic, but you need at least 3 guys who can hit a shot to provide any sort of threat.  Even with Rasheed, if you got Daniels and Rondo on the court with House, that's only 2 shooters, and Daniels or House might be left in a mix-match.

  You don't have 3 shooters because you only have 4 players in your example. You'd likely have KG or Davis with those 4.

[mgent]

The more I think of it, the more I come to the conclusion that Daniels is exactly what this team needed.  If they wanted to play House major minutes, what they really needed was a wing who could handle the ball, and who could penetrate the defense.  Let's face it, they were not going to find a PG who could run the offense, and is big enough to cover SG's, for the type of money they had.  Really the only guy available was Jarrett Jack, and he was way out of their price range. 

I think the whole thing about needing a guy to cover SF's thing is very overrated.  First off, Daniels can cover SF's.  There are maybe 2 or 3 in the league that would give him much trouble, and they are starters that would be covered mostly by Pierce anyways.  And they can still find a 9th or 10th man (or you may already have them on the roster) who could do that for spot minutes against certain matchups, the same way Tony Allen did for SG's two years ago, since Posey wasn't really quick enough to stay with some of them.

What Boston did was greatly improve the talent-level of their bench, by adding two legit 6th men in Wallace and Daniels.  Now they can build around them with more roleplayers.

Honestly, I think expecting anything more is just greedy. 

Right because wanting the best basketball team possible is SO greedy.  We should donate some of our players to other teams so we look more generous.
I understand what you're saying Chris, he helps Eddie a lot.  But it's weird that we're going after guys to help House, when who we need to help is Paul and Rondo.  They're the ones who need rest, and i don't want the other team exploiting a weak spot in our bench.  Rasheed is great, but he can't play all 5 positions.
Not trying to make an off-topic example, but look at last year's all-star game.  They gave us no reserve big men except Rashard Lewis, and Garnett decided to sit out after the first half.  Our perimeter players were way better than the West, but that didn't mean anything.  The second Howard came out of the game we starting getting our behinds kicked.  Besides Lewis, Pierce and Granger were our Centers.  They had 5 7-footers.  They exploited our weak spot and Shaq became co-game-MVP.
The weak spots in our bench isn't gonna give us a 40 point loss, but it could make a difference, especially in the playoffs.

[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.

"A player similar to Posey is what we need"

how about just keeping Posey to begin with ? we've been chasing his ghost for two off-seasons now. If Danny had not screwed up and let him go to begin with - we wouldn't be doing all this hand-wringing since Posey left.

Ugh you do realize that if Ainge had re-signed Posey there would be no Sheed, right?

Glad you can see the future.

[Chris]

The more I think of it, the more I come to the conclusion that Daniels is exactly what this team needed.  If they wanted to play House major minutes, what they really needed was a wing who could handle the ball, and who could penetrate the defense.  Let's face it, they were not going to find a PG who could run the offense, and is big enough to cover SG's, for the type of money they had.  Really the only guy available was Jarrett Jack, and he was way out of their price range. 

I think the whole thing about needing a guy to cover SF's thing is very overrated.  First off, Daniels can cover SF's.  There are maybe 2 or 3 in the league that would give him much trouble, and they are starters that would be covered mostly by Pierce anyways.  And they can still find a 9th or 10th man (or you may already have them on the roster) who could do that for spot minutes against certain matchups, the same way Tony Allen did for SG's two years ago, since Posey wasn't really quick enough to stay with some of them.

What Boston did was greatly improve the talent-level of their bench, by adding two legit 6th men in Wallace and Daniels.  Now they can build around them with more roleplayers.

Honestly, I think expecting anything more is just greedy. 

Right because wanting the best basketball team possible is SO greedy.  We should donate some of our players to other teams so we look more generous.
I understand what you're saying Chris, he helps Eddie a lot.  But it's weird that we're going after guys to help House, when who we need to help is Paul and Rondo.  They're the ones who need rest, and i don't want the other team exploiting a weak spot in our bench.  Rasheed is great, but he can't play all 5 positions.
Not trying to make an off-topic example, but look at last year's all-star game.  They gave us no reserve big men except Rashard Lewis, and Garnett decided to sit out after the first half.  Our perimeter players were way better than the West, but that didn't mean anything.  The second Howard came out of the game we starting getting our behinds kicked.  Besides Lewis, Pierce and Granger were our Centers.  They had 5 7-footers.  They exploited our weak spot and Shaq became co-game-MVP.
The weak spots in our bench isn't gonna give us a 40 point loss, but it could make a difference, especially in the playoffs.

But Daniels gives Rondo and Pierce rest.  He allows House to play regular minutes on the second unit, and between the two of them, they would pick up 40-50 minutes backing up the 1, 2, and 3 spots.  House can play the PG and SG position, and Daniels can play the PG, SG, and SF position. 

Combine that with another 10 minutes played by 1 more guy, whether it is someone else they bring in, or someone like Allen, Walker, Giddens, or Scal, that would mean no-one from Pierce, Allen, or Rondo will need to play more than 30 minutes per game. 

And really, I think you are concerning yourself way too much with positions.  In todays NBA, it is much more fluid.  It is about individual matchups.  In some games, Daniels will be able to cover SF's, in others, they will need Walker or Scal to play a few minutes to cover them.  In some games House will actually be able to cover the SG, while in others, he will only be able to cover the backup PG. 

The positions are pretty much interchangable.