My problem with signing Daniels

[mgent]

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.

Do you notice how much better all our guys are when Rondo is in the game?  I guess i have to say this louder.  YOU NEED A POINT GUARD ON THE FLOOR.  If you wanna play Eddie as your point guard then he's gonna shoot like he has been for us, which will be a great loss.  Even with daniels we're still gonna need to sign SOMEONE.  "Getting by" and "making it work" is not good enough for a championship team.  A Posey/Marbury sign would have been way better than a Daniels/whoever sign because it gets rid of our weaknesses rather than trying to hide them.

[crownsy]

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.

I think it's a pretty reasonable assumption, considering it would have cost management an additional 10+ million a year to pay rasheed on top of james posey's 10+ mill cap and tax hit for the next 3 years.

Wyc has been pretty generous with the checkbook, but i doubt he would have tied up 22+ million dollars a year, factoring in the tax, for 3 years in just two bench spots.

[D Dub]

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. 

TP - this really sums it up well for me.

Marquis is a guy who can be a full time backup at SF, and still play some pg alongside House without giving anything up defensively.  That is as ideal of a fit as could have been hoped for.

Is there a better balanced, more talented 8-man rotation in the league?  I don't think so.

Look at some of these lineups we can play:

Wallace
KG
Daniels
Ray
Rondo

Perk
Wallace
Pierce
House
Daniels

and the most deadly one of all, IMHO, is this all-shooters lineup, ideally used late in close games when Paul handles the ball and initiates the offense.

Wallace
KG
Pierce
Ray
House

Who can you possibly cheat off of with those 5 on the floor?  

[mgent]

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

You make good points.  But on your first point you said Marbury helped, and Daniels will replace that.  My problem with that is a 2/3 shouldn't have to pick up PG responsibilities as well.  Just sign a PG like we did with Marbury at the beginning of the season and that stagnant problem is nonexistent (Then we could've focused on signing a wing who could focus on defense).
As far as your second point, it isn't Daniels and Rondo in the backcourt that would be the problem, it's just them on the court together.  If you're gonna sub out Pierce you want a guy to come in that either replace Paul's D, or be able to shoot.  Posey was able to do both which made him so great.

[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.

  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.

You need a guy on the post!!!  You can't have 5 guys lurking behind the arc.  IMO Rondo, House, Daniels, Davis, and Rasheed has the possibly of SEVERAL mix-matches.

[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.

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. 

I agree, it works.  I just think it'd work better if we had 3 guys covering the 3 positions, rather than 2.  If we signed a more defensive guy he'd be able to handle all the SFs without needed Scal or Walker.  I don't see Daniels doing a great job against guys like Lebron, Hedo, Lewis, Odom, etc.  Someone said before, the biggest thing you need in a bench player is either defense or shooting.  This guy will provide the same support that Tony used to provide on this team (just better).  He will score, and play a great SG, but i don't think anyone wants a Tony Allen as Paul's back-up.

[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.

You need a guy on the post!!!  You can't have 5 guys lurking behind the arc.  IMO Rondo, House, Daniels, Davis, and Rasheed has the possibly of SEVERAL mix-matches.

  We don't have 5 guys lurking behind the arc, we usually have 2 or 3.

[GKC]

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.

I have no problem with Rasheed backing Perk up at center. Hell, he plays a lot of center on D anyway (even with the Pistons).

My point is, Rasheed spreads to floor with Daniels going into the paint, which is what he does best. He has shot over 50% from the feild from inside, and in the Mavs iso drive and kick system he had an assist ratio of almost 30% with low turnovers. So with guys spreading the floor, he can accomplish that well.

As stated though, your example has 4 players. So obviously there are only 2 shooters. In our current lineup, we would have KG or Big Baby, good mid range shooters, to fill that 4th void. Hell, even without Big Baby that 4th player would most likely be Scalabrine, who before he gets knocked on, shot 45% from 3 in the playoffs in 21 minutes a game.

---

I know Doc likes to play a full bench rotation to start the 2nd and 4th quarters, especially in the regular season. This is especially true when opposing coaches do the same, so we get a bench on bench matchup. A lineup of;

C Sheed
PF Scal / Big Baby
SF Daniels
SG House
PF Pruitt / Free Agent to be named later

Or replace pruitt with Daniels handling the ball and have one of our projects or even Ray / Pierce in, is adequete enough with floor spacing in our offense.

[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.

I think it's a pretty reasonable assumption, considering it would have cost management an additional 10+ million a year to pay rasheed on top of james posey's 10+ mill cap and tax hit for the next 3 years.

Wyc has been pretty generous with the checkbook, but i doubt he would have tied up 22+ million dollars a year, factoring in the tax, for 3 years in just two bench spots.

Other teams are paying 80+
Starters:  62mil
Rasheed+Posey+House:  13mil
That's only 75 million.  The rest of your guys are probably gonna be minimum players.  And if Ray sticks around he's probably gonna get a pay-cut which gives you another 5mil to work with.  You're only looking at 10-15mil luxury tax, which is gonna be what we're paying now anyway.
The real question is, why wouldn't you pay it if it guarantees you another banner?

[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

You make good points.  But on your first point you said Marbury helped, and Daniels will replace that.  My problem with that is a 2/3 shouldn't have to pick up PG responsibilities as well.  Just sign a PG like we did with Marbury at the beginning of the season and that stagnant problem is nonexistent (Then we could've focused on signing a wing who could focus on defense).
As far as your second point, it isn't Daniels and Rondo in the backcourt that would be the problem, it's just them on the court together.  If you're gonna sub out Pierce you want a guy to come in that either replace Paul's D, or be able to shoot.  Posey was able to do both which made him so great.

agreed, but anyone can slash as part of the offense, i mean, paul slashes and sets people up as well.

i don't really think it matters who slashes, as long as you have a big man and 3 shooters.

[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.

  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.

You need a guy on the post!!!  You can't have 5 guys lurking behind the arc.  IMO Rondo, House, Daniels, Davis, and Rasheed has the possibly of SEVERAL mix-matches.

  We don't have 5 guys lurking behind the arc, we usually have 2 or 3.

Thus the spacing issue.  Unless you want Daniels at the post?
Between the 1-4 positions you need 3 shooters, that's just a given.

[BballTim]

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

You make good points.  But on your first point you said Marbury helped, and Daniels will replace that.  My problem with that is a 2/3 shouldn't have to pick up PG responsibilities as well.  

  He's not talking about Daniels taking over the pg's role, he's talking about Daniels taking over Paul's role. You don't just need outside shooters, you need guys who can create their own shot and guys that can get to the hoop.

[crownsy]

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.

I think it's a pretty reasonable assumption, considering it would have cost management an additional 10+ million a year to pay rasheed on top of james posey's 10+ mill cap and tax hit for the next 3 years.

Wyc has been pretty generous with the checkbook, but i doubt he would have tied up 22+ million dollars a year, factoring in the tax, for 3 years in just two bench spots.

Other teams are paying 80+
Starters:  62mil
Rasheed+Posey+House:  13mil
That's only 75 million.  The rest of your guys are probably gonna be minimum players.  And if Ray sticks around he's probably gonna get a pay-cut which gives you another 5mil to work with.  You're only looking at 10-15mil luxury tax, which is gonna be what we're paying now anyway.
The real question is, why wouldn't you pay it if it guarantees you another banner?

you didn't count posey, sheed, and house twice.

we are at the tax cap before even taking thier salaries into account. you have to count scal's and tony, both of whom make more than eddie, along with the LLE for MD. you have to pay them 2 for 1.

that payrole abhove would actually total 88 million, and i think thats on the low side, as 5.8 + 5.8 + 2.8 is 14.40, and thus would total closer to 90+, which would put us far and away the biggest.

why wouldn't you pay it if it guarantees you another banner?

I would, but it's easy to write checks with other people's money.

We aren't the red sox, the Celtics don't earn near as much as they do, to be able to just flaunt it above every other team in the league. I also don't know how the economy has affected wyc's other business interests, he may be hard pressed to just write 20+ million in lax tax checks.

and even with the above, we are looking to be one of the top 5 teams in the league for payroll. I think wyc has more than opened up the coffers.

[mgent]

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

You make good points.  But on your first point you said Marbury helped, and Daniels will replace that.  My problem with that is a 2/3 shouldn't have to pick up PG responsibilities as well.  

  He's not talking about Daniels taking over the pg's role, he's talking about Daniels taking over Paul's role. You don't just need outside shooters, you need guys who can create their own shot and guys that can get to the hoop.

AND YOU NEED A PG.  You guys want this guy to play too many roles at once.

[jdpapa3]

TP crownsy...you said exactly what I was going to say. We don't know what Wyc and co's "line in the sand" is, so it's ridiculous to criticize. You could say that TA would be on another roster, since it would've been redundant to sign TA and Posey, but that'd still put us well over the cap.

And backup pg isn't that relevant. Gabe or Hudson running this team as the backup pg is only going to cost us 1-2 wins max. If Rajon goes down, then you can make moves. As of now, there's not a lot out there.