My problem with signing Daniels

[GKC]

We can get a PG. Summers not even over.

And again with people yelling "WE SHOULD SPEND THE LUXURY TAX TOO!" There are constraints. In fact, last year one of the big reasons Posey wasn't signed was to avoid too many luxury tax constraints (we'd be paying upwards of 60 mill for an aging bench player). I think it's fair if someone THEN wanted not to do that.

---

Honestly though, let's give the Posey stuff a rest. That debate got old last year. Let's look toward the future and Banner 18

[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?

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.

I was under the assumption Scal and Tony would be gone, clearing 6mil, leaving us at 84mil and a 15mil luxury tax.  I thought the Celtics made more than enough to cover that.

[jdpapa3]

You can't just assume Scal is gone for an expiring...Who would do that? There would have to be salaries that matched up to that.

[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.

I was under the assumption Scal and Tony would be gone, clearing 6mil, leaving us at 84mil and a 15mil luxury tax.  I thought the Celtics made more than enough to cover that.

why would they be gone?

[GKC]

They may be gone by next season, but theyre salaries still come into play this season.

Also, if they are traded mid-season, most likely it would be a scenario where we take on salary or something close to even, for a non-expiring. That means, if we make any trade, we can safely assume we'd be taking on more salary in the short term and defnitely in the long term.

[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.  

  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.

why can't it be house, who then is a shooter while daniels slashes?

he did it for 3/4ths of the year until marbury got here, we seemed to be an ok ball club.

[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.

"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?

  The starters plus Sheed/Posey/House/Scal is $80M or so with 5-6 more players to be added. Fill it in with minimum salary guys and you're in the position that if any of your top 8 are injured you're screwed. It doesn't guarantee anything. If we sign Davis and bring in Daniels we'll have a deeper bench.

[mgent]

You can't just assume Scal is gone for an expiring...Who would do that? There would have to be salaries that matched up to that.

On a bench with Rasheed, Posey and House, I don't see Scal getting that many minutes.  They're all 20min a night guys, plus Davis or an LLE/trade guy.  We'd offer Scal a minimum contract probably, but i don't think he's worth the tax as much as Posey and Rasheed is.  None of this is gonna happen though, Posey has passed.

[GKC]

You can't just assume Scal is gone for an expiring...Who would do that? There would have to be salaries that matched up to that.

On a bench with Rasheed, Posey and House, I don't see Scal getting that many minutes.  They're all 20min a night guys, plus Davis or an LLE/trade guy.  We'd offer Scal a minimum contract probably, but i don't think he's worth the tax as much as Posey and Rasheed is.  None of this is gonna happen though, Posey has passed.

Posey has passed. Can we end this conversation?

And how would that rid us of scal? He's still on contract for the rest of this season regardless of who else we have on our team

[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.

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

  Of course you need a pg. But I don't see how my saying that Daniels WOULDN"T be taking over the pg's role turns into you saying I want Daniels to play too many roles at once.

[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.

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

I'm not sure i would say that Daniels is a good passer. he's a good ball-handler, though. especially for his position.

I just don't see ball-handling as the biggest need off the bench.

Daniels is definitely a sold player, so I'm not down the move. I just would have preferred someone like Moon who would fill more pressing needs off the bench IMO...shooting and defense

[GKC]

Daniels only needs to "handle the ball" for about 12 minutes a game. In fact, Eddie can simply bring the ball up court, toss it to Daniels and have him create a shot for himself or others, something he is good at doing.

I'm not too worried. If Eddie can play 15 minutes of point guard a game in the finals, I'm sure he can handle less than that of just bringing the ball up court.

[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

I'm not sure i would say that Daniels is a good passer. he's a good ball-handler, though. especially for his position.

I just don't see ball-handling as the biggest need off the bench.

Daniels is definitely a sold player, so I'm not down the move. I just would have preferred someone like Moon who would fill more pressing needs off the bench IMO...shooting and defense

  If your bench contains Wallace, House and possibly Davis why is a shooter a pressing need?

[youcanthandlethetruth113]

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.

Daniels played very well for the Pacers filling in for the injured Dunleavey Jr.

My problem with him is that he just seems like a punk and he always looks stoned.

Thoughts?

[Neurotic Guy]

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.

Since we are talking about back-up minutes here that will often (or at least at times) be vs. the opposing team's back-up SF -- there is not a huge worry for me about him being dominated by a larger SF.  If you are concerned with Lebron or Odom (fo rinstancs) -- well, we certainly don't have an answer for Lebron defensively (and won't, other than good team defense), however, the few bigger and usually less mobile SF's out there can also be handled in spot minutes adequately by our 6'9" friend Brian Scalabrine.  No big worries for me re: defensive inadequacies, but just as other's have noted, it would be great to get a true stopper for back-up minutes at the 3.  But I don't see how one could argue that Daniels' versatility isn't predominantly a plus for the C's bench.