My problem with signing Daniels

[Fafnir]

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?

We've seen him board plenty wherever he's played. It's his defensive rotations and bad habit that have held him back so far.

[Fafnir]

While I agree our ideal fit was a SF with 3-point range there really wasn't anyone out there. I think Moon's talents fit a bit better for that, but overall I think Daniels will be solid at SG/SF for us.

[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?

We've seen him board plenty wherever he's played. It's his defensive rotations and bad habit that have held him back so far.

I'm not denying his rebounding ability, I'm denying his ability to defend a SF properly.  He's like 6'5", 200lb?

[Roy Hobbs]

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.

[Fafnir]

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'd be excited about it. Pretty much the best off season I could picture without some sort of crazy trades going down.

[tenn_smoothie]

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.

[BASS_THUMPER]

posey was after the dough..they gave him the money he wanted and the last ive seen of posey he gained wieght and his pt per game is down...

[JHTruth]

With Daniels and a resigned Davis, this team has the best 9-man rotation in the league. Add maybe a back-up point and it's a phenomenal offseason. There's no way around it. Beyond the top-9, it's just spot minutes anyway. No reason to stress the 10-12 man as they will only play during injury anyway..

[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.

I concur.
Offering him more money would've been a stretch but i saw nothing wrong with offering him more years.
Either way it would've been worth it.

[Fafnir]

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.

Would Wyc have allowed Danny to pursue Wallace with a three year deal with Posey on the books? Would be be able to add Wallace and perhaps match and keep BBD? Water under the bridge.

[Fafnir]

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.

I concur.
Offering him more money would've been a stretch but i saw nothing wrong with offering him more years.
Either way it would've been worth it.

We couldn't offer him more money, we offered the full MLE and didn't have his bird rights. Adding years was only way to enrich the deal.

[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.

I concur.
Offering him more money would've been a stretch but i saw nothing wrong with offering him more years.
Either way it would've been worth it.

We couldn't offer him more money, we offered the full MLE and didn't have his bird rights. Adding years was only way to enrich the deal.

Right, i forgot.  You'd figure a guy would be happy enough with the MLE and another ring.
I don't see why we couldn't have offered more years though.  I still think we would've been able to go after Rasheed.  If you wanna win it all you gotta be able to pay the price.

[Jon]

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.  

[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.

[guava_wrench]

It is ironic to hear a few people complain about Daniels who has already proven he can play in the league and then pine for Giddens who has shown nothing.

Of course, with the number of us here on celticsblog, we will all have some quirky beliefs about players that would cover all possible opinions.