This time, Danny's posturing and "GM speak" has gone too far

[Roy Hobbs]

Ainge said it is not set in stone that the remaining roster spot will go to a point guard, even though the Celtics only have one pure point guard on the team in Rondo.

“I’m not feeling a great urgency, because I think that both Eddie [House] and Marquis can play there, and even Tony [Allen],” Ainge said. “We won a game [in December 2007] by 20 points against the Lakers with Tony starting at point guard, so it’s not an urgent thing that we are trying to do right now.”

Link.

I was just starting to forget how horrific the "Tony as PG" experiment was, and now Danny has to go and remind us.  I can't imagine that this would happen in a million years -- generally, guys who average more turnovers than assists aren't made point guards -- but it's still a ridiculous thing for Danny to say.

What I don't understand is, why say it at all?  Nobody is fooled.  Opposing GMs aren't going to say, "Oh, wow, Tony Allen really would look good at PG on our team".  Most fans are going to cringe.  The players on the roster might chuckle.  And Doc is going to disregard it completely.

It's amusing to go to 82games.com, and look at Tony's performance in the '07 - '08 season that Danny is referencing.  If you extrapolate Tony's performance over 48 minutes, here's how Tony performed as a point guard that year:

17.6 pts (per 48), 2.0 assists, 8.1 turnovers, 10.2 personal fouls. 

Link

Why on earth would Danny reference such a small sample size, when Tony performed so poorly at the position?

[Michael Anthony]

If you extrapolate Tony's performance over 48 minutes, here's how Tony performed as a point guard that year:

17.6 pts (per 48), 2.0 assists, 8.1 turnovers, 10.2 personal fouls. 

Ladies and gentlement, The Tony Allen Experience!

[Michael Anthony]

Sorry about the strange double quote, I can't seem to fix it.

There it is

[Cman]

I wouldn't be surprised if a trade involving Tony Allen is imminent.  It should be the case that opposing GMs aren't fooled, but you never know... (ahem: Wallace).

[Roy Hobbs]

The "he played okay there in one game in 2007" reasoning sounds like something I'd expect out of a fanboy, not a GM.

"Marcus Banks looked great in that one game in summer league!  He's going to be a stud!"

[nickagneta]

Ainge said it is not set in stone that the remaining roster spot will go to a point guard, even though the Celtics only have one pure point guard on the team in Rondo.

“I’m not feeling a great urgency, because I think that both Eddie [House] and Marquis can play there, and even Tony [Allen],” Ainge said. “We won a game [in December 2007] by 20 points against the Lakers with Tony starting at point guard, so it’s not an urgent thing that we are trying to do right now.”

Link.

I was just starting to forget how horrific the "Tony as PG" experiment was, and now Danny has to go and remind us.  I can't imagine that this would happen in a million years -- generally, guys who average more turnovers than assists aren't made point guards -- but it's still a ridiculous thing for Danny to say.

What I don't understand is, why say it at all?  Nobody is fooled.  Opposing GMs aren't going to say, "Oh, wow, Tony Allen really would look good at PG on our team".  Most fans are going to cringe.  The players on the roster might chuckle.  And Doc is going to disregard it completely.

It's amusing to go to 82games.com, and look at Tony's performance in the '07 - '08 season that Danny is referencing.  If you extrapolate Tony's performance over 48 minutes, here's how Tony performed as a point guard that year:

17.6 pts (per 48), 2.0 assists, 8.1 turnovers, 10.2 personal fouls. 

Link

Why on earth would Danny reference such a small sample size, when Tony performed so poorly at the position?

The real question isn't "Why is Danny saying this stuff about Tony Allen?".

The real question is "How can he not say such things about Tony Allen after giving him one of the more head-scratching, ill-advised, just-plain-stupid, 2 year/$5 million contracts in Celtic history?"

[BudweiserCeltic]

Let's see, if you go down the line he'd be like the 4th-5th player to be asked to play that role. Nothing wrong with that. The important part of the quote is about the urgency to find another PG, and he's quite correct in that regard.

[BudweiserCeltic]

Ainge said it is not set in stone that the remaining roster spot will go to a point guard, even though the Celtics only have one pure point guard on the team in Rondo.

“I’m not feeling a great urgency, because I think that both Eddie [House] and Marquis can play there, and even Tony [Allen],” Ainge said. “We won a game [in December 2007] by 20 points against the Lakers with Tony starting at point guard, so it’s not an urgent thing that we are trying to do right now.”

Link.

I was just starting to forget how horrific the "Tony as PG" experiment was, and now Danny has to go and remind us.  I can't imagine that this would happen in a million years -- generally, guys who average more turnovers than assists aren't made point guards -- but it's still a ridiculous thing for Danny to say.

What I don't understand is, why say it at all?  Nobody is fooled.  Opposing GMs aren't going to say, "Oh, wow, Tony Allen really would look good at PG on our team".  Most fans are going to cringe.  The players on the roster might chuckle.  And Doc is going to disregard it completely.

It's amusing to go to 82games.com, and look at Tony's performance in the '07 - '08 season that Danny is referencing.  If you extrapolate Tony's performance over 48 minutes, here's how Tony performed as a point guard that year:

17.6 pts (per 48), 2.0 assists, 8.1 turnovers, 10.2 personal fouls. 

Link

Why on earth would Danny reference such a small sample size, when Tony performed so poorly at the position?

The real question isn't "Why is Danny saying this stuff about Tony Allen?".

The real question is "How can he not say such things about Tony Allen after giving him one of the more head-scratching, ill-advised, just-plain-stupid, 2 year/$5 million contracts in Celtic history?"

$2.5 a year for Tony for two years was a very good deal for us. There's no mistake in that regard.

[footey]

Ainge said it is not set in stone that the remaining roster spot will go to a point guard, even though the Celtics only have one pure point guard on the team in Rondo.

“I’m not feeling a great urgency, because I think that both Eddie [House] and Marquis can play there, and even Tony [Allen],” Ainge said. “We won a game [in December 2007] by 20 points against the Lakers with Tony starting at point guard, so it’s not an urgent thing that we are trying to do right now.”

Link.

I was just starting to forget how horrific the "Tony as PG" experiment was, and now Danny has to go and remind us.  I can't imagine that this would happen in a million years -- generally, guys who average more turnovers than assists aren't made point guards -- but it's still a ridiculous thing for Danny to say.

What I don't understand is, why say it at all?  Nobody is fooled.  Opposing GMs aren't going to say, "Oh, wow, Tony Allen really would look good at PG on our team".  Most fans are going to cringe.  The players on the roster might chuckle.  And Doc is going to disregard it completely.

It's amusing to go to 82games.com, and look at Tony's performance in the '07 - '08 season that Danny is referencing.  If you extrapolate Tony's performance over 48 minutes, here's how Tony performed as a point guard that year:

17.6 pts (per 48), 2.0 assists, 8.1 turnovers, 10.2 personal fouls. 

Link

Why on earth would Danny reference such a small sample size, when Tony performed so poorly at the position?

Tony was coming back from a knee injury that season, so I don't think projecting out his 48 per stats is meaningful. You can come up with more persuasive statistical evidence.   Bottom line, he should not be considered a back up PG. Agree wholeheartedly.

[celticinorlando]

sounds like danny is using the media to build hype around tony inorder to trade him...if tony get ANY important minutes at any position this season it will be a mistake

[Kwhit10]

This kind of statement boggles my mind, why even open your mouth.  I bet ever GM is laughing at Danny for saying this...Well except for Chris Wallace, he may be intrigued.

[Jeff]

I was wondering the same thing Roy, and the only explanation I can come up with is this...

we know he's still trying to work that sign-and-trade and he doesn't want the other teams in the deal to think he's desperate - so he's playing up the "we're cool with what we've got" angle

other than that, I can't justify it and I agree that he's probably better off saying nothing

[KJ33]

Let's see, if you go down the line he'd be like the 4th-5th player to be asked to play that role. Nothing wrong with that. The important part of the quote is about the urgency to find another PG, and he's quite correct in that regard.

Agreed.  The Tony Allen quip was not the thrust of the message, merely a quick throwaway example(maybe a poor one) to illustrate he is in no hurry to fill that role. Danny feels like he can already manage with what he has without having to make a hasty or splashy move.  It is akin to the Sox in the offseason not knowing for sure who will be their 5th starter or long man out of the bullpen, but have a Masterson on the roster who could potentially do both so an acquisition is not imminent.  It just is not as important as what it is made out to be on this blog.

[Michael Anthony]

Tony would be a great option at backup shooting guard for a team looking to shed salary and position themselves for a high pick in the 2010 lottery or free agency.

Sacramento, New Jersey, New York and Minnesota come to mind.

[Roy Hobbs]

It just is not as important as what it is made out to be on this blog.

Eh, I don't think anybody is making the Tony quote out to be too important.  Silly / stupid, maybe, but not important.