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

[celticinorlando]

Why take what Danny says seriously?  He didn't believe that last year when he brought in Marbury or the year before when he brought in Cassell.  Don't worry, he'll bring in a vet point guard.

very good point....if he was relaxed having those guys back up rondo they wouldn;t have brought in 2 points...i think it is trying to sell tony allen to someone...which i think is the best thing for the team...getting #42 out of boston...BTW...can we expect the daniels deal to be done before camp starts?? it has been what a month now?

[BudweiserCeltic]

How else do you sell TA to other teams right now? 

I like the "he'll make you lottery teams suck even worse" strategy brought up earlier in the thread.

We won a championship with Eddie and Tony as the primary backups for a 2nd year starting PG.

Well, we brought in Sam Cassell, too. 

So our PG depth chart was pretty much Rondo, Cassell, House, Allen.... Pruitt.

We're currently at Rondo, Daniels, House, Allen with room for one more.

What's the problem again?

Who said it was a problem?  I don't think anybody has.  Rather, this thread is pointing out a silly / stupid quote from Ainge, that refers to exactly one game by Tony as evidence that he can play the point guard position.

Danny, of course, has used this "Tony can play point guard" argument before.  It's a ridiculous, stupid argument, and some of us get a chuckle out of it.  If this thread isn't your bag, that's cool.  I just don't get the multiple "why are we even discussing this" posts; if you don't want to discuss it, you certainly don't have to.

That last paragraph of yours was a bit out of line, but I'll let it slide. Have I said I didn't want to discuss this? I do want to discuss this because I disagree completely with some of the opinions here on the matter and I want to voice my opinion. Nothing wrong with that as far as I know, right?

The point is that I don't think the quote is silly and stupid as some here are making it out to be. That he only refferenced one game? Sure, that was probably said a bit with tongue in cheek, but the point still stands about the depth situation and the urgency to find another PG.

I apologize for being a party pooper then... for defending TA who I like, and DA who I like too.

[Prof. Clutch]

The worst part of this is that is gives all the loyal Tony Allen followers some new ammunition here on the boards.

Any mention from Ainge at the prospect of Tony playing is enough to make them do backflips in the office cubicles.

[Chris]

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?

I don't think Danny was saying it to try to build up Tony's value or anything.  He was just trying to appease (or shut up) the media guys who were saying they desperately needed more depth at PG.  And let's face it, there are a lot of media guys out there who would actually be appeased by that, and then use it in their own arguments (like Dickerson and Tanguay).

And the fact is, if Tony is on this team, he will end up being an emergency PG.  It is just the way it is.  And it is exactly why I am hoping against hope that they can find a taker for him in a Daniels sign and trade.

[Ghost_Deini]

How else do you sell TA to other teams right now? 

I like the "he'll make you lottery teams suck even worse" strategy brought up earlier in the thread.

We won a championship with Eddie and Tony as the primary backups for a 2nd year starting PG.

Well, we brought in Sam Cassell, too. 

And I would bet that the Sam Cassell situation only boosted DA's confidence in Eddie as the backup.  He tried last year with Marbury and once again learned that Eddie was the right choice.

I don't think the Celtics are going to find a better backup PG, in free agency, than Eddie House.  

[BoundingRounder]

 ...a "Source" tells me that "Blogspeak" is the father of "GMspeak"!...I guess it's akin to trying to sell a beach chair (complete with a cup holder) in the midst of a Tsunami...

But to those TA fans who realized that negative psychology was the only way to keep Tony doin' his thing for us, Congratulations!...There isn't a team this side of the Mongolian Camel Rumps that would take TA on now (and their only offering a Dromedary whose allergic to water...)..."My, my, my, said the spider to the fly..."

[Brendan]

I think the issues is the Celtics have guys that they would feel ok with playing PG in a pinch or to cover 15 minutes of a game.

What they don't have is insurance in case Rondo goes down for a longer chunk.

But what's being missed is the guys we can likely bring in to be that insurance would be bad insurance. It's like paying 1000 / month for 20k of insurance. Doesn't make sense. The only way to improve the PG spot, is to move Eddie House for a combo guard that the team is comfortable starting for a month if Rondo went down, and okay playing in House's current role. (Think trading House for West.) I guess alternatively they could marginalize House's role on the team - but he's been very effective the last two years, so if he's here I'd rather see him in the same psuedo backup PG role.

[MattD]

There's a bit of a GIGO factor here, too.  Reporters seem to perpetually ask questions as though they expect Ainge to just hand them insights into the team's free agent strategy, or a scoop like, "we are targeting player X because we think he would be ideal for our franchise."  Instead, by asking these questions and printing the answers they get as though they were legitimate news, they become complicit in allowing their media to become co-opted by these silly GM games.  I imagine the reporter was thinking something like, "well, it's nonsense, but if I print it and get on Danny's good side, maybe when there is a real scoop to report I'll get the call...."

Because, you know, if Danny had been serious, he would have also mentioned the option of playing Ray Allen at the PG spot as the team did several times last year. 

[Who]

I'd feel better about Marquis Daniels doubling up as the third string point guard if the Celtics had a more reliable + proven second wing off the bench.

I worry about the wing situation if he's forced to play the point. I think the C's can either go with a third string point, or a second wing, and have very good balance overall for the backup perimeter positions.

[housecall]

I don't remember Red's exact words,but it was something to this affect,"a GM should never fall in love with a player...ive felt this about Danny for along time.He doesn't seem to evaluate TA like a GM would normally.He always try to find an excuse for why he should remain on the team.

[Chris]

I'd feel better about Marquis Daniels doubling up as the third string point guard if the Celtics had a more reliable + proven second wing off the bench.

I worry about the wing situation if he's forced to play the point. I think the C's can either go with a third string point, or a second wing, and have very good balance overall for the backup perimeter positions.

Well, even though he would be playing PG, he would be playing PG in order to allow House to play SG.  But I do get your point.  Right now this team has only two proven players who can back up either the wing or PG positions (well, and TA...).  

What they do have is positional flexibility.  House can play the 1 or 2 in a pinch.  Daniels can play the 1, 2, or 3.  So as far as I am concerned, they have guys who can provide depth at all of the positions, but they are one man short in general.  I would feel just as comfortable with them bringing in another veteran wing (allowing House and Daniels to play mostly PG in case of injury), or another PG (allowing House and Daniels to fill in on the wing in case of injury).  I don't think it makes that much of a difference which position it is they fill, given the amount of offensive talent already on this team...they just need that extra veteran for insurance.

[gar]

Can take Danny's statement (really an offhand comment) a few different ways:

1. Danny just had a heart attack and trying a new less stressful more karmic approach to his position (ommm....).

2. Celtics have a relatively complete roster with good depth at almost every position (Atlanta has 10 players under contract).

3. Danny played multiple sports and has always been drawn to an athletes basic abilities rather that thinking positionally (not always a good thing).

4. Danny has more faith in Walker at the 3 this season (Daniels can be paired with Eddie @ guard).

5. Danny is planning on bringing Lester on board for camp and is trying to downplay the PG situation until he sees what Lester can do.

6. He has learned from the Cassel / Marbury experiments that you can't just integrate a PG last minute and is content letting Paul, Ray or Marquis help bring the ball up when Eddie is on the floor.

7. Money - the Vet min. looks like a lot when your over the cap.

Have to say however that when they resigned TA is was totally bummed, not out of any dislike of Tony; but just that it seemed a total waste of money. How come Tony gets the sweet deal and Leon gets shown the door.

[Who]

I'd feel better about Marquis Daniels doubling up as the third string point guard if the Celtics had a more reliable + proven second wing off the bench.

I worry about the wing situation if he's forced to play the point. I think the C's can either go with a third string point, or a second wing, and have very good balance overall for the backup perimeter positions.

Well, even though he would be playing PG, he would be playing PG in order to allow House to play SG.  But I do get your point.  Right now this team has only two proven players who can back up either the wing or PG positions (well, and TA...).  

What they do have is positional flexibility.  House can play the 1 or 2 in a pinch.  Daniels can play the 1, 2, or 3.  So as far as I am concerned, they have guys who can provide depth at all of the positions, but they are one man short in general.  I would feel just as comfortable with them bringing in another veteran wing (allowing House and Daniels to play mostly PG in case of injury), or another PG (allowing House and Daniels to fill in on the wing in case of injury).  I don't think it makes that much of a difference which position it is they fill, given the amount of offensive talent already on this team...they just need that extra veteran for insurance.

I meant more if Eddie House went down with an injury ... and the C's were forced to play another guy as their lead backup guard. I think Daniels is a fine choice to fill that role, which negates the need for the C's to carry a third string PG this season. However, if Daniels is playing the point that leaves the wings very vulnerable.

Moreover, I think the C's have a very good chance at getting a superior talent on the wing (Udoka or Bogans) than with their third string PG (Lue, Bobby Jackson).

In order to get that required depth, the Celtics may be better off trying to sign a wing instead of a third string point guard ... and instead allow Daniels to double up as the first wing off the bench + third string point, with him taking over the point if needs must and someone else taking over the wing duties.

[Birdbrain]

I think his point is that's how important a 3rd PG really is.  I agree 100%.  Even Tony Allen as horrible as he is can get you by on very short term basis.  Basically he thinks it's no big deal.

[Drucci]

I would love to have a good backup PG to rest Rondo during the season and do the job when needed in the playoffs. I like Bobby Jackson for this role.

But Danny's quotes indicate that he is really going in a different direction. I don't like the idea of Daniels or House as the primary backup PG. I would be glad if Danny signed another wing, just to make sure we have enough depth to rest Paul and Ray, and still play an efficient backup wing. In this scenario I could see House being the PG with Marquis Daniels at the 2, but making the decisions of a PG.

Still, the ideal scenario would be to sign a veteran PG (Jackson, anyone?), sign Hudson and give him a chance during the season, while playing Eddie at the 2 and Marquis at the 3.

I know we don't have enough roster spots right now, but we must cut somebody or trade T.A or Scal.

Unfortunately Danny is going in the opposite direction so far...