How bad would this be for our starting lineup if we wanted to?

[mgent]

Again, for all the slack people are giving KG about playing the 3, I don't see how anyone thinks he'd be any worse defending the 3 than Walker or Giddens.  This guy, after all, is the best defender in the NBA.  And with his height, he could stay a step off quicker 3s and still get a hand in their face. 

Between House and Daniels, they should be able to cover most of the backup minutes at the 1-3.  However, if the odd 5 minutes pop up in a game that matters at the 3, I'd rather see KG slide to the 3 for 5 minutes and have Baby get a few extra minutes at the 4, than see Walker or Giddens get those 5 minutes.  (Keep in mind, I'm talking about games that matter, not blow outs in November.)  (Also, we're talking about KG playing 5 minutes per game at the 3, not 40, so I don't see how the "wear on his body" issue even comes into play.)

You make an excellent point.  I'd probably even rather have KG than Daniels on some guys.  Still, our best bet would probably be leaving KG at PF and bringing in Scal, who isn't an excellent defender, but certainly better than Walker.

Thank you.  The Scal idea would work too; however, the idea of sliding KG to the 3 appeals to me partially because it opens up a few extra minutes for Baby at the 4.  Playing Scal would eliminate that. 

To me, Baby is a better player than Walker, Giddens, or TA; yet he's going to have trouble finding more than 10 mpg at the very crowded 4/5 spots.  If playing KG 5-8 mpg at the 3 opens up 5-8 mpg more for Baby and keeps TA off the court, I'm all for it. 

When it comes to bench minutes, I want Daniels, House, and Rasheed playing as many minutes as possible, with TA, Giddens, and Walker getting hardly any.  I love Big Baby as much as the next guy, but there's really no reason for him to get more than 10-15 minutes a game with Rasheed on our bench, unless either he proves to be as valuable or he happens to be having a better game.
I still think we would've been best off signing a 3, rather than forcing guys (KG, Daniels) to come off their natural position in order to give Paul Pierce rest.

[Jon]

Again, for all the slack people are giving KG about playing the 3, I don't see how anyone thinks he'd be any worse defending the 3 than Walker or Giddens.  This guy, after all, is the best defender in the NBA.  And with his height, he could stay a step off quicker 3s and still get a hand in their face. 

Between House and Daniels, they should be able to cover most of the backup minutes at the 1-3.  However, if the odd 5 minutes pop up in a game that matters at the 3, I'd rather see KG slide to the 3 for 5 minutes and have Baby get a few extra minutes at the 4, than see Walker or Giddens get those 5 minutes.  (Keep in mind, I'm talking about games that matter, not blow outs in November.)  (Also, we're talking about KG playing 5 minutes per game at the 3, not 40, so I don't see how the "wear on his body" issue even comes into play.)

You make an excellent point.  I'd probably even rather have KG than Daniels on some guys.  Still, our best bet would probably be leaving KG at PF and bringing in Scal, who isn't an excellent defender, but certainly better than Walker.

Thank you.  The Scal idea would work too; however, the idea of sliding KG to the 3 appeals to me partially because it opens up a few extra minutes for Baby at the 4.  Playing Scal would eliminate that. 

To me, Baby is a better player than Walker, Giddens, or TA; yet he's going to have trouble finding more than 10 mpg at the very crowded 4/5 spots.  If playing KG 5-8 mpg at the 3 opens up 5-8 mpg more for Baby and keeps TA off the court, I'm all for it. 

When it comes to bench minutes, I want Daniels, House, and Rasheed playing as many minutes as possible, with TA, Giddens, and Walker getting hardly any.  I love Big Baby as much as the next guy, but there's really no reason for him to get more than 10-15 minutes a game with Rasheed on our bench, unless either he proves to be as valuable or he happens to be having a better game.
I still think we would've been best off signing a 3, rather than forcing guys (KG, Daniels) to come off their natural position in order to give Paul Pierce rest.

I absolutely agree.  If the C's had signed Bruce Bowen or someone like him, I wouldn't even be bringing up what I brought up.  I also couldn't care less if Baby never gets off the bench.  However, right now I see him as ninth on our depth chart after the starters, Wallace, Daniels, and House.  If playing KG 5 mpg at the 3 makes it so our 9th guy gets 5 more minutes than our 10th guy, and I think it's a net gain for the team. 

[KungPoweChicken]

KG isn't going to be seeing any big minutes this season, so he'll never be playing out of position. The most important thing Rasheed brings to the team is rest for Garnett.


And Pierce at the shooting guard position? Are you kidding me? Did you miss John Salmons eat Pierce alive in the playoffs last year? Pierce has his hands full with small forwards of average quickness, nevermind shooting guards.

[Birdbrain]

If Doc said " this is the starting 5 I'm going to use for a little bit to see what happens. How would this be to Celts fans? Rondo at the PG, Pierce SG, KG SF, Perk PF, then Sheed C. I think this would great to see provided nobody got into foul trouble and if they played with good chemistry.

Not sure you'll ever see it as starting lineup but, It's a lineup I think you'll see more than a few times this year.  Especially if Ray's struggling to keep his guy in front of him or if Cleveland goes really big with Mop Head, Bad Feet and Snaq. IMO, that's best defensive team the C's will have.

[Jon]

KG isn't going to be seeing any big minutes this season, so he'll never be playing out of position. The most important thing Rasheed brings to the team is rest for Garnett.


And Pierce at the shooting guard position? Are you kidding me? Did you miss John Salmons eat Pierce alive in the playoffs last year? Pierce has his hands full with small forwards of average quickness, nevermind shooting guards.

But you're still missing the larger point.  He wouldn't have to play big minutes to have the C's benefit from having him play out of position.  If KG, Perk, and Wallace all average what they did last year (and KG only averaged 31 mpg last year), there'll be less than 5 mpg left at the 4-5 spots for Baby.  I'm fine with that in terms of Baby.  However, if it comes down to KG sliding to the 3 for 5-8 mpg in order to prevent TA from getting minutes, and consequently giving Baby a few more minutes, I don't see how this is a bad thing.