Why Is Glen Davis still on this team?

[the_Bird]

Glen continues to impress me.  For every time I get annoyed with him for getting blocked under the basket or having his shot altered on a layup, he makes up for it twofold with a big jumper or drive to the hoop in crunch time.  I agree with the general sentiment here: for the money, the skill, and his general acceptance of his role on the bench, he's a good fit.  

That said, I wouldn't be completely opposed to trading him.  Why?  Because he's really our only tradeable asset right now.  He's cheap, an expiring deal, and while good, probably not a huge part of the rebuilding process (he's still not good enough to start on a contender).  

Now I'd still like to trade Wallace's deal.  However, if Wallace changes his mind (unlikely, but more likely with Wallace than others since he's crazy), trading BBD might be the only way to upgrade the wing spot.  Or, if a perspective trade partner for Wallace needs a sweetener, and would give us a good 3 and 5 in return, I'd be down with trading him too.  

I don't think we can trade Baby for a wing.  We're already still one big man short until Perk returns.  We can survive on the wings with Ray/Pierce/Quis along with a Jarvis Haynes-type and Avery Bradley.  Can't survive upfront with just KG, JO, and 'Gody.  Have to get a big man in return.

[Truth Hurts]

I completely disagree with the premise of this post. Davis is what he is. A good young big who comes off the bench and does a good job.

That being said, you really can't project numbers "if he was a starter", because he is logging many of his minutes against opposing bench players. If he played 36 minutes a game, he would have some much tougher matchups and his numbers would go down. That's reality.

[Bankshot]

I don't buy fatigue,age,or even a better Lakers team. Game 7 came down to Glen Davis. I don't even buy his "energy"...please,ever ask why the offense is so bad,when he's on the court that he gets offensive rebounds? I don't get how so much attention can go to a player for a game 4 win, while game 7 was about about "the team just didn't have it". His energy produced 6points in the last 3 games. Glen Davis(half court player only) is a liability to good defense, and offense. Player hater,absolutely. Must it take yet another game7 loss for DA & blind Celtic fans who keep backing him to see this?

http://celticshub.com/2009/04/22/is-glen-davis-a-good-player/
http://celticshub.com/2010/02/26/the-re-re-invention-of-glen-davis-is-it-working/

Baby had 9 rebounds in game 7 in limited minutes.  KG had 3 in starters minutes.  Who was the bigger reason for the game 7 loss again?  Game 7 loss was more about rebounding.  It's not Davis' fault that Perk got injured and he had to play against 7 footers (and still pulled down more rebounds than KG).  

[Jevi]

He's a player who doesn't help Rondo get assists or grab defensive rebounds for fast breaks, kills easy baskets,leads the league in shots blocked. I like when we run,takes Rondo out of half court game,Shreky stifles that. Defensively,he falls on either his stomach or butt once every game trying to stay with players. Game 7 only? What excuse could you backers have for his 6pts for games 5,6,&7?

[Bankshot]

He's a player who doesn't help Rondo get assists or grab defensive rebounds for fast breaks, kills easy baskets,leads the league in shots blocked. I like when we run,takes Rondo out of half court game,Shreky stifles that. Defensively,he falls on either his stomach or butt once every game trying to stay with players. Game 7 only? What excuse could you backers have for his 6pts for games 5,6,&7?

Baby hater altert!

[ben]

He shouldn't be.

[Jon]

Glen continues to impress me.  For every time I get annoyed with him for getting blocked under the basket or having his shot altered on a layup, he makes up for it twofold with a big jumper or drive to the hoop in crunch time.  I agree with the general sentiment here: for the money, the skill, and his general acceptance of his role on the bench, he's a good fit.  

That said, I wouldn't be completely opposed to trading him.  Why?  Because he's really our only tradeable asset right now.  He's cheap, an expiring deal, and while good, probably not a huge part of the rebuilding process (he's still not good enough to start on a contender).  

Now I'd still like to trade Wallace's deal.  However, if Wallace changes his mind (unlikely, but more likely with Wallace than others since he's crazy), trading BBD might be the only way to upgrade the wing spot.  Or, if a perspective trade partner for Wallace needs a sweetener, and would give us a good 3 and 5 in return, I'd be down with trading him too.  

I don't think we can trade Baby for a wing.  We're already still one big man short until Perk returns.  We can survive on the wings with Ray/Pierce/Quis along with a Jarvis Haynes-type and Avery Bradley.  Can't survive upfront with just KG, JO, and 'Gody.  Have to get a big man in return.

I was talking about if Sheed came back or if we traded BBD for Sheed in a larger trade and got a big in return. 

[the_Bird]

He's a player who doesn't help Rondo get assists or grab defensive rebounds for fast breaks, kills easy baskets,leads the league in shots blocked. I like when we run,takes Rondo out of half court game,Shreky stifles that. Defensively,he falls on either his stomach or butt once every game trying to stay with players. Game 7 only? What excuse could you backers have for his 6pts for games 5,6,&7?

Baby hater altert!

Baby-hater, or just troll?

Here's a question.  You don't like Baby, want him off the team.  How do YOU propose improving on the backup PF spot, given the resources available to the C's?  Who you going to trade for (who's realistically available) that's better, at a similar salary?  Who you going to sign at the vet min?

If you don't want better production from his spot, how do you propose to get it?

[the_Bird]

Glen continues to impress me.  For every time I get annoyed with him for getting blocked under the basket or having his shot altered on a layup, he makes up for it twofold with a big jumper or drive to the hoop in crunch time.  I agree with the general sentiment here: for the money, the skill, and his general acceptance of his role on the bench, he's a good fit.  

That said, I wouldn't be completely opposed to trading him.  Why?  Because he's really our only tradeable asset right now.  He's cheap, an expiring deal, and while good, probably not a huge part of the rebuilding process (he's still not good enough to start on a contender).  

Now I'd still like to trade Wallace's deal.  However, if Wallace changes his mind (unlikely, but more likely with Wallace than others since he's crazy), trading BBD might be the only way to upgrade the wing spot.  Or, if a perspective trade partner for Wallace needs a sweetener, and would give us a good 3 and 5 in return, I'd be down with trading him too.  

I don't think we can trade Baby for a wing.  We're already still one big man short until Perk returns.  We can survive on the wings with Ray/Pierce/Quis along with a Jarvis Haynes-type and Avery Bradley.  Can't survive upfront with just KG, JO, and 'Gody.  Have to get a big man in return.

I was talking about if Sheed came back or if we traded BBD for Sheed in a larger trade and got a big in return. 

Sorry, read too quick.  I'm in agreement; keep Baby for now, but he's not untouchable.

[GreenFaith1819]

I completely disagree with the premise of this post. Davis is what he is. A good young big who comes off the bench and does a good job.

That being said, you really can't project numbers "if he was a starter", because he is logging many of his minutes against opposing bench players. If he played 36 minutes a game, he would have some much tougher matchups and his numbers would go down. That's reality.

I think in a regular season setting, Glen would average those numbers that were projected, easily - playing 36 + minutes against WAS, NJ and every other team out there.

He proved to me that he was rather effective in 08-09 playoffs. I just added the projections to quantify how much he's improved and what he means to us.

Sure he's not perfect player, but for the money he makes he's a steal. And he's solid.

[Spilling Green Dye]

Those reb numbers I posted - I don't know the exact calculations, but I think they would project out to Glen Davis averaging over 9 rebs a game in a starting role for us with the same minutes he had in the post-season in 08-09.

So - I think that if he was a starter now, this man could realistically pull down right around 9 rebs a game for us, and post 16-18 pts. Someone with better calculations pls correct me if I'm off.

He even seemed more active defensively last postseason, too...he wasn't a Perk or KG, but he sent back more than a few during our run from April-June 10.

If BBD played 36 minutes, his regular season stats project to: 

13.1 points, 7.9 rebounds, 1.4 assists, 0.8 steals, 0.5 blocks, 2.0 turnovers, 5.1 personal fouls

TP4U Roy, thanks.

I'll even stretch it to say that those numbers would be higher in a regular season setting against weaker opponents - he put up 15 pts and 5.6 rebs in 08-09 playoffs against the likes of Joakim Noah, Tyrus Thomas, Dwight Howard and Rashard Lewis - all tall timber.

I like those turnover numbers, too...he's not a high risk when we need him.

I'd like to see those assists up, but he's only 24? He's going to get better.

I think Danny may have a dillemma on his hands come next yr - when he decides whether or not to keep Glen. I hope Glen stays, or if he gets traded I hope Danny can swing equal value for him.

I would counter that his numbers would drop, and not increase, in a role that required more minutes.  A good percentage of his numbers that you are extrapolating out are against the opposing team's bench.  Ergo, against starters, he would not do as well.

To answer the Original Poster's question, Glen Davis is on this team currently b/c at the end of last season we signed him for $3mil / year for 2 years, and no other team was going higher than that.  Glen is a good 4th big man on the team, and if the Celtics traded him they would have to fill that spot.  It is not easy to have a decent 4th big man on a roster for only $3million, which is where Davis' real value is.  

[nickagneta]

Those reb numbers I posted - I don't know the exact calculations, but I think they would project out to Glen Davis averaging over 9 rebs a game in a starting role for us with the same minutes he had in the post-season in 08-09.

So - I think that if he was a starter now, this man could realistically pull down right around 9 rebs a game for us, and post 16-18 pts. Someone with better calculations pls correct me if I'm off.

He even seemed more active defensively last postseason, too...he wasn't a Perk or KG, but he sent back more than a few during our run from April-June 10.

If BBD played 36 minutes, his regular season stats project to: 

13.1 points, 7.9 rebounds, 1.4 assists, 0.8 steals, 0.5 blocks, 2.0 turnovers, 5.1 personal fouls

TP4U Roy, thanks.

I'll even stretch it to say that those numbers would be higher in a regular season setting against weaker opponents - he put up 15 pts and 5.6 rebs in 08-09 playoffs against the likes of Joakim Noah, Tyrus Thomas, Dwight Howard and Rashard Lewis - all tall timber.

I like those turnover numbers, too...he's not a high risk when we need him.

I'd like to see those assists up, but he's only 24? He's going to get better.

I think Danny may have a dillemma on his hands come next yr - when he decides whether or not to keep Glen. I hope Glen stays, or if he gets traded I hope Danny can swing equal value for him.

I would counter that his numbers would drop, and not increase, in a role that required more minutes.  A good percentage of his numbers that you are extrapolating out are against the opposing team's bench.  Ergo, against starters, he would not do as well.

To answer the Original Poster's question, Glen Davis is on this team currently b/c at the end of last season we signed him for $3mil / year for 2 years, and no other team was going higher than that.  Glen is a good 4th big man on the team, and if the Celtics traded him they would have to fill that spot.  It is not easy to have a decent 4th big man on a roster for only $3million, which is where Davis' real value is.  

And the counter to that argument is that he would also be playing most of his minutes with much better players which would make him a better player and increase his stats back to the extrapolated numbers.

For proof: The 2009 post season where playing 36 MPG Davis averaged 15.8PPG, 5.6 RPG, 1.8 APG, 1.29 SPG, 0.57 BPG with a FG% of 49.1%. In 16 games as a starter that year he had near identical numbers except he averaged about 13 PPG. I contend that two years later and in better physical condition, Davis would improve on these stats.

[Spilling Green Dye]

Those reb numbers I posted - I don't know the exact calculations, but I think they would project out to Glen Davis averaging over 9 rebs a game in a starting role for us with the same minutes he had in the post-season in 08-09.

So - I think that if he was a starter now, this man could realistically pull down right around 9 rebs a game for us, and post 16-18 pts. Someone with better calculations pls correct me if I'm off.

He even seemed more active defensively last postseason, too...he wasn't a Perk or KG, but he sent back more than a few during our run from April-June 10.

If BBD played 36 minutes, his regular season stats project to: 

13.1 points, 7.9 rebounds, 1.4 assists, 0.8 steals, 0.5 blocks, 2.0 turnovers, 5.1 personal fouls

TP4U Roy, thanks.

I'll even stretch it to say that those numbers would be higher in a regular season setting against weaker opponents - he put up 15 pts and 5.6 rebs in 08-09 playoffs against the likes of Joakim Noah, Tyrus Thomas, Dwight Howard and Rashard Lewis - all tall timber.

I like those turnover numbers, too...he's not a high risk when we need him.

I'd like to see those assists up, but he's only 24? He's going to get better.

I think Danny may have a dillemma on his hands come next yr - when he decides whether or not to keep Glen. I hope Glen stays, or if he gets traded I hope Danny can swing equal value for him.

I would counter that his numbers would drop, and not increase, in a role that required more minutes.  A good percentage of his numbers that you are extrapolating out are against the opposing team's bench.  Ergo, against starters, he would not do as well.

To answer the Original Poster's question, Glen Davis is on this team currently b/c at the end of last season we signed him for $3mil / year for 2 years, and no other team was going higher than that.  Glen is a good 4th big man on the team, and if the Celtics traded him they would have to fill that spot.  It is not easy to have a decent 4th big man on a roster for only $3million, which is where Davis' real value is.  

And the counter to that argument is that he would also be playing most of his minutes with much better players which would make him a better player and increase his stats back to the extrapolated numbers.

For proof: The 2009 post season where playing 36 MPG Davis averaged 15.8PPG, 5.6 RPG, 1.8 APG, 1.29 SPG, 0.57 BPG with a FG% of 49.1%. In 16 games as a starter that year he had near identical numbers except he averaged about 13 PPG. I contend that two years later and in better physical condition, Davis would improve on these stats.

Good point.  However, during that exact same season that you cited, the Celtics went from a +260pt and 73% win team to a -39pt and 43% win team when you replaced KG with Davis.  While much of that could be counted as "not having KG", I think a good deal of it is that Davis was in the lineup.  Therefore, yes his stats may have been better as a result of playing with better players, but the team as a whole greatly suffered and he should not be a starter. 

I don't really care how the numbers "may" extrapolate out b/c he should not be a starter.  His role is to come off the bench, and I hope he continues to progress down that road.

[gar]

If he really cared and "gave it his all" then how come he got fatter and fatter as the season went on. No excuse. Seemed like he worked hard to get in shape for the beginning of the season; but then let it all go.

[wdleehi]

He is here because he is better then the other options the Celtics could add as FAs.