So who do we get for big baby now?

[mmbaby]

Jon, I don't think the discussion about BBD gets any more personal than some of the other discussions about our other players. I think some of us fans just get very tired of the illogical and petty put-downs of one of, if not the best, bench player we have, IMHO.
 
Just like it was sort of a sport to put Rasheed down here for awhile, to the point that it became offensive, at times one just wants to say, enough already, and let's get back to a mature and reasonable discussion, hopefully a more objective one.
I think we could go to other websites if we really wanted to just throw anything out there and talk about it, as though it were pertinent and valuable in relation to basketball. There are plenty of them around like that where the standards are quite low.   

[footey]

I also love the argument saying JO has no lift... And Big Baby does? I dont care if JO can dunk more than Baby but on the defensive end JO can get up to block and effect shots, Baby doesnt have that ability. The length of JO and Shaq are going to help us greatly this season. Many fans on this board greatly underestimate JO and he seems to be unfairly judged by his playoff performance this past season. JO has been plagued by injuries throughout his career, yet, he has proven he can put up 20 and 10 with 2 blocks a game. He is only 32. Yes he came out of High School so he has some mileage on him, but he is far from being a washed up journeyman.

Jermaine *is* a washed up journeyman at this point, and he got his MLE deal based off past accomplishments, not based on his actual value.  The days of 20/10 and 2 blocks are long gone, buddy, don't bring that up; it's not germane (or Jermaine) anymore.
 

I guess it depends on your definition of washed up.  However, I don't think he got the MLE off past accomplishments.  Yes, 20/10 is gone by, but those are max contract numbers, not MLE numbers. 

Last year he averaged 8.4 points, 4.6 rebounds, and 1.8 blocks per game in 24 minutes.  Sadly, in today's NBA, those are MLE numbers.

true.

[GreenEnvy]

I don't quite know which direction this thread has gone, but let me chime in on BBD (I've seen all but one of his professional games).

Plain and simply, he is a solid role player. He could *probably* start on a really bad team, or handle spot duty for a few games on a good one if they have a strong starting unit. Could he replace Gasol or Dirk? Of course not, because their respective teams rely too heavily on the PF position.

But he is the epitome of a bench player. Heck, an NBA player. He wears his heart on his sleeve. He shows his emotion, the good (Shrek drool) and the bad (crying and sulking). Each year, you can see he worked on his game and his body in the offseason. He will rarely take over a game (but has done it once in awhile - off the top of my head I remember a game in Detroit in 2008 and the Finals last season) or be a complete no-show (rarely does he get more than a handful of minutes and you not see him make a TP-esque play). Whatever minutes he gets, he hustles for every second of them.


Now, in 2009 he filled in admirably for KG, including a game winner that most players with his experience would miss given the circumstances. Last season, he may very well have been our most reliable backup. But this season things are different. When Perk comes back, assuming everyone is healthy, he may be our 5th best big. We also have Nate, DWest, and 'Quis, who have all started on other teams.

I would be perfectly content keeping him all season as an insurance policy, given the recent history of all four bigs ahead of him. But if we have a glaring need elsewhere at the deadline, moving him would be ideal. Ainge won't just deal him because of the contract, so he would be looking for something of value. Whether he gets - or needs - that will not be known until February most likely.

[cornbreadsmart]

I consider Davis to be better than Shaq at this point. Shaq is just a HUGE liability on defense. The Nets scrubs were using his man to pick and roll all over and over causing the celtics to constantly be out of position all over the court.
     It was not until Rondo started pressuring a point guard with subpar handle out to half court that the celts could make up for Shaq's slow feet.
     However Shaq may still be ery helpful against a guy like Howard. May. A healthy Jermaine may be the better option. But once Perk gets back and everyone is healthy(don't know how likely that is)I think it's possible that Shaq is the one glued to the bench.
     I think we're a little spoiled. I think it's very likely we keep this team as it is. I see how it would be tempting to tinker but I just think Baby does some things that are gonna be needed. His jumper should be nice. I think it's more reliable than Jermaine's(more so in crunch time) and he's a bull at getting to the hoop and drawing fouls. That's something we see a lot less in KG'S game at this stage.
     One more thing.. Glen Davis for Rudy Fernandez? For one, Fernandez is not very good. Secondly, this guy would screw up chemistry. I'm telling you, KG or Shaq would break a hand punching him in the face in practice. Perk would rip his arms off in practice. Rudy is the definition of a hero shot taker.

[pearljammer10]

I also love the argument saying JO has no lift... And Big Baby does? I dont care if JO can dunk more than Baby but on the defensive end JO can get up to block and effect shots, Baby doesnt have that ability. The length of JO and Shaq are going to help us greatly this season. Many fans on this board greatly underestimate JO and he seems to be unfairly judged by his playoff performance this past season. JO has been plagued by injuries throughout his career, yet, he has proven he can put up 20 and 10 with 2 blocks a game. He is only 32. Yes he came out of High School so he has some mileage on him, but he is far from being a washed up journeyman.

Jermaine *is* a washed up journeyman at this point, and he got his MLE deal based off past accomplishments, not based on his actual value.  The days of 20/10 and 2 blocks are long gone, buddy, don't bring that up; it's not germane (or Jermaine) anymore.
 

I guess it depends on your definition of washed up.  However, I don't think he got the MLE off past accomplishments.  Yes, 20/10 is gone by, but those are max contract numbers, not MLE numbers. 

Last year he averaged 8.4 points, 4.6 rebounds, and 1.8 blocks per game in 24 minutes.  Sadly, in today's NBA, those are MLE numbers.

true.

Actually this is not true...

Last year with Miami, Oneal averaged 14 points, 7 rebounds, and 1.4 blocks per game while shooting 53% from the field. To me, that really isn't washed up... And the argument about how he is not worth the MLE. There are many other teams that would have offered JO a bigger contract. Since he wanted to play for a winner and go for a championship, he took a lesser salary. He probably also knew that Lebron and Bosh were coming to Miami and he wanted to join the Celtics to get back at the.

Oneal is going to get many open looks off double teams from the big three, rondo, and Shaq, and he is much more efficient on offense than Baby and his block party.

[footey]

Today's article about Glen Davis in the Herald points out what defenders of Baby (including me) are driving at in our defense of keeping him.

"Bambino Grande simply has gone out and been the Celts’ best per-minute scorer in the preseason.  He’s played hard and well and has been a factor in every aspect of the game. (The 41 free throw attempts in 144 minutes is a big deal.) Davis averaged 12.0 points and 4.4 rebounds in 20:35 per game, displaying skill in various places on the floor."

Doc Rivers clearly sees the value of Glen for this team now:

“I think Baby’s had a sensational camp - the best since he’s been here,” Rivers said. “I think he’s finally found his way. He’s going to be big for us."

Baby's value to this team is much higher than his market value in the trade market. Another reason trading him would be a bad idea.  Great teams are usually a blend of veterans and young guys. We have more than enough veterans. Important to have a core of quality youth, and to include Glen in that core.

[thirstyboots18]

I don't feel the question is "if" we should keep him.  I feel that of course we should keep him, if he is willing to keep on being a great 6th man, and coming off the bench.  I am not sure he will be satisfied with that role, and, like I said, he could probably be a starter on another team.  Basketball players, if they are any good, have large egos.  Glen Davis is good, therefore I think he probably has a large ego, and would want to start somewhere eventually.

Therefore, if someone offers us good value, in a spot we need improved, I think the Celtics organization should at least consider it.  Danny has said in the past that he is listening to all offers...that includes the starters, and Davis, too.  (Unless he has a clause in his contract, and I haven't heard of one.)

[GreenFaith1819]

To answer the thread -

No one, I hope. Glen is needed here. He'll prove his worth once again this season - starting with Bosh and Co. on Tuesday.

Can't wait to see him bouncing around like a pinball in MIA's interior, racking up points and rebs.....

[footey]

How many fans want to trade Glen now? 

[Chris]

How many fans want to trade Glen now? 

For the right pieces...me.  It's all about value.  But he certainly is making it tougher and tougher for the C's to get anything close to equal value for him.

[Fafnir]

How many fans want to trade Glen now? 

He's played well but I'm concerned about his lack of offensive boards this year.

He's not going to shoot 70% all year and if he's not scoring like he is his net contribution is going to plumit if he's rebounding like a SF.

[Fan from VT]

What concerns me is that he has stood out as looking fantastic, noticeably better...And yet this vastly improved looking Davis is still, through two games, averaging 13.5 points, .5 assists, 5 rebounds, .5 steals, and .5 blocks and it's taking him 31 minutes to do so. As a point of reference, a stand out bench player gives you that in maybe 24 minutes. So it's worrisome to me that even looking great while watching, he's still just providing "good" bench production expanded into borderline starter minutes.


A nice quick estimation that works surprisingly well is to add up all the "good" stuff from a boxscore (pts, rbs, assts, blks, stls) and subtract turnovers, and divide that number by minutes played. It's not perfect, but it's surprisingly consistent that, as long as the player is playing a decent amount of minutes, good players all end up being above .75 or so, with elite players over.85-.90. Rarely to big minute players end up over 1.0, with Dirk, Dwight, Wade, Lebron, and Durant being there frequently. Davis, despite his good play, is around .66. So he's not really contributing enough to label him as essential or irreplaceable yet; he's certainly not ready to depend on as a starter, and part of why he looks better is he's getting huge minutes but really not filling those minutes with enough good stuff.

[footey]

What concerns me is that he has stood out as looking fantastic, noticeably better...And yet this vastly improved looking Davis is still, through two games, averaging 13.5 points, .5 assists, 5 rebounds, .5 steals, and .5 blocks and it's taking him 31 minutes to do so. As a point of reference, a stand out bench player gives you that in maybe 24 minutes. So it's worrisome to me that even looking great while watching, he's still just providing "good" bench production expanded into borderline starter minutes.


A nice quick estimation that works surprisingly well is to add up all the "good" stuff from a boxscore (pts, rbs, assts, blks, stls) and subtract turnovers, and divide that number by minutes played. It's not perfect, but it's surprisingly consistent that, as long as the player is playing a decent amount of minutes, good players all end up being above .75 or so, with elite players over.85-.90. Rarely to big minute players end up over 1.0, with Dirk, Dwight, Wade, Lebron, and Durant being there frequently. Davis, despite his good play, is around .66. So he's not really contributing enough to label him as essential or irreplaceable yet; he's certainly not ready to depend on as a starter, and part of why he looks better is he's getting huge minutes but really not filling those minutes with enough good stuff.

Good perspective. I wonder, however, if the diminishing return can partly be explained by his increased minutes with the starters, especially in the 4th quarter.

[Chris]

What concerns me is that he has stood out as looking fantastic, noticeably better...And yet this vastly improved looking Davis is still, through two games, averaging 13.5 points, .5 assists, 5 rebounds, .5 steals, and .5 blocks and it's taking him 31 minutes to do so. As a point of reference, a stand out bench player gives you that in maybe 24 minutes. So it's worrisome to me that even looking great while watching, he's still just providing "good" bench production expanded into borderline starter minutes.


A nice quick estimation that works surprisingly well is to add up all the "good" stuff from a boxscore (pts, rbs, assts, blks, stls) and subtract turnovers, and divide that number by minutes played. It's not perfect, but it's surprisingly consistent that, as long as the player is playing a decent amount of minutes, good players all end up being above .75 or so, with elite players over.85-.90. Rarely to big minute players end up over 1.0, with Dirk, Dwight, Wade, Lebron, and Durant being there frequently. Davis, despite his good play, is around .66. So he's not really contributing enough to label him as essential or irreplaceable yet; he's certainly not ready to depend on as a starter, and part of why he looks better is he's getting huge minutes but really not filling those minutes with enough good stuff.

Good perspective. I wonder, however, if the diminishing return can partly be explained by his increased minutes with the starters, especially in the 4th quarter.

Well, you would think that playing with the starters wouldn't hurt his rebounding numbers, since that is really his job when he is in there.

Basically, I think Davis just is what he is.  He is a very good big off the bench, who brings energy, solid defense, solid offense, and a little rebounding.  But he should never be mistaken for a star (or even a starter for an elite team).

That's not a knock on him.  It is just what he is, and he has become darn good at it.

[Fafnir]

What concerns me is that he has stood out as looking fantastic, noticeably better...And yet this vastly improved looking Davis is still, through two games, averaging 13.5 points, .5 assists, 5 rebounds, .5 steals, and .5 blocks and it's taking him 31 minutes to do so. As a point of reference, a stand out bench player gives you that in maybe 24 minutes. So it's worrisome to me that even looking great while watching, he's still just providing "good" bench production expanded into borderline starter minutes.

The reason he's been so much better is that he's shooting 70% (and hasn't turned it over once). If his efficiency numbers come back down to earth he'll actually be preforming worse than last year, simply because he hasn't gotten many offensive rebounds this year. Last year he was rebounding 7.9/36 minutes. This year he's rebounding at a 5.8/36 clip which isn't good enough.

Take a look at his per 36 numbers, they're all down accept scoring and that's only because he's shooting so much better in two games.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/d/davisgl01.html

His rebounds, assists, and free throws are all down. I'm fine with him not drawing fouls if he converts at a high rate, but his rebounding has to get back to last year's level.