Author Topic: Wait...so can we afford to lose Baby?  (Read 17066 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Wait...so can we afford to lose Baby?
« Reply #45 on: June 06, 2011, 10:19:20 AM »

Offline housecall

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2559
  • Tommy Points: 112
Before Baby step back onto the court in green it would be nice to read or hear a legit,honest reason either from Ainge,Doc or Baby himself why/where was Baby this past playoff run.Personally i feel he ck'd out during the playoffs mentally.I also question his work ethic lately in keeping himself fit or trying to maintain a reasonable weight to be effective on the court.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2011, 10:25:15 AM by housecall »

Re: Wait...so can we afford to lose Baby?
« Reply #46 on: June 06, 2011, 10:25:56 AM »

Online Who

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 48725
  • Tommy Points: 2438
Before Baby step back onto the court in green it would be nice to read or hear a legit,honest sincere reason either Ainge,Doc or Baby himself why/where was Baby this past playoff run.Personally i feel he ck'd out during the playoffs mentally.Also i still question his work ethic lately in keeping himself fit or trying to maintain a reasonable weight to be effective on the court.
I thought BBD was knackered after playing too many minutes in the regular season.

Davis just wasn't / isn't well conditioned enough to continue to give high levels of effort in high minutes. Throughout his entire career, his defense + rebounding have dropped off whenever his minutes have been increased (dating back to the stretch in 2008/09 when KG was injured and BBD replaced him as a starter).

Re: Wait...so can we afford to lose Baby?
« Reply #47 on: June 06, 2011, 10:37:19 AM »

Offline Chris

  • Global Moderator
  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18008
  • Tommy Points: 642
Before Baby step back onto the court in green it would be nice to read or hear a legit,honest sincere reason either Ainge,Doc or Baby himself why/where was Baby this past playoff run.Personally i feel he ck'd out during the playoffs mentally.Also i still question his work ethic lately in keeping himself fit or trying to maintain a reasonable weight to be effective on the court.
I thought BBD was knackered after playing too many minutes in the regular season.

Davis just wasn't / isn't well conditioned enough to continue to give high levels of effort in high minutes. Throughout his entire career, his defense + rebounding have dropped off whenever his minutes have been increased (dating back to the stretch in 2008/09 when KG was injured and BBD replaced him as a starter).

I also think he really was hurt by the inconsistency of the other guys as well, particularly Rondo and the bench guys.  Because defenses were focusing so much on the Big 3, and Rondo, and the other bench guys were not able to do anything, there were times where the defense really funneled the ball to Davis, and he was forced into taking bad shots due to the stagnant offense. 

Davis is at his best (much like most non-elite players) when the offense is really clicking, and the ball is really moving.  He is not like Paul Pierce or KG, or other stars who can make something out of nothing.  He needs the ball in the right place at the right time, or else he is shooting out of rhythm, and from an uncomfortable spot. 

Re: Wait...so can we afford to lose Baby?
« Reply #48 on: June 06, 2011, 10:38:01 AM »

Offline wdleehi

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34025
  • Tommy Points: 1607
  • Basketball is Newtonian Physics
The Celtics needs multiple big men off the bench.



Unless they can find two better then Davis willing to sign small, Davis is needed for this team to compete for a title next year.  

Re: Wait...so can we afford to lose Baby?
« Reply #49 on: June 06, 2011, 10:39:43 AM »

Offline Bankshot

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7540
  • Tommy Points: 632
The Celtics needs multiple big men off the bench.



Unless they can find two better then Davis willing to sign small, Davis is needed for this team to compete for a title next year.  

Agreed. 

I see "the grass is always greener" syndrome is on full display.
"If somebody would have told you when he was playing with the Knicks that Nate Robinson was going to change a big time game and he was going to do it mostly because of his defense, somebody would have got slapped."  Mark Jackson

Re: Wait...so can we afford to lose Baby?
« Reply #50 on: June 06, 2011, 12:14:50 PM »

Offline slamtheking

  • NCE
  • Red Auerbach
  • *******************************
  • Posts: 31869
  • Tommy Points: 10047
The Celtics needs multiple big men off the bench.



Unless they can find two better then Davis willing to sign small, Davis is needed for this team to compete for a title next year.  
sad but true.  I'd like to see what Danny can find out there to replace him but I wouldn't be surprised to see that Danny has no choice but to bring him back (if he can).  BBD very well may get a longer deal than 1 year which I'd be surprised if Danny would match.

Re: Wait...so can we afford to lose Baby?
« Reply #51 on: June 06, 2011, 12:23:21 PM »

Offline arctic 3.0

  • NCE
  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2554
  • Tommy Points: 406
The Celtics needs multiple big men off the bench.



Unless they can find two better then Davis willing to sign small, Davis is needed for this team to compete for a title next year.  

using the sign and trade I believe it could be possible to land both dalembert and anthony randolph this off season.

1: S&T baby to sac for S&T Dalembert.
sac loosing the big guy may want something in return.

2: S&T green along with bradley (and pick?) to sota for randolph and filler (ridnour?)
minisota has depth at the 4 but is looking for a scoring wing. granger is a possibility, could they be interested in green? rubio has reportedly agreed to play in sota ,with flynn and ridnour thats a traffic jam,
 
3: sign T Prince to MLE (or use mle on dal and offer baby to detroit)


rondo, ridnour?
allen, west
pierce, prince
kg, randolph
Dal, JO

voila! length, athleticism, rebounding and DEPTH!
« Last Edit: June 06, 2011, 12:28:28 PM by arctic 3.0 »

Re: Wait...so can we afford to lose Baby?
« Reply #52 on: June 06, 2011, 12:29:40 PM »

Offline wdleehi

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34025
  • Tommy Points: 1607
  • Basketball is Newtonian Physics
The Celtics needs multiple big men off the bench.



Unless they can find two better then Davis willing to sign small, Davis is needed for this team to compete for a title next year.  

using the sign and trade I believe it could be possible to land both dalembert and anthony randolph this off season.
1: S&T baby to sac for S&T Dalembert.
sac loosing the big guy may want something in return.
2: S&T green along with bradley to sota for randolph and filler (ridnour?)
3: sign T Prince to MLE (or use mle on dal and send baby to detroit)


rondo, ridnour?
allen, west
pierce, prince
kg, randolph
Dal, JO

voila! length, athleticism, rebounding and DEPTH!



Why do the Kings want Baby? 

As much as I think Green might be a bad fit, I would not give up him and Bradley for Randolph. 

Re: Wait...so can we afford to lose Baby?
« Reply #53 on: June 06, 2011, 12:41:20 PM »

Offline Spilling Green Dye

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1928
  • Tommy Points: 115
Chris, you say that Davis is at his best when the offense is clicking and the ball is moving.  Many of the shots Davis got were uncontested b/c of good ball movement.  And he still missed them.

It appeared that Davis' 2nd half struggles were a result of two things:  1)  Fatigue due to high minutes & lack of conditioning, and 2) Not taking care of his body (gainining weight, etc). 

I understand the grass isn't always greener concept, but I believe getting a serviceable big to replace Davis won't be as hard as you guys make it out to be.  There's a horde of players out there who statistically are upgrades from Davis, many of whom we probably don't get to watch very often so we don't know them. 

What we can't afford to do is have Davis playing 58% of all available minutes.  Regardless of our expectations, this seems to always happen, and it really bugs me.  A title contender doesn't have someone of Davis' inefficiency playing that many minutes.

Re: Wait...so can we afford to lose Baby?
« Reply #54 on: June 06, 2011, 12:44:20 PM »

Offline Chris

  • Global Moderator
  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18008
  • Tommy Points: 642
Chris, you say that Davis is at his best when the offense is clicking and the ball is moving.  Many of the shots Davis got were uncontested b/c of good ball movement.  And he still missed them.


They were uncontested, but they were not rhythm shots.  As a mediocre shooter, much like Rondo, he can be decent (or better than decent) if he catches and shoots in rhythm.  The problem was, with the offense breaking down, the ball was swinging to him in desperation, and he would then try to swing it to other options, before settling for the open jumper. 

Even though those shots are open, they are not high percentage shots, because they are not in rhythm.

Re: Wait...so can we afford to lose Baby?
« Reply #55 on: June 06, 2011, 12:46:38 PM »

Offline wdleehi

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34025
  • Tommy Points: 1607
  • Basketball is Newtonian Physics
I have seen Davis be very effective in the system when he stays within what he can do.



To often last year, he had to do more then that.  He will have good stretches when he does.  He will have bad stretches when he doesn't.




Best case scenario, no one wants to offer Davis a medium size contract because of his play down the stretch and the history of players his shape have when the swoon starts, Aigne can then sign him to a one year slightly overpayed contract.  (the key is one year)

Murphy signs a one year min deal to try and re-establish his value.


Celtics find a C capable of starting to pair with JO.  


Davis is then kept within a smaller role, a role he has succeeded in in the past.  

Re: Wait...so can we afford to lose Baby?
« Reply #56 on: June 06, 2011, 12:51:03 PM »

Offline MBunge

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4661
  • Tommy Points: 471
The problem was, with the offense breaking down, the ball was swinging to him in desperation, and he would then try to swing it to other options, before settling for the open jumper.


Uh...what team were you watching this past season?  I'm not saying it never happened and I will admit that Doc, Rondo and the team weirdly seem to think Baby is a better offensive player than what he is, but the idea that Baby jacks up shots because he's the last, desperate option does not conform to what I've seen.

Mike

Re: Wait...so can we afford to lose Baby?
« Reply #57 on: June 06, 2011, 12:51:38 PM »

Offline Chris

  • Global Moderator
  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18008
  • Tommy Points: 642
I have seen Davis be very effective in the system when he stays within what he can do.



To often last year, he had to do more then that.  He will have good stretches when he does.  He will have bad stretches when he doesn't.




Best case scenario, no one wants to offer Davis a medium size contract because of his play down the stretch and the history of players his shape have when the swoon starts, Aigne can then sign him to a one year slightly overpayed contract.  (the key is one year)

Murphy signs a one year min deal to try and re-establish his value.


Celtics find a C capable of starting to pair with JO.  


Davis is then kept within a smaller role, a role he has succeeded in in the past.  

Yeah, this really is the perfect scenario IMO.  Danny can sell Davis on the fact that he struggled at the end of last year, which hurt his stock, but by staying one more year, he will have another chance to showcase himself.  He can tell him that they will continue to be limiting KGs minutes, which will all but guarantee Davis a role (as long as he is producing), and they will continue to be a good team, which will allow him to showcase himself on a high level team.  

The only thing I would add to the scenario would be that the C's also sign Krstic to a reasonable deal as a backup, to either make a 3-headed monster at the center position, or be the backup when JO is hurt.

Re: Wait...so can we afford to lose Baby?
« Reply #58 on: June 06, 2011, 12:56:20 PM »

Offline Spilling Green Dye

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1928
  • Tommy Points: 115
Chris, you say that Davis is at his best when the offense is clicking and the ball is moving.  Many of the shots Davis got were uncontested b/c of good ball movement.  And he still missed them.


They were uncontested, but they were not rhythm shots.  As a mediocre shooter, much like Rondo, he can be decent (or better than decent) if he catches and shoots in rhythm.  The problem was, with the offense breaking down, the ball was swinging to him in desperation, and he would then try to swing it to other options, before settling for the open jumper. 

Even though those shots are open, they are not high percentage shots, because they are not in rhythm.

The desperation shot excuse is completely overblown.  That didn't happen to him much more than any other player, and he often times shot the ball pre-maturely in the offensive set (hence the "black hole" that some people refered to him as).  

Glen took 801 shot attempts this past year and made 359.  His jump shots fell at a paltry 37% (which is worse than Rondo).  Are you telling me that of his 801 total shots over 100 of them were taken with the shot clock about to expire?  That's the only way to justify his low fg%.  I'd also contend that Davis had the 2nd most open jumpers of anyone on the team (Rondo had the most).  

If the flow were that bad then Pierce, Allen, and others would all have shot poorly this year.  They didn't.  The fact is that Davis has no-one else on the team to blame but himself.

Re: Wait...so can we afford to lose Baby?
« Reply #59 on: June 06, 2011, 12:57:20 PM »

Offline arctic 3.0

  • NCE
  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2554
  • Tommy Points: 406
The Celtics needs multiple big men off the bench.



Unless they can find two better then Davis willing to sign small, Davis is needed for this team to compete for a title next year.  

using the sign and trade I believe it could be possible to land both dalembert and anthony randolph this off season.
1: S&T baby to sac for S&T Dalembert.
sac loosing the big guy may want something in return.
2: S&T green along with bradley to sota for randolph and filler (ridnour?)
3: sign T Prince to MLE (or use mle on dal and send baby to detroit)


rondo, ridnour?
allen, west
pierce, prince
kg, randolph
Dal, JO

voila! length, athleticism, rebounding and DEPTH!



Why do the Kings want Baby? 

As much as I think Green might be a bad fit, I would not give up him and Bradley for Randolph. 

dal is walking, either to the biggest pay day or to a contender.

with j thompson and cousins manning the 4 & 5 they could do worse then add a solid back up like bbd to make up for the loss of dal.

randolph played out of his mind when given minutes in sota. he recorded multiple double digit rebound games and loves swats the ball from the weak side. he is a taller than green, a more natural PF, and just as athletic. slotting him behing KG for a few years of seasoning can only help his career.