The Sign and Trade Big Baby Option

by Jeff Clark on Jul 17, 2009 5:57 AM EDT in Articles Comment 112 comments

Where ya headed Baby?

If we can bring back Baby at a reasonable price, that would be great. However, if some other team wants to have him for more money and is willing to give up a player or two or perhaps a pick to get it done, that might be a good option as well. Ainge has already talked about getting Jamario Moon and appears to be looking all around the league for other options. Per Marc Spears of the Globe:

According to sources, the Pistons have been trying to clear salary cap space to make an offer to Davis. Detroit and New Orleans might need to offer a sign-and-trade deal to make a run at the Baton Rouge, La., native. Although the Jazz announced last night they will match the $32 million offer sheet signed by forward Paul Millsap from the Trail Blazers, they are also expected to trade forward Carlos Boozer, which would keep the interest in Davis alive. If Millsap’s offer sheet is matched by Utah, Portland’s interest in Davis could grow.

So other than those few teams, what options do the Celtics have? Jack Jemsek of CSN looks at a number of options around the league. He concludes:

In Big Baby’s situation, if he gets the $5 million he is seeking, and the Celtics attempt a sign-and-trade, a team that is $2.5 million under the cap most likely will be involved, which makes all the above teams minus the Hawks and Raptors as potential trading partners.

Who do you think the Celtics should target in a Big Baby sign and trade?

0 recs | Comment 112 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

BYC

Can a BBD sign and trade work with BYC considerations?

by Pie McKenzie on Jul 17, 2009 6:35 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

it can, it is just difficult

I’m thinking it might end up requiring a third team to make it work

"We few, we happy few, we band of brothers" Henry V

by Jeff Clark on Jul 17, 2009 6:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

BYC

With both Moon and Baby comingout their first contracts,only half the money in the 1st yr.of theor new deals could be used as a match for trade purposes.In turn a match in salaries will differ.The BYC rule was partly put in place to discourage young players from leaving their original teams.In a staright-up offer,we can only offer Moon 1.9mil,and he is looking for more.

by house_call on Jul 17, 2009 6:47 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Not gonna happen

Portland is obviously looking for a difference maker. After trying for Hedo and Millsap, are they going to be happy ending up with Big Baby Davis? No way, no how, not gonna happen. Expect Portland to make a run at Lamar Odom in the next few days. Good chance they’ll get him too… since he’s obviously had a row with Buss, and from Portland’s point of view, Odom is not only a great player and the only real difference maker left in free agency, but the move would also weaken their most dangerous opponent in the West.

Detroit knows they can’t make Baby an offer the Cs won’t match. So it looks like NO offers will come in for him, and he will stay with the Cs.

You know, Davis is looking to make MLE money. Think about that. That would put him on par with…. oh… Rasheed, for example. Is there anyone anywhere who thinks those two players are on the same level? Bottom line: Davis is not worth the MLE. Don’t forget that the kid hardly rebounds, can’t jump more than a foot in the air, has poor wingspan, and is a bit overweight (pardon the euphemism).

by DRJ1 on Jul 17, 2009 6:48 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

This year is an anomaly

There’s lots of bigs worse than Baby making the MLE, or more. Maxiell comes to mind. Most years, Baby would have gotten something like the MLE, but not this year.

"People don't understand, if you can't live the rest of your life off one year in the NBA, you can't live off 21." -- Keon Clark

by Eeyore III on Jul 17, 2009 9:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Isn't the point of this that...

… the pistons and the hornets know that the Celtics will match, which is why there would be a sign and trade? You know, so that the Celtics are getting something, and they will let BBD fly?

I hope Portland goes for Odom, I like the trailblazers.

by stevenfuzz on Jul 17, 2009 1:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

by that logic...

… does anyone think Gortat is on par with Rasheed? Because they’re making the same money next year.

Point being: a player’s value is always mixed in to a bunch of other considerations. BBD might merit a 4-5 mil contract from Boston, not because he’s on par with Rasheed, but because he fills a need for the C’s that we can’t fill via free agency.

Likewise, he might merit 4-5 mil from Portland because Kevin Pritchard can’t come away empty handed this offseason. He can at least say that he signed BBD based on the potential he showed in the playoffs and have a legitimate argument. People in Portland are getting antsy.

by milt palacio's shot on Jul 18, 2009 1:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, I think he is

Gortat’s per-minute numbers last year were quite good: 10 points, 13 boards, and 2.4 blocks per 36 minutes (PER of 17.2). Compare with Rasheed’s 13.5 points, 8.3 boards, and 1.5 blocks (PER of 14.9), and it’s not obvious that Rasheed is better. And when Gortat got real minutes last year, he produced. Plus, Gortat will be improving over the next 3 years, while Rasheed will not.

I do think Gortat would be overpaid if the Magic give him the same # of minutes as they did last year, but I suspect they’ll find a way to play him more next year.

by dslack on Jul 18, 2009 10:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I would sign and trade with any team who would take Giddens/Walker/TA and/or Scal. I also think we could use another first rounder next year. We need to focus on bringing back Ray, giving Rondo an extension and/or signing a big name free agent next year.

by GreenGrizz on Jul 17, 2009 6:54 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

On another note . . .

Does anyone think it odd that Spears reports that Rondo and Perk won’t be doing the national team thing due to Perk’s wedding, but that doesn’t apply to BBD? What is BBDs status in the locker room? How does he get along with everyone?

by amenhotep04 on Jul 17, 2009 7:34 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Rondo is in the wedding

as a groomsman – not sure how the guys feel about Baby but I wouldn’t read into that situation too much – everyone seems to like Baby

"We few, we happy few, we band of brothers" Henry V

by Jeff Clark on Jul 17, 2009 7:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

As far as BBD

ESPN reported that BBD and David Lee of the Knicks aren’t going to USA minicamp because “they have yet to sign contracts”.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4334999

by Tai on Jul 17, 2009 12:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hornets

As I keep saying, the deal to do is Ray Allen, Rondo and BBD to the Hornets for CP3, Tyson Chandler and Julian Wright.

People say, “Oh the Hornets will never trade CP3.” Why not? As presently constituted that team can barely make the playoffs yet has the third highest payroll in the league.

I could see Davis going to Golden State for Belinelli, or to Phoenix for Jared Dudley and something else, maybe Louis Amundsen, or to Golden State for Sergio Rodriguez and filler. A third team (e.g. Memphis) might have to get involved because of they BYC rules, which will likely cost one of the other trading partners a pick.

None of the rumored deals or destinations make any sense to me. For example, Detroit already has Maxiell and they are going to let Bowen walk to save the $$$. They aren’t going to trade him.

I don’t really see a sensible landing place for BBD, and the most likely result is that he eventually accepts the Celtics qualifying offer and plays one more year in Boston.

by Brickowski on Jul 17, 2009 7:35 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

backing up your arguement

is Chris Paul himself

“In this league, anything can happen,” said Paul, at the summer league to watch his Hornets. “I can be dealt.”

Paul then was asked that surely he can’t be serious he could be traded.

“It’s possible,” he said. “It’s possible.”

http://www.probasketballnews.com/story/?storyid=647

"We few, we happy few, we band of brothers" Henry V

by Jeff Clark on Jul 17, 2009 7:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not going to happen

1. Ray Allen is on the Celtics this year. He was up there with Sheed at the news conferense. He was calling Grant Hill. He is the sweetest shooter in the league. Doesn’t sound like a player on the way out of a team.

2. CP3 is the best PG in the league. I seriously doubt the hornets are stupid enough to unload him.

3. The Celtics are going for a championship this year. There is no way there are trading any of the 6 (rondo, paul, allen, perk, KG, or sheed). Why would they tear apart the best starting 5 in the league, championship proven, for new players. No way.

by stevenfuzz on Jul 17, 2009 1:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Hornets will keep CP3

to fill the seats in their stadium. Even with that trade they’re not a contender and CP3 is a bigger star than any of those guys and will sell more tickets.

by Ritzybeanboy on Jul 17, 2009 7:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why?

Why would BBD accept the qualifying offer and play one more year with the Celtics expecting a better payday next year? Providing Perk, KG, and Sheed don’t get hurt, Davis isn’t going to get nearly the playing time he had the past year. So wouldn’t his value either stay the same or go down? I don’t think his value here will be high for the next few years unless we have more injuries or KG and Sheed can’t play anymore.

by amenhotep04 on Jul 17, 2009 8:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think he is going to have any choice

but I agree with the premise. His value for contract purposes may never be higher. His minutes will almost certainly go down. While I like him his ceiling is not very high athletically. I can’t blame him for trying to cash in while he can.

by Hondo on Jul 17, 2009 8:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

"They" Means the Bucks, not the Pistons

in the sentence above beginning with “For example…” Milwaukee is another rumored BBD destination that makes no sense.

by Brickowski on Jul 17, 2009 8:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

that's far fetched

i prefer a sign-and-trade involving baby and friendly deals going to utah, boozer going to miami, and haslem and moon coming to the Cs. memphis or another cap team could be added to ease exposure for utah this year.

by ssspence on Jul 17, 2009 9:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Boozer has an expiring contract

Why would Utah trade him for a pu pu platter that’s just as expensive and not nearly as good?

by dslack on Jul 17, 2009 10:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry, missed your comment.

“memphis or another cap team could be added to ease exposure for utah this year.”

Yes, if Utah gets financial relief, this might be a good deal all around.

by dslack on Jul 17, 2009 10:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree, it could certainly make sense, but...

where does New Orleans go from there? Do they resign rondo and try and build around that? Would the Celtics have to take on Peja’s contract too? I agree that its a possibility, and really hope it happens, but I’d put the odds at 5% atm.

by TomHamilton30 on Jul 17, 2009 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Baby will be back next year. Like Danny said the market will dictate Baby’s salary. Baby will make between 3 or 4Mil.

Our problem is we have 7Million tied up between T. Allen, Scal. E. House.

We have a young athletic guy from summer league who will make the team that can shoot 3’s.

by tyquinton on Jul 17, 2009 7:54 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Didn't follow the summer league that much

Which guy is that?

by dslack on Jul 17, 2009 10:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I believe...

It’s Lester Hudson, if his broken finger can heal in time.

by Tai on Jul 17, 2009 12:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

broken finger...

Is definitely not the worst injury you can have, surgery or not. Also, it is on his non-shooting hand. The SECOND the doctors OK him for a soft cast he will be on the court, and it should effect him very little (maybe a bit with his left handle, but this kid is a TOUGH kid. I think he is going to be a absolute GEM. He is naturally a much better player than pruit.

by stevenfuzz on Jul 17, 2009 1:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i don't think baby is going to get a better offer than what boston will

give him

by celticinorlando on Jul 17, 2009 8:17 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

National team.

All three Celtics now have opted put…. you can look at the individual excuses, but it seems to me the operative aspect of the story is the team’s preference:

“While Hamilton (Davis’ agent) said the Celtics didn’t pressure Davis into not taking part in the minicamp, they are happy with his decision.”

"We talked it over with the Celtics,’’ Hamilton said. "They support his decision. They want him to be ready for next season. They still have the rights to him. Until they give up his rights, they still own it.’’

I suspect the team let all three players know they would prefer they not get into a long and arduous process that could last for years.
This will be now and forever be called the “Yao Ming syndrome.” Or is it the “Matsuzaka” condition?

"Yes Indeed!"

by JB_Celticsstuff on Jul 17, 2009 8:41 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

match any offer

and lets win #18

no fooling around Danny

by 00dc2 on Jul 17, 2009 8:46 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Big Baby then on to camp

Hasn’t anyone noticed that fiscal logic is breaking out all over the NBA this summer? That’s one of the nice side effects of the economic crash. The super rich now have money issues and if they are clueless their bankers aren’t. No one is going to give a Jason Maxiel level player (Big Baby Davis) $5 mil for 5 years. Well, Milsap did but that is now the exception not the rule.
Some of the criticisms about Big Baby aren’t fair. He does bring in a unique game and dimension – width and quickness and desire. Good passer, pick setter. And he has shown every sign that he can work on his game and get better. So why the foolishishness about getting rid of him. I like him off the bench rather than the “classic” 4. (Joe Smith…puke!)
However, some of the ciriticisms ARE fair. His dimension is far from complete and he really isn’t worth any more than Eddie House.
Please stop wishing Tony Allen out of here as though there is someone who will take him. Danny has pulled rabbits out of his hat before and I agree TA needs a change of scenery but his redemption will need to come in the fall and then maybe we’ll get some value at midseason.
Let’s go to camp with who we’ve got plus Baby (I like Moon but I’ve read blog points re the money as problem). Build some value up in the likes of TA, Pruitt Giddens or Walker and deal then for the home stretch.

by Wildblu1 on Jul 17, 2009 8:46 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

meh

I think Scal is fine as the 4th big. I think anyone over 6’10 is fine. Personally, I don’t think any 4th big (probably 8th or 9th in the rotation) should be getting 5 million. Seriously. Honestly, I know injuries gave us a weird taste in our mouths last year, but that is not an excuse to shower the backup to a backup with money. BBD is overrated by his great play in the playoffs, but in reality he really is just a below-average (approaching average) weird shaped backup NBA big, and always will be. I just don’t see a huge differance between him and Scal. Scal had some great great games last season too. If not for his head injuries, he would have been the starter, because before that, he was straight up out-playing BBD. BTW, to put this in perspective, I’m not even a big Scal fan, at all.

by stevenfuzz on Jul 17, 2009 1:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Insane

No difference between Scal and Baby? Um, there’s a million differences, the biggest being that Scal can’t guard center, which makes him a backup 4 only. To roll with him as our 4th big is to tempt fate. Baby’s preventative medicine against Perk/KG/Wallace getting injured and he could easily step in for those guys and the team wouldn’t miss a beat. Scal can do spot duty here and there, but he’s not good enough for a consistent role.

The prudent move is to sign Baby, get a veteran for the backup 3 and use our expirings at midseason to fill in the holes. I’d also hang on to the LLE until midseason to get a leg up on whatever veterans get bought out.

by SalmonAndMashedPotatoes on Jul 17, 2009 4:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

but...

Rasheed, KG, and Perk (can) all play 5, and all play it MUCH better than BBD. My point is, if anyone of them goes down, Scal is fine as a backup 4. He is a far better shooter than BBD. So maybe BBD has a bit of upside at 4 (debatable), but whatever. Again, we are talking about a backup to the backup. This is a trash minutes player. If the Celtics have a major injury, he will be going from 5 million dollar trash minutes to 5 million dollar 7th or 8th man minutes. How much are we paying Eddie again? $2,862,000… Perkins doesn’t even make 5 million.

Am I insane, or doesn’t this seam like a big todo about absolutely nothing. Sign Swift or Fazlsjdasffus (ha, you know, that guy from summer league) or Sweeney or ANYONE. Backup to a backup. Backup to a backup. Keep repeating that.

I mean I am all for keeping baby, but he just doesn’t deserve what he wants. If the market screws him and he gets 1-2 million a year (tops) for the celtics, I think he should be happy. Really happy. If a team forces the celtics over 2 million, I say TRADE TRADE TRADE!

Seriously though… who is our backup wing. Our FIRST backup on the wing. I think House will end up doing PG/SG. but there is still a huge whole there. TA, garbage. Giddens, crossing my fingers. Walker (Really crossing my fingers, because that kid does some nasty stuff). We need to handle that first and foremost.

by stevenfuzz on Jul 17, 2009 5:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Forced the Celtics over 2 million?

Detroit had 3.8 million to give to BBD and they felt the Celtics would match.

You don’t get it. The Celtics want the market to determine BBD’s value, not them. If the Celtics offer something BBD doesn’t like, then even if no other team wants to sign him, it could cause a rift between the two parties. It’s not complicated.

If you really just want to settle for Scal, I’m ok with that, but I do think BBD’s a much better defender than Scal. Offense? BBD does have a mid-range jumper, whether you trust it or not, it’s up to you, but can we get a backup 4 with that much offensive range?

The Celtics are doing right. They don’t want to overpay on BBD, and this is the perfect strategy for that; let the market tell BBD how much he’s worth. If no other team offers a deal, BBD can choose to either sign what the Celtics give, or join Marbury in Europe. Everyone wins.

by Tai on Jul 17, 2009 6:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The point is...

We need a capable backup 4/5 and a capable backup at 3. One will backup at 2 positions. The other is a backup at one position. One will backup a player who’s rarely missed time with injury. The other will backup 2 players who’ve had well-documented injury problems the last 2 seasons. You seem to think backup small forward is the biggest need, but you seem to forget that we have no depth at center or power forward. We have an abundance of depth at 2/3, though it’s not all quality—it is quantity, something we lack at the 4/5. Therefore, if we’re going to overpay a backup (and under your argument, we’re going to sign-and-trade Baby and take back an overpaid backup at 2/3), I’d rather it be at 4/5. Big guys are historically more expensive (and thus more valuable) and given the market and what we have to spend, I’d rather keep Baby and sign a veteran’s minimum guy at the backup small forward position.

by SalmonAndMashedPotatoes on Jul 17, 2009 6:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

if we trade BBD we need a center and/or PG in return

im gonna be all up on you like a spider monkey!

by remembering9ergods on Jul 17, 2009 9:11 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

a center and a PG for baby?

good luck with that

by ssspence on Jul 17, 2009 9:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

if you look closely you will see "OR" in the sentence

id prefer to keep him myself

im gonna be all up on you like a spider monkey!

by remembering9ergods on Jul 17, 2009 1:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Baby was redundant once Sheed was signed

I really don’t see how Baby fits in here anymore. In a perfect world, with a healthy team, KG, Sheed and Perk will get almost all of the minutes at the 4 and 5. Scals played well in the post-season, he is plenty good enough to be a 4th Big and get the scraps of minutes that may remain.

Powe will hopefully be a mid-season pick-up to give us some depth, muscle and low-post scoring down the stretch. I really like Glen Davis, but he just doesn’t fit here anymore. If we could get that wing or point guard we covet by doing a sign-and-trade, it really seems like a no-brainer to me.

by bewareofdware on Jul 17, 2009 9:28 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

yeah

I would take a 50% powe over a 125% BBD any day.

by stevenfuzz on Jul 17, 2009 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

James Posey (?)

I haven’t had an opportunity to log onto CelticsBlog all that often, but has anyone discussed the option of working a sign-and-trade with New Orleans and getting James Posey back in return?

I understand Ainge’s reluctance for the 3rd year remaining on his contract, but with Wallace now signed for three years, perhaps he realizes it was a mistake and Posey was worth the extra year.

I know it’s somewhat far fetched, but I’m surprised it hasn’t been discussed more.

by Ben Pepper on Jul 17, 2009 9:35 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Why hasn't Baby for Outlaw been mentioned?

Or did I miss it? He’s a tall, young, athletic, small forward who can provide solid offense off the bench. It’s the last year of his deal, but he could conceivably be a pretty significant piece of the puzzle going forward. Then we could trade Scal and TA for a backup PG and 4th big man (TA and Scal for Dooling and Najera comes to mind). It’s not as though Baby will get tons of minutes with Perk, KG and Sheed in front of him…

by theham on Jul 17, 2009 9:46 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

But Outlaw's better

And I think Portland realizes that.

by dslack on Jul 17, 2009 10:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think the chances of Baby returning or at least returning soon are very slim. JT21 from the forums wrote:

I also saw on ESPN news bottom line that Davis is apparently going to skip training camp, or in football terms hold out, due to contract disputes and the fact that i guess the celtics either aren’t making progress in time to sign him, or their offers are much lower than BBD is looking for.

What a D-Bag. He obviously is only after the money. And if Utah is also after him, that will take them forever to work out a sign-and-trade, because they first have to trade away Boozer, which is not happening in the near future.

And since all our other signings depend on the BBD situation, we’re practically screwed. This is basically the roster we’re going to take to training camp.

by P2 on Jul 17, 2009 10:01 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

you can't blame a guy for going after the money.

a paycheck is the only thing that’s guaranteed in the game.

by Pengaloo on Jul 17, 2009 10:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

let him do that...so it is boston's fault nobody offers him?

by celticinorlando on Jul 17, 2009 10:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

? Celtics aren't hamstrung by this at all.

Assuming that this “hold out” rumor is accurate (which might not at all be a warranted assumption) —

The logic of holding out is to hurt a team that needs the player in question. Deion Branch was under contract to the Patriots, and therefore hurt the team by not playing.

Davis’s holding out hurts himself far more than it hurts the Celtics. The Celtics can take Baby back whenever he decides he’d like to play basketball in exchange for money. Until then, he can twiddle his thumbs to his heart’s content. Celtics can always match any offer from another team, and they’ll have the biannual exception available regardless of the BBD situation, too.

by dslack on Jul 17, 2009 10:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Please read this: http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=30502.msg537346;topicseen#new We wait on BBD before making decisions on what to do with the LLE!

by P2 on Jul 17, 2009 10:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

hmm

in reading that i find myself in constant agreement with the stream of refutations to your argument, both in the op and here. it is july 17th. there is tons of time, and it isn’t like you can go out and sign any players you want anyways. there is a cap, players preference, etc. you have to view this in the real world.

by ChainSmokingLikeDino on Jul 17, 2009 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Disagree

1. Why does everyone call something the LLE? I assume people mean the Biannual Exception? And they’re calling it LLE for “lower level exception”, as a counterpart to the midlevel exception? Am I correct in these inferences? Just for the record, there is no official salary cap exception called the “Lower Level Exception.”

2. Use the Biannual Exception on a backup wing. We don’t need to know about Davis’s status to know that the team needs a backup wing.

by dslack on Jul 17, 2009 8:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

All this does is make him look bad. He already knows the system too, so it doesn’t really kill us not to have him in training camp either, except to get some time in with the other players.

If this happens, good luck, BBD! And thanks for making it that much easier for the fans to want to see you go!

by Ritzybeanboy on Jul 17, 2009 10:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sounds like a good plan for baby.

Until he realizes that Sheed is playing for the second team in practices at BBD’s position at camp and everyones like “Hey, didn’t we use to have some fat kid playing for us?”.

by stevenfuzz on Jul 17, 2009 1:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i think they can play together.

baby at PF, sheed at C.

if baby leaves what are we left with? sheed, scal, and then what? mikki moore again? hoping powe is healthy? swift? isnt this what we did last year? how did that work out?

id rather keep baby and pair him with sheed. add tim thomas to play SF. then pick up one of the vet PG’s that might be left for the minimum…boby jackson, tyrone lue, brevon knight, etc…

im gonna be all up on you like a spider monkey!

by remembering9ergods on Jul 17, 2009 2:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

if baby leaves...

I assume you are saying “who do we have left”, assuming that one of our bigs (btw, we have the deepest bigs in the league with or without davis) get injured this year. I say, if big baby leaves, then we have a “hole” in our 9th rotation spot. Big deal. Scal can play that 3 minutes a game. Or use the salary BBD was going to get, to sign anybody, like anybody above BBD’s below-average-ness.

What happens if Paul goes down, or Ray? Then we have a GAPING hole in our lineup. This seams WAY more important than giving 5 million a year to BBD to be the 4th option big. 2nd option wing us please.

by stevenfuzz on Jul 17, 2009 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

come again?

since when is BBD a below-average basketball player? how soon all of you forget how well he stepped in for KG last year, especially in the playoffs.

by whambulance on Jul 17, 2009 4:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

BBD is average at best

In the playoffs, when he impressed everyone so much, his PER was 15.2, making him an average offensive player (league-wide average is defined to be 15). He has always been a below average defensive player. And GMs (and fans) get in trouble all the time when they pay more attention to a few good (or, in this case, average) playoff minutes than to a season’s worth of mediocre minutes. The larger sample (i.e., the regular season) is probably more predictive, and during the regular season BBD’s PER was 10.7, making him a far below average offensive player (and, again, he has always been below average defensively).

by dslack on Jul 17, 2009 8:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

What?

Sure, if Paul or Ray goes down, we’re in trouble…just like if KG or Wallace or Perk go down. The argument goes both ways. We need capable backups at both positions.

It seems you’d rather pay some guy 5 million to backup Paul instead of 5 million to backup KG and Perk. Given the depth we have at 2/3, I think the GLARING hole is at 4/5 and thus if we should be paying a backup big money it probably should be at 4/5.

TA’s not ideal, but he does thrive on big minutes. If Paul or Ray went down, TA could pick up the slack. But you want to get rid Baby who’s already shown he can step in for KG, and who can play 4 and 5 when necessary?

The bottom line is simple: bigs are hard to find and we currently have 4 on the team. Wings are easy to find and we have 7 currently on the team. Why get rid of a capable big and one in which we can go over the salary cap to sign in favor of adding an 8th wing man. Doesn’t make sense.

by SalmonAndMashedPotatoes on Jul 17, 2009 4:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

...

If one of the bigs goes down, we still have a great starting 5.

If a wing goes down… look out.

And I judge BBD as below average based on his stats and 2 years of play. I think that he had a few great games in the playoffs, but I also this he was offensively favored on those matchups. He became instant overated.

by stevenfuzz on Jul 17, 2009 5:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You don't like Baby, that's clear

Our one good sub is at 4/5, but that doesn’t mean we can afford to skimp on that position because of it.

If a wing goes down, we have multiple options. TA is good at starting. We also have a ton of expirings and SG/SFs are a-plenty and easy to find. How fast did Orlando replace Nelson last season? Guards are easier to replace—that’s a fact.

But if a Big goes down, what would we do then? Or starting 5 might be alright, but we’d have Scal and some stiff backing us up at the 4/5, which would not only make our 2nd team very vulnerable, it would also tempt Doc (or perhaps force him) into extending minutes on the remaining two—that wouldn’t be good.

As Orlando showed, it’s easier to overpay—if you have to (it’s not a foregone conclusion we have to, though from what you wrote you obviously think it is)—a big than a small. Bigs are more valuable, harder to find, even harder to replace, and always in demand. A signed Baby is also a valuable trading asset, as well as a longterm asset. Overpaying this season may turn out to be a reasonable contract in 3 years when we’re getting 25-30 minutes a game outta Baby.

by SalmonAndMashedPotatoes on Jul 17, 2009 6:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

salmon i want to agree with you

but let’s never mention TA getting major minutes again. I think the case is closed – he doesn’t fit this team and is an overall black hole for floor chemistry.

Now that it looks like Daniels will be signing with Boston, though, can we all agree that re-signing BBD should be top priority? The 4th big WILL be getting significant minutes this season – it’s guaranteed. And the C’s WILL need some continuity both in terms of contracts overlapping and young players maturing when old players leave. BBD is the most attractive option for reinforcements at 4/5 by a pretty wide margin. Let’s ink him for long term at a little more than he’s worth but a lot less than what he’s asking for.

by milt palacio's shot on Jul 18, 2009 2:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Average, not great

I basically agree, stevenfuzz. But Davis’s huge improvement in the playoffs took him from a player who was far below NBA average up to a player who was average.

by dslack on Jul 17, 2009 8:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Big baby davis

He is not "holding out. he has until training camp to sign which, is in October. it is okay for him to see what he is worth and when he does the Celtics will Match or agree to some kind of sign and trade deal.

Moses Freeman

by Freeease1 on Jul 17, 2009 7:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The cost of Glen Davis’ contract is already very high relative to his talent … I don’t think any acquiring team is going to be willing to give up something value on top of the money they’ll have to pay him, in order to acquire him.

by Who on Jul 17, 2009 10:55 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

AMARE!!

Amare is still up for grabs and phoenix are willing to trade GLEN davis Scal TA for amare thts a done deal!

by Celtic boy on Jul 17, 2009 11:15 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

So?

Is he going to come to Boston so he can be the backup to a backup?

by stevenfuzz on Jul 17, 2009 1:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why would Phoenix do that???

“Hey Danny? Would you like our best player in exchange for a bag of trash?”

Then again, Kerr already traded Shaq for a bag of trash, so who knows?

by dslack on Jul 17, 2009 8:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Davis drunk with power but we do need him.

I want him. We need another big guy down low and he is damn good. However he does seem to have developed an inflated view of himself a little bit and it is irritating. Strangely Powe’s and KG’s injuries last season totally changed the future of Davis’s dealings with us. I am not quite so sure that I appreciate his good play now. He is a little too drunk with power.The only player I wouldn’yt mind trading him ggfor would be Travis Outlaw. Is that possible/

by gustusias on Jul 17, 2009 11:30 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

...

Really? Are we talking about the same player?

BBD doesn’t have a good post game, or inside play at all (both ends of the court). He is like an oversised shooting forward.

Sure you’re not thinking of Powe or Perk? Totally differant game than BBD, but exactly the game your are describing.

by stevenfuzz on Jul 17, 2009 1:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Since when is

he “drunk with power”? Baby’s plans have been the same since he was drafted in the second round of the 2007 draft and he set up his contract for that very reason. Show the league what you can do for 2 seasons and then go after the money you feel you should’ve initially gotten before you fell so low in the draft. BBD has been forthright about this since last season, so why is everyone so suddenly shocked? If you go back to some of the posts a month ago the overwhelming sentiment on this blog was “Can’t blame the guy, he deserves the money, good luck Glen, thanks for all you’ve done”. How soon before Glen Davis is the guy that killed your puppy?

by whambulance on Jul 17, 2009 4:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Baby`s 5 stages of grief

Baby was convinced his playoff performance would get him big offers…He was wrong!

First, Baby was in “denial”…followed by “anger”.

Next, he will “bargain” with Danny to sign a Celtic deal.

There will be some “depression” on his part…before he fully “accepts” the situation.

by Title 18 on Jul 17, 2009 12:12 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

excellent post Title 18

However he better not pull a Mark Blunt that crazy lazy goof ball still makes me angry after all this time.

Let this end!!!

Is it Soup Yet?

by Master Po on Jul 17, 2009 1:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Blount signing was Danny`s "darkest hour"

This was even worse than Danny`s mindless pursuit of Marcus Banks!

During the many blow-out losses the Celts suffered in 2003-04….Blount “padded” his stats with just enough uncontested “garbage time” rebounds & baskets, to fool some into thinking he actually possessed some “skills”.

Unfortunately, Danny was amongst those who were fooled.

by Title 18 on Jul 17, 2009 2:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

96 minutes a game at the 4 & 5 spots

average minutes last season:

Sheed: 32
KG: 31
Perk: 30

That leaves about 3 minutes a game at those spots if they play the minuteas they did last year. I really think Scals can handle that. Bye Bye Big Baby.

by bewareofdware on Jul 17, 2009 12:14 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

A great point made...

Scalabrine could handle the minutes from overflow, foul trouble, ejection, or worse yet – injury.

However, we still need some depth at the 4/5, but it is not as big of a priority as depth
at the 2/3;

Therefore, BBD is expendable for a sign-trade for someone who fills the 2/3 & maybe a 4/5
returning to the Celtics.

It’s funny, we give no consideration of Tony Allen because he plays like he’s so ‘lost’ when he’s in
the game.

I could see BBD + Tony Allen being packaged in a deal

by OCsWestCeltic on Jul 17, 2009 12:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It’s funny, we give no consideration of Tony Allen because he plays like he’s so ‘lost’ when he’s in
the game.

It’s not funny, it’s sad and true. Pretty much why he is a worthless trading chip.

by stevenfuzz on Jul 17, 2009 1:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

He's worth something If some GM watches the game tape of Tony Allen - Pre-injury (that Jan. 2007)

And believes he can be 1/2 as effective as before his injury.

by OCsWestCeltic on Jul 21, 2009 1:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

As 4th Big Last Season...

Baby averaged 21.5 minutes a game.

You can ‘project’ minutes per game all you like, but it’s not going to go down like that. There’s always foul trouble, small injuries, matchup problems, etc., that will mess that up, not to mention the big injuries that throw everything outta whack.

Baby’s not only insurance against something bad happening to Perk/KG/Wallace, he’s also preventative medicine. Doc wants to limit KG/Wallace’s minutes during the season and the best way to make that happen is to have a capable backup behind them. Scal is not that guy.

by SalmonAndMashedPotatoes on Jul 17, 2009 4:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Who was the 3rd big then?

Powe? More like a 3 and 3a. Also, are those minutes inflated from when he was starting, or is that ONLY before KG went down?

Regardless, 4th big on this team will not be counted on for 20 min.

by Ritzybeanboy on Jul 17, 2009 7:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You say that after last year?

You have learned nothing. Baby started the year as the 4th big and ended up playing 20 minutes a game. The point is: it could happen again.

by SalmonAndMashedPotatoes on Jul 18, 2009 1:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Baby started the season

as the first big off the bench, splitting that role with Powe. He was platooning with Powe as the 3rd big. At no point last season was he ever really the 4th big. And when KG went down he became the starter partially because Powe was injured and played starters minutes nearly half the season. That’s why he ended up averaging 20 min per. He didn’t average 20 per as the 4th big as you claimed, and on this team, the 4th big won’t come close to 20 min.

Our third big now is Sheed. So, your point that we need Baby for 20 min is ridiculous. Perk, KG and Sheed will average about 30 per this season giving us 90 min for the 4/5 positions. And if someone is injured that STILL doesn’t make BBD a starter. Barring TWO injuries to this group, BBD won’t end up starting and won’t come close to 20 min per. So, it really couldn’t happen again.

4th big will get maybe 10 min per for the season. If you want to pay $3-1/2 to 4 million for that, I’m just glad you’re not GM. All your arguments are based on either the the distorted argument that BBD got all these minutes AS a 4th big (which he wasn’t and didn’t) and will again, or that it makes any sense with our limited resources and depth at the positions to go all out trying to keep him just in case the sky falls down and lands on TWO of our bigs.

by Ritzybeanboy on Jul 18, 2009 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jeez

Listen, the point is: we can make all kinds of projections as to what might happen, but in the end we don’t know what’s going to happen. Injuries happen, foul trouble happens, and it’s smart to have a capable 4th big man, especially given the age and injury history of the Bigs 1-3.

As to being the 4th big last season, that was where Baby was projected at this time last season, as 4th big behind Perk/KG/Powe. And then a lot of injuries happened which led to him getting his 20 minutes a night. I only bring it up this summer because once again Baby’s projected (if he resigns) as our 4th big. Yet somehow by pointing out what happened last season I’m making a distorted argument (in your words). There’s nothing distorted about it—I’m just heeding the lessons of history. With words like “So, it really couldn’t happen again,” it appears you haven’t learned the lessons of history. Not smart in my opinion.

We’ve already got our backup 3 in Daniels. All we need is a capable 4th big and we’re ready to roll into the season. Baby’s that guy and there’s NOBODY on the free agent market or who’s available in a sign-and-trade who’s better for that position. Since we have his Early Bird Rights, why not sign him to a semi-reasonable long term deal, one that keeps him in green for awhile. We’re going to need him at some point, we know he’s improving, he’s still young, and there’s a need for him on the team. I just don’t see the downside to signing him at this point. And I’d gladly pay 4 million a year for that.

by SalmonAndMashedPotatoes on Jul 18, 2009 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

bewareofdware, are you just ignoring the fact the Sheed missed 16 games and KG missed half the season?

Who plays those minutes?

by Cousin It on Jul 17, 2009 5:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Right

I took a minute to look it up. There are 7,776 minutes per regular season at the 4 and 5 spots. Last year, KG, Perk, Sheed and Baby COLLECTIVELY logged 7,785 minutes. In other words, Baby will NOT be superfluous. Want to use the prior year’s stats? The same 4 guys logged 7,526 minutes; thus, we would have needed to play a stiff like Scal 3 minutes a game.

Sounds about right to me. We lose Baby, there’s a gaping hole.

"People don't understand, if you can't live the rest of your life off one year in the NBA, you can't live off 21." -- Keon Clark

by Eeyore III on Jul 17, 2009 6:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

what about scal?

I’d put him in over Baby. Most stats say so too. Also, what about having garbage time minutes for a young big? We still should.. it’d be cost effective.

by TomHamilton30 on Jul 17, 2009 6:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I respectfully disagree

If I could ditch Veal and use the $3 mil on Baby, it’d give new meaning to the concept “nanosecond.” But there’s room for disagreement.

"People don't understand, if you can't live the rest of your life off one year in the NBA, you can't live off 21." -- Keon Clark

by Eeyore III on Jul 17, 2009 7:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

and if one of those 3 guys get injured...

…do you think Scals can handle 33 minutes?

And then when Perk gets in foul trouble do you think Scals can handle 43 minutes?

by milt palacio's shot on Jul 18, 2009 2:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Will people in here stop acting as if GMs around the league are drooling over TA, Walker, Giddens and Scal?

Please stop the posts about, “If we could turn Scal and TA into a decent center.” It’s not happening.

There is zero interest in those guys. Zero. TA is fragile, injury-prone, plays out of control, makes stupid decisions. Walker looked like his orders were to foul his man immediately every time he got minutes in the playoffs. All Giddens has shown is that he’s a good D-Leaguer. And I like having Scal around, but to the rest of the league, he’s the same guy who couldn’t crack the active roster two years ago when the Cs won it all.

by Cousin It on Jul 17, 2009 12:51 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

...

I wouldn’t write of Walker and Giddens yet. We have to see them play some games first.

by stevenfuzz on Jul 17, 2009 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Totally agree. I'm not writing them off -- I'm saying there aren't any GMs looking to trade a decent center for either or both of them.

by Cousin It on Jul 17, 2009 5:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

TBH, I think Baby is pushing for the sign-and-trade too

The reason? He knows there’s not offers out there for him and so would almost have to accept the Celtics qualifying offer. If he did, he’d get very limited minutes and at the end of next season his status as an unrestricted free agent wouldn’t net him much $$ b/c of such limited minutes/production. On the other hand, if a sign and trade were facilitated then he could get more $$ now AND get on a team where he can play some minutes. Its a win-win in my mind.

by TomHamilton30 on Jul 17, 2009 12:58 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I say...

…the Celtics figure out what to do by having Sheed and BBD play a game of HORSE. I put BBD’s weight in Benjamins on Sheed.

by stevenfuzz on Jul 17, 2009 1:38 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Baby Being Overpaid

Maybe a deal for 3-5 million a year is too much money for Baby’s role on the team this year. However, as the years progress he will become more important as KG and Sheed decline. People need to think long term.

by Evantime34 on Jul 17, 2009 1:49 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

long term?

Aren’t the celts all about the short term right now? Isn’t that exactly why they got sheed. To win this year?

by stevenfuzz on Jul 17, 2009 1:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

also

I shudder to think that as KG and Sheed decline, BBD is going to be the answer. Maybe as the starting PF on a lottery team. BBD will never be a champion starter. He would get schooled but 90% of the starting PF’s in the league.

by stevenfuzz on Jul 17, 2009 2:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

sign and trade big baby ??

sign and trade him for a point gaurd and a nother foward because having pruitt and giddens makes me shake.. what about bringing back powe ??

by lohaus#54 on Jul 17, 2009 1:53 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

We really really really really need a tested wing. I think that is the most blaring hole.

I think Danny is scared that next time Powe goes down, his leg is just going to fall straight off.

by stevenfuzz on Jul 17, 2009 1:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

He would probably keep playing

Powe is a warrior.

by bewareofdware on Jul 17, 2009 2:15 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

...

He would pick that leg up and start beating people with it.

by stevenfuzz on Jul 17, 2009 2:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Is Marvin Williams Signed?

He’d be a nice piece for us. I wonder if ATL has any interest in a BBD s&t?
Marvin seems superfluous for the Hawks.

by Fred Roberts on Jul 17, 2009 4:26 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Stevenfuzz

thank you for posting on my behalf. In other words I agree with almost everything you have written on this topic!

by TomHamilton30 on Jul 17, 2009 4:43 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

....

Oh man have I been bored to tears today.

Bottom line is I am so not sold on BBD. I have watched every game he has played, and with the exceptions of a few big games during the playoffs I have spent most of that time being underwhelmed: A sort of flashy awkward sized big who can’t finish down low or block or rebound—I mean, how post-modern.

by stevenfuzz on Jul 17, 2009 5:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

you are preaching..

to the choir.

by TomHamilton30 on Jul 17, 2009 6:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

mmmmmmmmm

Clippers trade Randolph to Memphis for Richardson.

by celt4ever on Jul 17, 2009 7:47 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

The BBD I saw...

seemed to have matured mightily in the playoffs. Maybe it’s because he knew he wouldn’t be yanked cuz we had no one left. Maybe it’s because the light came on. Or, as you suggest, he was just a flash in the pan who seized one moment but can’t be trusted to deliver consistently.
But I did see him finish, in the playoffs. He rebounded well, in the playoffs. He knocked down his jumper, in the playoffs. I don’t think there’s any fear of over-paying him on our end. I would hate to lose him, simply because now he’d make an AWESOME backup.

by Big_Easy on Jul 17, 2009 9:41 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

we signed marquis daniels!

he will be a nice piece for our bench.

also earl watson was released today. he would make a great backup point for us. he is now on my WISH list

im gonna be all up on you like a spider monkey!

by remembering9ergods on Jul 17, 2009 11:26 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Free-agent guard Marquis Daniels(notes) has committed to sign with the Boston Celtics, a league source said Friday.

Daniels will receive the Celtics’ $1.9 million biannual salary-cap exception if the Indiana Pacers aren’t interested in a sign-and-trade deal. The 6-foot-6 Daniels averaged 13.6 points and 4.6 rebounds in 54 games with Indiana last season, his third with the team. Daniels previously played three seasons with the Mavericks.

Daniels, 28, will help improve the Celtics’ perimeter depth. Boston signed free-agent forward Rasheed Wallace(notes) last week and remains interested in keeping forward Glen Davis(notes).

im gonna be all up on you like a spider monkey!

by remembering9ergods on Jul 17, 2009 11:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

the only sign and trade for davis that makes sense to me

is for a 3/4

Maybe this is obvious, and maybe it’s wishful thinking. Bo Outlaw would be a neat little pickup that fills our remaining needs. And BBD is a poor man’s Ronny Milsap – which is at least something for Portland.

and a backup PG becomes a lot less important with Daniels on the team, especially with Pruitt as a last resort.

by milt palacio's shot on Jul 18, 2009 3:00 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs