RealGM

"The Celtics are targeting Wallace with the midlevel exception and sources say the team – which could be willing to pay a steep luxury tax – is also pursuing Phoenix’s Grant Hill"

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=a ... &type=lgns

Personally, im a little worried about him making it through the season, i know hes been healthy lately but its one of those on-going things and we were bitten by injuries last season

that being said, if we pick up Sheed and Hill im not complaining at all!

Very nice moves, if they are both made.

Wallace, Hill, House and Marbury would be a deep bench..

Avalanche wrote:Personally, im a little worried about him making it through the season, i know hes been healthy lately but its one of those on-going things and we were bitten by injuries last season

that being said, if we pick up Sheed and Hill im not complaining at all!

Grant just came off of playing all 82 games and he averaged 12 pts. I'm not concerned about him at all.

Celts + Sheed + GHill = #18

Last season there were four players in the league listed as older than 36 (which is what Hill will be next year) -

Barry, Brent (37)
Bowen, Bruce (37)
Hunter, Lindsey
Mutombo, Dikembe


Considering he doesn't have an outside shot (although he ccan contribute nicely on offense in other respects) and defense tends to relate to athleticism, I would potentially be disppointed to see us sign him early as opposed to exploring other options. If it is for cheap however, and minutes are not promised, that would be a solid deal.

Yeah, does he really fit that well? A stopper / 3 pt threat is what we need there. Still, he's better than TA/Giddens!

I wonder who'd be a better fit of the 2 phoenix guys. Hill or Barnes? Barnes is more of a disruptive player defensively, but Hill is a very intelligent & poised veteran.

I'm not personally in love with Grant Hill's game. He definitely would add some slashing and playmaking ability. He's very good in the open court and he can stick it from mid-range. But the Celtics have a lot of guys they need to get touches for if they keep Marbury and add Sheed and Grant Hill. Rondo, Ray, Pierce, KG, Marbury, Hill and Sheed all need the ball... I'm not sure that one ball is enough for all of these guys. But hey, there's no question that Hill would add skill and veteran savvy to the roster.

If we spend the MLE on Sheed, how do we get Hill?

Ugghh... Matt Barnes is NOT Celtics material. I've said it a ton of times but he's a dirty player. A thug. A punk. Whatever you want to call it. He doesn't play with attitude like Perk or use tricks like Posey. He's the type of dirty player that will "sweep the leg" to borrow a line from Karate Kid. Not the type of guy you want on your team IMO.

humblebum wrote:Ugghh... Matt Barnes is NOT Celtics material. I've said it a ton of times but he's a dirty player. A thug. A punk. Whatever you want to call it. He doesn't play with attitude like Perk or use tricks like Posey. He's the type of dirty player that will "sweep the leg" to borrow a line from Karate Kid. Not the type of guy you want on your team IMO.

exact same things were always said about posey before he came here

meanwhile, i dont think its really an issue if our back up 3 isnt a killer from deep, we will (hopefully) have Steph, Eddie and Sheed off the bench that can hit the long ball, i dont think Hill not being a huge threat from 3 is a problem

Ya, but I personally had watched Posey and never thought of him as a dirty player. Tough, physical, savvy, lots of tricks in the bag who's willing to give a hard foul. That's still how I look at him. Everytime I watch Barnes play he's taking cheap shots at opponents off the ball, or he's about to fly off the handle emotionally. Totally different players.

The problem isn't so much Hill's lack of range as it is how do you integrate him into the offense. With a guy like Anthony Parker he simply plays of the ball, finds the open spot and catch/shoot. With Hill you have to run him off curls and screens, utilizing him in P&R, and give him the ball for ISO's. Now, if coached up properly Hill would function fine but I'm not overly confident that Doc will be able to find a way to integrate all of his offensive pieces if the team has Marbury, Hill and Sheed coming off the bench.

Like Avalanche said, those exact same things were said about Posey. Not that I want Barnes, but I do think he'd be a better fit than Grant Hill. With that said, I certainly wouldn't mind having Hill here because he's a definite upgrade on what we have now.

ParticleMan wrote:If we spend the MLE on Sheed, how do we get Hill?

Low level exception or vets minimum. I think Hill would be good. He looked very smooth in Phoenix last year (at least when I saw him). The Celtics need about 12-15 minutes of back up small forward from him. With those limited minutes his production should be fine.

If both Rasheed and Hill sign, instead of an inexperienced bench the Celtics would be sending out vets.

Who used to say those things about Posey? Bulls fans because he had a history against that team specifically. I don't recall any other people saying Posey was dirty.

humblebum wrote:Ugghh... Matt Barnes is NOT Celtics material. I've said it a ton of times but he's a dirty player. A thug. A punk. Whatever you want to call it. He doesn't play with attitude like Perk or use tricks like Posey. He's the type of dirty player that will "sweep the leg" to borrow a line from Karate Kid. Not the type of guy you want on your team IMO.

He's definitely not ideal by any means, but he's disruptive in the same sort of way that guys like Bruce Bowen, and Dahntay Jones get by defensively.

It really depends on what we want out of our backup 3 spot. If we want a defender who matches up with strong tall 3/4s like Lebron, Lewis, Villanueva, and Odom or more of a finesse player like Hill or Parker who's best skill is offense. I'm leaning more towards the first option, since we have nobody like that on our roster.

Parker is a stretch to even play at SF, and Hill is a better option there but not exactly a tough guy. As far as shooting guards go, we have plenty of those on the roster and don't need a single one more. If Parker or Hill got time playing guard, they'd probably be handling point guard duties rather than playing off the ball.

Who'd we have a shot at out of Barnes, Jamario Moon, Marion, Ariza, Odom, Artest? Are there any others I'm forgetting?

I don't think there are really legit SF defenders on the market besides guys like Marion and Artest who are total long shots to sign in Boston. If the Celtics want to get a guy who can give Pierce a breather defensively they're going to have to trade for him. Barnes isn't that guy unless your strategy to slow down Lebron is to have a guy throw cheap shots at him. If that's your strategy than Barnes is your guy. The only guy I see as a possible exception to this is Jamario Moon. He's a legitimately solid defender.

I like Dahntay Jones but he's not an option defensively at the 3 as far as I know... but if it he came down between Jones and Barnes give me Jones all day.

i seem to recall back in the day the C's having a SG who everyone thought was pretty dirty, a cheap shot artist, but was a damn good player anyway.

wasn't his name danny a... something?

ParticleMan wrote:If we spend the MLE on Sheed, how do we get Hill?

Grant Hill's accepted the minimum from Phoenix for the last 2 years, I believe. I don't think money is too big of an issue at this point for him because he clearly could've made more elsewhere than in Phoenix the past 2 years.

IF he's willing to leave Phoenix, and I'm not sure he is, the minimum or the LLE should definitely be enough.