C's actually DO wanna keep Big Baby...

MaxwellSmart · Post #1 » by **MaxwellSmart** » Sun Jul 5, 2009 7:21 am

Good news....or Bad news if they think Rasheed is gonna sign elswhere...

http://www.hoopsworld.com/HeadlineStori ... TORY_20044

Kefa461 · Post #2 » by **Kefa461** » Sun Jul 5, 2009 11:32 am

I think they want both guys.......

8-)

cfan79 · Post #3 » by **cfan79** » Sun Jul 5, 2009 11:47 am

I don't see how we can have both. We would be stacked at the big positions if we did.

Post #4 » by **sunshinekids99** » Sun Jul 5, 2009 11:54 am

cfan79 wrote:I don't see how we can have both. We would be stacked at the big positions if we did.

At the moment the C's don't have a backup center or power forward. I think they can fit both guys in.

cfan79 · Post #5 » by **cfan79** » Sun Jul 5, 2009 11:58 am

sunshinekids99 wrote:
At the moment the C's don't have a backup center or power forward. I think they can fit both guys in.

Yes, but if we signed both then one of them wouldn't get many minutes unless an injury happened.

Psychoceltic · Post #6 » by **Psychoceltic** » Sun Jul 5, 2009 12:03 pm

Please God I'll kill less people if we can get both.

Banks2Pierce · Post #7 » by **Banks2Pierce** » Sun Jul 5, 2009 12:42 pm

Maybe they have a Perk trade lined up...

cisco · Post #8 » by **cisco** » Sun Jul 5, 2009 12:50 pm

Banks2Pierce wrote:Maybe they have a Perk trade lined up...

No. We really do need 4 bigs.

Harison · Post #9 » by **Harison** » Sun Jul 5, 2009 12:51 pm

Banks2Pierce wrote:Maybe they have a Perk trade lined up...

It wouldnt make sense, Perk is pretty cheap center considering what he has to offer - one of the best defensive centers, can single cover Dwight and will do just fine against 37yrs old Shaq. Sheed is old too, he CANT replace Perkins w/o real backup either (and no, Baby isnt center by any means).

GregB · Post #10 » by **GregB** » Sun Jul 5, 2009 12:52 pm

sunshinekids99 wrote:
cfan79 wrote:I don't see how we can have both. We would be stacked at the big positions if we did.

At the moment the C's don't have a backup center or power forward. I think they can fit both guys in.

Exactly, After last year, Does anyone thinks its a bad idea to have 4 quality players in the frontcourt? Plus, Baby is the only player we can sign without having to us any of our exceptions. If we get Sheed and Baby. That would be huge for us.

cfan79 · Post #11 » by **cfan79** » Sun Jul 5, 2009 2:12 pm

Hey, its a much better plan then some looney ones about signing Robert Swift or Fazekas. Those guys suck large overly sweaty hairy stinky donkeyballs.

greenmachine_2849 · Post #12 » by **greenmachine_2849** » Sun Jul 5, 2009 3:39 pm

GregB wrote:
sunshinekids99 wrote:
cfan79 wrote:I don't see how we can have both. We would be stacked at the big positions if we did.

At the moment the C's don't have a backup center or power forward. I think they can fit both guys in.

Exactly, After last year, Does anyone thinks its a bad idea to have 4 quality players in the frontcourt? Plus, Baby is the only player we can sign without having to us any of our exceptions. If we get Sheed and Baby. That would be huge for us.

No, its not a bad idea, but given the price tag on the average quality frontcourt player, it isn't a very realistic one either, imo, especially considering that that fourth big man's contract is probably going to have a dollar-for-dollar luxury tax. Are the owners really willing to pay Big Baby in effect $8 million a year to be a fourth big that sees maybe 10 mpg (because I don't see Wallace getting less than 25 mpg, and Perkins and Garnett are already pencilled in at about 60 mpg)? It would be great if they are willing to (because there is always the possibility of injury), but it is far more likely that they will try to use that veteran's minimum to fill that fourth big instead. And really, if you have Garnett/Wallace/Perkins in front of that fourth player, you can probably get away with a Mikki Moore or Robert Swift for 5-10 mpg. Although obviously an upgrade would be preferable. Heck, if worst comes to worst, you can play Scalabrine at power forward for 5 to 10 minutes per game.

MaxwellSmart · Post #13 » by **MaxwellSmart** » Sun Jul 5, 2009 4:51 pm

and it looks like Tanguay was wrong about Dallas wanting Davis...maybe his agent is trying to make him look more "wanted" than he is--hopefully:

http://basketball.realgm.com/src_wireta ... ing_davis/

cfan79 · Post #14 » by **cfan79** » Sun Jul 5, 2009 4:54 pm

MaxwellSmart wrote:and it looks like Tanguay was wrong about Dallas wanting Davis...maybe his agent is trying to make him look more "wanted" than he is--hopefully:

http://basketball.realgm.com/src_wireta ... ing_davis/

That would be great if we could sign him to a multiyear deal because other teams are being so salary conscious.

MaxwellSmart · Post #15 » by **MaxwellSmart** » Sun Jul 5, 2009 5:11 pm

this all might be resolved as soon as Rasheed decides where he wants to be----after he signs, teams will go to their back up plans.

bouga · Post #16 » by **bouga** » Sun Jul 5, 2009 6:54 pm

The Celtics let go of Powe so how would we have to many back ups if we signed Sheed to fill Powe, and have Davis as well. We'll be in the same position as during the season when Powe was healhty.

As showed in the playoffs, you can never have to many big guys off the bench, we were playing Scal 20 min a game in the playoffs, if anything we need more than 2 big guys.

MaxwellSmart · Post #17 » by **MaxwellSmart** » Sun Jul 5, 2009 7:01 pm

Actually, the more I think about it--this might be Danny's way of BLUFFING other teams from even trying to make an offer to Baby---they might not want to "waste" their time--seeing as how the C's would match---Now, if say, Memphis or Charlotte came up with a MLE type offer--Danny would let him walk...but if Orlando or Clev did the same--Danny would not want him to go to our rivals, so he would match....Plus, saying we would match any offer, might end up keeping the price low for us to just re-sign him....smart move by Ainge if you ask me--he usually is a lot more patient when it comes to dealing with free agents---so, I'm calling it a bluff.

Post #18 » by **ParticleMan** » Mon Jul 6, 2009 1:02 am

i agree, it's more a bluff than anything.

there is no way we can afford 4mil per for a guy who is not going to get more than 12-15 mpg behind sheed, KG, and perk. and he will probably get 4mil at least. i think we're going with Scal as our 4th big, or else find a vet min guy like oberto who can contribute. maybe swift or sweets will surprise out of SL.

but it's a good move by ainge to force our rivals to up their offer. i actually think >4mil per is overpaying for BBD, and it's always better when you rivals have bad contracts.