enough with matt barnes already

[Darth Celtic]

all i hear is "matt barnes, get this guy. he's my choice. Better then hill. blah blah blah.

ok, 29 so he's in prime, but most likely won't make any bounds forward.

with the run and gun fun suns and nash as pg, he shot 42% from 2 and 34% from 3. his points per shot was lowest out of top 10 rotational min players on the suns. His defense is nothing, to write home about.

his 3% was only better then hills among rotational players (shaq was 0)

what do we see in this guy that is so f'ing special. If the owners want to pay a zillion in tax this year and next in signings or sign and trades, dont u think it would be for somebody worth that money, otherwise they'd just go with ta, walker, gidd?

we need to think, who is out there, getting paid 3-9m, that is worth 6-18 on a championship team that we can get.

[greenbeans]

Hear that. It's like people get so infatuated with certain names they forget there is literally hundreds of fringle players out there who have done the same things, or could very well if put in similar situations(07gsw). Expand your horizons people, because Danny damn well is.

[threrf23]

with the run and gun fun suns and nash as pg, he shot 42% from 2 and 34% from 3. his points per shot was lowest out of top 10 rotational min players on the suns.

Just to respectfully note, in addition to this, Barnes' 42%/34% was noticeably better than the 35%/31% that James Posey posted after turning 32 in January.

Of course Posey wasn't playing on the Suns, but still...

[Ed Pinkney]

I agree, I don't think he is that good. I would much prefer to go after one of the younger guys who has a few years in the league under their belts such as Jamario Moon, Josh Childress, James Singleton, Ime Udoka or Rodney Carney.

[GreenGrizz]

I don't understand his game but I really don't see how he can help us.

[Darth Celtic]

moon is the same age as barnes.

[cisco]

I think he's similar to Posey. Not as good a defender, but he is a pest on defense and a punk, an instigator... Like Bowen and Posey. We need a guy like that. You'd be amazed at how much better he would look next to the Big 3.

[Celts17Pride]

The good thing is it seems Ainge has no interest in him.

[BillessuR6]

Barnes is a poor defender, I have no idea why people think he is good...

[Datruth345]

the point is, he may be the best available of a sorry bunch of wing players
so that is why people are interested in him

[ParticleMan]

If all we have is the LLE, then we are looking at a guy like Barnes. Whether it's him or Udoka or Des Mason, all these guys are seriously flawed one way or another. It's just a question of who's the best fit for us. I'd rather have Moon but he's not an LLE option (MIA would match).

I know everyone has given up on Tony here, but it's not clear that anyone we get with the LLE will beat out a healthy TA for a rotation spot. Tony's stats are clearly better. Now you say TA's a knucklehead, but that's only because we see him every game. If we saw Barnes or Moon or whoever every day, they look like knuckleheads in their own way. That's what posters from their teams come and tell us, and that's why they're still available at the LLE.

[avi623]

Cisco and ParticleMan are right. Don't expect to be getting an all-star. The fact is Barnes brings much needed toughness off the bench at the wing. All of the other guys people mention are either a) not within our reach, b) cannot shoot, or c) have barely been able to play on bad teams. Barnes can make open shots well enough and can guard multiple positions. He is tough. And he has played on some pretty good Golden State and Phoenix teams and played meaningful minutes.

We cannot get Childress because he is restricted and will command more money. Carney and Singleton have done nothing to suggest they should play meaningful minutes on a contender. Udoka is okay, but he has not really progressed into Bowen 2.0 the way people expected. Des Mason has not been productive for several years now. He can't shoot from outside 15 feet either.

After that it is Barnes and Moon. Both are solid role players, do not command much money, and have played on playoff teams. The problem with Tony is that he is undersized and still makes a lot of mistakes. Barnes and Moon do not platoon the offense by trying to take it to the hole. They know their role and they know it well, and they are big enough to guard small forwards when Paul is on the bench. Simply put, those guys give us more options defensively without killing the offense. I don't care which one we grab, but either would be a better fit than Tony at this point.

[avi623]

Also, don't forget that on his last two teams, Barnes has had to primarily play power forward, where he is tremendously undersized defensively. He has also always posted very good rebound numbers in his limited minutes.

[Papa Irish31]

There is one problem with your argument, you credit the run and gun style for vamping up his offensive numbers but you don't say anything about how playing in two system that dont value defense at all has effected him on that end of the court

from what ive seen is that he has played his best defense in the playoffs against the mavs; im sure thats the only time his teams has ever really emphasized defense

i think he could be a good backup for pierce, but he is certainly isntly the only option i would look at

[ParticleMan]

Cisco and ParticleMan are right. Don't expect to be getting an all-star. The fact is Barnes brings much needed toughness off the bench at the wing. All of the other guys people mention are either a) not within our reach, b) cannot shoot, or c) have barely been able to play on bad teams. Barnes can make open shots well enough and can guard multiple positions. He is tough. And he has played on some pretty good Golden State and Phoenix teams and played meaningful minutes.

We cannot get Childress because he is restricted and will command more money. Carney and Singleton have done nothing to suggest they should play meaningful minutes on a contender. Udoka is okay, but he has not really progressed into Bowen 2.0 the way people expected. Des Mason has not been productive for several years now. He can't shoot from outside 15 feet either.

After that it is Barnes and Moon. Both are solid role players, do not command much money, and have played on playoff teams. The problem with Tony is that he is undersized and still makes a lot of mistakes. Barnes and Moon do not platoon the offense by trying to take it to the hole. They know their role and they know it well, and they are big enough to guard small forwards when Paul is on the bench. Simply put, those guys give us more options defensively without killing the offense. I don't care which one we grab, but either would be a better fit than Tony at this point.

That's true about Tony's offense, but TA is also light years better than either Barnes or Moon on D. So it's a trade-off. Doc has generally shown he prefers to play guys who play D. So it's not clear Barnes or Moon or whoever will even get much run, unless they turn out to be much better on D than they've ever shown in their career. That's what scares me about giving them a contract (and more importantly a roster spot).

[return2glory]

Barnes is a good decent rebounder and can hit the 3. We are only looking to have him play 12-15 minutes a game, backing up Pierce.

[avi623]

That's true about Tony's offense, but TA is also light years better than either Barnes or Moon on D. So it's a trade-off. Doc has generally shown he prefers to play guys who play D. So it's not clear Barnes or Moon or whoever will even get much run, unless they turn out to be much better on D than they've ever shown in their career. That's what scares me about giving them a contract (and more importantly a roster spot).

I would not consider Tony light years ahead of those guys. First, he is too small to guard most small forwards, which is what we need most. Also, Moon and Barnes are far more disruptive with their blocks and steals because of how long they are. And again, rebounding is part of playing defense too

[threrf23]

That's true about Tony's offense, but TA is also light years better than either Barnes or Moon on D. So it's a trade-off. Doc has generally shown he prefers to play guys who play D. So it's not clear Barnes or Moon or whoever will even get much run, unless they turn out to be much better on D than they've ever shown in their career. That's what scares me about giving them a contract (and more importantly a roster spot).

I would not consider Tony light years ahead of those guys. First, he is too small to guard most small forwards, which is what we need most. Also, Moon and Barnes are far more disruptive with their blocks and steals because of how long they are. And again, rebounding is part of playing defense too

I would consider Tony well ahead of Barnes. Barnes is a pesky defender who plays with good energy. But his talent/athleticism/agility is limited. Moon is, at least statistically (looking at +/- and other more common stats), slightly better than Tony and near the top of the league for two seasons straight.

[Tenbomber]

Call me crazy... but I like the guys we've had right along better than the ones that we could get....

Tony might be a knucklehead, but he's our knucklehead....and he knows the system and accepts his role....

And I think that given the chance, young Walker is going to be a special player!

I'd like to see him get his chance with the C's!

I know that puts a damper on all the plans of the "trader ricks" that we have on this board...but I think they see the grass as always being greener in the other fella's yard!

This is the NBA folks, not Captain Kangaroo!

[Darth Celtic]

if it was between barnes/moon or giving walker gidd some small rotation play time, i choose the later.

now, if we get a real sf/sg and not some ndbl retread, sure.