Arroyo as an option ?

Kefa461 · Post #1 » by **Kefa461** » Sat Aug 29, 2009 12:44 pm

According to several sources, Arroyo, represented by Leon Rose, is in talks to join either the Boston Celtics or the Milwaukee Bucks. However, both teams told ESPN.com's Chris Sheridan that they have had no contact whatsoever with Arroyo or his representatives.

http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-4 ... Day-3.html

8-)

Post #2 » by **canman1971** » Sat Aug 29, 2009 1:07 pm

Teams always deny having "contact" however, this would fill our 3rd guard off the bench role I suppose. I wouldn't be too excited, but barring a trade, I think any pickup now is a 12-15 guy and not in the rotation.

Golabki · Post #3 » by **Golabki** » Sat Aug 29, 2009 4:33 pm

Arroyo is a pretty average backup pg. He can create offense fairly well (for both himself and others), certainly better than House, Daniels and T. Allen in that regard. However, he is a poor shooter and poor defender. I'd rather have Marbury or A. Carter, but Arroyo would be an OK option as well.

hairybyrd · Post #4 » by **hairybyrd** » Sat Aug 29, 2009 5:18 pm

I don't understand why it's important to the Celtics to sign a 3rd point guard right now. Perhaps by the All-Star break but, the team is already stretched thin for minutes as it is. Daniels and House will complement each other VERY well and I want Rondo on the floor close to 40 minutes a night. That doesn't leave much time for a 3rd PG anyway, barring injury. Arroyo is a decent player but he's still not cracking the top-12 at the moment so, why fill a roster space with a player that isn't going to play? Every year there's at least a few wily veterans that, regardless of $, want to sign with a contender. If third string PG suddenly becomes an area of concern, there will be options (like Cassell 2 years ago and Marbury last year). At this point, Marbury isn't worth the volatility. I think that Doc should (like he does every year) see what he has for the first 50 or so games then re-visit this idea later in the season. If he really needs a 3rd stringer then give Lester Hudson some burn.

hiphop1 · Post #5 » by **hiphop1** » Sat Aug 29, 2009 7:54 pm

I must say I wouldnt mind him on the team for the lle.

Cyclical · Post #6 » by **Cyclical** » Sat Aug 29, 2009 8:22 pm

I like it!

He's a guy who can give us 7-10 minutes of offense and sure handed ball handling off the bench. Where Arroyo failed over the years is running a team for a good chunk of the game - he just doesn't have what it takes to be a first option PG, but as an offensive weapon off the bench he's very good. Can drive to the basket, has a mid-range game, handles, and cocky as hell - will not be afraid to take advantage of a situation.

Nice 9th / 10th player off the bench.

Dave_From_NB · Post #7 » by **Dave_From_NB** » Sat Aug 29, 2009 9:31 pm

hairybyrd wrote:I don't understand why it's important to the Celtics to sign a 3rd point guard right now. Perhaps by the All-Star break but, the team is already stretched thin for minutes as it is. Daniels and House will complement each other VERY well and I want Rondo on the floor close to 40 minutes a night. That doesn't leave much time for a 3rd PG anyway, barring injury. Arroyo is a decent player but he's still not cracking the top-12 at the moment so, why fill a roster space with a player that isn't going to play? Every year there's at least a few wily veterans that, regardless of $, want to sign with a contender. If third string PG suddenly becomes an area of concern, there will be options (like Cassell 2 years ago and Marbury last year). At this point, Marbury isn't worth the volatility. I think that Doc should (like he does every year) see what he has for the first 50 or so games then re-visit this idea later in the season. If he really needs a 3rd stringer then give Lester Hudson some burn.

The Marbury and Cassell performances are why, if the Celtics are going to sign a 3'rd PG, that they do it at the start of the season rather than the end. It was painful trying to insert Marbury and Cassell into the rotation, and after all the disruption neither worked out very well. Even if he wouldn't be playing much at the start of the season, he'd be getting practice rotations, and be able to fit in immediately should injury occur.

chas0x01 · Post #8 » by **chas0x01** » Sat Aug 29, 2009 10:32 pm

Dave_From_NB wrote:
hairybyrd wrote:I don't understand why it's important to the Celtics to sign a 3rd point guard right now. Perhaps by the All-Star break but, the team is already stretched thin for minutes as it is. Daniels and House will complement each other VERY well and I want Rondo on the floor close to 40 minutes a night. That doesn't leave much time for a 3rd PG anyway, barring injury. Arroyo is a decent player but he's still not cracking the top-12 at the moment so, why fill a roster space with a player that isn't going to play? Every year there's at least a few wily veterans that, regardless of $, want to sign with a contender. If third string PG suddenly becomes an area of concern, there will be options (like Cassell 2 years ago and Marbury last year). At this point, Marbury isn't worth the volatility. I think that Doc should (like he does every year) see what he has for the first 50 or so games then re-visit this idea later in the season. If he really needs a 3rd stringer then give Lester Hudson some burn.

The Marbury and Cassell performances are why, if the Celtics are going to sign a 3'rd PG, that they do it at the start of the season rather than the end. It was painful trying to insert Marbury and Cassell into the rotation, and after all the disruption neither worked out very well. Even if he wouldn't be playing much at the start of the season, he'd be getting practice rotations, and be able to fit in immediately should injury occur.

I have to agree. We've been getting burnt waiting for deadlines and waivers. Get your 14 now and keep a roster spot open for injuries or whatever. Arroyo could be a nice pickup.

Post #9 » by **sully00** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 5:08 pm

Arroyo is a good offensive player, he has even made himself into a 3pt threat and decent pg. He is however awful defensively, perhaps legendary bad, I think he made Larry Brown quit the Pistons to be honest.

He is fine to bring into camp or whatever but frankly this situation has just take on a life of its own. In the end haven't we figured out that a more traditional pg isn't worth sitting down Eddie House? It doesn't matter if we add them in camp or midseason if they aren't going to take Eddie's mins what is the point?

We are talking about the 15th man someone who is likely not going to dress if Rondo and House are healthy.

BigDaddyPR · Post #10 » by **BigDaddyPR** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 5:42 pm

Any teams that signs him is up for a nice surprise. He has shown a LOT of maturity abd even a very noticeable improovement defensively. He would be a GREAT 2nd or 2rd stringer... imo hes a solid backup but for the Celtics its understandeble that he plays 3rd string. He can still score, the only thing is that he needs to control the ball, but with Rivers that shouldnt be a problem. I hope Cleveland picks him up before you guys!! lol...

floppyriver · Post #11 » by **floppyriver** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 6:01 pm

IF WE'RE LOOKING FOR A 3RD PG, LET'S GIVE HUDSON THE BALL. CERTAINLY COMES WITH OFFENSIVE TOOLS AND COULD BE THE DIAMOND IN THE ROUGH. GIDDENS SEEMS TO BE A DISAPPOINTMENT. WALKER I'D LIKE TO SEE GET MORE ACTION. DON'T ADD JUNK PILE PARTS TO A WELL OILED MACHINE.

JHTruth · Post #12 » by **JHTruth** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 6:11 pm

I think he would play in the backcourt with Eddie, not at different times. Not sure if there's anything to this rumor though..

Jammer · Post #13 » by **Jammer** » Tue Sep 1, 2009 12:36 am

sully00 wrote:We are talking about the 15th man someone who is likely not going to dress if Rondo and House are healthy.

If you look at Celtic teams from the Auerbach era, the "Active 12" players almost always consisted of 5 PF's and C's; 4 wings, and 3 PGs. Naturally, since there only 8 teams for 15 of those years, the talent was deep enough that there were many 1/2's and 2/3's and even 3/4's. That doesn't happen in a 30 team league like it used to.

The point is, the Auerbach formula for an active 12, historically two true C's, two PF's, and PF/C; 4 wings and 3 PG's still makes sense today, even if the Celtics add another PG. It just means that in addition to Sheldon Williams, two of the wing surplus (Walker, Giddens, Tony) would have to be inactive. That's the logical way to do it.

Perk, KG, Rasheed, Davis and Scal up front, with Sheldon Williams Inactive.

Paul, Ray, Marquis, and one of Tony, Giddens or Walker ACTIVE.

And Rajon, Eddie and our mystery PG also ACTIVE, in case Rondo goes down in the first 2 minutes.

Post #14 » by **sully00** » Tue Sep 1, 2009 2:06 am

Auerbach's Celts rarely had "true pg's" outside of Cousy. Most of Boston's guards, especially coming off the bench have been combo guards.

Essentially whoever the mystery point guard is has to be of more use to Doc than TA. Love or hate him Tony is an effective offensive player and a plus defender, who in theory at least can give you mins at the PG in addition to SG and SF.

I think the team views Giddens capable of the same type of thing, while not the kind of PG that will satisfy the masses, I think the team views him as an option much the same way they view Daniels and TA.

ryaningf · Post #15 » by **ryaningf** » Tue Sep 1, 2009 6:17 pm

sully00 wrote:
I think the team views Giddens capable of the same type of thing, while not the kind of PG that will satisfy the masses, I think the team views him as an option much the same way they view Daniels and TA.

Yes, exactly; with Giddens' penchant for making plays with the ball, and our lack of real depth at point guard, I expect him to get some time there during the preseason. If Giddens could only hit spot up 3s, he might have a real chance at backup PG...