If Moore is available, can the Celtics afford to wait for Smith?

[cordobes]

Nesterovich is DEFINITELY the better option between he and Mikki Moore. He is a solidly built 7 footer and has very good offensive ability. As far as the rebounding, he has 5 boards a game in his career in 23 minutes which isn't that bad, and he gets a lot of help with Powe out there who is a rebounding machine. I want Smith, but Rasho is a lot better than Mikki...

Rasho would be a great fit, probably even better than Smith, but:
- I doubt Indiana will negotiate a buyout with him, especially with the Tinsley situation developing.
- I'm 99% sure he'd join the Spurs and not the Celtics. In fact, I have a feeling that the C's would be one of his last options. We're better if he stays in Indiana.

[Casperian]

- I'm 99% sure he'd join the Spurs and not the Celtics. In fact, I have a feeling that the C's would be one of his last options. We're better if he stays in Indiana.

Why do you think so?
Did he and Garnett not get along with each other in Minnesota?

If we could offer him more than the Spurs, he would consider Boston, imo. Itīs not as if he`s earned enough in his life to say no to the money.

[Roy Hobbs]

From today's Herald:

For their part, the Celts appear willing to let a potentially helpful piece (e.g. Mikki Moore) get away if they think a better player will become available.

I guess that answers that.  I think it's the smart thing to do.

[ForexPirate]

its not like we have a lot of talent at that position - get moore and then if smith shakes free, get him too.

Perk and his shoulder can not be counted on to last the season.  we need more insurance on the bench.

if marbury shakes loose too then we need to cross that bridge when we come to it, certainly there are others that can be cut from the equation to make room for him.  Danny will have to figure that one out.

But a bird in the hand beats two in the bush ...

[Roy Hobbs]

its not like we have a lot of talent at that position - get moore and then if smith shakes free, get him too.

Perk and his shoulder can not be counted on to last the season.  we need more insurance on the bench.

if marbury shakes loose too then we need to cross that bridge when we come to it, certainly there are others that can be cut from the equation to make room for him.  Danny will have to figure that one out.

But a bird in the hand beats two in the bush ...

I don't really understand the "sign both" position.  This team has weaknesses at big man, wing, and point guard.  They have two roster positions open.

In the playoffs, it's likely that the team with go to a "four big" rotation, much like Doc did last season.  If we sign both Moore and Smith, our bigs will be:

Perk / BBD / Moore
KG / Smith / Powe / Scal

Arrange them in whatever order you want, but in my opinion, seven bigs is just a waste, when there are other needs on the roster.  The team won't sacrifice waiving a guaranteed salary just to add Moore, who isn't really a big upgrade (if at all) over BBD or Powe.

[Fafnir]

Roy I disagree with one thing you are saying. We don't just have a weakness at PG and big man. We also have a gaping lack of a backup three. Unless you can really count on Tony to be back for the playoffs  .

[Roy Hobbs]

Roy I disagree with one thing you are saying. We don't just have a weakness at PG and big man. We also have a gaping lack of a backup three. Unless you can really count on Tony to be back for the playoffs  .

You may have misread what I wrote, or I might not have been clear:

This team has weaknesses at big man, wing, and point guard.

To me, wing = swingman, although I guess there's been a lot of confusion regarding the terms lately.  Since we have three holes, we can't afford to commit two players to one of them.  We can add:

big / point
big / swingman
swingman / point

What we can't do is add "big / big".  It makes no sense with our current roster construction.

[winsomme]

another thing to keep in mind is that Danny usually targets BPA....

there is good and bad in that methodology at this particular juncture.

with only two roster spots and three real needs:

the good is that it could have us landing Joe Smith over lesser players like Moore or Rasho.

the bad is that it could have us landing Marbury over a lesser wing player....which IMO is the biggest of all the needs we have.

I'm not a big fan of Mar based on how he handles himself in relation to the game, but he does have more skill than the potential wings that could be out there like bonzi, etc....and while a wing would fill a bigger "need" than a backup, my feeling is that Danny would target Marbury ahead of that need.

that said and while i don't particularly look forward to rooting for Mar (maybe he will come in here and prove me wrong and act like a decent guy), the net effect of getting Smith and Mar is better than say getting Moore and Bonzi...

Still, my HOPE at this point is Smith and a defensive wing to throw at LeBron, Joe Johnson, etc to give Paul some rest....but guess we shouldn't get greedy.

and of all the options at any position right now, Smith seems the best single addition that we could make to the team, and maybe the best way to look at it is to get him and let the rest be gravy...

[cordobes]

- I'm 99% sure he'd join the Spurs and not the Celtics. In fact, I have a feeling that the C's would be one of his last options. We're better if he stays in Indiana.

Why do you think so?
Did he and Garnett not get along with each other in Minnesota?

If we could offer him more than the Spurs, he would consider Boston, imo. Itīs not as if he`s earned enough in his life to say no to the money.

Yes, as I recall KG and Rasho weren't exactly best friends. I don't know exactly why I remind it that way, maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps Big Ticket or someone else who have followed KG's career more closely can help us. But I'm positive he has a great relationship with Duncan and the Spurs organization.

I don't know how much the Spurs still have available of their MLE this season. If they only used it partially to sign Mason JR., it's not such a big difference.