Glen Davis = Big Mouth

Wicked Good Wake UpTUESDAY, JUNE 21, 2011 - CSNNE Yesterday in Melrose, speaking for the first time since the last time he spoke, Glen Davis answered questions about his future with the Celtics. And as usual, he said all the wrong things.

Over the course of his short session with the media, Big Baby told reporters that he needs to find a team that's willing to let Glen Davis be Glen Davis. This was one of at least 700 times he referred to himself in the first person, and also served as a thinly veiled shot at the team he most certainly will never play for again.

But he didn't stop there. Asked later if he'd spoken to Doc Rivers this offseason Baby responded:

"I know Doc talks a lot. I don't pay attention to that. That's what he does. That's Doc, he loves to talk."

Yup, looks like Baby will be in need of a new team whenever the NBA starts up again. But in the meantime, he could use a hug. Or a friend. Or just someone to sit him done and say . . . "Shut up!"

Glen Davis isn't doing Glen Davis any favors.


112288

He is fat. He is immature. And he was a complete NO SHOW in the playoffs.

Good-bye Glen. Go be "Glen Davis" on the Milwaukee Bucks or NJ Nets. You are sure to have a lot of fun losing 60 games a season.

After watching an interview with Glen yesterday I got the distinct impression he has no intention of coming back to the Cs.

He probably can get more money and more minutes elsewhere so doing what is best for yourself and family is understandable, but replacing him off the bench won't be easy.

Wow.

Some people have no idea how good they have it.

$100 says if he signs a somewhat large contract elsewhere he shows up 25lbs heavier too.

mrkleen09 wrote:He is fat. He is immature. And he was a complete NO SHOW in the playoffs.

Good-bye Glen. Go be "Glen Davis" on the Milwaukee Bucks or NJ Nets. You are sure to have a lot of fun losing 60 games a season.

let someone else pay him, we don't need fatboy

Hey Glen, See ya!

I think its 6 of 1 half a dozen of the other with Baby. Mentally I think he is too fragile which is letting things get to him that affects his game. Doc, although he is trying to toughen him up at times brings Baby down at times when he is needed the most.

Remember also he cost the C's down time when he broke his hand in a fight which also put pressure on some older guys. He also came in heavy and put weight on as the season went on. Remember those pancakes and spagetti for breakfast he had which was shown in "The Association" this year. Red was a stickler about not eating pancakes and fined Sam Jones for eating them.

If they loose him would it hurt us? Perhaps not. If we bring someone in who is a bit taller and who can jump, I think the C's can improve the position, however it will cost them in the pocketbook for a good player.

Perhaps it may be best that both parties part ways so each party can reload.

112288

It has been quite interesting to watch the vitriol flow toward a guy who, less than a year ago, was being touted as a very possible sixth man of the year—admired in virtually every early season game-on thread for giving up his body as he led the league in charges taken. The same guy who, not all that long ago, played dangerously soon after a severe concussion because the team needed him. The same guy who worked hard on learning how to go to the hoop without being blocked. The same guy who worked hard on developing a reliable outside shot.

One perspective that seems to be playing second fiddle to all the weight and attitude talk is whether Glen Davis possesses talents that—when nurtured in the right manner—could be helpful to the Celtics. As everyone knows, I believe that, once a player has exhibited certain strengths, it cannot be questioned that he possesses those strengths. It then becomes a matter of finding the right avenue to unleash or harness those strengths rather than quitting on him. Excuse me, I have to sneeze. Hachooooncybillups! There, that's better.

Now I realiize that Glen's skills aren't that useful to the Celtics. They have loads of offensive rebounders, scads of big defenders against penetration, tons of guys who can create their own shots from penetration, and a whole cadre of big men who are both dangerous from outside and ferocious inside. None of those areas was a concern for the team last season, right?

Yes, it would be better to get a player with equal or more attributes and no warts. Jumping at least large doghouses in single bounds. Tall enough to raise the flag without using ropes. Danny, would you please run right out and grab a couple of those guys? And we don't care if you have to pay through the nose in terms of players and/or money. We've got both of those in great quantities. And a salary cap is just something to protect my bald spot in the winter. So don't bother me with the trite argument that Glen might turn out to be a bargain because of the very tailoff last season that everyone is so wrought up about.

We all love trivia quizes. Here's one: Which Celtic of the season gone by was most affected by the confluence of big man injuries, acquisition of new players, and constant shuffling of roles? Rajon Rondo, you say? Good guess, because the whole scenario obviously bothered him a lot. But a lot of that was psychological. Glen Davis, who had been relegated to constant role-changing almost throughout his career, and who stood to focus largely on one role (bench leader) due to our center-by-committee last season, found himself mired in more of the same old merry-go-round instead.

I realize that there are many fans who view players as toy soldiers who should automatically persevere as "professionals," no matter the extent or depth or frequency of challenges. But I hope some of the more open-minded ones will consider what I've said.

Sure, Danny could shock us all tomorrow and trade KG and Glen for practically the entire Atlanta team. But, short of that, how about suspending some of the emotional brickbats and thinking for a while about what Glen Davis can represent as a possible resource to the Celtics if he's handled right.

Sure, I know that I'll get responses about what a valuable sign-and-trade chip he represents. Well, number one, I get a kick out of the viewpoint that he sucked last season but he'll magically represent a sterling silver trading chip for the Celtics. (You can't have it both ways folks, because you're not dealing with stupid general managers out there.) Number two, there's absolutely no assurance that Glen would go along with a sign-and-trade, depending on how teed off he may be at the Celtics. In fact, it's pretty easy to envision a situation in which he'd sign for less with another team while avoiding a sign-and-trade just to stick it to the Celtics.

Don't bother telling me that he wants to be a starter. I already know that. And maybe some team will scoop him up with a wad of chewing gum and the promise that he'll start. Heck, maybe Danny would promise him that Doc's going to try an experiment in which Glen will start at PF (next to Mr. X, our new stud center, perhaps acquired in return for Ray Allen) and KG will come off the bench. If Glen succeeds and the experiment works, he stays a starter. But there would be no guarantees. Think that might do the job?

Of course, Danny is considering every possibility, including those that include signing-and-trading Glen Davis. But you can bet your boots he's not going to consider mainly the same emotionally driven "rationale" I see reflected in so many of the Anti-Glen sentiments.

Sam

Best reason I've heard so far to keep him.... from Marcus

"They can't get rid of him I have 22 different autographed basketball cards of him."

The guy can carry his weight OK, yeah he should be very careful it doesn;t get out of hand, Barkley was no slimjim and aside not having quite the lift Charles did he has many of the same skills. Not quite the range from outside either but then he isn't getting Barlleys bucks either, still think the plusses to keep him outweight the minuses.


beat

In that same interview, Davis (in one of the 8 instances where he referred to himself in the third person) - said that he was not mentally ready or mentally tough enough to contribute during this year's playoff run.

THAT ALONE - is his own words - is the crux of the issue with Davis. His head. And a guy with all the talent in the world - but who lacks the mental toughness to play at that level, will never be more than a role player.

Big Baby is not the answer to the Celtics big man problem. If he keeps his mouth shut and plays hard, he is a solid 7th or 8th man in the NBA. But when he cannot keep his mouth shut - and he cannot deliver on the court either - he is expendable. I say they try to sign him to a reasonable deal...and then explore what else is out there for interest.

I like Baby, he is one of my favorite players on the team. But his lack of production when we needed him most and his FOOT IN MOUTH, immature act is wearing thin.

This may be the most interesting debate of the post-season for the Celtics.

While dboss and Sam had to screw up the hate party by making perfect sense something mrkleen points out is the one thing that sticks with me.

How can you perform at the level Davis did through most of the season and then actually say that you weren't mentally ready for the playoffs?

I like kleen's opinion that they should try and sign him to a reasonable deal and then explore alternatives if not. He does have value to us; at least when he's mentally ready. I hope this is the approach the team takes. Otherwise we are at the front end of a rebuilding process so Glen may as well be part of it. *Marcus' approach to the issue is pretty interesting too.

Regards

NYCelt wrote:This may be the most interesting debate of the post-season for the Celtics.

While dboss and Sam had to screw up the hate party by making perfect sense something mrkleen points out is the one thing that sticks with me.

How can you perform at the level Davis did through most of the season and then actually say that you weren't mentally ready for the playoffs?

I like kleen's opinion that they should try and sign him to a reasonable deal and then explore alternatives if not. He does have value to us; at least when he's mentally ready. I hope this is the approach the team takes. Otherwise we are at the front end of a rebuilding process so Glen may as well be part of it. *Marcus' approach to the issue is pretty interesting too.

Regards

Hey NYCelt, the kid went 4 for 4 last eveing, he's hitting .750 for his Legion team. (played first only did not pitch).

He sends Davis every new card he gets of him and lord knows there are many, and a week or so later they ALL come back. Are the signatures authentic? Who knows for sure, but they all look similar. Has not had the same success with other C's however.

beat

Mrkleen,

I understand where you're coming from. It's vexing (to say the least), especially for Celtics fans, to read quotes that suggest a player is more me-oriented than team-oriented.

My approach tends to weigh the ability factor far above the attitude factor. The reason is simple. We can evaluate the ability factor based on what we see. Sure, we may not be experts in all of the intricacies of ability; but we can see pretty well when a player continually takes charges, fights like a bear on the offensive boards, etc.

When it comes to attitudes, the matter gets far more murky:

• I know enough about players, from personal experience, to realize that attitudes—as filtered through the media—can often be misconstrued by individual fans. (Same with message board posts.)

• Players are often coached by agents as to what public utterances to make in order to manipulate private negotiations.

• Generally speaking, attitudes are easier to alter than physical abilities, especially since attitudes are often reflections of temporary stimuli. Peer influence, in particular, can wield a heavy hand in changing attitudes.

For something as potentially fleeting as a PERCEIVED attitude to be considered a primary reason to downgrade a player's worthiness is (in my opinion) risky. I never said Glen Davis was "THE answer" to the Celtics' big man problem because I'm not buying an assumption that this is how the Celtics are evaluating him. However, based on his performance as I've witnessed it over time, his attributes suggest to me that he can be a nice complementary piece. Teams need good sixth and seventh men too—especially those with positional versatility.

Last year, Glen Davis was a member of the Celtics five-man combination that played 80% minutes than any other Celtics five-man combination. And that combination gained one point on the opposition about every three minutes, winning 70% of its head-to-head battles with opponents. It happens that he played center on that unit, and the results were pretty darned good considering his physical shortcomings (literally) at the center position. And that was during what eventually proved to be an off-year for him.

I believe someone with that kind of ability, if he were placed in a position to succeed rather than being played out of position most of the time, could be a real strong asset to the Celtics. Certainly an asset worth taking the chance that a combination of mentoring and success could change any negative attitudes that might exist.

Sam

Sam

Couple of points.

We have seen MANY instances (Gerald Green, Tony Allen, Sebastian Telfair) where lack of basketball IQ (and in some cases, lack of general IQ) have prevented a player with superior physical attributes to get over the hump.

In the case of Glen Davis, he is not a rookie and we are getting to the point that what we see is what we get - at least from an attitude stand point. For the majority of last season, his game was progressing and he was a much better player than he was as a rookie and in 09...in the playoffs, he regressed both on and off the court to the point the Doc no longer trusted him.

I am all for giving the guy a chance to continue to grow and mature - but he is not a child (nearly 26 years old - with a child of his own) and his attitude is beyond saying the wrong thing or taking bad advice from his agent...his attitude is HURTING his team and LETTING HIS TEAMMATES DOWN. Period.

Davis has talent and I like him on the Celtics into the future. But the baby sitting has to stop now. He needs to grow up, stop bad mouthing his coach, get into proper shape, and live up to his potential....or pack his bags and get ready to move on.

Doc and Danny should not put up with that kind of insubordination - no matter the cause.

beat wrote:

NYCelt wrote:This may be the most interesting debate of the post-season for the Celtics.

While dboss and Sam had to screw up the hate party by making perfect sense something mrkleen points out is the one thing that sticks with me.

How can you perform at the level Davis did through most of the season and then actually say that you weren't mentally ready for the playoffs?

I like kleen's opinion that they should try and sign him to a reasonable deal and then explore alternatives if not. He does have value to us; at least when he's mentally ready. I hope this is the approach the team takes. Otherwise we are at the front end of a rebuilding process so Glen may as well be part of it. *Marcus' approach to the issue is pretty interesting too.

Regards

Hey NYCelt, the kid went 4 for 4 last eveing, he's hitting .750 for his Legion team. (played first only did not pitch).

He sends Davis every new card he gets of him and lord knows there are many, and a week or so later they ALL come back. Are the signatures authentic? Who knows for sure, but they all look similar. Has not had the same success with other C's however.

beat

beat,

.750? It's hard enough to hit that for just one game!

I once took a bunch of autographs I had gotten as a kid from various baseball players to a card collectors shop to be authenticated. They let me know which were genuine and which were not on a dozen or so without any charge.

NYCelt

If they were written on a blank sheet of paper.............?

You would NEVER be able to figure out what the scribble was.

Here is an example



beat

and yes Marcus has this card to, probably several of them.

Mrkleen,

I understand, but I don't buy it. Attitudes can be changed. In fact, it could be argued that Glen's attitude changed for the worse in general over the past two years. I assume there were reasons for that. Given the right reasons, I see no reason why they couldn't improve.

I am not a fan of citing other players' histories as an example of what could happen with a given player. For each Gerald Green or Sebastian Telfair, there's a Delonte West or (to rebut your own example) Tony Allen. Seems to me that Tony is a great example of how attitudes can change for the better, thus being a starter on a team that pleasantly surprised in the playoffs.

None of us know exactly what went into Glen's apparent attitude shift. I am absolutely convinced that there were unsettled "vibrations" among team members that kept them from capitalizing on their collective talent and experience during the latter stages of the regular season and the playoffs. Why single out Glen Davis? Let's get rid of Rondo too.

Let me ask this question. KG wasn't afraid to make Baby cry a couple of years ago. Why didn't he take Glen to task again late in this past season? I believe the answer is that Glen was being affected by factors that were pervasive on the team. He just happened to be the player whose role on the team was arguably most jumbled by events, when he felt he had a right to expect a season of relative stability in what was asked of him.

Good general managers focus on visions for the future without wasting time about recriminations owing to the past. No one can convince me that—next year—Glen Davis won't be a beast under the offensive boards (from both the scoring and rebounding standpoint) and a brick wall keeping penetrators like Lebron reasonably honest. Would it be preferable for him to make these contributions for the Celtics or for another team? Until someone convinces me that the Celtics can get someone better suited to those tasks, a better locker room presence, and as realistically affordable as Glen is likely to be, discussions based primarily on attitude rather than on needs and ability fall pretty much on deaf ears here.

Different strokes I guess.

Sam

sam wrote:Mrkleen,
I understand, but I don't buy it. Attitudes can be changed. In fact, it could be argued that Glen's attitude changed for the worse in general over the past two years. I assume there were reasons for that. Given the right reasons, I see no reason why they couldn't improve.

Davis makes 3+ million a year. Why do you need to “baby” him to get the best out of him? He is a professional athlete – time to grow up and man up

sam wrote:I am not a fan of citing other players' histories as an example of what could happen with a given player. For each Gerald Green or Sebastian Telfair, there's a Delonte West or (to rebut your own example) Tony Allen. Seems to me that Tony is a great example of how attitudes can change for the better, thus being a starter on a team that pleasantly surprised in the playoffs.

Delonte West may well have turned the corner, but I am unwilling to go on a limb and proclaim his troubled days in the past, but I hope you are right. As for Tony Allen – yes he benefited from a change of scenery, but in the later rounds – he often reverted back to his old way of making bad passes, dribbling the ball off his foot etc. He has all start talent – with a role player IQ.

sam wrote: Let's get rid of Rondo too.

Absolutely ZERO basis for this comment. In the playoffs – Rondo increase his scoring average and his assist average vs. regular season. No way in the world you can say he was in some kind of post season slump. But Baby on the other hand….saw his production drop off the map in the playoffs. He averaged 11.7 and 5.4 in the regular season. In the playoffs, he averaged 4.9 and 3.6. Nothing at all like Rondo.

sam wrote: Let me ask this question. KG wasn't afraid to make Baby cry a couple of years ago. Why didn't he take Glen to task again late in this past season? I believe the answer is that Glen was being affected by factors that were pervasive on the team. He just happened to be the player whose role on the team was arguably most jumbled by events, when he felt he had a right to expect a season of relative stability in what was asked of him.

Again, completely disagree. It is not up to KG to take care of Glen Davis. Grow up and take responsibility for your own game and your own preparation. Davis had his role “jumbled” by his inability to have consistent, effective play. JON would have never sniffed the court in 4th quarters – if not for Baby losing all focus and drifting out of the paint to become a “jump shooter”. At that point, Doc had no choice but to start giving minutes to other players. Davis is responsible for Davis….no one else.

sam wrote:Good general managers focus on visions for the future without wasting time about recriminations owing to the past. No one can convince me that—next year—Glen Davis won't be a beast under the offensive boards (from both the scoring and rebounding standpoint) and a brick wall keeping penetrators like Lebron reasonably honest. Would it be preferable for him to make these contributions for the Celtics or for another team? Until someone convinces me that the Celtics can get someone better suited to those tasks, a better locker room presence, and as realistically affordable as Glen is likely to be, discussions based primarily on attitude rather than on needs and ability fall pretty much on deaf ears here.

Really shocked by this Sam. You are the one that is always out here preaching the importance of chemistry and players who are willing to sacrifice for the betterment of the team, and all of those things that made those great Celtics teams from the past – great. A me first, out of shape, cry baby who refuses to grow up wouldn’t have lasted 5 minutes in the locker room with Bird and DJ – nor would he have lasted with Russell or Cousy.

I don’t think anyone here is suggesting they just give up on Glen Davis – but I don’t know how much more coddling and hand holding you want the team to do with a guy who pays you back by disappearing in the playoffs, then insulting the coach and the GM in the off season.

Guess we will have to agree to disagree here.

Sam,

You are correct that Davis isn't the spawn of the devil now, and the Celtics certainly could use him considering the current state of their big men and available options. Perhaps there are extenuating circumstances, his recent comments will be the exception, and his attitude will improve. But given the available evidence, I'm with Kleen on this until I see or hear something to the contrary.

I've seen too many examples of athletes who rise with a successful team and then think they're better than they are, chafe under perceived limitations of playing time or opportunities, and leave to achieve greater stardom elsewhere but never do as well again. These players don't understand that the system they were in was ideally suited to take advantage of their skills and minimize their limitations, and once they get to another team, the scales switch and they are exposed as limited players. The best recent example of this phenomenon is Trevor Ariza, who excelled as a role player on a successful team but has struggled with an expanded role after leaving the Lakers. I believe Glen Davis falls into that category. These guys listen too much to their agents and their buddies and think they're great players who deserve a chance to showcase their skills when in fact they are ideally suited as role players in the current system.

Davis is on a successful team, getting plenty of playing time, making millions of dollars, and has the opportunity to grow into more of a starring role as the current stars age, and yet he thinks the Celtics are holding him back??

Doc and Danny can sit down with him and do their best to repair the relationship. There's no doubt that he can be a valuable member of the team, and they'll be a better team if Davis works at improving himself and brings his talent and energy to the floor. If his attitude changes and he can commit wholeheartedly to the team, then he can be a tremendous asset. But if it doesn't, then he's a detriment, so don't let the door hit you on the way out. Personally, I wouldn't want to go into the NBA wars with someone who doesn't want to be here.

Outside

If Davis, for personal "team" related reasons only, settled for a less than 100% effort during the playoffs, then I for one will hold the door open for him as he leaves. If he quit on the team its time to go!

swish