But, man, is Wafer a gamble.

Wafer has been around the NBA for a half-decade, but he comes into the 2011 season as nearly the equivalent of a second-year player. Prior to his solid 2009 season for Houston, Wafer had taken exactly 100 shots in bits of three prior NBA seasons. Antoine Walker would have jacked that many in four games in 2000. During the 2009 playoffs, Rick Adelman, Houston’s coach, kicked Wafer out of a game against the Lakers after Wafer threw a mini-fit over playing time. Kicked him out of a playoff game.

Wafer left the NBA for the big money (about $5 million per season) at Olympiakos, the Greek powerhouse, but they quickly decided they wanted no part of him. He shot below 40 percent in Europe and clashed with the Olympiakos coaching staff, so they cut him before 2009 was out.

And so there is almost no record from which we can judge Wafer, and the little record that exists is dotted with attitude flare-ups and a mysterious failed physical last season. It’s strange for a team that came within a few minutes of winning the NBA title to sign an almost unknown commodity for a potentially crucial back-up role.

But Wafer will help if he can be a calmer version of the player who shot 45 percent overall and 39 percent from deep for Houston. Eddie House can shoot threes. Tony Allen can attack the rim and post up smaller guys. Wafer can do both. In 2009, he took just as many shots at the rim as he did from three-point range (about 2.5 per game), and finished those shots at the rim 60 percent of the time—a league average mark for a guard. (League average is wonderful for a back-up). He hit long twos at a solid clip and flashed a usable mid-range game.

In other words: He can score from anywhere on the court. He won’t always do it efficiently or within the flow, but there isn’t a spot from which he is a total non-threat.

His passing numbers in 2009 were dismal, but he turned the ball over on fewer than 10 percent of the possessions on which he tried to do something with it—an outstanding mark for a guy who looks for his shot so often, and a lower mark than every Celtic regular last season other than Rasheed Wallace. (And Sheed wasn’t exactly driving and dishing in 2010).

With Wafer and Jermaine O’Neal on board—and with TA in Memphis, no longer being “overshadowed”—the Celtics have a chance to cut their team turnover rate from league-worst to league-average. That would help, considering Boston’s offense slipped to 15th in points per possession last season and couldn’t create enough decent shots with the championship on the line.

And that’s what the Wafer and Robinson signings are about—offense. The 2009 Rockets scored more with Wafer on the court, and Neil Paine at Basketball-Reference just got through a study that showed (among many other things) Nate Robinson scored more efficiently against elite defensive teams than almost any player in the league.

These guys don’t fit into the narrative of the KG/Thibodeau-era Celtics. They think about their offense first, and they can be flaky about their defense. Signing guys like this shows both an understanding of the team’s flaws and a belief that almost all NBA-level athletes can become good defenders in the right system. The 2009 Rockets allowed about two more points per 100 possessions with Wafer on the floor, but Wafer’s direct head-to-head counterparts—usually the other team’s two guard—produced well below their average levels.

Does this mean Wafer was a good individual defender but a poor team defender? I have no idea, and the sample size is probably too small to tell us anything real. But Wafer’s 6’5”, he’s an athlete, and guys like that have a habit of turning into solid defenders on well-coached teams that stress defense above all else. He played a bit of small forward for the Rockets, meaning he might be able to fill that spot in a pinch more readily than a string bean such as Rudy Fernandez.

The Wafer signing does not necessarily kill the Fernandez trade talks, though it makes a deal with Portland less likely. The C’s now have 12 players ready to go for next season (not including Sheed), and Luke Harangody will soon make 13, the minimum number of required roster players. But with one of those 13 players (Perk) out until February, I’d be shocked if the C’s didn’t sign a 14th player and would not be surprised at all to see them go with the maximum 15. That leaves room for a wing and a big guy, and if they can still nab Fernandez without surrendering more than a first-rounder, they should jump at the chance.

But Wafer provides insurance if they can’t swing a Rudy deal. There were safer bets out there—Damien Wilkins, Antoine Wright, the Graham brothers. Signing Wafer is a higher-risk, higher-reward move. He might shoot 35 percent and pout his way to the end of the bench, but if things go well, we could see Doc turn to him for big playoff minutes during a sequence when the veteran-heavy offense is going to hell.

And if you think about it, Doc was never consistently comfortable doing that with House, Robinson or TA. He fell in and out of love with each of them as a post-season bench spark, but he has yet to fully trust any of them, and they’ve all spent time rotting on the bench as the starters sputtered.

Will Wafer gain that trust? I don’t know, but it’s worth a veteran’s minimum contract to find out, even if he ends up only as a regular-season minutes-sopper for Pierce and Ray Allen.

Personally, I didn’t think Wafer was really coming to Boston so I didn’t bother writing any type of speculative analysis.  It’s hard to say how Wafer will fit in with this very veteran squad.  For those who don’t know, Wafer made headlines in 2009 by having a breakout season with the Houston Rockets.  When his contract expired at the end of the season, he decided to cash in for more money overseas.  It’s almost always a smart business move for an athlete to get the most money while he/she can given the prevalence of career ending injuries (see Darius Miles).  This strategy, however, backfired when he was waived by his Greek team a short five months later.

Wafer has had a few stints in the NBA since then (10 day contract with the Mavericks and almost resigned with the Rockets after coming back stateside in 2009 before failing a physical.  No word on whether this was a Luther Head-type physical) but has not made a significant impact in the NBA aside from that one season with the Rockets.

Now that I’ve got you pretty much up to speed on Wafer, it’s time to start talking about what he will bring the Boston Celtics:

• Shooting: The kid can shoot-the-rock.  45% from the field and 39% from deep.  The only draw-back is that he averaged 8 field goal attempts a game during his breakout season.  Do you think he’s getting 8 FGA’s for the Celtics next year?
• Defense: So far? Sub par.  In 2009, Wafer ranked below league average in defensive efficiency and steals. Compared to Tony Allen, his heir apparent his defensive numbers don’t even come close.

There is really no telling what Von Wafer will bring to the Celtics considering he hasn’t played consistent, organized basketball in a year.  What is known, or at least apparent after a quick perusal, is that his Twitter account may be a constant source of entertainment.

The answer? Nothing.

The reasoning was simple.  If one wanted to propose a deal involving any relative feasibility, they would essentially need to provide for three things: taking back Emeka Okafor’s contract, giving up young talent, and providing New Orleans with future financial flexibility.

Those truths considered, the Celtics would also have to offer the very thing New Orleans would be giving up: a top five point guard in Rajon Rondo.  I toyed with the idea of playing coy and sending Schwan a link to this trade with a point by point analysis of why this trade would work.  Something along the lines of:

“The Celtics get their power forward of the future in Emeka Okafor.  Okafor will provide the perfect replacement to Kevin Garnett for a multitude of reasons starting with…”

But honestly, I couldn’t even bring myself to joke around.  The bottom line is that the Celtics have their point guard.  What they could use is depth at the wing position and front line.  That is why when Ryan presented this idea to the class, I sent him a link to a post I wrote last week.  If you didn’t catch it, I essentially used Indiana’s Danny Granger, Mike Dunleavey’s expiring contract, and Rasheed Wallace’s impending buy-out to get Paul for the Pacers and send David West to the Celtics.

I wrote last week that this deal was a pipe-dream and there was no chance the Hornets would give up both of their best players for cap relief and Danny Granger.  With that off the table, the Celtics shouldn’t give up hope just yet of snagging David West for Rasheed Wallace’s contract.  Chris Mannix of Sports Illustrated intimated through Twitter that if New Orleans were to keep Paul, they may be able to convince Carmelo Anthony to come along next year.  In order to do that they would have to shed some contractual weight.  ESPN Insider’s Ryan Corozza took that a step further and suggested that the contractual weight-shedding could be David West’s contract:

“If the Hornets can make a few smart moves to clear some more salary (or if David West opts out of the last year of his deal), Melo could conceivably be had — especially if he comes under the terms of the new collective bargaining agreement.”

It’s hard to say whether or not West would opt out of 9 million guaranteed.  Hell, in a down market he could command a lot more from a team looking to make any kind of splash in free agency.  Then again, no one knows what the new Collective Bargaining Agreement could bring.  If the Hornets decide they can’t take that risk, they may be willing to ship West out for cap relief.

Regardless of what happens, be sure to check out Hornets247.com tomorrow where Schwan will post all of the offers he received and rank them by whatever criteria he decides on. Feasibility? Hilarity? Who knows.  Either way, it should be a fun read.

Also, feel free to tell him as Celtics fans, “if your coming here looking for a Chris Paul taker, I’ve got one thing to say to you, ‘Stop looking at me Schwan!’“

Awful….

Don’t get me wrong.  I love Eddie House and he was an integral part of putting up the Celtics 17th Championship Banner.  But, as Benbow points out in his article, there was a reason the Celtics traded him away for Nate Robinson last year: House shot 38% from the floor last season r  (second worst of his career).

Bringing House back doesn’t just present a potential playing time issue.  House also occupies what could be a very valuable roster spot.  As it stands now, the Celtics depth chart is as follows:

Point Guard

Rajon Rondo, Nate Robinson, Avery Bradley

Shooting Guard

Ray Allen

Small Forward

Paul Pierce, Marquis Daniels

Power Foward

Kevin Garnett, Rasheed Wallace, Glen Davis, Luke Harangody*

Center

Kendrick Perkins, Jermaine O’Neal, Semih Erden

*Assuming the Celtics sign Harangody

The Celtics appear painfully thin at the wing, however that perception could be easily changed given the Celtics’ evaluation of Avery Bradley’s game.  Given his height (6’3″ on a good day) I can only assume Bradley is going to play point guard in the NBA.  Still, given his supposed prowess on the defensive end, he may end up being the Celtics back-up wing/ defensive stopper.

Even with that possibility, the Celtics do not really need Eddie House.  Just like they probably don’t really need Luke Harangody, Semih Erden, or Shaquille O’Neal.

What do you all think?  Anyone want Eddie House back?  At the expense of defense, a roster spot, roster flexibility, and the chance that could be given to a young player?

Unfortunately, I do not think I do.

How productive Perk will be when the games count is an open question.

So it’s time to start thinking about O’Neal a bit more seriously.

Let’s start with this: The Celtics should be a better offensive team with O’Neal playing heavy minutes.

And that’s a good thing, because the Celtics need to be a better offensive team. They ranked 15th in offensive efficiency last season, a shockingly low number for a team that was a few baskets away from winning the NBA title. They need to do better, and O’Neal should help in that regard.

Here’s why:

• Turnovers. The Celtics are essentially trading the most turnover-prone center in the league for the least turnover-prone center in the league.

Among 27 centers who played at least 1,000 minutes last season, only one—Tyson Chandler—turned the ball over on a higher percentage of possessions than Perk, according to Basketball-Reference. Perk turned the ball over on 20.4 percent of possessions on which he was involved with the play that ended the possession, an unacceptable mark for a point guard, let alone a center.

The scary thing? That turnover rate was the lowest of Perk’s career.

O’Neal turned the ball over on just 12.5 percent of his possessions last season. Of those 27 centers mentioned above, only five had a lower turnover rate. (For the curious, those five were: Nenad Krstic, Anthony Tolliver, Zydrunas Ilgauskas, Al Horford and Andrew Bogut, who had a better season than most people understand).

Turnovers have been the main flaw in Boston’s offense over the last three seasons. It will be interesting to see how much that changes with Tony Allen gone and Perk out for the bulk of the regular season.

• Free throw shooting. Perk is a career 60 percent shooter from the line; O’Neal is a career 71 percent foul shooter. That makes a difference.

• Offensive diversity. Perk shot 60 percent from the floor last season, the second-best mark in the league, but just about all of his shot attempts came from within 10 feet of the hoop, according to Hoopdata. Perk attempted just 62 shots all season from outside 10 feet, and the enterprise didn’t go very well. He made just 16 of those shots, though he flashed the jumper in the post-season when teams ignored him. He has the potential to develop a workable 15-footer.

O’Neal is already there. He attempted about 60 percent of his shots last season from outside 10 feet, and he made those shots at a career-best rate. For instance: O’Neal made about 44 percent of his shots from between 16 and 23 feet (i.e. long two-pointers), one of the best marks in the league among centers or power forwards, according to Hoopdata. Perspective: KG, one of the very best big man shooters ever, hit 46 percent from that range last season; Ray Allen hit 45 percent.

O’Neal knocked down exactly 40 percent of his shots from that range in both ’08 and ’09, so while 44 percent is his career high, it’s not wildly out of line.

O’Neal also set career highs last season in shooting percentage from between the rim and 10 feet (51 percent) and from between 10 and 15 feet (45 percent). Both of those marks are outstanding for a big guy.

All of this makes O’Neal a much more diverse offensive player than Perkins. We saw during the playoffs that O’Neal has trouble scoring one-on-one against elite post defenders with size, and Perk is likely a better back-down player from 10 feet and in. But O’Neal’s shooting ability and superior hands will give Boston a second  pick-and-pop threat on its starting front line and a superior pick-and-roll finisher.

For a team with occasionally serious spacing issues, such a threat can be crucial. Think about how effective those Rugby Scrum plays can be when both screen-setters are legit threats from 18 feet.

Please understand: None of this is meant to denigrate Perk as a player. My Perk Love credentials should be beyond reproach at this point. He’s a better defender than O’Neal, he’s one of the only players on Earth that can guard Dwight Howard without help and he’s worked his ass off to become a very good screen/roll defender. And his offensive game—when he’s healthy and careful with the ball—can be helpful.

But O’Neal could help the C’s spacing in the same way Rasheed Wallace did before the league realized Sheed couldn’t shoot anymore.

So it was a slow news day for the Boston Celtics.  All signs point to Matt Barnes signing with the Los Angeles Lakers and the Celtics appear to be countering that move with taking a look at….Jarvis Hayes?

Did I say it was a slow news day for the Celtics?  I’m pretty sure I meant to say “awful” instead of “slow”.  In lieu of a blockbuster event involving a drastic improvement of the Celtics bench happening today, let’s manufacture one using Chris Paul!

By now, most of you have read the Chris Broussard story about Chris Paul wanting out of New Orleans.  So the question becomes, how can we fantasize create a way to involve the Celtics in this trade that brings back some serious value to the Green?

In order to do this, let’s first cut to the chase.  If there is one team in the NBA who needs a point guard, it is the Minnesota Timberwolves Indiana Pacers.  The Pacers have been trying to secure a point guard this entire offseason, considering guys like Johnny Flynn, Luke Ridnour, and Jordan Farmar.  Given that list of names, I’d say they would be more than happy with Chris Paul manning their backcourt.  Paul may be hoping to go to New York but the Knicks have virtually nothing the Hornets would want- especially if the salaries were to match.  If the Hornets are going to trade Chris Paul, they want two things: value/talent and salary cap relief.

The Celtics need to bolster their bench with a Big Man and a Wing.

So without further adieu, allow me to show you how every team gets what they want (sort of) in one fell swoop:

Depending upon your internet browser, you may or may not be able to tell that I am proposing something crazy.  The crazier thing is that this trade is not without precedence.  To summarize:

New Orleans Gets Danny Granger, Mike Dunleavy, and Rasheed Wallace.

Indiana Gets Chris Paul and Oliver Lafayette (or any other player whose contract would work)

Boston Gets David West

Would this ever happen?  Probably not.

The New Orleans Hornets have little incentive to trade Chris Paul but if they felt they needed to for fear they’d ultimately lose him for nothing, they could do far worse than Danny Granger.  Using Danny Granger to get Chris Paul may appear to be a little like running in place for Indiana but the Pacers have a ton of young talent at the wing position.  Additionally, it wasn’t too long ago that the Pacers at least entertained the idea of a straight up trade with the Minnesota Timberwolves that would have sent Johnny Flynn to Indiana in exchange for Danny Granger.  The Hornets also get cap relief for this year and next with Rasheed Wallace’s expected (buy-out) and Mike Dunleavy’s expiring contract.

If Granger is worth Flynn than he’s most certainly worth Paul, right?

Maybe not.

Chris Paul is infinitely better than Johnny Flynn, but the Pacers run the risk of having Paul walk when his contract expires at the end of the 2011/2012 season.  At least Flynn has the potential to flourish and grow with the rest of the young Pacer talent instead of bolt after two years.

None of these ideas would have ever been considered if Paul’s intentions/desires hadn’t been made public, the Hornets didn’t have a young point guard in Darren Collison ready (or seemingly ready) to start, and the Pacers didn’t have an excess of young talent at the wing position.  All of these factors happen to be true.

Still, the idea of the Hornets giving up their two best players for Danny Granger and cap relief may be a tough pill to swallow for both the Hornets’ fans and new GM Dell Demps.  The Hornets want cap relief, but in the form of dumping a salary like Peja Stojakovich and/or Emeka Okafor.  A guy like West- who’s cheaper, more productive, and is under contract through next season (with a player option for 2011/2012)- is not likely to go anywhere.  The Hornets don’t trade West (and his Bird Rights) unless A) they really want Granger, B) they think Craig Brackins is their Power Forward of the future, and C) the Hornets are DESPERATE to get under the cap.

I would say the Hornets don’t want any of those things at the expense of Chris Paul and David West.

Earlier I wrote that the Hornets want talent and cap space in return for Chris Paul.  Could they also want to stick it to Chris Paul for being a factor in former GM Jeff Bower’s dismissal and then wanting out?  It’s plausible.  A team does not try and appease their star player by making a big front office change just to trade him.  This situation could strangely mirror the recent semi-forced resignation of U.S. General Stanley McChrystal.  If this analogy holds true- if Chris Paul really does want out of New Orleans- don’t the Hornets have to do something like this deal?

The anti-”The Decision” basketball fan in me wants to see this happen.  No one is bigger than the game and no one should be able to force their way out of a situation only to force their way into another.

At the end of the day, the Hornets hold all the cards when it comes to where Chris Paul plays next season.

Will the above trade happen? Not likely.

But hey, it was fun while it lasted.

The Celtics had three options:

1) Sign a veteran wing with the minimum salary exception. There really aren’t any attractive options;

2) Work a trade with Rasheed Wallace’s contract. This is proving dicey, and even if they could nab one competent wing with Sheed’s deal, the C’s still need two guys capable of backing up Pierce and Ray; 

3) Use their Pseudo Bird Rights to re-sign Marquis Daniels;

The more players plucked from the Minimum Bin, the more likely it appeared the C’s would have to use option #3 and bring back Daniels. They have done so, according to Chris Tomasson at FanHouse.

Daniels is coming back on a one-year deal worth $2.5 million.*

Neither side is thrilled with this deal, no matter what they say publicly. The C’s did not consider Daniels a priority, and Daniels did not fancy a return to Boston. This is a marriage of necessity. The C’s need live bodies on the wing, and Daniels is approaching 30 and needs a job. He’s actually getting a raise despite his disappointing season in ’10, which shows you how desperate Boston is for someone who can play competent ball at the two and three spots. 

The presence of Nate Robinson means Daniels likely won’t have to worry about playing any point guard next season, which is probably a good thing.

So what happened last season? The general narrative goes like this: Daniels was playing well before hurting his wrist about 20 games in. He missed two months, and when he came back, he looked tentative. At the same time, Tony Allen raised his game, and Marquis found himself on the bench. 

Is that really what happened? 

Sort of. If you look at his season splits, he actually shot the ball almost exactly as well from the floor after the All-Star break (49.6 percent) as before (50 percent even). 

It’s the other stuff where you notice the difference. Despite playing nearly 100 more minutes and 9 more games after the All-Star break, Daniels grabbed only nine more rebounds than he did before the break. He got to the line fewer times, dished fewer assists and swiped fewer steals. 

It wasn’t an illusion. Daniels was not the same player after his wrist injury. 

Here’s a quick (and incomplete) list of things Daniels can do make his second season in Boston a success:

• Continue to hit from the mid-range. Daniels hit 46 percent of his long two-pointers last season, by far his best mark in recent years, according to Hoopdata. Daniels had been around 31 or 32 percent during the three prior seasons. Was 2010 a fluke aided by a small sample size? Or can Daniels become a consistent shooter as he ages?

• Get to the line more and hit your free throws. Marquis attempted just 2.2 foul shots per 36 minutes last season, the lowest mark of his career. He also hit just 60.7 percent from the line, which is weird, considering he’s a career 72 percent foul shooter who had never before dipped below 69.8 percent in a season. That’ll correct itself. 

• Rebound, rebound, rebound. You may have heard that Boston’s rebounding ranged from average to terrible depending on the opponent. With their core big guys aging and recovering from injury, this is a problem everyone must play a part in solving. That includes Daniels, who posted the worst rebounding numbers of his career last season. 

• Defense. Duh. Daniels has the potential to be a solid defender in Boston’s system. He’s smart, he positions himself well and he does not bite on pump fakes. It is uncanny how steady he is in that regard. 

So: Welcome back the Grand Marquis. 

The C’s now have 11 players guaranteed to be on next season’s roster, a number that, for now, does not include Rasheed Wallace, who technically remains signed and could be player #12 if he does not retire. Assuming Sheed does retire, Boston still  has at least two roster spots to spill. Look for them to add another wing and another big man, and to probably sign Luke Harangody. 

Is this roster enough to contend with Miami? 

*Assuming the salary numbers at ShamSports.com are right—and that Daniels made $1.99 million last season—the C’s can only offer him a maximum of $2.4 million, according to Larry Coon’s Salary Cap FAQ.