Trade Ideas JR Giddens

[Fan from VT]

I'm finding it hard to be very excited or hopeful about Giddens. He's about 3 months younger than Perk, so it's not like he's still going through any physical development. Obviously there's time for skills to improve (players usually peak from 28-32), but he's really not where most 24 year olds who amount to much should be.

Giddens was a productive college player who was physically developed and old coming out of college with questionable attitude. You don't draft a player like that for his upside; the point of drafting someone like that is with the hope that the attitude problems don't arise and he can contribute right away.

Obviously that didn't really happen. A player like that isn't supposed to have a huge growing period, so the fact he's not adjusting well after two preseasons and a full season is not a good sign at all.


My take on Giddens when he was drafted was that hopefully he can contribute right away because he really isn't going to improve that much. That didn't happen, so I'm pretty much ready to deal him for anything useful if another GM can be snookered.


After watching Giddens for a year, my take on him is that he is a "good" all-around player. So he looks great around a lot of other "good" players (smaller college conference, D-league, etc). However, to make it in the NBA you have to be "very-good" at everything or "Great" at a few things. And by "Great," I don't mean best in the NBA, I mean good for the NBA. Consider Eddie House. I have little doubt that if Giddens and Eddie played one-on-one Giddens would win. I have little doubt as well that if Eddie and Giddens played in the D-league Giddens would look better since surrounded by "good" players he's look like he could do everything. But no one here doubts that Eddie is a much better NBA player because he can do a few things adequately and he's a great shooter.



Obviously the NBA isn't a video game, but you can use a similar logic in terms of rating a player. Say a player like Pierce is a 90 overall because he's "90-good" at everything: defense, shooting, dribbling, driving, finishing, etc. KG's probably a 90 but he's more like a 95 on defense, 80 on shooting from distance, and 90 or so on the rest. Ray would be around 85, with about a 99 on shooting, 75 defense, 90 for the rest...you get the idea.


Well I see Giddens and Eddie could be about 70s or so. unfortunately, Giddens is about a 70 on everything, while eddie's about a 60 on D and handle, while a 95 on shooting. Giddens is then like a poorman's pierce, but not good enough at his all-round game to be too useful. 

At least that's how I see it.

[libermaniac]

It's strange.  I agree that he looks lost on offense.  What's strange is that in college, at New Mexico, he was THE MAN, just like Danny Granger, who also went there.  Not sure what happened to JRs confidence once he got to Boston.

Confidence isn't enough when you just aren't that good.

He was a very risky, unexpected pick. If it turns out to be a bad big, I won't lose any sleep over it. It happens.

That the thing.  In college he WAS that good.  Almost as good as Danny Granger, who is an emerging star.  So, it IS his lack of confidence that's impacting his performance.  Unless you saw him play in college (where he led the Mountain West in scoring and rebounds), you can't really challenge this.  But, we do agree that he is a weak pro and probably a bad pick.

[snively]

I'm finding it hard to be very excited or hopeful about Giddens. He's about 3 months younger than Perk, so it's not like he's still going through any physical development. Obviously there's time for skills to improve (players usually peak from 28-32), but he's really not where most 24 year olds who amount to much should be.

Giddens was a productive college player who was physically developed and old coming out of college with questionable attitude. You don't draft a player like that for his upside; the point of drafting someone like that is with the hope that the attitude problems don't arise and he can contribute right away.

Obviously that didn't really happen. A player like that isn't supposed to have a huge growing period, so the fact he's not adjusting well after two preseasons and a full season is not a good sign at all.


My take on Giddens when he was drafted was that hopefully he can contribute right away because he really isn't going to improve that much. That didn't happen, so I'm pretty much ready to deal him for anything useful if another GM can be snookered.


After watching Giddens for a year, my take on him is that he is a "good" all-around player. So he looks great around a lot of other "good" players (smaller college conference, D-league, etc). However, to make it in the NBA you have to be "very-good" at everything or "Great" at a few things. And by "Great," I don't mean best in the NBA, I mean good for the NBA. Consider Eddie House. I have little doubt that if Giddens and Eddie played one-on-one Giddens would win. I have little doubt as well that if Eddie and Giddens played in the D-league Giddens would look better since surrounded by "good" players he's look like he could do everything. But no one here doubts that Eddie is a much better NBA player because he can do a few things adequately and he's a great shooter.



Obviously the NBA isn't a video game, but you can use a similar logic in terms of rating a player. Say a player like Pierce is a 90 overall because he's "90-good" at everything: defense, shooting, dribbling, driving, finishing, etc. KG's probably a 90 but he's more like a 95 on defense, 80 on shooting from distance, and 90 or so on the rest. Ray would be around 85, with about a 99 on shooting, 75 defense, 90 for the rest...you get the idea.


Well I see Giddens and Eddie could be about 70s or so. unfortunately, Giddens is about a 70 on everything, while eddie's about a 60 on D and handle, while a 95 on shooting. Giddens is then like a poorman's pierce, but not good enough at his all-round game to be too useful. 

At least that's how I see it.

I share your skepticism that Giddens will amount to anything (i.e. more than a training camp signee after his rookie contract expires) in the NBA, but I don't think your assessment is on-target.  

Giddens is really good at one thing: rebounding from the swing spot.  He was great at it in college, he was good at in the D-league and the preseason, and he's done it well in his 20 minute NBA career (6 boards).  He also plays energetic, long-armed, quick-footed, high-elevation, low-discipline defense.  

His problem is that he is really terrible in an NBA offense.  In the D-league and summer league, he got to hold the ball and isolate weak defenders, or just wait for a shot to go up and crash the glass.  These games and the stats he produced in them lend the impression that he has a well-rounded offensive game.  He does not.  He has a very loose handle that he tends to lose a hold of the faster he moves.  He incorporates a lot of spin moves to try and cover ground without fancy dribbling, but these tend not to work against good defenders.  As he's not a threat to make effective, quick moves with the ball or hit a jumper, none of his spastic jab steps or headfakes are effective against NBA defenders.  This makes him virtually useless as a ball-handler/slasher in the NBA.  Unfortunately, his lack of intuitive understanding of off-ball movement and most NBA offensive sets make him similarly useless as an off-ball offensive player.  

That said, even with such a limited skillset and the lack of feel for the game, he would be a half-decent player if he could just learn to knock down 3s from both corners and develop a little more patience on the floor.  Sadly, I don't think it's going to happen, and it's a shame, because we could really use the defensive and rebounding tools he's got to offer.

[moiso]

It's strange.  I agree that he looks lost on offense.  What's strange is that in college, at New Mexico, he was THE MAN, just like Danny Granger, who also went there.  Not sure what happened to JRs confidence once he got to Boston.

Confidence isn't enough when you just aren't that good.

He was a very risky, unexpected pick. If it turns out to be a bad big, I won't lose any sleep over it. It happens.

That the thing.  In college he WAS that good.  Almost as good as Danny Granger, who is an emerging star.  So, it IS his lack of confidence that's impacting his performance.  Unless you saw him play in college (where he led the Mountain West in scoring and rebounds), you can't really challenge this.  But, we do agree that he is a weak pro and probably a bad pick.

But most scouts projected Granger as a lottery pick and didn't even project Giddens to be drafted in the first round.  Many didn't project him to be drafted, period.