Surprising Ainge didn't take either Chalmers or Jordan with the 30th pick...

[ssspence]

I remain surprised me that Danny didn't take either a 1 or a 5 with the Giddens pick, considering the guaranteed money invloved. Jordan's game needs a lot of work but the potential is clearly there (20 boards last night). Chalmers has played well and could be a more tradable asset. Just odd to take a nondescript wing with a shaky background from a weak conference when two guys at more valuable positions were out there...

yes, jordan is raw. yes, chalmers is limited. but anyone else have any thoughts here?

I don't think Chalmers or Jordan would have gotten any burn beyond garbage minutes on this team to date.  I think the jury is still out on Giddens and Walker. Given DA's track record for selected quality late in the first round, and in the 2nd round, we have to give him more time to assess whether his picks were good or not.  He is not infallable (he underestimated the value of Brandon Roy, probably his biggest mistake to date), but his winners far outweigh his losers.

i don't think ainge regrets the roy trade at all. no roy trade, no theo ratliff, no kg.

and i agree 1) the jury is still out on giddens, and 2) neither guy would be getting any burn on the team. i'm looking at them as assets, which we have few of. let's face it -- reasonably athletic slashing 2s are easy to come by, and aren't worth much. not saying giddens isn't going to be a good player, but clearly no one wants him in trade. chalmers and jordan would certainly be more attractive to a team looking to make a deal.

While it is true we got Theo the Rat in that trade, I am not certain that we would not have gotten KG anyway by throwing in Raef's salary in the deal. Yes, his salary was for another season, but it is not like the T Wolves were trying to free cap space right away to sign a big FA. You may be right. But I don't think Danny was thinking of getting KG when he made the Sebastian Telfair trade. He probably thought that Telfair was going to be a better PG than Rondo or Roy, which is the major reason he made the trade. I remember watching a DA interview when the Celtics were visiting Portland during Roy's rookie season. Ainge called Roy a "nice" player, but did not think he had all star potential.  He underestimated him. So did a few other teams that selected inferior players ahead of him, such as Minn (Randy Foye) and Charlotte (Adam Morrissey) and Chicago (Tyrus Thomas) and Toronto (Bargnani) and ATL (Shelden Williams--ugh). Only Aldridge at this point is obviously worthy of being selected ahead of Roy, and that is probably a toss-up, depending on positional need.

whether or not ainge loved roy is beside the point. raef for theo was part of that deal for a reason.  the wolves are losing money annually. ask glen taylor if he would have done the KG deal with raef in there, i bet the answer is no. $13mil is alotta dough to toss into a deal where you know you're going to lose night after night and face the consequences with the fans...

[ssspence]

I was very surprised he passed on Chalmers.  He's already better than Pruitt.

while i agree chalmers would have been a nice pick, i was more suprised he passed on jordan. it's a given that a late 1st rounder on a championship team will see limited time. why not take a raw but very talented, very big guy who could be legit? what's giddens gonna be? dahntey jones? tony allen?  maybe better? even if he is still seems wasteful...

 

You can do the same, if not more lengthy list (and im sure someone will, im at work so i cant)Of raw talented bigs taken late in the first that "just needed time" who are washing cars at the moment. I think "talented big guys" are more of a risk than gaurds. Gaurds seem to hang around forever and be parts of trades at the very least. It seems teams are way less willing to take a flyer on a late round big guy than a guard, but thats just my impression.

Its a crap shoot.

 i think calling it a flip of the coin is overstating it. yes, there are plenty of guys taken strictly on size. jordan played solidly at a real hoops school for a year. his skill level, coordination and athletic talent were clear. his motivation was and is the question

my point is: Sene, he wasn't.

[nickagneta]

Danny drafts have always fallen under the category of taking the best available player over selecting for need. I think this is, especially in basketball where only five people get to play at a time, absolutely the way to go.

So why didn't Danny choose Jordan or Chalmers at 30. Probably because he felt they weren't the best player available where he was and given who was still there to be chosen. And to this point, I can't really argue against that. Jordan has had two good games against teams that didn't play defense against him. Chalmers has shown a little something but Giddens and Walker might have shown as much if not more given the same opportunity and maybe played better.

I love the Walker pick and the jury is still out on Giddens, in my book. I've seen some footage from Utah Flash games he was in and the kid is an athlete with a game. He might be way better than either Chalmers or Jordan.

Remember, Boston doesn't have to play the young guys to win it all again. They can do what teams did way back in the day which is let the kids learn the game, learn the system, be around and absorb knowledge from the games greats and then plug them in when they are ready after a year of two.

[BudweiserCeltic]

I love the Walker pick and the jury is still out on Giddens, in my book. I've seen some footage from Utah Flash games he was in and the kid is an athlete with a game.

I swear, this is the last thing I expected to read in your post, lol. Good stuff.

[nickagneta]

I love the Walker pick and the jury is still out on Giddens, in my book. I've seen some footage from Utah Flash games he was in and the kid is an athlete with a game.

I swear, this is the last thing I expected to read in your post, lol. Good stuff.

I made a promise after a long convo with BillfromBoston, I think you and BBallTim. I've kept my promise and even have done a little homework. Kid looked solid in Utah in the stuff I saw. So, to me jury is still out and my promise of not bad mouthing him til I see more is intact. I'm a lot of things good and bad, but, I'm a man of my word.

[ssspence]

Danny drafts have always fallen under the category of taking the best available player over selecting for need. I think this is, especially in basketball where only five people get to play at a time, absolutely the way to go.

So why didn't Danny choose Jordan or Chalmers at 30. Probably because he felt they weren't the best player available where he was and given who was still there to be chosen. And to this point, I can't really argue against that. Jordan has had two good games against teams that didn't play defense against him. Chalmers has shown a little something but Giddens and Walker might have shown as much if not more given the same opportunity and maybe played better.

I love the Walker pick and the jury is still out on Giddens, in my book. I've seen some footage from Utah Flash games he was in and the kid is an athlete with a game. He might be way better than either Chalmers or Jordan.

Remember, Boston doesn't have to play the young guys to win it all again. They can do what teams did way back in the day which is let the kids learn the game, learn the system, be around and absorb knowledge from the games greats and then plug them in when they are ready after a year of two.

good arguement. agree on danny's philosophy, the walker pick and hope you're right about giddens. i still feel like it might have been worth taking a flyer on jordan, especially if we'd known 1) we were going to get walker, our back-up 5 of the future would be POB.

[BballTim]

I love the Walker pick and the jury is still out on Giddens, in my book. I've seen some footage from Utah Flash games he was in and the kid is an athlete with a game.

I swear, this is the last thing I expected to read in your post, lol. Good stuff.

I made a promise after a long convo with BillfromBoston, I think you and BBallTim. I've kept my promise and even have done a little homework. Kid looked solid in Utah in the stuff I saw. So, to me jury is still out and my promise of not bad mouthing him til I see more is intact. I'm a lot of things good and bad, but, I'm a man of my word.

  TP.

[MVP]

I think DA saw Chalmers as too similar to Pruitt. Both are tall pgs who are good defenders and can shoot from the outside. DA probably would have picked Jordan if the team was in the rebuilding phase as he is a hit or miss prospect, but Giddens fit more of a need since he was more ready to contribute and both TA and Posey were free agents. DA got his hit or miss big man prospect anyway with POB.

[crownsy]

I was very surprised he passed on Chalmers.  He's already better than Pruitt.

while i agree chalmers would have been a nice pick, i was more suprised he passed on jordan. it's a given that a late 1st rounder on a championship team will see limited time. why not take a raw but very talented, very big guy who could be legit? what's giddens gonna be? dahntey jones? tony allen?  maybe better? even if he is still seems wasteful...

 

You can do the same, if not more lengthy list (and im sure someone will, im at work so i cant)Of raw talented bigs taken late in the first that "just needed time" who are washing cars at the moment. I think "talented big guys" are more of a risk than gaurds. Gaurds seem to hang around forever and be parts of trades at the very least. It seems teams are way less willing to take a flyer on a late round big guy than a guard, but thats just my impression.

Its a crap shoot.

 i think calling it a flip of the coin is overstating it. yes, there are plenty of guys taken strictly on size. jordan played solidly at a real hoops school for a year. his skill level, coordination and athletic talent were clear. his motivation was and is the question

my point is: Sene, he wasn't.

even more to the point then, dont we have a project big who's raw talent inst in question, but his work ethic and learning ablity is?

[ssspence]

I was very surprised he passed on Chalmers.  He's already better than Pruitt.

while i agree chalmers would have been a nice pick, i was more suprised he passed on jordan. it's a given that a late 1st rounder on a championship team will see limited time. why not take a raw but very talented, very big guy who could be legit? what's giddens gonna be? dahntey jones? tony allen?  maybe better? even if he is still seems wasteful...

 

You can do the same, if not more lengthy list (and im sure someone will, im at work so i cant)Of raw talented bigs taken late in the first that "just needed time" who are washing cars at the moment. I think "talented big guys" are more of a risk than gaurds. Gaurds seem to hang around forever and be parts of trades at the very least. It seems teams are way less willing to take a flyer on a late round big guy than a guard, but thats just my impression.

Its a crap shoot.

 i think calling it a flip of the coin is overstating it. yes, there are plenty of guys taken strictly on size. jordan played solidly at a real hoops school for a year. his skill level, coordination and athletic talent were clear. his motivation was and is the question

my point is: Sene, he wasn't.

even more to the point then, dont we have a project big who's raw talent inst in question, but his work ethic and learning ablity is?

who are we talking about, O'Bryant? the scrub we signed off the street? let's not do that to Jordan, that's not nice. Jordan is obviously far more talented as both a scorer and a rebounder. and he doesn't move at the speed of mud. 

POB's work ethic isn't in quesiton, it's decidedly non-existant. has the guy ever seen a weightroom in his life?

[nickagneta]

I was very surprised he passed on Chalmers.  He's already better than Pruitt.

while i agree chalmers would have been a nice pick, i was more suprised he passed on jordan. it's a given that a late 1st rounder on a championship team will see limited time. why not take a raw but very talented, very big guy who could be legit? what's giddens gonna be? dahntey jones? tony allen?  maybe better? even if he is still seems wasteful...

 

You can do the same, if not more lengthy list (and im sure someone will, im at work so i cant)Of raw talented bigs taken late in the first that "just needed time" who are washing cars at the moment. I think "talented big guys" are more of a risk than gaurds. Gaurds seem to hang around forever and be parts of trades at the very least. It seems teams are way less willing to take a flyer on a late round big guy than a guard, but thats just my impression.

Its a crap shoot.

 i think calling it a flip of the coin is overstating it. yes, there are plenty of guys taken strictly on size. jordan played solidly at a real hoops school for a year. his skill level, coordination and athletic talent were clear. his motivation was and is the question

my point is: Sene, he wasn't.

even more to the point then, dont we have a project big who's raw talent inst in question, but his work ethic and learning ablity is?

who are we talking about, O'Bryant? the scrub we signed off the street? let's not do that to Jordan, that's not nice. Jordan is obviously far more talented as both a scorer and a rebounder. and he doesn't move at the speed of mud. 

POB's work ethic isn't in quesiton, it's decidedly non-existant. has the guy ever seen a weightroom in his life?

While I wouldn't put Jordan in the same category of Patrick O'Bryant I think it's fair to point out that his recent 4 whole games of good statistics have coem against the T-Wolves, the Lakers, the Warriors, and the Thunder. The Wolves, Thunder, and Warriors are three of the worst if not the three worst defenses in the league(being the 23rd, 25th, and 30th in Pts Allowed) and the night Jordan had good numbers vs the Lakers he gave up 42 and 15 and LA didn't even try to play defense that game.

So maybe we should temper the expectations of Jordan based on 4 games.

[ssspence]

I was very surprised he passed on Chalmers.  He's already better than Pruitt.

while i agree chalmers would have been a nice pick, i was more suprised he passed on jordan. it's a given that a late 1st rounder on a championship team will see limited time. why not take a raw but very talented, very big guy who could be legit? what's giddens gonna be? dahntey jones? tony allen?  maybe better? even if he is still seems wasteful...

 

You can do the same, if not more lengthy list (and im sure someone will, im at work so i cant)Of raw talented bigs taken late in the first that "just needed time" who are washing cars at the moment. I think "talented big guys" are more of a risk than gaurds. Gaurds seem to hang around forever and be parts of trades at the very least. It seems teams are way less willing to take a flyer on a late round big guy than a guard, but thats just my impression.

Its a crap shoot.

 i think calling it a flip of the coin is overstating it. yes, there are plenty of guys taken strictly on size. jordan played solidly at a real hoops school for a year. his skill level, coordination and athletic talent were clear. his motivation was and is the question

my point is: Sene, he wasn't.

even more to the point then, dont we have a project big who's raw talent inst in question, but his work ethic and learning ablity is?

who are we talking about, O'Bryant? the scrub we signed off the street? let's not do that to Jordan, that's not nice. Jordan is obviously far more talented as both a scorer and a rebounder. and he doesn't move at the speed of mud. 

POB's work ethic isn't in quesiton, it's decidedly non-existant. has the guy ever seen a weightroom in his life?

While I wouldn't put Jordan in the same category of Patrick O'Bryant I think it's fair to point out that his recent 4 whole games of good statistics have coem against the T-Wolves, the Lakers, the Warriors, and the Thunder. The Wolves, Thunder, and Warriors are three of the worst if not the three worst defenses in the league(being the 23rd, 25th, and 30th in Pts Allowed) and the night Jordan had good numbers vs the Lakers he gave up 42 and 15 and LA didn't even try to play defense that game.

So maybe we should temper the expectations of Jordan based on 4 games.

i'm really not looking to glorify this stretch. it's widely known that dispite having a career high (not to mention on 10 dunks) against the lakers he got doubled up by Bynum. i'm not declaring him a stud or an all-star or a starter. my point is basically about value. who would be more valuable to this team? jordan. who is / would be more valuable to the Cs in trade talks? jordan. considering the last pick in the first round gets a guaranteed contract, who has more upside as project? jordan.

[Amonkey]

I remember I was a big advocator of picking Jordan with our pick.  I thought that he would be a Patrick O'Bryant with upside.  It would've been a good gamble for the spot.  However, with that said, Chalmers and lately Jordan have been playing well because they have been given the chance to play well.  Jordan has been starting the last 4 games and so has Chalmers if I am correct.  They would've never received this kind of attention if they were on the Celtics bench.  I don't think they would've outplayed our bench players for some solid minutes.  Since Clips stink and Miami has no PG, they could afford to play these kids while the Celtics not so much.

In the end, I still think Giddens and Walker have great potential.  The jury is not out until 3 years from now.

[nickagneta]

I was very surprised he passed on Chalmers.  He's already better than Pruitt.

while i agree chalmers would have been a nice pick, i was more suprised he passed on jordan. it's a given that a late 1st rounder on a championship team will see limited time. why not take a raw but very talented, very big guy who could be legit? what's giddens gonna be? dahntey jones? tony allen?  maybe better? even if he is still seems wasteful...

 

You can do the same, if not more lengthy list (and im sure someone will, im at work so i cant)Of raw talented bigs taken late in the first that "just needed time" who are washing cars at the moment. I think "talented big guys" are more of a risk than gaurds. Gaurds seem to hang around forever and be parts of trades at the very least. It seems teams are way less willing to take a flyer on a late round big guy than a guard, but thats just my impression.

Its a crap shoot.

 i think calling it a flip of the coin is overstating it. yes, there are plenty of guys taken strictly on size. jordan played solidly at a real hoops school for a year. his skill level, coordination and athletic talent were clear. his motivation was and is the question

my point is: Sene, he wasn't.

even more to the point then, dont we have a project big who's raw talent inst in question, but his work ethic and learning ablity is?

who are we talking about, O'Bryant? the scrub we signed off the street? let's not do that to Jordan, that's not nice. Jordan is obviously far more talented as both a scorer and a rebounder. and he doesn't move at the speed of mud. 

POB's work ethic isn't in quesiton, it's decidedly non-existant. has the guy ever seen a weightroom in his life?

While I wouldn't put Jordan in the same category of Patrick O'Bryant I think it's fair to point out that his recent 4 whole games of good statistics have coem against the T-Wolves, the Lakers, the Warriors, and the Thunder. The Wolves, Thunder, and Warriors are three of the worst if not the three worst defenses in the league(being the 23rd, 25th, and 30th in Pts Allowed) and the night Jordan had good numbers vs the Lakers he gave up 42 and 15 and LA didn't even try to play defense that game.

So maybe we should temper the expectations of Jordan based on 4 games.

i'm really not looking to glorify this stretch. it's widely known that dispite having a career high (not to mention on 10 dunks) against the lakers he got doubled up by Bynum. i'm not declaring him a stud or an all-star or a starter. my point is basically about value. who would be more valuable to this team? jordan. who is / would be more valuable to the Cs in trade talks? jordan. considering the last pick in the first round gets a guaranteed contract, who has more upside as project? jordan.

My answer to all your questions you answered Jordan to, would not be Jordan. Like it or not you are judging your entire argument on what has occurred over the last 4 games because before that Jordan had done exactly nothing and his college numbers of 7.9 points, six rebounds and 43.7 percent from the free throw line  in only 20 MPG isn't much to brag about. And that doesn't even consider that all of Jordan's best games at A&M were early in the year and that he withered as the year progressed.

Giddens has put up decent NBDL numbers and was put up good numbers for three years for the Lobos and had a great last year there with 17PPG, 8 RPG, 3 APG, shooting 51%. I don't think the comparisons are even close. I believe completely that you are judging Jordan based solely on his 20 rebound game and his big night versus the Lakers because otherwise, he hasn't shown much of anything.

[BillfromBoston]

I remain surprised me that Danny didn't take either a 1 or a 5 with the Giddens pick, considering the guaranteed money invloved. Jordan's game needs a lot of work but the potential is clearly there (20 boards last night). Chalmers has played well and could be a more tradable asset. Just odd to take a nondescript wing with a shaky background from a weak conference when two guys at more valuable positions were out there...

yes, jordan is raw. yes, chalmers is limited. but anyone else have any thoughts here?

There are a couple of reasons:

1. Wing players have the highest statistical probability of becoming star level players or better when drafted past pick 20...Giddens and Walker by sheer average have a higher potential to succeed.

2. The team had Gabe Pruitt as a combo guard prospect already and had invested a year's worth of time into his development. They clearly didn't feel that Chalmers talent was worth a change in allegiance.

3. The team had 3 young big men in Perk/Powe/Davis and probably wasn't looking for a long term big at guaranteed dollars. O'Bryant costs less and has more experience as a project player. the team is likely to add a vet big this coming off-season.

4. The team was thinnest at the wings, with both TA and House being FA and Posey as well - all had a good probability of leaving for better offers as the team had hard values assigned to them. Giddens and Walker were high upside players and the team thought at least one, (Giddens) had the chance to earn minutes right off the bat.

Chalmers has had a solid rookie year and Jordan is now getting some run with decent results, but their teams allow them to play through far, far more mistakes than the Celtics would allow and Ainge had an eye for addressing immediate need while valuing long-term potential.