Would you rather have Mario Chalmers or JR Giddens?

[billysan]

At this point it is easy to say Chalmers because we see so much more of him.

I think J.R. Giddens was drafted with the idea of a depth need at the wing that we certainly still have. The thinking being that we had Pruitt and likely House coming back as back ups for PG depth. Also Danny/Doc didnt want to mess with Rondo's head by bringing another potential starter in at PG to challenge him.

I have to say, ask me in 2 years who I would rather have. The choice will be much clearer them.

[bucknersrevenge]

chalmers

isn't it ironic how chalmers is trusted as a starter for the heat, and giddens is barely trusted to play 1 min. a game.

can you go ahead and name me the heat PG's he had to beat out to get that spot?

I mean, as much of a superstar as chris quinn is, seems like the depth chart is a tad easier to break into over there than JR's is over here. 

lets look at the depth chrats coming into both camps.

Heat- Quinn, fresh off his 10 day contract last year- and uh...i guess wade could have played the point?

celtics- Ray allen, Eddie house, Three year vetran of the system in pruitt, who never plays because ray and eddie get all the minutes.


Your right,  same situation. JR stinks.

Exactly. Unless you were already pre-disposed to like Chalmers before he came out this year there isn't even close to enough evidence to make a choice on who'd be better. I still look forward to seeing JR get a tenth of the minutes Chalmers gets. But when you're sitting behind Hall of Famers it's tough. I would hate for us to let JR leave without getting any glimpse of what he could offer this team.

[Vermont Green]

Let's pose the question another way, who would you rather have down the stretch and in the playoffs, Chalmers or Marbury?

As far as draft day, it would be hard to justify picking Chalmers when we already had 2 young PG who we liked.  Every year there are one or two players from the second round that just totally blow everyone away.  Basically every team in the league could say hey why didn't we know enough to pick this guy or that guy.  Quite a few may be saying why didn't we pick Powe or BBD or even Pruitt.  I don't get what we are trying to prove here.

[cordobes]

I don't get what we are trying to prove here.

my point is the question is pointless.

And more similar stuff. Why can't we compare players from the same draft class? It's a fairly common exercise here when the player we picked is doing better than the other one. 

I'm amazed by the number of people who seem to believe that Chalmers wouldn't get any minutes here. What about Mbah-a-Moute, would he get minutes here? Or Ramon Sessions, would he get minutes over Pruitt? Would Derrick Rose get minutes here? Brook Lopez?

Chalmers is the starting pg of a playoffs team, putting up 10/5 per game and very good defence - this last trait being what eventually would guarantee him minutes in every team in the league. 

[billysan]

Let's pose the question another way, who would you rather have down the stretch and in the playoffs, Chalmers or Marbury?

As far as draft day, it would be hard to justify picking Chalmers when we already had 2 young PG who we liked.  Every year there are one or two players from the second round that just totally blow everyone away.  Basically every team in the league could say hey why didn't we know enough to pick this guy or that guy.  Quite a few may be saying why didn't we pick Powe or BBD or even Pruitt.  I don't get what we are trying to prove here.

May as well add in Ryan Gomes. I agree, it is useless speculation because we dont see what Giddens has to offer yet. We can 'predict' he doesnt see the floor because of some shortcoming but after all, Doc doesnt play people the way most posters on this board would like anyway. Why should this be any guarantee that Chalmers would see more time? Just because he plays defense in Miami's system doesnt mean he would work out here in our system.

[crownsy]

I don't get what we are trying to prove here.

my point is the question is pointless.

And more similar stuff. Why can't we compare players from the same draft class? It's a fairly common exercise here when the player we picked is doing better than the other one. 

I'm amazed by the number of people who seem to believe that Chalmers wouldn't get any minutes here. What about Mbah-a-Moute, would he get minutes here? Or Ramon Sessions, would he get minutes over Pruitt? Would Derrick Rose get minutes here? Brook Lopez?

Chalmers is the starting pg of a playoffs team, putting up 10/5 per game and very good defence - this last trait being what eventually would guarantee him minutes in every team in the league. 

because they play diffrent postions, and they have unequal oppertunities to show what they can do and opportunity to earn minutes.

Chalmers walked into a dream job, he has access to all the minutes at the heats PG position sicne Quinn sucks, and everyone knew that going in. Its not like he had a rip roaring year off his ten day contract last year, he's just the best they found.

Meanwhile, giddens is behind a HOF'er and a solid backup.

So the point is, you can't know what giddens would be doing with the minutes chalmers walked into by mistake, despite the attitude on this board that we all missed being nba scouts by thhiiiisss much  .

Is it fair to say one sports car is better than another when one isn't allowed off the lot and one is driven everyday?

Chalmers was a very good pick, i would have been happy with him as well for the C's (in fact, I was saying we should take him when we were on the clock, go look it up if you don't believe me

but to act like "oh man, we missed a gem" and then not admit that if we had drafted him he'd never be seen as a good pick because he'd be buried just as deep as JR is cherry picking to try to support an argument that has no basis for comparison on one side.

If we had drafted him, at best he'd be getting Pruitt's "4 minutes once in a blue moon" share of back court, and people would have threads up saying how awful he is and why, oh why, didnt we draft someone else.

thats my only chuckle in this thread, that all these would be NBA talent scouts are sure chalmers would have suddenly broken into the roation in boston, and we'd be raving about him. That's what im laughing at, not the notion that you can compare players. compare away. obviously since we have almost zero minutes to eval JR on and a bunch to see mario in, mario right now is the better player.

[Atzar]

I don't get what we are trying to prove here.

my point is the question is pointless.

And more similar stuff. Why can't we compare players from the same draft class? It's a fairly common exercise here when the player we picked is doing better than the other one. 

I'm amazed by the number of people who seem to believe that Chalmers wouldn't get any minutes here. What about Mbah-a-Moute, would he get minutes here? Or Ramon Sessions, would he get minutes over Pruitt? Would Derrick Rose get minutes here? Brook Lopez?

Chalmers is the starting pg of a playoffs team, putting up 10/5 per game and very good defence - this last trait being what eventually would guarantee him minutes in every team in the league. 

lol, I love the examples.  Chalmers is a point guard who would be fighting for minutes behind Rondo, House, Pruitt and now Starbury.  Mbah-a-Moute and Brook Lopez play at the weakest spots on our depth chart, of course Doc would give them a look - by contrast, our guard spots are loaded.  Ramon Sessions is already a very good rotational player in this league.  Derrick Rose had people singing "Future HOFer" when he was drafted.  The fact that any of them would get minutes here does nothing to support the argument that Chalmers, a 2nd rounder who is thought to have already reached his fairly limited potential, would as well. 

Danny probably saw Chalmers as redundant to this roster with the presence of Pruitt.  There's no need for two young projects at the same position - one of them doesn't earn consistent minutes as it is. 

[Who]

Eddie House was the only veteran and the only reliable bench performer that the C's had to start the season. I don't think Doc sits him in favour of Mario Chalmers, so I agree with the theory that Chalmers doesn't play here either. Not unless Doc decides to play Eddie at the two, and not play Tony Allen, which I wouldn't like and do not think he'd do while Tony is fit. Mario takes Pruitt's minutes easily enough but Pruitt isn't a rotation regular.

That said, Chalmers is a vastly superior player (over Eddie) who over time would easily take the spot, and I do not think there's any hope Eddie would return to the C's next season had Chalmers been selected. He was a great pick from the late first round onwards. Chalmers is going to be a high level role player in this league for a long time -- someone comparable to a Derek Fisher - less of a floor general but more of a defensive presence.

I would have rather taken Chalmers over Giddens prior to the draft and I'd continue that stance today. That said, while Giddens wasn't my first choice, he was a good choice and one I was happy with. I thought Ainge had a very good draft and did a really nice job picking up Giddens and Walker.

[amenhotep04]

At the beginning of the season Chalmers was a turnover waiting to happen.  He would not have survived that in Doc's rotation.

[cordobes]

but to act like "oh man, we missed a gem" and then not admit that if we had drafted him he'd never be seen as a good pick because he'd be buried just as deep as JR is cherry picking to try to support an argument that has no basis for comparison on one side.

But who's acting like that? The OP only asked who would you take, fans do this all the time with players from the same draft class - before the draft, after the Summer League, in the 1st season, 10 seasons later, after the entire class is retired, etc.

I mean, imagine you are Ainge and Riley calls saying "hey Danny, you know what, I just hired Steve Alford for our coaching staff and he insists JR is the real deal. Do you accept Mario for him?". What would you say?

Now, the minutes he'd get here it's arguable and maybe all these would be NBA talent scouts that are sure Chalmers wouldn't get any minutes here are right, but I personally believe he's already shown he's good enough to earn minutes in every single NBA team.

[cordobes]

lol, I love the examples.  Chalmers is a point guard who would be fighting for minutes behind Rondo, House, Pruitt and now Starbury.  Mbah-a-Moute and Brook Lopez play at the weakest spots on our depth chart, of course Doc would give them a look - by contrast, our guard spots are loaded.  Ramon Sessions is already a very good rotational player in this league.  Derrick Rose had people singing "Future HOFer" when he was drafted.  The fact that any of them would get minutes here does nothing to support the argument that Chalmers, a 2nd rounder who is thought to have already reached his fairly limited potential, would as well. 

Danny probably saw Chalmers as redundant to this roster with the presence of Pruitt.  There's no need for two young projects at the same position - one of them doesn't earn consistent minutes as it is. 

All I wanted to know was if there were rookies who would get minutes here - I picked LRMAM and Sessions because they were playing us, Rose and Lopez because they've been very productive.

Sessions and LRMAM are 2nd rounders too; why do you think Sessions would get minutes as an already very good rotational player in this league but Chalmers wouldn't? Isn't Chalmers already a very good rotational player in this league? In fact, I think it would be easier for Chalmers to get minutes in Boston: his skill-set, with the defence and the shooting, are a better fit than Sessions'.

[crownsy]

but to act like "oh man, we missed a gem" and then not admit that if we had drafted him he'd never be seen as a good pick because he'd be buried just as deep as JR is cherry picking to try to support an argument that has no basis for comparison on one side.

But who's acting like that? The OP only asked who would you take, fans do this all the time with players from the same draft class - before the draft, after the Summer League, in the 1st season, 10 seasons later, after the entire class is retired, etc.

I mean, imagine you are Ainge and Riley calls saying "hey Danny, you know what, I just hired Steve Alford for our coaching staff and he insists JR is the real deal. Do you accept Mario for him?". What would you say?

Now, the minutes he'd get here it's arguable and maybe all these would be NBA talent scouts that are sure Chalmers wouldn't get any minutes here are right, but I personally believe he's already shown he's good enough to earn minutes in every single NBA team.

but he got to show that because he had no depth in front of him correct?

Do you disagree that with rondo and eddie (remeber, Doc trusts eddie to a fault) in front of him he'd struggle just as much as any other 2nd round pick to show the talent he has?

I mean, case and point bill walker. He is in a spot that we have questionable depth at behind paul (Ta and scal, who i like more as a PF anyway) and needed two injuries and the star player calling the coach out in the media to see the floor from doc, who was perfectly happy killing paul and ray rather than give a kid a chance, and now he's proving a solid, if green, 10 minute a game player.

Again, i agree with you, and wanted mario that night because i thought he would be a better backup to rondo than house, but it's just not realistic to think that beating out chris quinn was all based on some sort of super talent he showed that the heat couldn't deny. He has preformed well for the heat, that doesn't change the fact that I don't think we have enough information to make this call.

[Chris]

Since I am not a huge Chalmers fan, and don't think he would be seeing any more minutes than Pruitt, and is simply the beneficiary of playing on a team with no other options, I think I will wait a couple years before making a decision on this. 

[crownsy]

lol, I love the examples.  Chalmers is a point guard who would be fighting for minutes behind Rondo, House, Pruitt and now Starbury.  Mbah-a-Moute and Brook Lopez play at the weakest spots on our depth chart, of course Doc would give them a look - by contrast, our guard spots are loaded.  Ramon Sessions is already a very good rotational player in this league.  Derrick Rose had people singing "Future HOFer" when he was drafted.  The fact that any of them would get minutes here does nothing to support the argument that Chalmers, a 2nd rounder who is thought to have already reached his fairly limited potential, would as well. 

Danny probably saw Chalmers as redundant to this roster with the presence of Pruitt.  There's no need for two young projects at the same position - one of them doesn't earn consistent minutes as it is. 

All I wanted to know was if there were rookies who would get minutes here - I picked LRMAM and Sessions because they were playing us, Rose and Lopez because they've been very productive.

Sessions and LRMAM are 2nd rounders too; why do you think Sessions would get minutes as an already very good rotational player in this league but Chalmers wouldn't? Isn't Chalmers already a very good rotational player in this league? In fact, I think it would be easier for Chalmers to get minutes in Boston: his skill-set, with the defence and the shooting, are a better fit than Sessions'.

his point was, again, what we were responding to when you started posting (which was a diffrent post than the OP) that those teams also had little to no depth. Getting to show your stuff as a rookie is as much a product of luck as skill when your a 2nd rounder.

and i don't think it would be easier for chalmers to get minutes here, he has a R next to his name in the program guide, and doc clearly trust eddie, and doesn't like rushing rookies (one of the only things i don't like about his coaching style, he'd rather kill a vet than give a rookie rotation minutes unless he is forced to by injuries/ depth. I don't want rookies starting or getting key minutes, but thier are times when doc could be getting certain guys in more, and be ready with a quick hook.)

[cordobes]

but to act like "oh man, we missed a gem" and then not admit that if we had drafted him he'd never be seen as a good pick because he'd be buried just as deep as JR is cherry picking to try to support an argument that has no basis for comparison on one side.

But who's acting like that? The OP only asked who would you take, fans do this all the time with players from the same draft class - before the draft, after the Summer League, in the 1st season, 10 seasons later, after the entire class is retired, etc.

I mean, imagine you are Ainge and Riley calls saying "hey Danny, you know what, I just hired Steve Alford for our coaching staff and he insists JR is the real deal. Do you accept Mario for him?". What would you say?

Now, the minutes he'd get here it's arguable and maybe all these would be NBA talent scouts that are sure Chalmers wouldn't get any minutes here are right, but I personally believe he's already shown he's good enough to earn minutes in every single NBA team.

but he got to show that because he had no depth in front of him correct?

Do you disagree that with rondo and eddie (remeber, Doc trusts eddie to a fault) in front of him he'd struggle just as much as any other 2nd round pick to show the talent he has?

I mean, case and point bill walker. He is in a spot that we have questionable depth at behind paul (Ta and scal, who i like more as a PF anyway) and needed two injuries and the star player calling the coach out in the media to see the floor from doc, who was perfectly happy killing paul and ray rather than give a kid a chance, and now he's proving a solid, if green, 10 minute a game player.

Again, i agree with you, and wanted mario that night because i thought he would be a better backup to rondo than house, but it's just not realistic to think that beating out chris quinn was all based on some sort of super talent he showed that the heat couldn't deny. He has preformed well for the heat, that doesn't change the fact that I don't think we have enough information to make this call.

But who's saying he showed some sort of super talent? You're refuting an argument nobody made. I said he reminded me of Gerald Henderson; do you think of Henderson as super-talented? Of course the Heat situation helped him: but that's why he's the starter there. I'm just arguing he'd be a rotational player here, not that he'd play 30 minutes every night.

I think Doc would eventually start rotate in the 2nd unit a backcourt of Chalmers/House/Allen and that Chalmers would eventually beat House as the primary backup guard.

I mean, what's so odd about this? I remember tons of trade ideas threads where people were suggesting that, to face an alleged need for a backup PG, we should trade for guys like Lue, Dooling, etc or sign Pargo. Chalmers is better than those guys already, and he'd be a good fit in our team, considering the kind of wings we have, so why wouldn't he play?