CelticsStrong

Celtics Basketball => Celtics Talk => Topic started by: Global Celtic on January 08, 2013, 10:02:14 AM

Title: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: Global Celtic on January 08, 2013, 10:02:14 AM
Gambles too much on D, coasts at 50% of the regular season, 'style over substance' on offense, not the consistent leader every championship-caliber team needs.
Without him everything is more simple, fluid and effective. In one word: better.
I think a future trade should always involve Rondo, not Sullinger or Bradley.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: bfrombleacher on January 08, 2013, 10:04:41 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyhx0i27-Cc

.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: rondohondo on January 08, 2013, 10:09:08 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndyfsS0bFK8

 ;)
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: CelticG1 on January 08, 2013, 10:09:37 AM
Come one game. Everyone played their butt off and contributed big time. Pierce was a beast. You can't expect that every night without Rondo. So when the C's win this game or the Hawks.game 2 last year it just shows how ballsy this team is. We can still win without Rondo but in the long run we really need him.

Btw did you see Rondo against the Hawks on Saturday?
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: Edgar on January 08, 2013, 10:10:21 AM
yay.....
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: Fafnir on January 08, 2013, 10:11:02 AM
We definitely need Rondo, Pierce/KG can't carry the offense like they did last night every game anymore.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: lightspeed5 on January 08, 2013, 10:11:44 AM
ask lebron who is the only player who can outsmart him.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: BleedGreen1989 on January 08, 2013, 10:15:18 AM
Wooow OP I'm excited about last night too but slow down with that idea lol
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: mr. dee on January 08, 2013, 10:18:05 AM
I guess Bulls doesn't need Rose since they are doing fine...


http://stickerish.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/****WhiteSS.png
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: Edgar on January 08, 2013, 10:18:45 AM
when is next game?
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: Moranis on January 08, 2013, 10:19:47 AM
I created THIS THREAD (http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=55509.0) last year saying we should trade Rondo because of his immaturity and emotion.  He is far too immature and emotional to be the leader of a title contender.  When the emotion is on and works, he is a superstar, but when the emotion is off he plays poorly, doesn't hustle, is very inconsistent, and finds himself often making stupid decisions (getting T'd up, and sometimes ejected or suspended).  In addition, Rondo also would net the greatest return given his ability, production, and contract.  Thus I'm all for trading Rondo, I just wouldn't move him just to move him, but if Boston could get back good value, I would be all for it.

Something like this 3 team trade would be good for me.

Boston gets Cousins, Robinson, Brooks
Sacramento gets Rondo, Gay, Melo
Memphis gets Evans, Salmons, Bass
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: pearljammer10 on January 08, 2013, 10:30:27 AM
I was wondering how long it would take for a silly thread like this to come up.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: slamtheking on January 08, 2013, 10:31:53 AM
we're much better with Rondo than without.  don't let 1 game fool you. 
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: crownsy on January 08, 2013, 10:37:09 AM
I created THIS THREAD (http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=55509.0) last year saying we should trade Rondo because of his immaturity and emotion.  He is far too immature and emotional to be the leader of a title contender.  When the emotion is on and works, he is a superstar, but when the emotion is off he plays poorly, doesn't hustle, is very inconsistent, and finds himself often making stupid decisions (getting T'd up, and sometimes ejected or suspended).  In addition, Rondo also would net the greatest return given his ability, production, and contract.  Thus I'm all for trading Rondo, I just wouldn't move him just to move him, but if Boston could get back good value, I would be all for it.

Something like this 3 team trade would be good for me.

Boston gets Cousins, Robinson, Brooks
Sacramento gets Rondo, Gay, Melo
Memphis gets Evans, Salmons, Bass

So you want to trade a precieved locker room head case for cousins, a guy who is always one step away from an arrest warrent and such a locker room disaster that Sacramento is willing to deal him to get rid of the headache?

This is what i don't get, everyone wants to talk about how cousins makes you good for the next 10 years, and his issues are a non-factor, but if thats so, how come Sacramento can't run away from him fast enough?


Never mind that cousin's stupid off the court and locker room antics are so bad that it can't all be kept quite in SACRAMENTO for gods sake, you think the constant media pressure here is going to help with his crazy behind?
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: BleedGreen1989 on January 08, 2013, 10:38:12 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndyfsS0bFK8

 ;)

I still can't believe we lost that game.. :(
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: Tr1boy on January 08, 2013, 10:38:34 AM
I don't want to trade rondo but as of yesterday , I want lee and Bradley playing the last 10 min of the 4th quarter.  Rondo d is not as good and offensively teams back away from him preventing the drive , daring him to shoot. Makes life harder for kg and pp. But with lee and ab, other teams have to respect their shots. If sac offered cousins for rondo, I would think long and hard about it
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: CFAN38 on January 08, 2013, 10:45:04 AM
The celtics need Rondo. However they also need games without rondo to develop chemistry with the bench and confidence with for the other guards.

I hope games like this show Doc that he can take Rondo off the court and trust his bench.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: mctyson on January 08, 2013, 10:47:11 AM
And I don't need alcohol, but it makes me better.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: Yoki_IsTheName on January 08, 2013, 10:48:31 AM
Yay.

Another one of this threads about Rondo. He's our best player like it or not, he run's our offense to perfection and KG and Pierce won't be able to do it on a consistent basis.

God, I really do wish he gets traded NOW. I said this before and I say it again, I want him out of Boston because people don't appreciate him and/or what he does. It's so unfair.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: Change on January 08, 2013, 10:48:58 AM
Is it a fair assessment to call Rondo lazy? For one he  slacks off on his individual defense hurting the team defense, he walks the ball up a lot, and he stands on top of the key pounding the ball. Him being immature brat is something the team to figure out. On the court he needs to pickup the intensity and lead by example.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: AshyLarry on January 08, 2013, 10:49:31 AM
The truth is, we utterly and completely need Rondo to win it all. His head just needs to be in sync.
Title: This Cs team playing better without Rondo
Post by: eugen on January 08, 2013, 10:50:38 AM
Cs playing better without Rondo? This is my impression after last game yesterday in MSG Vs NYK. I saw Cs playing much faster, maximum determination, better sharing ball, less turnovers, and more teamwork job done. Mostly of the time Rondo slows down the offensive actions. Cs team plays faster without Rondo, and AB and Sullinger are more aggressive without Rondo on the floor.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: BudweiserCeltic on January 08, 2013, 10:50:51 AM
Is it a fair assessment to call Rondo lazy? For one he doesn't give slacks off on his individual defense hurting the team defense, he walks the ball up a lot, and he stands on top of the key pounding the ball. Him being immature brat is something the team to figure out. On the court he needs to pickup the intensity and lead by example.

Rondo is a weird player through and through... he's lazy during one stretch, then he's the hardest worker on the floor through the next stretch. And not only in defense, you can tell what Rondo shows up by the way he's passing the ball from the get go.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: Edgar on January 08, 2013, 10:52:44 AM
if i realize something yesterday is that Lee can pass the ball, and that overall Celtics are a good passing team, with Rondo and his head in the right place we are not only good but awesome.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: alajet on January 08, 2013, 10:55:53 AM
I created THIS THREAD (http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=55509.0) last year saying we should trade Rondo because of his immaturity and emotion.  He is far too immature and emotional to be the leader of a title contender.  When the emotion is on and works, he is a superstar, but when the emotion is off he plays poorly, doesn't hustle, is very inconsistent, and finds himself often making stupid decisions (getting T'd up, and sometimes ejected or suspended).  In addition, Rondo also would net the greatest return given his ability, production, and contract.  Thus I'm all for trading Rondo, I just wouldn't move him just to move him, but if Boston could get back good value, I would be all for it.

Something like this 3 team trade would be good for me.

Boston gets Cousins, Robinson, Brooks
Sacramento gets Rondo, Gay, Melo
Memphis gets Evans, Salmons, Bass

I'm all fired up to replace Rondo with Brooks as starting PG!
..
No.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: Change on January 08, 2013, 10:59:14 AM
Is it a fair assessment to call Rondo lazy? For one he doesn't give slacks off on his individual defense hurting the team defense, he walks the ball up a lot, and he stands on top of the key pounding the ball. Him being immature brat is something the team to figure out. On the court he needs to pickup the intensity and lead by example.

Rondo is a weird player through and through... he's lazy during one stretch, then he's the hardest worker on the floor through the next stretch. And not only in defense, you can tell what Rondo shows up by the way he's passing the ball from the get go.

Rondo passing is double edged sword. At times, that is all he thinks about selfishly takes himself out as a scorer. Time and time again you see him passing up wide open layup so he can pad his assist stats. 
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: Chris on January 08, 2013, 11:01:03 AM
We don't NEED anyone.  But Rondo is still an elite basketball player, and to win a championship, we need another elite player.  That player could be Rondo, or it could be someone Rondo is traded for.  But we can't win a championship with the team that was on the floor last night. 

Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: BudweiserCeltic on January 08, 2013, 11:01:29 AM
Is it a fair assessment to call Rondo lazy? For one he doesn't give slacks off on his individual defense hurting the team defense, he walks the ball up a lot, and he stands on top of the key pounding the ball. Him being immature brat is something the team to figure out. On the court he needs to pickup the intensity and lead by example.

Rondo is a weird player through and through... he's lazy during one stretch, then he's the hardest worker on the floor through the next stretch. And not only in defense, you can tell what Rondo shows up by the way he's passing the ball from the get go.

Rondo passing is double edged sword. At times, that is all he selfishly thinks totally taking himself out as a scorer. Time and time again you see him passing up wide open layup so he can pad his assist stats.

That's not what I meant. You can tell which Rondo shows up by the way he's passing in that you can see if he's passing lazily, doing those one handed/disinterested soft passes, or the ill-advised floating ones. You can usually tell from early on.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: Celtics18 on January 08, 2013, 11:04:36 AM
Of course we need Rondo.  He's our best player and a top ten player in the league.  Not only 
that, but he plays his best basketball in the playoffs. 

We are so lucky we have Rondo. 
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: BudweiserCeltic on January 08, 2013, 11:12:23 AM
The truth is... we don't need Rondo to play 40 minutes a game. That's the lesson to be learned.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: Fafnir on January 08, 2013, 11:15:19 AM
The truth is... we don't need Rondo to play 40 minutes a game. That's the lesson to be learned.
Definitely, he's better when he doesn't have to play massive minutes.

Hopefully Bradley will allow Doc to avoid running him into the ground, though usually its our offensive breakdowns that make Doc put Rondo back in.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: RJ87 on January 08, 2013, 11:22:34 AM
Come playoff time, there's no other I want more on this team than Rondo. "He coasts 50% ofthe regular season." Yeah, that's called pacing himself. See: Derrick Rose. When you're a small guy whose game relies on getting into the paint, your body's going to take a beating.  So he takes it easy sometimes in the regular season. I don't remotely care.

People seem to be griping that he isn't wearing himself out chasing regular season MVP trophies,  I think he'd much rather have a Finals MVP trophy and he knows he has to be healthy to do that.

Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: jbaerg on January 08, 2013, 11:25:47 AM
Keep Rondo, keep this whole team, just move the friggen ball more like last night. You want to have all the members of a team with balanced stats. Scoring, Assists, rebounds. Every team member has to do everything.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: theswitch on January 08, 2013, 11:27:52 AM
The truth is... we don't need Rondo to play 40 minutes a game. That's the lesson to be learned.
Definitely, he's better when he doesn't have to play massive minutes.

Hopefully Bradley will allow Doc to avoid running him into the ground, though usually its our offensive breakdowns that make Doc put Rondo back in.

Exactly. I don't want to see Rondo out there for more than 34 minutes a game, unless he has a hot hand. Let him go all out. Give Bradley 25 minutes and fill out the remaining guard minutes with Terry, Lee and Barbosa (combined 37). Maybe 50/50 between Lee and Terry, but I'd like to see some Barbosa too - he's been terrific lately. Maybe Rondo (34), Bradley (25), Lee (18), Terry (12), Barbosa (7)? That might be too low for Terry. Too many parts that deserve playing time so I'd like to see everyone giving maximum effort for a smaller amount of minutes.

I'd consider giving Lee minutes in a small 3 role but that squeezes Jeff to the 4 for minutes and that's unfortunate. Ideally we can trade Terry for a backup big, but we will see. I'd really like to keep Barbosa for his scoring at his salary and 1-year commitment.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: SHAQATTACK on January 08, 2013, 11:33:45 AM
We only need him when he his mind is on the ball game and not off in lala land somewhere. 

His play is either terrible or incredible.  Not many games inbetween.   

He needs to stop walking the ball, killing the offense pressure, get the ball in play, don't stand there dribbling for 15 seconds. 

The Celtics ball movement was 1000X better WITHOUT RONDO in lasts nights game...turnovers were down ....

Frankly the Celtics looked better last night without him.

Mainly becasue Rondos lact of energy on defense and inabilitiy focus destroys the team many times.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: igorsure on January 08, 2013, 11:37:20 AM
We don't need what? After one regular season game? It is just ridicules. I wonder if those "we-don't-need-rondo" people ever see celtics playoffs last few seasons.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: TheBig5 on January 08, 2013, 11:40:55 AM
We don't really NEED regular season Rondo, but playoff Rondo is needed.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: Change on January 08, 2013, 11:41:20 AM
Come playoff time, there's no other I want more on this team than Rondo. "He coasts 50% ofthe regular season." Yeah, that's called pacing himself. See: Derrick Rose. When you're a small guy whose game relies on getting into the paint, your body's going to take a beating.  So he takes it easy sometimes in the regular season. I don't remotely care.

People seem to be griping that he isn't wearing himself out chasing regular season MVP trophies,  I think he'd much rather have a Finals MVP trophy and he knows he has to be healthy to do that.

Bad comparison. Rose is a first option scoring pointguard who plays above the rim. A better comparison is Chris Paul. CP3 paces himself and is still super effective.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: Roy H. on January 08, 2013, 11:48:30 AM
Unless we're trading him for a good point guard *and* a good big man, there's no sense in getting rid of him.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: Boston Garden Leprechaun on January 08, 2013, 11:55:45 AM
We only need him when he his mind is on the ball game and not off in lala land somewhere. 

His play is either terrible or incredible.  Not many games inbetween.   

He needs to stop walking the ball, killing the offense pressure, get the ball in play, don't stand there dribbling for 15 seconds. 

The Celtics ball movement was 1000X better WITHOUT RONDO in lasts nights game...turnovers were down ....

Frankly the Celtics looked better last night without him.

Mainly becasue Rondos lact of energy on defense and inabilitiy focus destroys the team many times.

I've said that many times. we move the rock better without RONDO.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: BudweiserCeltic on January 08, 2013, 12:05:00 PM
Unless we're trading him for a good point guard *and* a good big man, there's no sense in getting rid of him.

Agreed, I'm very curious of what we can get for him on the market myself. I wouldn't shop him, but he should have good value out there worth exploring in my opinion.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: Juneauz on January 08, 2013, 12:07:48 PM
Rondo is the heart and soul of this team.
People are going crazy about AB for a 2 weeks stretch last year, and as much as I love the kid, he hasn't done 1% of what Rondo accomplished for this franchise. Stellar playoff performances, giving his body away for the team through injuries, always standing up for his teammates...I can't believe there's people so ungrateful out there
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: anthony83 on January 08, 2013, 12:10:01 PM
 Spectaculo by Pierce in the Madison, The Truth is impressive, great great great, he dit it again vs Knicks and vs Spike Lee, Pierce is more important than Rondo in the Cīs.

 (http://www.cooperativa.cl/noticias/site/artic/20130108/imag/foto_0000000120130108085949.jpg)
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: sdceltsfan on January 08, 2013, 12:10:23 PM
I created THIS THREAD (http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=55509.0) last year saying we should trade Rondo because of his immaturity and emotion.  He is far too immature and emotional to be the leader of a title contender.  When the emotion is on and works, he is a superstar, but when the emotion is off he plays poorly, doesn't hustle, is very inconsistent, and finds himself often making stupid decisions (getting T'd up, and sometimes ejected or suspended).  In addition, Rondo also would net the greatest return given his ability, production, and contract.  Thus I'm all for trading Rondo, I just wouldn't move him just to move him, but if Boston could get back good value, I would be all for it.

Something like this 3 team trade would be good for me.

Boston gets Cousins, Robinson, Brooks
Sacramento gets Rondo, Gay, Melo
Memphis gets Evans, Salmons, Bass


So your dementia has clearly gotten worse since this time last year, I see. Because now, you're not only bantering to trade our best player (a top 3-5 PG in the game), but you're concocting deals where Sacramento (the "sellers market" team) is somehow trading Cousins/Evans (at their lowest values) and getting back not just Rondo, but also Rudy Gay???

Take your meds and switch back to CSI reruns, instead of wasting your time "analyzing" NBA games.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: biggs on January 08, 2013, 12:21:54 PM
Come playoff time, there's no other I want more on this team than Rondo. "He coasts 50% ofthe regular season." Yeah, that's called pacing himself. See: Derrick Rose. When you're a small guy whose game relies on getting into the paint, your body's going to take a beating.  So he takes it easy sometimes in the regular season. I don't remotely care.

People seem to be griping that he isn't wearing himself out chasing regular season MVP trophies,  I think he'd much rather have a Finals MVP trophy and he knows he has to be healthy to do that.

Really? The same Derrick Rose that got injured because of his Gerald Wallace "crash" style of play is saving himself for the playoffs? Pretty sure the injury from risky play limits him, not his work ethic & coaching.  Look, I agree Rondo is brilliant in the playoffs, and last year may have been the best player in the playoffs, but that doesn't excuse his turning it on/off & bad decision making during the regular season. 

If he is "saving" himself for the playoffs, why does he get triple doubles in almost every regular season game that's nationally televised only to go flat the following night against the bucks or some other "unimportant" team?

I love Rondo, but his attitude really irks me sometimes.  Are you telling me that if Memphis came calling offering Rudy Gay & Mike Connolly for him you wouldn't at least kick the tires? Guess you would hang up the phone.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: RJ87 on January 08, 2013, 12:43:18 PM
Come playoff time, there's no other I want more on this team than Rondo. "He coasts 50% ofthe regular season." Yeah, that's called pacing himself. See: Derrick Rose. When you're a small guy whose game relies on getting into the paint, your body's going to take a beating.  So he takes it easy sometimes in the regular season. I don't remotely care.

People seem to be griping that he isn't wearing himself out chasing regular season MVP trophies,  I think he'd much rather have a Finals MVP trophy and he knows he has to be healthy to do that.

Really? The same Derrick Rose that got injured because of his Gerald Wallace "crash" style of play is saving himself for the playoffs? Pretty sure the injury from risky play limits him, not his work ethic & coaching.  Look, I agree Rondo is brilliant in the playoffs, and last year may have been the best player in the playoffs, but that doesn't excuse his turning it on/off & bad decision making during the regular season. 

If he is "saving" himself for the playoffs, why does he get triple doubles in almost every regular season game that's nationally televised only to go flat the following night against the bucks or some other "unimportant" team?

I love Rondo, but his attitude really irks me sometimes.  Are you telling me that if Memphis came calling offering Rudy Gay & Mike Connolly for him you wouldn't at least kick the tires? Guess you would hang up the phone.

I've never heard complaints about his work ethic - considering he's improved his game every year he's been in the league,  his work ethic seems to be fine. 

And that whole "Rondo only brings it for nationally televised games" is overblown.  A lot of those nationally televised triple doubles are playoff games. Since some people only seem capable of remembering whats happened this past week, Rondo did just get a triple double against the Hawks in a game that wasn't nationally televised.  He also played very well against the Pacers in a game that wasn't nationally televised.

Does he get a little more into it for some games than others? Yeah. Is he the only one to do it? Not even close. I'm pretty sure we'd all love to have the Jeff Green that we've seen against OKC. Pierce seems to play at his best when we play the Knicks.  Even KG brings extra "oomph" against the TWolves. People just like to nitpick Rondo.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: RyNye on January 08, 2013, 01:05:14 PM
Rondo's inconsistency as a whole is completely overblown. People have the most selective memories.

Seriously, I challenge someone to find any evidence that Rondo is any more inconsistent than any other star player. Even Durant and Lebron have bad games.

Look at Melo last night! He sucked. He scored 20 points, but not efficiently. Rondo, at least, has the sense to know when he is cold and doesn't just jack up shots for the sake of it.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: LarBrd33 on January 08, 2013, 01:06:43 PM
There does seem to be a trend of us winning when Rondo sits.  But Rondo is still a great player.  One of the 5 best point guards in the league for sure.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: Chris on January 08, 2013, 01:09:31 PM
There does seem to be a trend of us winning when Rondo sits.  But Rondo is still a great player.  One of the 5 best point guards in the league for sure.

I think there is a trend for teams in general to win a game or two when a their star player is out.  Guys who might sit back a bit when the star is in there, tend to lift up their game to another level on the short-term, to help their team win.

But generally, these things are short-term effects.  Once it goes more than a handful of games, then the lesser players regress to the norm, and everything evens out. 
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: Celtics18 on January 08, 2013, 01:19:05 PM
There does seem to be a trend of us winning when Rondo sits.  But Rondo is still a great player.  One of the 5 best point guards in the league for sure.

For sure.  Top two falls under the category of "top five."

Kevin Durant is a top five small forward in the league for sure.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: Moranis on January 08, 2013, 01:23:51 PM
I created THIS THREAD (http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=55509.0) last year saying we should trade Rondo because of his immaturity and emotion.  He is far too immature and emotional to be the leader of a title contender.  When the emotion is on and works, he is a superstar, but when the emotion is off he plays poorly, doesn't hustle, is very inconsistent, and finds himself often making stupid decisions (getting T'd up, and sometimes ejected or suspended).  In addition, Rondo also would net the greatest return given his ability, production, and contract.  Thus I'm all for trading Rondo, I just wouldn't move him just to move him, but if Boston could get back good value, I would be all for it.

Something like this 3 team trade would be good for me.

Boston gets Cousins, Robinson, Brooks
Sacramento gets Rondo, Gay, Melo
Memphis gets Evans, Salmons, Bass


So your dementia has clearly gotten worse since this time last year, I see. Because now, you're not only bantering to trade our best player (a top 3-5 PG in the game), but you're concocting deals where Sacramento (the "sellers market" team) is somehow trading Cousins/Evans (at their lowest values) and getting back not just Rondo, but also Rudy Gay???

Take your meds and switch back to CSI reruns, instead of wasting your time "analyzing" NBA games.
You mean the same Rudy Gay that might get moved to Phoenix for Jared Dudley and a couple of firsts.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: 2short on January 08, 2013, 01:32:09 PM
i'm still trying to figure out if this thread is a joke

who is it that first came up with the rondo is responsible for global warming line?

did anyone post:
the truth is....we don't need garnett when brian scalabrine was starting in his place and we were winning?  ::)
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: RJ87 on January 08, 2013, 01:34:38 PM
i'm still trying to figure out if this thread is a joke

who is it that first came up with the rondo is responsible for global warming line?

did anyone post:
the truth is....we don't need garnett when brian scalabrine was starting in his place and we were winning?  ::)

Check my signature
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: Kane3387 on January 08, 2013, 01:36:46 PM
Where is BBallTim when you need him?
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: KGs Knee on January 08, 2013, 01:37:20 PM
Threads like these are always good for a hearty laugh.

Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: nickagneta on January 08, 2013, 01:37:20 PM
Anyone can be traded and have the team be improved, so long as you get proper talent and needs back. Thinking otherwise is naive and ridiculous.

Thinking Rondo has to be traded because removing him from the team benefits the team and using last night's game as proof is equally naive and ridiculous.

When Bradley was gone for a long period of time and our perimeter defense was so bad it made the entire team defense bad.

When KG was hurt and gone for a long period of time three years ago we went from title contender to middle of the pack afterthought.

Lose Rondo for a long period of time without proper replacement and this team will not look like it did last night for that extended period of time. We will be a much worse overall team. Mark my word on that.

So if Rondo is going you better be bringing in a Kyle Lowry, Jeff Teague, Ty Lawson, Goran Dragic or other such very competent PG and a very good big man as well as replacement to make this team as good or better than they currently are.

Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: Kane3387 on January 08, 2013, 01:37:44 PM
Unless we're trading him for a good point guard *and* a good big man, there's no sense in getting rid of him.

Dragic, Gortat, and picks for Rondo and Lee?
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: BudweiserCeltic on January 08, 2013, 01:39:44 PM
i'm still trying to figure out if this thread is a joke

who is it that first came up with the rondo is responsible for global warming line?

did anyone post:
the truth is....we don't need garnett when brian scalabrine was starting in his place and we were winning?  ::)

I actually liked Scal when Perk was injured.

Loved Scal as a PF for us, Doc rarely used him at that capacity for some reason. It always was center or SF (where he sucked).
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: kozlodoev on January 08, 2013, 01:40:22 PM
So if Rondo is going you better be bringing in a Kyle Lowry, Jeff Teague, Ty Lawson, Goran Dragic or other such very competent PG and a very good big man as well as replacement to make this team as good or better than they currently are.
I don't think anyone is sugesting giving away Rondo for spare parts. But one has to think whether the presence of Lee and the emergence of Bradley would make him expendable.

Truth is, Rondo is the only piece that could bring in a high-caliber big man - except I can't think of anyone who can be available that I'd like in such a trade, so I guess it's safe to shelf the idea.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: CelticsFanNC on January 08, 2013, 01:43:40 PM
     Coming to the conclusion that this team is either as good or better without Rondo goes against everything the teams front office, coaching staff and his teammates have said in recent seasons.  It goes against everything every NBA analysts has said in recent seasons.  It goes against everything opposing coaches, players and front offices have said as well.
 
  People have the right to have that opinion but that doesn't make that opinion any less uninformed or wrong.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: kozlodoev on January 08, 2013, 01:45:02 PM
Unless we're trading him for a good point guard *and* a good big man, there's no sense in getting rid of him.

Dragic, Gortat, and picks for Rondo and Lee?
I was thinking more along the lines of Rondo for Lowry and Ed Davis.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: snively on January 08, 2013, 01:48:54 PM
I don't want to trade rondo but as of yesterday , I want lee and Bradley playing the last 10 min of the 4th quarter.

That tandem would be as vulnerable to a press as they are good at applying one.  The Celtics went up against up a geriatric J-Kidd, a slow Prigioni and a relaxed, offensive-minded JR Smith Knick backcourt.  They were incapable of punishing us for our lack of ball-handling and also very vulnerable to a press themselves (no quickness in Kidd or Prigioni, mediocre handles for JR).

And yet we were still exceptionally vulnerable to basic turnovers in the end game because Terry and Pierce were our best ball-handlers.  Lee and Bradley are even less capable as ball-handlers.

You want Rondo's elite ball-handling in the end game.  And it's not like he's a defensive slouch, either.  Very effective in tandem with Bradley or Lee in a pressing D.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: Snakehead on January 08, 2013, 01:56:37 PM
Threads like this...

How soon we forget the playoffs.  Do we remember who carries us there every year?  Who took on LeBron and Wade and won but what ultimately robbed?
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: kozlodoev on January 08, 2013, 02:00:46 PM
Who took on LeBron and Wade and won but what ultimately robbed?
Oh, please.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: Snakehead on January 08, 2013, 02:04:51 PM
Who took on LeBron and Wade and won but what ultimately robbed?
Oh, please.

Please... ?

He was raked across the face by Wade, it wasn't called, and it turned the whole game.  Rondo was absolutely carrying.

Do you doubt his playoff performances?  "Oh please" to you.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: kozlodoev on January 08, 2013, 02:07:41 PM
Who took on LeBron and Wade and won but what ultimately robbed?
Oh, please.

Please... ?

He was raked across the face and it turned the whole game.  Rondo was absolutely carrying.
I'm tired of hearing of how someone was "robbed". We lost. Man up and play better next time.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: Snakehead on January 08, 2013, 02:18:07 PM
Who took on LeBron and Wade and won but what ultimately robbed?
Oh, please.

Please... ?

He was raked across the face and it turned the whole game.  Rondo was absolutely carrying.
I'm tired of hearing of how someone was "robbed". We lost. Man up and play better next time.

It was clear as day but it's irrelevant to the point of the thread.

The point is come playoff time there is no player as good as Rondo save LeBron James.  To say we don't need him is foolish.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: Celtics18 on January 08, 2013, 02:43:12 PM
Who took on LeBron and Wade and won but what ultimately robbed?
Oh, please.

Please... ?

He was raked across the face and it turned the whole game.  Rondo was absolutely carrying.
I'm tired of hearing of how someone was "robbed". We lost. Man up and play better next time.

It was clear as day but it's irrelevant to the point of the thread.

The point is come playoff time there is no player as good as Rondo save LeBron James.  To say we don't need him is foolish.

I am continually flabbergasted by the degree to which Rondo's consistent excellence in the playoffs is ignored by his detractors.

It's all about what kind of numbers you can put up during the 82 game preseason.  Nobody cares what you do when the games actually matter.  It's bizarre.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: Jeff on January 08, 2013, 02:49:45 PM
but, ...I need Rondo!
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: Celtics18 on January 08, 2013, 02:52:02 PM
but, ...I need Rondo!

Me too. 
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: OsirusCeltics on January 08, 2013, 02:55:56 PM
I created THIS THREAD (http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=55509.0) last year saying we should trade Rondo because of his immaturity and emotion.  He is far too immature and emotional to be the leader of a title contender.  When the emotion is on and works, he is a superstar, but when the emotion is off he plays poorly, doesn't hustle, is very inconsistent, and finds himself often making stupid decisions (getting T'd up, and sometimes ejected or suspended).  In addition, Rondo also would net the greatest return given his ability, production, and contract.  Thus I'm all for trading Rondo, I just wouldn't move him just to move him, but if Boston could get back good value, I would be all for it.

Something like this 3 team trade would be good for me.

Boston gets Cousins, Robinson, Brooks
Sacramento gets Rondo, Gay, Melo
Memphis gets Evans, Salmons, Bass

So you want to trade a precieved locker room head case for cousins, a guy who is always one step away from an arrest warrent and such a locker room disaster that Sacramento is willing to deal him to get rid of the headache?

This is what i don't get, everyone wants to talk about how cousins makes you good for the next 10 years, and his issues are a non-factor, but if thats so, how come Sacramento can't run away from him fast enough?


Never mind that cousin's stupid off the court and locker room antics are so bad that it can't all be kept quite in SACRAMENTO for gods sake, you think the constant media pressure here is going to help with his crazy behind?

The thing with Cousins is that yes he's very emotional and tempermental, but he never lets that affect him on the court. Kinda like Charles Barkley. Everyone knows his attitude problem, but he would dominate on the court regardless of what tantrum he had 

Rondo, on the other hand lets his emotions spill on the court, and lets his moodiness make him not play into his potential. Sometimes daydreams like he wishes he was on vacation. Member when Perk got traded? Sulked and whined that his best friend was gone, and was wildly inconsistent and cost the Celtics alot of games
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: Edgar on January 08, 2013, 02:57:56 PM
I dont know if i NEED him as much as I needed Delonte West , but I realize I dont NEED any player to be in love and NEED the celtics, anyhow, I WANT rondo in this team, and I will be HAPPy if he stays long, Now talking about NEED i NEED some more Celtics basketball, if they play like the 4 games slump maybe i will not NEED anymore, but as long as they continue playing like last 3 games yes... i NEED more.
Underneedstand!


Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: GrandTheftRondo on January 08, 2013, 03:04:52 PM
I knew this thread was coming...its really like clockwork. CB...so predictable.

The Lakers win without Kobe...its really about time for him to go.

The Heat have won without Wade and without Lebron....they should trade both or at least one of them. It only makes sense.

The Clippers have won without Chris Paul...he definitely needs to be traded. He's worthless.

The Bulls are actually doing pretty good without D. Rose...no sense in bringing him back.

The Knicks have no problem winning without Melo...time to ship him out of NY.

Please.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: Moranis on January 08, 2013, 03:05:16 PM
I created THIS THREAD (http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=55509.0) last year saying we should trade Rondo because of his immaturity and emotion.  He is far too immature and emotional to be the leader of a title contender.  When the emotion is on and works, he is a superstar, but when the emotion is off he plays poorly, doesn't hustle, is very inconsistent, and finds himself often making stupid decisions (getting T'd up, and sometimes ejected or suspended).  In addition, Rondo also would net the greatest return given his ability, production, and contract.  Thus I'm all for trading Rondo, I just wouldn't move him just to move him, but if Boston could get back good value, I would be all for it.

Something like this 3 team trade would be good for me.

Boston gets Cousins, Robinson, Brooks
Sacramento gets Rondo, Gay, Melo
Memphis gets Evans, Salmons, Bass

So you want to trade a precieved locker room head case for cousins, a guy who is always one step away from an arrest warrent and such a locker room disaster that Sacramento is willing to deal him to get rid of the headache?

This is what i don't get, everyone wants to talk about how cousins makes you good for the next 10 years, and his issues are a non-factor, but if thats so, how come Sacramento can't run away from him fast enough?


Never mind that cousin's stupid off the court and locker room antics are so bad that it can't all be kept quite in SACRAMENTO for gods sake, you think the constant media pressure here is going to help with his crazy behind?

The thing with Cousins is that yes he's very emotional and tempermental, but he never lets that affect him on the court. Kinda like Charles Barkley. Everyone knows his attitude problem, but he would dominate on the court regardless of what tantrum he had 

Rondo, on the other hand lets his emotions spill on the court, and lets his moodiness make him not play into his potential. Sometimes daydreams like he wishes he was on vacation. Member when Perk got traded? Sulked and whined that his best friend was gone, and was wildly inconsistent and cost the Celtics alot of games
yeah that is my take as well. 
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: Snakehead on January 08, 2013, 03:06:52 PM
I created THIS THREAD (http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=55509.0) last year saying we should trade Rondo because of his immaturity and emotion.  He is far too immature and emotional to be the leader of a title contender.  When the emotion is on and works, he is a superstar, but when the emotion is off he plays poorly, doesn't hustle, is very inconsistent, and finds himself often making stupid decisions (getting T'd up, and sometimes ejected or suspended).  In addition, Rondo also would net the greatest return given his ability, production, and contract.  Thus I'm all for trading Rondo, I just wouldn't move him just to move him, but if Boston could get back good value, I would be all for it.

Something like this 3 team trade would be good for me.

Boston gets Cousins, Robinson, Brooks
Sacramento gets Rondo, Gay, Melo
Memphis gets Evans, Salmons, Bass

So you want to trade a precieved locker room head case for cousins, a guy who is always one step away from an arrest warrent and such a locker room disaster that Sacramento is willing to deal him to get rid of the headache?

This is what i don't get, everyone wants to talk about how cousins makes you good for the next 10 years, and his issues are a non-factor, but if thats so, how come Sacramento can't run away from him fast enough?


Never mind that cousin's stupid off the court and locker room antics are so bad that it can't all be kept quite in SACRAMENTO for gods sake, you think the constant media pressure here is going to help with his crazy behind?

The thing with Cousins is that yes he's very emotional and tempermental, but he never lets that affect him on the court. Kinda like Charles Barkley. Everyone knows his attitude problem, but he would dominate on the court regardless of what tantrum he had 

Rondo, on the other hand lets his emotions spill on the court, and lets his moodiness make him not play into his potential. Sometimes daydreams like he wishes he was on vacation. Member when Perk got traded? Sulked and whined that his best friend was gone, and was wildly inconsistent and cost the Celtics alot of games

Or how about when Rondo gets so amped in the playoffs on the big stage?  When he gets angry about losing to Miami and suddenly becomes a scorer because he knows he needs to.  He puts up triple doubles and 44 point games.  The emotion swings both ways.  It isn't just negative.

Or how about Cousins trying to fight an announcer on the court?

Yeah.  I'd rather have my player get emotional on court ala KG and Rondo than be a F up off the court, ala countless examples that have ruined their careers.  Cousins does both things anyways.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: Fafnir on January 08, 2013, 03:07:34 PM
I created THIS THREAD (http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=55509.0) last year saying we should trade Rondo because of his immaturity and emotion.  He is far too immature and emotional to be the leader of a title contender.  When the emotion is on and works, he is a superstar, but when the emotion is off he plays poorly, doesn't hustle, is very inconsistent, and finds himself often making stupid decisions (getting T'd up, and sometimes ejected or suspended).  In addition, Rondo also would net the greatest return given his ability, production, and contract.  Thus I'm all for trading Rondo, I just wouldn't move him just to move him, but if Boston could get back good value, I would be all for it.

Something like this 3 team trade would be good for me.

Boston gets Cousins, Robinson, Brooks
Sacramento gets Rondo, Gay, Melo
Memphis gets Evans, Salmons, Bass

So you want to trade a precieved locker room head case for cousins, a guy who is always one step away from an arrest warrent and such a locker room disaster that Sacramento is willing to deal him to get rid of the headache?

This is what i don't get, everyone wants to talk about how cousins makes you good for the next 10 years, and his issues are a non-factor, but if thats so, how come Sacramento can't run away from him fast enough?


Never mind that cousin's stupid off the court and locker room antics are so bad that it can't all be kept quite in SACRAMENTO for gods sake, you think the constant media pressure here is going to help with his crazy behind?

The thing with Cousins is that yes he's very emotional and tempermental, but he never lets that affect him on the court. Kinda like Charles Barkley. Everyone knows his attitude problem, but he would dominate on the court regardless of what tantrum he had 
Huh?

Cousins lets his emotions get the better of him ALL THE TIME on the court.

Awful transition D, frustration fouls, stupid techs, frustration shots (when he's not getting touches), etc.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: RJ87 on January 08, 2013, 03:10:06 PM
I created THIS THREAD (http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=55509.0) last year saying we should trade Rondo because of his immaturity and emotion.  He is far too immature and emotional to be the leader of a title contender.  When the emotion is on and works, he is a superstar, but when the emotion is off he plays poorly, doesn't hustle, is very inconsistent, and finds himself often making stupid decisions (getting T'd up, and sometimes ejected or suspended).  In addition, Rondo also would net the greatest return given his ability, production, and contract.  Thus I'm all for trading Rondo, I just wouldn't move him just to move him, but if Boston could get back good value, I would be all for it.

Something like this 3 team trade would be good for me.

Boston gets Cousins, Robinson, Brooks
Sacramento gets Rondo, Gay, Melo
Memphis gets Evans, Salmons, Bass

So you want to trade a precieved locker room head case for cousins, a guy who is always one step away from an arrest warrent and such a locker room disaster that Sacramento is willing to deal him to get rid of the headache?

This is what i don't get, everyone wants to talk about how cousins makes you good for the next 10 years, and his issues are a non-factor, but if thats so, how come Sacramento can't run away from him fast enough?


Never mind that cousin's stupid off the court and locker room antics are so bad that it can't all be kept quite in SACRAMENTO for gods sake, you think the constant media pressure here is going to help with his crazy behind?

The thing with Cousins is that yes he's very emotional and tempermental, but he never lets that affect him on the court. Kinda like Charles Barkley. Everyone knows his attitude problem, but he would dominate on the court regardless of what tantrum he had 

Rondo, on the other hand lets his emotions spill on the court, and lets his moodiness make him not play into his potential. Sometimes daydreams like he wishes he was on vacation. Member when Perk got traded? Sulked and whined that his best friend was gone, and was wildly inconsistent and cost the Celtics alot of games

Demarcus Cousins never let his emotions effect him on the court? Really,  really not trying to be rude, but have you watched a lot of Kings games? Is this the same Demarcus that took a cheap shot at Oj mayo last month and earlier this season refused to come out of the lockerroom at halftime after ccursing out his coach?
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: Yoki_IsTheName on January 08, 2013, 03:15:58 PM
but, ...I need Rondo!

Me too.

COunt me in.

Who doesn't. Definite top 5 PG.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: OsirusCeltics on January 08, 2013, 03:33:12 PM
I created THIS THREAD (http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=55509.0) last year saying we should trade Rondo because of his immaturity and emotion.  He is far too immature and emotional to be the leader of a title contender.  When the emotion is on and works, he is a superstar, but when the emotion is off he plays poorly, doesn't hustle, is very inconsistent, and finds himself often making stupid decisions (getting T'd up, and sometimes ejected or suspended).  In addition, Rondo also would net the greatest return given his ability, production, and contract.  Thus I'm all for trading Rondo, I just wouldn't move him just to move him, but if Boston could get back good value, I would be all for it.

Something like this 3 team trade would be good for me.

Boston gets Cousins, Robinson, Brooks
Sacramento gets Rondo, Gay, Melo
Memphis gets Evans, Salmons, Bass

So you want to trade a precieved locker room head case for cousins, a guy who is always one step away from an arrest warrent and such a locker room disaster that Sacramento is willing to deal him to get rid of the headache?

This is what i don't get, everyone wants to talk about how cousins makes you good for the next 10 years, and his issues are a non-factor, but if thats so, how come Sacramento can't run away from him fast enough?


Never mind that cousin's stupid off the court and locker room antics are so bad that it can't all be kept quite in SACRAMENTO for gods sake, you think the constant media pressure here is going to help with his crazy behind?

The thing with Cousins is that yes he's very emotional and tempermental, but he never lets that affect him on the court. Kinda like Charles Barkley. Everyone knows his attitude problem, but he would dominate on the court regardless of what tantrum he had 
Huh?

Cousins lets his emotions get the better of him ALL THE TIME on the court.

Awful transition D, frustration fouls, stupid techs, frustration shots (when he's not getting touches), etc.

Yeah I agree with everything you said. But at the same time, a better structure would help mold him

Let me be clear, no one can make a tempermental player behave. Look at Rodman, Barkley, etc. We all know that Cousins is talented. But a structured environment can help CHANNEL that temperment to the positive. Look at Bynum and Artest (two highly emotional moody players). With the Lakers' structured foundation, they performed so well, dominated on the court, and where a big reason Lakers won those 2 recent titles
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: JSD on January 08, 2013, 03:37:41 PM
I have to admit this crossed my mind watching the game last night. I do love Rondo, but there are times he really slows the game down when we should be running. This Celtics team needs to run. I'm with Tommy on this one.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: kozlodoev on January 08, 2013, 03:48:23 PM
I am continually flabbergasted by the degree to which Rondo's consistent excellence in the playoffs is ignored by his detractors.

It's all about what kind of numbers you can put up during the 82 game preseason.  Nobody cares what you do when the games actually matter.  It's bizarre.
I am also continually flabergasted by the degree to which this purported excellence is overblown.

Sure, Rondo is a great player. He plays 40+ minutes in the playoffs and fills up the stat sheet. Excellent.

And "what you do when it actually matters" is give the ball to Paul Pierce, because you can't hit a long jumper or a free throw consistently.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: Snakehead on January 08, 2013, 03:49:17 PM
I am continually flabbergasted by the degree to which Rondo's consistent excellence in the playoffs is ignored by his detractors.

It's all about what kind of numbers you can put up during the 82 game preseason.  Nobody cares what you do when the games actually matter.  It's bizarre.
I am also continually flabergasted by the degree to which this purported excellence is overblown.

Sure, Rondo is a great player. He plays 40+ minutes in the playoffs and fills up the stat sheet. Excellent.

And "what you do when it actually matters" is give the ball to Paul Pierce, because you can't hit a long jumper or a free throw consistently.

Yes because hitting long jumpers is all there is to the game.

Funny how you blow off "filling up the stat sheet" when his triple double numbers in the playoffs are historic.  You know, when all teams are playing their best players around 40 minutes a night (another slight you throw in there).
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: kozlodoev on January 08, 2013, 03:51:25 PM
I am continually flabbergasted by the degree to which Rondo's consistent excellence in the playoffs is ignored by his detractors.

It's all about what kind of numbers you can put up during the 82 game preseason.  Nobody cares what you do when the games actually matter.  It's bizarre.
I am also continually flabergasted by the degree to which this purported excellence is overblown.

Sure, Rondo is a great player. He plays 40+ minutes in the playoffs and fills up the stat sheet. Excellent.

And "what you do when it actually matters" is give the ball to Paul Pierce, because you can't hit a long jumper or a free throw consistently.

Yes because hitting long jumpers is all there is to the game.
Well, apparently the rest was not enough not to take the ball away from him when it actually matters.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: Snakehead on January 08, 2013, 03:52:12 PM
I am continually flabbergasted by the degree to which Rondo's consistent excellence in the playoffs is ignored by his detractors.

It's all about what kind of numbers you can put up during the 82 game preseason.  Nobody cares what you do when the games actually matter.  It's bizarre.
I am also continually flabergasted by the degree to which this purported excellence is overblown.

Sure, Rondo is a great player. He plays 40+ minutes in the playoffs and fills up the stat sheet. Excellent.

And "what you do when it actually matters" is give the ball to Paul Pierce, because you can't hit a long jumper or a free throw consistently.

Yes because hitting long jumpers is all there is to the game.
Well, apparently the rest was not enough not to take the ball away from him when it actually matters.

Or, you know, he realizes his team mate is one of the best and most clutch scorers of the era and he should get the ball.

Your knock against him is that he is unselfish and he realizes what's best for the team?
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: kozlodoev on January 08, 2013, 03:53:34 PM
Funny how you blow off "filling up the stat sheet" when his triple double numbers in the playoffs are historic.  You know, when all teams are playing their best players around 40 minutes a night (another slight you throw in there).
Let me repeat myself for clarity:

I am also continually flabergasted by the degree to which this purported excellence is overblown.

Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: kozlodoev on January 08, 2013, 03:56:07 PM
I am continually flabbergasted by the degree to which Rondo's consistent excellence in the playoffs is ignored by his detractors.

It's all about what kind of numbers you can put up during the 82 game preseason.  Nobody cares what you do when the games actually matter.  It's bizarre.
I am also continually flabergasted by the degree to which this purported excellence is overblown.

Sure, Rondo is a great player. He plays 40+ minutes in the playoffs and fills up the stat sheet. Excellent.

And "what you do when it actually matters" is give the ball to Paul Pierce, because you can't hit a long jumper or a free throw consistently.

Yes because hitting long jumpers is all there is to the game.
Well, apparently the rest was not enough not to take the ball away from him when it actually matters.

Or, you know, he realizes his team mate is one of the best and most clutch scorers of the era and he should get the ball.

Your knock against him is that he is unselfish and he realizes what's best for the team?
For starters, Doc calls the plays. So don't pin that on Rondo.

And it's not a knock -- it's a fact of life. And this fact doesn't speak well for Rondo's alleged legendarity in playoffs. That is all.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: Snakehead on January 08, 2013, 03:56:38 PM
Funny how you blow off "filling up the stat sheet" when his triple double numbers in the playoffs are historic.  You know, when all teams are playing their best players around 40 minutes a night (another slight you throw in there).
Let me repeat myself for clarity:

I am also continually flabergasted by the degree to which this purported excellence is overblown.

I don't think anything is overblown when people are saying we should trade him right now because we won a game without him.

And I'll repeat myself: over the last few years, in the Playoffs, there has been no player that has played better than Rondo has except LeBron last year.


But you clearly think he isn't great because he doesn't always score more than 30 pts, that's cool, totally your opinion.

I'll pin giving it up to Pierce on him because he loves to pass and it's what he does better than anyone else.  I don't get your logic, that's the thing.  He is a PG and he plays like one.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: Neurotic Guy on January 08, 2013, 03:58:01 PM
If I thought Rondo was a true head case I'd probably agree with the trade sentiment assuming we could get comparable value.  But I actually think this is one of those cases that will get better with time.  Yes I know the incidents continue, but Rondo's issues just don't seem insurmountable to me.  He is a hard worker and a determined individual and I think maturation is not precise, it happens on different timetables for different people.  Paul Pierce was about Rondo's age when he was doing some of those imature things like the head-wrap incident. 

Rondo is 26 and to some that seems young and to others that seems seasoned and mature.  Truth is that it can be either.  If I thought Rondo had shown no growth I'd be concerned, but his game has grown and there is evidence of maturation as a person.  His emotion and 'hard-headedness' still get the better of him sometimes, but that can be channeled better in time and frankly there are aspects of it that are positive and are building blocks for greatness and leadership.   

It wouldn't be devastating to me if they traded him for equal quality, but he is unique as a person and player, and about 95% of the time I like what we get.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: kozlodoev on January 08, 2013, 04:12:04 PM
Funny how you blow off "filling up the stat sheet" when his triple double numbers in the playoffs are historic.  You know, when all teams are playing their best players around 40 minutes a night (another slight you throw in there).
Let me repeat myself for clarity:

I am also continually flabergasted by the degree to which this purported excellence is overblown.

I don't think anything is overblown when people are saying we should trade him right now because we won a game without him.

And I'll repeat myself: over the last few years, in the Playoffs, there has been no player that has played better than Rondo has except LeBron last year.


But you clearly think he isn't great because he doesn't always score more than 30 pts, that's cool, totally your opinion.
The only thing I "clearly think" is that people who cite all the triple doubles overvaluate Rondo's greatness by ignoring the fact that he usually plays near complete games. I don't know where you got the 30 point thing, it's not me here who's enamored with the scorecard.

Sure, being able to eat so much minutes and fill up the stat sheet is the sign of a very, very good player. But until Rondo finds a way not to be a liability in clutch situation, he remains a premium second gun, not an alpha dog. Which makes him quite replaceable, it's just that the right commodity hasn't been on the market recenty (that would be a young, potentially dominant big man).

Also, there are multiple players that have been better than him in the playoffs in recent memory, including but not limited to Durant and Nowitzki.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: pearljammer10 on January 08, 2013, 04:16:50 PM
Funny how you blow off "filling up the stat sheet" when his triple double numbers in the playoffs are historic.  You know, when all teams are playing their best players around 40 minutes a night (another slight you throw in there).
Let me repeat myself for clarity:

I am also continually flabergasted by the degree to which this purported excellence is overblown.


I don't think anything is overblown when people are saying we should trade him right now because we won a game without him.

And I'll repeat myself: over the last few years, in the Playoffs, there has been no player that has played better than Rondo has except LeBron last year.


But you clearly think he isn't great because he doesn't always score more than 30 pts, that's cool, totally your opinion.
The only thing I "clearly think" is that people who cite all the triple doubles overvaluate Rondo's greatness by ignoring the fact that he usually plays near complete games. I don't know where you got the 30 point thing, it's not me here who's enamored with the scorecard.

Sure, being able to eat so much minutes and fill up the stat sheet is the sign of a very, very good player. But until Rondo finds a way not to be a liability in clutch situation, he remains a premium second gun, not an alpha dog. Which makes him quite replaceable, it's just that the right commodity hasn't been on the market recenty (that would be a young, potentially dominant big man).

Also, there are multiple players that have been better than him in the playoffs in recent memory, including but not limited to Durant and Nowitzki.


So John Stockton was "replaceable" because he was second fiddle to Karl Malone?
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: kozlodoev on January 08, 2013, 04:18:26 PM
So John Stockton was "replaceable" because he was second fiddle to Karl Malone?
Would you rather have John Stockton, or Karl Malone?

All I'm saying is that if someone like Karl Malone became available tomorrow, Rondo would be on his way out of town the day after.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: Moranis on January 08, 2013, 04:32:07 PM
Funny how you blow off "filling up the stat sheet" when his triple double numbers in the playoffs are historic.  You know, when all teams are playing their best players around 40 minutes a night (another slight you throw in there).
Let me repeat myself for clarity:

I am also continually flabergasted by the degree to which this purported excellence is overblown.

I don't think anything is overblown when people are saying we should trade him right now because we won a game without him.

And I'll repeat myself: over the last few years, in the Playoffs, there has been no player that has played better than Rondo has except LeBron last year.


But you clearly think he isn't great because he doesn't always score more than 30 pts, that's cool, totally your opinion.

I'll pin giving it up to Pierce on him because he loves to pass and it's what he does better than anyone else.  I don't get your logic, that's the thing.  He is a PG and he plays like one.
Sure Rondo has triple doubles, he also has 7 point games where he goes 3 of 15 from the field. I mean that is Rondo, great for a game or two, and then bad for a game or two.  He has more good to great games in the post season but the crappy games don't just disappear either. 
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: BballTim on January 08, 2013, 04:40:48 PM
Funny how you blow off "filling up the stat sheet" when his triple double numbers in the playoffs are historic.  You know, when all teams are playing their best players around 40 minutes a night (another slight you throw in there).
Let me repeat myself for clarity:

I am also continually flabergasted by the degree to which this purported excellence is overblown.

I don't think anything is overblown when people are saying we should trade him right now because we won a game without him.

And I'll repeat myself: over the last few years, in the Playoffs, there has been no player that has played better than Rondo has except LeBron last year.


But you clearly think he isn't great because he doesn't always score more than 30 pts, that's cool, totally your opinion.

I'll pin giving it up to Pierce on him because he loves to pass and it's what he does better than anyone else.  I don't get your logic, that's the thing.  He is a PG and he plays like one.
Sure Rondo has triple doubles, he also has 7 point games where he goes 3 of 15 from the field. I mean that is Rondo, great for a game or two, and then bad for a game or two.  He has more good to great games in the post season but the crappy games don't just disappear either.

  He also had 6 boards, 13 assists and 4 steals in that 7 point game. Every player in the league has bad shooting nights, not everybody can contribute as much as Rondo does when they have those nights. In general, in the playoffs, if Rondo's fairly healthy he plays well.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: MrMorrill on January 08, 2013, 04:46:33 PM
I didn't realize Celticsblog.com had so many NBA GMs who post on here. Trade Rondo? He did play against the Pacers and Hawks correct me if I'm wrong but if Rondo doesn't play against the hawks we don't win.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: Snakehead on January 08, 2013, 04:47:03 PM
Funny how you blow off "filling up the stat sheet" when his triple double numbers in the playoffs are historic.  You know, when all teams are playing their best players around 40 minutes a night (another slight you throw in there).
Let me repeat myself for clarity:

I am also continually flabergasted by the degree to which this purported excellence is overblown.

I don't think anything is overblown when people are saying we should trade him right now because we won a game without him.

And I'll repeat myself: over the last few years, in the Playoffs, there has been no player that has played better than Rondo has except LeBron last year.


But you clearly think he isn't great because he doesn't always score more than 30 pts, that's cool, totally your opinion.

I'll pin giving it up to Pierce on him because he loves to pass and it's what he does better than anyone else.  I don't get your logic, that's the thing.  He is a PG and he plays like one.
Sure Rondo has triple doubles, he also has 7 point games where he goes 3 of 15 from the field. I mean that is Rondo, great for a game or two, and then bad for a game or two.  He has more good to great games in the post season but the crappy games don't just disappear either.

  He also had 6 boards, 13 assists and 4 steals in that 7 point game. Every player in the league has bad shooting nights, not everybody can contribute as much as Rondo does when they have those nights. In general, in the playoffs, if Rondo's fairly healthy he plays well.

TP.

Quite tiring seeing scoring being the only stat to so many people.  Are we not now witnessing Bradley and Sullinger making a huge impact on our team?  Are either scoring many points?  Not at all.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: GrandTheftRondo on January 08, 2013, 04:54:16 PM
Funny how you blow off "filling up the stat sheet" when his triple double numbers in the playoffs are historic.  You know, when all teams are playing their best players around 40 minutes a night (another slight you throw in there).
Let me repeat myself for clarity:

I am also continually flabergasted by the degree to which this purported excellence is overblown.

I don't think anything is overblown when people are saying we should trade him right now because we won a game without him.

And I'll repeat myself: over the last few years, in the Playoffs, there has been no player that has played better than Rondo has except LeBron last year.


But you clearly think he isn't great because he doesn't always score more than 30 pts, that's cool, totally your opinion.

I'll pin giving it up to Pierce on him because he loves to pass and it's what he does better than anyone else.  I don't get your logic, that's the thing.  He is a PG and he plays like one.
Sure Rondo has triple doubles, he also has 7 point games where he goes 3 of 15 from the field. I mean that is Rondo, great for a game or two, and then bad for a game or two.  He has more good to great games in the post season but the crappy games don't just disappear either.

  He also had 6 boards, 13 assists and 4 steals in that 7 point game. Every player in the league has bad shooting nights, not everybody can contribute as much as Rondo does when they have those nights. In general, in the playoffs, if Rondo's fairly healthy he plays well.

And another TP for you sir.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: GreenFaith1819 on January 08, 2013, 04:59:08 PM
But I thought the Truth was Paul Pierce..
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: feckless on January 08, 2013, 05:18:50 PM
I haven't read all of this forum but it is obvious to me that guys rely on Rondo too much sometimes and take more responsibility when he is not there.  We need them to continue to take more responsibility. Yes-- we are a good team without Rondo--BUT we are only a championship caliber team with Rajon Rondo on our team.  Some of the games he has had, plays he has made are games and plays that only he is capable of!  He is not perfect, he is not consistent and he can be frustrating but he is one of a kind historic.

This is from a Cousy era fan.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: xmuscularghandix on January 08, 2013, 05:21:44 PM
Offense run through Pierce/Garnett with a serviceable PG is better than an offense being run 100% Rondo. That's how it was in 2008, Rondo's inability vs. Lakers is part of the reason why offense sputtered in 4th.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: kozlodoev on January 08, 2013, 05:24:09 PM
Yes-- we are a good team without Rondo--BUT we are only a championship caliber team with Rajon Rondo on our team.
Maybe, if you consider simply taking Rondo out of the lineup. Not so much if Rondo is traded for equal value.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: GreenFaith1819 on January 08, 2013, 05:24:23 PM
Offense run through Pierce/Garnett with a serviceable PG is better than an offense being run 100% Rondo. That's how it was in 2008, Rondo's inability vs. Lakers is part of the reason why offense sputtered in 4th.

You mean 09-10 Finals Game 7?

If I read you correctly, then Rondo's inability to hit a J was only one small part of our failure in that game.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: BballTim on January 08, 2013, 05:30:26 PM
Yes-- we are a good team without Rondo--BUT we are only a championship caliber team with Rajon Rondo on our team.
Maybe, if you consider simply taking Rondo out of the lineup. Not so much if Rondo is traded for equal value.

  What's equal value? Someone that will play like Rondo does in the playoffs? Because that's pretty hard to find.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: BballTim on January 08, 2013, 05:34:48 PM
Offense run through Pierce/Garnett with a serviceable PG is better than an offense being run 100% Rondo. That's how it was in 2008, Rondo's inability vs. Lakers is part of the reason why offense sputtered in 4th.

 If PP and KG could play on offense like they did in 2008 then we wouldn't need Rondo on offense. That's no longer the case, and hasn't been for a while.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: ImShakHeIsShaq on January 08, 2013, 05:35:27 PM
Hell yes we do!

I was a RR umm... okay, I liked him but I didn't a couple seasons ago... but I love the guy now!

RR is one of the best in the playoffs, no question! He is also one of the best in the regular season, again, no question!! He doesn't need to play every game great (no one can)... he just needs to be solid in the regular season and his GREAT self in the playoffs!

I don't care what anyone says, we need RR!
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: kozlodoev on January 08, 2013, 05:38:50 PM
Yes-- we are a good team without Rondo--BUT we are only a championship caliber team with Rajon Rondo on our team.
Maybe, if you consider simply taking Rondo out of the lineup. Not so much if Rondo is traded for equal value.

  What's equal value? Someone that will play like Rondo does in the playoffs? Because that's pretty hard to find.
Everyone's clinging to the "Rondo in the playoffs" tune like there's no tomorrow. I guess only Rondo is equal value for Rondo, because he's the only one who plays like Rondo in the playoffs.

To repeat myself, Rondo has not yet distinguished himself as a transcendent, irreplaceable player. Sure, getting rid of him is huge in many respects. But it doesn't mean it won't make the team better if the right deal is available. Joakim Noah is the first name that comes to mind that I'd swap him for right away. I'm sure there are others.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: crimson_stallion on January 08, 2013, 05:56:50 PM
I love how people keep bringing up the 40 point game, as if Rondo has ever done anything close to that before in his 6 or so seasons in the league!  Didn't Tony Delk (or somebody similare) once score 50?

Honestly, I see both sides of the story.  Before I was strongly in the "keep Rondo at any cost" group, but now I'm starting to lean towards the thought that trading him might be better for the team.   

I love Rondo as a player and as a person, it would be incredibly sad to see him go.  No doubt he's one of my favorite Celtics, but my biggest concern is that he can't be depended on as the centerpiece of the team, either now or in the future.

For all the people who are strongly against trading Rondo, the biggest argument is that he is our future leader and the player we will build around.  The problem is that even now we rely more on Pierce (for our offense) and KG (for our defense) then we do on Rondo.  If either of those guys goes down we probably don't make the playoffs, and if both go down we are a lottery team regardless of whether we have Rondo or not.  Think about that.  Then ask yourself where will we be in three seasons (once KG and Pierce retire) if Rondo is our centerpiece?  The answer is probably not in the Playoffs.  I can foresee Bradley taking over for KG as the defensive anchor / leader of the team, but unless we can sign an elite scorer who can take over as our offensive leader, we will be heading straight into rebuilding mode. 

Think about John Stockton.  He was an elite playmaker and one of the greatest Point Guards to ever play the game.  While he was in Utah, the Jazz were one of the top teams in the league for roughly a decade, constantly going deep in the playoffs.  The thing is though, Stockton could never have taken them that far on his own - he needed an elite go-to scorer (Malone) by his side to carry the team.  Stockton was capable of scoring offensively, but to carry a team a capable scorer isn't enough, you need an elite scorer - a Dwyane Wade, a Kobe Bryant, a Paul Pierce, a Michael Jordan or a Derek Rose.  Rondo is very similar to Stockton in that regard, and unless we have a second All-Star talent a Celtics team led by Rondo will never win a title. 

People will bring up the Billups-led Pistons as an example, and it's true they never had an elite scorer, but that's the exception rather than the rule.  They won with elite defense and multiple consistent scorers (Rasheed, Prince, Hamilton, Billups), but there are very few examples where teams like that have been able to win it all.   

AB yesterday had 5 assists and 1 turnover, he played suffocating defense on Jason Kidd, and he played with great energy on offense.  I'm not saying he's the same calibre PG as Rondo, but he did a pretty solid good job of running the point in his absense, and IMHO he impacts the game just as much (if not more) defensively as Rondo impacts the game offensively.

The problem here is that Bradley's trade value (though solid) is much lower than Rondo's.  Traded on his own, Bradley would have no chance of bringing in an All-Star calibre player.  To even dream of such a thing you'd need to add numerous additional players (out of the Bass/Lee/Green/Terry group) AND you'd likely need to throw some draft picks in as well.  Worse case scenario you may even need to throw Sully in. That's a LOT of quality assets to give up for one player and filler, even if that player is an All-Star. 

However if we traded Rondo, he is valuable enough that on his own he could probably bring back a potential future All-Star like Demarcus Cousins.  If you throw in one decent role player (Bass) mediocre role player (Barbosa or Collins) and a pick we could possibly get Cousins+Evans or Cousins+Thomas in return.  If you can do that deal you suddenly have 5 talented guys who are 23 or younger (Cousins, Thomas/Evans, Sully, Bradley, Melo) and who are barely scratching the surface of their potential, and should be very productive players for the next 10 seasons.  You also get to keep Lee and Green who are both have 5 or so  seasons before they reach their prime.  On top of all that you still have Terry, Pierce and KG as veteran leaders who can guide us through the playoffs for the next two seasons.

By the time KG, Pierce and Terry retire at least one of our young guys should develop into an All-Star talent, while the other four should have developed into anything ranging from quality starters to borderline All-Stars, and all of them will still be only ~26 years old and years away from their prime.  Green and Lee (at 28-29 years old) will still be in their prime and will be solid role players at the very least.  We will have $30M in cap space (from the veterans retiring) that could be used to sign a max contract All-Star and multiple quality role players. The entire approach is very similar to what OKC went through with Durant, Westbrook and Ibaka only unlike OKC we wouldn't need to sacrifice the "NOW" to get there, becuase as long as Pierce and KG are on the team we have the potential to be a contender.

so just for a second, imagine we have a starting lineup something like this:

Bradley
Evans
Pierce
Garnett
Cousins

And a second unit like this:

Barbosa (if he isn't included in a the trade)
Terry
Lee
Green
Sullinger
Wilcox
Collins

Can you hoenestly try to tell me that this roster doesn't have deep playoff potential?
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: timobusa on January 08, 2013, 06:16:13 PM
it was one game. staaahhhpppppp!

We need rondo.

Bottom line.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: cman88 on January 08, 2013, 06:35:48 PM
Rondo is a star in this league...sure you can win games without him just by defense/the fact that we have pierce/Garnett but we are clearly a better team WITH rondo than without.

the bulls are winning without Rose, the pacers are winning without granger. does that mean they don't need them?

Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: Sketch5 on January 08, 2013, 06:42:36 PM
I love Rondo. I love how he passes the ball, how much fun it is watching him in the break makin those crazy bounce pass's.  I love when he's got it going hes fun to watch.

But thats the problem, he's onl has it going every few games, and then maybe n the playoffs. Maybe with Bradley he'll be more consistent, but his defense drive me nuts.

And the issues with the Refs if he keeps it up will hurt not just his pay check but the team if they make a run. You know how Stern is, already hates the C's, Kept his Golden boy out of the Finals for how many years? You think this will help at all.

Now if you got Cousins and Evans in a trade back, thats hard not to argue how good of a trade that is. YEah Cousins is a head case at times, maybe this stint got him on track, and maybe KG and PP can get him playing at the elite level. Plus we all know DA's love for Evans. Those two together can bring more to the table than Rondo.

But if Rondo could become PP or KG when it comes to leader ship, that would be hard to trade him. And no I don't think right now Cousins and Evans could be PP type leaders, but they could bring that leader in down the road.

I think Rondo's one of those guys you love and hate at the same time, he makes an amazing play and then next trip down he judo chops a ref. Don't really know which one out ways the other.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: eugen on January 08, 2013, 07:00:04 PM
Some of you forgot to mention.
1. Rondo till now did not show to become a lider.
2. No maturity
3. The real leader are KG+PP
4. If yoy trade Rondo you can get great palyers in exchange(Gotart, Varejao, Gay, DW12, Gasol, Cousins, Smith)
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: timobusa on January 08, 2013, 07:16:12 PM
Rondo is a star in this league...sure you can win games without him just by defense/the fact that we have pierce/Garnett but we are clearly a better team WITH rondo than without.

the bulls are winning without Rose, the pacers are winning without granger. does that mean they don't need them?

This! TP
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: Celtics18 on January 08, 2013, 07:55:04 PM
I am continually flabbergasted by the degree to which Rondo's consistent excellence in the playoffs is ignored by his detractors.

It's all about what kind of numbers you can put up during the 82 game preseason.  Nobody cares what you do when the games actually matter.  It's bizarre.
I am also continually flabergasted by the degree to which this purported excellence is overblown.

Sure, Rondo is a great player. He plays 40+ minutes in the playoffs and fills up the stat sheet. Excellent.

And "what you do when it actually matters" is give the ball to Paul Pierce, because you can't hit a long jumper or a free throw consistently.

Rondo does so much more than just give the ball to Paul Pierce when it "actually matters."   I think you realize that. 
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: Celtics18 on January 08, 2013, 08:04:45 PM
Yes-- we are a good team without Rondo--BUT we are only a championship caliber team with Rajon Rondo on our team.
Maybe, if you consider simply taking Rondo out of the lineup. Not so much if Rondo is traded for equal value.

  What's equal value? Someone that will play like Rondo does in the playoffs? Because that's pretty hard to find.
Everyone's clinging to the "Rondo in the playoffs" tune like there's no tomorrow. I guess only Rondo is equal value for Rondo, because he's the only one who plays like Rondo in the playoffs.

To repeat myself, Rondo has not yet distinguished himself as a transcendent, irreplaceable player. Sure, getting rid of him is huge in many respects. But it doesn't mean it won't make the team better if the right deal is available. Joakim Noah is the first name that comes to mind that I'd swap him for right away. I'm sure there are others.

You think Joakim Noah is a "transcendent, irreplaceable player"?
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: SalmonAndMashedPotatoes on January 08, 2013, 08:09:54 PM
The truth is, if we lost last night, people would be blaming Rondo for the loss. But since we won he's all of a sudden expendable. It's called a double standard and Rondo's been getting it for a while now.

The truth is, Rondo's 26, about to start an All-Star game and he's on a below-market contract for the next 2 seasons. Those are the kinds of guys you win championships with, guys you build your team with, not guys you look to trade midseason, especially not for guys like Cousins who while supremely talented isn't capable RIGHT NOW of being a rotation player on a championship team.

Threads like these remind me why I haven't posted in the forums in YEARS. Rondo is the biggest reason we have any chance of beating Miami, he's the one guy they can't account for, one of the few guys in the entire league who can share a court with Lebron and be the best player on any given night, and we win one measly game without him and we're ready to ship him off for Noah. Nonsense.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: crimson_stallion on January 09, 2013, 12:01:05 AM

Rondo is a star in this league...sure you can win games without him just by defense/the fact that we have pierce/Garnett but we are clearly a better team WITH rondo than without.

the bulls are winning without Rose, the pacers are winning without granger. does that mean they don't need them?

Yep, it means exactly that.  Chicago don't need Rose and the Pacers don't need Granger.  Both of those players are good, but both are also replacable if either team made a trade.

Think about it:
- Would Chicago not be just as good with Chris Paul or Russel Westrbook playing in Derek Rose's place?   
- Would Indiana not be just as good with Rudy Gay or Paul Pierce in Granger's place?

The thing is everyone talks about these trade ideas as if we have lost the player to injury, but big difference between losing a player to injury/suspension and losing a player to a trade.  The difference is that when you lose somebody to a trade, you get something back. 

Rondo, like Rose, is a high value asset and he would get a high value return otherwise you obviously wouldn't bother. 
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: D.o.s. on January 09, 2013, 12:10:57 AM
The Truth is... Paul Pierce.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: KGs Knee on January 09, 2013, 12:34:54 AM
The truth is, if we lost last night, people would be blaming Rondo for the loss. But since we won he's all of a sudden expendable. It's called a double standard and Rondo's been getting it for a while now.

The truth is, Rondo's 26, about to start an All-Star game and he's on a below-market contract for the next 2 seasons. Those are the kinds of guys you win championships with, guys you build your team with, not guys you look to trade midseason, especially not for guys like Cousins who while supremely talented isn't capable RIGHT NOW of being a rotation player on a championship team.

Threads like these remind me why I haven't posted in the forums in YEARS. Rondo is the biggest reason we have any chance of beating Miami, he's the one guy they can't account for, one of the few guys in the entire league who can share a court with Lebron and be the best player on any given night, and we win one measly game without him and we're ready to ship him off for Noah. Nonsense.

Love this post, TP.

The bolded part needs to be qualified though.  Many players can share a court with Lebron and be better on any given night in the regular season.  Rondo is one of a select few that has done it in the playoffs.  This is what makes him truly special.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: j804 on January 09, 2013, 12:37:56 AM
The truth is, if we lost last night, people would be blaming Rondo for the loss. But since we won he's all of a sudden expendable. It's called a double standard and Rondo's been getting it for a while now.

The truth is, Rondo's 26, about to start an All-Star game and he's on a below-market contract for the next 2 seasons. Those are the kinds of guys you win championships with, guys you build your team with, not guys you look to trade midseason, especially not for guys like Cousins who while supremely talented isn't capable RIGHT NOW of being a rotation player on a championship team.

Threads like these remind me why I haven't posted in the forums in YEARS. Rondo is the biggest reason we have any chance of beating Miami, he's the one guy they can't account for, one of the few guys in the entire league who can share a court with Lebron and be the best player on any given night, and we win one measly game without him and we're ready to ship him off for Noah. Nonsense.
TP Great post so true
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: lightspeed5 on January 09, 2013, 12:40:37 AM
rondo was ranked by ESPN as the 12th best player in the league before the season began.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: Eddie20 on January 09, 2013, 12:51:37 AM
Cousins who while supremely talented isn't capable RIGHT NOW of being a rotation player on a championship team.

Threads like these remind me why I haven't posted in the forums in YEARS. Rondo is the biggest reason we have any chance of beating Miami, he's the one guy they can't account for, one of the few guys in the entire league who can share a court with Lebron and be the best player on any given night, and we win one measly game without him and we're ready to ship him off for Noah. Nonsense.

The first part is ludicrous. Especially when you consider what players have been part of championship teams.

I like Rondo a lot and think he is immensely talented, but the consistency and maturity is missing. For better or worse, as he goes so go the C's. On any given night, yes, he could be better than LeBron. However, you can't deny that if he starts sulking, lacks focus and energy, something that happens way too often, then on any night he'll make lesser PG's like Isiah Thomas, Conley, Chalmers, etc. look like all-time greats.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: Moranis on January 09, 2013, 06:52:37 AM
Offense run through Pierce/Garnett with a serviceable PG is better than an offense being run 100% Rondo. That's how it was in 2008, Rondo's inability vs. Lakers is part of the reason why offense sputtered in 4th.

 If PP and KG could play on offense like they did in 2008 then we wouldn't need Rondo on offense. That's no longer the case, and hasn't been for a while.
But that is the point.  Boston needs Rondo to be something he is not and something he will never be, so it doesn't make nearly as much sense to keep him around as it once did.  He is a good player that will prevent Boston from being truly bad, but isn't good enough to be the transcedent player that can lead a team to a title.  Keeping him puts Boston in that no mans land so Boston has to consider moving him, and his value is at its greatest right now.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: Greenbean on January 09, 2013, 07:06:27 AM
I would be open to trading Rondo for a perennial all star at a position of need, but otherwise....of course we need him. Gut reaction threads like this make me  ???
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: Snakehead on January 09, 2013, 09:36:38 AM
The truth is, if we lost last night, people would be blaming Rondo for the loss. But since we won he's all of a sudden expendable. It's called a double standard and Rondo's been getting it for a while now.

The truth is, Rondo's 26, about to start an All-Star game and he's on a below-market contract for the next 2 seasons. Those are the kinds of guys you win championships with, guys you build your team with, not guys you look to trade midseason, especially not for guys like Cousins who while supremely talented isn't capable RIGHT NOW of being a rotation player on a championship team.

Threads like these remind me why I haven't posted in the forums in YEARS. Rondo is the biggest reason we have any chance of beating Miami, he's the one guy they can't account for, one of the few guys in the entire league who can share a court with Lebron and be the best player on any given night, and we win one measly game without him and we're ready to ship him off for Noah. Nonsense.

Amen brother.

TP.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: Birdman on January 09, 2013, 09:39:39 AM
Dont trade Rondo..period!!!
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: Celtics18 on January 09, 2013, 10:07:31 AM
Offense run through Pierce/Garnett with a serviceable PG is better than an offense being run 100% Rondo. That's how it was in 2008, Rondo's inability vs. Lakers is part of the reason why offense sputtered in 4th.

 If PP and KG could play on offense like they did in 2008 then we wouldn't need Rondo on offense. That's no longer the case, and hasn't been for a while.
But that is the point.  Boston needs Rondo to be something he is not and something he will never be, so it doesn't make nearly as much sense to keep him around as it once did.  He is a good player that will prevent Boston from being truly bad, but isn't good enough to be the transcedent player that can lead a team to a title.  Keeping him puts Boston in that no mans land so Boston has to consider moving him, and his value is at its greatest right now.

I keep reading that Rondo is not "a transcendent player that can lead a team to a title."  What I'd like from folks who keep making that claim is to know who is?  How many players out there who still have their best playing years ahead of them fit that description?

From my perspective, I would say that Lebron James and Kevin Durant fit that description.  After that there are a lot of great players that all have some question marks.  Rondo's in that second category right now. 

Based on what our point guard has already accomplished and some reasonable expectations for what he can continue to accomplish, I think that he's right up there among the top ten NBA players who still have their best years ahead of them. 

If Danny were to trade Rondo for, say, DeMarcus Cousins, I don't see any guarantee that such a move would put us in a position to be automatic contenders for years to come.  Most of the trade proposals that I see involving Rondo leave as many question marks for our future--if not more--as keeping him and trying to build around him.

It seems that those who continually are looking for ways to get rid of our young up and coming star point guard are simply suffering from some kind of "grass is always greener" syndrome.   

Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: Global Celtic on January 09, 2013, 11:00:38 AM
I created THIS THREAD (http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=55509.0) last year saying we should trade Rondo because of his immaturity and emotion.  He is far too immature and emotional to be the leader of a title contender.  When the emotion is on and works, he is a superstar, but when the emotion is off he plays poorly, doesn't hustle, is very inconsistent, and finds himself often making stupid decisions (getting T'd up, and sometimes ejected or suspended).  In addition, Rondo also would net the greatest return given his ability, production, and contract.  Thus I'm all for trading Rondo, I just wouldn't move him just to move him, but if Boston could get back good value, I would be all for it.

Something like this 3 team trade would be good for me.

Boston gets Cousins, Robinson, Brooks
Sacramento gets Rondo, Gay, Melo
Memphis gets Evans, Salmons, Bass

Exactly that. TP
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: kozlodoev on January 09, 2013, 11:10:19 AM
Yes-- we are a good team without Rondo--BUT we are only a championship caliber team with Rajon Rondo on our team.
Maybe, if you consider simply taking Rondo out of the lineup. Not so much if Rondo is traded for equal value.

  What's equal value? Someone that will play like Rondo does in the playoffs? Because that's pretty hard to find.
Everyone's clinging to the "Rondo in the playoffs" tune like there's no tomorrow. I guess only Rondo is equal value for Rondo, because he's the only one who plays like Rondo in the playoffs.

To repeat myself, Rondo has not yet distinguished himself as a transcendent, irreplaceable player. Sure, getting rid of him is huge in many respects. But it doesn't mean it won't make the team better if the right deal is available. Joakim Noah is the first name that comes to mind that I'd swap him for right away. I'm sure there are others.

You think Joakim Noah is a "transcendent, irreplaceable player"?
I said that Rondo isn't one and that I'll trade him for Noah. How does this add up to Noah being a "transcendent, irreplaceable player"?
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: OmarSekou on January 09, 2013, 11:16:09 AM
Be careful what you wish for.

In big moments Rondo has proven himself to be one of the best players in the league. However, Rondo is consistently rated as one of the 5 best PGs because of what he does in the regular season. Playoff time is when he enters that special discussion of top 5 players in the league.

With all of his faults and flaws, he is consistently better than his peers. If we trade him and get back a lesser PG, we are likely getting back someone worse than Rondo on his off nights. Cousins or whoever would have to off set that, and there's a wide gap between Rondo and quality PGs like Jennings or Conley, let alone Evans.

I've never understood the argument that if we trade Rondo, everyone else will suddenly play better. Why wouldn't they be playing at their best already?

Rondo consistently puts guys in good position to score/create and is the least likely to turn the ball over. When the ball isn't in his hands, he's become a good enough scorer to keep his defender honest and not mess up spacing. There's no reason the mythical Rondo-less ball movement can't happen with him in the game.

Bradley has come back and is doing what we'd hoped. Sully has continued to develop and looks less lost each night. Lee is quietly finding his groove. Green and Bass are inconsistent but solid when they're on. KG, Pierce and Jet are who they've been over their careers and are quality players. I heard someone on tv or radio talking about how Bradley's effort shames people into playing better, and him coming back is an emotional boost. I think that's the key to our recent success. We're whole and we're starting to gel.

We are a lot like the Bulls. We could get rid of Rondo and still be a solid regular season team if everyone executes perfectly. But Rondo's the guy who gives us a shot at a title.

The difference is that I don't hear Bulls fans saying they need to get rid of Rose and bring in Cousins and Tyreke Evans (but maybe they are). I don't think that gives them a shot at a title this year, and it's safer to build around or build with a proven star than a guy with potential, even if it's a center.

I'd be much more afraid of Philly this year and going forward if they had AI and not Bynum (a guy whose proven more than Cousins). Yea Bynum's hurt...but isn't that to be expected? Cousins could clean up his act and be Zach Randolph 2.0, but there are a lot more guys who have wasted there potential than realized it.

We don't need Rondo to win. We do need Rondo if we want to make a deep run in the playoffs.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: BballTim on January 09, 2013, 11:24:12 AM
Offense run through Pierce/Garnett with a serviceable PG is better than an offense being run 100% Rondo. That's how it was in 2008, Rondo's inability vs. Lakers is part of the reason why offense sputtered in 4th.

 If PP and KG could play on offense like they did in 2008 then we wouldn't need Rondo on offense. That's no longer the case, and hasn't been for a while.
But that is the point.  Boston needs Rondo to be something he is not and something he will never be, so it doesn't make nearly as much sense to keep him around as it once did.  He is a good player that will prevent Boston from being truly bad, but isn't good enough to be the transcedent player that can lead a team to a title.  Keeping him puts Boston in that no mans land so Boston has to consider moving him, and his value is at its greatest right now.

  He's led teams to multiple deep playoff runs and he's a better player now than he was when we almost won the title in 2010. He's done nothing to indicate that he can't lead a team to a title.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: Celtics18 on January 09, 2013, 11:30:39 AM
Yes-- we are a good team without Rondo--BUT we are only a championship caliber team with Rajon Rondo on our team.
Maybe, if you consider simply taking Rondo out of the lineup. Not so much if Rondo is traded for equal value.

  What's equal value? Someone that will play like Rondo does in the playoffs? Because that's pretty hard to find.
Everyone's clinging to the "Rondo in the playoffs" tune like there's no tomorrow. I guess only Rondo is equal value for Rondo, because he's the only one who plays like Rondo in the playoffs.

To repeat myself, Rondo has not yet distinguished himself as a transcendent, irreplaceable player. Sure, getting rid of him is huge in many respects. But it doesn't mean it won't make the team better if the right deal is available. Joakim Noah is the first name that comes to mind that I'd swap him for right away. I'm sure there are others.

You think Joakim Noah is a "transcendent, irreplaceable player"?
I said that Rondo isn't one and that I'll trade him for Noah. How does this add up to Noah being a "transcendent, irreplaceable player"?

It was just a question.  Thanks for answering it.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: kozlodoev on January 09, 2013, 11:35:12 AM
It was just a question.  Thanks for answering it.
I think Noah is a very good player, which has stepped up nicely in the absence of Derrick Rose. He may be as valuable as Rondo in terms of team contribution at this stage of their careers, but he plays a premium position - so in this sense I'll be happier to have him.

In terms of individual PG play, Rondo is hard to replace. But in terms of overall team performance, I don't think dispensing of him is the end of the world. That's all.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: Celtics18 on January 09, 2013, 11:40:55 AM
It was just a question.  Thanks for answering it.
I think Noah is a very good player, which has stepped up nicely in the absence of Derrick Rose. He may be as valuable as Rondo in terms of team contribution at this stage of their careers, but he plays a premium position - so in this sense I'll be happier to have him.

In terms of individual PG play, Rondo is hard to replace. But in terms of overall team performance, I don't think dispensing of him is the end of the world. That's all.

I don't think any position is more of a "premium" position than any other in the game of basketball.  What I think you want on your basketball team is the best players you can get at all the positions, and a team where the pieces fit together. 

When you already have a top ten player in the league at one of those positions, my opinion is that the sensible thing to do is to try to add players that complement him at the other positions. 
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: kozlodoev on January 09, 2013, 11:45:53 AM
It was just a question.  Thanks for answering it.
I think Noah is a very good player, which has stepped up nicely in the absence of Derrick Rose. He may be as valuable as Rondo in terms of team contribution at this stage of their careers, but he plays a premium position - so in this sense I'll be happier to have him.

In terms of individual PG play, Rondo is hard to replace. But in terms of overall team performance, I don't think dispensing of him is the end of the world. That's all.

I don't think any position is more of a "premium" position than any other in the game of basketball.  What I think you want on your basketball team is the best players you can get at all the positions, and a team where the pieces fit together. 

When you already have a top ten player in the league at one of those positions, my opinion is that the sensible thing to do is to try to add players that complement him at the other positions.
Fair enough.

I generally feel big men are harder to add than guards, therefore I'd take any lateral move that will net me a big man. But obviously I won't trade down once I have a top 10 player, so we're in agreement there.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: Celtics18 on January 09, 2013, 11:53:56 AM
It was just a question.  Thanks for answering it.
I think Noah is a very good player, which has stepped up nicely in the absence of Derrick Rose. He may be as valuable as Rondo in terms of team contribution at this stage of their careers, but he plays a premium position - so in this sense I'll be happier to have him.

In terms of individual PG play, Rondo is hard to replace. But in terms of overall team performance, I don't think dispensing of him is the end of the world. That's all.

I don't think any position is more of a "premium" position than any other in the game of basketball.  What I think you want on your basketball team is the best players you can get at all the positions, and a team where the pieces fit together. 

When you already have a top ten player in the league at one of those positions, my opinion is that the sensible thing to do is to try to add players that complement him at the other positions.
Fair enough.

I generally feel big men are harder to add than guards, therefore I'd take any lateral move that will net me a big man. But obviously I won't trade down once I have a top 10 player, so we're in agreement there.

Are you not in agreement that Rondo is a top ten player?  If not, where do you rank him? 
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: Global Celtic on February 08, 2013, 12:17:24 PM
This thread was created in January, almost three weeks before Rondo's injury. And although we have several facts to suport the original post, some people still think this streak would happen if Rondo was playing right now... The team is playing great BECAUSE Rondo's NOT there.
Can someone tell me what's our record WITHOUT Rondo in recent years?
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: ScottHow on February 08, 2013, 12:22:13 PM
I'd say, "we don't need Rondo....for regular season wins."
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: cltc5 on February 08, 2013, 12:25:29 PM
we dont need rondo to pund the ball for 20 seonds and slow the offense.  We nneed rondo to run with the team and pass the ball around.  If either Rondo provides us as upgrade via trade, then do it.  Imo its been proven he's not as valuable as some people think.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: BballTim on February 08, 2013, 12:38:45 PM
we dont need rondo to pund the ball for 20 seonds and slow the offense.  We nneed rondo to run with the team and pass the ball around.  If either Rondo provides us as upgrade via trade, then do it.  Imo its been proven he's not as valuable as some people think.

  I've seen a fair amount of the halfcourt offense without Rondo. It's exciting that the ball swings around more but we're generally getting the same shots at the same point in the shot clock.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: celtics2 on February 08, 2013, 12:52:45 PM
I say we don't need Rondo to beat Miami. No difference with him or without him. We lose. If we get a higher seed we may pull out a round, no doubt in my mind we will be playing golf early in the playoffs.

Bradley has done the unthinkable again however, made us respectable...........again. I love it! Of course it's not pure talent but a magical team harmony.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: SHAQATTACK on February 08, 2013, 01:06:35 PM
maybe Allen was right. ....Rondo and his drag rear end.   "stall-ball".  dribble the game away, put the fans and the Celtics to sleep...not to mention Tommy .

trade him for Horford,........ then Atlanta can get Howard.......and have Rondo
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: Clench123 on February 08, 2013, 01:09:58 PM
Truth is we're going to need Rondo
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: GreenEnvy on February 08, 2013, 01:26:19 PM
we dont need rondo to pund the ball for 20 seonds and slow the offense.  We nneed rondo to run with the team and pass the ball around.  If either Rondo provides us as upgrade via trade, then do it.  Imo its been proven he's not as valuable as some people think.

  I've seen a fair amount of the halfcourt offense without Rondo. It's exciting that the ball swings around more but we're generally getting the same shots at the same point in the shot clock.

I think we are getting better quality shots. We are undoubtedly more unpredictable when we usually have 4-5 guys who can knock down shots. These guys are willing passers but also aren't gunshy. Rondo was not willing to make the initial pass that leads to the correct extra pass, and was also a very confusing jumpshooter (wouldn't shoot when he should, shot when he shouldn't).

It's pretty simple. Even if you believe our offense is worse (debatable to me), it can't get much worse than what we put forth with Rondo. Our defense is without question significantly better with Bradley and Lee together.

Maybe we can turn into the mid-00's Pistons. Great defense with competent offensive players capable of making clutch shots and a deep bench.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: SHAQATTACK on February 08, 2013, 01:31:52 PM
Truth is we're going to need Rondo


yup.......hoping we can get a nice big for him
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: BballTim on February 08, 2013, 01:49:16 PM
we dont need rondo to pund the ball for 20 seonds and slow the offense.  We nneed rondo to run with the team and pass the ball around.  If either Rondo provides us as upgrade via trade, then do it.  Imo its been proven he's not as valuable as some people think.

  I've seen a fair amount of the halfcourt offense without Rondo. It's exciting that the ball swings around more but we're generally getting the same shots at the same point in the shot clock.

I think we are getting better quality shots. We are undoubtedly more unpredictable when we usually have 4-5 guys who can knock down shots. These guys are willing passers but also aren't gunshy. Rondo was not willing to make the initial pass that leads to the correct extra pass, and was also a very confusing jumpshooter (wouldn't shoot when he should, shot when he shouldn't).

  That's pretty wishful thinking on your part. The Celts aren't running some shocking new offense, they look pretty much like half the teams we face, and we generally aren't flustered by their "unpredictability". Teams don't always know who's going to shoot when Rondo has the ball either.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: Vermont Green on February 08, 2013, 01:50:11 PM
Someone asked about our record w/o Rondo.  We were 8-5 last year without him and I believe we are now 7-3 without him this year.  That is 15-8, 0.652 over 2 seasons which is 53 win pace.  23 games is 28% of a season which is starting to be a pretty good sample size.

If you also look at the stats for team assists, we average about the same number of assists for the team even though we are essentially playing without a pure PG.

I am not trying to beat up on Rondo.  He is a good player but opposing teams don't respect his shot and that causes other problems.  He can't change the way he plays until he forces the other team to cover him (by making more shots).  His shot is improving but his release is still slow and he shoots from his shoulder, a very easy shot to bother, even for a defender not really covering him.

You can learn to shoot but many skills Rondo has can't be taught, like court awareness.  I doubt there are any coaches or players that don't want Rondo back, warts and all.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: BballTim on February 08, 2013, 02:08:13 PM
Someone asked about our record w/o Rondo.  We were 8-5 last year without him and I believe we are now 7-3 without him this year.  That is 15-8, 0.652 over 2 seasons which is 53 win pace.  23 games is 28% of a season which is starting to be a pretty good sample size.

If you also look at the stats for team assists, we average about the same number of assists for the team even though we are essentially playing without a pure PG.

I am not trying to beat up on Rondo.  He is a good player but opposing teams don't respect his shot and that causes other problems.  He can't change the way he plays until he forces the other team to cover him (by making more shots).  His shot is improving but his release is still slow and he shoots from his shoulder, a very easy shot to bother, even for a defender not really covering him.

  Every time Rondo has the ball he can either pass or shoot or drive. If people get up close to him on the jumper it makes it easier for Rondo to drive and/or pass. People used to say that Rondo needed to take more shots to get defenses to respect his jumper. He's been taking more shots for a while, no change. People said he needed to shoot better so defenses would cover him closely, but that didn't do it either.

  It's true that defenders give Rondo space, it's not true that giving him that space is enough to keep him from getting assists or getting to the rim or the team shooting well. So it's true that teams give Rondo space on jumpers, it's true that that in a vacuum hurts the team, but it's not true that it stops Rondo from being an effective player.
Title: Re: The truth is... we don't need Rondo
Post by: Global Celtic on February 09, 2013, 06:50:28 PM
Someone asked about our record w/o Rondo.  We were 8-5 last year without him and I believe we are now 7-3 without him this year.  That is 15-8, 0.652 over 2 seasons which is 53 win pace.  23 games is 28% of a season which is starting to be a pretty good sample size.

If you also look at the stats for team assists, we average about the same number of assists for the team even though we are essentially playing without a pure PG.

I am not trying to beat up on Rondo.  He is a good player but opposing teams don't respect his shot and that causes other problems.
  He can't change the way he plays until he forces the other team to cover him (by making more shots).  His shot is improving but his release is still slow and he shoots from his shoulder, a very easy shot to bother, even for a defender not really covering him.

You can learn to shoot but many skills Rondo has can't be taught, like court awareness.  I doubt there are any coaches or players that don't want Rondo back, warts and all.

Thank you. We DON'T need Rondo.