Say OKC gets booted , would they trade Westbrook for Rondo then ? and would you?

[D.o.s.]

it never gets old.

When Westbrook was out, Durant averaged less than two more shots per game. If someone really is stealing shots from KD, it isn't Russell Westbrook.

Well, Westbrook is stealing shots from _someone_, then.   And Westbrook's shooting percentages are generally lower than his _team_.

And, two shots per game is pretty significant, actually, considering that Durant averages 1.54 points per FGA.   That's 3 points.

How much did they lose by last night?  (Yeah, yeah, I know - Joey Crawford.  But still.)

To quote charles barkley -- the Thunder wasted a timeout to design a play where KD heaved a "70 footer." I'm standing by the fact that the problems in OKC are deeper, and wouldn't be solved by Russell Westbrook's immediate dismissal from the squad.

Feel free to read the rest of my posts for more on the KD/Westbrook dynamic from the last game.

[mmmmm]

I gotta say, now with OKC on the verge of eliminiation, this actually might be a possibility.

I mean I think most GMs would agree that Westbrook is a better player but at what point does OKC not consider the idea of shaking things up if they can't win a title with the 2nd best player in the league in Durant?

What about something like this

Celts get Westbrook, Perry Jones and Hasheem Thabeet
OKC gets Rondo, Jeff Green

Oklahoma City would do a lot better than that if they traded Westbrook on the open market.  Some trades I think they could potentially make

with Lakers (during free agency)
Westbrook, Perkins for LAL #1 (whomever they drafted), Nash, Pau (sign and traded - something like 3yrs, 35 million)

with Rockets
Westbrook for Parsons, Asik, Jones, a couple of firsts

with TWolves
Westbrook, Perkins for Pekovic, Rubio, Barea/Moute

with Pelicans
Westbrook for Holiday, Anderson (pending physicals for both)

with Cavs
Westbrook for Irving, filler

I'm sure there are plenty of other realistic trades out there where OKC can move Westbrook and get a much better offer than anything Boston would realistically offer (i.e. I can't see Boston moving both Rondo and the high 1st for Westbrook).

  Those aren't really better trades than the Celts deal.

*SSHHHHH!  I'm perfectly fine if they want to trade Westbrook anywhere else but Boston.*

[BballTim]

Westbrook can be the best player on a team but more importantly, he can take a game over with his offense. Rondo can not. Rondo NEEDS to have at least 1-2 good players alongside with him who can score and if he doesn't, goodnight Irene.

So, you honestly believe that a team led by Russell Westbrook without "at least 1-2 good players alongside him who can score" would be a legitimate title contender?

I mean, really, give me a core of Rondo, Durant, and Ibaka, and I feel fairly confident that team would be a contender.

  I know. LeBron needs 1-2 (really 2) good players around him to win, yet Rondo should be able to do it alone. Lebron also has good outside shooters. Clearly he's not on Westbrook's level as an offensive player.

[jambr380]

I gotta say, now with OKC on the verge of eliminiation, this actually might be a possibility.

I mean I think most GMs would agree that Westbrook is a better player but at what point does OKC not consider the idea of shaking things up if they can't win a title with the 2nd best player in the league in Durant?

What about something like this

Celts get Westbrook, Perry Jones and Hasheem Thabeet
OKC gets Rondo, Jeff Green

Oklahoma City would do a lot better than that if they traded Westbrook on the open market.  Some trades I think they could potentially make

with Lakers (during free agency)
Westbrook, Perkins for LAL #1 (whomever they drafted), Nash, Pau (sign and traded - something like 3yrs, 35 million)

with Rockets
Westbrook for Parsons, Asik, Jones, a couple of firsts

with TWolves
Westbrook, Perkins for Pekovic, Rubio, Barea/Moute

with Pelicans
Westbrook for Holiday, Anderson (pending physicals for both)

with Cavs
Westbrook for Irving, filler

I'm sure there are plenty of other realistic trades out there where OKC can move Westbrook and get a much better offer than anything Boston would realistically offer (i.e. I can't see Boston moving both Rondo and the high 1st for Westbrook).

  Those aren't really better trades than the Celts deal.

*SSHHHHH!  I'm perfectly fine if they want to trade Westbrook anywhere else but Boston.*

Very true - I am a huge Rondo supporter, but would be on the fence with a Westbrook deal depending what we try to do this summer (try to contend: bring in another all-star and solid center with Rondo, go younger: make the trade with OKC and see what Westbrook brings to the table).

I totally agree, though. Those deals are very underwhelming. The only one I can see being reasonable is the one with Kyrie.

[D.o.s.]

Westbrook can be the best player on a team but more importantly, he can take a game over with his offense. Rondo can not. Rondo NEEDS to have at least 1-2 good players alongside with him who can score and if he doesn't, goodnight Irene.

So, you honestly believe that a team led by Russell Westbrook without "at least 1-2 good players alongside him who can score" would be a legitimate title contender?

I mean, really, give me a core of Rondo, Durant, and Ibaka, and I feel fairly confident that team would be a contender.

  I know. LeBron needs 1-2 (really 2) good players around him to win, yet Rondo should be able to do it alone. Lebron also has good outside shooters. Clearly he's not on Westbrook's level as an offensive player.

Looks like you've all been talking to Aunt Sally again.

[gpap]

Westbrook can be the best player on a team but more importantly, he can take a game over with his offense. Rondo can not. Rondo NEEDS to have at least 1-2 good players alongside with him who can score and if he doesn't, goodnight Irene.

So, you honestly believe that a team led by Russell Westbrook without "at least 1-2 good players alongside him who can score" would be a legitimate title contender?

I mean, really, give me a core of Rondo, Durant, and Ibaka, and I feel fairly confident that team would be a contender.

Hmmm...that's not what I said

You had basically asked, what does Westbrook have that Rondo doesn't

My answer is Rondo needs 2-3 other scorers to hide his offensive flaws whereas Westbrook can take a game over with his offense.

So individually, I think Westbrook is a better player than Rondo.

Do I think a team with Westbrook as it's only scorer can be a championship team?
No, not at all.

However, I think with a couple decent picks up this summer and such a trade taking place, yes I do think the Celts would be a better team with Westbrook than with Rondo.

I guess to make a long story short, what I am trying to say is that Westbrook along with player X and player Y is a better team than one with Rondo along with player X and player Y.

[BballTim]

It seems to me that one of the main arguments for trading Rondo is that he is a flawed player who isn't the kind of player who can be "the best player on a championship contender."

I guess my question for those who would like to trade Rondo for Westbrook would be, do you feel that Westbrook is someone who can be the best player on a championship contender?

Do you see him as that kind of "franchise talent" that if we acquired him, he would be able to lead the team to championship contention year after year as the "top dog"?

I'll answer my own question:

I don't see him as that guy.  I am not saying that I don't think Russell Westbrook is a very good basketball player, but I don't think that swapping our point guard with OKC's would put us any closer to title contention than keeping the one we already have.

Even though Rondo and Westbrook are clearly very different in style of play, some of their flaws are similar.  They are both guys who are most effective with the ball in their hands (that's another thing that those who are ready to move on from Rondo frequently mention as a reason). 

So, the next question I have is; if we were to start over with Westbrook instead of Rondo, what players would best fit around him?

If the answer is something along the lines of "guys who are good catch and shoot players, good pick and roll and pick and pop finishers--in general, guys who are good scorers without needing the ball in their hands a lot," then do you feel that Westbrook--with his significantly inferior passing ability and court vision--would be better equipped to lead a team like that into contention than Rondo?

I don't know the answers.  I know that I prefer starting with a passer and distributor like Rondo than an inefficient yet talented gunner like Westbrook.

I also know that if I were a top flight NBA player, I'd prefer to go play with a guy like Rondo to going to play with a guy like Westbrook.  Of course I'm not an NBA player, but when I go down to my local playground to play pick up basketball, those kinds of games frequently feature Westbrook types,guys who are athletic and talented, but are mostly looking to "get their own."  Those guys are never as fun to  play with as playing with guys who really know how to pass the ball.  My experience is that the latter type of player is much rarer to find.

For me it makes more sense to keep the rare talent we have in Rajon Rondo than to trade him for the kind of talent that is Russell Westbrook.

Yes and no.

1.)Westbrook can be the best player on a team but more importantly, he can take a game over with his offense. Rondo can not. Rondo NEEDS to have at least 1-2 good players alongside with him who can score and if he doesn't, goodnight Irene.

2.)I think the term "rare talent" in relation to Rondo is a bit skewed. Sure, Rondo is a good passer, but it's not like being a good passer is that rare of a talent. In fact, quite the opposite, I think being a good passer is about as textbook as it gets in being a successful point guard in the NBA.

  IMO you're just unable to differentiate between rare talents and average play when it comes to passing. Every time you see Rondo play you'll see him make passes that other people can't, and find people that most point guards wouldn't even see. When I watch playoff games I watch players flash open and not get passes, people come open and then get covered again while the pg's dribbling the ball or (my personal favorite) bigs near the basket that are covered by smaller players begging for the ball while the point guard runs whatever play he'd originally planned on.

  There was a playoff game a few years ago when he made a simple looking bounce pass through a few defenders to a player about 5 feet away who was cutting through the lane towards the bucket. Van Gundy was raving about the play, talking about how it looked like a simple pass but Rondo might be the only player in the league who could make it. Many people here would see that and think "big deal, simple pass". I could re-phrase your comment to be "protecting the rim is a textbook skill for a successful center" or "rebounding is a textbook skill for a successful pf" and dismiss the notion that there are any exceptional defenders or rebounders in the league. It would be just as accurate.

[gpap]

Westbrook can be the best player on a team but more importantly, he can take a game over with his offense. Rondo can not. Rondo NEEDS to have at least 1-2 good players alongside with him who can score and if he doesn't, goodnight Irene.

So, you honestly believe that a team led by Russell Westbrook without "at least 1-2 good players alongside him who can score" would be a legitimate title contender?

I mean, really, give me a core of Rondo, Durant, and Ibaka, and I feel fairly confident that team would be a contender.

  I know. LeBron needs 1-2 (really 2) good players around him to win, yet Rondo should be able to do it alone. Lebron also has good outside shooters. Clearly he's not on Westbrook's level as an offensive player.

Huh???

Where on earth did Lebron come from?

Celts18 basically posed the question, which player would the Celtics benefit more from, Rondo or Westbrook?

I answered him and gave my reasoning in a pretty concise and clear way.

What Lebron has to do with this is beyond me.

[D.o.s.]

Jason Williams could've totally made that bounce pass.

#bringbackWhiteChocolate

[gpap]

It seems to me that one of the main arguments for trading Rondo is that he is a flawed player who isn't the kind of player who can be "the best player on a championship contender."

I guess my question for those who would like to trade Rondo for Westbrook would be, do you feel that Westbrook is someone who can be the best player on a championship contender?

Do you see him as that kind of "franchise talent" that if we acquired him, he would be able to lead the team to championship contention year after year as the "top dog"?

I'll answer my own question:

I don't see him as that guy.  I am not saying that I don't think Russell Westbrook is a very good basketball player, but I don't think that swapping our point guard with OKC's would put us any closer to title contention than keeping the one we already have.

Even though Rondo and Westbrook are clearly very different in style of play, some of their flaws are similar.  They are both guys who are most effective with the ball in their hands (that's another thing that those who are ready to move on from Rondo frequently mention as a reason). 

So, the next question I have is; if we were to start over with Westbrook instead of Rondo, what players would best fit around him?

If the answer is something along the lines of "guys who are good catch and shoot players, good pick and roll and pick and pop finishers--in general, guys who are good scorers without needing the ball in their hands a lot," then do you feel that Westbrook--with his significantly inferior passing ability and court vision--would be better equipped to lead a team like that into contention than Rondo?

I don't know the answers.  I know that I prefer starting with a passer and distributor like Rondo than an inefficient yet talented gunner like Westbrook.

I also know that if I were a top flight NBA player, I'd prefer to go play with a guy like Rondo to going to play with a guy like Westbrook.  Of course I'm not an NBA player, but when I go down to my local playground to play pick up basketball, those kinds of games frequently feature Westbrook types,guys who are athletic and talented, but are mostly looking to "get their own."  Those guys are never as fun to  play with as playing with guys who really know how to pass the ball.  My experience is that the latter type of player is much rarer to find.

For me it makes more sense to keep the rare talent we have in Rajon Rondo than to trade him for the kind of talent that is Russell Westbrook.

Yes and no.

1.)Westbrook can be the best player on a team but more importantly, he can take a game over with his offense. Rondo can not. Rondo NEEDS to have at least 1-2 good players alongside with him who can score and if he doesn't, goodnight Irene.

2.)I think the term "rare talent" in relation to Rondo is a bit skewed. Sure, Rondo is a good passer, but it's not like being a good passer is that rare of a talent. In fact, quite the opposite, I think being a good passer is about as textbook as it gets in being a successful point guard in the NBA.

  IMO you're just unable to differentiate between rare talents and average play when it comes to passing. Every time you see Rondo play you'll see him make passes that other people can't, and find people that most point guards wouldn't even see. When I watch playoff games I watch players flash open and not get passes, people come open and then get covered again while the pg's dribbling the ball or (my personal favorite) bigs near the basket that are covered by smaller players begging for the ball while the point guard runs whatever play he'd originally planned on.

  There was a playoff game a few years ago when he made a simple looking bounce pass through a few defenders to a player about 5 feet away who was cutting through the lane towards the bucket. Van Gundy was raving about the play, talking about how it looked like a simple pass but Rondo might be the only player in the league who could make it. Many people here would see that and think "big deal, simple pass". I could re-phrase your comment to be "protecting the rim is a textbook skill for a successful center" or "rebounding is a textbook skill for a successful pf" and dismiss the notion that there are any exceptional defenders or rebounders in the league. It would be just as accurate.

I suppose. I guess ultimately, it depends on what type of player you are looking for and what type of skill set you are looking for.

Admittedly, I don't rate passing as that essential of a skill.

In my eyes, if you can find the open man great, then great.

If you also decide to take the shot yourself instead of passing it to the open man and make it, then....great as well.

If Rondo can't find an open man and he's left wide open, does he make a wide open jump shot?

[BballTim]

Westbrook can be the best player on a team but more importantly, he can take a game over with his offense. Rondo can not. Rondo NEEDS to have at least 1-2 good players alongside with him who can score and if he doesn't, goodnight Irene.

So, you honestly believe that a team led by Russell Westbrook without "at least 1-2 good players alongside him who can score" would be a legitimate title contender?

I mean, really, give me a core of Rondo, Durant, and Ibaka, and I feel fairly confident that team would be a contender.

  I know. LeBron needs 1-2 (really 2) good players around him to win, yet Rondo should be able to do it alone. Lebron also has good outside shooters. Clearly he's not on Westbrook's level as an offensive player.

Huh???

Where on earth did Lebron come from?

Celts18 basically posed the question, which player would the Celtics benefit more from, Rondo or Westbrook?

I answered him and gave my reasoning in a pretty concise and clear way.

What Lebron has to do with this is beyond me.

  You're saying Rondo NEEDS 1-2 good players around him. If you're saying Westbrook doesn't then I was pointing out that it's a ridiculous comment. If you think Westbrook NEEDS good players around him as well then it was a meaningless comment.

[BballTim]

It seems to me that one of the main arguments for trading Rondo is that he is a flawed player who isn't the kind of player who can be "the best player on a championship contender."

I guess my question for those who would like to trade Rondo for Westbrook would be, do you feel that Westbrook is someone who can be the best player on a championship contender?

Do you see him as that kind of "franchise talent" that if we acquired him, he would be able to lead the team to championship contention year after year as the "top dog"?

I'll answer my own question:

I don't see him as that guy.  I am not saying that I don't think Russell Westbrook is a very good basketball player, but I don't think that swapping our point guard with OKC's would put us any closer to title contention than keeping the one we already have.

Even though Rondo and Westbrook are clearly very different in style of play, some of their flaws are similar.  They are both guys who are most effective with the ball in their hands (that's another thing that those who are ready to move on from Rondo frequently mention as a reason). 

So, the next question I have is; if we were to start over with Westbrook instead of Rondo, what players would best fit around him?

If the answer is something along the lines of "guys who are good catch and shoot players, good pick and roll and pick and pop finishers--in general, guys who are good scorers without needing the ball in their hands a lot," then do you feel that Westbrook--with his significantly inferior passing ability and court vision--would be better equipped to lead a team like that into contention than Rondo?

I don't know the answers.  I know that I prefer starting with a passer and distributor like Rondo than an inefficient yet talented gunner like Westbrook.

I also know that if I were a top flight NBA player, I'd prefer to go play with a guy like Rondo to going to play with a guy like Westbrook.  Of course I'm not an NBA player, but when I go down to my local playground to play pick up basketball, those kinds of games frequently feature Westbrook types,guys who are athletic and talented, but are mostly looking to "get their own."  Those guys are never as fun to  play with as playing with guys who really know how to pass the ball.  My experience is that the latter type of player is much rarer to find.

For me it makes more sense to keep the rare talent we have in Rajon Rondo than to trade him for the kind of talent that is Russell Westbrook.

Yes and no.

1.)Westbrook can be the best player on a team but more importantly, he can take a game over with his offense. Rondo can not. Rondo NEEDS to have at least 1-2 good players alongside with him who can score and if he doesn't, goodnight Irene.

2.)I think the term "rare talent" in relation to Rondo is a bit skewed. Sure, Rondo is a good passer, but it's not like being a good passer is that rare of a talent. In fact, quite the opposite, I think being a good passer is about as textbook as it gets in being a successful point guard in the NBA.

  IMO you're just unable to differentiate between rare talents and average play when it comes to passing. Every time you see Rondo play you'll see him make passes that other people can't, and find people that most point guards wouldn't even see. When I watch playoff games I watch players flash open and not get passes, people come open and then get covered again while the pg's dribbling the ball or (my personal favorite) bigs near the basket that are covered by smaller players begging for the ball while the point guard runs whatever play he'd originally planned on.

  There was a playoff game a few years ago when he made a simple looking bounce pass through a few defenders to a player about 5 feet away who was cutting through the lane towards the bucket. Van Gundy was raving about the play, talking about how it looked like a simple pass but Rondo might be the only player in the league who could make it. Many people here would see that and think "big deal, simple pass". I could re-phrase your comment to be "protecting the rim is a textbook skill for a successful center" or "rebounding is a textbook skill for a successful pf" and dismiss the notion that there are any exceptional defenders or rebounders in the league. It would be just as accurate.

I suppose. I guess ultimately, it depends on what type of player you are looking for and what type of skill set you are looking for.

Admittedly, I don't rate passing as that essential of a skill.

In my eyes, if you can find the open man great, then great.

If you also decide to take the shot yourself instead of passing it to the open man and make it, then....great as well.

  That's likely because you don't realize that people are generally more likely to score off of assist opportunities than unassisted opportunities.

If Rondo can't find an open man and he's left wide open, does he make a wide open jump shot?

  Rondo's more likely to make a jump shot (at least 10+ feet from the basket than Westbrook is.

[Moranis]

Westbrook can be the best player on a team but more importantly, he can take a game over with his offense. Rondo can not. Rondo NEEDS to have at least 1-2 good players alongside with him who can score and if he doesn't, goodnight Irene.

So, you honestly believe that a team led by Russell Westbrook without "at least 1-2 good players alongside him who can score" would be a legitimate title contender?

I mean, really, give me a core of Rondo, Durant, and Ibaka, and I feel fairly confident that team would be a contender.

  I know. LeBron needs 1-2 (really 2) good players around him to win, yet Rondo should be able to do it alone. Lebron also has good outside shooters. Clearly he's not on Westbrook's level as an offensive player.

Huh???

Where on earth did Lebron come from?

Celts18 basically posed the question, which player would the Celtics benefit more from, Rondo or Westbrook?

I answered him and gave my reasoning in a pretty concise and clear way.

What Lebron has to do with this is beyond me.

  You're saying Rondo NEEDS 1-2 good players around him. If you're saying Westbrook doesn't then I was pointing out that it's a ridiculous comment. If you think Westbrook NEEDS good players around him as well then it was a meaningless comment.

actually he said 1-2 really good players who can score.  Pretty big difference.

[gpap]

Westbrook can be the best player on a team but more importantly, he can take a game over with his offense. Rondo can not. Rondo NEEDS to have at least 1-2 good players alongside with him who can score and if he doesn't, goodnight Irene.

So, you honestly believe that a team led by Russell Westbrook without "at least 1-2 good players alongside him who can score" would be a legitimate title contender?

I mean, really, give me a core of Rondo, Durant, and Ibaka, and I feel fairly confident that team would be a contender.

  I know. LeBron needs 1-2 (really 2) good players around him to win, yet Rondo should be able to do it alone. Lebron also has good outside shooters. Clearly he's not on Westbrook's level as an offensive player.

Huh???

Where on earth did Lebron come from?

Celts18 basically posed the question, which player would the Celtics benefit more from, Rondo or Westbrook?

I answered him and gave my reasoning in a pretty concise and clear way.

What Lebron has to do with this is beyond me.

  You're saying Rondo NEEDS 1-2 good players around him. If you're saying Westbrook doesn't then I was pointing out that it's a ridiculous comment. If you think Westbrook NEEDS good players around him as well then it was a meaningless comment.

Okay, now you are putting words in my mouth.

I have copied and pasted what I said below

Rondo NEEDS to have at least 1-2 good players alongside with him who can score

Also, I had no idea you were judge, jury and executioner to point out and determine whether my commens are ridiculous or meaninlgess.

I am more than willing to sit down and have an honest debate but if you want to start hitting below the waist to make your argument more valid, then I can play that way too.

Your choice.....

I'll stop here and someone else on this site can determine if calling someone else's opinions ridiculous or meaningless is acceptable.

[BballTim]

Westbrook can be the best player on a team but more importantly, he can take a game over with his offense. Rondo can not. Rondo NEEDS to have at least 1-2 good players alongside with him who can score and if he doesn't, goodnight Irene.

So, you honestly believe that a team led by Russell Westbrook without "at least 1-2 good players alongside him who can score" would be a legitimate title contender?

I mean, really, give me a core of Rondo, Durant, and Ibaka, and I feel fairly confident that team would be a contender.

  I know. LeBron needs 1-2 (really 2) good players around him to win, yet Rondo should be able to do it alone. Lebron also has good outside shooters. Clearly he's not on Westbrook's level as an offensive player.

Huh???

Where on earth did Lebron come from?

Celts18 basically posed the question, which player would the Celtics benefit more from, Rondo or Westbrook?

I answered him and gave my reasoning in a pretty concise and clear way.

What Lebron has to do with this is beyond me.

  You're saying Rondo NEEDS 1-2 good players around him. If you're saying Westbrook doesn't then I was pointing out that it's a ridiculous comment. If you think Westbrook NEEDS good players around him as well then it was a meaningless comment.

actually he said 1-2 really good players who can score.  Pretty big difference.

   Not around here. If you'd like to put forth an explanation of how a team with Westbrook as its only good scorer will do well. then go for it Are you talking about the Thunder where you replace Durant with a good player who's not a good scorer? Maybe Luol Deng? Batum or Kawhi? Don't kid yourself. That's no contender.