I'd take Rondo for MAX money over any other player not named Dwayne Wade or Deron Williams.
If Rondo leaves...the rebuilding starts. Our Vets will retire eventually leaving us with very little talent outside Perk and Rondo. If we lose Rondo we'll be a TERRIBLE team in a few nears from now. We'd go back to being a 24-58 team. Danny can keep us competitive if he holds onto Rondo and puts the right players around him.
Geez. The funny thing is that there are fans in every city saying this about someone.
If you want to put people around him, you need to have money available. Overpaying him is a bad idea.
Please less panic and hyperbole. There are plenty of good teams that don't have Rondo.
Personally I think that PRIDE is on to something. People want to pretend that we're the Red Sox or Patriots and can afford to make "smart financial moves" and sacrifice in the short term with the long term in mind. Well that doesn't work for a variety of reasons here:
1) Age - It's great to think that the C's can let Rondo go, sign a vet at the MLE, and win (hopefully) #19 next year. But what if there isn't a vet willing to come here that can take Rondo's place? What if the vet isn't good enough? Are we really willing to risk another title because we're concerned about 3 or 4 years from now?
2) Sport - Everyone wants to be like the Patriots or Red Sox, but basketball is a radically different sport. Since there's so many players involved in a successful football or baseball team, the strategy of amassing talent works. Not so in basketball. In basketball the team with the best superstar usually wins. That's why Russell, Chamberlain, Jabbar, Johnson, Bird, Thomas, Jordan, Olajuwon, Duncan, and O'Neal account for most of the championships in basketball. If anything, the Celtics are very much the exception to the rule.
So what I'm suggesting is simple: unless we get a LeBron, a D-Wade, or a Dwight Howard, it's quite possible the rebuilt Celtics will be good, but never good enough to beat Howard's Magic or James's Cavs (or Knicks). I mean what exactly did the '90s Bulls do better than the Jazz besides be lucky that Jordan just happened to be available a year they had a high draft pick? They both had a duo of superstars with a great surrounding cast, the Bulls just happened to have lucked into the better combo. Same with the Spurs: they got lucky that the Admiral happened to get a season ending injury the year Tim Duncan was available. They likely wouldn't have any titles if it had happened the following year.
So what I'm saying is that ultimately it doesn't matter if Rondo lives up to his contract. What matters is that they keep him around to utilize the time we have left with the Big Three. We know this team is good enough to win title now. We can't be certain we're going to be this good any time again soon. I'd much, much rather be kicking myself 3 or 4 years down the road when Rondo's overpaid and have 19 or 20 titles than getting stuck at 17 and 18 and wondering what could've been as the C's get knocked out in the Conference Finals and Rondo puts up good numbers elsewhere.
Topic: rondo to opt for free agency? (Read 7725 times)