Smaller Players Do Not Win Championships

[CoachBo]

Quite true.

We won a title with Rondo and his game's on a positive track. He's also surrounded with some of the pieces to make another title happen. We just need a few more of them.

[moiso]

Rondo has to be resigned.  Whether it's 8mil or 11mil, it needs to get done.  $11 mil does not mean he's going to be the best player on the team.  If the glass is half empty, its scary to think of the C's in a couple years with the big 3 injury prone and declining.  Rondo and Perk should be part of the core for the next generation.

[Moranis]

Sorry, he's small and won a championship. Not a PG, but small nonetheless (and may as well have been the PG in that team).

I said the Heat were arguable because of Wade, but Shaq was definately a key component, if not the most important component, of that title run.  Without Shaq they wouldn't have gotten by the Pistons.  I realize without Wade they don't win the title either, but Shaq was still a game changer in 2004.

[crownsy]

Sorry, he's small and won a championship. Not a PG, but small nonetheless (and may as well have been the PG in that team).

I said the Heat were arguable because of Wade, but Shaq was definately a key component, if not the most important component, of that title run.  Without Shaq they wouldn't have gotten by the Pistons.  I realize without Wade they don't win the title either, but Shaq was still a game changer in 2004.

Doesn't that go a long way to disprove the theory that teams don't win with PG's as impact players by opening up the (in my view) correct theory that teams can't win without at least 2, preferably 3 high caliber players, and that the combo doesn't matter as long as one is a big man?

[Moranis]

So what's your point?  Is Orlando going to give us Dwight Howard for Rondo?  I'll take a dominant big man anytime, but I'll take a game-changing PG second.  The Spurs don't win without Duncan, but they also don't win without Tony Parker.

Obviously Howard isn't on the block (and it would take Lebron or Kobe to get him even if he was on the block), but there are people that wouldn't trade Rondo for Joe Johnson, which I believe is a mistake.

I'm also concerned the C's are going to give Rondo this massive contract that will hamstring future teams.  Anything more than 5 years 45 million would be a big mistake (and frankly that is probably too much, but I could live with that).  The overrating of small players has killed many franchises.

[winsomme]

So what's your point?  Is Orlando going to give us Dwight Howard for Rondo?  I'll take a dominant big man anytime, but I'll take a game-changing PG second.  The Spurs don't win without Duncan, but they also don't win without Tony Parker.

Obviously Howard isn't on the block (and it would take Lebron or Kobe to get him even if he was on the block), but there are people that wouldn't trade Rondo for Joe Johnson, which I believe is a mistake.

I'm also concerned the C's are going to give Rondo this massive contract that will hamstring future teams.  Anything more than 5 years 45 million would be a big mistake (and frankly that is probably too much, but I could live with that).  The overrating of small players has killed many franchises.

I think Bball has this question right....

This team even when GPA are healthy doesn't function properly without Rondo. That doesn't mean he has to be the best player.

you don't have to be the best player to serve an integral function.

i'd say Rondo right now is in the 10 (maybe pushing 11) million dollar range....

[LB3533]

Rondo made us vulnerable on the offense every time the Magic left Rondo to double/triple team Pierce.

We lacked KG or even Powe to throw the ball inside to the post.

Had we even had Powe, Rondo's lack of outside shooting would be moot.

[Moranis]

Sorry, he's small and won a championship. Not a PG, but small nonetheless (and may as well have been the PG in that team).

I said the Heat were arguable because of Wade, but Shaq was definately a key component, if not the most important component, of that title run.  Without Shaq they wouldn't have gotten by the Pistons.  I realize without Wade they don't win the title either, but Shaq was still a game changer in 2004.

Doesn't that go a long way to disprove the theory that teams don't win with PG's as impact players by opening up the (in my view) correct theory that teams can't win without at least 2, preferably 3 high caliber players, and that the combo doesn't matter as long as one is a big man?

Wade was not a PG.  Payton and J. Williams were the PG's of that team.  

Look at the last twenty years, how many teams had a PG as the second best player on a championship team.  Arguably the 07 Spurs (Parker or Ginobli could have been 2, the other 3) and Arguably the 04 Pistons (Rasheed, Billups, and Rip were all very close).  Other than those two teams you have to go all the way back to Zeke's Pistons to find a team in which the PG was even the second best player on the team.  And the vast majority of those teams the PG was the fourth or fifth best player (the 2 recent Spurs teams and the recent Piston team are the only ones in which the PG was clearly in the top 3 of the team).

In the hierarchy of value goes something like center, power forward, shooting guard, small forward, point guard.  

Point guard is the most overrated and overvalued position in all of sport.

[LB3533]

Not in Fantasy Sports.

[BballTim]

Sorry, he's small and won a championship. Not a PG, but small nonetheless (and may as well have been the PG in that team).

I said the Heat were arguable because of Wade, but Shaq was definately a key component, if not the most important component, of that title run.  Without Shaq they wouldn't have gotten by the Pistons.  I realize without Wade they don't win the title either, but Shaq was still a game changer in 2004.

Doesn't that go a long way to disprove the theory that teams don't win with PG's as impact players by opening up the (in my view) correct theory that teams can't win without at least 2, preferably 3 high caliber players, and that the combo doesn't matter as long as one is a big man?

Wade was not a PG.  Payton and J. Williams were the PG's of that team.  

Look at the last twenty years, how many teams had a PG as the second best player on a championship team.  Arguably the 07 Spurs (Parker or Ginobli could have been 2, the other 3) and Arguably the 04 Pistons (Rasheed, Billups, and Rip were all very close).  Other than those two teams you have to go all the way back to Zeke's Pistons to find a team in which the PG was even the second best player on the team.  And the vast majority of those teams the PG was the fourth or fifth best player (the 2 recent Spurs teams and the recent Piston team are the only ones in which the PG was clearly in the top 3 of the team).

In the hierarchy of value goes something like center, power forward, shooting guard, small forward, point guard.  

Point guard is the most overrated and overvalued position in all of sport.

  First of all, if you start back around 1980 the pgs were arguably (or definitely) the best player on the team at least 8 times (Magic, Isaiah, Chauncey), sf 3 times (Bird, anyone else?), sg 6-7 times (Jordan and maybe Wade), pf 5 times (KG and Duncan) and the rest were Shaq and Hakeem and Moses. Aside from Bird and Jordan (and, soon enough, LeBron) the wing players are woefully unrepresented in the list, not point guards. On top of that, you're ignoring rule changes that are making pgs more effective.

[crownsy]

Sorry, he's small and won a championship. Not a PG, but small nonetheless (and may as well have been the PG in that team).

I said the Heat were arguable because of Wade, but Shaq was definately a key component, if not the most important component, of that title run.  Without Shaq they wouldn't have gotten by the Pistons.  I realize without Wade they don't win the title either, but Shaq was still a game changer in 2004.

Doesn't that go a long way to disprove the theory that teams don't win with PG's as impact players by opening up the (in my view) correct theory that teams can't win without at least 2, preferably 3 high caliber players, and that the combo doesn't matter as long as one is a big man?

Wade was not a PG.  Payton and J. Williams were the PG's of that team.  

Look at the last twenty years, how many teams had a PG as the second best player on a championship team.  Arguably the 07 Spurs (Parker or Ginobli could have been 2, the other 3) and Arguably the 04 Pistons (Rasheed, Billups, and Rip were all very close).  Other than those two teams you have to go all the way back to Zeke's Pistons to find a team in which the PG was even the second best player on the team.  And the vast majority of those teams the PG was the fourth or fifth best player (the 2 recent Spurs teams and the recent Piston team are the only ones in which the PG was clearly in the top 3 of the team).

In the hierarchy of value goes something like center, power forward, shooting guard, small forward, point guard.  

Point guard is the most overrated and overvalued position in all of sport.

that didn't address my question though, I realize wade isn't a PG (though he plays the Pg role on that team a ton, and the guy listed as the "1" goes of screens and spots up)

but again, name me one team that won without at least 2 good players. The theory that Pg is overrated compared to other positions on championship teams seems false to me when you can name many a team that had a PG as one of its key players and won.

off the top of my head- SA with parker, DET with billups, Lakers with magic, Bos teams with cous and hondo.

I agree that a superstar PG isn't the key to a championship, a dominate big man is, but a dominate big man alone wont do it. It seems to me that most teams, not all, follow a simple formula

1. dominate big man
2. 1 complementary star player if he's a all time big man(wade to shaq, Kobe to shaq) but more likely 2 complementary guys
3. play defense.

Thats not a case for PG being the most overrated position, thats a case of the formula being dominate big man (far and away the most needed and rare thing in the NBA) and 1 to 2 complementary all star- solid starter guys of any position mix.

and if the above is true, then you keep rondo unless the trade is something completely bonkers. what people object to is when people post "trade rondo while his value is high" and then don't put up high level players, or don't name players at all.

For instance, someone suggested rondo for wade straight up in another thread. putting aside that maimi would hang up laughing, if that was offered, of course you do it.

But when trades (and this includes ray to, but more so rondo) come up that are like crawford and maggette for rondo + TA, then no, thats a terrible trade of a good solid piece that's already in place for two marginal players.

Rondo's not untouchable by any means, but you need to get a championship level guy back in return to give up a young PG with the ability rondo has.

 

[wdleehi]

While I don't see Rondo (or anyone else) as being untradable, I don't see it happening.


He fits so well with the Celtics defense (when all there).  He can be the gambler because the defense of KG and Perk is there to protect him. 



I just don't think that the Celtics will be able to get in a trade:

a) equal on the floor value of Rondo
b) a PG that can replace what he brings

[Moranis]

that didn't address my question though, I realize wade isn't a PG (though he plays the Pg role on that team a ton, and the guy listed as the "1" goes of screens and spots up)

but again, name me one team that won without at least 2 good players. The theory that Pg is overrated compared to other positions on championship teams seems false to me when you can name many a team that had a PG as one of its key players and won.

off the top of my head- SA with parker, DET with billups, Lakers with magic, Bos teams with cous and hondo.

I agree that a superstar PG isn't the key to a championship, a dominate big man is, but a dominate big man alone wont do it. It seems to me that most teams, not all, follow a simple formula

1. dominate big man
2. 1 complementary star player if he's a all time big man(wade to shaq, Kobe to shaq) but more likely 2 complementary guys
3. play defense.

Thats not a case for PG being the most overrated position, thats a case of the formula being dominate big man (far and away the most needed and rare thing in the NBA) and 1 to 2 complementary all star- solid starter guys of any position mix.

and if the above is true, then you keep rondo unless the trade is something completely bonkers. what people object to is when people post "trade rondo while his value is high" and then don't put up high level players, or don't name players at all.

For instance, someone suggested rondo for wade straight up in another thread. putting aside that maimi would hang up laughing, if that was offered, of course you do it.

But when trades (and this includes ray to, but more so rondo) come up that are like crawford and maggette for rondo + TA, then no, thats a terrible trade of a good solid piece that's already in place for two marginal players.

Rondo's not untouchable by any means, but you need to get a championship level guy back in return to give up a young PG with the ability rondo has.

Of course you need multiple great players, my point is PG is rarely one of them.  It is an essentially useless position when determining championships, unless you PG is 6'9" (Magic) or on a team that has a number of very high level, though no elite players (Zeke/Chauncey).

And for the record the Bulls won 6 titles with two wings being the dominant players, so it is possible to win multiple titles without a dominant big man (the Cavs certainly have a chance to join the Bulls in that regard).

[bdm860]

And for the record the Bulls won 6 titles with two wings being the dominant players, so it is possible to win multiple titles without a dominant big man (the Cavs certainly have a chance to join the Bulls in that regard).

But they have an All-Star point guard...

[crownsy]

I would argue, as i think MACOH would, that Z is pretty important to them, and lebron is 6'9 280 (listed) his sick handles mean he can play the 3, but he would be a fine PF as well. you could argue he's a very good big man, he's just not 7 feet tall, and you could argue that Z is a pretty darn good center in this league.

And again, i gave you that rondo isn't untouchable, so im not sure what your debating at this point. He's a very good complementary player,as all championship teams need, so why would you trade an in place piece for anything other than another high quality piece?

It makes zero sense to trade him for anything other than a superstar, which isn't going to happen. You build with rondo as a piece by getting a big man with KG and paul's expiring contracts in a few years, not getting marginal players now that will be useless as contracts once the current run is over in 2-3 years.